How Biden defied history at every turn to win

[AGA]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/01/politics/biden-history-analysis/index.html

[MRS. MEE SUM CHU]

Idk which was sadder- the fact that people thought the Iowa and NH primaries were good barometers of the Dem primary electorate, or that voters actually trusted 45 on the economy.

[brucejoel99]

By not putting up with any malarkey.

[Catalyst138]

Idk which was sadder- the fact that people thought the Iowa and NH primaries were good barometers of the Dem primary electorate, or that voters actually trusted 45 on the economy.

At least IA and NH had a history of being important in primaries. 45 had no history of being good with the economy.

[TML]

Biden's win can be credited to the Democratic establishment stacking the deck in his favor starting in late February, beginning with endorsements in his favor in South Carolina, to other pro-establishment candidates dropping out between SC and ST. Without these events, the Democratic nominee would almost certainly have been someone else.

[emailking]

I guess but I'm not so sure they weren't reacting to the party as a whole. He was going to have a strong showing in SC and the rest of the south, even without the Clyburn endorsement. And by Super Tuesday everybody just wanted to have the thing wrapped up with Covid incoming.

[darklordoftech]

I wonder who would have come in second and third if South Carolina was the first primary/caucus.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

It's not hard to defeat Trump when you get in on a third party candidate like Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson was the margin of difference in all three states of WI, PA and MI. Trump was the Prez no one wanted and lost by 3M votes, all Biden had to do was ride against the 2017 tax cuts and income inequality in a Covid Environment

That's why Rs are gonna lose GA, the Rs have lost every poll since Mcconnell blocked 2K.

Many voters are in debt

[AGA]

Biden's win can be credited to the Democratic establishment stacking the deck in his favor starting in late February, beginning with endorsements in his favor in South Carolina, to other pro-establishment candidates dropping out between SC and ST. Without these events, the Democratic nominee would almost certainly have been someone else.

Doesn't matter; candidates are allowed to endorse whomever they want. They didn't want Sanders as the nominee.

[dw93]

Biden's win can be credited to the Democratic establishment stacking the deck in his favor starting in late February, beginning with endorsements in his favor in South Carolina, to other pro-establishment candidates dropping out between SC and ST. Without these events, the Democratic nominee would almost certainly have been someone else.

I think in the event that Biden were to tank in South Carolina, either Sanders would've won the nomination in a manner similar to Trump's primary victory in 2016 (a plurality win due to divided opposition) or someone else would've been nominated through a brokered convention. If the former happened, Trump would be favored, but Sanders would have a shot at a very close win, abet with certain Republican Senate. If the later happened, Trump sails with a 2016 map and 50/50 shot at a very close popular vote win.

[Agafin]

Idk which was sadder- the fact that people thought the Iowa and NH primaries were good barometers of the Dem primary electorate, or that voters actually trusted 45 on the economy.

Umm what? The article literally states that voters trusted Trump on the economy (well, moreso than Biden).

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Umm what? The article literally states that voters trusted Trump on the economy (well, moreso than Biden).

That's what khuzifenq said. "45" = Trump.

He can't believe that voters trust Trump on the economy more than Biden. I can't either.

[Woody]

He didn't do jack: Clyburn and Obama had to hold his hand throughout the primary, then he had 24/7 favorable media coverage from the MSM, the COVID BS, shady election practices, hundreds of millions dollars in his warchest from elite donors, and constant misinformation against Trump like the fake military remarks and the Russia bounty story.

Even though he had everything in his favor he still barely "won"

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

He didn't do jack: Clyburn and Obama had to hold his hand throughout the primary, then he had 24/7 favorable media coverage from the MSM, the COVID BS, shady election practices, hundreds of millions dollars in his warchest from elite donors, and constant misinformation against Trump like the fake military remarks and the Russia bounty story.

Even though he had everything in his favor he still barely "won"

You do realize that the Obama endorsement came before the Covid Environment March 17th, voters would have gravitated towards Biden like they did after George Floyd Protest had Covid happened alot sooner

Due to income inequality and the wealth gap


It's very difficult to win when Conservative female gravitate to ACB, whom is an umpire not just an origionalists, if HRC had Merrick Garland recessed appointed, she would have gotten a bump too in 2016, but Obama was so confident she would have won without it due to Trump

[President Johnson]

Good article.

I wonder why Gerald Ford apparently is frequently not counted as defeated incumbent? The article says four presidents lost reelection in the previous century. But's five: Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter and Bush senior.

[brucejoel99]

Good article.

I wonder why Gerald Ford apparently is frequently not counted as defeated incumbent? The article says four presidents lost reelection in the previous century. But's five: Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter and Bush senior.

Taft was defeated in the previous (20th) century, yes, but not within the last 100 years (i.e. 1920-2020), which I think was the metric that the article was using.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Umm what? The article literally states that voters trusted Trump on the economy (well, moreso than Biden).

That's what khuzifenq said. "45" = Trump.

He can't believe that voters trust Trump on the economy more than Biden. I can't either.

Cause Trump has been undoubtedly good on the economy.


If you wanna blame Trump for this recession (which is pretty hackish) than you have to credit him for the economic recovery which was much better than our recovery from 2009.


Also despite the recession 49% of voters thought the economy was good this year vs 36% in 2016

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

We have had the greatest wealth inequality at any given time that's why when Schumer gets the majority Minimum wage which will help people get off oif long term Unemployment will spur job growth. Right now, in some states, people are making more money on unemployment, like NH, that's why Chris Sununu will lose to Hassan, he vetoed the minimum wage

1980/2000 tax cuts were a net positive, 2001/2020/ net negative de to Great Recession and  Covid

[ultraviolet]

Umm what? The article literally states that voters trusted Trump on the economy (well, moreso than Biden).

That's what khuzifenq said. "45" = Trump.

He can't believe that voters trust Trump on the economy more than Biden. I can't either.

Cause Trump has been undoubtedly good on the economy.


If you wanna blame Trump for this recession (which is pretty hackish) than you have to credit him for the economic recovery which was much better than our recovery from 2009.


Also despite the recession 49% of voters thought the economy was good this year vs 36% in 2016

How is it hackish to blame Trump for this recession? Yes, even if he did everything perfectly there’d be an economic downturn, but it didn’t have to be anywhere near this bad. If he’d actually done something (like, anything) about Covid, it wouldn’t have to be like this. Instead, we’ve seen a huge recession due to his inability to handle anything, the economy included.

[Podgy the Bear]

He didn't do jack: Clyburn and Obama had to hold his hand throughout the primary, then he had 24/7 favorable media coverage from the MSM, the COVID BS, shady election practices, hundreds of millions dollars in his warchest from elite donors, and constant misinformation against Trump like the fake military remarks and the Russia bounty story.

Even though he had everything in his favor he still barely "won"

Right.  And now he's going to be President.  Painful for you, isn't it?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

[dw93]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

I'd say Jimmy Carter's in 1976 was more pathetic given that was even more winnable than 2020.

[BudgieForce]

Biden certainly ran a very pathetic campaign for someone who won.

He beat an incumbent with near even approval ratings. I can't say I agree with your assessment.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Umm what? The article literally states that voters trusted Trump on the economy (well, moreso than Biden).

That's what khuzifenq said. "45" = Trump.

He can't believe that voters trust Trump on the economy more than Biden. I can't either.

Cause Trump has been undoubtedly good on the economy.


If you wanna blame Trump for this recession (which is pretty hackish) than you have to credit him for the economic recovery which was much better than our recovery from 2009.


Also despite the recession 49% of voters thought the economy was good this year vs 36% in 2016

How is it hackish to blame Trump for this recession? Yes, even if he did everything perfectly there’d be an economic downturn, but it didn’t have to be anywhere near this bad. If he’d actually done something (like, anything) about Covid, it wouldn’t have to be like this. Instead, we’ve seen a huge recession due to his inability to handle anything, the economy included.

The economy in many nations has had major downturns and if you wanna blame him for the recession you have to credit him for the recovery which was far better than the recovery that took place in the Obama years .


Also on Election Day more people thought the economy was good this year than it was in 2016(49% vs 36%)

[DrScholl]

This is why history is not a great metric for predicting elections. Biden betting everything on South Carolina seemed risky, but it turned out to be smart.