BTRTN: Trump's Reign of Stain is Plainly in Ukraine

In the end, the most unsettling revelation of the whistle-blower's report is how many people in the Trump orbit were aware of, complicit in, or enabling a President's brazen lawlessness... and how little Republican thinking has changed in its wake. Now that Nancy Pelosi has initiated a formal impeachment inquiry, Steve warns Democrats to think extremely carefully about their next steps.

There are smoking guns, and then there is the murderer who openly admits to having pumped a dozen slugs into the bloody, lifeless body lying at his feet, and then looks around at all his cronies, shrugs, and says, “Hey, I didn’t do nuttin’ wrong.”

Donald Trump once said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single supporter. That theory may be tested when the foot he shoots is his own.

In the past week, we have watched as a cancer on this presidency metastasized by the hour into a potentially terminal disease.

   

First came the stunning news that a whistle-blower inside a Federal intelligence agency had alleged that the President of the United States had openly strong-armed a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a political opponent and thereby influence a U.S. election.

That alone is an impeachable offense, full stop. No need for a quid pro quo. No need for anything else.  

But it was actually worse than just a garden variety impeachable offense. There was a quid pro quo. 

Hoping to stanch the angry outcry about initial reports of the whistle-blower's allegations, the White House released a memorandum that summarized the key phone call. In that memo, Trump appears to make the release of U.S. military aid contingent on Ukraine doing Trump a “favor." Volodymyr Zelensky, the new President of Ukraine, is quoted as bringing up the subject of acquiring advanced weaponry from the United States, and the President of the United States immediately replies “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

Trump thereby implied that the transfer of military equipment would be contingent on Zelensky’s willingness to do him a “favor,” which clearly appears to be the re-opening of an investigation that Trump thought would soil Joe Biden and his son Hunter. This meant that Trump would withhold congressionally authorized U.S. military aid to a vital ally – thereby jeopardizing the national security of the United States – all in order to force Ukraine’s President to knuckle under to the demand to produce grist to slander a rival. 

It got worse. Trump suggested that the president of Ukraine should be directly in contact with William Barr, the U.S. Attorney General… thereby incorporating the machinery of the U.S. Department of Justice toward the purpose of waging a smear campaign against a political opponent. 

Could it be worse? Oh, yeah, baby. It was Barr’s Department of Justice that indicated to the Department of National Intelligence that it was not obligated to release the claim of the whistle-blower to Congress, an action required to be taken within seven days under whistle-blower law.

Worse? Uh huh. Rudy Giuliani continued to shed all filters in his accelerating odyssey toward holistic projectile stupidity, claiming that he had participated in the Biden dirt-digging expedition at the direction of the State Department. Was there any government agency that wasn’t trying to muscle the President of the Ukraine?

Late Tuesday afternoon, Trump held a press conference and volunteered that Mike Pence had been involved in matters with Ukraine. Here’s a guy whose only job in this administration is to stand behind Trump and gaze longingly at his rear-view, and even he has the Kiev area code on his speed dial.

Later still on Tuesday, Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the first Democrats to see the whistle-blower’s actual complaint that was delivered to the House at 5:00 Tuesday, reported that the whistle-blower’s allegation included the assertion that a number of senior people in government witnessed the actions and did nothing about it. 

Then, Wednesday morning, the actual whistle-blower complaint exploded onto the internet. 

The nine-page report somehow managed to be worse than the sum of all that had been previously reported. The whistle-blower reported that "approximately a dozen White House officials" had listened to the call. A State Department official had listened. Still more members of the State Department and Intelligence community had been briefed on the call. 

According to the whistle-blower's statement, an extensive cover-up began, as White House officials immediately grasped the toxicity of the call. The official record of the call was removed from the normal server where such routine calls would have been housed and moved to a system reserved for classified information. From the moment the call ended, the Trump White House knew exactly how damaging this phone call could be, and took immediate steps to conceal information about it. For all Donald Trump was publicly claiming that his call with Zelensky was "perfect," his own staff has been furiously trying to keep it far from public scrutiny.

Taken in full, it means that Trump’s DoJ, Department of State, Executive Branch, and just about anybody in Trump’s toxic immediate proximity all knew that the President of the United States had committed an impeachable offense by leaning hard on newly-elected former-comedian 41-year-old Ukraine President Zelensky in an attempt to generate campaign dirt on Joe Biden. 

And only one lonely whistle-blower had the guts to do anything about it. 

Witness your tax dollars at work.

No, this was not the isolated rogue action of the terrified thug who happens to be President of the United States.  It was the concerted effort of an army of morally bankrupt enablers, sycophants, and turn-a-blind-eye lackeys acting in coordinated stupidity, corrupt intent, and malevolent abuse of power. It took a village -- of village idiots, that is. And it raises that age old question: how many dim bulbs does it take to screw in a Ukrainian?

Trump’s Midas touch of filth and corruption has now stained each and every crevice and crack in his administration, pervading every pore of its being. Trump's reign of stain is plainly in Ukraine.

In the span of a week, the courage of a lonely whistle-blower had turned Washington, D.C. upside down. The stunning revelations rapidly shifted the tide in the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives, causing Nancy Pelosi to change her long-standing opposition to impeachment.

Still, though, none of it was enough to change Republican minds.

Still, though, still, the blind Republican allegiance to Donald Trump endures. 

In a day of cable news, only two Republicans were willing to express concern about the actions of the Trump White House. Senator Mitt Romney tweeted that “If the President asked or pressured Ukraine's president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme.” Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska said that “Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons and say there’s no ‘there’ there when there’s obviously a lot that’s very troubling there.”

Troubling, indeed. 

Troubling that only two Republicans can look at what are merely the uncontested facts of this matter and find them “troubling.”

Even after the full whistle-blower complaint had been released on Tuesday morning, Republicans on the House Intelligence committee stood by their man, attempting to dismiss the category five shit-storm as just so much liberal and fake news media hype. Yet there was reason to wonder if their on-camera bravado -- aimed at an audience of one -- reflected their real beliefs.Republican Political Consultant Mike Murphy -- who had worked for both John McCain and Mitt Romney -- was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC on Tuesday, and he made this startling assertion: "I can tell you this... one Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump.”

If true – if half-true -- this is the definitive statement about the the moral cowardice of the Republican Party.  But Murphy’s meta-message was clear… if the evidence of brutal corruption in the Ukraine matter did not cause these Republicans to vote their conscience, nothing will.

All of which must should be weighed into the mix as Nancy Pelosi evaluates her next steps.

As we listen to the political commentators, pundits, and websites, we hear cries for an urgent, narrowly drawn, and quickly executed single article of impeachment. Many of these observers believe that it is critically important to "strike while the iron is hot." There is talk of ratifying articles of impeachment by Thanksgiving.

I just don't get it.

Nothing that has happened in the last week changes one sad fact: if the Democrats race to vote on articles of impeachment, they will not prevail in the Senate. They do not have the votes required to have Trump removed from office. 

Indeed, the minute that the Democrats ratify articles of impeachment, they lose control over the process and the timing. When the House votes to impeach, they hand control over the entire process to Mitch McConnell... a corrupt and malevolent partisan manipulator without peer. 

As has always been true: the only thing that an impeachment trial in the Senate would accomplish is that Trump will claim that he has once again been found “innocent” and that he has been “vindicated.”

Nancy Pelosi, you have been exceedingly patient and deliberate in waiting for a moment to unite the Democrats behind an impeachment inquiry. 

Now begins a new period of deliberate, sustained, measured action... as you contemplate the exact right moment to bring articles of impeachment to the floor for a vote.

First, take the time to learn every possible thing you can about what just happened in these sordid dealings with Ukraine. Who were the White House officials who listened in? What did they do? How many will validate the whistle-blower's version of events? Who participated in the cover-up? Who spoke directly with Trump? 

If you are able to keep a steady diet of witnesses to Trump's Ukraine scandal on national television for the next two months, it will eat away at Trump's supporters and keep Trump on the defensive.

Second, don't give up on the other investigations just because this one is red-hot.  Keep all six of those House investigations going. Who knows what else is to be found? Who knows how many whistle-blowers there are in other departments?

Subpoena all the witnesses you want.

If they fail to show up, take the case to the Supreme Court.

Sure, let Donald Trump try to defy both the Supreme Court and the Congress, and watch what happens to Republican Senators then. 

 

Right now, Nancy, you control the most important factor of all: time.

 

There is not downside to letting the investigation into impeachable offenses drag on throughout 2020, creating a slow, steady, drip drip drip of evidence of repulsive actions taken by the Trump White House.

Nancy, keep your powder dry. Watch Republican Senators start to twitch as they begin to realize that their allegiance to Donald Trump may result in a crushing defeat for their party.  Watch them squirm as new whistle-blowers are emboldened to report other disgraces. Who knows? Maybe some Republican Senators will begin to turn. Maybe some will develop a conscience and others are in close enough races that coming out in favor of impeachment would actually help them.

And Nancy, if at any time you count enough Republican Senators that you can secure a conviction and removal from office, go for it. Have the House vote on articles of impeachment and start the trial. 

But if you don’t have those votes, wait.

Wait until October, 2020, and then have your Democratic caucus vote to ratify as many articles of impeachment as House lawyers can draft. 

Stain Donald Trump’s record forever. Make him the President of the United States who was slapped with most articles of impeachment in U.S.history.

Most important: drop those freshly ratified articles of impeachment at a point when there is not enough time for a Senate trial and vote before the Presidential election of 2020.

That’s right: time everything from here on so that the House has time to impeach Trump, but the Senate does not have enough for a trial, and does not have the opportunity to create the sham of "exoneration."

Now is not a time for a rush to judgment.

Now is time to go about the business of relentless, thorough, and aggressive impeachment proceedings conducted and curated to produce explosive sound-bytes for the nightly cable news.

Because we can all agree on one thing: the most important thing is for a Democrat to win in 2020. 

It that is your true goal, then do not trigger a Senate impeachment trial that is destined to lose.

One of the best ways to beat Trump is to continuously wound him; to relentlessly and meticulously damage Trump in protracted impeachment hearings.

Go to work, Democrats.

Now it is all in plain view.

The reign of stain is plainly in Ukraine. 

If you would like to be on the Born To Run The Numbers email list notifying you of each new post, please write us at borntorunthenumbers@gmail.com.

BTRTN 2020 Vision: Will Biden’s Campaign Die a Death of a Thousand Gaffes?

Tom with our BTRTN monthly feature on the 2020 elections, with all the latest numbers and commentary.

THE LEAD

These are the main headlines for the past month of the 2020 presidential campaign, from mid-August to mid-September:

·        Joe Biden remains at the head of the field nationally, with slightly lower support levels than last month, while Elizabeth Warren continues to climb, and is now tied for second with Bernie Sanders. 

·        But the race has tightened in three of the four “early” states, with Biden in a virtual tie with Sanders in Iowa and Nevada, and with Sanders and Warren in New Hampshire. 

·        The remaining candidates continue to trail the “big three” by considerable margins nationally and state-by-state.  Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg remain a cut above the rest, and they are the only other candidates with material support.

·        The third Democratic debate featured only ten candidates, the rest failing to meet polling and/or donation thresholds.  Joe Biden came out strong in the debate but faded into gaffe mode, raising questions once again about the long term sustainability of his campaign.  But he scored early on both Warren and Sanders over their “Medicare For All” plan, and came out on the sympathetic end of a clumsy Julian Castro attack on his age.  But Beto O'Rourke's passionate plea to ban assault weapons was the most powerful moment of the night.

·        Three more candidates dropped out of the race, leaving the Democratic field at a still unwieldy 20

·        Relative newcomer Tom Steyer, who failed to qualify for the September debate, has now qualified for the October debates, meaning that once again the field will likely be split across two nights.

·        There are now three Republicans challenging Donald Trump for the presidency.  While each of the three has credible credentials, none represent meaningful threats to Trump.

·        Howard Schultz officially dropped his consideration of a run as a third party independent

THE FIELD

The Democratic field contracted, while the GOP field expanded.

Three more Democrats dropped out of the race:  Kirsten Gillibrand, Seth Moulton and Jay Inslee.  Gillibrand had the highest profile of the three, but her candidacy, focused on women’s rights, never took, despite some decent moments in the first debate.  Neither Moulton, a Massachusetts representative who was a relatively late entrant, nor Inslee, the Governor of Washington, who focused his campaign on climate change, ever rose above the 1% mark.  The Democrats now number 20 entrants, including a dozen who have fared no better in the polls than those who have departed.

Three Republicans have emerged to challenge Donald Trump in the GOP primary:  former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, a libertarian who announced months ago; former Representative Joe Walsh, who achieved a modicum of fame by yelling “You lie!” in the midst of one of President Obama’s State of the Union addresses; and former Governor and Representative Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who is best known for his attempted cover-up of a marital affair (in which he claimed his six-day disappearance was explained by hiking in the Appalachians).  This is not a distinguished field and will not likely disturb Trump too much; the RNC will almost certainly not sanction a debate amongst the four candidates or any subset thereof.

At the end of this article you will find a chart summarizing the entire field, both parties, with each grouping ranked by the candidates standing in the national polls for the last month, from mid-August to mid-September.

THE MONTH

Joe Biden continued to face the music as the frontrunner, the target of most of the slings and arrows and the relentless focus of the media.  This is unfortunate for Biden because he has a very long record to pick on, with many controversial moments, and he is far from a gifted campaigner.  Every day seems to bring a new gaffe, from conflating three different veteran’s stories into one messy and almost completely inaccurate one, to a strange and meandering response to a question in the debates about the legacy of slavery, an answer that, besides questioning minority parenting skills, also included a beyond-dated reference to a “record player.”

But the third debate featured a feisty Biden out of the gate, for a change, attacking Warren for supporting Sanders’ “Medicare For All” plan and getting off a strong line versus Sanders as well (“For a socialist you got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do.”). The first half-hour or so of the night was a pure policy debate on the leading issue of our time, health care, and Biden seemed to win it rather handily, as Warren danced around the issue of whether Medicare For All would require the tax increases for the middle class (it would, but Warren refused to say that out loud, instead couching her response in the rather nebulous construct of “total cost” -- accurate, perhaps, but not particularly clear or direct).

If the debate had ended after an hour, Biden would have won it hands down.  When Julian Castro staged an inartful attack on Biden’s age (“are you forgetting what you just said two minutes ago?”), Biden survived it easily (the audience gasped), but the contretemps allowed other candidates an entry point on the delicate issue of Biden’s competence, which took up a fair amount of post-debate oxygen.  And, Biden’s “record player” reference was certainly one of the most replayed moments of the night.

Neither Warren nor Sanders brought their “A” game to the proceedings, either, and thus the evening, strangely, ended up being more of a showcase for the rest of the candidates.  Some fared well in this unexpected spotlight, notably Cory Booker, showing his trademark flashes of humor and passion, and Amy Klobuchar, who finally articulated a coherent centrist message.  Some swung for the fences – notably Castro, with his attack dog strategy (maybe trying to show-off his VP potential?) and Andrew Yang, who offered a pint-sized, game show version of his trademark minimum income pitch (“10 viewers will received $1,000 a month!”).  Neither of the “next tier” rivals, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, did any harm but Harris remains an inconsistent performer and Buttigieg, the 37-year old, continues to sound like the adult in the room – mature and thoughtful amidst the fray, but not particularly dynamic.

And then there was Beto O’Rourke.  O’Rourke’s indifferent and disappointing campaign received the kind of boost that no one wants with the mass killings in his hometown of El Paso.  O’Rourke performed powerfully on the campaign trail in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, finding his voice in the pain with his empathy on the one hand and his strident calls for gun control measures on the other.  In the debate, he took it one step further with his clarion call for reclaiming assault weapons (“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”), the applause line of the night.  And yet, O’Rourke drew a blunt attack from Senator Chris Coons for the giving the pro-gun forces a video clip for the ages, and potentially upsetting any chance that more modest and universally appealing measures, such as universal background checks, now being debated, might actually find their way to Trump’s desk and be signed into law.

It seems unlikely that this debate will shake up the polls in any meaningful way.  That sets up the next debate (or debates) in October, which will feature a new face, billionaire Tom Steyer, who qualified for them with a 2% showing in a fourth major poll, enough to vault him to the stage.  Steyer is not a riveting performer but he has achieved a level of support already (through the power of the wallet) that many others have failed to reach.

But there was a signal shift in the debate, and that was Biden on the offensive, and attacking Warren directly, a first thus far.  Warren to date has achieved more or less a free pass, and to the extent she keeps rising in the polls (see below), this honeymoon will end.  And we will see how she fares in the glare of those attacks.

And the overarching question remains….is Biden built to last, or will his campaign die a death of a thousand gaffes?  He has a huge reservoir of goodwill, for sure.  But that might not be enough.

But the Democrats got a break when Howard Schultz formally dropped his exploration of a third party run.  No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, a Schultz candidacy would have helped Trump, of that there can be little doubt.

THE NUMBERS

Biden continues to command a little less than one-third of Democratic voter preference nationally, now at 28% on average for the 21 national polls that were conducted over the last 30 days.  This is a modest decline from the 30% level he has enjoyed in the two prior months, and too early to call a trend.  His support levels remains where they have been since before he announced.

Meanwhile, Warren continues her steady climb, up another two points to 17%, her fifth straight month of improvement from her low of 6% back in March/April.  Bernie Sanders is also at 17%, roughly the same level he has been at for the last five months.  Kamala Harris was the big loser for the month, dropping three more percentage points from 10% to 7%, while Pete Buttigieg held at 5%. 

The only perceptible movement from the lesser candidates was another point up for Andrew Yang; he has now risen to 3%, tied with Beto O’Rourke.  Cory Booker held at 2%, which leaves a remarkable dozen candidates at either 1% or 0%.  Why they have not faced the music and realized that they are serving no useful purpose in carrying on is beyond me (with the exception of Steyer, who will get his chance on the stage now that he has bought earned it).

Average of National Polls
Candidates	Jan 16 - Feb 15	Feb 16 - Mar 15	Mar 16 - Apr 15	Apr 16 - May 15	May 16 - Jun 15	Jun 16-  Jul 15	Jul 16-  Aug 15	Aug 16 - Sep 15	Change last month
Biden	29	29	31	37	34	30	30	28	-2
Sanders	17	23	23	18	17	16	16	17	1
Warren	7	7	6	8	10	13	15	17	2
Harris	11	11	9	8	7	11	10	7	-3
Buttigieg	0	0	3	7	7	6	5	5	0
O'Rourke	7	6	8	5	4	3	3	3	0
Yang	1	0	1	1	1	1	2	3	1
Booker	4	5	4	3	2	2	2	2	0
Klobuch.	2	4	2	2	1	1	1	1	0
Gabbard	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0
Castro	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
Bullock	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	1	1	1	0
Williams.	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0
Steyer	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	1	1	0
DeBlasio	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	0	1	1	0
Bennet	n/a	n/a	n/a	1	1	0	0	1	1
Delaney	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	-1
Ryan	n/a	n/a	n/a	1	0	0	0	0	0
Sestak	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	0	0	0
Messam	n/a	n/a	n/a	0	0	0	0	0	0

At this stage, however, the most important polls (and there are far fewer of them) are in Iowa and, to a lesser extent, the other early states.  In Iowa, there has been roughly one major poll each month, which makes trends and conclusions harder to draw.

Biden leads in Iowa, and his 29% support level is impressive given the absolute absence of his strongest constituency, African-Americans, in the state.  Biden has the support of roughly 40% of Democratic African-Americans nationally, but that group comprises less than 5% of Iowa caucus voters (and an even lower percentage of primary voters in New Hampshire). 

But Biden is being challenged in Iowa now by Sanders.  The polling has been very bumpy for Sanders, showing absolutely no consistency, but we tend to favor the CBS/YouGov poll over the Monmouth one (below), which has Sanders nipping at Biden’s heels at 26%.  Warren remains in the mix in the third slot, and Buttigieg and Harris trail with the same levels as in the national polls and, again, no one else is making a dent.

Iowa Polls
Candidates	3/16 - 4/15 (2 polls)	DMR /CNN 6/2-5	CBS/YG   5/31- 6-12	USA/Suff   6/28 - 7/1	CBS/YG 7/9-18	Mon 8/1-4	CBS/YG 8/28- 9/4
Biden	26	24	30	24	24	28	29
Sanders	20	16	22	9	19	9	26
Warren	9	15	12	13	17	19	17
Buttigieg	11	14	11	6	7	8	7
Harris	10	7	5	16	16	11	6
Klobuchar	2	2	4	2	4	3	2
Steyer	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	2	3	2
Booker	6	1	3	2	3	1	2
O'Rourke	5	2	4	1	0	0	2
Yang	0	1	0	1	0	2	1
Gabbard	0	1	1	1	0	1	1
Delaney	0	1	2	1	1	1	1
Castro	1	1	0	1	2	0	1
Bennet	n/a	1	0	1	0	0	0
Bullock	n/a	0	0	0	0	0	0
Williamson	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ryan	n/a	0	0	0	0	0	0
Messam	n/a	0	0	0	0	0	0
DeBlasio	n/a	0	0	0	0	0	0

In the campaign schedule, after Iowa’s caucus next February will come New Hampshire’s primary, Nevada’s caucus and the South Carolina primary (in that order) – and then Super Tuesday, which will include California for the first time.  Biden is facing a stiff challenge from both Warren and Sanders in New Hampshire, not surprising given both the demographic makeup of the state (few African-Americans) and the fact that both Warren and Sanders are neighbor state Senators.  Keep in mind that Sanders won New Hampshire by a whopping 22 points in 2016 over Hillary Clinton (60% to 38%).

Biden’s campaign is, not surprisingly, lowering expectations in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, pinning its “must win” play on his South Carolina firewall.  African-Americans comprise more than half of the Democrats in South Carolina, and Biden’s lead there is solid. 

But the fact is, it will be extremely troubling if Biden does not win any of the first two (or three) states, and I suspect that ultimately his campaign will pull out all the stops in Iowa.  Iowa’s arcane caucus procedure is incredibly difficult to predict, so no doubt this is a risky approach.  But batting Warren and Sanders in their backyard is perhaps even more difficult.

Average of NH Polls					Nevada Polls					Average of South Carolina Polls
Candidate	Apr/May /Jun	Jul/  Aug	Sep		Candidate	MC 7/1-21	Grav 8/16	CBS/YG   8/28- 9/4		Candidate	May/Jun	Jul/ Aug	Sep CBS /YG
Biden	26	22	24		Sanders	23	10	29		Biden	43	37	43
Sanders	19	17	22		Biden	29	25	27		Sanders	14	14	18
Warren	9	16	22		Warren	12	15	18		Warren	11	11	14
Buttigieg	11	9	8		Harris	11	9	6		Harris	9	12	7
Harris	6	11	7		Buttigieg	6	5	4		Buttigieg	8	4	4
Gabbard	1	2	3		O'Rourke	3	0	3		Booker	4	3	2
Yang	1	2	3		Castro	2	1	2
Booker	3	1	2		Steyer	1	6	2
Delaney	0	0	2

WHO IS THE NUMBER TWO CHOICE?

With such a large field, and about 30% of the voters backing lesser candidates, it is interesting, and perhaps even instructive, to look at what might happen once the field winnows out.  Morning Consult, which conducts an excellent weekly poll, asks the question directly:  who is your second choice?

Last month we speculated that barring some unforeseen change in the trajectory of the race, as of now we are moving toward a Biden-Warren showdown, two candidates who represent the two wings of the party, two different styles, levels of experience, genders, you name it.  So, based in the Morning Consult work, how might the race shake out if it came down to the two of them?

The chart below does the math.  Surprisingly, if Sanders were to drop out, his supporters split evenly between Biden and Warren as a second choice, and the same goes for Buttigieg supporters.  Only Harris supporters clearly favor Warren as a second choice.  When all the math is complete, Biden is ahead of Warren by a 56/44 margin.

Per Morning Consult 9/15	Own Polling Level	From Sanders	From Harris	From Buttigieg	Estimate from all others	Total
Biden	32	6	1	1	16	56
Warren	18	6	2	1	17	44

Do not put too much stock in this analysis.  It is a hypothetical built on a hypothetical.  Having said that, you should pay attention to the main takeaway:  simply because Warren and Sanders come from the same wing of the Democratic Party does not mean, necessarily, that if one drops out, the other will zoom ahead of Biden.

WHO CAN BEAT TRUMP?

Democrats have indicated in polling that they are more likely to back the candidate they think is most likely to beat Trump, rather than the one that best matches their own views, by roughly a two-to-one margin.  And thus the head-to-head polls of leading Democrats versus Trump bear a close watch.

There were four head-to-head polls pitting Trump against the leading Dem contenders in the last month, and, in each instance, on average, the Democrat beat Trump.  Joe Biden commanded the largest margin, a stunning +13, while Pete Buttigieg edges by Trump by +2.   

	Average of four polls
Trump Versus:	8/16 - 9/15
Biden	Biden +13
Sanders	Sanders +8
Warren	Warren +6
Harris	Harris +5
Buttigieg	Buttigieg +2

THE GOP RACE

Is there a GOP race?  Not really.   There were two national polls in the last month featuring Trump versus Bill Weld, and in one Trump led 90% to 5%, and the other 84% to 16%.  There has not been any polling featuring Walsh or Sanford, but it is unlikely to show anything dissimilar.

And, for those of you wondering whether Weld might fare better in New Hampshire, a neighboring state from his Massachusetts days, there was such a poll just last week, and Trump commanded 88% of the New Hampshire GOP, versus 3% for Weld and 1% for Walsh (Sanford was not included).

THE FULL FIELD

Here are the entire Democratic and Republican fields as of today.

Democratic Candidates	Age	Announce  Date	Credentials	Latest national polls     (8/16 - 9/15)
Joe Biden	76	4/25/2019	Ex-VP and Ex-Senator, Delaware	28%
Bernie Sanders	77	2/19/2019	Senator, Vermont	17%
Elizabeth Warren	69	12/31/2018	Senator, Massachusetts	17%
Kamala Harris	54	1/18/2019	Senator, California	7%
Pete Buttigieg	36	1/22/2019	Mayor, South Bend, Indiana	5%
Beto O'Rourke	46	3/14/2019	Ex-Representative, Texas	3%
Andrew Yang	43	11/6/2017	Entrepreneur	3%
Cory Booker	49	2/1/2019	Senator, New Jersey	2%
Amy Klobuchar	58	2/10/2019	Senator, Minnesota	1%
Julian Castro	44	1/10/2019	Ex-Secretary, HUD	1%
Tulsi Gabbard	37	1/11/2019	Representative, Hawaii	1%
Steve Bullock	52	5/14/2019	Governor, Montana	1%
Marianne Williamson	66	1/28/2019	Self-help author	1%
Bill de Blasio	58	5/14/2019	Mayor, New York City	1%
Tom Steyer	62	7/9/2019	Billionaire hedge fund manager	1%
Michael Bennet	54	5/2/2019	Senator, Colorado	1%
John Delaney	55	7/28/2017	Representative, Maryland	0%
Tim Ryan	45	4/4/2019	Representative, Ohio	0%
Wayne Messam	44	3/28/2019	Mayor, Miramar, Florida	0%
Joe Sestak	67	6/23/2019	Ex-Representative, Pennsylvania	0%
Republican Candidates	Age	Announce Date	Credentials	Latest national polls     (8/16 - 9/15)
Donald Trump	73	6/18/2019	President	87%
William Weld	74	4/15/2019	Ex-Governor, Massachusetts	11%
Joe Walsh	57	8/25/2019	Ex-Representative, Illinois	n/a
Mark Sanford	59	9/8/2019	Ex-Governor, Rep, South Carolina	n/a

If you would like to be on the Born To Run The Numbers email list notifying you of each new post, please write us at borntorunthenumbers@gmail.com.