Joe Biden under fire for celebrating segregationists (2 Viewers)

[[scooter]]

This makes no sense. Trump won the first time at least somewhat due to apathy/ambivalence.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/763214-2018-elections-thread/?do=findComment&comment=20666366

I'm not sure if Trump (and his supporters) are a good test case for trying out a theory on a national scale.

The flaw in the concept, IMO, is that if you attempt to emphasize mundane things -- affordable health insurance and the environment, for example -- Trump can just respond with "Nobody loves affordable health insurance and the environment more than me, believe me." And you've instantly lost all your traction. The only way to get it back is to point out that Trump has done nothing about health insurance or the environment -- and once you do that, then you trigger the Right Wing Media Machine, which causes Trump supporters to feel like they're being attacked.

I agree that Hillary was a more powerful trigger than Biden would be. But still, we're talking about a group of people who can manufacture outrage out of almost anything. How can you stop them from being triggered while also preventing Trump from co-opting your ideas?

 

[sho nuff]

I’ll wait for him to start crying on Twitter about how unfairly he’s treated.

Former Vice Presidential Harassment!!!

 

[Widbil83]

You would think, after all the experts on this board saying the ONLY way Trump loses is if Biden wins the nomination, that CNN, the king of Trump hating, would pick up that ball and run with it.  But no...  Maybe  they know--- Trump loses the election their ratings die. They NEED Trump to stay in office.

I think that is part of it, and they also know deep down Biden’s got no shot and will screw this up for them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's just a more lengthy reiteration of what you already said. It still doesn't make sense - apathy and lack of appeal aren't winning strategies. You have to make people care enough to get out to vote for you more so than your opponent does with their would be supporters. I'm not advocating catering to the fringe or running on nothing besides "not Trump", but enthusiasm for your candidacy is necessary to the degree it incites people to actually vote for you rather than not bothering to vote at all. I find Biden susceptible to voter apathy. Granted at this point he is favored in the head to heads with Trump, I think that will deteriorate as the campaign proceeds.

People don't vote for candidates as much as they vote against candidates.

In 2016, when people checked the box next to Trump's name, it was more "not Hillary" than "yes Trump." Because Hillary excited them.

In 2020, when people check the box next to Biden's name, it will be more "not Trump" than "yes Biden." Because Trump has excited them.

Exciting your own base is fine as far as it goes, but often whatever you do to excite your own base will also excite your opponent's base, and that second part tends to outweigh the first part.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I agree that Hillary was a more powerful trigger than Biden would be.

A number of people would be a more powerful trigger than Biden -- Sanders and Warren seem like good bets, for example.

Other people might be less of a trigger than Biden -- maybe Buttigieg or Klobuchar, for instance.

Elections are complicated and there's no One Single Factor that automatically trumps all others. But I believe it's a mistake to think that, in general elections, unexciting candidates are less electable than more exciting candidates by virtue of their relative excitingness.

There are a number of reasons to think that Biden's electability is currently overrated. I don't think his perceived unexcitingness is one of them.

 

[The General]

It’s coming. The media is supposed to be on his side.

I’m not a Biden fan or anything, pretty indifferent to him but that would be disappointing. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/763214-2018-elections-thread/?do=findComment&comment=20666366

That's just a more lengthy reiteration of what you already said.

It wasn't just a reiteration. It came with a link to science.

 

[whoknew]

The grand (and somewhat humorous) irony is that the left-wing Democrats smell blood and are sabotaging their best chance at beating Trump far better than Trump ever could himself.

Yes. Damn them for calling out a fellow member for saying something stupid. We know the GOP would not do the same - as has been demonstrated ad naseum since November 2016.

 

[The General]

@Widbil83 BTW how was Biden celebrating segregationists?

 

[PhantomJB]

Yes. Damn them for calling out a fellow member for saying something stupid. We know the GOP would not do the same - as has been demonstrated ad naseum since November 2016.

Who said anything about the GOP?

 

[whoknew]

Who said anything about the GOP?

Me. In that post you quoted.

 

[PhantomJB]

Me. In that post you quoted.

Well, I certainly didn't. What the GOP does/doesn't do absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

 

[timschochet]

This is the same logic you used to say HRC was the most electable candidate in 2016. Biden is only slightly, if at all, more exciting than Clinton was. He is a gaffe machine and has a lengthy history that will probably be easily exploited to make him look bad. His only advantage over HRC's candidacy is that he's not hated quite as much. I won't be surprised, at all, if he were to be the candidate that he fails to generate enough interest to beat Trump. The Democrats can, and should, do better than him if they want to win.

The first problem with your response is that I never once argued that Hillary Clinton was the most electable candidate in 2016. Others made that point, I didn’t.  I didn’t know who was the most electable; I supported Hillary because I agreed with her on many more issues that were important to me than I agreed with Bernie Sanders. 

This time around Biden is not my preferred candidate; that would be Mayor Pete at this point, and then Kamala, then Biden. But I wouldn’t mind Biden and I think he has the best chance of defeating Trump. So overall I disagree with your analysis. 

 

[whoknew]

Well, I certainly didn't. What the GOP does/doesn't do absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

Ok. My point is that if Biden says something stupid, he needs to be criticized. Regardless of whether that sabotages their best chance for beating Trump or not. 

Otherwise they risk becoming a party of sycophants. Like that group which shall remain unnamed apparently.

 

[squistion]

The first problem with your response is that I never once argued that Hillary Clinton was the most electable candidate in 2016. Others made that point, I didn’t.  I didn’t know who was the most electable; I supported Hillary because I agreed with her on many more issues that were important to me than I agreed with Bernie Sanders. 

This time around Biden is not my preferred candidate; that would be Mayor Pete at this point, and then Kamala, then Biden. But I wouldn’t mind Biden and I think he has the best chance of defeating Trump. So overall I disagree with your analysis. 

True you never said that. You did say she was most qualified to run, but that isn't the same thing.

 

[PhantomJB]

Ok. My point is that if Biden says something stupid, he needs to be criticized. Regardless of whether that sabotages their best chance for beating Trump or not. 

Otherwise they risk becoming a party of sycophants. Like that group which shall remain unnamed apparently.

Yes. That's why I said it's ironic.

 

[whoknew]

Yes. That's why I said it's ironic.

Well then I apologize for misunderstanding your post. My bad.

 

[Gr00vus]

It wasn't just a reiteration. It came with a link to science.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, and not making very well, is that I believe it is possible and advantageous to find a way to appeal to voters and not hyper-energize your opponents' less enthusiastic voters. The paper you link to is about extreme ideologies - I'm not advocating running on extreme ideologies (sorry if it came across that way). I'm saying I think you do need to stand for something to get people to vote for you, you need to give them good reasons to turn out. I don't think Biden does that well enough, and I think there are others in the D field who can without going full extremist and lighting up the on the fringe Trump voters. In fact I think there are other D's in the field who might be enticing enough to actually appeal to some of that element and the moderates as well.

 

[timschochet]

That's just a more lengthy reiteration of what you already said. It still doesn't make sense - apathy and lack of appeal aren't winning strategies. You have to make people care enough to get out to vote for you more so than your opponent does with their would be supporters. I'm not advocating catering to the fringe or running on nothing besides "not Trump", but enthusiasm for your candidacy is necessary to the degree it incites people to actually vote for you rather than not bothering to vote at all. I find Biden susceptible to voter apathy. Granted at this point he is favored in the head to heads with Trump, I think that will deteriorate as the campaign proceeds.

What you’ve written here is generally true about elections but I do not believe it will be true this time. Donald Trump is a uniquely polarizing candidate and his presence breaks all of the standard rules. We don’t need an exciting candidate to beat him- in fact we don’t WANT an exciting candidate to beat him. An exciting Democratic candidate would only take away from what will be the winning theme for the election: when voters step into that booth, they need to see it as a simple choice between “Donald Trump” and “Not Donald Trump”. If that is the choice, Democrats win.

 

[Gr00vus]

The first problem with your response is that I never once argued that Hillary Clinton was the most electable candidate in 2016. Others made that point, I didn’t.  I didn’t know who was the most electable; I supported Hillary because I agreed with her on many more issues that were important to me than I agreed with Bernie Sanders. 

This time around Biden is not my preferred candidate; that would be Mayor Pete at this point, and then Kamala, then Biden. But I wouldn’t mind Biden and I think he has the best chance of defeating Trump. So overall I disagree with your analysis. 

You never said HRC was the most likely D candidate to win against Trump? Particularly when it came down to her and Sanders? Like it was an almost guaranteed D loss if Sanders was the nominee instead of HRC?

 

[PhantomJB]

Well then I apologize for misunderstanding your post. My bad.

No worries. I suppose was asking for it when I said humorous but that's because I'm more independent.

IMO the other aspect of taking down Biden (that of course no one in here will take seriously) is that it will re-introduce the Howard Schultz factor. He will come back into the race and if Gary Johnson can get 3+% then he would garner maybe 5-10%. 

 

[Mystery Achiever]

@Widbil83 BTW how was Biden celebrating segregationists?

I agree with you that he wasn't and the outcry is OTT, but this is a Liz Warren quote: “I’m not here to criticize other Democrats, but it’s never okay to celebrate segregationists."

 

[Gr00vus]

What you’ve written here is generally true about elections but I do not believe it will be true this time. Donald Trump is a uniquely polarizing candidate and his presence breaks all of the standard rules. We don’t need an exciting candidate to beat him- in fact we don’t WANT an exciting candidate to beat him. An exciting Democratic candidate would only take away from what will be the winning theme for the election: when voters step into that booth, they need to see it as a simple choice between “Donald Trump” and “Not Donald Trump”. If that is the choice, Democrats win.

You're advocating running 2016 back again. Unbelievable.

 

[timschochet]

You never said HRC was the most likely D candidate to win against Trump? Particularly when it came down to her and Sanders? Like it was an almost guaranteed D loss if Sanders was the nominee instead of HRC?

I don’t think so, no. I might have gone in thinking that, but by the time it was a contest between the two I was pretty clear that I really didn’t know who had the advantage there and I thought that either might. I predicted that both would beat Trump. 

Afterwards however, I rejected the argument that Bernie would have beaten Trump when Hillary failed. I saw, and still see, no evidence to support that. 

 

[timschochet]

You're advocating running 2016 back again. Unbelievable.

No. I’m not. 2016 was a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of those who voted for Trump did so because they rejected Hillary. Hillary was a polarizing personality, much more than I suspected. This time around I want somebody less polarizing because, again, i want this fight to be all about Trump and not about the Democrat. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Donald Trump is a uniquely polarizing candidate and his presence breaks all of the standard rules.

I think this is true as well, and is relevant to the theory that successively chosen Presidents tend to be opposites in important ways.

In my lifetime ... Nixon was a crook, so in the following election we got the puritanical Jimmy Carter. He turned out to be a wimp, so then we got the strong cowboy, Ronald Reagan. Followed by the nerdy, uncharismatic George H.W. Bush. Followed by the charming -- too charming -- Bill Clinton. Followed by the family-oriented, if a bit bellicose and dim, George W. Bush. Followed by the Con Law professor running on an anti-war platform, Barrack Obama. Followed by Donald Trump who is not exactly a constitutional scholar, but whose most salient feature is that he is the exact opposite of boring.

Signs point to a boring candidate having an advantage next time around.

 

[The General]

I agree with you that he wasn't and the outcry is OTT, but this is a Liz Warren quote: “I’m not here to criticize other Democrats, but it’s never okay to celebrate segregationists."

Thanks for pointing that out.

She is completely off base with that line if she is applying it to what Biden said. I'd like to hear her follow up on that. I'm guessing she would refrain from attaching anything to Biden and move the discussion to overarching comments on race, equality, etc.

Regardless, IMO Biden has handled this non-story properly. 

 

[Widbil83]

@Widbil83 BTW how was Biden celebrating segregationists?

See op and Liz Warren direct quote.

 

[The General]

See op and Liz Warren direct quote.

I missed that on my first reading. Thanks.

Do you agree with Warren's assessment? 

 

[Gawain]

A number of people would be a more powerful trigger than Biden -- Sanders and Warren seem like good bets, for example.

Other people might be less of a trigger than Biden -- maybe Buttigieg or Klobuchar, for instance.

Elections are complicated and there's no One Single Factor that automatically trumps all others. But I believe it's a mistake to think that, in general elections, unexciting candidates are less electable than more exciting candidates by virtue of their relative excitingness.

There are a number of reasons to think that Biden's electability is currently overrated. I don't think his perceived unexcitingness is one of them.

I'm just concerned your argument leads to this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So only Democrats, liberals or progressives are allowed to start threads about 2020 Democrat candidate buffoonery in the news? Makes sense.

Oh don’t be ridiculous, of course they can. I’m just noting you’re pushing a point that fits perfectly into what Trump needs to do.

Just as an example, do you think a Dem President should work with a Steve King to pass neutral, non-race related legislation? 

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Thanks for pointing that out.

She is completely off base with that line if she is applying it to what Biden said. I'd like to hear her follow up on that. I'm guessing she would refrain from attaching anything to Biden and move the discussion to overarching comments on race, equality, etc.

Regardless, IMO Biden has handled this non-story properly. 

It was a gift to other candidates who need to erode his support among blacks.His "He didn't call me boy" comment was tone deaf. Of course not, Joe, you're white.

This is the reporter who got Warren's quote, but he provides no context. It would be helpful to hear what he asked. Sometimes (ill-advisedly imo) politicians respond to what a reporter tells them was said vs. having heard or read the quote directly and verbatim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-faces-backlash-over-comments-about-the-civility-of-his-past-work-with-racist-senators/2019/06/19/c0375d2a-92a8-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.0ffa56b243df

 

[Ghost Rider]

No. I’m not. 2016 was a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many of those who voted for Trump did so because they rejected Hillary. Hillary was a polarizing personality, much more than I suspected. This time around I want somebody less polarizing because, again, i want this fight to be all about Trump and not about the Democrat. 

That's a mistake.  While Trump's flaws are glaring and obvious, the Democrat who gets the nomination will have a better chance if he/she does their best to make themselves look like a great candidate, rather than simply playing the "I'm not Trump, vote for me" card.  Moderates like myself, who have no allegiance to either party, want and need more than that, and I hope the Democrats realize that. 

Note: barring a major scandal, if Biden gets the nomination, he'll have my vote.  Despite his tendency to stick his foot in his mouth on occasion, I think he would be good for the country.  

 

[pollardsvision]

I think this is true as well, and is relevant to the theory that successively chosen Presidents tend to be opposites in important ways.

In my lifetime ... Nixon was a crook, so in the following election we got the puritanical Jimmy Carter. He turned out to be a wimp, so then we got the strong cowboy, Ronald Reagan. Followed by the nerdy, uncharismatic George H.W. Bush. Followed by the charming -- too charming -- Bill Clinton. Followed by the family-oriented, if a bit bellicose and dim, George W. Bush. Followed by the Con Law professor running on an anti-war platform, Barrack Obama. Followed by Donald Trump who is not exactly a constitutional scholar, but whose most salient feature is that he is the exact opposite of boring.

Signs point to a boring candidate having an advantage next time around.

All signs pointing to Pete!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think this is true as well, and is relevant to the theory that successively chosen Presidents tend to be opposites in important ways.

In my lifetime ... Nixon was a crook, so in the following election we got the puritanical Jimmy Carter. He turned out to be a wimp, so then we got the strong cowboy, Ronald Reagan. Followed by the nerdy, uncharismatic George H.W. Bush. Followed by the charming -- too charming -- Bill Clinton. Followed by the family-oriented, if a bit bellicose and dim, George W. Bush. Followed by the Con Law professor running on an anti-war platform, Barrack Obama. Followed by Donald Trump who is not exactly a constitutional scholar, but whose most salient feature is that he is the exact opposite of boring.

Signs point to a boring candidate having an advantage next time around.

But Bob Dole is no longer running.

 

[Gawain]

Yeah, it's fade Biden time:

“I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help during this week’s Committee meeting in attempting to bring my anti-busing legislation to a vote,” Biden wrote on June 30, 1977, to Sen. James Eastland,

You done messed up A-A-Ron

2019 feels a little too woke to let this slide. Bernie, Pete or Bust!

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, it's fade Biden time:

You done messed up A-A-Ron

2019 feels a little too woke to let this slide. Bernie, Pete or Bust!

This isn’t going to hurt him. 

And what’s with the jive language? 

 

[timschochet]

Really? I was willing to accept the "boy" comments as normal foot-in-mouth Joe or maybe an awkward attempt at humor, but this is clearly on a different, damn-worthy level, at least to me. 

Yesterday Eastland was an abhorrent racist that Biden "had to put up with" to do his job, but now he's writing him thank you notes for his help on anti-busing legislation? And apparently Biden's friendship with this proudly racist plantation owner predates his own political career?

I don't know that he wore blackface or anything, but I bet you he would've thought it was pretty funny. 

F this guy. 

First off, being anti-busing is not the same as being pro-segregation. Busing was opposed by a lot of liberals as well as conservatives, for various reasons. (Racists like Eastland didn't like integration, but non-racist conservatives were against putting kids on buses an shipping them hours from their homes, while many liberals believed it didn't address the poor condition of schools in the inner cities.) It was a fierce debate, Biden's opposition was perfectly legitimate, and it's revisionist history to suggest that it wasn't.

I will be very surprised if blacks start to peel away from Biden because of this.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

First off, being anti-busing is not the same as being pro-segregation. Busing was opposed by a lot of liberals as well as conservatives, for various reasons. (Racists like Eastland didn't like integration, but non-racist conservatives were against putting kids on buses an shipping them hours from their homes, while many liberals believed it didn't address the poor condition of schools in the inner cities.) It was a fierce debate, Biden's opposition was perfectly legitimate, and it's revisionist history to suggest that it wasn't.

I will be very surprised if blacks start to peel away from Biden because of this.

How many red flags and excuses do we need for this guy?  There has to be better candidates than this.  

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think this is true as well, and is relevant to the theory that successively chosen Presidents tend to be opposites in important ways.

In my lifetime ... Nixon was a crook, so in the following election we got the puritanical Jimmy Carter. He turned out to be a wimp, so then we got the strong cowboy, Ronald Reagan. Followed by the nerdy, uncharismatic George H.W. Bush. Followed by the charming -- too charming -- Bill Clinton. Followed by the family-oriented, if a bit bellicose and dim, George W. Bush. Followed by the Con Law professor running on an anti-war platform, Barrack Obama. Followed by Donald Trump who is not exactly a constitutional scholar, but whose most salient feature is that he is the exact opposite of boring.

Signs point to a boring candidate having an advantage next time around.

This guy makes too much sense.  Say it is so Joe!

 

[timschochet]

How many red flags and excuses do we need for this guy?  There has to be better candidates than this.  

You want somebody more liberal? Interesting. 

 

[timschochet]

Biden today at the Clyburn Fish Fry in South Carolina: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/06/22/joe-biden-south-carolina-fish-fry-1376705

The black voters there don’t care about this story. They love him. 

Biden is going to be very hard to beat. That’s true of the rest of the Democratic field and of Trump as well. 

 

[Widbil83]

I missed that on my first reading. Thanks.

Do you agree with Warren's assessment? 

No I don’t agree with Warren, Booker or Kamalas assessment.  It’s playing the race card 101 and extremely dirty.  You can’t tell me these people really honestly believe Joe Biden is a racist.  But this is what is going to go on during the Democrat primary, the term “circus” doesn’t go far enough for the things we are going to witness in the next 9 months.  It’s going to sweep Trump right back in for a second term.

 

[The General]

No I don’t agree with Warren, Booker or Kamalas assessment.  It’s playing the race card 101 and extremely dirty.  You can’t tell me these people really honestly believe Joe Biden is a racist.  But this is what is going to go on during the Democrat primary, the term “circus” doesn’t go far enough for the things we are going to witness in the next 9 months.  It’s going to sweep Trump right back in for a second term.

Dems are going to vote for whoever is picked. Biden continuing to be moderate and not allowing the overly PC card to be played on him will appeal to moderates / people who don’t pay attention.

I don’t believe anyone realistically thinks Biden is racist, more that he’s ancient and represents old school politics. 

Bigger problem with Joe is he steps in it often so it could continue to distract and pull him back. 

 

[Widbil83]

Biden today at the Clyburn Fish Fry in South Carolina: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/06/22/joe-biden-south-carolina-fish-fry-1376705

The black voters there don’t care about this story. They love him. 

Biden is going to be very hard to beat. That’s true of the rest of the Democratic field and of Trump as well. 

He hasn’t even spoke at the event yet so this is a bit premature.  I think he’s up a 7et.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

There are fine people on both sides of the segregationist movement.  Let move along here.

I'm just excited with an upcoming election choice featuring a combined age of 152.

 

[cubd8]

Corey Booker, Liz Warren and Kamala Harris all responding-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-cites-segregationist-senators-he-recalls-past-civility-senate-n1019211

Biden is a gaffe machine and he'll continue providing material for others, but it should be very obvious why Booker and Harris are so outspoken on this topic and it has everything to do with politics.

 

[timschochet]

Biden is a gaffe machine and he'll continue providing material for others, but it should be very obvious why Booker and Harris are so outspoken on this topic and it has everything to do with politics.

They’re making a mistake. The Democratic voters are not going to respond well to candidates attacking each other. They want them to stay positive and attack Trump. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Glad to see we're back to the petty gotcha politics.

We all know what he meant.  Most of us know he meant well by his comments.  

We should just move on and not try to score stupid political points on poorly worded comments when we know he doens't celebrate segregation, doesn't like that the guy was a segregationist, wouldn't endorse folks using "boy" language...and on and on.

Who can beat their chests the loudest and decry racism and bigotry and use those cries against a guy who...decries racism and bigotry.

Basically this, and soon the left needs to learn that this is the stuff that turns a lot of people off to them.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

No I don’t agree with Warren, Booker or Kamalas assessment.  It’s playing the race card 101 and extremely dirty.  You can’t tell me these people really honestly believe Joe Biden is a racist.  But this is what is going to go on during the Democrat primary, the term “circus” doesn’t go far enough for the things we are going to witness in the next 9 months.  It’s going to sweep Trump right back in for a second term.

This is what I am afraid of.