Joe Biden 2020 campaign megathread v2

[Mr. Smith]

Are you saying that...

Death is inevitable

As much as I love that post, I feel it's getting a bit past its sell by date.

Unfortunately, so is Joe Biden

This is yet another thinly veiled ageist attack. Joe Biden is fine, and his age should not be a disqualifying factor. I'm not sure why people are so outraged about older people running for office. Joe Biden is able to serve in the office of President, if elected, and that is all that should matter

Simple.

Young Democrats win...old ones lose. The last one under 55 that lost had an assist against him from some stooges in Florida, and before that, well...there was ratf*(king just for his campaign to be the campaign in the first place.

Everyone else since 1960 that won has been under 55.

[morgankingsley]

Twelve years ago Obama won the White House in a landslide running on hope (for a better future) and change (not W).

Today Biden runs on hope (to go back to a time before the country went mad) and change (not Trump).

And given that Obama gave us Trump in the first place and the worst hemorraghing down-ballot right before [and the lamest re-election since 1916], perhaps such comparisons and ideas are not ones to aspire to in the first place.

Obama's re-election was clearly more impressive than W 2004 at least -- he did significantly better in both the electoral and popular vote.

Also considering Obama was running at a time when polarization was already sky high and rising, and the economy wasn't close to recovered yet, that makes it even more impressive. Also considering Wilson was running in a deeply Republican age when Democrats were routinely wiped out outside the South, and only won in 1912 because of a fatal split in the GOP (still managing to barely win over 40% of the vote), I'd say his 1916 re-election wasn't half bad either.

I'll concede downballot Obama wasn't that strong, but it wasn't entirely his fault. It's like pulling teeth to get Democrats to show up to vote on off-years.

I don't give a sh**t what anybody says, Wilson would have CRUSHED Taft in a two way race. Roosevelt is more debatable, but Taft I don't have any doubt at all. To assume that every single Roosevelt voter would have gone to Taft is actually beyond f-cking ridiculous. Especially since Roosevelt politically in 1912 was more aligned to Wilson than Taft. I think that it would be safe to assume about 1/3 of Roosevelt voters would have backed Wilson, putting him at 51 percent. Again Roosevelt I can see the argument for, but Taft is not a question in my eyes.

But let's get back on point before this turns totally off topic

[Podgy the Bear]

Of course, he wants to do this. While I'll concede that he had repeatedly declined to run earlier, there is a reason that he reversed on it, and it is likely because, he believes, rightfully so, that he has the right message to beat Trump. But, I also feel that he genuinely wants the job, he is making an active effort to reach out and appeal to people. If he did not want to be doing this, he wouldn't have run the energetic campaign that he has. So, put simply, no, he is not running, just for the sake of running. He actually wants to be President and has run quite an energetic campaign seeking to reach out to voters.

And Trump's allies are acknowledging this and are planning every attack to "swift boat" Biden in the same manner it happened to John Kerry--and on more personal matters.  

[Sir Mohamed]

Are you saying that...

Death is inevitable

As much as I love that post, I feel it's getting a bit past its sell by date.

Unfortunately, so is Joe Biden

This is yet another thinly veiled ageist attack. Joe Biden is fine, and his age should not be a disqualifying factor. I'm not sure why people are so outraged about older people running for office. Joe Biden is able to serve in the office of President, if elected, and that is all that should matter

Simple.

Young Democrats win...old ones lose. The last one under 55 that lost had an assist against him from some stooges in Florida, and before that, well...there was ratf*(king just for his campaign to be the campaign in the first place.

Everyone else since 1960 that won has been under 55.

I have doubts these candidates lost because of their age. George McGovern lost at 50, Al Gore "lost" at 52, and Johnson was 56 in 1964, but he was an incumbent prez. As things stand right now, Biden, Warren and Sanders would most likely beat Trump.

Striking is, however, Biden would be the oldest Dem nominee since Dukakis in 1988. And I mean all the following nominees were born after him.

[Donerail]

As much as I love that post, I feel it's getting a bit past its sell by date.

Unfortunately, so is Joe Biden

This is yet another thinly veiled ageist attack. Joe Biden is fine, and his age should not be a disqualifying factor. I'm not sure why people are so outraged about older people running for office. Joe Biden is able to serve in the office of President, if elected, and that is all that should matter

It's an open attack! Please do not suggest that I am attempting to veil my disdain for Joe Biden.

That said, I think "ageism" may be the kinder message here. If you're not going to excuse this sort of thing as dementia, for instance, the only explanation can be that he is a liar:
https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1168935446052843521

[UWS]

As much as I love that post, I feel it's getting a bit past its sell by date.

Unfortunately, so is Joe Biden

This is yet another thinly veiled ageist attack. Joe Biden is fine, and his age should not be a disqualifying factor. I'm not sure why people are so outraged about older people running for office. Joe Biden is able to serve in the office of President, if elected, and that is all that should matter

It's an open attack! Please do not suggest that I am attempting to veil my disdain for Joe Biden.

That said, I think "ageism" may be the kinder message here. If you're not going to excuse this sort of thing as dementia, for instance, the only explanation can be that he is a liar:
https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1168935446052843521

"He voted for the war before he was against it." Just another flip-flop.

[Rookie Yinzer]

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1168953514787258368

Even if it's not- shouldn't "Electable Joe" have this sewn up and be on track to win every state except Vermont? LOL.

[JG]

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1168953514787258368

Even if it's not- shouldn't "Electable Joe" have this sewn up and be on track to win every state except Vermont? LOL.

Didn't Hillary's campaign made the same argument in 2008 when they started to smell trouble?

[Mr. Smith]

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1168953514787258368

Even if it's not- shouldn't "Electable Joe" have this sewn up and be on track to win every state except Vermont? LOL.

Buh, muh "down-to-Earth person that can win back WI/MI/PA"...

[GeneralMacArthur]

You guys just keep patting each other on the back about how doomed Biden is to fail.  He's still comfortably at or above 30% in the polls and leading in almost every state, despite an absurd amount of negative media coverage and distortion, not to mention dealing with a 7-on-1 gang-up in every debate.

Hope you'll all vote for him in November instead of falling on your fainting couch about how he did fundraisers with a lobbyist.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1168953514787258368

Even if it's not- shouldn't "Electable Joe" have this sewn up and be on track to win every state except Vermont? LOL.

It’s pathetic how his team is already trying to play the expectations game like this - on the other hand, though, could be a smart move and take the wind out of Warren’s sails if he does end up winning.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It’s pathetic how his team is already trying to play the expectations game like this - on the other hand, though, could be a smart move and take the wind out of Warren’s sails if he does end up winning.

I can't remember the last time the front-runner in a competitive primary didn't tell the press they were writing off Iowa.

Hillary did it in 2016 and 2008.  Trump did it in 2016.  Romney did it in 2012.  I guess Kerry?  There was no clear front-runner at that point in 2004 though.

[Mr. Smith]

It’s pathetic how his team is already trying to play the expectations game like this - on the other hand, though, could be a smart move and take the wind out of Warren’s sails if he does end up winning.

I can't remember the last time the front-runner in a competitive primary didn't tell the press they were writing off Iowa.

Hillary did it in 2016 and 2008.  Trump did it in 2016.  Romney did it in 2012.  I guess Kerry?  There was no clear front-runner at that point in 2004 though.

Well given Obama won it and took over as front-runner from there, given Hillary barely won it and had she lost probably would've lost a good amount of cred...possibly even lost to Sanders in '16, and given how Iowa has determined the nominee since '96 [and every one of these primaries besides '88 and '92...which Gephardt and Harkin won...for obvious reasons], that seems like a rather suicidal thing to do.

As for the GOP, it's NH that tends to be more decisive than Iowa, so the comparison doesn't work.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It’s pathetic how his team is already trying to play the expectations game like this - on the other hand, though, could be a smart move and take the wind out of Warren’s sails if he does end up winning.

I can't remember the last time the front-runner in a competitive primary didn't tell the press they were writing off Iowa.

Hillary did it in 2016 and 2008.  Trump did it in 2016.  Romney did it in 2012.  I guess Kerry?  There was no clear front-runner at that point in 2004 though.

Well given Obama won it and took over as front-runner from there, given Hillary barely won it and had she lost probably would've lost a good amount of cred...possibly even lost to Sanders in '16, and given how Iowa has determined the nominee since '96 [and every one of these primaries besides '88 and '92...which Gephardt and Harkin won...for obvious reasons], that seems like a rather suicidal thing to do.

As for the GOP, it's NH that tends to be more decisive than Iowa, so the comparison doesn't work.

I think that's entirely the point, Iowa likes to vote for insurgents and populists, which doesn't describe established front-runners eyeing the general.  So the front-runners lie to the press to lower expectations, then fiercely compete anyway.

Hillary got third in 2008 which is really what broke her campaign.

[S019]

It’s pathetic how his team is already trying to play the expectations game like this - on the other hand, though, could be a smart move and take the wind out of Warren’s sails if he does end up winning.

I can't remember the last time the front-runner in a competitive primary didn't tell the press they were writing off Iowa.

Hillary did it in 2016 and 2008.  Trump did it in 2016.  Romney did it in 2012.  I guess Kerry?  There was no clear front-runner at that point in 2004 though.

Well given Obama won it and took over as front-runner from there, given Hillary barely won it and had she lost probably would've lost a good amount of cred...possibly even lost to Sanders in '16, and given how Iowa has determined the nominee since '96 [and every one of these primaries besides '88 and '92...which Gephardt and Harkin won...for obvious reasons], that seems like a rather suicidal thing to do.

As for the GOP, it's NH that tends to be more decisive than Iowa, so the comparison doesn't work.

I think that's entirely the point, Iowa likes to vote for insurgents and populists, which doesn't describe established front-runners eyeing the general.  So the front-runners lie to the press to lower expectations, then fiercely compete anyway.

Hillary got third in 2008 which is really what broke her campaign.

This seems to be a good take, it is very likely that if the frontrunner outperforms these lower expectations, it would provide an even larger boost to their campaign

[NOVA Green]

It’s pathetic how his team is already trying to play the expectations game like this - on the other hand, though, could be a smart move and take the wind out of Warren’s sails if he does end up winning.

I can't remember the last time the front-runner in a competitive primary didn't tell the press they were writing off Iowa.

Hillary did it in 2016 and 2008.  Trump did it in 2016.  Romney did it in 2012.  I guess Kerry?  There was no clear front-runner at that point in 2004 though.

Well given Obama won it and took over as front-runner from there, given Hillary barely won it and had she lost probably would've lost a good amount of cred...possibly even lost to Sanders in '16, and given how Iowa has determined the nominee since '96 [and every one of these primaries besides '88 and '92...which Gephardt and Harkin won...for obvious reasons], that seems like a rather suicidal thing to do.

As for the GOP, it's NH that tends to be more decisive than Iowa, so the comparison doesn't work.

I think that's entirely the point, Iowa likes to vote for insurgents and populists, which doesn't describe established front-runners eyeing the general.  So the front-runners lie to the press to lower expectations, then fiercely compete anyway.

Hillary got third in 2008 which is really what broke her campaign.

This seems to be a good take, it is very likely that if the frontrunner outperforms these lower expectations, it would provide an even larger boost to their campaign

Honestly, one of the things written in the subtext here is that ANY polls of IA and NH before the College Students come back to town, is likely to create an unrealistic picture of the potential composition and support among these voters....

I have posted multiple times on this topic over the past Months....

In IA Caucuses, there are 2nd and 3rd tier consensus based negotiations.

In NH there are tons of Indy voters that can do a cross-over conversion treatment....

I will not consider any polls out of IA or NH to be anything close to normal, until October of '19 when the College Students come home....

Apparently Joe Biden has been following my posts....

[Podgy the Bear]

In the end, Iowa doesn't matter that much.    If we just relied on that state, there wouldn't be a President Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, or Trump.

[Mr. Smith]

In the end, Iowa doesn't matter that much.    If we just relied on that state, there wouldn't be a President Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, or Trump.

With the GOP, the big state is NH (although yes, McCain won it in 2000 and Buchanan won it in '96).

[The Mikado]

In recent years, Iowa picks the Dem winner while New Hampshire picks the GOP winner. Iowa has called the Dem winner in every competitive cycle after 1992.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

IA picked Kerry, in 2004, as we found out that it was a mistake. Dean should of won it. I think since Warren is doing better in the polls, its best to chose wisely, not go by the Establishment frontrunner

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1169402501470121989?s=20

Biden didn’t realize he was going to a fundraiser cohosted by a fossil fuel executive until Anderson Cooper told him live on TV.

[Pyro]

https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1169402501470121989?s=20

Biden didn’t realize he was going to a fundraiser cohosted by a fossil fuel executive until Anderson Cooper told him live on TV.

There is a zero percent chance he didn't know

[Lisa's voting Biden]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

[JG]

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1168935446052843521

[Arturo Belano]

Biden suffers a burst blood vessel in his left eye during CNN climate town hall:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

damn, some of you guys are all like "i hope y'all vote for him in november." i don't think he's going to live till next november