Hillary Aides Worried about Possible Biden Candidacy

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/clinton-campaign-reportedly-growing-edgy-over-possible-biden-run/

Hmmmm.....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, polls like this are certainly adding to that.

Biden 49-39 (+ 10)
Sanders 32-25 (+ 7)
Clinton 40-51 (- 11)

Hillary supporters want the least electable of these 3. I expect Sanders to end up with similar numbers to Biden.

Anyways, while I definitely favor Sanders over Biden, I welcome Biden because that should help destroy these retarded inevitable arguments.

[Thunderbird is the word]

It's funny how Democrats used to be perceived as the younger party but between Biden, Sanders, Clinton and Webb that stage will have over 200 years of life on it.

[MisSkeptic]

It's funny how Democrats used to be perceived as the younger party but between Biden, Sanders, Clinton and Webb that stage will have over 200 years of life on it.

"Clear... ZAP EM'!"

Sorry, I know this is stupid but I couldn't miss a chance. I hope Biden decides to run. Not only will it bring new life into the Democrat race, but it'll put the spotlight on them. This doesn't mean I'm going to support him, just wish there was a Democrat candidate other than Sanders to be notice like Hillary Clinton has. She'll defiantly need someone to bring the best out of her. 

[Mehmentum]

While Biden might be bad for Hillary, I don't think Sanders fans should rejoice (unless the only reason they're supporting Sanders is because they hate Hillary).  If Biden enters, suddenly a lot of the media focus is off Sanders as Hillary's main challenger. 

Additionally, I think Biden will compete more with Sanders than is immediately obvious.  Bernie Sanders is going to need to win the vast majority of Obama's supporters (or else win some of Clinton's 2008 supporters) and Biden, as Obama's VP, will be seen as Obama's successor by some.

Sure, many of these Obama 2008 voters are currently supporting for Clinton, but that doesn't change the fact that Sanders needs them too. 

Also, Sanders' best (and probably only chance) of victory is if Clinton begins imploding due to some major (as of yet undiscovered) scandal, or is otherwise unable to run.  Without Biden, this scenario leaves Sanders essentially unopposed.  With Biden, the vast majority of Clinton's supporters will switch over to him.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden should of been nominated in 2004, not 2016. Clinton already banked on congressional leaders of both chambers.

[Skye]

Bernie Sanders should be more worried than Clinton.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

 Biden was thinking about in April and should of gotten in before Sanders.

He's not gonna beat the first female president😍

[henster]

I think if another female runs then Hillary is done, that is the only thing keeping her campaign together atp, if someone like Klobuchar was running then I'd think Hillary would be in big trouble. I do feel like another women is absolutely the biggest threat to Hillary in a primary.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Biden should of been nominated in 2004

Biden was thinking about in April and should of gotten in before Sanders.

Should have

[anvi]

Aside from statements about final decision deadlines, is there any evidence, any at all, that Biden is considering a run?  Organization?  Advisor recruitment?  Exploratory activity? I ask because I really don't know.  If Biden ran, I'd welcome it.  But between all kinds of relevant political factors and the recent, terribly sad death of his son, I just don't see him running. 

Hillary aides, to be perfectly honest, should be worried about her giving over-the-moon dumb answers to questions like the one she gave to a recent query about Keystone.  There is still plenty of time to polish her act of course.  But seriously, if she keeps giving answers like that to legit policy questions, she doesn't deserve to be nominated. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Aside from statements about final decision deadlines, is there any evidence, any at all, that Biden is considering a run?  Organization?  Advisor recruitment?  Exploratory activity?

No. 

[Kingpoleon]

Aside from statements about final decision deadlines, is there any evidence, any at all, that Biden is considering a run?  Organization?  Advisor recruitment?  Exploratory activity? I ask because I really don't know.  If Biden ran, I'd welcome it.  But between all kinds of relevant political factors and the recent, terribly sad death of his son, I just don't see him running.

The draft steering committee claimed 250,000 volunteers in the first eleven/fourteen(?) states, iirc.

[tpfkaw]

I suspect this is briar patching - the Hillary camp would love Biden to get in and stop Sanders' momentum/split the anti-Hillary vote.

(The party establishment seems to be getting scared, the New York Times has lately been taking an extremely negative tone when discussing Sanders).

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is Biden's last chance, I see no reason for him to not do it.

[dudeabides]

Other than Jim Webb, there is very little difference between the Democratic candidates. Biden entering the race would not change that much on domestic issues. When he was in the U.S. Senate, Joe Biden put his country before politics on foreign policy. Unfortunately, he has not done so as Vice President but that's because he's part of a team, not leading it. It would be interesting to see if he can contrast with his opponents, his best option is to sell himself as an elder statesman. Hillary Clinton has failed to do so, her strategy appears to be running for Obama's third term, which is risky given half the country disapproves of his job performance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Other than Jim Webb, there is very little difference between the Democratic candidates. Biden entering the race would not change that much on domestic issues. When he was in the U.S. Senate, Joe Biden put his country before politics on foreign policy. Unfortunately, he has not done so as Vice President but that's because he's part of a team, not leading it. It would be interesting to see if he can contrast with his opponents, his best option is to sell himself as an elder statesman. Hillary Clinton has failed to do so, her strategy appears to be running for Obama's third term, which is risky given half the country disapproves of his job performance.

The Iraq war, the Syria war, TPP, Glass Steagall, fracking, NSA spying, and the like. All very minor issues.

[dudeabides]

Other than Jim Webb, there is very little difference between the Democratic candidates. Biden entering the race would not change that much on domestic issues. When he was in the U.S. Senate, Joe Biden put his country before politics on foreign policy. Unfortunately, he has not done so as Vice President but that's because he's part of a team, not leading it. It would be interesting to see if he can contrast with his opponents, his best option is to sell himself as an elder statesman. Hillary Clinton has failed to do so, her strategy appears to be running for Obama's third term, which is risky given half the country disapproves of his job performance.

The Iraq war, the Syria war, TPP, Glass Steagall, fracking, NSA spying, and the like. All very minor issues.

Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders are proponents of Glass-Steagall, I'm not sure where the others are on that so I can't comment.

On fracking, Hillary is in favor and Bernie opposes, so yes there's a difference.

On the NSA, the same as fracking, I'm not sure where the others stand.

On Iraq, all oppose the war now, though Hillary voted for it originally. Her and Bernie Sanders have both voted to cut off funding.

On abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration (though Bernie has flip-flopped), economic policy for the most part, Obamacare, cap and trade, the role of the federal government, foreign policy for the most part etc. there are few differences between these Democrats other than Jim Webb.

On the GOP side, you have some similarity. But the field is divided on national security issues, immigration, same-sex marriage, tax policy etc.

[eric82oslo]

Biden is like a huge, gigantic joke. His heart is of gold, yet rethorically he's like a lone wolf or household dog. There's no shock that he got like 3% of the votes in the 2008 primaries (the only shock was that Obama actually chose him above Hillary, and probably he did so because a black/female ticket would perhaps have been too much for many people to stomach at the time). Biden has always been a really lousy debater and never as bad as in his encounters with Paul Ryan in 2012 when he really showed what a complete asshole he could be. I'm not the least surprised that for 98-99% of his vice presidency, the American public have been extremely sour on him. He's pretty much pretty talentless, unlike Bernie Sanders.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Bernie Sanders should be more worried than Clinton.

So should Republicans. He'd be stronger than Clinton.

I agree, but people don't seem to see that any more than they see Kasich as the strongest possible Republican.

[eric82oslo]

Bernie Sanders should be more worried than Clinton.

So should Republicans. He'd be stronger than Clinton.

I agree, but people don't seem to see that any more than they see Kasich as the strongest possible Republican.

Few top Democrats have ever been as extremely disliked among all political afiliations as Biden. Then I mean among both Democrats, independents and Republicans. Except for black Democrats, there has not been one single loyal group for Biden during the past 7-8 years. And black Democrats obviously only support him cause he's Obama's surrogate. Not even Kerry or Gore ever came slightly close to the extent of very strong hate that Biden has had to support consistantly for the past 8 years. While Obama's numbers have gone up and down, Biden's numbers have constantly been negative all untill he went under radar after his son died of cancer. Only then did his popularity hit net positive for the first time since at least 2006-07. And someone still thinks that he might be the strongest champion Democrats have seen since Kennedy or something? That's pretty trollish, to say the extremely least. It's like claiming that Cruz or Santorum would be the strongest GOP card since Eisenhower. Makes absolutely no sense.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Bernie Sanders should be more worried than Clinton.

So should Republicans. He'd be stronger than Clinton.

I agree, but people don't seem to see that any more than they see Kasich as the strongest possible Republican.

Few top Democrats have ever been as extremely disliked among all political afiliations as Biden. Then I mean among both Democrats, independents and Republicans. Except for black Democrats, there has not been one single loyal group for Biden during the past 7-8 years. And black Democrats obviously only support him cause he's Obama's surrogate. Not even Kerry or Gore ever came slightly close to the extent of very strong hate that Biden has had to support consistantly for the past 8 years. While Obama's numbers have gone up and down, Biden's numbers have constantly been negative all untill he went under radar after his son died of cancer. Only then did his popularity hit net positive for the first time since at least 2006-07. And someone still thinks that he might be the strongest champion Democrats have seen since Kennedy or something? That's pretty trollish, to say the extremely least. It's like claiming that Cruz or Santorum would be the strongest GOP card since Eisenhower. Makes absolutely no sense.

I don't believe that Biden's real negatives are what you say.  He's been a loyal VP and an involved VP, and he's led the way on a number of issues.  I don't support SSM, but most Democrats do, and Biden was ahead of Obama on the issue.  Indeed, it was Biden sticking his neck out and getting ahead on the issue that forced Obama to follow Biden's lead.  He's been a leader on Obama's controversial initiatives, but he hasn't gotten nailed with bad publicity as Hillary has with Benghazi.

Biden's a guy that is disliked in some quarters, but people don't really know why they dislike him.  It's kind of where Richard Nixon was in 1967; a lot of folks, including a lot of Republicans, didn't really like him, but they couldn't really say why this was so.  In a key campaign memo, Harry Trelaven, Nixon's 1968 advertising man, spoke about how there were many perceived negatives about Nixon that he did not think were still applicable.  In that category, he placed the "Tricky Dick" image, the reputation for meanness and ruthlessness, and he was correct in that these issues weren't really of concern to people at that time.  That's what I think of Biden; many of the negatives associated with Biden in the past have faded away, and aren't what folks think about in Biden today.

More importantly, the VP job enabled all Americans (especially all Democrats) to get to know Biden, and I believe that among Democrats, he's a positive.  Biden's big obstacle is the degree to which the Democrats have been "all in" on Hillary so far before the actual start of the primaries.  The real negative for Biden is that if he challenges Clinton and her numbers go down vis a vis the GOP candidates, he'll be viewed as a guy who's screwing up the Democratic victory, rightly or wrongly.  That's not Biden's doing, but it's the place he's at right now.

[Lincoln Republican]

It's called spin, just in case Biden should do well in the opening primaries and caucuses.

[The Other Castro]

Unless the other pollsters start showing numbers for Clinton like Quinnipiac's, and she drops below 50 on average in primary polling, I don't see Biden getting in.

[IceSpear]

The media's desperation is getting quite old. And are people really still talking about "white horse candidates"? It's August. That's about as useful as talking about brokered conventions and electoral college ties.