So today, everyone's saying Biden is through and they were saying that about Elizabeth Warren a week or two ago. Yeah, it looks that way but we forget that in primaries, lots of folks have their moment of inevitability either way. There was a moment not that long ago when Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann all looked like the presumptive Republican nominee. Someone should dig up that clip of Newt on Fox News explaining why, mathematically, no one could possibly beat him…and then he didn't even come in second or third.
Yeah, it looks bad for Biden but I think two primaries in small states is too soon to count anyone out. I'm not saying he'll get the nomination or he won't; just that it looks less likely than it did a few weeks ago. I'm sensing that we will soon have a moment when Mike Bloomberg looks like he has a lock on it…and it may turn out to be like Newt's unstoppability.
I still haven't decided who I'm going to vote for in the California primary. I'm leaning Bernie but I can't help but think that the label "Socialist" — and to a lesser extent, his recent heart problems — gives the Trump Slander Machine way too much to work with.
In the meantime, if you're panicked that Trump can't be beat, read this piece by Josh Marshall and note that it was posted before the results from New Hampshire. It references the Quinnipiac Poll, which is one of the ones I tend to trust. (The rule is that if you trust the poll when it tells you things you want to believe, you also have to trust it when it tells you things you don't want to believe. I think Quinnipiac is a good indicator either way.) Here's an excerpt from Marshall's piece for those of you too lazy to click over and read the whole thing…
Quinnipiac has head to head match ups with Democrats. All the top candidates beat Trump by significant margins. Bloomberg 51-42, Sanders 51-43, Biden 50-43. There's a lot of information that tells us that President Trump can definitely win reelection. But these numbers all point to an incumbent who has an uphill climb at best. And at least for now there's little evidence suggesting a really different situation than we've had to date.
They also certainly suggest that if you think Sanders is a weak general election candidate that must be based on the predicted effects of attacks that have yet to happen. Because 51-43 is pretty solid.
It is but I think Sanders is the perfect guy for a Trump rallying cry of "He will bring us Communism and destroy the America we love" which will motivate Trump's base and the squishy folks who aren't quite solidly within it. And yes, I agree that winning this year is less about peeling people off from your opponent's base than it us about attracting Undecideds.
Still, "defining your opponent" (i.e., lying about him or her) would be much harder to do that with Mayor Pete (as those who don't know how to pronounce "Buttigieg" call him) or Bloomberg. Both have their weak points but even Trump can't convince his followers that the ninth-richest person in the nation is a Commie.
And I really need to see and hear more about Amy Klobuchar. Maybe we all do.