I, too, can understand preferring some other candidate to Biden. I feel no personal fondness for him myself.
But the consistency of the poll results should, I’d think, stop some who want Trump out from being so nasty about Biden. Dismissing those poll results seems foolhardy.
Why help the Trump side? I agree, it’s difficult to figure out why some seem intent on doing this. I guess the thinking is ‘if we can knock Biden out, then ________ will have a clear path and _______ can duly defeat Trump in November’ … or something like that.
I’m an Xennial, fwiw (born in 1980). Trump shockingly won because he turned upper Midwest states red. I think Biden and Klobuchar can turn those states back around. Just because they are moderates doesn’t mean they (appealing in Delaware/Pennsylvania and Minnesota) have the same appeal as a ticket based in NY and Virginia.
That’s just not thinking about electoral college strategy.
I also want to echo that I find it completely strange that the candidate that consistently polls best again Trump is the one that so many people are raging would be a disaster. Back whoever you want, but Biden gets some strange vitriol.
Expressing reservations about Biden is not the same thing as “anti-Biden propaganda”. And just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they can’t think for themselves.
I have various reasons why Biden is not my first choice and why I think he would not be the best president out of the candidates currently on offer. But if Biden wins the nomination, I’m Team Joe when November rolls around.
The 2005 Bankruptcy Act, a dastardly piece of anti-Biden propaganda, authored by Biden himself.
Biden’s bullshit about being able to work across the aisle. Nice job getting Merrick Garland confirmed, Joe! And looking into the future, what will the GOP work with Biden on? An ACA public option? Climate change? A minimum wage hike? Strengthening unions? Removing barriers from voting? Ending gun violence? What?
The only benefit from a Biden victory I see would be to briefly slow the bleeding. Mitch McConnell will filibuster everything the House passes, assuming he doesn’t still have a majority. Without any accomplishments to their name, the Dems will get hammered in 2022, and the long, slow defeat will continue.
If that’s true it’s true for Warren, it’s true for Sanders, it’s true for everybody. We don’t live in a world where Biden couldn’t prevent obstructionism from McConnell but another democratic candidate could. So how does this count against Biden specifically? Or does Sanders/Warren/someone else have some magic anti-senate-obstructionism power that I’m unaware of?
Question: what stops the Republicans in the Senate from changing the Senate rules at some point before January 3 to require that any vote to change the filibuster rules requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate?
Nope, by Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA], altho it was passed 74- 25 with Bidens vote being one. You know
If you need to get bills passed you have to be able to work with the opposition, and Biden had nothing whatsoever to do with Garlands SCOTUS nom.
If the Dems get a majority in the senate, they can just dump the filibuster.
Right. Biden’s (and Buttigieg’s and Klobuchar’s) rhetoric about reaching out to the other side plays well with a bunch of moderate voters, who want that to be true.
Well, I guess it comes down to how serious Sanders/Warren are about putting a progressive candidate in the general election. If one or the other drops out ahead of all the primaries, then the calculus changes immensely.
So long as they continue to split the progressive vote, Biden is the shoe-in for the nomination.
Personally, as I’ve said before, I believe both Warren and Sanders are well aware of this.
It’s been my firm belief ever since the beginning of this election, that the candidate who beats Trump is going to NEED to be CHARISMATIC. They NEED to get people excited, not about the candidate’s policies, but about who the candidate is, as a person. Barack Obama accomplished this. We need another Barack Obama to beat Donald Trump. Anything less is not going to cut it.
So why the double standard? Why is it OK for you to bring up lies that the GOP might use against Sanders, but not for me to bring up lies that the GOP might use against Biden?
I’m hoping Warren drops out after doing poorly in IA/NH. If Sanders does poorly in those States, he should probably think about dropping out, too. But unless the gap in their polling against Trump closes, I’d have to reluctantly vote for Biden over Warren.
There is not even a Jimmy Carter who at least in 1976 won the hearts of people being all folksy and moralistic rather than substantial policy matter which people looked for after Vietnam and Watergate.
This field is not very strong at all. Their only saving point is they apparently are going up against an extremely unpopular president. People will say 2004 was the same and look what happened. Well the difference is Bush at one point was extremely popular in his first term poll wise (after 9/11). Trump has never cracked 50% average … the only president in the history of polling not to at some point in his first term.
Sanders leads among Hispanic voters with 36% to Biden’s 24, Warren 11, Yang 6, Bloomberg 5. So much for “he can’t appeal to minorities”.
Sanders also has the highest net approval ratings among Democratic primary voters; 75% of Dems have a generally positive impression of him, as against only 19% haters. That’s a whopping +56, against Biden’s +52 and Warren’s +42. Nobody else is close, although all the others have much lower name recognition, so it’s not strictly a fair comparison.
And he’s also closed to within four points of Biden in the Super Tuesday States!
I think this sort of thing is about 90% hindsight. If Hillary Clinton had won in 2008, and then Obama had been nominated and lost to Trump in 2016, people would be saying “We need another Hillary!” and saying that Obama should retreat to a cave and never speak in public again. Nobody who isn’t charismatic and doesn’t get people excited is ever going to come close to a major party nomination.
Sanders barely got attacked by the republicans in 2016. He was more of a tool for them to run against Hillary who they expected to be the nominee early on. In the early republican debates the candidates talked as if she was an incumbent president running for a second term, such was the conviction they were running against her. Jumping onto Sanders’ base cries of… “the dnc rigged it” made Sanders a victim. They didn’t do it out of good faith but to play up the “Crooked Hillary” message. The Mueller report effectively proved that.