Joe Biden 2020 campaign megathread

[Sir Mohamed]

Twitter is a safe space and not reflective of the Dem base at large.

[Xing]

If the left and Millennials as a whole are judged based Twitter, do we get to judge everyone on the right based on Stormfront?

Anyway, as someone who’s normally very critical of Biden, I think that what he said is pretty inoffensive. And there’s also nothing wrong with his statement about curing cancer.

[Illini Moderate]

Hers a good thread that summarizes what I've struggled to say in the past about Biden:

https://www.twitter.com/andizeisler/status/1138889220729131008

https://www.twitter.com/andizeisler/status/1138890239567470592

People have been talking like that for ages. It more ties into the “men ain’t sh*t” dialogue than any of the BS in these tweets. Men know that a lot of other men treat women like crap. Protecting ur little sister from loser men is not “problematic”

[Rookie Yinzer]

I saw the moment with Biden as an attempt to connect to those who have lost loves ones to cancer. He saying to voters that when he is elected who will do everything in his power to find a cure for cancer whether its possible or not so nobody has to go through what he and many Americans have gone through. It's a shame that people on here tried to perverse this comment. I understand that a lot of people on here don't like Biden "policies" and like to think that you are politically aware and cosmopolitan but some of you guys are truly disgusting people. I hope you guys don't say these things in public.

Everyone responded to that post with disdain. It is not “people” on this forum. Let’s not with the persecution complex.

[ProudModerate2]

I saw the moment with Biden as an attempt to connect to those who have lost loves ones to cancer. He saying to voters that when he is elected who will do everything in his power to find a cure for cancer whether its possible or not so nobody has to go through what he and many Americans have gone through. It's a shame that people on here tried to perverse this comment. I understand that a lot of people on here don't like Biden "policies" and like to think that you are politically aware and cosmopolitan but some of you guys are truly disgusting people. I hope you guys don't say these things in public.

Everyone responded to that post with disdain. It is not “people” on this forum. Let’s not with the persecution complex.

If you are saying that "everyone responded" to what Biden said as "disdain," then your comment is incorrect. And anyone who would make such disgusting comments about someone who is just trying to spread an understanding to the ill (physical and psychological) effects of cancer (in or out of this forum) deserve "persecution."

[Rookie Yinzer]

I saw the moment with Biden as an attempt to connect to those who have lost loves ones to cancer. He saying to voters that when he is elected who will do everything in his power to find a cure for cancer whether its possible or not so nobody has to go through what he and many Americans have gone through. It's a shame that people on here tried to perverse this comment. I understand that a lot of people on here don't like Biden "policies" and like to think that you are politically aware and cosmopolitan but some of you guys are truly disgusting people. I hope you guys don't say these things in public.

Everyone responded to that post with disdain. It is not “people” on this forum. Let’s not with the persecution complex.

If you are saying that "everyone responded" to what Biden said as "disdain," then your comment is incorrect. And anyone who would make such disgusting comments about someone who is just trying to spread an understanding to the ill (physical and psychological) effects of cancer (in or out of this forum) deserve "persecution."

Uh.... on this forum it would be correct. The only person who agreed was a Republican troll. I’m not here for conflating the genuine criticism of Biden on this forum with that post that was only created to generate controversy.

[catographer]

I can already tell based on the discussion of Biden's candidacy that he will be the Hillary of 2020: older establishment pol who's barely acceptable for the left and cringey, only popular with older Dems and perceived as "moderate" but still may lose.

[President Johnson]

I can already tell based on the discussion of Biden's candidacy that he will be the Hillary of 2020: older establishment pol who's barely acceptable for the left and cringey, only popular with older Dems and perceived as "moderate" but still may lose.

Hillary always made the impression of being out of touch and power greedy. Joe Biden is liked by the general public as the nice uncle from next door. He has a far better ability to connect with common people, what is due to his background and unique life story. He is not Hillary 2.0 by any means.

[John Dule]

Biden is a corporate hack. How does he have appeal again other than serving under Obama? I guess having all the Obama fetishists supporting you must take you far in the democratic primaries.

How can a Libertarian call someone else a corporate hack?

Libertarians don't support subsidizing or bailing out large corporations nor do we support or pander to corporate lobbyists.

Seriously. When people ask questions like that, it only serves to remind us all that libertarianism's critics don't have a clue what they're arguing against.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Oh my gosh. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

I sincerely hope zero milennials vote for this and he still manages to win. They are so completely useless. Zero comprehension of social roles.

I agree. This is way beyond reading between the lines, not that Biden hasn't said his fair share of gaffes. This isn't one of them.

You guys are being the perfect example here of people who don't get it. There's a perfect example of embedded patriarchy right in front of your faces, and you don't see a thing. It's like one of those tests for color-blindness, only instead of simply not seeing the number (or letter, or whatever) you're insisting that since you don't see it, there's nothing there!

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I can already tell based on the discussion of Biden's candidacy that he will be the Hillary of 2020: older establishment pol who's barely acceptable for the left and cringey, only popular with older Dems and perceived as "moderate" but still may lose.

Hillary always made the impression of being out of touch and power greedy. Joe Biden is liked by the general public as the nice uncle from next door. He has a far better ability to connect with common people, what is due to his background and unique life story. He is not Hillary 2.0 by any means.

I would love to have a beer with Uncle Joe, Hillary on the other hand hell no. I would love to have a beer with Obama as well, Obama and Biden are both friendly likeable people who the average moron could see themselves as having a beer with, which is very important to winning. Romney was a stiff, but Dubya and Bill Clinton were guys you could have a beer with as well.

[Thunder98]

Just in,

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448473-biden-says-he-doesnt-see-abortion-as-a-choice-and-a-right-in-unearthed-2006

[VeniceItaly]

I wonder how much of Joe Biden racist past and his collaboration with other southern racists will affect him in the primaries. He has a lot of skeletons in his closet.

[junior chįmp]

McCarthy's lack of endorsement didnt matter as most Mccarthy voters were actually hawks who wouldn't of supported Humphrey anyway:

The myth of Eugene McCarthy’s New Hampshire crusade (and, somewhat related, the mystique of the New Hampshire presidential primary) has endured through the ages. To be sure, what his student army accomplished was remarkable. But did the results suggest a repudiation of the war in Vietnam? Not exactly. Exit polls suggested that a majority of McCarthy’s New Hampshire voters thought of themselves as hawks. They were unhappy with Johnson, but because he hadn’t escalated the war effort further, and they picked McCarthy to register their displeasure. The president’s private polling revealed that 55 percent of McCarthy’s supporters favored the bombing campaign against North Vietnam; only 29 percent opposed it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/eugene-mccarthy-lyndon-johnson-vietnam.html

That was in March 1968--and it's true that many McCarthy votes in the NH primary were hawkish.  He received about 5000 votes on the Republican side (in addition to the 23,000 he received on the Democratic side).  

But I seriously doubt by the time of the DNC in Chicago in summer 1968 that McCarthy held any hawkish support.  An earlier and/or more enthusiastic endorsement of Humphrey that year could have made the difference and saved the country and world from Richard Nixon.

Ugh...you just dont get it do you? Voters are idiots who only respond to short term present moment circumstances. The people who voted for Eugene McCarthy had different objectives than the political nerds who made up his campaign organization. The political nerds thought that the votes of those in the primary signified some deep longing amongst the American voter to end the Vietnam War but of course it did not.

It's the oldest mistake in the books....the idea that because the voters vote in a certain way gives you free reign to legislate in a specific way.

[Pericles]

McCarthy's lack of endorsement didnt matter as most Mccarthy voters were actually hawks who wouldn't of supported Humphrey anyway:

The myth of Eugene McCarthy’s New Hampshire crusade (and, somewhat related, the mystique of the New Hampshire presidential primary) has endured through the ages. To be sure, what his student army accomplished was remarkable. But did the results suggest a repudiation of the war in Vietnam? Not exactly. Exit polls suggested that a majority of McCarthy’s New Hampshire voters thought of themselves as hawks. They were unhappy with Johnson, but because he hadn’t escalated the war effort further, and they picked McCarthy to register their displeasure. The president’s private polling revealed that 55 percent of McCarthy’s supporters favored the bombing campaign against North Vietnam; only 29 percent opposed it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/eugene-mccarthy-lyndon-johnson-vietnam.html

That was in March 1968--and it's true that many McCarthy votes in the NH primary were hawkish.  He received about 5000 votes on the Republican side (in addition to the 23,000 he received on the Democratic side).  

But I seriously doubt by the time of the DNC in Chicago in summer 1968 that McCarthy held any hawkish support.  An earlier and/or more enthusiastic endorsement of Humphrey that year could have made the difference and saved the country and world from Richard Nixon.

Ugh...you just dont get it do you? Voters are idiots who only respond to short term present moment circumstances. The people who voted for Eugene McCarthy had different objectives than the political nerds who made up his campaign organization. The political nerds thought that the votes of those in the primary signified some deep longing amongst the American voter to end the Vietnam War but of course it did not.

It's the oldest mistake in the books....the idea that because the voters vote in a certain way gives you free reign to legislate in a specific way.

Wait, by your argument, if voters aren't paying attention and they elect you, then you have free reign to legislate however you want, because even if it's unpopular the voters won't pay attention and it won't affect your electoral chances in a meaningful way, so you should just do whatever you want?

[junior chįmp]

McCarthy's lack of endorsement didnt matter as most Mccarthy voters were actually hawks who wouldn't of supported Humphrey anyway:

The myth of Eugene McCarthy’s New Hampshire crusade (and, somewhat related, the mystique of the New Hampshire presidential primary) has endured through the ages. To be sure, what his student army accomplished was remarkable. But did the results suggest a repudiation of the war in Vietnam? Not exactly. Exit polls suggested that a majority of McCarthy’s New Hampshire voters thought of themselves as hawks. They were unhappy with Johnson, but because he hadn’t escalated the war effort further, and they picked McCarthy to register their displeasure. The president’s private polling revealed that 55 percent of McCarthy’s supporters favored the bombing campaign against North Vietnam; only 29 percent opposed it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/eugene-mccarthy-lyndon-johnson-vietnam.html

That was in March 1968--and it's true that many McCarthy votes in the NH primary were hawkish.  He received about 5000 votes on the Republican side (in addition to the 23,000 he received on the Democratic side).  

But I seriously doubt by the time of the DNC in Chicago in summer 1968 that McCarthy held any hawkish support.  An earlier and/or more enthusiastic endorsement of Humphrey that year could have made the difference and saved the country and world from Richard Nixon.

Ugh...you just dont get it do you? Voters are idiots who only respond to short term present moment circumstances. The people who voted for Eugene McCarthy had different objectives than the political nerds who made up his campaign organization. The political nerds thought that the votes of those in the primary signified some deep longing amongst the American voter to end the Vietnam War but of course it did not.

It's the oldest mistake in the books....the idea that because the voters vote in a certain way gives you free reign to legislate in a specific way.

Wait, by your argument, if voters aren't paying attention and they elect you, then you have free reign to legislate however you want, because even if it's unpopular the voters won't pay attention and it won't affect your electoral chances in a meaningful way, so you should just do whatever you want?

Pretty much. There will always be a reversion to the mean meaning if you get elected in some landslide...its not due to popularity of you policy positions but due to circumstances outside of your control.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1139496560956518400

[Yank2133]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

Trump campaigned as a anti wall street populist and governed as plutocrat cutting taxes for his 1% buddies. The Rust Belt was conned once, but they will not be conned again.

[Matty]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

Trump campaigned as a anti wall street populist and governed as plutocrat cutting taxes for his 1% buddies. The Rust Belt was conned once, but they will not be conned again.

Maybe on taxes, but on trade and tariffs, he has been opposite of plutocrat

Wall Street hates the tariffs

[Blackacre]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

down 16 in PA but only down 7 in FL? strange if true. But internals have a.... mixed track record anyway

[DaWN]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

down 16 in PA but only down 7 in FL? strange if true. But internals have a.... mixed track record anyway

Given PA literally voted nearly 20 points to the left of FL in both senate and governor races last November, I don't think it's that huge of a stretch. Although yeah, internals are usually a crock of crap, especially this early.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

down 16 in PA but only down 7 in FL? strange if true. But internals have a.... mixed track record anyway

That looks reasonable.  Pennsylvania was one of the epicenters of the 2018 wave and I see no reason to think Trump won't get absolutely blown out of the water there in 2020, regardless of whether he wins or loses (unless the Democrats do something monumentally stupid like nominating Sanders)

[Podgy the Bear]

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1139603681282863104

Trumps own internals against Biden have him down 16 in PA, 10 in WI, 7 in FL, and up 2 in TX.

These could be old....but man those numbers are brutal if true.

The numbers may be old but if they were done today, the results would be the same.

[President Johnson]

Uncle Joe looks so presidential in his new video

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1139473225342214144