Talk Elections

I hope the voters this time look at electability instead of endorsements when selecting their nominee: Bernie does better in WI and MI than does Biden. Due to Trump's improving poll numbers

Old Thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=323912.1975

Yes I split the proceeding post off. OP is getting a reward for his product.

Biden generally does better in national polling (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html) and state polling than all other Democratic candidates, with Sanders often in second. I think name recognition is still a factor for non-Biden/Sanders candidates, but it does seem possible that Biden genuinely does better with swing voters. As I posted in another thread:

Biden’s winning the nomination. I had a come to Jesus moment when Harris dropped out.

Warren, Sanders, and Pete are not penetrating his wall in the South.

At least it will just be one term.

Followed by President Haley or President DeSantis

OP isn't even true.  Biden is polling better than Bernie in WI, MI, and every other swing state other than IA (where they are virtually tied vs Trump).  Often substantially better than Bernie.

Furthermore this is after Trump and the right have spent months in 100% attack mode against Biden, pushing a gish gallop of deplorable accusations and theories.  And it hasn't made a dent.  Sanders, as usual, gets treated with kid gloves by the right.

Well, it still could be zero.

So was  Hilary and she lost just like Biden will, when Trump unleash negative ads on Ujraine. Trump, says once Biden is nominated. he will use his money to attack Biden. Biden is losing ground to Trump and last WI poll showed Biden losing to Trump

Biden is crooked, that's why Bernie leads in IA, NH and Cali over Biden, Biden is stuck at 14%

Right, I'm sure Biden is the only candidate Trump would spend money attacking.  Anyone else and Trump would just play golf the whole campaign.

The only difference between Biden and the field in this regard is that Trump is attacking Biden now.  We don't have to imagine how a general election would look because it's unfolding before our eyes.  Biden is running ads against Trump.  Trump is running ads against Biden.  Fox News, Breitbart and right-wing talk radio are in 24/7 anti-Biden mode.

Yuck!

You probably would like them more than W Bush or Trump

This is one scenario. Another one is that both Haley and DeSantis are completely irrelevant by 2024 and Biden's successor will be an extremely successful two-term democrat. Nobody knows what will happen in the next five years - take the case of France for example: quite a few people claimed in 2012 that electing a 'dangerous socialist' like Hollande would only pave the way for a more right-wing UMP/Republican candidate in 2017. But then the Republican candidate didn't even make the run-off and socialist-turned-centrist Macron got elected instead. There are no certainties in politics and people that are considered future presidents today might be political non-factors in a few years' time.

Biden really is clueless with his latest ad if he thinks a few global elites laughing at Trump is going to convince any good amount of Obama/Trump voters.

It’s not for them though.

Romney/Clinton and Romney/Third Party voters are a thing and honestly how Democrats will be expanding the map. Biden is not going to do better than Clinton with poor and working class white people.

Biden is turning out to be Hilary II, with Ukraine and Benghazi redux, losing a 300 EC landslide to Trump and tied in WI and Bernie sneaking up on them both

ElectionsGuy has posted about 50 times since saying that he’d be posting less frequently. You really hate to see it.

Biden's yelling jag the other day was an embarrassment. It'd have been one thing if he'd said, "You're a damned liar," followed by a convincing explanation of why his son was on the board of a company he had no qualifications for. But getting mad without backing it up just proves it's a criticism that hurts... likely because it's true. The same with the pushup nonsense about his age. Biden is a walking disaster.

And maybe more than cyanide and carbon monoxide as well!

How many times does it need to be explained to you people that his son was qualified to be on the board?

How many times are Biden and his supporters expected to explain and re-explain and re-explain it before we're allowed to just say "shut up you Fox News zombie"

Hunter Biden is a troubled man. His life has been plagued by drugs, tragedy, and unseemly behavior. For those reasons I probably wouldn't have him in any important roles. Still, this idea that oil executive boards have strict guidelines in who they select for them is laughable. If anyone has a thorough understanding of how Burisma used to select board members, then maybe they can criticize the addition of Hunter Biden. It's also a complete fiction that Joe Biden steered him to that company. Completely made up.

More to the point, Biden earned more goodwill with voters by making a raw, genuine stand for his only surviving son against right-wing lies than anything any other candidate has done in the race. It's better he hit back at this sedentary dolt who "saw it on the TV" than to let it fester with a weak response.

Biden's earthy, uninhibited style has helped him clear hurdles about his record and background in a much better way than say, Hillary's academic mannerisms, and it will in this case too.

He qualified by being Hunter Biden, just as he qualified as a senior executive at Delaware based MBNA making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, as his first job out of law school. People know how the system works, and it stinks. Biden didn't show genuine emotion because he was being unfairly attacked. He showed genuine emotion because he knows the criticism is true and therefore it worries him that it'll be an effective liability against him. Biden's nepotism represents everything wrong with the system today and why people have long lost faith in the system.

Dude, he graduated from Yale Law.  That's as prestigious as it gets.

Hillary Rodham graduated from Yale Law and her first job was impeaching Nixon.  I suppose she got that job because she was a member of the famous Rodham family?

Smart people get good jobs.  This appears to be the scandal-of-the-week pattern this election cycle.  Joe Biden's son got good jobs.  Pete Buttigieg got good jobs.  Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer had such good jobs that they became billionaires.  If Deval Patrick was relevant people would be attacking him for his good jobs.

Is this the party we want?  Only knuckle-dragging morons and grocery-store clerks allowed?

Way to mock the working class, and yet you wonder why more progressives don’t support your guy.

This stinks just like when Republicans attack AOC for being a former bartender.

"Knuckle-dragging morons" was in contrast to "smart people"

"Grocery-store clerks" was in contrast to "good jobs"

just to avoid any ambiguity.

Joe Biden has 99 problems, but Ukraine ain't one


https://www.salon.com/2019/11/28/joe-biden-has-99-problems-ukraine-isnt-one-of-them/ (https://www.salon.com/2019/11/28/joe-biden-has-99-problems-ukraine-isnt-one-of-them/)

Your comments are so strange and logically flawed

A Biden supporter (GeneralMacArthur) makes a comment in Atlas, and you are going to attribute that comment as if Biden said it, and even blame Biden for it by saying "that's why progressives don't support him."
What kind of logic is that?

Have you recently been hiding under a rock?
It's not just "a few global elites" laughing at trump.
Over half of the American population is laughing at him.

You are confusing status with intellect. (Something far too common in America. For a prominent example, see: Trump, Donald.)  Economic diversity and student outcomes at Yale University (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/yale-university)
With rare exceptions, prestigiously-credentialed and well-connected people get (very) good careers. Yes, Hunter Biden was qualified to be on the board of Burisma, by the standards on which the United States and Western international elite operate. But the underlying criticism revolves around a reasonably widespread perception that those standards are unjust, corrupt, and ultimately damaging to the general public. The "this was technically legal" defense is actively damaging in terms of its impact on the perceptions of much of the electorate.

I do not believe the Clinton family has broken any major laws related to charities, fundraising, etc regarding their wealth accumulation since the end of Bill Clinton's term. But that does not mean that what they, and many other prominent American politicians have done is not corrupt, it means we have terrible laws and very low standards regarding corruption by our political leaders. Americans can see what's going on. It's not like it isn't obvious! What people want is positive change, less corruption. In that context the, "this was technically legal" defense is rightfully seen in the public mind as an indictment, not exoneration.

(I'm not saying Biden cannot get elected because of this, or that Trump isn't himself crooked as hell. But I'm getting sick and tired of the idea that "technically legal" is a good defense. It isn't. It's a criticism of the system.)

You have to be smart to graduate from Yale Law.  Or at least to get good grades, which is a prerequisite for getting the kind of elite jobs we're talking about.  Trump isn't a counterexample as he didn't even get an MBA, probably because he wouldn't have been able to complete it.

Umm, nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, Yale Law doesnt give grades so there is no GPA, and they also dont rank students. Second, grade inflation is rampant with something like 2/3 of all grades at Yale (non-law) being A- or above (this is also true at Harvard and other comparable schools). Now you can make a decent case that you have to be smart to get into Yale, though even that is tempered by legacies.

That's his MO. It's better to just laugh at his posts and not try to think about them or respond to them.

Biden is corrupted,  every politician is; consequently,  Pelosi, Harris and Feinstein are defending Biden, while SF and LA have the biggest homelessness in the nation. Everywhere you go in Cali, there are tents and nationwide too. But, Trump, doesnt want to get rid of dirty money in politics; subsequently,  it's a wrap on Trump 😏😏😏

In fact, Trump's voters will see this as proof that Biden is in "league" with these "globalists". And Trump could very well use this as evidence that he is getting on the bad side of exactly the right kinds of people.

Perhaps this is true-hence, why I think Trump will lose the popular vote. But that won't matter with the Electoral College, which is what will decide the election.

God help us if this moron gets the nomination

Ugh, yet another terrible statement from Biden. Republicans need to be clobbered, only if they keep getting clobbered is there any hope of them returning to some level of sanity.

Imagine in 1932 if FDR said "don't clobber the GOP....the Great  Depression is the result of #BothSides.....we need more Republicans in Congress to moderate the New Deal"

What he means that there needs to be a stable two party system with a sane Republican Party that embraces center-right policies and not Trumpism/Tea Party. However, the current Republican Party of Trump and Moscow Mitch needs to burn to the ground be rebuilt by folks like John Kasich, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Larry Hogan.

Harry Truman made similar statement in 1952 when he declined to seek reelection. Let's not make this a bigger deal than it is.

Considering you previously supported Trump, I don’t think anyone should take your opinion on the Republican Party seriously.

The GOP does not need to be “saved” or “preserved”. If Biden really feels that way, he should primary Trump and see how many “truly good” Republicans there are. In reality, there are few (if any) who care about restoring the values that Joe so desperately wants to see return to the mainstream. Those values, by the way, include Reagan’s economic policy, Dubya’s foreign policy, and the type of social conservative pearl clutching that prolonged the fight for marriage equality, among other things.

Joe Biden thinking that the Republicans don’t deserve to be taught a lesson for their embrace of a proto-fascist because he thinks politics has to be nice and fair is downright embarrassing. This is the same guy who gave a eulogy for Strom Thurmond and proudly proclaimed that Delaware was a slave state. He’s a joke of a candidate if he truly believes what he said.

5 to 6

Lmao, Joe Biden has been a Democrat since 1969 and the suggestion by left-wingers to have him run in a Republican primary is just ridiculous. What would you guys say if I suggested Saint Bernard (who isn’t even a Democrat) and Liz should run in a Socialist primary? They are more socialist than Uncle Joe is supporting “Republican talking points”. Joe Biden is a moderate to liberal Democrat, just not a socialist. What Joe Biden actually wants is restoring a two party system in which the Republican Party is a big-tent center-right party and the Democratic Party is big-tent center-left party. Where are serious disagreements between parties and their elected officials, but where is the will to work across the aisle, which the American system and even most parliamentary forms of government require. And where civility is restored to the political discourse, instead of personal slanders and baseless accusations.

It’s also ridiculous to say Joe Biden and the likes of him supported large parts of the Reagan and Bush agendas. They opposed a lot and have made compromises because these men where the president at the time. Some of which he, to his credit, regretted later on. If everything becomes a purity test, not a lot of things to improve people's lives get done. I mean, the same people now hammer Obama for not going far enough with the Affordable Care Act, ignoring the fact it was already very tough to pass and improved the situation substantially for millions of people.

I for one like to live in a non-one party state so.....

The Kerry endorsement has stopped the damage, that Ukraine scandal has placed on Biden. It was a net plus for Kerry to endorse Biden

Better a one-party state with a sane party than a two-party state where one of the parties is insane.

I agree. Even if there's no actual wrongdoing on Joe's part it's the perception of elites playing by special rules that made the Clintons immensely unpopular and it contributed a lot to her losing in 2016.

On the other hand... perplexingly we're seeing this having close to no effect on Biden's polling numbers. Maybe he had such an honest reputation before this that Burisma isn't overwhelming people's priors. Maybe it is shifting people's opinions but not being reflected in polls. Maybe once we reached the general election phase people's attitudes would shift. I don't know.

Biden's relatively stable poll numbers is really the most interesting story of the entire primary so far. I've been worried about his electability and elite, insider status for months now (not just Burisma but also the Iraq War vote, quite literally being a career politician, etc.) especially given that we know Trump's playbook is going to be to dirty up his opponent and he did this mastfully against Clinton. But, I'm starting to come around to the opinion that maybe (the majority of) voters just don't care as much as we all thought.

Well no duh his favorables have decreased, he's been the victim of a media onslaught for months straight! And no, 30% in an 18 candidate primary against someone who got 45% of the vote in the last primary is not a "bad showing." I know you do not like Biden because he is a zombie or whatever, but letting it affect your predictions so heavily is not a good look.

I'm tempted to say Biden at this point is worse than Trump--while the Republican government is essentially evil at this point, Biden sees this evil, acknowledges it (by running against it) and still thinks it's an acceptable thing we should keep around.

In all fairness....he was saying the same thing about the GOP during Watergate back in 1973:

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203704068339834880

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203705111488483328

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203706710331969541

Also....let's not forget....Watergate was actually #BothSides fault:

https://mobile.twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1203705673734918144

But dont worry....this time it'll be different! Uncle Joe is just pretending to be for bipartisanship.

He is. I never thought I’d say this, but if it’s between Bernie and Biden, I will refuse to vote for Biden in the general election. Giving any more credence to the Republicans as a legimitate party that is capable of governing would be worse than letting Trump get a second term to further destroy the GOP brand.

HOW DARE HE!!!!!

Saying a 1 party state is bad? WTF IS THIS MAN SMOKING

The only TRUE debate remaining is whether the "normal" Trumplicans (he-he I'm so funny) should be simply re-educated or arrested. For the rest, NO MERCY!!! TRAITOR MOSCOW MITCH TO THE GUILLOTINE!!!

One party rule would indeed be far better than letting the Republican Party share power

I like Joe Biden, but I can also recognize that he is past his due date to a degree (though still the best in a fairly disappointing field). Because of this, while I do support him, it does not come from a place of deep rooted enthusiasm, and as such, I have no desire to twist reality in order to defend him. I do think, however, that he has withstood a media onslaught, similar to that of someone who is already the nominee and far more than anything experienced by anyone else, and yet his standing in the primary is unchanged and he continues to overperform Bernie by 1-2 in the general election polls.

Between Bernie and Biden? Did you mean Trump?

I’m operating under the assumption that the primaries unfold between Bernie and Biden. I prefer a re-elected Trump w/Democratic House to a useless four-year Biden Presidency, and it’s not even a close call. If the Supreme Court was at stake, my opinion would be different, but we’re already f—ked on that front anyway.

I strongly disagree with your positions but even assuming they are axioms, the supreme court is bad but could get way worse. TBH, I don't see RBG hanging on until 2025 but if Biden or any other dem wins in 2020, we could probably have her retire during the first month and maybe get that seat (I would not put it past republicans to hold up the seat for 4 years, but we have a better shot at filling it than we would with 4 more years of Trump.) And of course, Biden is just saying he is gonna do what Obama did not admit to, and I could see us winning in 2024 if he steps down and we get someone like Duckworth running considering the emerging sunbelt coalition.

Biden is a hot mess but he’s going to be the nominee. We are going to have to work to get as many Democrats elected as possible to hold his ass accountable. Don’t know what else to say to the detractors.

I have zero interest in a Biden Presidency with a Republican senate that will inevitably block every single one of his appointments no matter what, even as he bends back over heels to cater to them. Hopefully enough Democrats agree with me for it not have to come to to a choice of lesser evils.

The more Biden talks, the more vindicated I feel in my decision not to support this senile gasbag.  But at least he's telling people he'll let the Republicans walk all over him before anybody votes; that way no one will feel disappointed when his do-nothing administration changes, well, absolutely nothing.

Howie Hawkins is a good man, and I'll be proud to cast my vote for him next year.

Unfortunately a lot of people buy this type of stuff, especially considering those voting for Biden like him due to him being moderate and associated with Obama.

There’s a big difference between catering to right-leaning voters and catering to an openly hostile Congressional GOP. Look at JBE for how to successfully do the former without being stupid enough to do the latter like Biden wants to.

I will do my part and hope that in the event Biden is unfortunately the nominee that he does just well enough for Democrats to make gains in Congress and the Senate while still barely losing overall. A Trump second-term with a looming six-year itch Election would do far more to advance the Progressive agenda than anything Biden would be able or willing to do.

So I take it that if you were in my shoes you would be sympathetic to my argument

IMO, a Biden presidency would be similar to if John Kerry had won in 2004: The Congress would of stayed in GOP hands blocking any legislation and Kerry would of been clobbered in 2008 over the recession leading to a landslide for the GOP.

I can't see anything good coming out of Biden winning particularly if the Senate doesnt flip and/or RBG passes and is replaced by Trump. The GOP will obstruct him while he begs for bipartisanship, followed by the inevitable Dem losses in the midterms like in 1994 and 2010. The GOP Congress will then vote to impeach him for the Ukraine scandal and then he loses in 2024.

That’s pretty much exactly how it will unfold if Biden wins, barring a huge Democratic wave in the Senate. It’s just not worth the cost. And just our luck too, there’ll probably be a recession in a Biden term, and Democrats will get destroyed like freaking 1980 come 2024

and if Warren wins and there is a Republican Senate or at best 50-51 Dem senators how would that change things anymore lol.


In that cause 2024 still would be 1980

At least with her she’d have the metaphorical balls to make recess appointments and Executive Orders. Biden almost certainly would not. Not that I have much faith in her to get much passed through Congress either, especially if Democrats have to rely on Manchin and Sinema to get stuff through the Senate.

You people saying you wouldn't support Biden in the general, because your fantasy of a Trump second term is preferable to your strawman of a Biden presidency, are idiots.

Absolute.  F***ing.  Idiots.

You don't deserve the right to vote.  You are too stupid to participate in democracy.

We dont deserve the right to vote if we dont vote for who you tell us to vote for? How is that democracy? Great logic you imbicile

I know you're making this comment in bad faith, but there is a world of difference between calling for a one party state and saying one of the parties should suffer a landslide level loss because of bad policies and practices. I would say that, in the case of Watergate, Republicans did end up jumping ship and saving some of their reputation. My knowledge of Nixon-era politics is limited at best, but the retrospective paints Republicans as a check to Nixon's authority and as a group willing to challenge a president of their own party on the worst offenses.

The same cannot be said of the party in 2019. Republicans seem to have nearly unanimously decided to back Trump and, by extension, his actions. For Biden to make a public call for keeping the Republican party intact in the Trump era is to say that the issue with the party right now is Trump and Trump alone. It misses to preceding decades in which the Republicans have done everything in their power to obstruct, block, or just refuse to acknowledge their Democratic colleagues.

So, no, those calling Biden out on his bipartisan-styled blinders are not yelling, screaming snowflake straw men waving Soviet flags and calling for the execution of their opponents for thought-crimes, they're people who don't see value in a party that seems bent gerrymandering, court-packing, and election interference staying in power for yet another cycle.

We don't let children vote, because they are incapable of logical thinking or reasoning about the future with any semblance of maturity or rationality.

If you call yourself a progressive, but would vote for Trump over Biden (or help Trump in some other way, by voting third party of staying home), and your reasoning is something utterly asinine like


then you should not be voting, because you are so stupid that you are basically a child.

I don't care who you support in the primary.  Go waste your vote on Marianne Williamson for all I care.  But I can't believe the election is a year out and we're already hearing from these perennial Sarandonite idiots bragging about how they'll proudly be helping Trump next year by being too pure to vote for the Democratic nominee (if it's Biden).  I can't believe I'm the only one on this forum telling these people where they can shove their purity politics.

I’m far from a purist. I would gladly vote for a Democrat who doesn’t share my views on many things. I’d vote for Collin Peterson if I lived in his district. Or Joe Manchin. But the one thing I won’t bend on is endorsing a Democrat for President that thinks bipartisanship with a hostile Republican Congress is something we should strive for. Especially one who WANTS people to keep voting for these Republican anarchists! We’ve been there and done that way too many times to see how that movie ends.

Oh I get it, you're just trolling.

Go back to AAD.

I am dead serious, Biden would leave the Democratic Party in a worse position than Carter left it.

We've been "due for a recession" for like nine years now.  Voting for Trump because you're sure the economy will go into recession before 2022 is lunacy.

I mean what's the point of taking Congress?  To pass policy, right?  But with Trump in power, none of your policy would get passed anyway.  In the meantime he'll still be finding new things to f*** up via pure executive power every single day.  Not to mention getting 1 if not 2 supreme court justices, since he only needs the Senate for that.

But sure, go vote for Trump so you can make Congressional gains in 2022.  Then vote for Pence in 2024 so you can get even more Congressional gains.  Sure, you won't pass a damn sentence of policy with a Republican in the White House, NATO will be in shambles, and the world will be in flames from the destructive policies passed through executive order and ratified by a Republican supreme court, but man 2028 is gonna be so lit!

This whole thing is just the latest excuse people are using to rationalize not voting for Biden.  If you want to vote for Trump, or you're a child who only leaves your mom's basement to vote for Sanders, just own it, stop lying that it's some Rube Goldberg advanced strategy.

I live in my dad’s attic thank you very much

Two other things I want to add, for the benefit of those who think our entire political strategy should revolve around recessions:

1) The 2008 recession is an extreme case of what a recession can be.  It was far more damaging, and lasted far longer, than previous recessions.  George W Bush had a recession early in his presidency, and it didn't hurt him much.  Reagan had two recessions in his first term.  Whatever recession comes will probably just be a normal recession, not something caused by massive, widespread fraud in a critical financial market.  It will drop the economy by 10-15% and be over within a year.  If it happens early in the first term, we'll be recovered and well into a bull market by the midterms.

2) There isn't any timeline for when a recession has to occur.  Clinton went his entire presidency without a recession.

So you spend all this time counting on a recession to strike in Trump's first term, damaging him so much that we sweep the midterms.  But in reality, that recession probably won't happen at all, and if it does happen it will most likely be relatively quick and painless, and forgotten by the midterms.

1. The Early 80s Recession isnt a good example to use as an mild recession lol , it was a double than triple dip recession and the economy was just as bad from late 79-mid 83 as it was from late 08-early 13

Yeah true the early Reagan recession is a terrible example haha, don't know why I was mixing that up with some other memory.

I don't care who you support in the primary or general, pal.  You're finally going on iggy, and it ain't because of who you're voting for.  It's because you're a whiny little bitch.

Try acting your age.  Smoke a joint.  Get laid.  Clearly this forum is too much for you.

Being put on ignore because you raged over a post about why Democrats shouldn't vote for Trump in 2020 #JustAtlasThings

Lovely night-time entertainment, gentlemen.

Biden's take on the GOP is wishful thinking at best and naive at worst. As member of the Obama Admin, he should know better. The GOP is an obstructionist party that embraces far right policies, is in the pocket of special interests and a threat to our democracy. Its elected officials in congress are a bunch of cowards for selling out to Mr. Trump, the most unethical, corrupt and personally disgusting prez, and surrendering before their Fox "News" base. All because they put career and party over country. And these people won't change even if Mr. Trump goes down in flames next year. Let's be real here. Biden may know some of these congressional GOPers in private and thinks they are good people. But who cares if they are too cowardly to stand up to Mr. Trump's many violations or block everything to improve people's lives? I have zero respect for these GOPers in congress.

Biden certainly wishes the GOP would be a normal conservative party like the Canadian Tories or most Christan Democratic parties in Europe. But they have abandoned this many, many years ago. It may be there a few honorable GOP officials, like Gov. Baker, but they are not in congress.

Biden has not been my 1st choice, and I haven't decided who I will vote for in the CA Dem primary. It's going to be him, Warren or Butti. Anyone else beyond Sanders seems to have no chance either. For sure, I'll vote for any Dem nominee. Not that CA matters much though.

This is where I disagree with you , I dont think the GOP politicians today are more cowardly than they were in 1974. The main difference is back then the voters were no where near as partisian as they were and almost every state in the union could potentially be won by the other party in some circumstances.This then forced the politicians to be honorable and not accept Nixon's crimes.

On the other hand today its the opposite, where over 80% of the states and races are basically Safe for one party(with rare exceptions like Roy Moore situations) and due to that politicians real only realistic threat of reelection comes from primaries not general elections.


When that happens you get our current situation.

I'm not voting for Trump and if Biden is the nominee....I will write in olawakandi

GOPers in 1974 were much less cowards, even right wingers like Goldwater. If I remember correctly, it was him who told Nixon in August 1974 that he lacks support to survive the impeachment and that it's over. The base back then was less tribal for sure, what can be explained through the media landscape then and now. But evidence on Mr. Trump's misconduct is clear as day. And these congressional enablers are deflecting in phony excuses and embrace conspiracy theories that US Intel agencies debunked and warned them not to spread. If this is not a moment to put country over party, then what is? These senators and congressmen have no backbone. It's all about Mr. Trump's cult. Not even about conservative policies or Federalist Society judges. If Mr. Trump was removed, they would still get this stuff with Pence.

The GOP of 1974 had no choice but to force Nixon out or the GOP very well could have been wiped out to 1936 levels. That is why they did what they did , as the defeat they actually were given in 1974 is nothing compared to the defeat they would have gotten if they stood with Nixon.

Today on the other Republican politicians are more likely to get reelected if they stand with Trump then be in support of impeachment while the exact opposite was true in 1974.  That is the main problem , the GOP politicians not standing up to Trump is the symptom of the problem not the the problem it self.


The problem is that over 80% of the races in our country(and that is a generous number) are Safe by the time of the general election which means the politicians really are at risk at losing their seat in primaries and not general elections which incentivizes politicians to be even more partisan .

Why Twitter underestimates Joe Biden


https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/08/politics/twitter-joe-biden-analysis/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/08/politics/twitter-joe-biden-analysis/index.html)

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/09/joe-biden-road-trip-iowa-078314

Why would you strategically vote for a more competent GOP figure, but not the useful idiot? Trump is an excellent base motivator.

Also, I've never considered myself progressive, just Anti-Deregulation.

Biden (and Pete) released his governing strategy plans today and you guessed it: bipartisanship will help him pass his agenda!

https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1204044117585616897

That's right...so go vote GOP in Congressional races as they are clamoring to help Biden govern. But remember guys....Med4all is the real pie in the sky fantasy

The sad part is that this is what voters want. I forgot the exact numbers but it was either a plurality or a bare majority of Democrats wanted the nominee to be someone who will work with Republicans. Voters are naive or plain willfully ignorant about how bloody politics is. But Joe is giving them what they want.

It's going to be him and we need to elect as many Democrats to pad/create the majority as possible.

It won't matter because he'll still do the only thing Dems seem to know how to do anymore--ask Republicans to shape their agenda.

"Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along?"

In theory, yes. It would also be nice to get along with a hungry lion if the lion's idea of "getting along" didn't mean eating me alive. Compromise is a good thing when the goal is to the benefit of everyone and there's give and take coming from all sides. The Republican idea of "compromise" is the Democrats bending to their will, letting them have all the power, not lifting a finger to fight back against or call them out on their lies, and everyone on the left collectively shutting up. That's not an attitude you can reason or compromise with. You don't compromise with a kid throwing a tantrum and showing no concern for anyone else.

Sounds perfect! I'll accept anyone shaping the agenda so long as it isn't "woke" white men and women.

What about "woke" minorities?

Tbh, i feel the 2020 Dem primaries will end in one of two ways:

1) Like 2004 where Biden like John Kerry sweeps it up fairly quickly

-or-

2) Like 1988 where Biden, like Jesse Jackson, has most of his wins contained within the South while Sanders or Warren sweep the rest like Dukkakis and get the nomination.

I'm still hoping for the second scenario.

And then get swept in November in a 40 state landslide?

Yes because the results of 1972/1980/1984/1988 will repeat forever until the end of time. Nobody can do anything about it unless someone moderate is nominated. The prophecies have been foretold in Nostradamus's quatrains combined with the newspaper horoscopes: No one left will ever get elected as voters fear Secular Gemini entering the galaxy plane of Uranus Scorpio which means 2020 will be like 1988 as Dump will run ads featuring Willie Horton

Really, Joe Biden's chances have a very high chance of coming down to whether or not you think weak performances in Iowa and New Hampshire would affect how he does in South Carolina and, more crucially, Nevada. That's a crucial component, and it should probably be one of the most important components of anyone's judgement of his chances.

…

Has Biden learned nothing at all from President Obama's experience? 

Or they want some kind of sanctimonious, self-righteous, moral high-horse to ride on when parties aren't supposed to have such a thing.

Biden is proving incapable of learning anything period.

This is insanity!
trump is destroying our nation everyday. He is also destroying our relations with our allies, and our place as a leader in international affairs.
For anyone (on the left) to call for him to stay for another 4 years, because of "supposed" benefits elsewhere, is lunacy.
In regards to your comment on the Supreme Court ... My belief is that RBG wants out. She is being a huge hero for the left, and doing everything possible to "hang-in-there" until early 2021, in the hopes a Dem president wins. Having trump McTurtle insert yet another supreme court justice would be devastating, and would be 10 times more "f---ked" then you can imagine.

Although,  I rather have a Dem to get rid of campaign finance laws, Ginsberg would stay on despite failing and can work from home for the most part. If Amy Barrett replaces Ginsberg, most teenage pregnancies are very low, and this abortions stay low. Birth control pills are always available to women as well.
There is a 23T deficit and most of the programs Warren and Sanders are putting forth like eliminating student loan debt isnt gonna pass. Even if you get rid of the filibuster,  you have to have unanimous consent to start debate, and Rand Paul would object to it, unless its paid for, just like Ensign wouldnt allow unemployment to be extended 2yrs

Yall think Eric Holder will endorse in this primary?

I just know Team Biden is holding some huge Black endorsements in the arsenal for (1) MLK Weekend and (2) the pivotal weeks before the SC Primary. 

That's probably the spin strategy for Biden after likely 3-4th place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire-- release significant endorsements periodically, with them citing Biden's "beating expectations" or whatever in Iowa and NH.

South Carolina will become "MEANINGLESS" for Joe Biden if he can't pull off a Victory in either Iowa or New Hampshire.

Do ya'll really think he can still win the Nomination if he loses IA & NH? This isn't 1992.

In recent Democratic Nominations the eventual D-Nominee has either won IA or NH.

Hillary won Iowa by 0.4 points. Do you think a Bernie 0.4 victory in Iowa would have reversed her margins in South Carolina? She won Southern blacks like 85-15 and would have done so no matter what.

Biden will have the black vote while he/Sanders/Warren/Pete split whites. There are several states where Biden very well may win all the delegates.

You’re right this isn’t 1992. The Southern bloc is even BLACKER and more significant with the booming populations of states like TX, GA, NC, and FL.

Unfortunately, it's also not 1988 either where one can win by dodging The South.

The demographic composition of the Democratic electorate in IA and NH just makes it impossible to consider them bellwether states. Clinton nearly lost IA and got crushed in NH by 22%, so this idea that Biden needs IA and/or NH to win is ludicrous and quite frankly nothing but wishful thinking.

A dramatic underperformance in SC (or even NV, for that matter) would be much more worrying for the Biden camp than even a decisive loss in IA and NH. NV in particular would probably the linchpin of a successful Sanders comeback, so I’d be most worried about that state if I was Biden.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-says-would-consider-2020-rival-warren-as-running-mate%3f_amp=true

Is Liz Warren great VP pick for Biden?

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129

Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term

This would be a completely unforced error and tactically stupid move. Americans can yak about how much they want term limits, but in reality, they don't. It might be harmless with a younger candidate, but the implication here is clear: you might as well slap a "use by 2025" label on his forehead. Given how familiar the bulk of American voters is with aging, it comes with the underlying message that "I'm already deteriorating, but I'll make it through this term, I promise!". Trump will use this over and over again (if merely indirectly) to effectively crucify him.

one term promise would be only good thing is his campaign, but can we trust him on that

Making such a pledge wouldn't necessarily help him or Sanders. They would be lame ducks from the start on. Opponents in the campaign could also use it against them by raising health issues. He's fit to serve a single term, but doesn't feel fit afterwards? And what if, as the article says, they are popular by 2023 and feel healthy enough for a 2nd term? Not that I think it's likely with either Biden or Sanders that they run again, but who knows? If you plan on to retire after 4 years, I wouldn't put my cards on the table so early. He or Sanders should then simply make an announcement in spring or summer 2023 that they won't seek reelection.

If Biden is the nominee, I hope he picks Kamala Harris for VP and she'll be elected prez in 2024. Biden could serve as bridge to a new generation of leaders, and as experienced politician reverse the damage done by Mr. Trump.

It's an interesting pick to say the least that's for sure.

Just like with the Harris Veep, he is pandering, Hoe would run for a 2nd term, he is just as old as Trump would be at the end of 2024

Hoe Biden.

Correction: Corrupted Hoe Biden.

I'm not a big fan of Bill Krystol, but this is an excellent analysis. I think people are driven by either their disdain for Biden or simply the fact that the online world hardly reflects realities on the ground. People in the media and this forum have suggested how he's collapsing, stumbling with gaffes and so on and he held his leads both in the primary and the general despite having some setbacks.

We had a primary and even Cruz and Trump said harsh things, but when the political Establishment like Pelosi and the Latino and AA go against Sharpton and Oprah, who were open to Harris or Booker, they picked Biden without listening to their constituents. Especially,  since Sharpton,  Harris, Maxine Waters, and Oprah are from the North and Whoopi G,  whom weren't enthusiastic about Biden.

Aside that, Trump wont be Prez next yr, Biden and Sally Yates will be

I just hope that whatever "groove" he has now persists throughout the general election, should he be nominated.

The Joe Biden of 2012, or even 2016, wouldn't have me as concerned as current Joe Biden has me.

For folks wondering why I went from hating Biden to outright declaring him the inevitable nominee:

https://twitter.com/MoniquePressley/status/1205248168939675656?s=20

Harris had the biggest presence in South Carolina (I’ve been there regularly volunteering for her and Warren) with her out, Biden is going to clear 60 percent there easy.

I agree. While I am firmly to the left of him, I have always liked Uncle Joe, but man, the 2019 version of Joe is too close to being a rambling fool for me to be comfortable with him as the nominee. I guess it is good that his opponent is even more of a rambling fool than him, but still. It is not a good look that he can't maintain his train of thought for more than 10 seconds at a time. Still, rather him than inevitable GE losers like Bernie or Liz, so unless Mayor Pete (or someone else) surges, I've got Uncle Joe's back in this.

Biden being the likely nominee is a reaction to Trump.
People want the center. They want sanity and stability. A steady hand. Not Trump’s extremism or the social extremism of the far left. In a more politically sane era, say if this was 1996 or 2000, Joe wouldn’t be a contender. But in these bizarre and deeply divided times, the people want someone moderate who can unite this country or at least keep the extremists out of power. Warren is boring and when she speaks is too radical. Sanders hype has worn off and his plans are pie in the sky and he’s basically the other side of the Trump coin. Harris collapsed because she was a social radical.

Biden’s the One.

That’s bullsh-t.

But it’s neither here nor there. Biden will be the nominee and I hope he chooses Harris.

Do you think Harris will endorse Biden before the primary is over (or even begun)?

Yes. She had the most CBC endorsements (yes, more than Biden) and has the power to choose what position she wants in a Biden administration. The CBC wants her to be the POTUS after Biden and I think they will work out a deal that leads to Harris endorsing before South Carolina if Biden loses the first three. The black establishment WILL NOT get behind Warren, Sanders, or Pete.

Harris had the people behind her, but the AA and Latino caucus in the House endorsed Biden over her, also, nobody knows much about her prosecution record, and she only has 2 yrs in the Senate. CATHERINE Cortez-Masteo was a prosecutor as well, but she is fully endorsed by Senator Tester, to back her up

"Biden: Boris Johnson Won Despite Being Trump’s ‘Physical and Emotional Clone’ because Labour Moved Too Far Left"

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-boris-johnson-won-despite-being-trumps-physical-and-emotional-clone-because-labour-moved-too-far-left/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=third

Boris Johnson win doesnt mean that, totally; consequently, Theresa May who was just as polarizing as Trump, resigned; thus, Boris, who is equivalent to Pence coming in, for Trump will get reelected.  As the incumbent

So now the "Dems too far left" crowd is resorting to INTERNATIONAL elections to prove that Democrats need to "moderate"? This is getting absurd.

I mean, we also use the 2018 midterms, but nobody seems to listen.

He's 100% right.

Trump isnt Boris Johnson, as of today, Trump is Boris Johnson during Teresa May, unpopular administration.  The Wall is just as polarizing as seceding from EU

I’ve heard that argument before, but I don’t see the point. More moderate Democrats won their primaries, so? Plenty of progressives won in competitive districts/states as well. People mainly bring up Gillum, who underperformed the more moderate Nelson by a whopping 0.3%. Not exactly an argument that progressive Democrats are doomed to lose like McGovern.

I'm flabbergasted that there can be so many misinformed Atlas members.  The Labour Party's argument for remain is exactly the same used by establishment journalist and politicians that criticize Donald Trump. 

This is Biden criticizing Trump for being Nationalist and Xenophobic. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvx5F1yM-g

This is Biden delivering that message in Ireland.   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsMyyI5HY1s

This is Corbyn slamming Brexxit for being xenophobic and racist. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJG1KXROQIE

If people actually go do the research, they'll find that Biden, Pelosi and the Democrats are reading from the same playbook as members of the Labour Party. 

It's more about the dozens of red seats flipped, universally by normie Dems, while the promised "revolution" of progressives (in particular, JusticeDems) resulted in 0 flips.

Say what you want about his policies, but the Biden campaign has hired some damn good people for these ads.

Because that ad is what an campaign ad is ought to be - few slogans, "choose - you vote for me or for my rival" and sneaking a few smears. Gets my vote.

As someone who has called and knocked on the doors of hundreds of Democratic primary voters, that is the main thing they're worried about.

Me: "What's your most important issue?"

Them: "Getting Trump's ass out of there."

It is what it is.

Not every progressive Democrat is a “Justice Dem”, and again, where is the evidence that had more progressive Democrats won primaries, fewer seats would have flipped? 2018 basically just shows that more moderate Democrats win primaries. Or do people really think that the more progressive Democrat would have lost CO-06 against Coffman?

I mean, it's a sliding scale of ideology, you have to make the cut somewhere.  I feel like people who explicitly aligned themselves with the Sanders-endorsed Cenk/Kulinski anti-DNC progressive organization, of which there were plenty, is a good barometer for who was supposed to be the harbingers of the revolution.

And my point is that there’s a difference between saying that we can do better than the Cenk/Kulinski types and saying that we will lose if we go “too far left”, which is a pretty meaningless characterization to begin with.

It’s why I’m focused on the Senate and padding our majority in the House to hold him accountable. Because the voters are naive and think Biden can work with the Republicans to get things done.

The red states are still not buying impeachment, due to fact, they still see Biden as corrupted and the Rs are convinced that Biden is exonerated from corruption. Biden can still lose the primary or GE

Polls thus far are showin support for impeachment is stuck in the low 40s

He has made some good ads. And maybe he does have some decent organization and staff. It's what I'm hoping for if he gets nominated.

His staff really needs to keep him on a teleprompter during public events and get as many surrogates (the Obamas especially) out there campaigning for and with him as much as possible in the right states at both the presidential and down-ballot levels.

This is an abnormally optimistic post for a pessimist. 

Biden’s “decent” organization has had implored him to use a teleprompter since his campaign kicked off in May, and he’s repeatedly made gaffes or gone off script. 

Is it optimistic? I'm acknowledging that if left to his own devices Biden could doom himself in a general election campaign.

Fair enough.  In my mind, I feel like Democrats should be absolutely horrified over a Biden nomination given the high stakes often expressed.  Groping young women cause he's a touchy weirdo is one thing, but I'd be losing my mind if a candidate had expressed loving when kids sat on his lap and rubbed his leg.  If people want to know what would have caused many Trump's supporters not to vote for him, now you have your answer.  The astonishing lack of curiosity about that statement in the mainstream might win him the primary, but do you really want that playing on televisions during the general? 

Am I the only one who has noticed that both trump and our very own Atlas trump-cultist, Hollywood, is showing fear that Biden could be the Dem nominee?
They know Biden has the best chance to show trump the exit.

The shoulder-rubbing and pool kid comment will become gospel among Trumpsters, just like the bs about Hillary's health, her emails, or Bill's misconduct. It might hurt him among some voters, but I doubt it will be decisive or significant as a factor.

Biden has one clear-cut, iron-clad defense against any anxieties about his creepiness: Not a single human being on Earth has ever alleged Biden has committed any sort of sexual misconduct of any kind, whatsoever.
I am willing to bet that that will stay the case. Unlike Trump, who has literally dozens of sexual misconduct allegations against him, some originating before he ever entered politics. Plus, Access Hollywood. Trump loses in a battle over creepiness any day, against almost anyone.

I mean, if that's the talking point, Trump will just pay some random woman to say Biden sexually assaulted her and file a phony lawsuit against him.

Remember when you said the exact same thing in 2016 after I told you Bernie Sanders had a better shot winning the states Hillary lost in the Midwest?  Even Biden could have beat Trump that year.  This version of Biden is one of the shakiest front runners the Democrats have ever put up.  He's basically McCain in a constant fugue state.

Nobody needs to accuse Biden of anything, because he admitted it on stage.  I'm not even saying I think he did anything.  I don't.  I think he's becoming easy prey for Trump.

He didn't admit anything. He said he was swimming at a pool when he was a teenager, and a child would play with his leg hairs. Then he said that he likes it when kids sit on his lap. I think this is weird and uncomfortable, however the interpretation that gives him the benefit of the doubt (considering nobody has ever accused him of sexual misconduct) is that this is no different from a guy who works as a Mall Santa saying that he likes it when the kids sit on his lap to ask him for presents. If you wanna be fair, you have to admit that it's not automatically pedophilic to show a platonic affection for children or enjoying their company.

See, this is where you begin to have a point. That being said, we've also made some flips in lower-level elections (most notably Lee Carter) and gotten a lot of more conservative elements out of office. While Crowley's loss had to do more with his distance from the district (an establishment Democrat who actually lived in Queens would have beaten AOC), and Capuano's loss had to do with a generational passing of the torch. We beat the Costa family in PA. We took Philadelphia's DA position. While these seats may not have as much impact as Congressional seats, the Justice Democrats have proven that they can push the party to the left, and occasionally in swing seats as well.

I also believe Kara Eastman would have won if the DCCC didn't throw a tantrum and take their ball home because Ashford lost. (There's also the fact that the crowd who was so angry about Heath Mello was silent when the DCCC tried to crown a pro-lifer as their Congressional candidate, but that's none of my business). With more support, the seat is definitely flippable, and I would hope they put more effort into flipping this seat if she wins again.

Other than that, most primary losses were because of other flaws. Whitmer was progressive enough on every issue except healthcare (which is more of a national issue than a state issue). Laura Moser wasn't from the district, and Brent Welder had nebulous ties as well. The left failed because of poor candidate quality, or in the case of Abdul El-Sayed, just went up against a better candidate.

Basically, we'll take care of Lipinski and Cuellar. Ideally, we knock off a few more, like Steny Hoyer and Tom Suozzi. Hopefully Ted Terry catches fire too, but I highly doubt it. Either way, I'm sure your wing of the party will do their jobs. I think your fears about the JDs are a bit overblown.

No, I don't remember you saying that to me (but it's nice for you to just make it up).
Nor am I in a definitive belief that Sanders would have won the 2016 general election (vs Hillary's results).

LOL.
Your belief that trump has some kind of "advantage" over Biden, on accusing Biden of supposed "perverted acts" is hilarious.
I dare trump to bring-up something like this in a debate ... he would get pulverized to beach sand in two minutes flat.

The criticism of Joe is that he doesnt defend himself; consequently,  when everytime the media or Harris, comes up and attacks Joe, he comes out with an endorsement and Carol Mosley-Braun had to come out, instead of Joe himself, defending himself.  I think, this is why, Joe still might lose the primary.

Voters see that and arent impressed by him hiding behind endorsements, when he is attacked; consequently,  when Obama was under attacked, everyone would say Where's Jo's Biden? When he was Veep. This is why Biden refused to run in 2016, due to fact, he would get the bum wrap, the media was giving Obama; consequently,  he runs in 2020, 4 yrs after the fact😖😖😖

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1206959737297948672?s=20

This ad is going up on the air in South Carolina. This will resonate more than Bernie Sanders railing against "the estabwishment".

The economy will be a winning issue for Trump. This suggests that maybe Biden’s message of “return to normalcy” will be more effective than Warren and Sanders’ messages of economic inequality. If voters feel as comfortable as they do with their economic well-being on Election Day as they do today, they may not want to vote for rocking the boat. Meanwhile, if they dislike Trump on Election Day as much as they do today, they may vote him out regardless.

Not according to his Deputy Campaign Manager. It would be an unwise move, even if by mid 2023 he decides to not to run again, should be get elected in 2020.

https://twitter.com/KBeds/status/1204793252337065984

I mean, if Malaysia elected a 90-yo Prime Minister, I guess we could have an 80-yo President? Biden would be 86 at the end of a hypothetical second term. That would be older than I any serving non-dictator/royal world leader I could find, even in history (surely there's someone older).

He’s not running for a second term.

He and his team can fake it until after the 2022 midterms.

It's exceptional but not completely unheard of. Konrad Adenauer, Germany's first Chancellor after WWII, took office at the tender age of 73 and governed for more than 14 years. When he finally resigned in October 1963 (he was rather unwilling to), he was just two months shy of his 88th birthday. You also mentioned Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad and there are most likely quite a few more (depending on who you count as "non-dictator/royal" of course). 

To be honest, our rapidly aging societies should better come to terms with the idea that an octogenarian (or even a nonagenarian) can be involved in politics as well. Such a decision should be made on the basis of an individual's mental and physical constitution and not because he/she crossed a magical age threshold.

As we see Biden fall again, as we get closer to primary election, Biden is failing again in IA, NH, NV and Cali, he is so boring and doesnt defend himself from attacks; consequently,  the Superdelegates were very wrong to endorse him. Hilary was beloved due to Bill Clinton having a boon economy,  Biden did virtually nothing as Veep. I rather see Bernie take it and I will vote for Booker or Stenya in the primary. Hope Jess Scarane beats Coons, stop Biden Dems

Biden when he was attacked by Harris didnt defend himself,  he had Carol Mosley-Braun take up for him

This is laughably incoherent and inaccurate

Besides the PM of Malaysia, Tunisia had a President elected in a free election at age 88 who died recently at 92.

That's classic olawakandi!

When Biden was attacked by Harris, Carol Mosley-Braun did come to his defense, before Biden mounted an attack, I should know, Carol Mosley-Braun was my Senator too, and AA who didnt support Biden, was flabbergasted by it, due to fact of Mosley-Braun campaigning against Thomas.

Carol Mosley-Braun endorsed Biden after the Harris attacks

As my second point the latest poll has Biden at 32 and Bernie at 25, but the Fox polls had Bernie at 13%,

Right! I forgot about Essebi.

Deeply moving clip. Really.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1206378407866454016

“Moved” by Joe Biden...

Really disturbing stuff, folks!

Elaborate...

Absolutely love this ad.
Go Biden.

Biden needs to keep this up. Adding more humanity and sympathy to his campaign is a great way for him to contrast himself with Trump whose campaign will almost certainly be all about himself when it isn't about the concepts and people he hates.

 Biden also really ought to include his own experiences with health care, like what dealing with Beau and his death at the hands of cancer was like.

This is gonna sound really weird, but Biden is the only candidate I can see improving his favorables in a general. I just think he has more potential to win back reluctant Democrats and hold those outside of the party who like him than someone like Bernie or Buttigieg.

That would be nice, but I can't be quite so hopeful about that because there is no doubt that Trump and the GOP are going to go scorched-earth with another character assassination campaign.

I loathe the way he talks about working with Republicans but I went from being repulsed by his candidacy to..... not mad if he gets the nominee. He's been good the last few weeks.

I've been reconsidering my options with Harris out, and rumors floating that Warren will deploy her delegates to Bernie if they manage to block Joe from an outright majority.

I previously said I would support Bernie over Biden but with the actual election staring me in my face, I could NEVER support Bernie as the nominee.

Fair point, of course. The question for me is "Is Ukraine the next email server for Dems", and I am tempted to say no considering even if you think Biden has done everything accused of, that still does not exonerate Trump's role in the scandal.

Why the change of heart on Bernie?

I always hated both of them lol but Bernie’s base is just toxic and he will be a cancer on the Democratic Party. He’ll be forcing folks to go farther left than their district, his crazed stans will primary every Democrat who doesn’t fall in line. Complete chaos.

At least Biden will get out of the way if he becomes a liability.

I worry that it could be, but Biden seems more impervious to criticism than Clinton was. he shares many of the same faults, yet isn't receiving nearly equivalent skepticism over them. The Republicans also didn't spend two entire decades making him the object of their hatred like they did with Clinton. So he might have that going for him.

(Also, if we are gonna be real, the dude has a dick). That and also the fact (and this is why him being so old is not as concerning to me) that he gives off a loving grandpa vibe, and not someone who people feel as comfortable attacking as a "shrill woman" like Hillary.

This is definitely the elephant in the room. If Biden gets nominated and wins the general election against Trump, I have no doubt that this, no matter how subtextual in peoples' minds it is, will be a contributing factor to his victory.

When a Democrat only win 55% and 51% of the smaller 18-29 and 30-44 year-old demographic, and lose by a reasonable 8% in the largest demographic (45-64), your candidate being a female is not your downfall.  5% of females voted for someone else rather than Hillary Clinton, 9% of 18-29 voters did the same.  If Clinton would have won half of these female third-party voters, she would have won the election with better female numbers than Obama.   Polls as far back as December 2015 illustrated Clinton's issues with young voters, and the focus of her campaign targeted older voters just like Kerry in 2004.  2004 was the last time we saw Republicans compete in WI and PA, and pointed to a demographic change that favored them in the future.  Biden's numbers with young voters are worse than Clinton and Kerry.

This is the Huffington Post reiterating the concern over Biden, which was the same concern people had for Hillary and Kerry. 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-youth-problem-2020-presidential-campaign_n_5dfab81de4b006dceaa81ab4   

The comparison of Biden to Hillary/Kerry isn't really fair.  He's moderate like them, but he's way more charismatic.  That was their main problem. 

I agree with you to an extent, but was prepared for this response.  Tell me.  Who finds Joe Biden charismatic?  Look at the polls.  It's geriatric women over 55 years-old, which is the same demographic that thought John Kerry was charismatic. Charisma is a perception.  Plenty of old hags thought Hillary and Kerry were very charismatic, whereas many young voters saw two old charlatans without any real personality.  No matter how many times the establishment characterizes him as "Sweet Uncle Joe", but everyone under 50 thinks of him as creepy "Uncle Paul".  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uncle%20Paul

There are plenty of people under 40 who think of Joe as Obama’s crazy sidekick and will vote for him for President. Bernie bots on Twitter are not the entire cohort of young people in this country.

Biden says he would possibly be a one-termer if elected:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-not-willing-commit-second-term

Biden is seen as an antidote to the biggest problem in our country: Trump. No reason he needs to run for a second term; frankly, it matters little what he does during 4 years cuz it’ll be boiled-plate Democratic policies.

I’ve never seen a nominee for President chosen solely because of his perceived electability; even Romney was considered as a mainstream conservative option.

I heard from Chris Clizilla that Biden had a great debate.  Wonderful news.

Romney competed for PA in 2012

Klein is absolutely right. Even Biden wants to raise taxes by $10,300 per person.

That's not how taxes work lol.

Its how economics works. Taxing corporations/muh evil rich people kills investment by taking capital away that would otherwise be invested and used to create jobs, and that effect is compounded by taking money out of the economy to pay for bigger gimme programs. Robbing the rich hurts poor people too.

First of all, your random "$10,300 per person" claim is still nonsense, and secondly the economy did great in the 50s and 60s when taxes were much higher on the rich, in fact the economy overall has done worse since Republicans started cutting taxes for the rich in the 1980s.

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-modest-tax-proposal-11576715051

3.4 Trillion divided by 330 million is 10,303

2. Yeah, it'd be pretty shocking if we were doing worse in the 50s after all our international competitors had just blown themselves up in the bloodiest war in human history. Of course we did well then. Your second point is BS, our economy has been strongest under late Reagan, Clinton (who mainly applied free market economics even if he wasn't perfect) and now, under Trump. And of course, it's been weakest after liberal keynesian policies, like the Bush/Obama bailouts or the tax hikes (and yes, I blame Bush too for being an idiot and selling out his principles).

You're being deliberately obtuse and misleading, which is the norm for whenever GOP operatives discuss tax increases. Saying "so and so wants to raise taxes by $10k per person" implies $10k per person per year, which obviously isn't what's happening here.

In reality, it's around $1,000 per person per year, but when factoring in inflation-adjusted totals, it's actually less than that at the onset. Oh - and you're of course leaving out that the vast majority of people wouldn't be subject to these taxes at all.

()

What do people think of a Biden/Harris ticket?

I don’t like Harris at all, but I’m also not their targeted voter. But I am genuinely asking what people supporting Biden (and others) think of this?

I think she would be his best choice. She balances out the ticket in a lot of ways. Plus, they're not very ideologically dissimilar.

However, if he wants to truly balance the ticket while simultaneously bringing major (positive) press attention & a significant fan base to his campaign, then he'd be wrong to choose anybody but Warren.

I agree with the assessment and would be fine with Harris, even though my personal favorite for Uncle Joe's number two is Congresswoman Nanette Barragan, who represents California's 44th District. At 43 years (44 on election day), she's young, Latina, progressive, but not too far left either. She had endorsed Kamala before the dropout. Joe Biden has already strong support from the African American community, so having a Latina on the ticket may boost cruicial Hispanic turnout in the important Sun Belt battlegrounds like Arizona, Florida and potentially Texas. In addition, Barragan has a clean record, no baggage and when you watch her, she's well articulated. As a fresh new face with local and congressional experience, she would be great addition to the experienced statesman Biden. Whether Biden serves one or two terms, he could function as a bridge to the Democratic Party's future, that a Vice President Nanette Barragan would represent. Younger Democrats would also be assured that President Biden will fill his administration with a broad range of people that include minorities and women. And lastly, even though it shouldn't be a criteria, I may note she's also very attractive.

Kamala Harris has experience with broad coalitions in California from Black to Latino to Asian. She would be dynamic and bring lots of press to the VP pick. Biden & Harris would be lethal to Trump in the suburbs across the suburbs while Biden works his supposed magic in the Midwest.

Hopefully CBC is lobbying to get Harris that spot. Biden is only going to serve one term and the CBC wants Kamala in the Oval after him.

That is not in fact how economics works. Your argument rests on equivocation on the meaning of the word "investment."

First sense of the word "investment" - On the one hand, there is the commonplace way people use the word "investment" to mean "investing" in stocks or bonds. This sense of the word "investment" simply means ownership/purchase of stocks/bonds/financial assets.


Second sense of the word "investment" - On the other hand, the other more technical way of using the word "investment" (i.e. how "investment" is defined in terms of its contribution to GDP) means firms spending money on plant/equipment/other things needed to produce output over the longer term.


By casually linking these two different meanings, the implicit assumption you are making is that if people "invest" in the first sense, this either amounts to the same thing as or directly and necessarily leads to investment in the second sense.

It is this implicit assumption that is incorrect.


Investment in the second sense is not determined by how much money/financial assets are held by wealthy people or corporations. If Mike Bloomerg owns $1.1 trillion worth of stocks as compared to $1 trillion worth of stocks, that does absolutely nothing to increase investment in the second sense. This is because money/financial assets does not just passively spend itself (in this case spending it on investment in the second sense); it requires someone to actually spend it, which is an action that someone must actively take. If Mike Bloomberg has $1 trillion in financial assets, there is no mechanism or reason to automatically make him or any corporation increase investment in the second sense (plant and equipment).

Instead, investment in the second sense is determined by whether or not businesses expect that if they build more plant and equipment, they will be able to profitably sell the output that can potentially be produced using the new plant and equipment that would be created by investing in the second sense. If you are a businessman and you don't expect to be able to profitably sell output, then you don't produce. If you do expect to be able to profitably sell output, then you do produce. You don't produce more than you expect to be able to profitably sell, because then you are losing money. In other words, how much you produce is determined by expected demand for your output. The same holds true for investment in the second sense for plant and equipment (since that is a prerequisite for producing output, and if you build excess plant and equipment, then you end up with idle plant and equipment that is just sitting around deteriorating and costing you money).

I would hope that the rest would be obvious, I assume it is?

I will also quickly add that it is true that increasing taxes on i.e. billionaires can reduce economic activity, but the mechanism through which it may do so is not via reducing investment, but rather by reducing the consumption spending of the billionaires. For example, if Mike Bloomberg is taxed enough, at some point he will spend $30.999 million on TV ads in Iowa rather than $31 million. In practice, this isn't much of a concern especially for the super-wealthy, because their spending is not particularly affected by how much exactly their wealth is, but is instead limited by them running out of things that they can think of to spend it on. This is much more of a consideration for taxing (or alternatively giving money to) poor or middle class people, whose spending is actually financially constrained to a far, far greater degree. The implications of that ought to be fairly obvious.

One of the weirdest things for me about this primary, and the modern Democratic Party, is how Biden and even Pelosi are labeled by some progressives as super moderates who don't have a liberal bone in their body, even though Biden and Pelosi supported every progressive reform made over the last 20 years (if not longer) and are in favor of further progressive reforms. To me, there's a much bigger gap between Biden and congressional Blue Dogs (who are actually moderate) then there is between Biden and Warren.

I don't think Harris would be good as VP at all.  She demonstrated in the primary that she's simply not a very good politician.  She opens herself up to easy attacks from both sides and isn't very good at defending against them.

As VP she would be a distraction, and if she became president she would be a poor party leader, bringing us more downballot losses.

It's interesting how Sanders and Biden have very similar overall favorables, but get there in different ways (numbers are from this Economist/YouGov poll (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4yqcix83qw/econTabReport.pdf)). It's kinda funny to me how many liberals hold a very unfavorable view of Biden and Buttigieg.

()

()

Money that's transferred to poor people (I assume that's what you mean by the condescending term "gimme programs") aren't taken out of the economy, it's spent and create an increased demand for goods and services and thereby jobs.

Rich people also don't use all their surplus capital to invest in job creation in the US, a lot of it is invested in real estate, land, art, antiques and other unproductive assets and another part is invested overseas.

I couldn't agree more. If elected, Joe Biden would be the most liberal president in American history. Some might argue FDR and LBJ were, but they're just in part comparable since these two served in completely different times. Even the notion Joe Biden is a centrist or would be a member of the Tories in the UK or CDU in Germany is bogus. He's a center-left guy on almost all issues; he's just not far-left. Even Bernie isn't, since he doesn't adovate for complete government control of the private sector.

1. It 100% is. It is taken away from it's owners and the people who have earned it, and instead wasted by government bureaucrats. Furthermore, economic growth comes from productivity and creation, not spending. This is economics 101 for non-Keynesians.

2. That's one of the dumbest takes on the left, full stop. The rich aren't just stuffing all their money under the bed or something: even if I decide not to invest it, spend a moment of my time thinking about it, or anything fiscally related, all that money is still in the bank, being loaned out to businesses, innovators, and consumers, helping the economy grow, keeping capital lines open, and helping Americans of all stripes. That's a far preferable alternative to having money handed out to those who haven't earned it or worked for it by government bureaucrats, especially with all the waste that comes with that process!

Factually incorrect. Banks do not loan bank deposits, nor is their ability to make loans in any way constrained by the amount of deposits deposited with them. Saying so is strictly a categorical error roughly equivalent to saying that "cows are a type of building."

There is no particular connection with how many bank deposits rich people (or poor people) have and the ability/willingness of banks to make loans, or of the desire/creditworthiness of firms (or people) to take out loans.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

Banks do make loans on the basis of capital that is put into them. That's literally how banks work. Why else do you think banks would take deposits? They like paying you money in interest fees?

That is a common misconception (and I don't/can't really blame you for it precisely because it is such a common misunderstanding). But if you want to know "literally how banks actually work", as opposed to how you think "literally banks work," then read the link, it explains.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

Regarding your statement that "banks make loans on the basis of capital that is put into them" it is true that the banks *own* capital constrains bank solvency (which is not the same thing as constraining bank loans, however). But Banks' *own* capital is a different thing from deposits that other people/firms deposit in banks. When you deposit your personal money (or a firm's money) in a bank, it is not correct that the bank "loans your the money you have deposited out."

How Trump has given Biden a major campaign boost


https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/opinions/trump-campaign-boost-for-biden-return-to-normalcy-zelizer/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/opinions/trump-campaign-boost-for-biden-return-to-normalcy-zelizer/index.html)

This is asinine.
My university Economics professor would beat you over the head with a baseball bat if you were in my class (and that was 25 years ago). One thing he would literally repeat over and over and over again (and it's forever in my head) is that "banks to not lend-out their customer's deposits."
Pick-up some books related to the banking industry and the federal reserve.

You sit there typing things like "your second point is BS" and "that's one of the dumbest takes on the left," but yet you are the one spewing full-blown diarrhea in your supposed facts on how banking works.

Yes....Biden leads in the polls not because of the demographic makeup of the primary voting electorate but because the voters hunger for bipartisanship and moderation which is something that the electorate is always thinking about. They can never get enough of that moderate-ism except when they voted for a guy like Trump who promised to build a wall, bring jobs back, and soak bullets in pigs blood before shooting Muslim terrorists. All moderate viewpoints compared to the extreme left wing insanity of universal healthcare (which has existed in Germany since Bismarck) and free college (which was the norm in the US up until the 80s).

I do not disagree with the point in general, but comparing the republican electorate to the democratic electorate is just dumb.

I always believed that Democrats would try to nominate the antithesis of Donald Trump. And additionally, there's a historical pattern of electing Presidents stylistically-opposite of their predecessors (Carter>Reagan, Bush>Clinton, Bush>Obama, Obama>Trump).

Biden would fit this pattern perfectly; aside from his demographics, he couldn't be more opposite than Trump in temperament, style, beliefs, and personality.

I was talking more about the general election electorate than the primary electorate. Apparently the same people who voted for Trump in the GE of 2016 saw him as the moderate compared to Hillary Clinton whose entire campaign was dictated by consultants, pollsters, and strategists who live and breath being a moderate.is the key to electoral success

Well I would add that actual moderation is not really what makes somebody look like a moderate. It is all in relation to the median. That is why people like Bernie and Trump (obviously not comparing the two in terms of policy but their appeals are paralleled in a sense) have had a lot of success, as they have portrayed themselves as outsiders, while people like Clinton are the epitome of the establishment.

Biden's strength in general election is perceived in the notion that he could take just enough Trump voters away from him in midwest, wwc guys to beat him by the smallest of margins just like Trump won in 2016. Recent polls have however started to put some cold water on that take and if he loses that edge what else will remain for him? He's not going to win this election based on enthusiasm or energy of the progressives or younger people. So basically his argument is fear of Trump. Good luck with that. In the same time his polling average is somewhere between 25 and 30 in dem primary. If he is at 25 instead of 30 and some polls have suggested that, with his strength in south and places like FL and VA he is going to get killed in IA, NH, NV and CA. And then, you have a "fronturunnner"who is lost 4 out of 5 contests with delegate rich CA among those practically guaranteeing a long primary until the convention. And oh boy, is he gaffe prone for that sort of campaign..

So, how long until Trump goes full Nixon to get Biden as his McGovern?


Same gaffes, lack of ownership to wrongdoing [see Anita Hill], and real POS kids too!

Beau was a decorated army veteran and popularly elected AG in Delaware.

Yes and Tiffany T. seems to have her head on right too, and Barron is out of the spotlight. Doesn't excuse the other Trump kids.

Likewise Beau doesn't excuse Hunter.

Fair; I am no fan of Hunter. I have always thought that politicians should not be judged by the actions of their children unless they encourage their children to act in these ways overtly, which Biden, of course, has not done.

I know what you're talking about. It's still stupid bs, so you can go off with it. Yes, a bank will not take the $5 you deposited and loan it out. However, what they do do is use it to increase their lending capacity to make increased loans, which serve LITERALLY THE SAME FUNCTION! The economic effect is the same.

And I'm not voting for Trump because Eric and Donald Jr are disgusting.  I'm not voting for Trump because he is scum.

You clearly didn't bother to read the link and are still repeating falsehoods, so I'll post it again for you -

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

But I guess that is the Republican thing these days, just repeating falsehoods without caring that they are false, cuz why not?

https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-banks-make-money


https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp (this source talks about how each dollar deposited has a multiple effect, but the point is the same in that deposits allow them to make increased loans)

https://www.chimebank.com/2017/10/24/how-do-banks-make-money/

Everything you're saying makes 0 sense and is completely ridiculous. Stop posting Keynesian bullsh**t, especially when it's not even relevant. Your link is talking about Central Bank monetary policy and how interest rates are adjusted, but you are completely ignoring common sense and the topic at hand. Do you really mean to deny that money being deposited in a bank doesn't increase that banks ability to make loans? If so, why do you think banks take deposits? Charity?

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1208790298744233984?s=20

Why I’ve stopped resisting Biden. It’s a fruitless effort.

Biden is inevitable.  Resistance is futile. 

It is false that deposits multiply into loans, but it sounds like you looked at least a bit at the Bank of England article and recognize that that is false, so this is at least some progress.

It is false that deposits allow banks to make more loans. As the BoE link also says in more detail, consider that if you don't deposit your money in a bank, then the alternative is that you have spent the money on something, i.e. by writing a check, in which case your bank account is debited, so you have less deposits, and the account of the other business/corporation/person is credited, so they have more deposits. What does this other person/business/corporation do with it? This leaves the overall amount of deposits essentially unchanged regardless of whether you personally choose to keep a deposit or to spend it (of course, you can withdraw cash from a bank, but in reality the amounts of cash that are circulating in the economy are comparatively small, especially in the modern world where things like credit cards and checks are commonly used as means of payment). So the idea that an individual person like you making a bank deposit allows the banking system to make more loans is incoherent partly because your act of depositing in a bank doesn't change the total amount of deposits in the banking system as a whole - it just means that the particular bank that you have deposited in has more deposits, as opposed to another bank that would end up having more deposits instead if you alternatively spent the money (again, to be precise, this is aside from small amounts of literal cash that circulate in the economy, which are not particularly important because they are very small and don't vary much).

So if your act of depositing or not depositing has no effect on the amount of deposits, what does determine the amount of deposits in the banking system? The amount of loans that banks make determines it.




As far as supposed "Keynesian bullsh**t" goes, what I said is that:


(emphasis added). In other words, what I said is precisely that businesses do not operate as charities - they decide to produce or to not produce something (or in the case of banks, to provide banking services or not to provide banking services) on the basis of whether they expect it to be profitable or not.

This is entirely consistent with your apparent belief that businesses do not operate as charities. Indeed, if you do in fact believe that businesses operate not as charities, but instead to make a profit, then you should ask yourself the question - "why would a business produce something if they don't expect to be able to sell it for a profit?" The answer is that they would not (or at any rate, if they do, then they will lose money, which will tend to drive them out of business, and so over the long run they won't, because they'll be out of business). Which means precisely that how much gets produced is limited by how much demand is expected. So if you are logically consistent in your apparent belief that businesses do not operate as charities, then you believe that the output is limited by expected demand; i.e. you are a Keynesian yourself.



Regarding the second part of what you said:


First of all, not all banks (depending on how you define a "bank") do actually take deposits. IIRC all retail FDIC banks do (probably what you are thinking of when you talk about "banks") in part because that is a legal requirement of being a FDIC commercial/retail bank.

As mentioned above, banks do not operate charities and exist in order to make a profit. Banks make profits by maintaining positive interest rate spreads between their assets and their liabilities. This is not the same thing as "taking deposits" and it is not necessary for banks to take deposits in order to maintain positive interest rate spreads between assets/liabilities.

When banks get more deposits, what this means is that at the end of the day they clear with other banks and the Federal Reserve, and they have more reserves as a result (and reserves held in the banks' account at the Fed are assets of banks). This is probably what you are trying to get at, but are not saying it right.

Why would banks want to hold reserves? A few reasons. First, in the US, currently they are required to hold some by regulation. This is unnecessary though and doesn't have any impact except for acting as a tax on banks and reducing their profits (Canadian banks do not have reserve requirements, and they do just fine and Canadian banks are quite ordinary and unremarkable). Secondly, banks want to hold some reserves in order to maintain liquidity. Banks can convert reserves in their account at the Fed on demand, so by holding some reserves, banks have a liquidity cushion enabling them to give their customers cash if/when their customers ask to make a withdrawal from their checking accounts.

Thirdly, currently the Federal Reserve pays interest on reserves - and in fact this interest is higher than the interest that banks pay you on your checking/savings account. So banks are happy enough to hold your deposits and earn a positive interest rate spread and make money off of you, by receiving more interest on reserves from the Fed than the interest they pay to you on your deposit (note that none of this involves banks making any additional loans). Although ideally, banks would rather hold some other asset instead of reserves that will earn them an even larger interest rate spread.

Currently though, and ever since 2008 in the era of quantitative easing, banks have WAYYYY more reserves than they actually want. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXCSRESNS

So it should be clear that reserves are not any sort of limit on loans, and all that needs to be done to have more loans is not simply for banks to have more reserves (and certainly is not simply for banks to have more deposits either).

Instead, the amount of loans that are made is determined by (and limited by) how many loans bank think that it will be profitable for them to make (as you correctly say, banks are not charities - they try to make a profit). If there are creditworthy borrowers who banks think will not default on their loans and can pay enough interest so that banks can make a profit, then the bank will make a loan. If not, then the bank won't make a loan. I.E. the amount of loans is limited by the (creditworthy) demand for loans (which can be influenced to some degree by the Fed's monetary policy/interest rates, because interest rates impact both interest rate spreads that banks can earn and how much demand there will be for loans).

This is all explained better and in more detail at the BoE link, which really is worth closely reading if you are genuinely interested in understanding.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

One last point - we shouldn't really derail this thread further because this is supposed to be the Biden megathread and has drifted off topic (if you want to continue we can continue via DM or maybe on the economics board, but at this point all that really remains is for you to inform yourself by reading the Bank of England link and researching).


According to common sense, the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Also, apparently according to many Republicans' understanding of "common sense," Trump is completely innocent and did nothing wrong. So common sense can be and often is entirely incorrect and misleading. Common sense can and does lie to you, and if you are interested in correctly understanding how the world works, you are making a mistake if you unquestioningly rely on common sense, in general.

Agree.

1 more month and the Y2K people are gonna take back Democracy and Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg are gonna be the last ones standing for the Democratic nomination for Prez and Veep. When Pete wins IA and Bernie wins NH.

This isnt drifting off topic, Biden isnt the choice of new aged generation, he is only the elders and Establishment choice, and Biden didnt want to run, and he is corrupted

The problem with your logic is that arguably a majority of Democratic primary voters either think everything has always been/is just fine or are perfectly willing to settle for breadcrumbs.

You forget, that Bloomberg is Jewish too, and any ads that he runs benefit himself and Bernie.  Conservative Latinos not just AA support Biden too, but once Biden loses a state, his invulnerability will be shattered

Wrong, Bernie will win Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn and win the primary, Bloomberg is a sellout. he did not even contest Iowa, but Biden will win like Thanos and be pres for 2022 midterms, when Toomey and McGinty win.

I am beginning to realize, that Bernie isnt such a bad guy after all, he is elderly, but he isnt from the Hilary or Biden school of corruption and would make a good Prez with Buttigieg as Veep😎😎😎.

Bernie gets donations from online, not from PACs which are part of the Russian and Ukraine pool of money

Joe’s team has been ON IT with his ads lately. I bet their research is telling them what I’ve seen in South Carolina. Voters are tired of Bernie’s purity tests and nitpicking over policies that will be dead if McConnell controls the Senate. They just want Trump’s ass out. One of the main reasons Kamala abandoned attacks on Biden and focused squarely on Trump during the last months of her camapign:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1209181879460450304?s=20

OMG that clip of Biden at the end made me laugh way too hard.

Release your tax returns or SHUT. UP.

I f***ing love it.  Can't wait to hear that in a debate.

Uncle Joe needs a nickname for Trump such as Treasonous Trump or Colludin' Don.

LOL at thinking Biden will get some sort of bipartisan support in the Senate, how many Republicans voted for Obamacare? This ad is what you get when you actually don't have your own policies, so you have to go against opponent which isn't even his opponent yet. It reminds me of Hillary strategy to go for a win in AZ or GA and not to WI and MI. So, Biden's message is I'm not Trump and I'm not Bernie. Great stuff, it's gonna excite so many people to hand him a win in November. Bernie is on the other way ineluctable cause we tried his way in 2016 and failed. Wait.. No, he's ineluctable and will get nothing done, yet Obama and Biden did so much with a Republican Senate and a House, they confirmed so many judges and passed bold progressive laws and didn't deport immigrants at a record pace, and didn't do drone strikes at a record pace. Actually, Obama and Biden and their centrism gave us 75yr old socialist from Vermont as an almost nominee and a racist complete moron with zero experience who has the best words as a president. Good luck electing Biden in 2020. In 2024 Adolf Hitler reincarnated will probably get elected after him.

Right you are, bilaps!  These know-it-alls think the usual stuff works.  Wrong, ya goofs!  It's a whole new ballgame.  Sanders would bend Trump over and deliver a resounding blanchin'.  Biden... yeesh.  Uninspiring stuff!

BUMP!


Uncle Joe is still leading the national polls in the upper 20s and lower 30s, as well as most state polls. A prime example how he has been underestimated since the start.

Still so interesting to me how so many thought Joe was for sure going to collapse. They forget that he has appeal outside of electability. For many people who are older than 40, have blue collar jobs, or live in more rural/suburban areas, his moderate politics are refreshing.  While his campaign in the general really needs to hammer the issues more than just Trump, he's doing a good job by not running the PC focused campaign that Hillary did. He's able to come across as authentic by campaigning as himself as well and standing strong in defending his positions. Hillary lost appeal by caving on certain things to the Bernie wing and trying to come off as a more "hip" candidate when she was not one. Biden is doing good by playing up his old-school approach to things because voters know that's who he really is.

I don’t think Biden is getting much passed either. Voters are naive and want this fake air of bipartisanship though. Which is why Biden is going to win the primary. Democrats are not choosing Bernie Sanders to be their leader when he doesn’t even like the party! Are Chris Coons, Kyrsten Sinema, Tom Carper, and Joe Manchin voting for Medicare for All, eliminating all medical debt, and free public tuition? Nope. So how will it get passed with a Dem majority let alone a Republican majority.

And Biden should be competing in AZ and GA with rapid growing non-white populations and college ed whites leaving the GOP in significant numbers. Last time I checked Pres candidates could compete and spend resources in more than one area of the country.

Anyway Bernie is a disaster waiting to happen. People are tired of his BS which is why he hasn’t moved past his core 15-20 percent since he got in.

And let’s be clear: I don’t want Joe. But it’s going to happen and I’m focused on the down ballot Dems running for Senate and flipping state legislatures. But I refuse to disparage the potential nominee at this point.

tell us more about these states and their place in the primary calendar

Under the "extremist" Republican Tea party...the Dems were reduced to what....6 trifecta in state government after 2016? Under "moderate" Dems like Bill Clinton....the GOP ended 6 decades of almost uninterrupted House rule by the Democratic party which has existed since New Deal days. But Atlas keeps relentlessly jerking off about how we need a "moderate" Dem like Biden to win.

It's almost become comical at this point how the GOP can shift as far right as it wants and win ever increasing majorities but meanwhile the ghost of McGovern and Jimmy Carter forever haunt leftism and is the reason why Dems cant nominate a leftist.

Nevada (02/22); South Carolina (02/29); Alabama, Maine, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, & Virginia (03/03); Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, & Washington (03/10); Arizona, Florida, Illinois, & Ohio (03/17); Georgia (03/24); Wisconsin (04/07); Delaware, Maryland, New York, & Pennsylvania (04/28); Indiana (05/05); & New Jersey (06/02). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries)

Bernie Sanders is just an insufferable c-nt.

And I don’t think a leftist candidate would automatically lose I’m just saying Democratic primary voters don’t give a f-ck about Bernie and his looney purity tests. And they don’t. I’ve talked to hundreds of voters in S.C. volunteering for Warren and Harris at different points. They just want Trump out. Nitpicking over Medicare for All or a public option is not what they’re doing......

My argument is that Bidens "moderation" makes no difference in the General Election against Trump. Whether Biden or Sanders gets the Dem nomination is irrelevant to the election outcome. If Biden ends up losing then so would of Sanders and vice versa.

I just cant stand this argument that the Dem candidate must forever be a moderate becuz McGovern while right wing loons go off the spectrum and keep winning ever increasing majorities

Biden's electability argument I would argue continues to erode with each passing month as his numbers continue to decline among the independent voters.

His net favourability numbers have basically converged with Sanders now whilst they were higher a few months ago, in the latest CNN poll he has now dropped below Bernie, his net fav was -8 vs -1 for Bernie. Among independents his net fav was -11 vs +2 for Bernie.

There is also the fact that the other argument people made for Biden, namely that he was polling well vs Trump has basically disappeared. In October there were 9 H2H polls an Biden's average lead was 10.2%, in November there were 2 so the sample size is to small to draw any conclusions, in December there have been 6 and Biden's lead has averaged 4.5%.

The more people see of Biden the more they dislike him, he's basically a more anaemic version of Hillary. Bernie I would say is the best candidate in the field right now that the democrats have.

In this same poll, Biden STILL did better than Bernie in the Trump H2H. I would also add that Bernie and Biden usually have identical favorables, and any edge for Bernie comes from his heightened numbers with democrats (who would vote for Biden anyway).

The trend over the past few months has been worse for Biden than Bernie though, and in the CNN poll, Bernie's higher numbers were not just a result of higher favourables with dems but because he was more popular with independents.

This has been the result of the Ukraine investigation, which is damage already done and was inevitable come the general. Biden has just already gotten a taste of it, while Bernie has not.

or sick/bad!

Big money in politics is bad....unless they contribute to Dem WWC candidate man Biden then it is okay. Biden may be relying on big money and demographics he helped to jail, but that's not because their's no excitment among  his low energy candidacy, but because the grassroots who matter to the Dem party around election day, will not heed to the establishment which means they are racist

https://mobile.twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/1211154982361321482

Not sure how old this video is, but as a die hard Hillary supporter, I really appreciate that Biden said this. He's not my first choice, but I'd campaign my heart out for him if he's the nominee.

He said that in 2016 because the VP seal is on his podium.

Either way- he said it and it’s true.

According to the Jacobin Magazine

https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1211479555166396416

The last time a party won control of the WH from the other party running a candidate with a lot of experience in DC was Nixon in 1968, since than, both parties have only won control of the WH by running candidates who had not spent a lot of time in DC. The fact Biden has spent so long in DC and is viewed a part of the establishment is one of the strongest arguments against his ability to win. Doubly so in an era where populism is rife and anti-establishment feeling is running high among swing voters.

This is literally just how the writer feels with no facts to back it up. This argument can be presented in a reasonable manner, but this is not it.

Just as a reminder, when you say "Jacobin", you're talking about Sunkara, who has been relentlessly pushing Bernie for years because he wants Bernie to forgive his medical debt:

https://twitter.com/sunraysunray/status/1168278665811177472

And the problem with that is...? 

Exciting stuff folks

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1211716568599736321

That's right, Joe Biden, the Very Good Democrat who wants to "save" the Republican Party and thinks they "don't deserve" to be beaten "too badly" wants to choose a Republican as his running mate. But Bernie's the one who's not a real Democrat. Ok.

Bernie Sanders literally is not a democrat, he is an independent. Also, he literally said he can not think of any republicans who he would want as a VP. Looking bipartisan is not a huge political plus like it used to be, but still it does not hurt.

He really is trying his damndest to burn away my past goodwill, isn't he?

Oh, Joe...

Literally nobody is surprised that a writer from the Jacobin thinks this.

Stop. Y’all know that man is not putting a Republican on the ticket.

I do think it’s hella annoying how Democrats are always asked these stupid ass questions though.

As far as optics go, no Democrat could answer that question with a flat out no without the media spinning it as an overly partisan response that would alienate centrists and moderate Republicans who are considering voting Democratic. He had to make saying no seem softer. No one should seriously believe that any Republican is going to even be considered.

You're right, but Biden's also the one who chose to give that particular answer, further proving he's unfit for office.

"I guess I could choose a Republican VP but I can't think of any off the top of my head" is a perfect answer to the question of would you choose a Republican. It allows you to look bipartisan while signalling that the GOP is bereft of statesmen. But okay, go off I guess.

Lmao

That’s a reach. I could easily see Warren and Sanders saying something similar and the people on Twitter would have been just fine with it. Yes, Biden is naive as hell when it comes to the GOP but he would not put them on the ticket. He was just saying something to get them out of his face. Democrats aren’t allowed to come across as craven and hyper-partisan like the media allows the GOP to be.

I suspect that Bernie would give a curt no if asked if he'd consider picking a Republican as his running mate.

Welcome to GeneralMacArthur News, the channel for Biden supporters

Don't like people complaining about Medical Debt, GeneralMacArthur will rant about how random people support Sanders

Don't like Universal Healthcare, GeneralMacArthur will rant about that,

Claim to be the average voter but spend your free time searching up random Sanders supporters, GeneralMacArthur will talk about that

Don't like people not supporting Joe Biden, GeneralMacArthur will talk about that.

Welcome to GeneralMacArthur News, and our motto is f**k you if you support Sanders or Warren.

Paraphrasing me in a quote is heinous, vile slander.  I'm calling my lawyer.

lol are you still not over that

At the very least, I'm glad to see the man call out the media (which, by far, was the biggest outside factor that put us in our nightmare). No matter how you feel about Hillary or Kamala, they never got a fair shake.

I'll give you that, which is why I wish we'd get somebody who would rip control of the narrative out of Republican hands for once rather than playing by their rules. And really this goes for the party as a whole, not just Biden in particular.

This is hilarious because I'm literally just making fun of you for constantly bringing it up in every thread.

As I said before: rent-free.

That Biden video talking about Hillary is 3 years old yet everyone keeps acting like he just said it last week or something.

I'd also wager that less than 10% of the people familiar with the "corn pop" video know that it's almost 3 years old.

This is one criticism I just don't get. As the Dem VP, what else was he supposed to say about his own party's nominee?

He hates the Democratic Party and constantly coddles Trump voters. I beg to differ.

This of course will never happen as long as the olds maintain their geriatric clutches on the party and its narrative, which invariably influences unwitting voters. Literally every mainstay of Democratic ideology and messaging ("we can't run too far to the left!", "people won't vote for somebody who supports [xx]!", etc) is built on the fact that olds remember Democrats losing two presidential elections in a landslide 40-50 years ago.

They've thus spent their entire lives being terrified of that occurring again, when the only variable still remaining from that bygone era is their decrepit selves. They'll force this on the masses until they're gone, and in the process, Democrats will continue to be shackled to outdated and completely irrelevant strategy.

Come on man. I know you hate Bernie with every fiber of your being but you cant sit here and tell me Bernie would choose a GOP running mate. He's surrounding himself with plenty of people(Omar, Sarsour, AOC) that have almost no appeal to wcw and care deeply about social justice issues. Not saying Biden would ever choose a Republican, but he'd be more likely to than bernie.

Of course, Biden is more likely to choose a republican as his running mate than Bernie. Why? Because Biden has actually done something in his time in Washington, remember the Violence Against Women Act, Biden wrote it and it passed the Senate with 61 votes for and 38  with a half dozen Republicans voting for it. If we're talking, who can win on a national debate stage it's Joe Biden he's done it twice before, If we're talking about experience it's Joe Biden who chaired the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, before serving as Vice President to the last Democratic President of the United States, and if we're talking someone who will drive out the base come November, it's Joe Biden the Vice President to the first African American President of the United States, a strong background in organized labor, and a member of the working class that this party lost to Donald Trump. The working class is not racist because they supported Trump, the intellectuals on this forum will say they voted against their interests, but they didn't they voted for the candidate that seemed to give a damn about them.

Ouch, guess Sanders doesn't beat Trump.

Joe Biden wants to end prison profiteering.One of his top fundraisers is a major player in Prison healthcare (https://theintercept.com/2019/12/31/joe-biden-fundraiser-centene-for-profit-prison/)
Another blatant lie to earn progressive street cred.

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1211864972357013504?s=20

I don't understand how someone really believes this.   It can be hard enough for someone with an MD to learn to code, why would it be easy for a manual laborer?  Of course some will have this latent skill but you can't count on it.

I don't see how this guy is "prison profiteering."  He runs a health care company that provides health insurance for prisoners.  Is simply anyone who runs a for-profit organization that's in any way connected to prisons a "prison profiteer"?

Even if he is, the progressive demand that you endorse 100% of the views and activities of 100% of your donors, or else you're a hypocrite, is just ridiculous.  I donated to Biden and there are several positions I don't agree with him on.  The Intercept could write an article saying "Joe Biden wants a two-state solution in Israel, but one of his top donors, GeneralMacArthur, wants Israel to occupy Palestine."

Stop reading The Intercept, guys.  It's just as bad as Breitbart when it comes to lying and spinning half-truths about the Democratic Party.

You know, I really don’t know how to respond to this high density post without getting banned. How do you respond to someone who answered his own question?

Prison healthcare contracts aren't the same thing as contracting out the actual incarceration. Indeed, some services can definitely be managed through the use of private contracts. Of course, the actual prison system shouldn't be, & all contracts ought to be subject to Inspector General reviews, but why disagree with the existence of prison healthcare contracts if the providers thereof don't hold any influence over incarceration rates (which they seemingly don't)?

The idea that imprisonment is in itself morally unjust is a fringe belief that candidates like Biden are never going to embrace.

Companies that provide vital services to the prison population are doing nothing wrong as long as they do the job well and fairly. It's a world apart from using prison labor or running private prisons.

I can't wait for this primary season to be over and silly season with it.