February 5, 2020

Who's the least electable of the Democratic candidates?

When I thought of this question, I had a clear choice, but the first person I tested the question on put my choice near the end of a list of Democratic presidential choices in order beginning with the least electable. My choice included thinking of how this person would be attacked after getting the nomination. I think the Democrats have been refraining from attacking each other, so there's room to fantasize about the success of candidates you prefer, but I was picturing how Trump would tear into this person.

I'll give you a poll to record your choice, but I'm more interested in seeing your reasoning, so I look forward to reading comments and participating in the comments. Also, I think those of you who don't want the Democrat to win may have trouble being honest. I remember when my father voted for George McGovern in the Democratic Party primary in 1972. It was completely strategic. He wanted the Republican to win the election. And he laughed about it, which hurt my 21-year-old feelings.

I know I can't make you do it, but please, even if you really want the Democrats to lose, identify the Democratic candidate who is most vulnerable to attacks and rejection by the American people:

Which Democratic Party frontrunner is least electable?






pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: Here are the results:



My answer was Sanders.

159 comments:

BADuBois said...

If Sanders wins the nomination and the RNC starts running ads 24/7 of him honeymooning in the USSR and talking about the joys of food lines, it's over.

Michael K said...

Carville has already been very public about this.

hawkeyedjb said...

A lot of people will settle for "anyone but Trump" but with a caveat: not someone who's gonna wreck the economy.

Gilbert Pinfold said...

Sanders writing about women having gang-rape fantasies seems pretty potent as a talking point.

rehajm said...

Close between Bernie and Warren but I picked Warren. The issue with Bernie is the strength of his base. Liz is just as scary as Bernie on policy and bares the burden of her Trail of Tall Tales and the fact she's not good a retail politics. Plus she's dumb and people can see it.

Dave Begley said...

Why can't I pick "all of the above?"

tcrosse said...

Nobody will feel sympathy for Bloomberg if Trump gets tough with him. With any of the others it would give the appearance of Trump punching down. Trump knows a thing or two about the dynamics of a professional wrestling match, and the crowd's sympathy for the underdog.

MartyH said...

Sanders because he’s an out and out socialist.

For the rest, I’d consider the effect of that candidate’s nomination on traditional Dem voters. Bernie bro’s May go foe Warren but not Biden. Bloomberg in a brokered convention where he is everybody’s second choice may piss everyone off. Etc.

Steven said...

Buttigieg. The faults of most of the others are known and accounted for. If they can win the democrat nomination, they have a chance in the general election. Even Sanders.

Buttigieg hasn't been attacked because no one has taken him seriously. He has significant liabilities: Mayor of South Bend is a ridiculous qualification, he wasn't a particularly good Mayor, people have adopted a live and let live attitude toward homosexuality but would probably still hesitate before voting for him, and he's funny looking (Alfred E Neumann as Trump said).

Emery Christoph said...

I disagree.

Sanders is very electable because there is a strong streak of "crazy" in the Democrat party. He may just have a chance.

Clearly Biden is the least electable. It is manifest that he has suffered significant cognitive and physical decline. Put him in a debate and it would be over before the first vote is cast.

Carol said...

I'm probably not doing this right but I had to pick Klobuchar, because she really is a new unknown in most of the country. She doesn't *capture the imagination* like Chocolate Jesus did.

If a female candidate ever takes off I think it will be on the Republican side. We're always looking but the high energy ones are rather extreme.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I think Buttigieg is least electable, but not because of any particular attack strategy by President Trump. In fact, Trump will entirely avoid mention of the issue that makes Buttigieg unelectable, but he will of course be accused of using dog whistles by the only people who hear such whistles.

Jim said...

Interesting question. I think they all are terrible. But Sanders rises above them all in that he is angry. all the time. always shouting, yelling, attacking. I don't hear anything positive from him. Part of a Presidents job is to project competence, confidence, and optimism about the future.
His past ties to dictators and communists seals the deal. Many of his supporters seem to think that the solution to political problems is to eliminate the other party.

MayBee said...

I have to say I have lost my sense for this kind of thing. I thought Trump wasn't really going to run, and I thought he'd never get a primary vote. So......

Bobb said...

I went with Warren. I think Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders are unelectable, so they are not responsive to the question. I can see slim chances of election for the others. Warren is the least likely of these unlikely winning candidates.

Birches said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

In the general election its Warren. Warren seems to have all the bad ideas of Sanders plus she's not as good at campaigning and messaging. Basically she has all the weaknesses of Sanders and none of his strengths.

I think Bloomberg would do the best against Trump in the general, but he'll never get the nomination because there's no greater sin than being a billionaire for young lefties.

Fernandinande said...

When you're least electable,
you're expendable,
you're the star today - smile anyway!
You're on Candid Camera!

doctrev said...

"Least electable" is a often a weasel phrase which begs parties not to nominate candidates that are actually in sync with their values. Trump was condemned as unelectable. Sanders will probably lose, mostly because the DNC moneymen will run screaming from him, but that's not the same as being unelectable. He's probably the most electable candidate the Democrats have.

My money for unelectable goes to Mike Bloomberg. While he can throw around absolutely insane piles of money and therefore guarantee the mercenary loyalty of the NeverTrump traitors/ Clinton consultants, he'll lose with absolutely everyone else. Sanders Democrats will quit in disgust, correctly refusing to whore themselves out for a party politically inept enough to nominate a former Republican at the moment of their "greatest triumph." Black supremacists who don't get paid off will be hammering Bloomberg constantly for his policies as mayor of New York, which were really just a continuation of Giuliani policies. Actual Republicans will ridicule Bloomberg constantly, led by Giuliani himself, along with President Trump. The working class will see this nebbishy billionaire with gun bans and soda taxes and toss him in the dumpster. Everyone else will potentially recoil from his ties to Epstein, and wonder exactly how he got so rich, anyways. Beyond a certain kind of elite yuppie, I'm genuinely surprised there are Democrats willing to sell themselves for Bloomberg at all. He's squarely in the Kristol/ Rubin demographic, but isn't going to find much appeal outside it.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

The MOST unelectable is a very hard choice. Sanders, Biden and Warren all have similar vulnerabilities, with the men’s records of duncery and economic illiteracy slightly outpacing her Republican background with a veneer of SJW talking points covering a fake Indian and not-very-pure opposition to petroleum skeleton. Yikes. What choices!

Can’t we just say who seems more electable instead?

Annie C. said...

I chose Klobuchar. Odd, maybe.

The thing is, I just don't see enough people getting passionate about electing her. The only way that Trump can be beat is by someone as outrageous as he is. Someone that can be a laser-focused Trump hater. Anyone else means no passion and stay-home Democrats.

Klobuchar is as exciting as boxed mashed potatoes. Biden is a close second, but I don't believe he is going to make it through the nominating process.

Birches said...

It's obviously Warren. Bernie's more dangerous because even though he's crazy, he's sincere. I actually think Bernie could win the whole election because people value authenticity.

Warren is Hillary 2.0. No one believes anything she says.

Mayor Pete has the same advantage that Obama had: people project their ideals on to him. Unfortunately, this limited to middle and upper middle class white people.

I don't think Biden is dangerous at all, but he's not as unbelievable as Warren.

I don't know who the Bloomberg constituency is supposed to be. Hmmm... maybe he's even worse than Warren because he's a man.

traditionalguy said...

It looks like that strange CIA plant is going to be given a shot. Buttegeig has the advantage that, like nobody would say bad things about the Black candidate, nobody will say bad things about the Gay candidate. And he also has the advantage of having no record. He runs as a fresh face people can imagine anything you want about.

gilbar said...

any of them could easily win....
IF they didn't have to go against Trump

i like that man. he WINS

I Callahan said...

not someone who's gonna wreck the economy.

Oh, I think there are plenty of democrats willing to wreck the economy if it means Trump loses this year. In fact, some democrats are COUNTING on it. Take Chuck, for example...

Rick said...

Warren is the least electable. She has all the economic drawbacks of Sanders plus she's by far the leading champion of repulsive identity politics. Her announcement the craziest trans on the planet will have veto power over her DOE nominees shows how out of touch she is. Either she or I don't know what office she's running for.

There's an outside chance enough people convince themselves whatever goodies Sanders directs at their class will offset the effects of miring our economy in an inter-generational quagmire.

Biden is second.

DanTheMan said...

Sanders is too far left for DEMOCRATS. He would lose in landslide.

TickTock said...

Biden is the least electable. Hillary lost primarily because she was deemed too corrupt. Biden would be tarred by the same brush.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I don't know who's the least electable, but I know the DemocRAT establishment does not want Sanders. Lots of comparisons between him and Jeremy Corbyn by lefty pundits this morning. (Which also makes me think he's the real winner in Iowa.)

cnnenfreude said...

Mayor Pete's current lack of black support has to be frightening D leadership to death. Van Jones last night was castigating the other commentators for not recognizing the danger of Trump going after the black male vote.

Complete political realignment coming.

Seeing Red said...

All of them I hope?

Dan from Madison said...

I'm actually going to vote for Bloomberg when the primary rolls around in Wisconsin as he is the least insane of all of them. And I want Trump to win.

Francisco D said...

If Sanders wins the nomination and the RNC starts running ads 24/7 of him honeymooning in the USSR and talking about the joys of food lines, it's over.

I think you would be surprised at how many younger people cannot tell you what the acronym USSR stands for, much less understand the sordid history of socialism.

Biden is the least electable. How many times has he run without winning a single primary? Add that to the fact that he is experiencing quite noticeable cognitive decline as well as difficulty controlling his anger.

doctrev said...

Yeah, say what you want about Hillary, but she went to some effort to develop a constituency and stick with it. Elizabeth Warren is going to tap into that constituency, but can't actually grow it because she lacks the critical ingredient of a charismatic and successful husband. It would lead to President Warren, ordinarily, but Donald Trump has seized the industrial Midwest and Warren's not going to be the one who gets it all back.

Bloomberg, by contrast, is going back on his record as a New York Republican in order to just buy the Rat Party. He might even succeed, but at least 25% of the party (probably closer to 60%) dislikes or hates him. And the 5% of Republicans who aren't Trump stans are overwhelmingly wide-stance liberal urbanites. They won't swing states enough for Bloomberg to make up for his huge disadvantages turning out the base.

Bay Area Guy said...

Pocahontas is the least electable, because she has similar bad ideas as Bernie, but without the enthusiasm or wild-eyed base.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

So many good choices it is hard to chose. I originally went with Sanders but I think two old men grunting and yelling at each other will turn off a lot of middle people and Sanders has a strong base.

I think Warren is a threat to Trump if she were to become more likeable. But it seems she is going full retard.

Buttgig will lose because many blacks and Hispanics will stay home or vote Trump. The Althouses of the world will camp out the night before to vote for him but that isn't enough.

So I picked Biden. He seems to be mentally declining and I don't think he has the ability or stamina to run. Plus he has been mortally wounded by the impeachment process.

Everyone easily understands he got the prosecutor fired who was looking at the company employing his cokehead kid.

I think that severely injured Biden because most thought of him as an amenable idiot. Now he seems to be corrupt.

We haven't even scratched the surface of Biden clan in China. Wait and see what that produces.

There. Honest answer from a white, proud union member and former Democrat.

tastid212 said...

It was hard to decide who was the LEAST electable, but I went with Bernie. He's an unrelenting socialist, is too old and has never managed anything larger or more complex than the city of Burlington, VT. Warren is the next least electable because her plans/policies are fiscally nuts. Biden is the third least electable because he's so obviously corrupt and seems to have cognitive issues.

Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Bloomberg seem theoretically electable, though each has obvious deficiencies. If one of them were the nominee, Trump would get >50% of black and hispanic voters. I feel DJT made a very effective appeal to black voters in the SOTU.

Brent said...

Was completely opposed to McGovern, as was most of America. 12 years later found out he was the uncle of one of my aunts. While visiting that aunt and uncle we went to the McGovern home and stayed for dinner. I was hanging around the den and admiring his military pictures. He came in the room and was warm and gracious and excellent to converse with. I became an admirer of someone I only knew previously through news and partisan advertisements.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I think Buttigieg is most electable by just one metric: compared to the rest he appears to be a happy warrior, and America likes optimism, usually picking the taller and happier candidate. Trump is still miles ahead, but Pete would do best IMHO.

Lance said...

Once you get past the utopian promises, where's the upside to Sanders? No executive experience (unless you count presidential campaigns, which I don't) and no major legislation in the Senate.

The downsides are significant:
- a long history of essays, interviews and public access TV appearances full of crazy
- a steady accumulation of wealth with no visible source other than public service
- white Yankee from Vermont
- He's old, and he looks it
- He's perfectly willing to insult anyone that disagrees with him. In fact he's quite possibly the least charming among the major candidates.

In a lot of ways he's like Trump. Which, for moderates, undercuts the argument that he's not Trump.

Eleanor said...

I picked Warren. She's too left for independents, and she's not Bernie. The Bernie Bros had a woman stomp on Bernie last time and lose so they aren't going to be enthusiastic about supporting a woman if the DNC tries and succeeds on stomping on Bernie for one again. Warren doesn't have the women. If she did, she'd be far and away the leader of the pack. I'm not sure where Warren's base is. I don't think anyone on the left would actively campaign against her like the Never Trumpers did to Trump, but I think a rainy election day would do her in. And, of course, Trump would have a field day with her, and she's pretty thin-skinned.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I voted Sanders because I believe (hope) that his extreme socialist views will be rejected by the normal person. The more that he goes on about giving everything away....people are going to wonder just where that money is going to come from.

The other thing about Sanders that I feel will be a big turn off for the moderate and independent voter is that his "Bernie Bros" just won't be able to help themselves and be out of control. Perhaps even violent. They have already made their intentions clear regarding gulags, re education camps and other punitive day dreams about what they want to do when they are in charge.

They won't be able to help but to be more radical than people will accept.

Even if you don't like Trump, the things he has accomplished to better the country are visible. Weighing that progress against the alternative Socialism agenda of Sanders, and Warren too, may tip more people to vote Trump just to try to avoid the consequences.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

tcrosse said...

Trump knows a thing or two about the dynamics of a professional wrestling match, and the crowd's sympathy for the underdog.

Not the match so much, but he understand how to promo. Of course it helps that the current crop of DemocRATS could give Ric Flair lessons on being a heel.

gilbar said...

Part of a Presidents job is to project competence, confidence, and optimism about the future

President Trump's State of the Union speech, was ALL optimism about the future...
The Democrats TORE THAT UP INTO PIECES in their Hatred of him (and of America)

As a Wise Person once said: Love Trumps Hate! and Trump LOVES America

Gusty Winds said...

The African-American constituency in the inner cities is not going to be motivated to turn out by a Mayor Pete candidacy. They're not "woke" like the population in Madison. They were important in Walker's loss to Evers. When they don't turn out, like for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, the GOP wins state wide elections.

When it comes to winning Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania Mayor Pete loses all three. I think Trump has Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina in the bag already. He may even have a shot at Minnesota.

Gusty Winds said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lewis Wetzel said...

Whoever goes up against Trump has to have a plan to attract votes in states Trump won. This will be tough for any of the Dem nominees, because they have all taken far-Left positions in the last year. Currently "Mayor Pete"'s positions are indistinguishable from Liz Warren's.

daskol said...

That's an easy one: Biden. He's been around forever and never won a primary, competing against a wide variety of people. He's also incredibly corrupt in a way that may be common for his generation, but is incredibly embarrassing in this day and age of the "blockchain"--everything is archived. He's also approaching or already over the threshold of senility or worse, which is to say he couldn't even win a primary when he was quick on his feet, so why would anyone think he could get elected in this condition?

JackWayne said...

I voted Sanders because the #NeverSanders will be out in force. He will be diminished by the NYT and others. He’s a Communist and the Left considers themselves Socialist. Shi’a/Sunni. The Clintons will be gunning for him. The irony is that if he wins, they will love him because he will be a weakling and pushover like Bush.

Confused said...

This is really difficult. I think all of them have poor odds against Trump and they all have flaws. The turnout numbers in Iowa indicate that Democrat voters are not excited about their options.

I'll start with best chance, and I'll go with Yang. He is genuinely likeable, and if through some miracle he could be the last man standing I could see a lot of Democrats being happy to vote for him.

I think least electable is Buttigieg, though I could be talked out of that. I see him as a Scott Walker type, with little experience in national politics and therefore in danger of becoming an unserious panderer. He's not particularly charismatic, and he has fatal flaws with the black community (not his homosexuality, but his neglect of the South Bend black community's concerns) at the exact moment Trump is making a serious run at the black vote.

But really they all suck.

Anonymous said...

Biden - still goofy old Uncle Joe. People find it hard to dislike that guy. However, he has to learn to take a punch regarding Hunter or that will change instantly. It may be too late already. He's in second for unelectability in my opinion.
Bloomberg - Not a front runner. Nobody except political addicts knows anything about him yet.
Buttigieg - Lots of sympathy gay votes gives him a chance with women.
Klobuchar - Now we're getting into the area of real disikeability, but she hasn't been exposed enough. Lack of true front runner status and exposuer until recently gives her a cushion.
Sanders - Yeah, he's crazy but he has the appearance of sincerity. Which brings us to
Warren - good god this woman is annoying. Her gestures, her voice, her complete lack of authenticity and sincerity will all conspire to drag her down. She's truly unlikeable, and got my vote for least electable.

rcocean said...

The choice was between Buttigig and Sanders and I chose sanders. Biden and warren have their problems but both are familiar figures. Kochblob is just boring. Sanders is a 78 y.o. socialist who honeymooned in the USSR. he has a bad heart. He has a New Yawk accent. Buttigig is a nice fellow, who's done nothing except be the mayor of a small city. And not a great mayor. He'd also be our first combination President and First Lady (he's the 'Wife' in the marriage. Is America ready for that? I'm guessing no.

sparrow said...

I agree with Emery. Sanders has a following with real enthusiasm, while Biden (least electable IMO) is uninspiring and lately he's showing his age. So while I do hope that Sanders fails I think his ability to inspire true believers makes him more dangerous. Everything depends on the rationality of the moderates.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

It's illegal to question the money-grubbing pay-to-play of the Biden family.
Even though an offical DOJ investigation should be on the horizon.

mccullough said...

Warren.

She’s a harpie who reminds us of Hillary. Unlikely a woman ever would be elected president of the US. But Warren is not likeable. Klobuchar seems to have similar problems.

The more likeable candidate has won every election since 1980.

rcocean said...

Republicans used to nominate people based on "its his turn". Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney had all come in 2nd before. Will the D's follow the same pattern,and give us Benie?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Warren is the fake underling of Sanders. If Sanders were to win the nomination and he picks Warren as his VP - it's a 100% socialist ticket. Yikes.

Greg the class traitor said...

Warren promised that her "Medicare for All" would take away ever American's private health insurance, and replace it with Medicare.

The reason why we don't have school choice in the US is because too many suburban people have spent too much on their homes, because the home is "in a good school district", and they don't want to lose that benefit. And they don't want to risk their kids' education by the public schools getting less money.

There is no way in the world those people will vote for someone who wants to take away their private health insurance.

Warren would be an utter disaster for the Democrats. Any supporter of M4A will have difficulties, but ads with candidate Warren saying "I'm going to take away your health insurance" would be utterly crushing

Flat Tire said...

I say Biden. His mental decline is increasingly obvious. His responses when he's angry are bizarre, making an easy target for Trump.

Amadeus 48 said...

BADubois succinctly summarizes my conclusion. Sanders, through his long and somewhat inexplicable career, has consistently demonstrated his rejection of the FDR/HST/Ike/JFK/RMN/JEC/RWR/Bush41&43/WJC/BHO/DJT-blessed American creed--that this is a land of opportunity where success is attainable by each and all.

Sanders is not a deep or critical thinker. He has no analysis. His entire world-view is based on envy. He is a mascot of the Democrat left. But would you put Bucky in charge of Badger football?

Biden is hopeless. He is aged, befuddled, and stupid. He reminds everyone of their drinkin' uncle that no one would let touch the TV after Thanksgiving dinner because he'd end up with a blank screen that no one, not even the ten-year-olds, could revive.

Warren is equally repulsive and is redeemed by her complete lack of principles. She is the Democratic Mitt Romney. Her appeal is limited to the gentry Democrats and the academic left (i.e., all of academia) who will take a female Harvard professor since they can't have a black Chicago professor.

Buttafuoco needs to run and win high state or federal office. The politest way to put it is that he needs seasoning. His antecedents are suspect--a red-diaper baby from South Bend, IN, USA. His training wheels are still attached.

Bloomberg suffers from being a diminutive New York con man whose principal gambit is to call POTUS, who now has a solid track record, a fat New York con man. Bloomberg reminds me of one of those clueless American moguls who show up in P.G. Wodehouse novels. His ultimate appeal is limited to gentry liberals and NeverTrumpers.

Amy Klobucher--who she? I bet half of the people in Minnesota who voted her into the Senate thought they were voting for her father, who covered the Vikings for the Star-Tribune.

I don't think any of these candidates have much appeal in 2020. The Democrats are still re-fighting the 2016 election, thinking that if only they weren't lumbered with Hillary, they could win in a walk.

gahrie said...

I remember when my father voted for George McGovern in the Democratic Party primary in 1972. It was completely strategic. He wanted the Republican to win the election. And he laughed about it, which hurt my 21-year-old feelings.

Well, now we know why she votes for the Left.....

Chris said...

Left: If you don't vote for Buttigieg, you are homophobic.

Meade said...

I propose this campaign slogan: BLOOMBERG 2020: THE LEAST UNELECTABLE DEMOCRAT!

MadisonMan said...

Klobuchar is as exciting as boxed mashed potatoes.

I will point out that Scott Walker is an ex-Governor because of a very bland politician. I don't think middle-of-the-political-spectrum voters are looking for a firebrand.

Anonymous said...

"Blogger MayBee said...
I have to say I have lost my sense for this kind of thing. I thought Trump wasn't really going to run, and I thought he'd never get a primary vote. So......"

Yup, I had the same experience. I've lost all confidence in my (or anyone else's) prognostications and I think we'd all be wise to learn from that experience. The American voter is unpredictable as hell. We would do well to keep 16 in mind when we're talking about how Bernie is unelectable due to his socialist beliefs.

Wince said...

Which Democratic Party frontrunner is least electable?BidenBloomberg ButtigiegKlobucharSandersWarren

Althouse left out Hillary?

lgv said...

It is unfortunate that we can only caste on vote, as several are tied at 0% chance.

Neither Warren or Sanders is electable. The Bloomberg schtick will not play in 30+ states. He is focused his $500m on 13-16 states in order to win the electoral college. He only needs 13 states with TX, but likely 20 without it. His chances are very slim. It would be the worst popular vote showing for a winner. BTW, this is why we are seeing billions of ads here in Texas.

The Biden electability meter is dropping fast and will continue to drop. Not only that, it will never go up.

Shouting Thomas said...

The gay guy will totally alienate the Dems’ black base.

Blacks don’t feel compelled to salute the gay worship flag. They’re out front about their refusal to tolerate.

The Dems will have to trade the gay worship vote for the black vote, and i think that’s a huge loss.

Charlie Currie said...

Everyone of them has a plan to undo Trump's successes with the economy and foreign affairs. Some to a greater degree than others. Does a majority of the voters really what that to happen?

For my children's sake, I certainly hope not.

tim maguire said...

Dean Wormer:
Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus?

Greg:
Well that would be hard to say, sir. They're each outstanding in their own way.

n.n said...

I don't think middle-of-the-political-spectrum voters are looking for a firebrand.

People in the middle are looking for principles and function over style, which is why criticisms of Trump have not been particularly helpful to the critics' cause(s).

chuck said...

Almost impossible to choose, should have asked for the bottom three.

FWBuff said...

I voted for Warren as least electable. Her ideas ("plans") are too extreme, her target audience is too limited, her history of faux victimhood is laughable, her voice and mannerisms are annoying, and her executive experience is non-existent.

NCMoss said...

Trump proved that being vulnerable to attacks (access hollywood and extreme media bias) didn't destroy his campaign. He had a winning message and his ability to fight resonated with enough people to beat Hillary. The democrat that lacks those qualities seems to be Biden even though his polling numbers belie that.

Charlie Currie said...

They all are obviously electable in a limited way. But, are any of them electable nationally? Even if Trump wasn't on the ballot.

Would any of them be electable in 2024?

Meade said...

MadisonMan said...
Klobuchar is as exciting as boxed mashed potatoes.

I will point out that Scott Walker is an ex-Governor because of a very bland politician. I don't think middle-of-the-political-spectrum voters are looking for a firebrand.
------------
KLOBUCHAR 2020: THE MOST LEAST UNELECTABLE DEMOCRAT!

Paddy O said...

No "all of the above" choice?

That not being the option, I got to thinking who has the most "hold your nose and vote for the candidate anyway" appeal. Bloomberg probably.Then Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Warren.
?
So who is the least electable in light of that. I said Sanders. Hard choice, but I got to thinking who among this group would turn off the most otherwise Democratic voters. Sanders is the candidate for privileged liberals without a broad base. He would alienate financial industry and other corporate folks. He doesn't have very much personal charisma. Not only no appeal across the political aisle, he and his followers have outright disdain. There's a small number of people who like being chastised by an old white man, I suppose.

The key question for me in this: Bernie supporters say they won't vote for anyone else, but are their numbers more than the different constituencies that wouldn't ever vote for Bernie

I think Bernie supporters are like Twitter, really noisy and seemingly powerful, but really just dominating forums that don't actually reflect broader society.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

FWBuff said...I voted for Warren as least electable.

Yeah. It was a toss up between Sanders and Warren for me. The tipping point to Sanders is the unpredictable, obnoxious and even scary actions of his Bernie Bros.

They are the Brown Shirts of his constituency.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Pet Buttered Egg:
..1. only virtue: he is not Biden, Warren, or Sanders;
..2. significant block of voters gag reflexively at the words "his husband."

Irony is that his his virtue (not being corrupt Biden, truth impaired Warren, nor communist burr-under-the-Party-saddle Sanders) may be all ButteredEgg needs to get the Party nomination; then being generally centrist, re-unified Party Loyalists, plus the usual Democrat voter fraud, and a smattering of Never-Trumpers put him over the top in the General Election.

Ryan said...

Biden. He lacks the mental and emotional abilities to respond reasonably to attack, tendering him very vulnerable.

Example: how he responded to the Iowa man who asked him a sensible question about his son.

Ryan said...

I meant "rendering."

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

He may even have a shot at Minnesota.
Will the Muslims in Minnesota and Michigan vote for an openly gay man?

Paddy O said...

Elizabeth Warren reminds me far too much of Professor Dolores Umbridge. But, she got control of Hogwarts for a bit, so there's definitely enough appeal among for that kind of personality to get power for a while, before they end up getting dragged off by deplorable centaurs.

Ryan said...

" NCMoss said...
Trump proved that being vulnerable to attacks (access hollywood and extreme media bias) didn't destroy his campaign."

I disagree that Trump is vulnerable to attack. He is VERY adept at punching back.

MikeDC said...

I don't think this poll is well considered because choosing the "least electable" doesn't consider any sort of why and how they'll be attacked. They'd be attacked in totally different ways that are hard to compare.

Warren is an bureaucratic Socialist. She's Dolores Umbridge. This week we got a call from a lady at my kid's school telling us that he was "inappropriately" using his laptop after school. We asked what he was doing and the "inappropriate" use turned out to be "working on a school project. This is the sort of control-freak personality I associate with Warren. She's my greatest fear, because people like this are smart and calculating and get put in charge of things all the time. She's electable, and the way to get her to not be electable is to force the mask to slip off her face and reveal that she's really a pretty nasty piece of work that has terrible ideas for everyone.

Sanders is a rabble-rousing Socialist. He's more authentic than Warren and therefore more self-defeating. What makes him kind of interesting in small doses makes him repellent in larger ones. So he's unelectable.

Biden is a doddering old blowhard who used to be a corrupt politician. He's unelectable because even with media support, his shallowness, corruption, and lack of stamina are fairly obvious.

Mayor is the less charismatic gay Obama. He's in the policy sweet spot to be electable and inoffensive. The way to attack him is to point out that he may well be an empty suit. In other respects, the best attacks might be to appeal to his traditionalness, because for some reason the really left-wing people hate him for not being sufficiently gay enough. There's also the fact that he's a white male, which makes him the de-facto boogie-man of pretty much all of leftist thought. And while Obama appealed pretty clearly based on his race (most people, black and white, probably considered that a "reason to vote for him") I'm not sure his gayness is an equivalently strong positive. Especially among significant parts of the democratic base. So, he's mildly electable.

Klubachar just seems like a non-entity. Months into the campaign, the only impression I have of her is that she's the sort of boss that throw shit at her staff. Not electable because everyone knows or has a story about this kind of person.

Bloomberg is an elitist cocktail party liberal. Or basically an buttoned up, bureaucratic version of Trump. If you follow the parallels, Trump is Al Czervik and Bloomberg is Judge Smails. I think he's electable in a general sense that if you build and run gigantic companies, you are probably competent enough to come across as electable.

That being said, the way to attack him is to point out that he's the reality of everything that most regular people are pushing back against when they side with the Democrats on a basic, instinctive sort of ground. He's Big Business, High Finance, Status Quo, Backroom-Dealing don't-give-a-shit about the little guy personified.

I don't know if he's electable as a democrat. He'd win in a landslide as a Republican running against someone like Sanders or Warren. But against Trump? Kinda doubt if he wins.

Francisco D said...

I propose this campaign slogan: BLOOMBERG 2020: THE LEAST UNELECTABLE DEMOCRAT!

He seems to be the favorite of "moderate" life long Democrats.

My definition of moderate Democrats = well intentioned people who believe what the DNC media tells them, but have otherwise pretty sensible views.

Ryan said...

Plus Biden is running out of money.

Greg the class traitor said...

Here's the other Democrats who are guaranteed to lose, and why:

Buttegeig: Has, and will have, no connections with black voters, who are the core of any Democrat Party success. His one political job was Mayor of South Bend. In that time, he build no connection with the "black side of town." So, either he's such an idiot that it never occurred to him that, to be successful in national Democrat politics you need to have a connection with black voters, or else he's not willing / able to forge such a connection. If he's the Dem nominee, Trump gets 30% of the black vote, and wins easily

Bloomberg: Just what the black voters want! A billionaire in "information systems" whose major political accomplishment was "stop and frisk" (see: "walking while being black") as a "Republican" Mayor. Trump actually built things. Bloomberg played around with information. He's in a close tie with Buttegeig for "most likely to drive black voters to Trump", and top of the class in "most likely to drive working class voters to Trump".

He's a humorless scold of a nanny who wants to destroy all fun that he doesn't like. And, he's an idiot who's getting played by his greedy consultants.

Sanders: Take a look what happened to Labour in December. that's what would happen to the Democrats in November if Sanders is leading the Dems. The working class voters who might have listened to Sanders in 2016 have actually gotten a good deal from Trump. He's got no chance this time around. And, if he did get the nomination, Bloomberg would go 3rd Party, even further sealing the deal for Trump

Biden: he's old, mentally slow, corrupt, and brittle. He's not getting the Dem nod, but if he did, Trump would take him apart


Klobuchar: She's been in the Senate since 2006. So far as I can tell, she has not accomplished a single thing there. The best you can say about her performance in the neighboring State of Iowa is that she almost tied for a really miserable 4th place with Biden.

She competing in "the moderate lane" with Biden and Buttegeig. If they both dropped dead tomorrow, she might do well in the Democrat Primary. Lacking that, I don't see her getting the nomination.

She'd probably have the best chance of any Democrat in the GE. But I see essentially no chance of her getting there

Seeing Red said...

That being said, the way to attack him is to point out that he's the reality of everything that most regular people are pushing back against when they side with the Democrats on a basic, instinctive sort of ground. He's Big Business, High Finance, Status Quo, Backroom-Dealing don't-give-a-shit about the little guy personified.


Changed the rules to run for a 3rd term didn’t he?

66 said...

Excuse me for being rude, but Biden is a two-time loser who previously had brain surgery and appears to have difficulty walking or formulating a complete thought without assistance. Trump was able to brand JEB "low energy JEB" with much less material to work with. He woudld destroy Biden on age/competence/stamina. It would not be pretty. I think the democrats are beginning to sense that.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Pete Buttigieg

It may be unpopular to say this out loud, but I don't think the American tribe is yet ready to stand up as its international strong man tribal leader a cute little man who has oral and anal sex with another man.

It it difficult to see Pete Buttigieg armtwisting Xi Jinping who, though a giant in China, is still smaller than Donald Trump.

Hell, it's difficult to see Buttigieg armtwisting Emmanuel Macron.

However, if and when passive-aggressive mean girl rhetoric becomes the universal international battle space, Buttigieg will certainly be competitive.

Americans might certainly elect a single homosexual man or woman, if that person's sexual life never made headlines.

But a married homosexual as the leader of the land elevates that relationship above all the heterosexuals in America, particularly those raising children.

Americans are tolerant of homosexuality because they are tolerant and they are tolerant of homosexual marriage because Anthony Kennedy told them they must be at penalty of law.

But as long as there are any other viable choices Americans will never elect a married homosexual to be President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTQlwARreXc

There, I said it so you don't have to.

Dave said...

Biden. He is not mentally stable. He gets angry easily and knocked off target. They impeached Trump for Biden's sins. He is a symbol of the Washington DC that has destroyed blue collar america. He signed the rave act. He sponsored legislation that hobbled the middle classes ability to file bankruptcy. He is thoroughly corrupt and it's easy to show, plus when Trump unloads on him in person, he will melt down.

Bernie can pivot to he working man.
Mama Warren just wants to give everyone presents.
Mayor Pete is the smart competent guy that can make things happen.

They can pivot to some degree; Biden has lost too much fluidity.

I don't think he would be the nominee.

Warren worries me the most. When someone offers you money, you have to think about it.

I hate Biden and everything he is. I want Trump to destroy him. That also makes him less electable because I think a lot of people see him as Hillary: crooked DC bloodsucker not interested in anyone but Joe.

Yancey Ward said...

Biden is the least electable- this isn't even a close call. The combination of the obvious corruption and the dementia is just damning for his campaign. For all his policy faults, Sanders is more electable- people could vote for him knowing nothing he proposes will get through the House and Senate anyway- the same for Warren. The key thing is that their, Warren and Sanders, corruptions are relatively minor- the sorts of things we just accept in a politician in this day and age.

Just on electability, this is how I rank them from most electable to least:

(1) Sanders
(2) Warren
(3) Bloomberg
(4) Buttuvwxyz
(5) Biden

Paul said...

Which Democratic Party frontrunner is least electable?

ALL THE ABOVE..

See if none of them have a snowballs chance.. then they all 'least electable'.

I Callahan said...

They're all unelectable. There should have been a "None of the Above" category...

Lance said...

I agree with other commenters that Biden is unelectable. But I think Sanders is worse because of the demographics: as a white Yankee, Sanders has poor appeal outside the northeast and west coast. He'll do far worse than Biden in the south and midwest, which makes it much harder to win the must-haves of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. And no, Bernie Bro passion/rabidity doesn't make up for it.

Lurker21 said...

I said Bernie, but that may have been hasty. The old wisdom was that Americans wouldn't vote for a self-declared socialist, but is that still true? He won't get enough votes to win, but he will make a respectable showing. Whether to vote for Bernie is certainly going to be a dilemma for wealthy Democrats and NeverTrumpers, but Bernie could downplay the social issues that have divided the country the most in recent decades and play up economic appeals which could win him votes in some unexpected places.

Bernie is more "likable" than Liz, but she has a phalanx of White women ready to vote for her, and she may pose an even more acute dilemma for upscale liberals than Bernie does. She speaks their language and won't be as hard to dismiss as Bernie. Buttigieg will do well with that wealthy demographic but have problems with minorities and less affluent voters. He's not that easy to like. Joe may not even be alive in November.

Karl Rove was always going on about McKinley's defeat of Bryan in 1896 for some reason. He saw GW Bush as the McKinley who would renew the Republicans' grip on the White House. That looks woefully obtuse now. First for painting Bush as the hero, and second for assuming that any party could (or should) have long-term domination. But this election may resemble the 1896 contest, with the Democrat being seen as a dangerous radical and Republicans strong in the key states of the Midwest.

Dave said...

I could beat Biden, and I have 7 mental handicaps and a very bad slice.

Biden's big seller was likability. Seen him on the trail lately?

Pete, Bernie, and Warren are likeable.

Are there other people than that running? Sorry if I haven't covered all the choices. It was easy just to see the clear answer.

Oh, plus, Biden has way, way pandered to the base: easy for Trump to say: look Steelers, at this fucking liar.

DarkHelmet said...

Lots of good comments here. It's not an easy question.

I rank from least to most electable:

Warren: Nobody likes a phony. Particularly a shrill phony. She'd get some of Hillary's "It's woman's turn!" cadre and some academia types. Turns off most everybody else.

Sanders: The Dem establishment rightly fears that Sanders is their Corbyn. The only reason I rank him slightly more electable than Warren is that has a loyal base, and might attract some blue collar Midwestern voters who are normally Democrats but went for Trump because he was an outsider.

Buttigieg: The gains from urban hipsters wanting to virtue signal by voting for the gay guy would be more than offset by the losses in minority votes.

Klobuchar: no particular constituency, and no excitement. Being off the radar screen is her biggest virtue. She could conceivably win a general election running as a generic 'not Trump.'

Biden: Some people like him. I don't know why. He's never been a bright man, and time has eroded what originally had been an ungenerous helping of brains. I maintain that he has a sort of animal cleverness. He could steal the turkey from the dining room table when your back is turned. Somehow. His 'electability' such as it is comes from familiarity, residual Obama glow, union pandering and generic Democrat beliefs. But he's bad on the stump, worse in debates and likely in serious decline. He's in trouble.

Bloomberg: How does this guy become the most electable Democrat? He doesn't have the weaknesses of the others. He's not a Marxist. He's not a phony -- he clearly believes what he says. He has an executive record in both business and politics. He won the friggin' NYC mayoralty as a 'Republican.' He has more money than all the other candidates put together. He understands technology and the importance of getting the best possible techies on your team. That's how he made his fortune. He can appeal to moderates and liberal Republicans. Biggest liabilities: he's a scold, a nanny, he's short and he has no charisma. The hard lefties will hate him, so his path to the nomination would be very tough. But if he gets it, he's Trump's most formidable rival. Book it.



tim in vermont said...

Biden has already promised the white left that he is going to sell out the blue collar voters everybody thinks are the reason he can beat Trump.

tim in vermont said...

"There should have been a "None of the Above" category...”

No, that’s not right. “None of the above” is the most electable. It’s boolean logic.

Wa St Blogger said...

I chose Bernie. While he has a strong base and wild enthusiasm from the economically illiterate, his appeal to the mushy middle will be weak and the exploitation of his radial socialism will be hard from him to mitigate. I think he is a true believer in his ideology and he cannot tack to the center. I think all the other candidates can more effectively moderate their positions for the general and sound more reasonable. Thus they will be seen as typical Dems and get almost half the nation voting for them Bernie will top out at 40%.

Greg the class traitor said...

Here's the other Democrats who are guaranteed to lose, and why:

Buttegeig: Has, and will have, no connections with black voters, who are the core of any Democrat Party success. His one political job was Mayor of South Bend. In that time, he build no connection with the "black side of town." So, either he's such an idiot that it never occurred to him that, to be successful in national Democrat politics you need to have a connection with black voters, or else he's not willing / able to forge such a connection. If he's the Dem nominee, Trump gets 30% of the black vote, and wins easily

Bloomberg: Just what the black voters want! A billionaire in "information systems" whose major political accomplishment was "stop and frisk" (see: "walking while being black") as a "Republican" Mayor. Trump actually built things. Bloomberg played around with information. He's in a close tie with Buttegeig for "most likely to drive black voters to Trump", and top of the class in "most likely to drive working class voters to Trump".

He's a humorless scold of a nanny who wants to destroy all fun that he doesn't like. And, he's an idiot who's getting played by his greedy consultants.

Sanders: Take a look what happened to Labour in December. that's what would happen to the Democrats in November if Sanders is leading the Dems. The working class voters who might have listened to Sanders in 2016 have actually gotten a good deal from Trump. He's got no chance this time around. And, if he did get the nomination, Bloomberg would go 3rd Party, even further sealing the deal for Trump

Biden: he's old, mentally slow, corrupt, and brittle. He's not getting the Dem nod, but if he did, Trump would take him apart


Klobuchar: She's been in the Senate since 2006. So far as I can tell, she has not accomplished a single thing there. The best you can say about her performance in the neighboring State of Iowa is that she almost tied for a really miserable 4th place with Biden.

She competing in "the moderate lane" with Biden and Buttegeig. If they both dropped dead tomorrow, she might do well in the Democrat Primary. Lacking that, I don't see her getting the nomination.

She'd probably have the best chance of any Democrat in the GE. But I see essentially no chance of her getting there

tim in vermont said...

The fact that they think Biden can win is just evidence that the white left knows that the rest of America doesn’t really like them.

The Minnow Wrangler said...

I'm going with Warren for least electable, with the fake Indian stuff, opposing school choice while sending her son to a private school, the wildly unrealistic M4A plan, "wealth taxes," and the unfortunate fact that she reminds people of Hillary.

The Minnow Wrangler said...

Sanders is a close second after Warren, his plans are much too radical, and his previous support for enemies of the US will certainly be showcased by Trump during the general election.

DarkHelmet said...

Paddy O said...
Elizabeth Warren reminds me far too much of Professor Dolores Umbridge. But, she got control of Hogwarts for a bit, so there's definitely enough appeal among for that kind of personality to get power for a while, before they end up getting dragged off by deplorable centaurs.

I would pay a lot of money to see Warren dragged off by deplorable centaurs. Four figures at least.

And I'm not normally a mean person. She annoys me that much.

Michael said...

I voted for McGovern in the General in 1972 (at 27). I wanted Nixon to win (which was not in doubt), but not by a landslide - for reasons that soon became evident. I'd be good with a landslide this time, though.

AllenS said...

The differences between the Democrat candidates, so far, is so slim as to guarantee a loss for them. The only thing that matters now, is the spread, but why would that even matter? I didn't vote in the poll.

Birches said...

Those of you saying Bernie is too old need to think about his stamina. He seems very healthy, heart attack notwithstanding. My fear is that he will get elected and his VP will end up being President. Honestly, I have the same fear about Trump, but I won't mind President Pence. Bernie's VP is likely to be a feminist radical. We should be grateful AOC is too young.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Biden is least electable. He has obvious mental and corruption issues.

The Minnow Wrangler said...

Amadeus 48 at 9:53 - "Buttafuoco" I am sitting by myself in front of my computer and I really did laugh out loud at this. Salud!

readering said...

I think that against Trump they are all electable, just as in 2016 against Clinton most of the Republicans were electable and it's a crying shame they went with the worst candidate.

tim in vermont said...

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/31/joe-biden-donors-anti-union-lawyers/

tim in vermont said...

"t's a crying shame they went with the worst candidate.”

Trump co-opted a part of the Democrat base that none of the others could reach. Blue collar union types in the “blue wall” states.

Meade said...

Yancey Ward said...
"Just on electability, this is how I rank them from most electable to least:

(1) Sanders"

I agree, but only if the other candidates put removing Trump from office above all else and soon fall in behind Sanders. And by "soon," I mean yesterday.

Of course, Democrats would also need for Trump to get us bogged down in an unpopular land war in a third world country, raise taxes on the working/middle class, and shoot himself dead on 5th ave.

AllenS said...

Who gets more black people at their rallies, Trump or _________________ a fill in the blank poll.

Rosalyn C. said...

Buttigieg -- least electable because he is gay. Yes, we're all so woke and accepting of the LGBTQ community (or at least pretend to) but how many people honestly want to see two dudes in the White House? The First Spouse? No way. I'm not saying that Buttigieg isn't impressive and a nice guy, or that I wouldn't like seeing him as the candidate, just that I see him as least electable. Mayor of South Bend is not that much of a resume as well.

I think Biden might be next -- thanks to all the attention the impeachment has brought to his odd connection to corruption.

Sanders has a remarkable ground organization and even if his ideas are crap he has extremely willing to work, devoted followers.

So my least to best list would be: Buttigieg, Biden, Klobachar, Bloomberg, Warren, Sanders. Sanders/Warren ticket

Greg the class traitor said...

readering said...
I think that against Trump they are all electable, just as in 2016 against Clinton most of the Republicans were electable and it's a crying shame they went with the worst candidate.

I thought that, too, in 2016.

I'm less certain of that, now. Could a Republican have done in 2016 to Hillary, what Bush did in 2004 to Kerry? Yes.

But I don't think any of them would have ripped down the "Blue Wall" the way Trump did.

And I think they would have had a harder time bringing along WI & PA Senate, than Trump did.

Reality check: when it comes to helping the US economy, Trump was right on immigration, and (much though I don't like it) right on trade. Cruz probably would have been right on immigration. But I don't think he would have started the trade war with China, and I think the US, and the GOP, are both better off for Trump having done that.

Cruz, OTOH, wouldn't have had nearly the same personnel problems that Trump's been having. Because he would have had an army of true believers he could have brought in, and swept out a bunch of Obama people.


But, sorry Readering, the Democrats are lunatics. On the economy, on society, on pretty much everything. They are either still wedded to an "elite consensus" that is simply wrong, or else fruitcakes following the delusions of the Left (no, men don't have periods, and don't need tampons).

So there's no Trump to save you

The Godfather said...

Would it be worse for you to be poisoned by arsenic or strichnine?

Unknown said...

Biden

Same as Hillary

No core of rabid fans

Stands for nothing

Negates attacking Trump for corruption

michaele said...

I had to go with Sanders and, in a way, I think it would be doing the country a favor to have to make the choice...socialism vs capitalism.

Unknown said...

> Klobuchar is as exciting as boxed mashed potatoes.
> I will point out that Scott Walker is an ex-Governor because of a very bland politician.

Mayor or Governor is not President.

Voters want a connection to the President.

robother said...

First, let me state that it is increasingly obvious that None of these people are electable in a race against Trump. So, from that point of view, this is an angels on the head of a pin argument. Which of these folks would have the largest margin of loss against Trump? Which would be most unelectable against even a Mike Pence?

Whichever way I roll the dice, though, it always seems to come up Bern. Bern just reeks of McGovern to this Boomer. Warren and Klobuchar each have the turn-out deadening potential of a Mondale, though, so either of them would be a respectable choice.

Rabel said...

Biden- Shit sandwich cut up by nurse's aide.
Bloomberg - Shit sandwich salt and sugar free.
Buttigieg - Shit sandwich and a Rusty Trombone.
Klobuchar - Shit sandwich served with a comb.
Sanders - Shit sandwich shitless and a waiting line for bread.
Warren - Shit sandwiches all you can eat for free.

Better than nothing is actually a low standard.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

I picked Biden, but, I agree with MayBee that 2016 was a lesson in humility regarding my ability to make political predictions.

Christy said...

Bernie, because I don't think the Democrat's machine will crank out the manufactured votes for him.

tcrosse said...

This survey assumes that the eventual Democrat nominee will be one of these current frontrunners. There is a non-trivial chance it could be somebody yet to be determined by hook or by crook.

Earnest Prole said...

Elizabeth Warren is the most vulnerable because faking one’s race to game affirmative action at a major university is an act capable of offending the sensibilities of both Right and Left, especially once the American media is given permission to attack her by her closest Democratic rival.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

I voted Biden. He's the guy Trump wanted to run against for very good reasons. An Establishment White guy with nothing positive to his record. Tone deaf and half as clever as he thinks he is. Trump knows he would own him in an elbow-throwing contest. And, I would bet, Trump has chapter and verse on Biden's corruption. Which would make a sweet October surprise.

Speaking of October surprises, the Donk's incontinence has rendered that time-honored political tactic impotent against Trump. There's nothing they could spring that wouldn't evoke a "same shit, different day" response from the electorate.

Balfegor said...

I'm torn between Buttegieg and Biden, but ultimately picked Biden.

On paper, Biden should be quite strong -- Trump sort of neutralizes his habits of lying and pawing women, and otherwise, he is generally a moderate, non-threatening, business-friendly establishment Democrat. But I think he's aged a lot in the past ten years, and is getting a little soft-headed (contrast with, say, Sanders, who is just as old, but still seems sharp, if irascible). And most importantly, I think he has poor self-control in public. We saw this back in 1987 (well, people who were paying attention in 1987 saw this -- I was a child), when he felt so threatened by a heckler that he blurted out a series of easily disprovable lies about his academic record. We've seen it more recently every time he pitches a fit in response to questions about his son's shady business dealings. He's just really, really insecure, and in contrast to Trump -- whose "outbursts" seem quite calculated -- Biden's outbursts are just dumb and self-defeating. When it comes to debates, I think Trump will push his buttons in a way Biden's Democratic rivals were afraid to do, and he'll just have a meltdown on stage.

With Buttegieg, it's really just that he seems so young . . . older than Alexander when he died, or Augustus when he became the master of Rome, but . . . so young. He's a young-looking 37. And he has a weaselly face. But the reason I don't put him #1 is that, frankly, he's probably better prepared for the presidency than Obama was, and it's still faintly unbelievable to me that the public voted people like Obama or Trump into office, so I'm probably underestimating his chances.

Klobuchar doesn't seem like she would be a strong candidate, but she doesn't have glaring weaknesses in a general election. She's about as close as Democrats could come to the faceless "generic Democrat" candidate, so arguably she might even be their strongest option.

Sanders seems weak because he's unapologetically socialist. And because he has a bunch of rancid anti-Semites among his surrogates. But he's not personally noxious in the way that Corbyn was -- he's really just an old-line Leftist, not one of these loathsome modern progressives. I think he'd be stronger in a general election than commentators generally think. In particular, I would guess that he's probably more willing to stab social-justice progressives in the back for electoral advantage than any of the other candidates. Pre-2016, he was comparatively solid on gun rights and immigration, so the foundation is already laid. A bold move like that in the general campaign would open up the opportunity to conduct classic Soviet deep battle operations right in Trump's strategic electoral depth. Millions of voters who might consider voting for Democrats if their public face weren't dominated by repugnant "woke" activists could suddenly be up for grabs.
Yes, I know he's playing along with the extreme progressives right now, but he's a Communist! I think in his heart he is unsentimental: eventually the useful idiots will have to be liquidated for the good of the Party.

But anyway. He'd be a high-risk pick for the Democrats.

Yancey Ward said...

Balfegor,

Great comment.

Yancey Ward said...

People are greatly underestimating the appeal that Sanders will have for working class whites in the midwest, south, and west in a general election. In the 2016 primaries, he beat Clinton in a lot of these states with such voters. Clinton won the nomination because of the support she got from minority voters. This is Sanders weak spot in the primaries, but in a general election, he would be the Democrat nominee, not just another Democrat running. The same goes for Warren, though she is more unlikable than Sanders and more prone to telling silly lies like Clinton. I think Trump will have a lot more appeal to minority voters than a normal Republican nominee regardless of who the Democrat opponent is at this point given the field, and I don't think, as the nominee, either Sanders or Warren would fare generally worse than any of the other possible Democratic candidates that are left in the race with this demographic, and I think Buttuvwxyz and Bloomberg would fare quite a bit worse.

Yancey Ward said...

It really is two very different races here- a Democrat has to win the noimination, then win the general election. Sanders is weak in the first, stronger in the 2nd. Bloomberg, for example is probably in the same boat along with Buttuvwxyz, while Biden is the opposite of the three.

Biden's problem is the corruption and the senility. I mean, seriously, you should watch some of the youtube videos of his campaign stops- they are damning.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"Left: If you don't vote for Buttigieg, you are homophobic."

Pete's weakness isn't his gayness, it's the optics of that gayness. As objectively as you can, imagine Pete on the stump or the convention stage with his husband. Now imagine Black, Hispanic, and working-class White folks watching.

I think Obama's tranny policies were a poison pill for Hillary and gave Trump his margin of victory. Don't know how Pete feels about that, but there's going to be a strong association made in the minds of some of the demographics he would need to win.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"There is a non-trivial chance it could be somebody yet to be determined by hook or by crook."

2/5/20, 12:02 PM
The Michigan governor who gave the Dem reply to the SOTU last night is attractive and presented herself well. For all I know, she's as radical as Bernie, but she sounded moderate. And, unlike Biden, she can string a sentence together. She's a feminist, of course, and uttered the usual PC cliches, but she doesn't sound strident or preachy (Warren's big problem, along with the fact that Warren is heap big liar).

I can easily imagine DNC operatives desperately trying to figure out if they can make her the nominee. Sure, she was just elected as Michigan governor in 2018 - but hey, that's still better than being the Mayor of South Bend.

Greg the class traitor said...

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...
"Left: If you don't vote for Buttigieg, you are homophobic."

Pete's weakness isn't his gayness, it's the optics of that gayness. As objectively as you can, imagine Pete on the stump or the convention stage with his husband.


No. imagine Pete "pulling an Al Gore", and kissing his husband on stage at the the DNC. Does that get Pete votes, or cost him votes?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Yancey Ward said...
People are greatly underestimating the appeal that Sanders will have for working class whites in the midwest, south, and west in a general election."

I grew up in a blue collar, strongly Democratic neighborhood. In my experience, there was not much sympathy for socialism. They did not warm to McGovern. Of course, that was during the Cold War and blue collar voters were still mostly white.

Greg the class traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
People are greatly underestimating the appeal that Sanders will have for working class whites in the midwest, south, and west in a general election.


Nope.

in 2016? Yes, he would have beaten Trump there.

in 2020? President Trump has been producing for them for the last 4 years. There are more jobs, and the wages are going up.

Those voters are patriotic Americans who pretty much utterly reject the Democrats social and environmental agenda. They would have voted for Bernie in 2016 because they were economically desperate.

In 2020, the think most likely to make them economically desperate is a Democrat fracking ban passing. Isn't Bernie in favor of that?

Bernie's shot at those voters is gone. if he's at the top of the Democrat ticket, Trump v Sanders will come out with those voters like Johnson v. Corbyn came out in December

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Biden:

Right now he’s looking like the Democratic Party’s Jeb! Bush

Rather than just boring audiences to death like the one-time presumptive Republican nominee, Biden’s campaign appears to have been run off the rails by his own party. Specifically House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s flawed impeachment process.

It looked grim for Biden as far back as November, when a Harvard-Harris poll found 57 percent of people believed that “Hunter Biden receiving money from business interests in Ukraine is evidence of corruption”.

The same number in the same poll said they believed Hunter Biden’s behavior in Ukraine and China should be investigated: precisely what President Trump publicly called for.

This wasn’t the only chink in the would-be President’s armor, but it will be considered the most heinous as far as Biden stalwarts are concerned.

Caught between Ukraine and a hard place, Biden’s campaign has also been marred by creepy moments.


https://thenationalpulse.com/commentary/joe-biden-is-not-viable-how-nancy-pelosi-scuppered-obamas-third-term/

The international money whores like Kerry and Clinton want Biden - so Biden can hide it all.

I want Biden because he will be super easy to beat.

DanTheMan said...

Least electable = would take the lowest number of electoral votes.
Sander’s love affair with Castro and Cuba means he couldn’t carry Florida. And these days you have to have Florida to realistically get to 270.
Bernie could take The west coast and New England. And not much else. All the others would take the same plus some other states.

Kirk Parker said...

"All of them I hope?"

Each of them is worse than the others.

And as far as Warren becoming more likeable... surely if she knew how to do that she would have done so already.

Rory said...

Arriving late and scrolling down the comments, it's surprising to see any name except Biden. If the six options played poker, he'd be in his underwear in about ten minutes.

tcrosse said...

This question assumes a fair and honest election, which may not be in the cards.

Jim at said...

Americans aren't going to vote for a guy whose name they can't pronounce.
And blacks most certainly aren't going to vote for a gay white guy.

Mid-town Mayer is simply today's latest flavor. He doesn't stand a chance.

Unknown said...

Dems need blacks to turn out and vote 90% for the party of LBJ

Blacks don't cotton to Buttguy, Sandernista, or white lady Warren.

Thus the Dems have to offer direct payments via Reparations

And thus the super bowl ad appealing to the Trump curious schwarz

Anyone other than Biden is a disaster!

Bruce Hayden said...

“But as long as there are any other viable choices Americans will never elect a married homosexual to be President.”

Which means that openly bisexual, but unmarried, Kirsten Senema would probably do much better.

I remember someone who had voted for Buttplug Monday, wanting to switch their vote, upon learning that he was gay. Even worse, he is apparently happily married. A lot of people are not ready for the vision of the President engaged in anal sex in the White House (and if it happened with Obama, it was easily hidden by his marriage with Michelle).

Some of it is class, and some racial and ethnic. The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all denounce homosexuality, and in the latter case, demands execution. Buttplug’s modern Christianity, of course, whitewashes this. But that is the religion of less and less of this country. The reality is that the further you get from liberal enclaves, the less well accepted (esp male) homosexuality is. We have a surprising number of gays in rural MT, but none of them are really “out”. Not like what I am used to in upper middle class white society, where I have spent much of my life. It is none of our business, as long as you don’t flaunt it. But my wife knows a late 20 something gay couple, whose fathers, after a decade, still don’t know about their sons’ homosexuality. The further you diverge from white upper and upper middle class white, the less well male homosexuality is accepted. And homosexuality was forced down the throats of the working class by the courts, populated almost completely by their betters, in the upper middle class. And in the case of minorities, esp religious Blacks, by less religious Whites.

He is also young and soft faced. Putin was famously shown riding a brown bear bare chested. Photoshopped, of course - I think that he was really riding a horse at the time. Would he respect Buttplug? Trump has shown the world that no one, but no one, around the world (except maybe Melania) can intimidate him. He essentially stated last night, that if you kill Americans, we will kill you. It will probably happen at night where you can’t see the threat, but our drones can see you. Be scared. Be very scared. It should be remembered that when Iran very publicly shot those missiles at our troops, after we executed their Quds commander, they warned us in advance, so that we could protect our troops. It worked. Trump is one of the few people around the world that these hard men in foreign countries truly fear and respect.

Would he try to intimidate Mayor Buttplug? Of course. He would try with any candidate the Dems ran against him, but esp men. And I don’t think that we are far enough removed from Obama as President to side with the Democrat just because Trump was mean to his opponent. And that sort of sympathy for losers is almost entirely found in liberal women and white incel sub beta men. It definitely doesn’t work in black and Hispanic communities.

Not sure that I would put Mayor Buttplug at the bottom of my list, but he would be close.

Steven said...

Whether you look at the late 2019 Gallup poll on ideological self-identification, or at the 2016 election exit poll ideological self-identification, the same pattern emerges. The country is mid-to-high 30s conservative, mid-to-high 30s moderate, and mid-20s liberal.

The applied math accordingly is simple enough; a Democrat has to be able to win at least two-thirds of self-identified moderates to win election. Thus a Democrat who cannot present as a moderate to moderates cannot win.

Based on the campaign so far, Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar all can. Sanders and Warren cannot. Therefore, whatever their individual weaknesses, everybody who isn't Sanders or Warren is inherently more electable than those two.

Then it becomes harder, but I think Warren is weaker because she's so damn easy to call out on biographical lies.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Althouse announced early for Klobuchar, perfectly foreseeing the electability issue it would seem. Or is that now shallow and pathetic? I do think there is a point missed here in everyone’s judgement of electability, taking into account getting the vote of the Sanders and Warren supporters.

Kay said...

I chose Warren. But in choosing her I think I answered the question for myself of who I would least likely vote for. I have no clue what most other people would choose.

Amadeus 48 said...

We all need to answer the question, are we re-fighting the 2016 election?

I think everything is different in 2020, and none of the Democratic candidates have an answer to Trump's strengths, namely he isn't the "New York con man" anymore. He is a POTUS who has been uniquely hounded, but has still established a track record in office that he can be proud of, and that we should be proud of. Do Biden, Bernie, Amy, Liawatha, Buttafuoco, or Wee Mikey have anything to compare, even if they spent any time in an executive office? Watch how quickly Bloomberg vaporizes. He has already had to disclaim and apologize for his law and order administration in NYC, which was one of his proudest claims until 2019.

Plus, Trump as of last night cornered the market on optimism, which is usually a winner.

A lot can change by November, but Trump is in very good shape.

The fact that no Dems voted for acquittal indicates that they know they cannot afford to alienate ANY Democrats. They are going to need every Democratic voter to survive.

Amadeus 48 said...

Also, did Pelosi look like a winner last night? I think not.

Amadeus 48 said...

And the Michigan governor, Gretchen Witmer. What has she done? Anything to compare with the Trump administration? I think she is very fortunate that she doesn't have to run this year. John James will be competitive in the Michigan Senate race.

readering said...

My 87 year old mother, who has voted for the Republican nominee every year except 2008, is now anyone but Trump, and likes the Mayor of South Bend.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Not much to add. I picked Warren, for the same reasons that everyone else above had who picked Warren.

It really doesn't matter, though. Whomever they nominate is going to get schlonged, and in a big way. And not in the way that Petey likes, not that he'll have a chance to find out.

readering said...

People repurposing comments from primary season 2016?

David in Cal said...

I picked Biden because he's dumb and, apparently, corrupt. His performance in Iowa shows how lousy a politician he is.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'd say Warren or Sanders. Those are Twitter candidates.

Scott said...

I went with Bloomberg because he'll drive millions and millions of gun owners to the polls without a doubt.