Joe Biden 2020 campaign megathread v3 (pg 45 - mass-dropout aftermath)

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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

[Pericles]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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

That's not how taxes work lol.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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.

[Pericles]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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 work. Taxing corporations/muh evil rich people kills investment, 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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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 work. Taxing corporations/muh evil rich people kills investment, 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).

[Adam Griffin]

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

3.4 Trillion divided by 330 million is 10,303 (over 10 years)

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.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

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?

[brucejoel99]

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.

[President Johnson]

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.

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

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.

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.

[Orser67]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

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.

[GeneralMacArthur]

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.

[Orser67]

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). It's kinda funny to me how many liberals hold a very unfavorable view of Biden and Buttigieg.

[Lord Halifax]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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.

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.

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

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 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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1208086957118480385

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1208183323660636161

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.

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.

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!

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

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.

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

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

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?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

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.

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."

[American2020]

How Trump has given Biden a major campaign boost

After three years of his chaotic presidency, President Donald Trump has made nostalgia a big, bold idea among Democrats. This is one of the secrets to former Vice President Joe Biden's ongoing success in the polls. The President, with the full support of his party in Congress, has pushed politics so far off-kilter that Americans are desperately yearning for normalcy in the Oval Office.
On paper, Biden is not offering anything very dramatic. He himself embodies an older vision of the Democratic Party, in contrast to the slate of women, African Americans and Latinos who have made inroads in both the presidential race and in Congress. While his campaign has put forward a series of policy promises that aim to expand on President Barack Obama's domestic record, he often talks about a return to some kind of better past.
Biden has called for Democrats and Republicans to work together again. During the debate this week, he said that while he has "no love" for Republicans who attacked his family, "the fact is, we have to be able to get things done." Biden has frequently repeated a key tenet of his campaign: "We're in a battle for the soul of America." In doing so, he often talks about traditional American values that he respects and would champion as commander-in-chief. Even his "no malarkey" bus tour, which has been thoroughly mocked by younger generations, takes us back in time with the use of outdated slang.
Progressive critics point out that these promises evoke a past that no longer exists (and in many cases, never existed) and thus misleads voters into thinking that our country is in better shape than it is. His calls for bipartisanship, for instance, have rightly been met with deep skepticism given the radical outlook of a GOP that hasn't shown any interest in reaching across the aisle for several decades. Biden appeals to our better angels, but the Trump era has shown that those angels are too often absent from our polity.
But the criticism isn't undercutting Biden as much as it might in different times. And the reason is the President. Trump has blown up an already volatile political atmosphere with the way he governs. His vitriolic tweets, his aggressive use and abuse of presidential power, his punitive policies, his smashmouth attacks on opponents and his total disregard for the conventions and norms of Washington have created a toxic atmosphere where everything feels upended. To many Democrats, the nation is in a true state of crisis.

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

[ProudModerate2]

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.

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?

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.

[junior chįmp]

How Trump has given Biden a major campaign boost

After three years of his chaotic presidency, President Donald Trump has made nostalgia a big, bold idea among Democrats. This is one of the secrets to former Vice President Joe Biden's ongoing success in the polls. The President, with the full support of his party in Congress, has pushed politics so far off-kilter that Americans are desperately yearning for normalcy in the Oval Office.
On paper, Biden is not offering anything very dramatic. He himself embodies an older vision of the Democratic Party, in contrast to the slate of women, African Americans and Latinos who have made inroads in both the presidential race and in Congress. While his campaign has put forward a series of policy promises that aim to expand on President Barack Obama's domestic record, he often talks about a return to some kind of better past.
Biden has called for Democrats and Republicans to work together again. During the debate this week, he said that while he has "no love" for Republicans who attacked his family, "the fact is, we have to be able to get things done." Biden has frequently repeated a key tenet of his campaign: "We're in a battle for the soul of America." In doing so, he often talks about traditional American values that he respects and would champion as commander-in-chief. Even his "no malarkey" bus tour, which has been thoroughly mocked by younger generations, takes us back in time with the use of outdated slang.
Progressive critics point out that these promises evoke a past that no longer exists (and in many cases, never existed) and thus misleads voters into thinking that our country is in better shape than it is. His calls for bipartisanship, for instance, have rightly been met with deep skepticism given the radical outlook of a GOP that hasn't shown any interest in reaching across the aisle for several decades. Biden appeals to our better angels, but the Trump era has shown that those angels are too often absent from our polity.
But the criticism isn't undercutting Biden as much as it might in different times. And the reason is the President. Trump has blown up an already volatile political atmosphere with the way he governs. His vitriolic tweets, his aggressive use and abuse of presidential power, his punitive policies, his smashmouth attacks on opponents and his total disregard for the conventions and norms of Washington have created a toxic atmosphere where everything feels upended. To many Democrats, the nation is in a true state of crisis.

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

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).

[Bidenworth2020]

How Trump has given Biden a major campaign boost

After three years of his chaotic presidency, President Donald Trump has made nostalgia a big, bold idea among Democrats. This is one of the secrets to former Vice President Joe Biden's ongoing success in the polls. The President, with the full support of his party in Congress, has pushed politics so far off-kilter that Americans are desperately yearning for normalcy in the Oval Office.
On paper, Biden is not offering anything very dramatic. He himself embodies an older vision of the Democratic Party, in contrast to the slate of women, African Americans and Latinos who have made inroads in both the presidential race and in Congress. While his campaign has put forward a series of policy promises that aim to expand on President Barack Obama's domestic record, he often talks about a return to some kind of better past.
Biden has called for Democrats and Republicans to work together again. During the debate this week, he said that while he has "no love" for Republicans who attacked his family, "the fact is, we have to be able to get things done." Biden has frequently repeated a key tenet of his campaign: "We're in a battle for the soul of America." In doing so, he often talks about traditional American values that he respects and would champion as commander-in-chief. Even his "no malarkey" bus tour, which has been thoroughly mocked by younger generations, takes us back in time with the use of outdated slang.
Progressive critics point out that these promises evoke a past that no longer exists (and in many cases, never existed) and thus misleads voters into thinking that our country is in better shape than it is. His calls for bipartisanship, for instance, have rightly been met with deep skepticism given the radical outlook of a GOP that hasn't shown any interest in reaching across the aisle for several decades. Biden appeals to our better angels, but the Trump era has shown that those angels are too often absent from our polity.
But the criticism isn't undercutting Biden as much as it might in different times. And the reason is the President. Trump has blown up an already volatile political atmosphere with the way he governs. His vitriolic tweets, his aggressive use and abuse of presidential power, his punitive policies, his smashmouth attacks on opponents and his total disregard for the conventions and norms of Washington have created a toxic atmosphere where everything feels upended. To many Democrats, the nation is in a true state of crisis.

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

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.

[catographer]

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.