Yeppers to this.
Biden’s problem isn’t his age, it’s his world view.
Yes, the two are related. But though Warren turns 70 in a week and a half, her mind is fully in the now, and not in some idealized past.
As Dylan said, “he not busy being born Is busy dying,” and some of us are able to keep on being born regardless of age, and some aren’t.
I don’t disagree. I think both Warren and Sanders both campaign well below their age, whereas Biden seems stuck in the year 2002 - a problem that Hillary Clinton had.
What I was getting at was that Biden’s lack of face time with voters is potentially sending them the message that he’s too old, too tired, too unenthusiastic, too bland to campaign for real.
In terms of Biden’s strength as a candidate, I find myself agreeing with both you and DSeid at the same time. I think Biden’s current lead is rather significant, and I think voters who support Biden do look at him nostalgically as an old friend. But as some of us have pointed out before, this isn’t Biden’s first time in the ring, and the last two times he tried, he was knocked out pretty early. Honestly, he’s not a great campaigner.
RTF, little point in winning the WH under these conditions? 
I beg to differ. Very strongly.
I don’t fault Biden too much for what he said about working with Republicans. I wish he had phrased it like “I’d like to believe that Republicans will work with me if elected, but if they don’t then I’m prepared to do battle with them.” I don’t think you’re going to win the swing voters by pledging all out mortal combat with the other side, I think you need to start from the position of being ready and willing to work with the opposition and let the Republicans decide if they want to continue to be petulant little pricks. Best case scenario is that Biden beats Donald so convincingly that DJT becomes toxic and Republicans disavow him and his methods.
Biden has had his share of choppy waters of late but I still think he is the most electable and a Biden-Harris ticket would be the strongest.
Trump is obviously panicked by Biden. Trump’s delirious rant today embarrassed even him.
Joe looks good in Iowa. Plain talk from the old school. Let’s make America, America again!!
Good solid politics from a guy named Joe. Love it!
There is certainly a part of the Democratic primary voter cohort that wants the war on the GOP messaging. There are several candidates who will serve them that messaging.
There is also a portion that wants an optimistic view as the first line and a chance to find some cooperation. Biden dealt with the party of no under Obama. He knows who they are. But he may even be right. The GOP might move into a rebranding phase. There will be no chance to pull off the sort of win that brings the Senate in on coat tails if he demonizes them. And little that cannot be obstructed without it so playing as nice as possible would be smart.
No question that message sells in a general the best.
He’s panicked by the thought of losing to *anyone *(and becoming subject to prosecution). He’s both panicked and pissed by trailing the #2 guy in the hated Obama administration.
Biden leads Trump by ‘landslide’ proportions in new national poll.
Granted, it’s a long way out, we haven’t even had one debate yet, and elections aren’t won nationally. But Biden still seems pretty strong.
My own personal poll of two white male Industrial Midwestern union member Obama-voters-who-didn’t-vote-for-Hillary-in-2016: Biden is still king as well. Right now these two dudes wouldn’t vote for anyone else (Trump included). (Although I wish Bullock would pick up steam; I suspect he’d do well among these guys too if he got some attention.)
Remember, the goal isn’t beating Trump. The goal is putting the brakes on global warming. Beating Trump is part of the package if it gets us closer to acting strongly against climate change. If not, it isn’t.
“These conditions” being either we fail to take the Senate, or we succeed there but aren’t willing to ditch the filibuster. That doesn’t help us toward our goal.
Because we won’t get jack shit past Mitch, we’ll get blown out in 2022 as depressed marginal Dem voters stay home, we’ll lose WH or just barely hang on in 2024, and never again have a trifecta until the window of dealing with global warming has come and gone. All that’s left then is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
At least losing WH in 2020 leaves Dems in excellent position to retake the Senate in 2022, and win WH in 2024, assuming the GOP doesn’t totally rig the game. We still have some sort of chance then.
We need a Presidential candidate who makes it clear that electing him means nothing unless we win the Senate as well, and once we do that, the filibuster has to go.
Only the Dems who run against Trump will survive the early primary. They have to have a plan for beating Trump and a plan for governing. Those who mouth platitudes or spend time attacking each other will be out in the first round.
Biden is leading the way with Warren close behind.
Yeah, and Publisher’s Clearing House may call me up tomorrow to tell me I’ve won $10 million.
Excluded middle alert.
The nominee doesn’t need to demonize them, s/he just needs to say what Obama didn’t in 2012 and Hillary didn’t in 2016, when they had the full attention of the country at the end of one of those debates: “there’s only so much the President can do with a Republican Congress. Don’t just vote for me, you need to vote for Democrats up and down the line. You need to give me a Democratic Congress (or in 2020, a Democratic Senate specifically). And then we’ll do the procedural things necessary so that I’m the one with the veto, not Mitch McConnell. ETA: Hopefully he’ll see reason and support our agenda, but if he doesn’t, we’ll still pass it and make life better for all Americans.”
See, a candidate can be forthright and honest about what needs to be done without demonizing anyone.
Yeah, it is. Senate is nice, and maybe even more important. But I dont see how losing the WH in 2020 makes it more likely to retake the senate.
I refer you to Ariel Edwards-Levy, HuffPost polling editor:
(Accompanying a chart where y is near zero at the left end of the x-axis, which represents 300 days before the general election, and y increases as it goes to the right, with the right end being x=0 days before the election):
This is true for the advantages that the poll shows all the other candidates having over Trump in a general election. It’s not just Biden.
You mean him saying over and over that Pelosi and the Democrats committed “many crimes”? Or was there something else I missed?
Beg to differ once again. For my money, if we use Obama as a baseline and stipulate that we have descended 100 units from that baseline with Trump as president, getting a normal Republican in to replace him (Pence, say) would get us 85% of the way back, to a -15. The remaining 15 is composed mostly of getting rid of tax giveaways to the rich, protection of voting rights, guaranteeing health care for all, and reforming immigration policy. Global warming is <1 unit.
But if you feel that way, I hope you’re supporting Inslee! I really like him, although I suppose I’m his one and only supporter who doesn’t really care about global warming.
(BTW, one of the few things I agree with Bernie Sanders about is that it would be a mistake to do away with the filibuster.)
Then I’m afraid we have little to say to each other about this election.
But I’m curious: do you not believe that time is running short before global warming becomes self-perpetuating no matter what we do, or do you just believe it’s not that big a deal if it does?
Anyhow, back to polls: the latest Quinnipiac poll was released today, and this is its fourth iteration over the course of this year:
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
Jun 11 May 21 Apr 30 Mar 28
2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 30 35 38 29
Sanders 19 16 11 19
Warren 15 13 12 4
Buttigieg 8 5 10 4
Harris 7 8 8 8
O'Rourke 3 2 5 12
Also, Booker, Klobuchar, Ryan, and Yang each got 1%, while everyone else got zero.
(1) Your link is broken.
(2) HuffPo’s claim here is at direct odds with that of 538’s, that I posted upthread. I know which source I take more seriously.
I think we are already past that point. I think we’ll deal with it, that it will be more of a nuisance than an existential crisis. But I think it’s good the way you framed it, because our menu of choices does not include “rewind to 1950 and move along a renewable-energy track rather than using so many fossil fuels”. The real comparison is between “continue as we are now” (which does include a pretty big push for renewables) vs. “implement the most ambitious anti-GW measures that are even remotely politically feasible” (which does not include AOC’s Green New Deal), with all the warming momentum priced in no matter what we do. And the difference in likely outcomes between those two tracks is just not that huge in my estimation.