Who is a stronger candidate? Biden vs Hillary

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hillary. She would've made an excellent president.

[SN2903]

Hillary. She would've made an excellent president.

No. She was very qualified, but she would not have been able to build consensus with all her scandal plagued history. She likely would have been impeached. She's kind of the democratic Nixon: very qualified and talented but their own worst enemy.

In terms of electability though I think Hillary is more electable than Biden.

Trump is more like a Republican Truman: seen as blunt and honest and connects.

[RI]

Biden has nowhere near the downside risk Clinton did. The only people who loathe Biden are Bernie acolytes. I see Biden as a quasi-Carter figure: someone who can temporarily reunite a coalition from a previous time which is doomed to ultimately fall apart in the next decade.

[BlueSwan]

Easily Hillary.

However, Biden is probably more “likable” in the traditional sense and seems like a more simple dude, than the more aloof Hillary, which might have more appeal to the WWC. But man, Biden is a deeply flawed candidate.

[wbrocks67]

Hillary would have made a far better president but had almost no chance of uniting the country due to years of mudslinging from the right. Biden is likely a better candidate because he doesn't have the baggage that she had (and still has) and has a slightly better chance of uniting the country.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Bump

What changed, atlas?

[Inmate Trump]

I guess I never saw this thread.

But I'm saying Biden.

I voted for Hillary in 2016 but she has waaay too much baggage and is personally disliked by many people in much stronger ways than Biden is.  Hillary also mismanaged her campaign and ran as if she'd already won.

Biden is being smart, he's being calculated.  When he speaks, he's being presidential; he's reaching out across the aisle.  He will be able to keep Hillary voters and attract voters that she couldn't.  Some of that is due to circumstances outside of his or her control but some of it is not.

Hillary took it all for granted and it backfired.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hillary was strong but she should of been elected in 2008 not 2016, Obamacare, he reform bill have already been enacted. But, supposedly, she wanted immigration reform and would have pushed harder to end the legislative filibuster

[paxamericana]

That's going to be very hard to tell this election cycle. Given the national circumstances, it is entirely possible that Biden outperforms Clinton despite being a weaker candidate simply by riding an anti-Trump sentiment all the way to the White House.

I do think that if Biden had ran in 2016, he would have been a stronger candidate than Clinton.

[Alben Barkley]

Bump

What changed, atlas?

Bernie lost, some of the bros got over it, Tara Reade and other BS didn’t stick, COVID took off, and Biden defied expectations by running a smart, dominant campaign that has consistently had huge leads in the polls that Hillary did not.

It was always dumb to think he was a weaker CANDIDATE though. Hillary simply had too much baggage (fair or not) and was seen by too many as “unlikable” (also not entirely fair — partly sexism). Biden doesn’t have these problems and never did.

[Ferguson97]

Biden no question

[MT Treasurer]

For the record, this was 62% Hillary to 38% Biden before it was bumped. A mod should lock voting before Biden takes the lead so that the delusions of this forum are preserved for posterity.

[roxas11]

Biden is clearly stronger

yes there were other factors beyond Hillary control that effected her like Russian interference or even some unfortunate sexist attacks on her throughout the campaign. But the fact is she ignored Michigan pennsylvania and Wisconsin

That was something she did have control over and she unfortunately made a terrible mistake by ignoring those states and that cost her the election. Obama or even Biden would have never did something like that even in 2016
.
In 2012 Obama ran ads in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina , Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. Obama had a polling lead in all of those states yet he still spent money in them as if he was behind.

Biden definitely would have not ignored Pennsylvania had he been the nominee in 2016

The way Hillary acted when it come to those states is the reason why Biden is far Better candidate with a much smarter campaign  

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Biden.

And if he ran in 2016, he would've won, if only because he wouldn't have taken the rust belt for granted.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Just curious in early March so many of you where saying Hillary was stronger, what changed?

I LOVE Biden and think he is stronger I am just curious.

[Senator Spark]

Joe Biden barely. I even like him a little better than Clinton.

[xavier110]

The Hillary Clinton apologism is INSANE. She was a terrible candidate and is one of the worst Democratic presidential candidates of the past 100 years.

She has run multiple terrible campaigns - almost all of her political campaigns have been god awful, mis-managed and tone deaf - and yet Democratic partisans almost always absolve her of any responsibility for her campaigns. It starts at the top and she is an incompetent, terrible politician.

She may be a decent government official and capable bureaucrat but that doesn’t mean she is a good politician. Biden is obviously a superior politician and presidential candidate.

[Ferguson97]

I don't know how you can say that a candidate who lost is somehow a stronger candidate that a candidate who is very likely to win.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Hillary has high highs and lower lows. Apparently the lows are more impactful, so I guess Biden.

[Mr. Smith]

Still Hillary.

Better overall record, more principled, and better at striking fear into the hearts of the opposition where needed, and swimming against a terrible undercurrent.

Biden has pretty much been right person, right place, and right time the entire way through. Him being in the campaign would be like if Hubert Humphrey was well enough to do '76 and therefore he robbed the post Watergate party of the discussion they needed, which Carter rode in on.

That said, good candidacy =/= good campaign, and yeah, Hillary never was good at the latter.

It'll be interesting to see the results here should Trump be re-elected. It'll be Gore v. Kerry all over again.

[Battista Minola 1616]

What some people do not seem to understand is that the stronger candidate is not necessarily the same as the better candidate.

[pppolitics]

Biden, and it's not even close.

Trump keeps throwing things at the wall because he can't find one that would stick.

[ShamDam]

Biden got a massive assist from a bunch of establishment endorsements + corona. He just doesn't have to do anything. He was horrendous in almost every debate except the last couple. He had all kinds of gaffes and weird rambly moments at public appearances. If he had to be on the traditional campaign trail, I think the election would be a lot more competitive. As it stands, it's a "Luigi Wins By Doing Absolutely Nothing" situation

[Hammy]

Hillary and it's not even close.

My take from March certainly didn't age well.

[Galeel]

How are so many people saying Clinton? Biden has a far higher favorability rating in polls than she ever did. This is obvious, Biden is a far stronger candidate.