Not for the first time. She had several nationwide polls in the last weeks and months where she was in front, the first one of which came directly after the first debate:  https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/d4a2c5_2efb9006a2ce489391b353e9c8dde9f3.pdf

The only metric where this is remotely true is in those polls which the DNC base their qualification for the debates on... and even then, she was first before, albeit shared with Sanders:  https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_082619.pdf

Apart from that little blunder, I'm happy that Warren manages to continue to rise, and that Bernie also seems to be able to rise a bit. It clearly shows that the US become more and more ready for more left-leaning policies and some more drastic changes in favor of the workers

Biden would lose worse than Clinton. I'm being 100% honest when I say if you're record can be exposed in a terrible light, trump will do it. Biden would get destroyed. So would warren after the whole native american fiasco with him.... yea, no. Bernie has the best shot and trump has admitted behind closed doors that he's most afraid of bernie. Harris and pete both have bad records as well. There is currently only 1 candidate running that I think can beat trump regardless of what the polls say. I also think Tulsi might be able to beat him as well. But vetting is a thing and it shows you how "electable" these candidates are, and if we with no $ backing us can find how terrible your record is and rip you over it, trump can and will do it with more ferocity.

Yeah, they can take forever to build, especially more modern ones.

This was the main problem of 3rd generation reactors, and why everybody continued to build new 2nd Generation reactors even though they are inherently much less safe. The EPR is an extreme example: Olkiuloto 3 in Finland started construction in August 2005 and still isn't ready yet. Same for Flamanville 3 in France, which started construction in December 2007. The ones in China are somewhat faster, having started construction in 2009 and just a couple days ago started regular operations. This is why Generation 3+ mostly improves on the economics and less on the safety of these reactors (on generation 2+/2++, they always tried to enhance the safety - but the inherent safety problems of 2nd generation can't be overcome by those upgrades. For instance, Generation 3 reactors have a core catching chamber under the reactor to collect the corium in the event of the reactor leaking out, preventing it from leaving the facility and safely trapping it in that chamber, something you can't install into old power plants. Generators are on higher floors to prevent flooding damage and would have prevented the Fukushima disaster, again something you can't retrofit into old reactors due to the size and space constraints), as they are already very much safer than 2nd Generation reactors.

Still, some nuclear power will be needed as baseline. You mentioned in a previous post that batteries in houses which should last several days would solve the problems of not having enough batteries yet to go full renewable. An american household consumes about 32 kWh of electricity a day (11700 kWh per year). Now let's check how much the batties can hold:

• SonnenBatterie Eco: up to 16 kWh
• Tesla PowerWall 2: 13.5 kWh
• Enphase battery storage system: Only 1.2 kWh, but many can be coupled together

There are others, but I had problems finding any that could hold over the 13.5 of the Tesla Powerwall 2, let alone the 16 kWh of the sonnenBatterie Eco. But for your plan, those would need to be at least 4 times larger than they are, and they are already wardrobe-sized.

While I do agree it's technically possible, it's not economically viable right now and thus has no chance of getting implemented anytime soon.

Also, one thing about nuclear energy, which may be very counter-intuitive, is that it can actually reduce nuclear waste. For instance the nuclear warheads that had been scrapped after treaties which limited their numbers got refurbished into rods for nuclear power plants. Several Generation 4 designs run on MOX (Mixed OXides), which is basically some fresh Uranium fuel mixed with spent fuel from other plants, reducing the amount of nuclear waste significantly.

Like I also said before, while I'm for the construction of new Nuclear reactors, I am also for the closure of the old, unsafe ones. Any nuclear reactor built before the 1990's should not get their license extended anymore and be replaced by a more modern one. And with modern, I don't mean Generation 2+/2++, but Generation 3/3+ or higher exclusively.

An organization led by Warren's daughter gave $45,000 to the Working Families Party.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7498879/Warren-secured-Working-Families-Party-backing-think-tank-daughter-chairs-gave-45-000.html

Well I'm certainly not going to complain about Biden not coming first in a national poll. That can only be good news to me. It'll further damage his inevitability argument that makes people not want to vet him for fear of "hurting him in the general." What nonsense. Vet all your candidates. It's what the primary is for.

One thing I will say about Warren's electability is that polls have generally shown her improving versus Trump, and this is because, get ready this'll blow your mind, campaigning works! So many pundits want to argue that demographics are destiny, that whatever groups of people that make up a candidates base are the only groups that will ever make it up, no way to change it, no way to change minds. It's this myth that minds don't change. Yes, it's hard work, and work that candidates, politicians, and the political establishment seem increasingly reluctant to do nowadays, but it does work. In 2016, Bernie was portrayed as the candidate of young white men, dubbed "Bernie Bros." That was never really the case, but by the end of the campaign, Sanders had bolstered his support with blacks and women and actually had a more female audience than Clinton. He continued his outreach to non-white communities, and he's now the most liked among Latinx voters and one of the strongest with black voters, and the strongest with young black voters. Low and behold, Warren is campaigning too, and it's working. The idea that only Biden could beat Trump because his numbers were already the highest was always a lie. Bernie has shown that real campaigning to win hearts and minds actually works, and now Warren is showing it too. I can only hope we start to see this from more politicians. We've become too cynical, and not only stopped listening to each other, but stopped trying to communicate at all. Bernie and Liz represent a reversal of that trend.

Biden has been winning 45 consistently in the general election polls, it will be harder for him than Sanders but he still has an incredible chance of winning more than what Clinton had. Biden has more favorability than Clinton. The only one in the top three that's JUST recently started to win 45 consistently in the polls is Warren, but I believe that was due to her being relatively unknown to the general public. Now that she's had some time to shine she wins 45. I do agree that Sanders has the best chance of the three to beat him and that 45 will go after the nominee with ferocity (that's why vetting is so important) but the odds are still in the Democrats favor.

Yeah people forget that the polls didn't show Clinton winning in a landslide back then. In fact they showed her barely beating him, months out from the actual result. Every other Republican candidate it showed her losing to. Chances are she would have lost to any candidate that she ran against. Her brand was just that toxic, and the establishment refused to acknowledge that. Say what you will about Biden, but he's doing way better than Clinton. I still think it'll come down to campaigning, because Trump did at points fall further behind Clinton and to his credit did campaign pretty hard to catch up as much as he did, particularly in PA, MI, and WI. However Clinton just ambled her way to the finish line on a sense of inevitability that was never really supported by the data. I see Biden as likely being similarly complacent, and see that complacency as very dangerous, but at least there's credible data to support the idea that he could beat Trump.

I disagree big time. Those same polls said Clinton had over 90% chance of winning. Biden cognitively and policy wise would get destroyed.  Trump would go 100% fake populist, rip him for his record and destroy him in the general. Biden's weaker than Clinton, he'd get destroyed in the debates cause his record sucks and then trump would run away with it. People need to stop underestimating trump. His base is energized to hell and back right now.

No, they didn't. The polls said nothing about probability. It was the batshit insane pundits interpreting the polls that saw a 2% margin on the popular vote as a 99% chance of victory in the electoral college system. I agree that Biden is vulnerable in precisely the way you say, but you're underestimating just how rancid Clinton's brand was. People hated her, and anyone outside the establishment bubble could see that.

Oh no, I'm not saying people didn't hate her. I hate her too. But on election night I saw people with this 90%+ chance and shit and it was crazy to me cause she was always in the margin of error. If you campaign with Hill, you'll probably lose (Warren). Honestly tho, Authenticity, trust and real populism the only things I see beating trump. Biden can't do it. He would lose. Warren along with the other neo-libs aren't authentic or populist. And unlike a lot of peeps, my thing isn't just beating trump. Its beating him and setting the correct course and that's why I'm with Bernie and Tulsi. I'm not 100% on Tulsi beating trump, those smears are crazy, but I am pretty close to 100 on Bernie and I know he'll fight for his agenda. Honestly, this election is do or die.