Beto O’Rourke 2020 campaign megathread

[Sestak]

Unique contributions wasn't unique donors. Of course they dump this on a Friday.

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1109293384005570560

Your fear is showing

It's quite obvious who the Bernie people fear right now.

Likely because Beto will be Obama 2.0 and compromise on every single thing? He already backed off Medicare for All, and don't give me the stupid pragmatism argument.

I support Medicare for All and so does Beto, but he's realistic as well. We don't have the votes in Congress. The Medicare for America Act would be a massive improvement over what we have now.  That is something that could potentially become law with a Democratic President. It's not a debate over pragmatism. It's a debate over realism. The failure in the ACA was the inability to get a public option through, but that was because traitor Joe Liberman f-cked us over.

If the Republican Party in Congress had even the slightest interest in any form of compromise, I think this would be a good point. The fact is, though, they'll be ready to unilaterally oppose any President with a (D) next to their name and try to prevent them from getting anything done. If Democrats try to cede a bit and move to the center with the current Republican Party, this inevitably happens:

Omw this is spot on.

[SCNCmod]

Unique contributions wasn't unique donors. Of course they dump this on a Friday.

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1109293384005570560

Your fear is showing

It's quite obvious who the Bernie people fear right now.

Likely because Beto will be Obama 2.0 and compromise on every single thing? He already backed off Medicare for All, and don't give me the stupid pragmatism argument.

I support Medicare for All and so does Beto, but he's realistic as well. We don't have the votes in Congress. The Medicare for America Act would be a massive improvement over what we have now.  That is something that could potentially become law with a Democratic President. It's not a debate over pragmatism. It's a debate over realism. The failure in the ACA was the inability to get a public option through, but that was because traitor Joe Liberman f-cked us over.

If the Republican Party in Congress had even the slightest interest in any form of compromise, I think this would be a good point. The fact is, though, they'll be ready to unilaterally oppose any President with a (D) next to their name and try to prevent them from getting anything done. If Democrats try to cede a bit and move to the center with the current Republican Party, this inevitably happens:

Omw this is spot on.

Supporting Universal Healthcare via ACA, MAA, Public Option + reinstating Profit cap on Insurance Companies, etc ... This isn't just about what can get through congress- its also about putting the mechanism/ structure in place so that a more progressive form could actually be achieved and implemented in the future. 

Also is not just about compromising with Republicans- its a strategy that by implementing something that is supported by even the overwhelming majority of Republican voters (who can be used to put pressure on republicans in congress) you move the ball forward and achieve a system that people are comfortable with- and makes taking the next step several years in the future, a lot easier to garner support for.

The whole argument of Republican's in congress will not cooperate etc is so completely sort sided.  Not only does it not recognize the strategy involving Rep/Ind voters- it also doesn't acknowledge that if such a middle step is achieved- well then Republicans have in fact not moved our healthcare system further right- as such an achievement (even if a middle step) is in and of itself more progressive than what we have not. (ie- the ball moved further left).

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I'm certainly not arguing for mushy, ineffective policy, but if the end result of the debate is that bills won't get adopted, then does it really matter? Like, if you took xing's comic and added another three panels where Bernie/Liz starts on the far left and then moves towards the center, the Republicans will just stand still/move backwards the same amount, and at the end of the comic the bill still isn't passed. So what difference does it make?

I definitely agree that the universe of bills that Republicans will reach across the aisle to compromise on is small. But what happens when they refuse to compromise is, 99% of the time, nothing gets passed at all (e.g., Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Simpson-Bowles). When you look at the cases where Obama-era legislation did get watered down and passed, it was because of compromise within the caucus, not compromise with Republicans.

I totally get what the Sanders camp is trying to argue here but there is no empirical evidence that it will actually lead to better outcomes.

eta: the real reason you should propose ambitious progressive policy is because the policy is good, well thought out, and will help people, not because of some weird game theory stuff

[Holmes]

He’s in Nevada tomorrow.

[Virginiá]

eta: the real reason you should propose ambitious progressive policy is because the policy is good, well thought out, and will help people, not because of some weird game theory stuff

I'd argue that there should be less fighting over who will go the distance with M4A et al. and more fighting over who will aggressively enforce anti-trust laws and go after corporate America with whatever tools they have. That is something a Democratic president can do, relatively speaking. Unless we have a big wave election that fills the Senate with anti-filibuster Democrats, it's hard to see the point of arguing over big policy that really has no chance. Even 50-51 Senators isn't really enough. You always need extra for that MoE that pops up on big bills that inevitably make red-state Democrats anxious af.

From my perspective, supporting candidates because they support massive radical transformations of America only makes sense if one thinks that this particular election might deliver enough new members of Congress who will support said transformative policies. Given the staggeringly huge level of polarized voting we've seen in 2016, 2017 and 2018, it's hard to see 2020 being that election, at least wrt to the Senate.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

eta: the real reason you should propose ambitious progressive policy is because the policy is good, well thought out, and will help people, not because of some weird game theory stuff

I'd argue that there should be less fighting over who will go the distance with M4A et al. and more fighting over who will aggressively enforce anti-trust laws and go after corporate America with whatever tools they have. That is something a Democratic president can do, relatively speaking. Unless we have a big wave election that fills the Senate with anti-filibuster Democrats, it's hard to see the point of arguing over big policy that really has no chance. Even 50-51 Senators isn't really enough. You always need extra for that MoE that pops up on big bills that inevitably make red-state Democrats anxious af.

From my perspective, supporting candidates because they support massive radical transformations of America only makes sense if one thinks that this particular election might deliver enough new members of Congress who will support said transformative policies. Given the staggeringly huge level of polarized voting we've seen in 2016, 2017 and 2018, it's hard to see 2020 being that election, at least wrt to the Senate.

Yep, agree with the first paragraph, although I would add one thing: somebody who has demonstrable skills in crafting good legislative policy is much more likely to be able to craft good executive policy. (Yes I am talking exclusively about Warren, although she does have a few ideas that I think are dumb). But yes I'm less optimistic than the average Democrat about our ability to hold the Senate moving forward and it's pretty obvious that any serious movement to abolish the filibuster is years away. Most girdle-wringing on this board about what is in signature legislative proposals isn't really an argument about the legislation per se but a proxy argument about other things.

Not sure how much I agree with the second para. It's pretty unlikely that one election will usher in enough energy for transformative change but that's how ideas get mainstreamed. It's one of the reasons why despite being a pretty adamant Hillary bro I think the Sanders campaign in 2016 was a good thing on net. I think it's great that we're having high-profile candidates seriously talk about abolishing the EC, DC/PR statehood, court packing (even if I think the consequences of the court packing could be very bad) because certainly in a generation but maybe even sooner we will potentially have enough of the caucus in support of these things. Arguing about whether or not these things can/should be done in 2020 is kinda moot but like I said above most of the time the arguments aren't really about those things and are actually about other things.

[SCNCmod]

A bit more evidence that going by "Beto" was not a ploy to make himself more electable 40 years in the future...

[GoTfan]

It was a predominately white crowd at a predominately white university. Try harder.

Here he is like an hour later at an HBCU... lol

https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1109197161311412225

So he tweeted a 4 photos of himself with African American students? If you want to refute the idea that Beto has significant minority support, the answer isnt to take a photo posted by the candidate in question.

You’re reaching deeper than this conversation was. Bernie was made fun of for having predominately white audiences in traditional black spaces such as a black church in a majority black town in South Carolina. Beto having a predominately white crowd at a predominately white university is not comparable. Beto did however have a black audience in a black space UNLIKE Bernie. It is what it is.

The CNN poll that just came out has Bernie's favorable with non white Democrats as 77-9 compared to Beto's 35-14. Beto really has a problem there.

I for one am not shocked that Bernie is more well known. Give it 4-6 months and then we can compare numbers to see where they stand. Not saying Beto will be more popular, but he still needs to get his name out there.

He's talking about favourability ratings, not name recognition.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

It was a predominately white crowd at a predominately white university. Try harder.

Here he is like an hour later at an HBCU... lol

https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1109197161311412225

So he tweeted a 4 photos of himself with African American students? If you want to refute the idea that Beto has significant minority support, the answer isnt to take a photo posted by the candidate in question.

You’re reaching deeper than this conversation was. Bernie was made fun of for having predominately white audiences in traditional black spaces such as a black church in a majority black town in South Carolina. Beto having a predominately white crowd at a predominately white university is not comparable. Beto did however have a black audience in a black space UNLIKE Bernie. It is what it is.

The CNN poll that just came out has Bernie's favorable with non white Democrats as 77-9 compared to Beto's 35-14. Beto really has a problem there.

I for one am not shocked that Bernie is more well known. Give it 4-6 months and then we can compare numbers to see where they stand. Not saying Beto will be more popular, but he still needs to get his name out there.

He's talking about favourability ratings, not name recognition.

I got that part. I checked the cross tabs and 41% of non-white Dems did not know who Beto was compared to 9% for Sanders (side note, what Dems don’t know about Bernie?). There’s still an aspect of name recognition, I think. Again, not to say that Beto will be more liked (possibly not, given that he’s at 15% disapproval compared to Sanders’ 9% disapproval), but I think it would be a better comparison to see what Beto’s disapproval figures are once he’s known by about 90% of non-white Dems (or on has name rec on par with Sanders in a given poll).

[SCNCmod]

6 months from now- I have little doubt that Beto will have much higher favorability- as the average voter (not Atlas) get exposed to and get to know Beto, his natural likeability will drive this rating up.

Bernie will always likely have pretty high favorability- as many Dems will say they like Bernie because he says what he thinks etc... but they would never vote for him & think he would be very easily branded in a way that makes many voters scared of a Bernie Presidency wrecking the economy, etc (fairly branded or not).  Similarly Biden will also likely continue to have high favorability even though many who hold that view think its time for a younger Nominee. (Bernie also has to content with age as well).

That said- The poll (of all voters, not just Dems) that was widely circulated on news shows a week or two ago had only Joe biden with a Net Positive... with Beto in 2nd with a Neutral (same # of favorable/unfavorable).

[SCNCmod]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

[OneJ]

6 months from now- I have little doubt that Beto will have much higher favorability- as the average voter (not Atlas) get exposed to and get to know Beto, his natural likeability will drive this rating up.

Bernie will always likely have pretty high favorability- as many Dems will say they like Bernie because he says what he thinks etc... but they would never vote for him & think he would be very easily branded in a way that makes many voters scared of a Bernie Presidency wrecking the economy, etc (fairly branded or not).  Similarly Biden will also likely continue to have high favorability even though many who hold that view think its time for a younger Nominee. (Bernie also has to content with age as well).

That said- The poll (of all voters, not just Dems) that was widely circulated on news shows a week or two ago had only Joe biden with a Net Positive... with Beto in 2nd with a Neutral (same # of favorable/unfavorable).

What makes you think that voters would believe that a Bernie presidency would not be good for the economy and are you talking about Democratic voters or voters at-large?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

-1) Unless I’m missing something (always possible), I don’t think O’Rourke seems particularly anti-Israel so much as he is anti-Netanyahu (which is fine by me).  He hasn’t (AFAIK) expressed support for any anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS, for one thing. 

-2) No one is boycotting AIPAC.  AIPAC made the short-sighted and troubling decision not to invite any of the Democratic Presidential candidates to speak even as they invited Pence and Pompeo (although tbf, Pelosi and Schumer were both invited).

[Oryxslayer]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

I definitely get the feeling (as a Jew mind you) that if Gantz forms a government next month then close to the entire Dem field would be rushing to support AIPAC, J street, and other organizations. Hell, Gantz forming a government would allow us to sniff out who exactly is truly antisemitic, since only the antisemitie would continues to oppose Israel despite Bibi leaving and policy towards the Arabs and the peace process changing.

[SCNCmod]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

-1) Unless I’m missing something (always possible), I don’t think O’Rourke seems particularly anti-Israel so much as he is anti-Netanyahu (which is fine by me).  He hasn’t (AFAIK) expressed support for any anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS, for one thing.  

-2) No one is boycotting AIPAC.  AIPAC made the short-sighted and troubling decision not to invite any of the Democratic Presidential candidates to speak even as they invited Pence and Pompeo (although tbf, Pelosi and Schumer were both invited).

I'm not saying Beto is anti-Israel at all.  I'm saying that he joined with other Dems to not speak at AIPAC.  But I think it would be better to speak at AIPAC (I assume all Dems in the Primary have the opportunity to do so if they would like to).  And address anywhere he has disagreements with Netanyahu or whoever (or address whatever reason is behind deciding to not speak at AIPAC).

And if the candidates were not invited to speak... then why all the news stories saying various candidates are deciding to not speak at AIPAC.

But of course I don't think Beto is Anti-semitic at all.  I apologize if I was unclear in the point I was trying to make.

[SCNCmod]

6 months from now- I have little doubt that Beto will have much higher favorability- as the average voter (not Atlas) get exposed to and get to know Beto, his natural likeability will drive this rating up.

Bernie will always likely have pretty high favorability- as many Dems will say they like Bernie because he says what he thinks etc... but they would never vote for him & think he would be very easily branded in a way that makes many voters scared of a Bernie Presidency wrecking the economy, etc (fairly branded or not).  Similarly Biden will also likely continue to have high favorability even though many who hold that view think its time for a younger Nominee. (Bernie also has to content with age as well).

That said- The poll (of all voters, not just Dems) that was widely circulated on news shows a week or two ago had only Joe biden with a Net Positive... with Beto in 2nd with a Neutral (same # of favorable/unfavorable).

What makes you think that voters would believe that a Bernie presidency would not be good for the economy and are you talking about Democratic voters or voters at-large?

I was talking about all voters- but specifically a lot of Ind & moderate Republicans & moderate Dems... who do think this (granted I know there are some in this category who like Bernie... but many swing voters think Bernie would lead to huge spending, etc... which I agree is funny considering how much Trump's Tax Cut cost).

[Zaybay]

Hmm, its odd. We are on week 2 of Beto's announcement(week 3 by Thursday), and Beto still hasnt had a polling bounce. Im starting to think his strategy of announcing later than most of the competition may have diminished his possible gains.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Hmm, its odd. We are on week 2 of Beto's announcement(week 3 by Thursday), and Beto still hasnt had a polling bounce. Im starting to think his strategy of announcing later than most of the competition may have diminished his possible gains.

I would wait to see how his 3 rallies in one day go. Then, the customary few days to a week for it to trickle into the polls. But yeah, he hasn’t really gooten a big jump.

[Zaybay]

Hmm, its odd. We are on week 2 of Beto's announcement(week 3 by Thursday), and Beto still hasnt had a polling bounce. Im starting to think his strategy of announcing later than most of the competition may have diminished his possible gains.

I would wait to see how his 3 rallies in one day go. Then, the customary few days to a week for it to trickle into the polls. But yeah, he hasn’t really gooten a big jump.

I mean, yeah, we should wait for his campaign to actually start, but lets be honest. His name is in the news all the time, discussions are happening with him as the subject, etc, etc. No one is going to not be suddenly caught off guard that he's running and rush to support him after he announces. Perhaps a couple people, but most likely statistically significant(of course, if I am wrong, I would like to be quoted if it happens). Its really odd, as everyone else saw a bump by this point, but nothing for Beto so far.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hmm, its odd. We are on week 2 of Beto's announcement(week 3 by Thursday), and Beto still hasnt had a polling bounce. Im starting to think his strategy of announcing later than most of the competition may have diminished his possible gains.

He's jumped from like 5-6% to third or fourth place nationally IIRC

[GAProgressive]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

I definitely get the feeling (as a Jew mind you) that if Gantz forms a government next month then close to the entire Dem field would be rushing to support AIPAC, J street, and other organizations. Hell, Gantz forming a government would allow us to sniff out who exactly is truly antisemitic, since only the antisemitie would continues to oppose Israel despite Bibi leaving and policy towards the Arabs and the peace process changing.

!!!
If Bibi is gone after next month, the only figures in the party that won't immediately come back to AIPAC would AOC, Tlaib, and Omar.

Hell, I could even see Bernie coming around.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

I definitely get the feeling (as a Jew mind you) that if Gantz forms a government next month then close to the entire Dem field would be rushing to support AIPAC, J street, and other organizations. Hell, Gantz forming a government would allow us to sniff out who exactly is truly antisemitic, since only the antisemitie would continues to oppose Israel despite Bibi leaving and policy towards the Arabs and the peace process changing.

So anyone who doesn’t support Israel is an antisemite? Even as a relatively pro-Israeli dem, my God, get a grip.

[SCNCmod]

Hmm, its odd. We are on week 2 of Beto's announcement(week 3 by Thursday), and Beto still hasnt had a polling bounce. Im starting to think his strategy of announcing later than most of the competition may have diminished his possible gains.

I would wait to see how his 3 rallies in one day go. Then, the customary few days to a week for it to trickle into the polls. But yeah, he hasn’t really gooten a big jump.

I agree- its hard to tell if getting in early would've been a better strategy.  But I think in the end it doesn't matter b/c I think Beto's rise in the poll will be a steady climb as he travels around the country and voters get to know him- similar to his rise in Texas, which took a little time to catch on.

The polls will remain fluid for a while anyway as people go back and forth between candidates.  Support will likely not harden until we start getting into the debates and closer to the actual Primaries.

Also- although he has been in the news a lot- much of the coverage has been negative from people like Joe & Mika going overboard regarding policy details or "apologizing" too much, etc.  Also many news figures who seem to be Kamala supporters or Warren or whoever- have been overly harsh on Beto.  But all this will eventually die down- especially when Biden gets in the race (he will be the new target).  And then people will be able to form their opinion of Beto without the constant double guessing him from the media.  This will especially be true regarding smaller early states like Iowa, NV & NH where he will the chance to meet a lot of voters over the next year.

But I do think it would be help to win some of these news talking heads by going on their shows- like morning joe, etc.  They are also much more positive about candidates after they come on their shows and they get to know them. Also other cable news shows, and network shows like The View, etc. (It also gives viewers to get to know him in a conversational type setting... after all, presidential politics is now the new reality show- so the cable & news shows let viewers get to know the "characters" better).

[Oryxslayer]

I wish Beto had not joined the bandwagon of boycotting AIPAC.  It would have been better to attend and give a speech saying what he thinks (even if disagreeing on many issues).  Especially with the mantra of go everywhere, talk to everyone, not writing off anyone, etc.  (and it could help to lessen the untrue narrative that Beto is weak on policy details).

I also think it would be helpful for Beto to do more interviews (on set and off) with MSNBC & CNN.  After all this is where many primary voters get their news & it would help him control the narrative they are airing (since much of the narrative is unfairly portraying that Beto is weak on understanding policy etc). Especially Morning Shows, where there is a more conversational setting, where viewers would really get exposed to the candidates personality in addition to policies  Such a setting is why, like it or not, going on Morning Joe (especially in person) can have a lot of influence among primary voters.

CBS/NBC/ABC morning shows can also be important in this regard.

I definitely get the feeling (as a Jew mind you) that if Gantz forms a government next month then close to the entire Dem field would be rushing to support AIPAC, J street, and other organizations. Hell, Gantz forming a government would allow us to sniff out who exactly is truly antisemitic, since only the antisemitie would continues to oppose Israel despite Bibi leaving and policy towards the Arabs and the peace process changing.

So anyone who doesn’t support Israel is an antisemite? Even as a relatively pro-Israeli dem, my God, get a grip.

I think you misunderstood my post - or perhaps I was too forceful. There is legitimate criticism one can level at Israel. However, the majority of Antisemites (and this is a extreme group) on the left right now are hiding behind this thin line of legitimate criticism. When they get called out, they say that its Israeli policies that they are criticizing, or a variety of other things that flow from the Office currently occupied by one Bibi. Who like I said, is not beyond criticism - I don't like the guy and I think he is damaging our relationship by trying to tie Israel to the Republicans. But if Bibi is gone, this excuse vanishes. In fact most mainstream dem 'worries' about Israel right now flow from Bibi, and it makes sense that said mainstream dems would be happy with other who are more or less more mainstream liberals - Gantz, Lapid and B&W. GAProgressive gets it, its BIBI that most of the dem politicians have problems with, not Israel.

Now this is a Beto thread, so If you want to continue this discussion, lets take it somewhere else.

Hmm, its odd. We are on week 2 of Beto's announcement(week 3 by Thursday), and Beto still hasnt had a polling bounce. Im starting to think his strategy of announcing later than most of the competition may have diminished his possible gains.

He's jumped from like 5-6% to third or fourth place nationally IIRC

I also think Beto suffers from the same thing Harris has going one right now. They have a solid base, but the name recognition wall still stands firm. Biden and Sanders right now still have their shine, but once the media is solely about the dem field and their politiking, the white knights will come down to play with the rest. Harris, Beto, and to a lesser extent Buttegieg and Klobuchar are playing for those voters right now enamored by Bern&Bid, so we might not see large shifts until that late summer at the earliest.

Another thing is that a lot of the people (from all ages, genders, ethnicities) I have talked with have Beto as their number TWO. If this anecdote is occurring elsewhere, Beto might uniquely benefit from candidates dropping out. Its another thing he might share with Lincoln.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Another thing is that a lot of the people (from all ages, genders, ethnicities) I have talked with have Beto as their number TWO. If this anecdote is occurring elsewhere, Beto might uniquely benefit from candidates dropping out. Its another thing he might share with Lincoln.

The polls show that Bernie and Biden tend to be the top 2nd choices.