Biden, Yang, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, were notably the only Democrats with net positive support among undecided general-election voters in the past three Insider polls, which ran September 25-26, October 3-4, and October 16-17.

Typically, we concentrate only on the fraction of Democrats who would be satisfied in the event a contender became the nominee. But because of additional polling questions we ask related to impeachment, we also knew which respondents had not yet decided whether they would support a Republican or a Democrat in the 2020 general election.

It's a subset that is of particular interest as Democrats argue for appeal beyond their party, and its support seems elusive for all but two contenders.

Of the 268 undecided voters who knew of Yang, 46% said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee and 24% said they would not be satisfied, giving him positive net support of 21 percentage points among general-election voters who knew him and had not decided whether to vote Democrat or Republican.

Yang is possibly the most politically distinct candidate in the race — and this particular survey result shows how much it works in his favor.

A political outsider, Yang is making waves in the primary by drawing on his unique expertise as an entrepreneur and businessman to sound the alarm about the rise of mass automation in America — a problem that, in his view, few other 2020 candidates or politicians have substantively addressed or tacked.

Across the three Insider polls, Biden had positive net support among undecided general-election voters of 7 percentage points among the 620 voters who knew of him, with 42% of voters supporting him compared with 35% who didn't support him.

The third-best-performing Democrat, Buttigieg, has a net positive support of 2 percentage points, with 32% of general-election voters supporting him compared with 29% who do not — within the poll's margin of error.

General-election voters polled by Insider don't overwhelmingly support most other Democrats. Our polling found that:

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have slightly negative net support among general-election voters at 2 percentage points underwater. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's net support is negative 1 percentage point. (All of those candidates' levels of net support are within the margin of error of the poll.)
Sen. Kamala Harris is underwater by 13 percentage points, and Tom Steyer and former HUD Secretary Julián Castro are both underwater by 14 percentage points.
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke is underwater among general-election voters by 17 percentage points, and Sen. Cory Booker is underwater by 20 percentage points.

Going into the 2020 Democratic presidential race, Pete Buttigieg made reconsidering the Supreme Court’s structure part of his presidential agenda in what some have called an “overhaul” plan, despite other candidates not discussing it much. Therefore, it was only natural that Cosmo’s entertainment editor, Emily Tannenbaum, brought that topic to the forefront during Buttigieg’s recent visit to Cosmopolitan’s offices.

“As a bisexual woman, the structure of the Supreme Court is a real concern to me, and you’ve proposed pretty drastic changes with the way it’s set up and how many people are on the bench,” she said to the presidential candidate. “What specifically is the first thing you’d change and how would you do it?”

Buttigieg’s answer? Well, he’s very worried the Supreme Court is becoming “yet another political body,” and he wants to depoliticize it ASAP. First things first, he would appoint a commission to make the Supreme Court “less political.” It’d be their job to give a “road map,” and based on their recommendations, Buttigieg said he would go to Congress with a proposal.

“When I look at the Supreme Court, I can’t help but remember that my marriage only exists by the grace of a single vote in that body,” he said, emphasizing the importance of keeping the court as independent as possible.

From there, he said he’s got options, depending on what ideas the commission recommends. “One of them would be to have 15 members, but 5 of them can only be seated if the other 10 unanimously agree,” he said. “The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves.”

Another idea is rotating judges on and off the bench. Yet another is term limits, which have come up among the Democratic presidential primary candidates already. “You know, Supreme Court justices, they used to just retire like everybody else,” Buttigieg said. “But now, we have these strange scenarios of people clinging, almost seeming to cling on for dear life because they want to make sure that they leave the bench under the right presidency.”

If all else fails, though, Mayor Pete is open to having a “conversation about an amendment.”

“The reason I’m introducing these very bold ideas is to elevate our imagination about them,” he clarified. “But I’m not arriving in office saying I have the answer on this one.”

Twenty six thousand seven hundred and sixty five days -- and counting.

That's more than 75 years. And that's how long former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, have been married -- making them the longest married presidential couple.

The Carter Center celebrated the milestone Thursday when the couple bested the record held by the late George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush.

And to think it might have turned out differently.

When Jimmy Carter first proposed, Rosalynn Smith -- as she was known then -- rejected him. Why? She had made a promise to her dying father she'd finish college first.

As she recounted in her memoir, "First Lady from Plains," the pair grew up three years and three miles apart.

There were no girls in town who were her age. So Rosalynn became best friends with Jimmy's younger sister.

"I thought he was the most handsome young man I had ever seen," she wrote in her memoir.

Her father died when she was 12. But she kept her promise. She graduated from Georgia Southwestern College.

The pair went on their first date in 1945. They married the following year.

He was 21. She was 18.

"The best thing I ever did was marrying Rosalynn," Carter once said. "That's a pinnacle in my life."

That's not to say it's been easy sailing all through. Take the time the couple decided to write a book together.

"It's the worst problem we've ever had since we've been married," Jimmy Carter jokingly told CNN at the time.

"It would be like God had given her this text at Mt. Sinai and she had brought it down and presented it to me in stone."

He is now 95. She is 92. And their love story is still going strong.

The Democratic Primaries started off promisingly diverse. Secretary Julian Castro was the first to announce his candidacy, and Senator Kamala Harris was one of the next to join the race barely a week later. Senator Cory Booker declared the beginning of February — and for a brief moment, we had a primary that reflected the voting base of the Democratic party.

It didn’t last.

Kamala Harris announced her candidacy to a roaring crowd of over 20,000 people, which remains a record in the 2020 Primary. Many were excited about her entry into the race, particularly after the hearings of Jeff Sessions and Brett Kavanaugh. Anticipating the likelihood of her run, the hit pieces began before her formal announcement, including the creation of the hashtag #KamalaIsaCop as a continuation of Russian bot propaganda to subdue the turnout of black voters.

The distortion of Kamala Harris’s stellar record came from both right wing sources like the Washington Examiner, and leftwing sites like The Intercept. Most of these “criticisms” (such as wrongly attributing her to Jamal Trulove’s incarceration, outcries for not prosecuting Mnuchin, and allegedly fighting to keep prisoners in jail for cheap labor) have been completely debunked, but they remain staples in the comment sections of Twitter and Facebook from both Trump supporters and so-called progressives. Journalists also permit these distortions to go unchallenged, with the lone exception of Politifact debunking Tulsi Gabbard’s false claims after the second debate.

The disinformation surrounding Kamala Harris is inordinately persistent, but it is not limited to bad faith takes from journalists. The bot activity surrounding Kamala Harris is striking, particularly for a candidate that polls between 4th and 5th place. On a weekly basis, Kamala receives between 125 to 190 mentions on TV news stations, which is staggeringly less than the three people polling above her — yet the estimated bot activity stalking her account outnumbers every single other candidate in the top 6 combined. This means that Kamala has fewer options to defend herself on television (and those mentions usually skew negative, rather than neutral or positive), and far more attacks targeting her.

Kamala Harris is empirically mentioned less often than other candidates, even when there is every reason to center her in a news story. This has been seen time and time again. The first example to be shown considers Kamala Harris’s signature policy — the LIFT Act, which is her tax proposal that would reverse the Trump tax code and create the option for families to tap into their refund for up to $500 a month. An entire article was written about a California program that piloted something similar, yet Kamala Harris — the junior California Senator — is not mentioned once.

Similarly, Kamala Harris was the first person to introduce a maternal mortality bill that centered black women. California took measures at the state level to combat this epidemic, yet despite being the Senator from California and the leader on this issue, Elizabeth Warren was quoted for the article.

In truth, most of Kamala Harris’s policies go unmentioned or unexamined by the media, a fact which Rep. Wilson highlights in this interview.

Kamala Harris will present an excellent proposal, an excellent idea, and they’ll say it, but they won’t cover it. Start to pay attention, and you’ll see it. -Representative Frederica Wilson, FL.

Kamala Harris’s healthcare proposal was the first to create a cap for monthly prescription drug costs; unbeknownst to The Daily Beast, who reported that Pete Buttigieg had the first plan despite Kamala announcing hers months beforehand. When Harris spokesman Ian Sams pointed out the discrepancy, The Daily Beast removed and reposted the article omitting the “first” without an apology or correction.

Gun control is another realm where Kamala Harris has come out strong, and early, proposing her plan in April 2019 to take executive action if Congress did not act within 100 days. The Giffords Foundation coordinated with all the major 2020 contenders to release a call to action video on gun control, which Kamala Harris naturally participated in. And she was removed from the ad by MSNBC when they ran it for her trouble. This example is particularly egregious because it was not a case of an omission — they had to intentionally edit the video to remove her segment.

Of a similar vein, Kamala Harris was one of many 2020 candidates to wish Bernie Sanders a speedy recovery after his heart attack, both privately in a phone call and publicly to reporters. NowThis, however, managed to include everyone who had spoken out except her.

The erasure of Kamala Harris’s long, impressive history with the LGBTQ+ community is possibly the most heinous example. The aforementioned Intercept hit pieces targeted the fact that two trans inmates were denied gender affirmation surgery in California, ignoring the fact that it was Kamala Harris’s job to represent the state, and also that she reversed the policy within a year (far before that was a popular stance and during the period of time where Elizabeth Warren was calling gender affirmation surgery not a “good use of taxpayer dollars”), AND her efforts made California the first and one of the only states to ban the trans panic defense.

The two LGBT forums of the 2020 Primary apparently only read the smear articles, however. The now infamous moderation of Lyz Lenz (a white, non-LGBT woman) highlighted this, in which she framed the same premise of a question about gender affirmation surgery to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris very differently: “How can people trust you?” to the latter, and “How can people evolve like you?” to the former.

Lenz’s questioning, refreshingly, did not go unnoticed, especially by black women on Twitter — who were subsequently blocked for their righteous indignation. Rather than apologizing, Lenz doubled down that she was proud of the work she did, shielding behind Biden’s remarks in a peak white feminist fashion.

When the second LGBTQ forum was held, the questioning by Chris Cuomo was more tame — with the obvious exception of his making light out of Kamala Harris’s opening in which she stated her preferred pronouns to a roaring applause. To Cuomo’s credit, he at least apologized immediately, unlike Lenz.

Last night’s CNN/New York Times Democratic Presidential Debate attracted 8.3 million viewers on CNN and 9.4 million live streams. On television, 8.336 million total viewers watched the debate live from the campus of Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio. Among adults 25-54, 2.378 million tuned in. The debate peaked on television from 9:15-9:30 pm with 9.215 million total viewers and from 9:45-10 pm among adults 25-54 with 2.660 million.