Biden the first establishment Democrat to win since 1932.

[Earthling]

It seems to me that Joe Biden is the first establishment to win the Presidency in almost 90 years for the Democrats.

Since FDR won in 1932, being the establishment candidate back then, all Democrats that won were outsiders when they ran for the first time; JFK in 1960, Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008. Only Johnson was a establishment figure when he ran in 1964, but he became President after the JFK assassination in 63. Even Truman in 1948 was still more or less an outsider.

During all these years, the Democratic Party lost when the establishment nominated one of their own: Humphrey in 1968, Mondale in 1984, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Joe Biden in 2020 seems to be the exception now. He is an elite figure within the party and still won.

[Hammy]

Another interesting historical note, he's the first person to have previously ran in (and lost) a major party primary that's gone on to win the presidency since Bush in 1988--who coincidentally was also a two term VP.

[Middle-aged Europe]

That's because Donald Trump was his opponent, making Biden a "return to normalcy" candidate rather than a "change" candidate.

Was there ever an election and an election campaign in U.S. history before that was so much about defeating a specific incumbent individual?

[Earthling]

There is also the age-issue.

The elected Presidents by the Democrats used to be on the young side, FDR at 51, JFK at 43, Carter at 52, Clinton at 46 and Obama at 47. Only Truman (60) and Johnson (55) stand out but they became President in a different.

With Republicans, they tend to be older: Eisenhower (62), Nixon (56), Ford (61, non-election), Reagan (69), Bush, sr. (64), Bush, Jr (54) and Trump (70).
Only Nixon and Bush, Jr. were younger than 60. The others much older.

And now comes Joe Biden, at age 78, as a Democrat. Remarkable.

[Ye We Can]

John F Kennedy was not really an outsider when he ran in 1960.  Sure he was a Catholic, but he was a high-profile long serving congressman from a family already relatively well-known in Democratic circles who commanded support from a lot of Democratic elites during his primary run.  If he was truly an outsider he would not have defeated LBJ and Stevenson on the first ballot before primaries were really important, lol.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton and Obama both spoke at the DNC 4 years before.

[Earthling]

That's because Donald Trump was his opponent, making Biden a "return to normalcy" candidate rather than a "change" candidate.

Was there ever an election and an election campaign in U.S. history before that was so much about defeating a specific incumbent individual?

True. The fact that Joe Biden is such a well known political figure probably helped him a lot. The Trump campaign had difficult task of painting him as a leftwing extremist. For the most part they were not successful.

[Earthling]

Clinton and Obama both spoke at the DNC 4 years before.

True, but that did not make them establishment candidates. In 1992 all eyes were on Cuomo (who did not run off course) and in 2008 on Hillary (who lost to Obama).

By 'outsider' I did not say that the nominee was an nobody within the party. Clinton and Carter were Governors, Kennedy and Obama Senators. But they were not the biggest name candidates when they ran.

With my remark I was saying that when the Democats nominate the candidate preferred by the establishment they lose, when to go for the outsider they usually win (not always offcourse). Kennedy, Clinton and Obama were not the establishments choice.

[JG]

Didn't Obama get the backing of Harry Reid in 2008? I would hardly call him an outsider. It's just that, in 2008, both main contenders were backed by different wings of the establishment.

[randomusername]

Clinton and Obama both spoke at the DNC 4 years before.

Clinton also spoke at the 84 DNC as well. He has a crazy streak of speaking at the DNC.

[LabourJersey]

Kennedy had a lot of allies in high places in the northern Democratic party.

And Obama of course had the support of Harry Reid, the Kennedys & Tom Daschle, not to mention many Democratic donors/celebrities.

I wouldn't call either outsiders.

[Motorcity]

Actually it’s the opposite

Barack Obama only ran because Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid went to his office and begged him too. He was quickly endorsed by Ted Kennedy. If the most powerful democrats in the country want you to run, you are not anti establishment. He also gave the keynote in 2004

Bill Clinton was a respected governor and close allies with Mario Cuomo and Al Gore. He gave the keynote in 1988

JFK was almost chosen as VP in 1956.

The only anti estabshlment was Jimmy Carter

[SInNYC]

Most of the people we now know to have been supporting Obama were not public supporters of Obama in 2008 - nobody wanted to get on the Clintons' wrong side. Hillary also had superdelegate support and recall that she hinted at winning the nomination on the convention floor with heavy superdelegate support.

Voters definitely saw Obama as an outsider. Even his theme was "change is here".

[Crumpets]

For anyone who is old enough to be politically aware in 1992, I'm curious what "wing" of the Democratic Party Bill Clinton was perceived as coming from at the time. Was he seen primarily as a "Southern Democrat" with all of those connotations? Was he seen as an RFK-style young reformer who was not otherwise a "leftist"? Was he seen as a Reaganite DINO who hated minorities (as some seem to view him today)?

(yes the last one is a joke)

[It’s so Joever]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

[BaldEagle1991]

Bill Clinton not an outsider?

Obama I can see was not a full establishment candidate in 2008.

[It’s so Joever]

Bill Clinton not an outsider?

Obama I can see was not a full establishment candidate in 2008.

Governors are outsiders.

[Hope For A New Era]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

The comparison is 1896!

[RINO Tom]

That's because Donald Trump was his opponent, making Biden a "return to normalcy" candidate rather than a "change" candidate.

Was there ever an election and an election campaign in U.S. history before that was so much about defeating a specific incumbent individual?

This is pretty much it, IMO.  While each political candidate is obviously going to offer visions of change and bold ideas to some extent, I feel it is a more natural dynamic when you have a right-leaning party offering a "return to normalcy" angle rather than a left-leaning party, which kind of explains our whacky current political dynamic.  Obama's terms weren't bad enough for Republicans to REALLY cash in on such a message, and then it was only natural for Democrats to occupy that void while they could in 2020.

I think 2024 - regardless of who the candidates are - could look either eerily similar or COMPLETELY different in tone/political dynamics depending on Biden's popularity around that time.

[Alben Barkley]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

But definitely no hope for Trump winning Michigan.

[Alben Barkley]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

The comparison is 1896!

Yup. Said it elsewhere but this was an extraordinarily high turnout election largely due to the fact that a fiery populist energized rural whites better than any candidate in generations, but he ultimately lost by about 4.5 points to a fairly likable “establishment” figure from the opposing party who attracted even more support from people in backlash to the populist, winning the Northeast and upper Midwest.

EXACTLY like 1896.

[It’s so Joever]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

But definitely no hope for Trump winning Michigan.

Bluowa, Blohio, Blue Carolina, and Bluxas all want a word with you.

[Alben Barkley]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

But definitely no hope for Trump winning Michigan.

Bluowa, Blohio, Blue Carolina, and Bluxas all want a word with you.

Except I called them all toss-ups but NC (Lean D), which obviously is extraordinarily close.

I never was CERTAIN Biden would win any of those like you were Trump with Michigan.

We’ve been over this before though.

[Del Tachi]

I would call Obama in 2008 an establishment candidate, albeit a charismatic and historic one.  JFK in 1960 also had very established connections to Northeastern Democrats (urban Catholic machines) and FDR loyalists thanks to his father.  Clinton gave the 1985 SOTU response and was chair of the DGA/NGA, so he was a national Democratic figure prior to his run for president.

What makes Biden more of an "anti-establishment" Democrat than someone like Obama is that he made a name for himself as a long-time senator from a small state.  Biden was not known as some big-time fundraiser who ran in national circles prior to his tenure as VP.  He's the first Democratic nominee to not have an Ivy League education since Mondale in 1984, the first to be elected since Carter (although USNA could be argued as similarly elite, so you may have to go back to Truman)   

[It’s so Joever]

There is still hope for the dying 1932 comparison it seems...

But definitely no hope for Trump winning Michigan.

Bluowa, Blohio, Blue Carolina, and Bluxas all want a word with you.

Except I called them all toss-ups but NC (Lean D), which obviously is extraordinarily close.

I never was CERTAIN Biden would win any of those like you were Trump with Michigan.

We’ve been over this before though.

Nice goalpost shifting.
Considering your Bidenslide chauvinism this past year, maybe it’s good for you to start becoming a revisionist early on. If you lie and yell enough, people will forget about your ridiculous predictions.