Because too many idiots out there are afraid to elect a well qualified woman under 70 as U.S. President.

Because he's a straight white guy. Duh.

(Also, he won't be the front-runner for long: he's a terrible, terrible candidate under the best of circumstances, and these are not remotely the best of circumstances for him.)

((Also too: What auntie grizelda said.))

Because WHO CARES? Vote for who you want in the primary and then vote whoever wins the primary. Does it really matter who that is this time around?

Because most political polling is still done via land-lines, and only predominantly people above the age of about 60 still have them. The pollsters try to make up for this by overcompensating numbers for younger people, but it's not based on anything real. Basically, polling in the age of cellular phones and VOI aren't worth the electrons used to publish them.

I’m still of the belief that Joe Biden is the Democratic Party’s stalking horse. Their classic example was Eugene McCarthy: “let’s see if middle Americans really do support pulling out of Vietnam, and if that’s the case then Bobby can run all over Humphrey with it.” Joe is just the right goofball to throw everything imaginable at Trump to see what sticks, then a more viable candidate can emerge.

Because there are no democratic candidates with more experience and smarts than he has.

7
8
exactly
Biden is the only adult in the room.
which, in the 2019 Democrat Party, probably will be a huge liability.

6
who, pray tell, is this 'more viable candidate'?
inquiring minds want to know...

@9,

Please name a single thing that any of the 8 million current dem candidates have done that's more pathetic and childish than debating penis size in front of a national audience.

@1: Don't give up! They'll all come around on June 22, 2020, when presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) turns 70.

He's the flavor of the month because he is the Establishment candidate with the support of Wall Street, the lobbyists, and the party's wealthy major donors. This is largely because all but politics junkies have forgotten how horribly Biden did in 2008, where he didn't last much past Iowa. People remember him fondly as Obama's comedic side-kick, and completely forget that Obama tapped him as VP to shore-up support from the right-wing of the party.

Because he’s electable. That’s why.

@14 and @15, this is the right answer. None of the "socialist"/reparations crowd has a snowball's chance in hell. Middle America won't vote for that, guaranteed. Bernie and that lot has been doomed from the start.

If you want to win, you've got to go with what works. Biden works. Leaven the bread with Buttigieg and you have a winning ticket.

@14_16,

There are several non-socialist identifying electable candidates (Klobuchar and Booker come readily to mind, without even glancing at the full slate) who don't have Biden's considerable baggage.

@17 Klobuchar and Booker come with their own baggage, made in New Jersey and carried by Klobuchar's hapless aides. Biden-Buttigieg for the win.

"Joe Biden Is Now the Democratic Front-runner. Why?"

There are 22 Declared Candidates.

Historically sitting Senators get creamed when they run for President. (-8 = 14)
Sitting Representatives fair even worse than Senators. (-6 = 8).
The Governors in the race are both anemic candidates not ready for the National stage (-2 = 6)
America is not likely to elect a Tech Bro (-1 = 5)
Who is Marianne Williamson? (-1=4)

So we are left with 2 small town mayors, 1 low-level Cabinet Secretary, and a former vice-President with national name recognition and stature.

That's why.

@1 No they're not afraid of electing a woman under 70. Hillary got the majority of the vote. The idea that Americans hate female politicians is a woke's wet dream.

Anyway, why is he electable? Because the dems were so incompetent they couldn't defeat Trump in a landslide. They squandered the Obama years being petty and scolding everyone about microagressions and woke-ness. So Trump has set the clock back by about...40 years, and we don't get to have a truly progressive candidate (i.e., someone who isn't slightly to the left of Margaret Thatcher - and Hillary was only slightly to the left of Margaret Thatcher) for a good long ass time. We wasted what hope we had. We now have to go back to people like Biden. The only issue now is to get rid of Trump, and if that means a rich old white man who gives unexpected shoulder rubs, then so fucking be it. We're just gonna have to accept that and hope for a "woker" candidate later on in our lifetimes, hopefully.

@21 Correct. Getting rid of Trump is all that matters. Everything else is secondary.

The answer is too easy, even for The Stranger . . . he's the best known name in the race by virtue of his many years in the Senate, previous Presidential runs, and the Vice Presidency.

It's early days and he might fade back into the pack.

Now, please move on to another topic.

He's so square he makes Hillary look like Rosa Fucking Luxembourg.

Voted for the War in Iraq
Voted for NAFTA
Supported the War on Drugs
Voted for the Patriot Act
Was a complete cunt during the Anita Hill hearings
Co authored the Crime Bill
Godfather of the student loan crisis
Has already taken a huge shit on Millennials, the biggest voting bloc in the country

So, yeah, of course the Democrats love him--they lost their moral compass years ago. And he'll probably get the nomination. And then he'll lose and the centrists will spend four MORE interminable years rubbing their outrage clit, moaning that it's all the fault of Democratic Socialists, Russians, Susan Sarandon, Bernie, Jill Stein, memes, blah, blah, blah.

@24 Hahaha, he'll make a fine President.

@21 Mikara & @22 Swiftress: What I meant in @1 is that there is a substantial number of angry voters--Bernie backers, in particular, who claimed to "Feel the Bern". Hillary Clinton was SO infinitely more qualified to be in the White House than Trump in 2016, and won by the popular vote by nearly three million votes. When the Bernie backers found out that Hillary got the Democratic nomination instead of Sanders, what did they do? Did they vote to elect the first women President of the United States, knowing damned well she was the only wise choice left on the ballot? Nope. Pouting Bernie backers turned about-face on common sense and stupidly voted for Trump with their BVDs in a wad, like a bunch of five-year-olds who got sent to bed without dessert or TV time.
I agree---getting rid of Trump---AND Pence---should be Priority #1.

@26 I think the Berniebro thing was largely a myth, or greatly exaggerated. I saw an article once that stated this and provided very persuasive backup for it. (And no, I don't have the article and so I understand that my simply claiming I read it doesn't carry much weight.) I wanted Bernie, but eagerly voted for Hillary, as did all the male Bernie supporters I know. In fact, my wife (a POC even) was more "Berniebro" than anyone else I knew, and she didn't want to vote Hillary until I convinced her to. She still wants Bernie, but I've lost my enthusiasm for him simply because I think he is unelectable.

And anyway, what about Jill Stein's supporters? They were far more hardcore than so called "Berniebros." But they don't get nearly as much twitter-style woke hate. I'd be willing to bet that far more of them stuck with her rather than move to Clinton, which cannot be said for Bernie supporters. But why does virtually no one point this out? I guess because Stein is a woman? Hm...funny how that works. Simply preferring a specific male candidate over Hillary does NOT make someone sexist. We preferred him because he was a true progressive (even though he was, gasp, an old white guy---sorry). People get behind their candidates and then SUPPORT them. It's how it works. The attitude of many in pantsuit nation seemed to be anyone who dared to support Bernie was sexist, that they "had better" vote for the female, and it became a big smear campaign. I mean, for Christ's sake, you have to think something is suspicious when Hillary supporters started using Bernie's hand gestures as a way to try and call him out on sexism. Bernie's ideas and outlook fit the true liberal agenda far more than Hillary's, who (for example) only got on board (like Obama) with gay marriage when it was safe to do so. Bernie was on board in 1980. But Hillary supporters didn't care; they're more than happy to scrutinize the hell out of every other (male) candidate's past comments and views and voting records, but NOT hers! OH no no no, that would be unfair, right? It was just all about the glass ceiling. Can an unimaginably wealthy white woman with "meh" liberal credentials rise even HIGHER?

Were there Bernie supporters who were angry and disappointed? Obviously. As are all supporters of candidates that don't win. It's not "having their BVDs in a wad", it's just human nature and the nature of politics and all contests of any kind. If we had any really substance in our politics anymore, we'd be talking about the policies and agendas of the candidates, not their gender (or at least we'd prioritize the former.) But it's gotten to where even a passionate and fierce supporter of a male candidate as opposed to a female is enough to be branded sexist, and that's that. Call on the twitter mob and let's give them a demeaning name, turn them into a strawman monolith, and blame them for our loss. Maybe hashtag it, too.

@26 Also, speaking of having BVDs in a wad, you know who among my friends behaved the worst after Hillary's loss? The Hillary supporters, one in particular. In fact, her attitude was one of the things that caused me to curtail and finally leave Facebook. In a discussion she initiated on FB about Trump's win, I posted two articles positing various reasons for it. But because these articles didn't lay the blame on Berniebros, she was outraged. Absolutely outraged. Told me she would have unfriended me had we not been actual friends in real life. She told me she was literally shaking with rage. All because someone argued that there are many factors to explain Trump's win, and didn't include the "Berniebros." It was like she was a member of cult. She acted like a spoiled brat. (She did agree to have a calm discussion with me about it later in the year, but ultimately she didn't; we haven't spoken since and we're no longer friends. Now THAT is being pissy, spoiled five year old.)

It's just because a) the majority of people do not pay close attention to politics and so when they are asked in a poll who they support, they select the name(s) they recognize, b) the answers change depending on how you ask the question, c) both the mainstream media and the DNC prefer an establishment candidate for obvious reasons, d) plenty of people think things can "go back to normal" b/c they don't understand the structural problems that led to the current moment and blame everything on Trump, e) some people inexplicably think Biden is cool and has a bromance with Obama.

The primary is still a long way off. All these politicians flash in the pan then fade. Things could change dramatically between now and then, but if right now is any indication, it will come down to Biden or Bernie, and the big money plus DNC will get behind Biden. All the rest of them are just short term media fodder.

I was glad that cleaning the dirty mouth wasn't about swearing, because I f$%#ing love to swear.

@6: Well, except for: A) the fact that McCarthy's campaign was bitterly opposed by the Democratic leadership, virtually all of which wanted Lyndon Johnson renominated until the moment he withdrew for the race, and no one, including Humphrey himself, had even considered the idea of Humphrey being nominated in '68 before that point; B) The reality that McCarthy's campaign was never the idea of the party itself, but emerged from below, out of the work of the "Dump Johnson" movement which worked to persuade somebody, ANYBODY to run against Johnson and the war, and who had repeatedly asked Bobby to run, only to have him repeatedly say no-at one point in late summer 1967, McCarthy himself had met privately with Bobby asking him to run, only to have Bobby say now, only to have Bobby change his mind and enter the primaries AFTER McCarthy came closer than anyone expected to beating Johnson in the New Hampshire primaries-McCarthy later said he thought, that if Bobby had stayed out of the primaries, he (McCarthy) would have swept the primaries and then the party would have drafted Bobby at the convention to stop him-a scenario which would almost certainly have led to a united party, a peace plank in the platform and a solid Democratic victory over Nixon. Biden's candidacy has nothing in common with any of that.

The democratic socialists are all about how wretched our economy is and the economy is on fire. The winning Democratic candidate will be the one who makes the election about Trump and not the economy while the Republicans will try to make the case that Trump IS the economy and that it IS the economy, stupid. So who can convince Bob or Sally Lee that it's better to throw out the wretched, authoritarian, fascist asshole and save the planet and democracy for our children ... than be able to buy that new truck? That's Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado and Florida. Right there, in those states, it is going to be the planet, democracy, Western liberalism, decency, diversity, intelligent governance and economic mobility against that new Ford Super Duty F-250 or Chevy Camaro SS. Does that scare you? Scares the chit out of me. So who among these fine candidates can best make the case in WI, MI, OH, PA, IL, CO & FL? Right now the people who actually know politics (and who can do actual math) think that's Joe. Policy? Hahahahahaha... Silly.

I don't like Biden, never have, but I understand his appeal: He is essentially positioning himself as an anti-Trump Republican. That appeals to a lot of older, more cautious Democrats who think the surest way to beat Trump is to give the 20% or so of Republicans who still harbor some misgivings about Trump an alternative they can stomach. Will it work? I dunno, but we're most likely going to find out. A Biden-Harris ticket is probably the best realistic scenario as of now.

@26 I hate to bust your bubble Auntie Grizelda, but while around 10 percent of Bernie's 2016 primary voters didn't vote for Hillary in the General, put that in the perspective of 2008, where around eighteen percent of Hillary's primary voters did not vote for Obama in the general. Remember the PUMAs? So Bernie did a far better job of delivering his supporters to Hillary than she did for Obama. Please spare me the tired Bernie Bro line. Granted, I'm certain that those 18% were Republican women whose votes probably could not have been counted on in the final, as they were Republicans. Bernie's lost votes were from Greens and working class Republicans who agreed with what Bernie said about the economy being rigged against them.

M? Com - Of course it matters. I'm not voting for any ticket containing Ms Gabbard.

@27 & @28 Mikara: Just imagine what could have happened had Hillary Clinton become U.S. President #45, as the result of an untampered election. The Electoral College needs to go. Badly. By the way, the shameless demise of U.S. politics, Trumpty Dumpty and its Evil Empire are the main reasons why I avoid Twitter altogether.
@34 Greenwood Bob: You didn't burst my bubble, Bob. I was offering only one example. Yes, there were certainly multiple contributing factors to the disastrous 2016 election, (i.e.: Greens and working class Republicans, for two more---where is Catalina Vel-DuRay? I'd love for her to nail that demographic) as you aptly pointed out.
@27 & @28 Mikara and @34 Greenwood Bob: Thus we are back to my comment @1.

@2 scott (the other one): Thank you.