Let's play the dropout/endorsement game.

[Funtatlaguy]

Just to kill a little time until next weeks debates, I thought we could speculate.
Let’s say that the current top 5 (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Mayor Pete) remains that way until the voting begins in Iowa.
And let’s say that the next 5 don’t break 2-3% in polling through November and decide to drop out before Iowa and endorse someone in the Top 5.

Who would these five people endorse: Beto, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, Gabbard.

My guesses are:
Beto - Pete
Booker - Warren
Klobuchar - Biden
Castro - Harris
Gabbard - Sanders

Bonus points if you want to guess on any of the 1%ers endorsements.
I’ll throw in Gillibrand-Harris.

[JI7]

1. unless they feel strongly about someone most will endorse who they think is likely to win the

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2019, 05:52 AM - Edit history (1)

nomination. and maybe not even until there is a clear winner.

[DesertRat]

9. I agree with this. nt

[thesquanderer]

11. plus an endorsement could hurt their chances of VP or other desirable position,

if they back the wrong horse.

[Hortensis]

2. As J17 says. But let's get real. It's HIGHLY unlikely 4 of these will drop out.

Booker, Beto, Klobuchar and Castro are redoubtable people and viable candidates who'll be in the next debates and whose campaigns could take off at any time. Imo, Gabbard was always a no-go and doesn't belong on a list with the others.

Rather than spinning some of our better candidates as losers months before any leave, I'd rather play this game with a good number for whom that's not going to happen.

So, agree with Gabbard - Sanders, probably a no-brainer.

Btw, would I be right in guessing that, since most of the bottom-tier candidates don't have much in the way of voter influence to offer and it would dissipate quickly after leaving, those might tend to endorse early, while more powerful candidates (who again aren't leaving now) would endorse much later, after discussions and negotiations with the leading candidate(s)?

I remember, for instance, that powerful non-candidate Elizabeth Warren couldn't/wouldn't endorse Sanders in 2016, although he reportedly approached her a number of times throughout 2015-2016, and Gov. O'Malley never gained steam, so Hillary must have been her choice very early, but she didn't announce her endorsement until quite late.

[TSIAS]

3. John Delaney- Biden

As an aside does anyone else think John Delaney reminds them of a neoliberal Homer Simpson?

[JI7]

4. haven't really seen him but Delaney is a millionaire unlike Homer Simpson

[Hortensis]

7. Homer Simpson and Sen. Bennet as RW laissez-faire capitalists?

Hmmm, strange thought. Homer's a Trumpster, but a Kochster?

Senator Bennet is a moderate liberal, which means somewhere in the middle of the liberal left, and has the record, analyzed by professionals, to prove it. He is far to the left of any Republican senator, and to Mr. Simpson.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/michael_bennet/412330

Neoliberalism is a very confused-use word, so really good for confounding understanding. It's most commonly used here as a far-left slur on everyone who supports continuation of capitalism, and some even believe it. Scoundrels find it so useful for disinformation, of course, because a word most applicable to ruthlessly exploitative RW economics has the word "liberal" in it and most people don't know enough to catch on to the trick.

But here's a modern definition of neoliberalism that could cut through the confusion and make us all less vulnerable to manipulation. Note, it emphatically describes today's extremist RW economics, which are antithetical to the liberalism that dominates the Democratic Party, and Senator Bennet.

BRITTANICA: Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.

Although the terms are similar, neoliberalism is distinct from modern liberalism. ...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism

To put it mildly!

[mtnsnake]

6. My guess is that Biden will endorse Gillibrand or O'Rourke soon after he drops out.

[Indygram]

8. Beto won't be going anywhere

and if he is not the nominee he will work for whoever it is to beat Trump

It's also highly unlikely that the majority of Beto supporters would switch to Buttigieg. For the primary I'm voting for Beto and only Beto, even if I have to write him in. If I had to choose someone else it would be Biden because I think he is the only other one besides Beto who can beat Trump. I know Biden won't take Texas like Beto would but he might be able to get the rust belt back. I think Beto could get that area back as well. Buttigieg is just too weak with black voters, Harris, Warren and Sanders will do well in states that Hillary won but will struggle in battleground states because they are just more liberal than middle and southern America. That leaves Biden and Beto. Biden may lose some progressives as well. I think Beto has the best ability to bring in new first time voters and volunteers as well as keeping progressives without scaring off moderates. Beto can also bring in more Independents and Republicans than most other candidates can.

[thesquanderer]

10. re: "I know Biden won't take Texas like Beto would"

According to this poll, as of last month, Biden beats Trump in Texas, but Beto loses. This was before the debates, and Biden has generally gone down since then... but Beto hasn't come up. So at this point, Biden is still probably the best bet for Texas.

https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2625

[Indygram]

12. According to people on the ground canvassing the polls are not accurate

Texas has an open primary, so Independents and Republicans can vote too. People canvassing are consistently hearing either Trump or Beto as who they support and Beto is up 38% over Trump (even with Republicans and Independents). This canvassing is being done not just of Democratic voters but ALL voters. None of the other candidates (even Castro) are getting any significant mentions at all.

[Hortensis]

13. With Trump assured, don't you expect Republican spoiler

voters to cross in large numbers and try to take out our best chance? Then of course vote for Trump in the GE?

In the 2016 primaries, spoiler voting was so bad Pew had to break voter data down for all candidates into into genuine and total votes. It was a huge factor in Sanders' unexpected wins. I remember WV because, although it has a closed primary, a lot of its conservatives are registered Democrat but have a long tradition of voting with the Republicans for president. It was so bad there that a pair of exit polls showed that 37% of Sanders voters at one precinct and 44% at another found being asked if they'd vote for Sanders in the GE amusing; Trump was their man.

This will be repeated wherever possible in 2020, absolutely in Texas and probably in even larger numbers since Trump's already their nominee.

[Indygram]

15. Trump is less popular than Cruz in Texas

And over 500k Republicans voted for Beto over Cruz while still voting for the Republican governor. Texas knows and trusts Beto. Biden would fare better than Castro, but no other Democrat can touch Beto for turnout and votes in Texas. He got more than both Hillary and Obama. Anyone writing him off is being extremely foolish.

[Hortensis]

18. :) When creeps compete, is the less popular one winning?

Remember, conservatives have been ardently voting against wicked Democrats and our wicked liberalism, and now socialism, that threatens to destroy our nation. Most will continue to pour out to vote against us regardless of Trump's popularity.

If Beto were the national primary frontrunner next year, we would expect large numbers of TX cons to vote for his strongest competitor. If Beto were the strongest competitor, this of course would give him a lift, the Republicans hoping to move him past the frontrunner and give him TX's delegates. The Sanders effect.

Which, of course, will again be augmented not just by the Russians and RW domestic powers, but also the Chinese, Iranians, and others inspired by Russia's success. Big players on our board these days: who will they try to use to reelect Trump and Republican majorities?

[Indygram]

19. The Russian bots were attacking Beto before he even entered the race

They are terrified of him because they know he is the only Democrat running who can lead a nationwide movement that their manipulation and meddling can't touch. That's why he needs to be the nominee. He has the ability to change things in not just the national race but downticket in red states. He is able to not just win over voters but inspire and motivate volunteers who spread his message even further.

[Hortensis]

22. They're afraid of all candidates who could potentially beat Trump

and are trying to manipulate this very fluid situation so that ultimately we pass on our strongest candidate(s) to nominate a weaker and/or badly damaged one. They're setting the propaganda foundation for all candidates who may become our nominee to be turned into the next Hillary or Franken. We're their big target, and they get us by destroying our belief and conviction in ourselves, in our best candidates, and in the ability of our party to overcome them.

Also understand that the Republican leaders, their leaders, and Russia's are not exactly easily "terrified," not of our candidates or anything else. They're enormously powerful and know how to defeat us by turning us against our own candidates, and they are busy at work at just that. Their time to be "terrified" will come if they fail badly and we spit in their faces by giving the Democratic Party the power to seriously hurt them.

[thesquanderer]

14. It could be that Beto is stronger than polls indicate as you say, but that doesn't mean...

...that Biden is weaker. So even if you're right that Beto beats Trump, I think the poll fairly still says that Biden beats Trump as well. So then maybe we have two candidates that can flip TX.

Of course, a lot can change between now and primary day, or election day.

[Indygram]

16. The poll only includes Democrats

Texas has an open primary and Beto won Independents and got over half a million Republicans. Biden won't have that same support from Independents and Republicans that Beto does. That's why Beto is the only one who can beat Trump in Texas. He already has state wide organization with a volunteer army, too.

[SouthernProgressive]

17. "According to people on the ground canvassing the polls are not accurate"

Canvassing for who?

[Indygram]

20. They are out knocking on doors in deep red areas

Asking who people are voting for. They are consistently seeing the same thing regardless of the political party of the house (Rep, Ind, Dem are all being talked to) and Beto has the highest percentage then undecided and then Trump. Other Democrats are hardly mentioned. The percentage of people who commit to voting for Beto is higher than those who commit to voting for Trump. The canvassing is showing that in a general election Texans' first choice is Beto by a high margin and undecided barely over Trump for second and third choice. Almost no mention of other Democrats at all. This is why I keep saying if Beto is the nominee he will deliver Texas and it's 38 electoral votes. Without Texas Trump has no path.

[SouthernProgressive]

21. The question still stands.

Canvasing for who?

Do you have the results from the people doing the canvassing? You are talking about them as if they are pollsters.

People don't walk up to doors, ask who the person is voting for, and walk away.

"The percentage of people who commit to voting for Beto is higher than those who commit to voting for Trump."

What are the percentages? I haven't seen the data?