Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Joe Bryant

Official Joe Biden Campaign Thread - Was "Joe Biden - Not Appealing Enough To Democrats?"

Recommended Posts

Following up on the post about Biden's particular appeal in PA (effectively his home state) and MI (Obama auto bailout)- just flipping those two states, which seems probable if he's the nominee, puts the Dems two electoral college votes from winning the presidency.  Flip a single electoral college vote- like say NE-2, which Clinton lost by just two points- and you've got a tie.  Flip any other state and it's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I agree with most of this, and Biden wouldn't be my choice.

But the bolded simply isn't correct, and is in fact arguably the best reason to nominate Biden. The people and places that swung to Trump in 2016 LOVE Biden. He's basically one of them- an old white Catholic guy from Scranton, PA who grew up blue collar, played football and went to state school, and speaks plainly and sometimes a little politically incorrect. He was the VP of a campaign they supported twice and of an administration that saved the auto industry as the GOP railed against the bailout.

I understand it makes no sense to people like you and I, who see him as old and lacking new ideas or a broader appeal and would consider his nomination something akin to "running it back with the same faces and hoping to coast back to power," as you put it. But that's not how the voters in the Great Lakes see it. It may not seem rational, but neither does the appeal of a billionaire real estate heir from Manhattan who has spent his entire life accumulating wealth by defrauding the working class. We've already seen the peril of minimizing their perspective in favor of ours.

That doesn't necessarily make him the best choice. There's lots of other variables- drumming up enthusiasm from young voters and minorities, his #metoo issues, the Iraq war vote, and obviously the small matter of how he'd actually govern. But there are huge factors in his favor, and we should acknowledge them and not kid ourselves.

That is a good point, and as a question of political science you may be right (though I'm not totally convinced you are). But speaking strictly as a Democratic primary voter, it is irrelevant to me. I'm not a blue-collar voter in the Midwest, and I'm not going to shade my vote based on what I think will appeal to them. I'm going to vote for the guy or gal I think will make the best president.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Following up on the post about Biden's particular appeal in PA (effectively his home state) and MI (Obama auto bailout)- just flipping those two states, which seems probable if he's the nominee, puts the Dems two electoral college votes from winning the presidency.  Flip a single electoral college vote- like say NE-2, which Clinton lost by just two points- and you've got a tie.  Flip any other state and it's over.

In my lifetime four incumbent presidents have been re-elected (Reagan, Clinton, W and Obama) and two have been defeated (Carter, Bush 41). With the former group, the maps looked very similar to what they had been four years prior, with only a few small changes. With the latter two, they looked completely different. All of which is to say I'm very wary of the view that all we have to do is flip the three midwest states we lost in '16 and restore order in the world. It may yet end up being the path to victory. But I want a candidate who's going to enter the campaign with the goal of really scrambling the 2016 map.

Now, it may be that I'm being unrealistic (after all, if Hillary had spent more time shoring up the Midwest and less time trying to flip AZ and GA, she might have won). But I feel like there was a time 25 years ago when Clintonion centrism was an effective strategy, and these days it is far less so. I think it is really important to get voters (across the spectrum) excited and inspired to vote for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zftcg said:

That is a good point, and as a question of political science you may be right (though I'm not totally convinced you are). But speaking strictly as a Democratic primary voter, it is irrelevant to me. I'm not a blue-collar voter in the Midwest, and I'm not going to shade my vote based on what I think will appeal to them. I'm going to vote for the guy or gal I think will make the best president.

That's my attitude too- I clearly have very little idea what the American people want in a presidential candidate after 2016, so I'm gonna try to forget about electability and vote for the person I think would make the best president. I'm just articulating the case for him; it's fairly strong and shouldn't be brushed aside.

I'll also add that the internet gives us a warped view of the both the Dem and general electorate, both of which are older and more centrist than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zftcg said:

That is a good point, and as a question of political science you may be right (though I'm not totally convinced you are). But speaking strictly as a Democratic primary voter, it is irrelevant to me. I'm not a blue-collar voter in the Midwest, and I'm not going to shade my vote based on what I think will appeal to them. I'm going to vote for the guy or gal I think will make the best president.

I should add that I am at least somewhat intrigued by Sherrod Brown, not because I think he will automatically win votes in the Midwest but because his emphasis on the "dignity of work" appeals to me on a personal level. (Though I am also enough of a realist to worry about the Dems conceding a key battleground Senate seat if he wins.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zftcg said:

I should add that I am at least somewhat intrigued by Sherrod Brown, not because I think he will automatically win votes in the Midwest but because his emphasis on the "dignity of work" appeals to me on a personal level. (Though I am also enough of a realist to worry about the Dems conceding a key battleground Senate seat if he wins.)

Yup.  Sucks for him, but it's true and significant and unavoidable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

That's my attitude too- I clearly have very little idea what the American people want in a presidential candidate after 2016, so I'm gonna try to forget about electability and vote for the person I think would make the best president. I'm just articulating the case for him; it's fairly strong and shouldn't be brushed aside.

Agreed, although I also think people are forgetting how bad of a candidate he has proven to be in the past. He literally has had one competitive election in his entire life (his first Senate campaign, in 1972). So I don't view Biden as a "threat" to win the nomination (not that I would describe him that way anyway). And hey, if he gets out there and proves to be an impressive campaigner who catches fire with the Dem primary electorate, more power to him. I just don't expect it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IC FBGCav said:

Trump wins in a landslide against Biden.  He is HRC light.

It’s always cracks me up how both extreme leftists and extreme rightists dismiss the center as unwinnable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

It’s always cracks me up how both extreme leftists and extreme rightists dismiss the center as unwinnable. 

I think making any assumptions about the impact of a candidate's ideology on the election is probably overstated. In fact, I think in general we put far too much emphasis on candidates rather than structural conditions. Candidate quality matters, but mostly at the margins, that last 2-3% that can decide a close election. To cite one example, I was a huge Obama supporter in the 2008 primary, but I viewed the battle between him and Hillary as like one of those '80s NFC Championship Games where the 49ers and Giants would battle it out to see which one of them would have the right to destroy the AFC team in the Super Bowl. There was no f###ing way the Dems were losing that election.

So when I hear people say Biden will win/lose in a landslide, my response is if that's how Biden will do, that means that external conditions are set up to ensure a landslide. But unless a candidate is McGovern-level disastrous, no way he's going to turn a potential win into a landslide loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apple said:

It does not matter if he is appealing or not, he just way too old.  People were not voting for McCain because he was too old and Biden is four years older now than McCain was then.

McCain wasn't too old to win the nomination over a wide open field. And his age was a particular drawback because he was running against a healthy, energetic 48 year old.  Biden would be running against an overweight 74 year old who is pretty clearly in the early stages of dementia. He'd be the healthier-looking and younger-looking of the two general election candidates by a decent stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I find the hesitation toward him interesting.

Is it fair to say most Democrats see the Obama Administration as the best administration in modern history?

Depends what you mean by modern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

McCain wasn't too old to win the nomination over a wide open field. And his age was a particular drawback because he was running against a healthy, energetic 48 year old.  Biden would be running against an overweight 74 year old who is pretty clearly in the early stages of dementia. He'd be the healthier-looking and younger-looking of the two general election candidates by a decent stretch.

He does have the good old cop vs. the bad old cop thing down solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Change to "their lifetime".

Probably Johnson was the best Presidency, but Obama may have been the best President.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Probably Johnson was the best Presidency, but Obama may have been the best President.  

I would say that Clinton probably best reflected the policies and beliefs of Americans during his 8 years.  Obama best reflected the policies and beliefs of his party during his 8 years. So the choice between the two for me would come down to a discussion of the role of a President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feels like he's been at the party too long and I really don't know what he stands for. Maybe the latter could work to his advantage overall, combined with his seeming appeal to the key midwestern state contingency. I think it's time to move on though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

I would say that Clinton probably best reflected the policies and beliefs of Americans during his 8 years.  Obama best reflected the policies and beliefs of his party during his 8 years. So the choice between the two for me would come down to a discussion of the role of a President.

I think the President is best as the moral compass of the nation. I think we did the most to move that forward during Johnson, though I appreciate Obama's moral compass more than Johnson's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 7:30 AM, timschochet said:

He has to be the favorite at this point. And I think he has a very simple compelling argument- he can win back Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, maybe Ohio. Can a progressive candidate do the same? Nobody is sure. 

His biggest problem, IMO, is not his policies, but the constant yearning for the new. 

I hate this thinking.  I could care less about how electable candidates are.  People should vote for the candidate that best supports their positions on the issues, but as a society we've been brainwashed into voting for the lesser evil.  Most of my family voted for Hillary in the primaries over Bernie, not because they actually supported her policies, but because Bernie wasn't "electable".  Are there any other aspects of society where we behave like this?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Workhorse said:

I would say that Clinton probably best reflected the policies and beliefs of Americans during his 8 years.  Obama best reflected the policies and beliefs of his party during his 8 years. So the choice between the two for me would come down to a discussion of the role of a President.

I think what Clinton did best was work with both sides (and maybe a credit to those in congress and the nasty stuff didn't come til later during his presidency).

Once things with Clinton got nasty, the divide kept growing.  W managed to get both to come together sum, but that divide grew and blew up during Obama and now with Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dickies said:

 the lesser evil....  Are there any other aspects of society where we behave like this?

Choice of spouse?

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dickies said:

I hate this thinking.  I could care less about how electable candidates are.  People should vote for the candidate that best supports their positions on the issues, but as a society we've been brainwashed into voting for the lesser evil.  Most of my family voted for Hillary in the primaries over Bernie, not because they actually supported her policies, but because Bernie wasn't "electable".  Are there any other aspects of society where we behave like this?

It's a fair question. But I'd say most of society operates this way. It's compromise. Lots of businesses especially make decisions choosing to promote maybe not the option they think is actually the best but the one they think they can actually get to market. It's the idealist vs the realist. And the understanding that a great idea that never gets past the idea stage may not be as good as the lesser idea that actually becomes reality. Lawyers do this all the time settling a case where both sides get something not quite as good as it might have been but not as bad as it could have been. 

It can be a bummer. But it's also reality at times too. 

I can totally see promoting a candidate that is more electable in a general election over the candidate you might think is better but you think has a lesser chance of making it in the general election. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems need to get off the moderate/progressive struggle. Pull for whom you want and support of course, support your values, but for gods sake let it go at some point. The resentment and negativity ended up suppressing voting last time, don’t repeat that. Yes I plead guilty please don’t bash me on the head.

Personally Biden checks my boxes. Experience. Decency. Likeability. A leader.  I think he can return this country to normal and end this cycle of insane rending of our uniting fabric. But I’ll support whoever comes down the pike, though likely not say a Bloomberg or some Trump-Dem version which I hope doesn’t arise. I’m voting for Normal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Yup.  Sucks for him, but it's true and significant and unavoidable.

I would have said that Brown's unpresidential appearance was a death knell, but then Bernie happened.  I think Brown does have all of Bernie's perceived authenticity and a lot more gravitas, IMO.  Also, and I hate to say it, but each time one of these tangential links between the Bernie campaign and the Manafort Ukraine work come up, I get a bit less comfortable.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Biden sucks. Let's find someobe who doesn't suck.

Can you elaborate on what you think is so bad and why you think it?

And what do you think about the idea of him playing up the Obama Administration 3.0 angle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Can you elaborate on what you think is so bad and why you think it?

And what do you think about the idea of him playing up the Obama Administration 3.0 angle? 

Thanks Joe. He voted to repeat Glass-Steagall and is in general against deregulation of banks (I guess representing Delaware has caused him to be a true believer in that), voted yes for the Patriot Act (it's like we don't even see that as a giant blow to our civil liberties anymore) and that he's pro-war is really all I need to dislike him and I would think progressives would too. Selling Obama's 3rd term really isn't a positive to me because Obama was too centrist for me. I suppose people can say "most of his legislation was 30 years ago" well that isn't very good defense. The only old person I think that has healthy ideas for our country is definitely not named Joe Biden.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rich old white man the face of the Democrats in 2020 ?

not likely - Biden missed his chance in 2016 IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

rich old white man the face of the Democrats in 2020 ?

not likely - Biden missed his chance in 2016 IMO

Biden isn’t exactly rich is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Biden isn’t exactly rich is he?

Joe Biden Net Worth: $900,000. Joe Biden's net worth is $900,000, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Most of his wealth likely comes from his eight years as vice president, during which he received an annual salary of at least $230,700.Dec 4, 2018

https://www.davemanuel.com/pols/joe-biden/

he's a millionaire - nice annual salary on top of perks of being VP ........ he's doing well and I'm not sure on his wife's income/net worth

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Joe Biden Net Worth: $900,000. Joe Biden's net worth is $900,000, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Most of his wealth likely comes from his eight years as vice president, during which he received an annual salary of at least $230,700.Dec 4, 2018

https://www.davemanuel.com/pols/joe-biden/

he's a millionaire - nice annual salary on top of perks of being VP ........ he's doing well and I'm not sure on his wife's income/net worth

 

Eh that ain’t nothin’ in DC politics. I think almost every other candidate will be in the same category.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Workhorse said:

I would say that Clinton probably best reflected the policies and beliefs of Americans during his 8 years.  Obama best reflected the policies and beliefs of his party during his 8 years. So the choice between the two for me would come down to a discussion of the role of a President.

When you look at their policies in hindsight it's not flattering as a democrat.   Clinton passed major Republican legislation:  

He offers a list of the 42nd president's "conservative" legislative achievements to bolster his case - the Defense of Marriage Act, welfare reform, massive trade deals like Nafta and Gatt, financial and telecommunications deregulation, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which served as the basis for last week's Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28155578

Obama was a war monger.  But we all have different definition of great I suppose.

Edited by IC FBGCav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want someone younger, with more youthful positivity than Uncle Joe.  He won't energize the young voter.  It's a cynical play to go after the rust belt whites that fled to Trump in 2016.  I don't want a cynical play.  I want the best candidate, and that candidate for me right now is Amy Klobuchar.

There's really not that much difference in policy between any of the mainstream Democrats.  I'd rather have someone with a great moral compass and the ability to speak to all people, not just a narrow band of the electorate that makes or breaks presidential elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 7:41 PM, Joe Bryant said:

It's a fair question. But I'd say most of society operates this way. It's compromise. Lots of businesses especially make decisions choosing to promote maybe not the option they think is actually the best but the one they think they can actually get to market. It's the idealist vs the realist. And the understanding that a great idea that never gets past the idea stage may not be as good as the lesser idea that actually becomes reality. Lawyers do this all the time settling a case where both sides get something not quite as good as it might have been but not as bad as it could have been. 

It can be a bummer. But it's also reality at times too. 

I can totally see promoting a candidate that is more electable in a general election over the candidate you might think is better but you think has a lesser chance of making it in the general election. 

The problem is a) people are bad at determining who is more "electable" and b) that type of thinking leads to boring, lowest-common-denominators candidates like John Kerry and Mitt Romney. It reminds me a little of people who take jobs they're not excited about because they think other people will find the job impressive, then find themselves dreading going to work every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 9:47 AM, sho nuff said:

I think age does matter when we are talking Biden.

And policies took a back stage in Trump vs Hillary.

Why? This seems a pretty split viewpoint, so I think elaboration helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

I just want someone younger, with more youthful positivity than Uncle Joe.  He won't energize the young voter.  It's a cynical play to go after the rust belt whites that fled to Trump in 2016.  I don't want a cynical play.  I want the best candidate, and that candidate for me right now is Amy Klobuchar.

This is an unfounded myth that many people (not just you) try to pass across. It doesn't seem to have any basis in reality that an old person can't energize the youth. Look at Bernie a couple years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

This is an unfounded myth that many people (not just you) try to pass across. It doesn't seem to have any basis in reality that an old person can't energize the youth. Look at Bernie a couple years ago.

I think Bernie is the exception. The best Democratic presidents have been young and energetic (WJC and BHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

Why? This seems a pretty split viewpoint, so I think elaboration helps.

Id say the same about Bernie...late 70s and into their 80s during a term.  No thanks.  Too much risk with the mind that age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden might be a nice addition to Harris if he is willing to be a VP again.

Edited by Da Guru
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 4:53 PM, zftcg said:

Isn't it weird that was considered a big enough scandal to force him out of the race? 

After the last 2+ years I’m struggling to come up with a scandal that forces a candidate out of a race.  You can pretty much be horrible with impunity as long as you are on my team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2019 at 10:43 AM, IC FBGCav said:

Obama was a war monger.  But we all have different definition of great I suppose.

The problem is ANY person that gets elected President over the last 20 years and the next 20 will be perceived as a war monger - we’ve done this to ourselves.  And in some (several?) cases it’s been the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

After the last 2+ years I’m struggling to come up with a scandal that forces a candidate out of a race.  You can pretty much be horrible with impunity as long as you are on my team.

Only Trump is undisturbed by scandal.  Other people play by different rules.

The same was true in 2016. Rubio’s chances plummeted because he repeated the same canned line three times in a debate.  Gary Johnson was considered a joke because he didn’t know what Allepo was.  Trump repeats himself way more than Rubio and knows way less than Johnson but it doesn’t hurt him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Only Trump is undisturbed by scandal.  Other people play by different rules.

The same was true in 2016. Rubio’s chances plummeted because he repeated the same canned line three times in a debate.  Gary Johnson was considered a joke because he didn’t know what Allepo was.  Trump repeats himself way more than Rubio and knows way less than Johnson but it doesn’t hurt him.

I think it has to do with whether you're capable of shame. Gianforte body slammed a reporter and then lied about it, but still managed to win his election. Roy Moore nearly won a Senate seat despite credible allegations of molesting teenage girls (it's true he did lose, but the key is that he never came close to dropping out, and many Republicans continued to support him.) Meanwhile Franken resigned his Senate seat mostly because of a dumb picture where he pretended to grab a woman's breast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Only Trump is undisturbed by scandal.  Other people play by different rules.

The same was true in 2016. Rubio’s chances plummeted because he repeated the same canned line three times in a debate.  Gary Johnson was considered a joke because he didn’t know what Allepo was.  Trump repeats himself way more than Rubio and knows way less than Johnson but it doesn’t hurt him.

I was mostly being hyperbolic and sarcastic but it seems to me like it could happen again.  But agree, vast majority wouldn’t get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the last 2 1/2 years whatever you say about any Presidential candidate wouldn't it be refreshing to have a President who knows how to apologize when he makes a mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Eliana Johnson‏Verified account @elianayjohnson

Biden gaggle right now might as well be a campaign launch. “I’m an Obama-Biden Democrat and I’m proud of it,” he says.

9:37 AM - 5 Apr 2019

 

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.