Wave Of Biden Endorsements Builds Ahead of Super Tuesday

UPDATE: Pete Buttigieg formally endorses Biden, as will former Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke.

—–

Former Vice President Joe Biden.

As the Denver Post’s Jon Murray reports, what was once a trickle of support for former Vice President Joe Biden, who hasn’t been seen much in Colorado this campaign season, is rapidly building into an old-fashioned canyon gullywasher:

Former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall and his wife, Maggie, on Monday endorsed Joe Biden for president, joining Denver Mayor Michael Hancock in throwing their support behind the former vice president.

They were among several establishment Democrats nationally to back the former vice president as he seeks to consolidate support the day before Super Tuesday contests, including the Colorado primary. By late morning, news outlets also reported that U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a fellow candidate, was dropping out and endorsing Biden.

“Our country faces immense challenges,” Udall said in a statement provided by Biden’s campaign. “We know Joe Biden is someone who can unite our party and country, restore dignity to the White House and rebuild trust in our government.”

Ex-Colorado presidential contenders John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet have reportedly not made an endorsement decision as of yet, though there is clearly an urgent campaign underway to swing support to the former vice president ahead of tomorrow’s 14-state Super Tuesday primary. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threw his support behind Biden today, which could be interpreted as a blow to Sen. Elizabeth Warren since Reid is one of her biggest historical supporters. And after some uncertainty, we just learned that Pete Buttigieg will appear with Biden tonight at a “unity rally” in Texas.

That’s the situation as of this writing, and we’ll update as developments warrant (which they likely will).

0 Shares

54 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. MADCO says:

    In addition to Pete & Amy,. both Udalls and a Denver mayor? Ok- it's getting heated now.

     

  2. ParkHill says:

    Star Wars Episode 99: “The Establishment Strikes Back”.

    What does Biden offer to young voters?

    What does Sanders do to widen his coalition?

    Who would Biden pick for VP? I almost guarantee it would be a woman. I almost guarantee it would be a person of color, Abrams, Harris or Castro?

    • JohnInDenver says:

      any number of speculative names out … but Biden isn't going to pick anyone until the nomination is nailed down.  And I hope he stays away from Senators.

      He may be willing to go out of the box if he doesn't need to negotiate with someone for delegates.  National presence, more money than he has …. Oprah might look mighty good. 

      There may also be some value in finding someone who served in a uniformed service — like the US Public Health Service. Don't know her politics, but with the attention on COVID-19, maybe someone like Deputy Surgeon General  RADM Erica G. Schwartz ????  Competent enough to rise to the rank of Rear Admiral…. that puts her ahead of Pence. 

       

  3. Duke Cox says:

    Yesterday JID questioned my use of panic as a description of the haste with which the bosses at Conservadem Corporation were moving to stop Bernie.

    Maybe we could go with "hyper-motivated" …, eh?

    Tomorrows election result will be fascinating.

  4. gertie97 says:

    They're right. No way Bernie beats Trump. We can't screw this up, people.

  5. Pseudonymous says:

    Current candidate Joe Biden:

  6. itlduso says:

    What Kos said: 

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/2/1923555/-Bernie-s-problem-isn-t-the-establishment-it-s-his-lack-of-support#read-more

    Bernie's an uncompromising a-hole who is not interested in the least in building support beyond his 30% core support (aka, losing big in November). 

  7. Pseudonymous says:

    So, if Biden is the nominee, and loses…thanks Obama?

    Mr. Buttigieg talked with Mr. Biden and former President Barack Obama on Sunday night, according to a Democratic official familiar with the conversations. Mr. Biden asked for Mr. Buttigieg’s support and the former mayor indicated he would consider the request. Mr. Buttigieg wants to sleep on the decision, he told aides, some of whom believe he should move quickly to endorse Mr. Biden.

    Mr. Obama did not specifically encourage Mr. Buttigieg to endorse Mr. Biden, said the official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations. But Mr. Obama did note that Mr. Buttigieg has considerable leverage at the moment and should think about how best to use it. Should Mr. Buttigieg endorse Mr. Biden on Monday, it could reshape the Democratic primary if many of his supporters shift to Mr. Biden, creating a more formidable centrist challenge to Mr. Sanders’s progressive movement.

  8. Pseudonymous says:

  9. kwtree says:

    I saw Uncle Joe being interviewed on the Last Word tonight…He was all over the place rhetorically, rambling and skipping connections. Maybe people are so inured to Trumps communication style that Joe’s seems normal now, but it isn’t. There are vast moral differences between the two men, but their rando communication styles are unnervingly similar.

    Not in any way saying the two men are equally terrible- Trump is stupid and mean and dishonest – Biden is as honest as most politicians, not mean, and unlike Trump, respects the rule of law.

    For example, attacking the Warren / Sanders Medicare for All plan, he said, “It will double your social security withholding.” Never in all this time of discussion have I seen that talking point raised. If anyone has a source for it, trot it out- Joe Biden didn’t.

    Dishonestly, these people (like Biden) never mention that eliminating premiums and copays more than offsets the small  individual tax hikes for the bottom 90% of taxpayers.  I wish the DNC wheelers and dealers  would just be honest and say, “Our donors won’t allow us to endorse Medicare for All as written”. Then we would at least know where we stand.

    • ParkHill says:

      Vote for the youngest candidate still in the primary.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      M4A figures are all over the place.  Bernie wants to use a study saying M4A will save money and lives — and does not address the multitude of questions argued about the study.  Others use a study with the assumption that M4A payments for health care would need to rise dramatically from current Medicare, and they emerge with "it will cost an extra $30 Trillion over a decade, doubling the size of the federal budget."

      Any claim about what would happen to individual tax rates has to be from a crystal ball that shows what program will pass, how many more people get covered, how much medical attention they will ask for, how much the federal government will pay for the medical work getting done (that gets to the cost), how much money will be raised by taxes and how much added to the deficit, which tax(or taxes) will get raised, and the rates of that raise. 

      All that in an environment when we don't know even some basics, like if there will be a Democratic majority in the Senate.  Or who will be the next leadership cohort of the House. If there will be a pandemic (or two, or none).

      • Pseudonymous says:

        What does this actually mean?

        M4A payments for health care would need to rise dramatically from current Medicare, and they emerge with "it will cost an extra $30 Trillion over a decade, doubling the size of the federal budget."

        Would that matter if that much (or more, as the Koch funded study shows) private spending were removed at the same time?

        But the real game here for Mercatus is to bury the money-saving finding in the report’s tables while headlining the incomprehensibly large $32.6 trillion number in order to trick dim reporters into splashing that number everywhere and freaking out. This is a strategy that already appears to be working, as the Associated Press headline reads: “Study: ‘Medicare for all’ projected to cost $32.6 trillion.”

        As for the rest, of course we don't know.  These things are figured out over time.  But, that's equally as true of any other candidate's plan– whether that means a public option, ACA+, or just ACA -Trump nonsense.

        What we do know is that 45,000 currently die each year as a result of inadequate healthcare.  Hundreds of thousands suffer bankruptcy.  Millions suffer anxiety and forgo valuable, and sometimes life-altering, treatment because of cost.

  10. Peromyscus says:

    Isn't Stacy Abrams the obvious choice for VP?  It would definitely add excitement to the ticket.  

    I think Biden will beat Trump handily.  Just needs to take his vitamins and iron tonic regularly 🙂

    • ParkHill says:

      I'm not sure that Stacey Abrams helps Biden.

      Biden already has decent support from African Americans, especially the older establishment AAs. He has less support from young people, hispanic voters and progressives.

      Which VPs fill in Biden's weaknesses with youth?

      Will Biden triangulate against the left wing of the Party like the Dem Establishment strategy of the last 40 years?

      • MADCO says:

        Adams is great , but not ready for this kind of primetime

        Sibelius, Whitmer, Napolitano, Granholm

        Triangulate? Why whatever do you mean?
        Yes, of course

        • MichaelBowman says:

          Sebelius would be an interesting pick. We have her to thank for drawing out the Holcomb, KS coal plant debacle (the Tri-State project) long enough that it finally died and we rural Coloradans didn’t have that multi-billion dollar anvil tied around our neck. 

    • Pseudonymous says:

      If you're the age a Democratic candidate is likely to be, I think part of the calculus is having someone seen as "ready-to-go."  That's not Stacey Abrams, who's thus far been a state legislator.

      Seems more likely to be a Kamala, or maybe Liz, to shore Biden up with progressives.

      • Voyageur says:

        For bernie, the choice is Amy, to assure moderates.

        For biden, maybe Kamala?  Liz is too old to lead us in 2028.

        But a woman it must be.

        • Duke Cox says:

          Sorry, V. Amys' endorsement of Biden obviates that choice. 

          This is the battle for democracy Naomi Klein predicted. The so called "Free Market Experiment " is manifested in the presidency of the Orange Destruction. The candidacy of Bernie Sanders is the resistance of a people who have watched the richest 1% and their enablers steal our future.

          Bernie can beat the Narcissist-in-Chief. The ConservaDem Corp. and their candidates are more afraid of Bernie than the Madman in the Whitest House. If Trump wins, the corporations will do well. If Biden wins, they will do even better. If Bernie wins, corporations and the super wealthy will be very unhappy.

          It is quite simple, really.

          • Voyageur says:

            Simple it is.  65 percent of this party is made up of moderates who don't like bernie.  If he gets the nomination and picks a Stalinist running mate, say, Nina Turner, he gets crushed.  

            • Duke Cox says:

              Cite that stat for me, V.? 65% moderate…

              I am not so sure. 

              But please. Do continue to throw around terms likr Trotsyite and Stalinist. It helps to really define the kind of Corporate hysteria you are helping to perpetuate.

              This fight will not be won with pressure from the middle.

          • MADCO says:

            Sibelius, Whitmer, Napolitano, Granholm

            Simple has nothing to do with hating Bernie.

          • ParkHill says:

            I don't believe that "moderates" make up 65%, but you have to define what a moderate is. I could buy the idea that 65% are voting strategically, trying to imagine who beats Trump: practical rather than moderate. Biden is pulling from the practical-tactical.

            The never-Bernie percentage may be as high as 50%, but the oh-no-not-Joe may be in the same range.

            Winter is coming with the demographic shift: youth, race, economy.

            I don't think any of the four septuagenarian candidates except Warren have the energy and mental acuity to last eight years. 

            Which candidate will handle the demographic changes?

            I'm still looking toward a compromise candidate, because that is the most peaceful way to bridge the Party divide… we'll see.

            • MADCO says:

              "compromise candidate"

              Ship sailed?
              Who fits this description?

              Eisenhower is dead, Obama is ineligible.

            • Duke Cox says:

              You have, there, elucidated my thoughts very well. The pressure Bernie puts on the overarching, filthy rich, cabal that runs Wall Street and owns DC is starting to make them all uneasy. Nothing less than a battle is engaged, between an oligarchy bent on removing social freedom and democracy, and a people accustomed to enjoying those rights.

              The result, if they win, will be that fundamental, inescapable foundation of the FreeMarket…a very Un-free people.  Who has the temerity to tell me the OD won’t immediately clamp down on dissent like they do in other dictatorships? Authoritarians have prospered for far too long.

          • JohnInDenver says:

            So, I'm curious.  Can you come up with the Bernie-like electoral winners of a state-wide or House district wide election where the partisan lean is 5% or less?  From any national election cycle of the past decade?

            Have you seen any analysis of how many Bernie-core voters (The young, the POC, the nonvoters who want "change.") need to appear in order to elect Sanders this year?    I grant a surge in the appropriate demographic groups is possible — but I'd like to know how much of a surge. 

             

             

  11. spaceman65 says:

    Time for ranked voting.  And probably a parliamentary system.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.