The Democratic Party Establishment Has One Big Threat Over Voters' Heads: It's Either Our Crap Candidate Or 4 More Years Of Trump

I had a strong feeling that it would just be a matter time before Mayo Pete’s balloon would be burst and his inch deep support would start to evaporate. I assumed it would be during the Iowa caucuses next month. But, according to a new HarrisX poll, the process has already begun. For Ione thing, all that money Michael Bloomberg has been spending on TV ads-- nationally, not targeted to the early states-- show that he’s vaulted over poor Mayo (and his dozens of billionaire supporters):

As the Bloomberg media blitz kicks in-- as much as fifty million dollars in ads so far-- all the other candidates have started to lose support, except Bernie of course, who has continued gaining support. To more than double his support among Democratic primary voters, from 5 to 11%, Bloomberg took a point from each of the corporate conservative candidates-- a point from Biden, a point from Mayo, a point from Klobuchar. Elizabeth dropped 2 points, which is probably where most of the 3 points Bernie rose came from, although Yang also lost a point and Castro lost 2.


The latest Real Clear Politics polling average, which includes the HarrisX data, shows Biden dropping to 28.5%, Bernie rising to 19.0% and Elizabeth dropping to 14.9%. No other candidates, according to the average, are in double digits:

• Status Quo Joe- 28.5%
• Bernie- 19.0%
• Elizabeth- 14.9%
• Mayo Pete- 8.0%
• Bloomberg- 5.6%
• Yang- 3.3%
• Klobuchar- 3.1%
• Booker- 2.4%
• Tulsi- 1.9%
• Steyer-1.6%

Dead last is Colorado’s neo-lib senator Michael Bennet with 0.1%. Bennet is someone who has utterly failed to catch fire with even fellow conservative Democrats but who refuses to face reality and go back to work to try to salvage his badly damaged reputation.

The Iowa caucuses will likely mean the end of the road for Klobuchar, Booker and, hopefully, Bennet and Delaney. The Emerson poll, conducted in the middle of last month shows Biden, Bernie and Mayo all bunched up at the top, but the latest polling average for Iowa shows Bernie on top:

• Bernie- 22.0%
• Mayo Pete- 21.7%
• Status Quo Joe- 20.3%
• Elizabeth- 15.3%
• Klobuchar- 7.0%

No one else is in double digits. Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, explained that “The most movement in this poll, as compared to the last Emerson Poll in October, is Warren’s downward slide from frontrunner status, and Sanders’ subsequent gain. Warren and Biden had 23% each in October. While Biden held his numbers in this poll, Warren fell 11 points. Sanders may have benefited from Warren’s loss of support, surging to 22% from 13% of the vote in October. Buttigieg maintained steady support over the last two months, gaining slightly from 16% in October to his current 18% of the vote. Amy Klobuchar experienced a huge leap from noncompetitive numbers-- just 1% in October-- to 10%. Continuing the trend evident in previous Emerson polls, Sanders leads among those under 50 with 32% support. Following him in that group, is Warren with 16%, Buttigieg with 13%, Biden with 11% and Klobuchar with 8%. Among those 50 and over, Biden leads with 36% support, followed by Buttigieg with 23%, Klobuchar with 13%, Sanders with 11% and Warren with 8%. Looking within political ideology, of those self-described as ‘very liberal,’ Sanders leads with 49% support followed by Warren with 16%, Biden with 11%, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg with 7%. Of those self-described as ‘somewhat liberal,’ Buttigieg leads with 27% followed by Sanders with 21%, Warren with 15%, Biden with 14% and Klobuchar with 10%. Of those self-described as ‘moderate’ or ‘conservative,’ Biden leads with 37%, followed by Buttigieg with 18%, Klobuchar with 12%, Warren with 9% and Sanders with 8%.”

When asked to identify their second choice, it is obvious that likely Iowa caucus voters are beginning to understand the differences and similarities between candidates:

• Among Biden supporters, 27% chose Warren as their second choice, 24% chose Sanders, 23% chose Buttigieg and 14% chose Klobuchar.
• Within Sanders supporters, 42% picked Warren, 20% chose Biden, 12% chose Yang and 9% chose Buttigieg.
• Of Warren supporters, 51% selected Sanders, 19% chose Buttigieg, and 5% chose Biden.
• Among Buttigieg supporters, 26% picked Biden, 23% picked Sanders, 22% picked Warren and 12% picked Klobuchar.
• Within Klobuchar supporters, 27% chose Warren, 22% chose Buttigieg and Yang and 11% chose Biden.
• Among the supporters of the candidates not in the top five, Buttigieg leads with 29%, followed by Sanders with 18%, Klobuchar with 17%, Warren with 12% and Biden with 7%. 

Now flip to the Emerson polling of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. There was a major shift with Bernie vaulting ahead by doubling his share of the vote-- from 13% to 26% Who lost support? Biden was down 10 points and Elizabeth was down 7. Mayo also double his support from 11 to 22%. It is likely that Bernie’s support came at Elizabeth’s expense and that Mayo took votes from Status Quo Joe. The latest RealClearPolitics polling average for New Hampshire shows Bernie #1 with 22.7%, followed by Biden (18.7%), Mayo (17.7%) and Elizabeth (14.7%)

The YouGov Iowa poll for CBS released on Sunday shows a 3-way dead-heat in Iowa, with Bernie, Status Quo Joe and Mayo all at 23%, followed by Elizabeth at 16% and Klobuchar at 7%. YouGov/CBS also released one for New Hampshire with Bernie #1 at 27%, Biden at 25%, Elizabeth at 18%, Mayo at 13% and Klobuchar at 7%.

Iowa caucuses really are next-to-impossible to poll accurately but the measurement that means a great deal is enthusiasm for first choice candidates and YouGov found that progressive voters-- those who say they plan to caucus for Bernie and Elizabeth-- were the ones all fired up, while the conservative likely caucus goers who support Mayo and Status Quo Joe are significantly less enthusiastic, meaning more easily persuadable to switch their final votes:

Daniel Dale in the journalist who deals with Trump's dishonesty the most and the most effectively. He's immersed himself into the world of lies that is TrumpWorld. And he's beginning to see BidenWorld is also a world of lies and dishonesty. According to PolitiFact, only 15% of Trump's checked utterances are True (5%) or Mostly True (10%). He lies so much they appear to have invented a new category for him-- beyond just Pants on Fire: a lie so immense that it breaks the meter:

About 71% of what Trump says is Mostly False (21%), False (35%) and Pants on Fire (15%). Biden doesn't lie as much as Trump. But he lies enough to disqualify him from commanding the trust needed to be an effective leader. Status Quo Joe is a compulsive liar. 37% of what he says is Tue (14%) or Mostly True (23%). Yes, better than Trump... but disgusting and disqualifying. And 39% is Mostly False 20%), False (13%) or Pants on Fire (4%). His record of lying is pretty vile. Here are a random few:

And the top one about Iraq is a lie he repeats frequently and purposefully, not because he's senile, but because he wants to deceive voters-- or maybe because he wants to deceive voters and because he's senile. Dale reported for CNN yesterday that "Biden dishonestly suggested on Saturday that he had opposed the war in Iraq 'from the very moment' it began in 2003-- even though Biden's campaign said in September that he 'misspoke' when he made a similar claim... Biden said that 'from the very moment' President George W. Bush launched his 'shock and awe' military campaign, and 'right after' that occurred, 'I opposed what he was doing, and spoke to him.' It's false that Biden opposed the war from the moment Bush started it in March 2003. Biden repeatedly spoke in favor of the war both before and after it began. Biden's language on Saturday-- saying he opposed 'what he was doing' at the moment the war commenced-- was more vague than his language in September, when he flatly said he had opposed 'the war' at that moment. But the new version was highly misleading even under the most generous interpretation. On both occasions-- and on another occasion earlier this week-- Biden created the impression that he had been against the war at a key moment when he was actually a vocal supporter."

Damon Linker, a conservative author and former Giuliani speech-writer, dealt with an interesting question at This Week Friday: Will Bernie voters vote for Biden when he wins? although a better question-- although probably not by Linker-- would have been “Will Biden voters vote for Bernie when he wins?” Linker detests progressives so get ready. He starts with a conservative fantasy: “Joe Biden is solidly in the lead… Biden is going to prevail. Which means that Sanders will not. And that could be a major problem for the party.”

Will Sanders supporters be willing (for the second time in as many presidential election cycles) to hold their noses and turn out to vote in November for a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party establishment when the socialist to whom they're so passionately devoted falls short of victory? Or will they be inclined (in much greater numbers than they did in 2016) to stay home or support someone's third-party bid from the left in a deliberate attempt to sink a party for which they have burning contempt? Those questions are going to become increasingly important as events unfold over the next few months.

Of course, the opposite could also become a problem. If Biden sinks and Sanders somehow manages to rise above 20 percent in the polls (he hasn't been higher than that since last April) and ultimately win the nomination, the more moderate voters backing Biden will need to decide if they can stomach casting a ballot for the most left-wing candidate ever to become a major party nominee.

But there is one very important difference between Biden and Sanders voters. The former are supporting the former vice president primarily because they think he is well-poised to win in a general-election contest against Trump. There's very little sign of fervent devotion to Biden as a person or a candidate. This indicates pragmatic flexibility that may be compatible with rallying behind another nominee, even if he's a socialist promising $97 trillion in new government spending.

The same cannot be said for Sanders supporters, who are uncompromisingly devoted to the Vermont senator and passionately committed to undertaking what he breathlessly describes as a “political revolution.” The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson is right to suggest that these millennial (and younger) voters effectively constitute a third, firmly left-wing party in American politics. This party is happy to turn out for the Democrats so long as Sanders is its nominee. But if it's bumbling, stumbling Biden-- a man who served for eight years as a right-hand man to a lukewarm, moderate president after decades of representing a state (Delaware) dominated by credit card companies-- well, then all bets are off. (Even if you believe polls that show a decent number of Bernie voters would shift to Biden as their second choice, this would still leave an awful lot of unhappy and homeless Sanders supporters around to stir up trouble.)

It would be one thing if 2016 had never happened. But it did, and many of Bernie's supporters feel like they got burned badly by the Democratic establishment not once but twice four years ago. First, their hopes were raised by Sanders' surprising success across the country and then dashed by his inability to overcome Hillary Clinton's strong institutional support. Then they settled for Clinton as a consolation prize in order to defeat Donald Trump in the general election only to have her lose to him. As far as they're concerned, they've been fooled two times already.

It's passion that explains Sanders' incredible success at fundraising-- with $34.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, a number that is likely to dwarf everyone else's in the race. It's even more impressive when we factor in the Sanders campaign's emphasis on collecting small donations. That shows a lot of devotion by a lot of people.

So far there's no sign that it's enough people to win the race for the nomination. But it would be more than enough to torpedo Democrats' chances of taking down Trump in November. Will Sanders (an independent who only calls himself a Democrat when he's running for president) urge his supporters once again to back the Democratic nominee, even if it's Biden? And even if he does, will those supporters go along with such an unrevolutionary act of sail-trimming?

That would be the real test of whether Sanders is leading a cult of his own personality or a genuine, ideologically galvanized movement that will outlast his leadership and continue to influence the shape of American politics going forward.

A movement firmly committed to bringing about the scale of changes Sanders has been advocating wouldn't hesitate to “heighten the contradictions”-- that is, allow things to get worse in the short term (by acting in a way that helps Trump to win a second term) in the hope that better long-term prospects for progress (namely, a big shift to the left in the electorate) would emerge from the mess. If nothing else, a second loss to Trump would ensure the overthrow of the establishment that has led the Democratic Party since 1992, thereby opening up the prospect of its takeover by left-wing populists by 2024.

As I've pointed out before, the Democratic electoral coalition is extremely broad, and perhaps too broad for its own good. A party that's big enough to include everyone from socialist Bernie Sanders to liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg is a party that will struggle to find a single standard-bearer who can unite its disparate factions. It might even be a party poised to shatter into its constituent parts.

The Sanders campaign may well end up being the catalyst that prompts the detonation.