Biden's campaign strongest since Obama 08?

[Bidenworth2020]

No. Obama's 2012 campaign structurally was the strongest campaign since Bill Clinton at minimum, with a combination of powerful, consistent messaging and mass mobilization. Even his 2008 campaign doesn't compare to the sheer power his re-election campaign brought to the table given real-world circumstances and the overcoming of very strong trends that historically would have led to his defeat; his '08 campaign did in fact have greater mobilization of voters and a better electoral performance, but was fueled mostly by the collapse of the GOP and an abstract "change" narrative.

Biden is - as he has been throughout all of this - riding on his name alone and the fact that he's currently immune from being immersed in many of the unscripted, uncontrollable events that highlight his gaffe-prone nature, his alleged mental health and other negative characteristics. His campaign is still hollow, bare-bones and minimalist in terms of any of the traditional metrics by which campaigns are judged at this point in the cycle. And before anybody wants to yell "corona!", remember that all of these factors were present in his campaign well before this pandemic.

I don't know how you can really say that he is only "immune" to this because of limited exposure due to the pandemic when he won the primary easily (at least post-SC) with these "negative characteristics" still very much on display.

[Bidenworth2020]

No. Obama's 2012 campaign structurally was the strongest campaign since Bill Clinton at minimum, with a combination of powerful, consistent messaging and mass mobilization. Even his 2008 campaign doesn't compare to the sheer power his re-election campaign brought to the table given real-world circumstances and the overcoming of very strong trends that historically would have led to his defeat; his '08 campaign did in fact have greater mobilization of voters and a better electoral performance, but was fueled mostly by the collapse of the GOP and an abstract "change" narrative.

Biden is - as he has been throughout all of this - riding on his name alone and the fact that he's currently immune from being immersed in many of the unscripted, uncontrollable events that highlight his gaffe-prone nature, his alleged mental health and other negative characteristics. His campaign is still hollow, bare-bones and minimalist in terms of any of the traditional metrics by which campaigns are judged at this point in the cycle. And before anybody wants to yell "corona!", remember that all of these factors were present in his campaign well before this pandemic.

While I agree, how did Biden win the Democratic Primary? Like you would assume at least one of the 20+ candidates would manage to show biden as an empty suit running on name recognition?

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=374174.msg7355953#msg7355953

Your assumption is based on the premise that enough people would care that he was running on name recognition alone. For quite some time, enjoying name recognition in the Democratic Party means being blessed with the establishment's support - which likewise means no rocking the boat in terms of economic reforms. Combine various non-white groups who defer to the best-known contender with white suburbanite defectors who spent the entirety of the Obama years voting for Republicans due to their own form of "economic anxiety" and you now have a majority in the Democratic Party who is in one way or another hostile to any change not expressed in meaningless platitudes. Hillary Clinton would have beaten Barack Obama by at least 20 points in 2008 had the 2020 Democratic electorate been its composition then - despite the party becoming "less racist" over the same time period.

Umm... Most of Hillary's base has left the party since 2008, either died off or became a republican. Additionally, I see little reason why Obama wouldn't be able to win over suburbanites (they probably would have voted for almost anyone against Biden besides the self-identified socialist, lol). I think you are (perhaps due to your previous support for Sanders) underestimating how weak he was/would be in a 1v1 with Biden and most others, and also underestimating the extent to which a once in a generation candidate like Obama could appeal to any number of demographics. That said, I think your point has some truth to it re democrats being risk-averse. Whether is this specifically related to their visceral desire to get Trump out or some underlying shift (or both) remains to be seen.

[Bidenworth2020]

No. Obama's 2012 campaign structurally was the strongest campaign since Bill Clinton at minimum, with a combination of powerful, consistent messaging and mass mobilization. Even his 2008 campaign doesn't compare to the sheer power his re-election campaign brought to the table given real-world circumstances and the overcoming of very strong trends that historically would have led to his defeat; his '08 campaign did in fact have greater mobilization of voters and a better electoral performance, but was fueled mostly by the collapse of the GOP and an abstract "change" narrative.

Biden is - as he has been throughout all of this - riding on his name alone and the fact that he's currently immune from being immersed in many of the unscripted, uncontrollable events that highlight his gaffe-prone nature, his alleged mental health and other negative characteristics. His campaign is still hollow, bare-bones and minimalist in terms of any of the traditional metrics by which campaigns are judged at this point in the cycle. And before anybody wants to yell "corona!", remember that all of these factors were present in his campaign well before this pandemic.

While I agree, how did Biden win the Democratic Primary? Like you would assume at least one of the 20+ candidates would manage to show biden as an empty suit running on name recognition?

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=374174.msg7355953#msg7355953

Your assumption is based on the premise that enough people would care that he was running on name recognition alone. For quite some time, enjoying name recognition in the Democratic Party means being blessed with the establishment's support - which likewise means no rocking the boat in terms of economic reforms. Combine various non-white groups who defer to the best-known contender with white suburbanite defectors who spent the entirety of the Obama years voting for Republicans due to their own form of "economic anxiety" and you now have a majority in the Democratic Party who is in one way or another hostile to any change not expressed in meaningless platitudes. Hillary Clinton would have beaten Barack Obama by at least 20 points in 2008 had the 2020 Democratic electorate been its composition then - despite the party becoming "less racist" over the same time period.

Umm... Most of Hillary's base has left the party since 2008, either died off or became a republican. Additionally, I see little reason why Obama wouldn't be able to win over suburbanites (they probably would have voted for almost anyone against Biden besides the self-identified socialist, lol). I think you are (perhaps due to your previous support for Sanders) underestimating how weak he was/would be in a 1v1 with Biden and most others, and also underestimating the extent to which a once in a generation candidate like Obama could appeal to any number of demographics. That said, I think your point has some truth to it re democrats being risk-averse. Whether is this specifically related to their visceral desire to get Trump out or some underlying shift (or both) remains to be seen.

Well, thanks for grabbing onto the least meaningful point of what I wrote. Nevertheless, I stand by it: today's Democratic Party gravity is lodged somewhere in between "ineffectual incrementalism (because that's all that's possible!)" and "status quo preservation at all costs (don't tax me!)". Messages such as "hope" and "change" are not at all welcome - and if you think "Trump" is the reason behind this, then just wait another 12-16 years (which is presumably how long it'll be until we have another open Democratic primary, contingent upon Biden's VP pick - win or lose).

Biden's win is not this indictment on the state of democrat politics that you seem to be suggesting it is, though. There was no Obama in that field-- and likewise, if that was the field Hillary ran against in 2008 (or at least comparable), she too would have won. Bernie was considered intolerable to large swaths of the base and (apparently) didn't actually excite any new voters, Warren had sh**t political instincts, Bloomberg was Bloomberg, etc etc. That left us with Biden, and TBH I don't regret that choice for a second (especially considering how Biden has moved post-primary w/policy).