Joe Biden 2020 campaign megathread v3 (pg 45 - mass-dropout aftermath)

[Xing]

At least it will just be one term.

Well, it still could be zero.

[Xing]

Biden’s winning the nomination. I had a come to Jesus moment when Harris dropped out.

Warren, Sanders, and Pete are not penetrating his wall in the South.

At least it will just be one term.

Followed by President Haley or President DeSantis

Yuck!

You probably would like them more than W Bush or Trump

And maybe more than cyanide and carbon monoxide as well!

[Xing]

"Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along?"

In theory, yes. It would also be nice to get along with a hungry lion if the lion's idea of "getting along" didn't mean eating me alive. Compromise is a good thing when the goal is to the benefit of everyone and there's give and take coming from all sides. The Republican idea of "compromise" is the Democrats bending to their will, letting them have all the power, not lifting a finger to fight back against or call them out on their lies, and everyone on the left collectively shutting up. That's not an attitude you can reason or compromise with. You don't compromise with a kid throwing a tantrum and showing no concern for anyone else.

[Xing]

So now the "Dems too far left" crowd is resorting to INTERNATIONAL elections to prove that Democrats need to "moderate"? This is getting absurd.

[Xing]

So now the "Dems too far left" crowd is resorting to INTERNATIONAL elections to prove that Democrats need to "moderate"? This is getting absurd.

I mean, we also use the 2018 midterms, but nobody seems to listen.

I’ve heard that argument before, but I don’t see the point. More moderate Democrats won their primaries, so? Plenty of progressives won in competitive districts/states as well. People mainly bring up Gillum, who underperformed the more moderate Nelson by a whopping 0.3%. Not exactly an argument that progressive Democrats are doomed to lose like McGovern.

[Xing]

So now the "Dems too far left" crowd is resorting to INTERNATIONAL elections to prove that Democrats need to "moderate"? This is getting absurd.

I mean, we also use the 2018 midterms, but nobody seems to listen.

I’ve heard that argument before, but I don’t see the point. More moderate Democrats won their primaries, so? Plenty of progressives won in competitive districts/states as well. People mainly bring up Gillum, who underperformed the more moderate Nelson by a whopping 0.3%. Not exactly an argument that progressive Democrats are doomed to lose like McGovern.

It's more about the dozens of red seats flipped, universally by normie Dems, while the promised "revolution" of progressives (in particular, JusticeDems) resulted in 0 flips.

Not every progressive Democrat is a “Justice Dem”, and again, where is the evidence that had more progressive Democrats won primaries, fewer seats would have flipped? 2018 basically just shows that more moderate Democrats win primaries. Or do people really think that the more progressive Democrat would have lost CO-06 against Coffman?

[Xing]

So now the "Dems too far left" crowd is resorting to INTERNATIONAL elections to prove that Democrats need to "moderate"? This is getting absurd.

I mean, we also use the 2018 midterms, but nobody seems to listen.

I’ve heard that argument before, but I don’t see the point. More moderate Democrats won their primaries, so? Plenty of progressives won in competitive districts/states as well. People mainly bring up Gillum, who underperformed the more moderate Nelson by a whopping 0.3%. Not exactly an argument that progressive Democrats are doomed to lose like McGovern.

It's more about the dozens of red seats flipped, universally by normie Dems, while the promised "revolution" of progressives (in particular, JusticeDems) resulted in 0 flips.

Not every progressive Democrat is a “Justice Dem”, and again, where is the evidence that had more progressive Democrats won primaries, fewer seats would have flipped? 2018 basically just shows that more moderate Democrats win primaries. Or do people really think that the more progressive Democrat would have lost CO-06 against Coffman?

I mean, it's a sliding scale of ideology, you have to make the cut somewhere.  I feel like people who explicitly aligned themselves with the Sanders-endorsed Cenk/Kulinski anti-DNC progressive organization, of which there were plenty, is a good barometer for who was supposed to be the harbingers of the revolution.

And my point is that there’s a difference between saying that we can do better than the Cenk/Kulinski types and saying that we will lose if we go “too far left”, which is a pretty meaningless characterization to begin with.

[Xing]

Biden is triaging New Hampshire. Which is not something one would do if they think they’ll win Iowa.

NH is probably the least important early state for Biden, though. He can afford to lose it badly if he wins big in SC and takes either IA or NV.

[Xing]

Biden definitely isn't "done", but he really needs to win SC by a lot, and I think NV could be a problem for him, given how poor his organization seemed in this caucus, and that Sanders will have less competition.

[Xing]

Biden needs a win in NV. With how poorly he performed in IA and NH and his national collapse in polling, a second-place finish to Bernie isn't enough. He needs something to put energy back in his campaign, and a second-place finish won't do that.

A second place finish probably wouldn't save him, but it could at least be spun as a turn-around, and his campaign would live to fight another day. If he gets 3rd or worse in NV, though, I don't see how he goes forward.

[Xing]

Biden very likely wins SC, but unless he wins by a surprisingly wide margin, what is his path forward? He'll get a few states on Super Tuesday, but unless he can start winning states outside of the South, he'll just keep falling behind Sanders in delegates after that.

[Xing]

Biden is not well mentally. It would be a disaster to run him as the nominee.

He will surround himself with competent people.

Can he get a stunt double to debate Trump?

Probably not, but I'm not worried about the debate.  Two mentally not there people debating each other?  It will be a wash.

Not when the two of them aren't held to the same standard.

[Xing]

Hey guys throwing this out but might we be overreacting a bit? I mean Biden still has no staff or ground game in California or the northeast along with the fact almost all the races right after ST are gonna be Bernie friendly

We'll see soon enough. Biden's whole campaign has banked on the idea that name recognition and fondness for Obama's presidency are bigger factors than a ground game. Didn't pay off in IA/NH, but definitely did in SC. Now, there's also the matter of whether "Not Sanders" is a stronger force than Sanders.

[Xing]

In what universe are "almost all the races right after ST . . . gonna be Bernie friendly"?

Who is saying this? Some (ID, ND, WA, etc.) obviously are, though not all of them. Coming as someone who generally likes your posts, and thinks that you do a good job of checking your bias in your R vs. D predictions and analysis, I think you could do a better job of checking your bias in this particular primary.

[Xing]

In what universe are "almost all the races right after ST . . . gonna be Bernie friendly"?

Who is saying this? Some (ID, ND, WA, etc.) obviously are

I'm not in WA right now so I don't have a sense on the ground, but I'm really wondering if it will be as Sanders-friendly as conventional wisdom suggests. Bernie will do great in Seattle, Bellingham, and Olympia (probably Yakima as well), but I would expect him to lose a lot of votes in east King County, Snohomish, Pierce, and Clark. A lot of those votes may go to Warren or Bloomberg and not Biden, but a lot will. Clinton won the 2016 primary, Obama only narrowly won the 2008 primary, and the state is really anti-tax for its Democratic lean. The state also has a big healthcare industry which could be threatened under Medicare for All (I'm quite interested in how Spokane goes as it seems like anti-establishment Sanders country but also has a big reliance on healthcare).

If Sanders does win it, I don't expect a rout.

Biden isn't going to beat Sanders. Warren is the only one I could see doing it (many voters here love Warren, and many have probably already voted for her), but she's not exactly in a great position right now. Obviously it's going to be far less lopsided than the primary, but there are also a lot of Asian voters in the Seattle area and Latino voters in places like Yakima and Centralia that I don't see going for Biden. The only places in the King County area that I see being good for Biden against Sanders would be places like Mercer Island, or perhaps places like Shoreline. I'd expect a 10-12 point win for Sanders, and I wouldn't rule out Warren coming in second.

[Xing]

Well, Clinton won the WA primary in 2016.

I forgot that for the next week I'll be dealing with this s*** that I've had to discuss multiple times to explain why it's not representative

[Xing]

If Biden does win the nomination, how will he build up a strong ground game? I think it's fair to say that he's relied heavily on name recognition, at least more so than other candidates, and while that may prove to work in the primaries, he'll need a good ground game in the general.

[Xing]

Harris would be a divisive pick. I'd go with Duckworth myself.

Duckworth would be a better choice, IMO. Harris wouldn't really expand Biden's appeal at all. In a perfect world, I'd love Baldwin or Brown as his VP pick, but I get that doing this would either severely risk a Senate seat in one case and hand one directly to the Republicans in another case.