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

[Calthrina950]

Biden really is clueless with his latest ad if he thinks a few global elites laughing at Trump is going to convince any good amount of Obama/Trump voters.

In fact, Trump's voters will see this as proof that Biden is in "league" with these "globalists". And Trump could very well use this as evidence that he is getting on the bad side of exactly the right kinds of people.

[Calthrina950]

Biden really is clueless with his latest ad if he thinks a few global elites laughing at Trump is going to convince any good amount of Obama/Trump voters.

Have you recently been hiding under a rock?
It's not just "a few global elites" laughing at trump.
Over half of the American population is laughing at him.

Perhaps this is true-hence, why I think Trump will lose the popular vote. But that won't matter with the Electoral College, which is what will decide the election.

[Calthrina950]

Damning article on Biden today in Slate. I can't disagree with their analysis though. The establishment hitched its cart to the wrong horse this time around.

This is what pisses me off about him. He kept a lot of good people from surging or running altogether and now he’s not even going to close the deal. It’s infuriating.

I still blame Democratic Primary voters more. Their prioritization of familiarity and name recognition over anything else compelled Biden to run when he polled at the top of preliminary polls. I can't blame him or Sanders for running if they see results like that.

Otherwise I agree with you though, I was always dreading a Biden versus Sanders primary. We had some new, fresh-faced talent running this time that never really got a fair chance.

Another point is that Trump would have faced a nominee 14-23 years younger than him if he were being opposed by anyone of Klobuchar, Harris, Gillibrand, or Booker. That would have provided a sort of generational contrast, and a younger nominee, particularly someone like Booker, would have been able to better make the case to key elements of the Democratic coalition-particularly younger, minority, and female voters-and to infrequent voters. But instead, Trump will be facing a nominee older than himself-whether it be Sanders, Biden, or Bloomberg. Sanders will still be able to energize turnout and rally the base, obviously, but Biden and Bloomberg clearly do not have that ability. And by facing an older nominee, Trump's ability to outcampaign them is enhanced.

[Calthrina950]

Damning article on Biden today in Slate. I can't disagree with their analysis though. The establishment hitched its cart to the wrong horse this time around.

This is what pisses me off about him. He kept a lot of good people from surging or running altogether and now he’s not even going to close the deal. It’s infuriating.

I still blame Democratic Primary voters more. Their prioritization of familiarity and name recognition over anything else compelled Biden to run when he polled at the top of preliminary polls. I can't blame him or Sanders for running if they see results like that.

Otherwise I agree with you though, I was always dreading a Biden versus Sanders primary. We had some new, fresh-faced talent running this time that never really got a fair chance.

Another point is that Trump would have faced a nominee 14-23 years younger than him if he were being opposed by anyone of Klobuchar, Harris, Gillibrand, or Booker. That would have provided a sort of generational contrast, and a younger nominee, particularly someone like Booker, would have been able to better make the case to key elements of the Democratic coalition-particularly younger, minority, and female voters-and to infrequent voters. But instead, Trump will be facing a nominee older than himself-whether it be Sanders, Biden, or Bloomberg. Sanders will still be able to energize turnout and rally the base, obviously, but Biden and Bloomberg clearly do not have that ability. And by facing an older nominee, Trump's ability to outcampaign them is enhanced.

Putting Biden in a debate with Trump would be a disaster for the Democrats. Say what you will about Trump, but he's extremely energetic when you get him in front of a camera. That's why, despite being six years his senior, Trump was able to call Jeb Bush "low-energy" in 2016. He is an experienced showman and he knows how to handle a crowd. I cannot imagine Biden and his stumbling, slurred speech pattern keeping up with Trump in any capacity. He would look like a complete geezer next to him.

I certainly agree. It's obvious to me that Trump would outcampaign him and would also outflank him on the debate stage. In fact, it's hard for me to see any of the Democratic candidates being able to outmaneuver Trump. Sanders comes across as an "angry old man", and Trump would know how to get him riled up and sputtering things. Warren is easily provoked, and her calm intellectual demeanor would be at the breaking point the moment Trump called her "Pocahontas." Klobuchar would be shaking with anger as soon as he savaged her, and Buttigieg wouldn't be able to "out-interrupt" Trump, and would have nothing but platitudes to counter him. And Trump would absolutely destroy Bloomberg. Thus, no matter who the nominee is, the debates are unlikely to make that much of a difference.

[Calthrina950]

I find it greatly ironic how Biden, who dominated the black vote in South Carolina, is getting endorsements from two candidates who did very poorly with black voters during their runs and have poor relations with the community (Buttigieg and Klobuchar), and from one (O'Rourke), whose radical comments on gun control capped off a disastrous and bungled candidacy. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure what the logic is to the establishment's actions. Biden probably would be a better candidate than Bloomberg, but choosing favorites in this way could alienate parts of the Democratic base and depress turnout in a general election. It feeds into a narrative that goes back to 2016, and the perceptions held by many progressives that the progress was skewed in favor of Clinton (however valid those claims may be).

[Calthrina950]

I find it greatly ironic how Biden, who dominated the black vote in South Carolina, is getting endorsements from two candidates who did very poorly with black voters during their runs and have poor relations with the community (Buttigieg and Klobuchar), and from one (O'Rourke), whose radical comments on gun control capped off a disastrous and bungled candidacy. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure what the logic is to the establishment's actions. Biden probably would be a better candidate than Bloomberg, but choosing favorites in this way could alienate parts of the Democratic base and depress turnout in a general election. It feeds into a narrative that goes back to 2016, and the perceptions held by many progressives that the progress was skewed in favor of Clinton (however valid those claims may be).

I know you are a moderate, generally speaking. Would you support him the general?

I'm still leery towards Biden at this point, and am leaning third-party.

[Calthrina950]

Pete should probably give the convention keynote speech.

I agree! He's a very talented speaker. And he should be given a major cabinet position since the vice presidential will most likely be filled with a woman (Harris, Klobuchar, Demings or Barragan would be great). I like the idea of UN Ambassador, since that would raise his international profile and add foreign policy credentials to his list. Probably a safe bet now that he'll be part of the administration if Joe Biden is president next January. Beto could also be tapped for something like Commerce or Energy.

UN Ambassador is good, HUD is another option.  I want the big positions (state, treasury, defense) to be filled in by well-respected experts in their fields.  Hillary Clinton should be SoS again.

Absolutely not. Clinton ought to be consigned to the history books, and allowed to dwell in her retirement. Any future Democratic Administration ought to keep her away with a ten foot pole.