If there was no electoral college, I may not choose Biden as my first choice...

[louis c]

...in might by Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders. But, we don't need an extra 5 million votes from New York or California. I have been involved in politics since I was old enough to talk. My Dad was a local City Councillor (that's right. In my home town we spelled councillor with 2 ll's). He was an Administrative Assistant to US Senator Ed Brooke (R-Mass). That's right, I grew up in a Republican household (although I never registered as anything but a Democrat from the time I turned 19).

I have always looked at politics in a pragmatic way. I was taught to never whine about the rules, just learn how to win. I was taught that the most important thing in an election is math. I was taught to be loyal and expect loyalty in return. I learned about coalition building and who to cut off early, because they couldn't be trusted to come through for you when the chips are down. My Dad would refer to these people as "Niners". It went like this. A person came to my Dad for a favor that could go either way. The type my father hated, because it would involve making one friend and one enemy. When he chose which person to go with, I asked him why. "Didn't Ted have a larger family and bring more votes than Jim?" "Well", my father said, " sure, but Ted is a Niner". I asked, "what's a Niner"? He answered, "a Niner is a person who will ask you for ten favors, and if you can only do nine, and can't come through on the tenth, you're an asshole and an enemy for life. I figure to cut a guy like that loose as soon as possible." I bring this up because too many of Sanders' voters appear to be "Niners" to me. If it doesn't go their way, they will seek revenge, even to their own detriment. Not all, mind you. But far too many.

But, I digress. This election is all about winning for me. As I said, if it was a popular vote, Biden might not be my first choice. But, I can look at the electoral map and say that not one Democrat should lose any state Hillary carried in 2016. The shakiest are New Hampshire, Nevada and Minnesota. I think Biden secures all three. I will concede that Sanders is stronger in New Hampshire, but the vast majority of the other states, it's Biden. Now, to the real math. Assuming that the Democratic Nominee holds all of Hillary's 2016 states, we need to carry at least 3 of these 4 states: Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. No Democrat is stronger in those states than Biden. The reason I'm for a Biden-Harris ticket is that Harris makes us even stronger in Florida. These 4 states were lost to Trump by 1% or less in 2016. That's why I'm for Biden and I hope Harris is his running mate. It's the Electoral College.

Again, if the winner was by popular vote, I might have a different opinion, or I may be of the opinion any Democrat could win. But it's not. We've been bitten in the ass twice by not securing a combination of these 4 states in the Electoral College. All I want to do is win.

[Drunken Irishman]

1. We need Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan...

I think Biden is the strongest candidate to play to these states - and I actually think he'll do pretty good in Florida, too.

You're right. It's about the electoral college.

To be honest, in 1992, had it been Cuomo over Clinton, the Democrats' electoral college victory is probably much smaller, as Clinton opened the door to Southern states Democrats typically just didn't win (ignoring Carter - another southerner) since LBJ was president.

Biden has a very favorable electoral college map. I think even his harshest critics can concede this point.

[Stuart G]

2. k. and r. Thank You for posting this. Well thought out..outstanding..no text.

[louis c]

5. One of his vulnerabilities doesn't involve Warren...

[WeekiWater]

7. Your link is to a "Post Removed" NT

[louis c]

8. Doesn't that figure.

Biden-Harris

[WeekiWater]

9. Harris - Biden

Just playing.

I wonder what hit job on Biden was even too offensive for the Sanders Group?

[corbettkroehler]

4. With You 100% On Carrying States Hillary Won

If our candidate failed to do that in the general, we'd know for sure that we nominated the wrong person.

That's why I am focused so intensely on Sanders' internal polling which shows him ahead of Trump in the key states of PA, WI and MI.

http://nbcnews.com/card/sanders-releases-internal-poll-showing-lead-over-trump-pa-wi-n997281

http://documentcloud.org/documents/5974060-Tulchin-Research-Memo-Sanders-Defeating-Trump-in.html

[louis c]

6. But, not leading in those states by as much as Biden

Internal polling doesn't mean shit to me.

Link to objective third party polling:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

[corbettkroehler]

11. If Internal Polling Is Meaningless, Why Do Many Campaigns, Including Biden's, "Waste" Money On It?

[louis c]

12. It is not meaningless, but it does become suspect when the campaign...

...makes it public.

Some campaigns keep two books. one poll remains inside the campaign and another, called a "push poll" is made public. A "push poll" coaches the interviewed after his or her initial answer to try to convince them with further, positive information about the candidate or issue being polled.

That's why internal polling is never, ever part of the 538 or RCP averages.

[corbettkroehler]

13. Since You Consider It Meaningless, Should Biden Spend Money On Internal Polling?

[thesquanderer]

14. He's not saying it's meaningless to DO it, rather it's meaningless for the public to pay attention

because the candidates don't release the internal data that does not favor them, it's cherry-picked.

[thesquanderer]

15. Yes, I'm fine with Pete for now, but if he's underwater in polling after the debates...

...I'll switch to someone who isn't.

But I'll be looking for polling specifically in WI/PA/MI.

[WeekiWater]

10. "That's why I am focused so intensely on Sanders' internal polling "

Love this.

[Gothmog]

16. Electablity is a key factor in this race

We have to defeat trump. There is a very good chance that trump will win if we pick a weak or unsafe choice. There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable.

From Larry Sabato https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-economy-got-nixon-reagan-and-bush-reelected-it-could-do-it-for-trump-too/2019/04/23/b8920d34-65e6-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.a35b315730d2

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings.

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.

Most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream