Who's to blame if Biden loses?

[Tamerlane]

@SyncoSmalls

My vote will be a protest vote because the Dems (and voters who blindly vote Dem) are overdue for a wake up call.

That assumes that is an effective tactic. Call me cynical, but I kinda doubt it is. The Democrats have always been a circular firing squad (the Republicans have their occasional moments at the firing range as well).

Have the never-Trumpers shifted the RP? Nope, not a bit. Well young progressives shift the DP? I doubt it - too many Democrat voters don’t agree with young progressives. Even on this board I’ve seen “centrist Democrats” essentially pissing and moaning about the DP being “too woke” and throwing future elections away for this reason or that. Unlike with the never-Trumpers, there isn’t a clear losing side here. The DP will muddle along as clumsily as ever, never fully satisfying either the center or the left. shrug

@SyncoSmalls

How would millions of disaffected liberals in swing states affect this cycle in a way that is different than other cycles? Well, it would put Trump in office. Just like what happened in 2016,

The counter-argument to it being the same is of course the notion that a second Trump presidency would be vastly more dangerous and damaging than the first. Which folks are free to accept or reject as they will, but personally I DO think the risk is much higher.

[Balthisar]

@RTFirefly

If you think they’re both pieces of shit, well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but if so, it’s a fact that they’re both very different pieces of shit that will take this country down very different paths.

The country didn’t fall apart the first time Trump was president (extreme left wing worry, but not general Democrat worry). The country isn’t falling apart now that Biden’s president (MAGA worry, but not general conservative worry). The country will continue to not fall apart if Trump wins again. Or Biden, for that matter.

I happen to have faith in our people and our institutions. Thank goodness most of us aren’t extreme leftist “democracy will fail” asshats, and thank goodness most of us aren’t MAGA asshats, either. It doesn’t matter who wins; we’re going to be worse off for it, but we’re also not going to devolve to some fascist dictatorship. Those of you who have this worry should worry more about your own mental health.

If I could stomach the thought of another Trump presidency, I’d vote for him just to spite all of you Chicken Littles. But I can’t stomach a Harris presidency either, so I’ll vote third party, which will probably hurt Trump more than Biden. I just won’t help Biden, because, fuck him.

[Buck_Godot]

@PhillyGuy

In your reply, you seem, if I understand correctly, to fasten on 44 percent trusting Trump, more than Biden, on immigration as if that means there is a 44 percent “die-hard MAGA” ceiling.

I think you may be misunderstanding me.

Disclaimer: what follows are largely made up numbers, I’m not claiming that they are accurate nor necessarily that immigration is an example of a case where Biden taking the most popular position would hurt him, I’m just using it as an example because you did.

Suppose 40% of the public are Republican, 40% are Democrat and 20% are Independent.

Further suppose that on immigration
97% of Republicans support Trump, and 3% are unsure because want something between Biden and Trump.

Also suppose
55% of Democrats like Biden better, 5% like Trump Better, 20% are unsure because they want something between Biden and Trump, and 20% are unsure because they think that Biden and Trump are equally bad

Finally to make the 44% / 26% / 40% Trump/Biden/Unsure

16% of Independents support Trump, 10% Support Biden and , 74% are unsure because they either want something between Trump and Biden or aren’t paying attention.

If Biden were to switch to copy Trump, he would still lose all of the Republican voters, since he would still be no better than Trump on immigration and there are lots of other reasons they don’t like him.

He might make with the 5% of Democrats who like Trumps immigration policies more likely to vote and win over the 16% of independents who prefer Trumps policies (a total of 2% + 3.2%=5.2%), but he would offend the much larger set of 70% of Democrats who prefer more lenient policies as well as the 10% of independents who like is old policies (28%+2%=30%)

As for the voters who want a policy somewhere in between they probably aren’t going to be swayed much by his shift.

So even despite a massively lopsided poll in favor of Trump’s policies it may be that taking them would cost him more than he would gain.

[Buck_Godot]

ETA I got called away and came back too late to edit, but the

20% are unsure because they think that Biden and Trump are equally bad

meant voters who thought both were too aggressive

and the

(a total of 2% + 3.2%=5.2%).

and

(28%+2%=30%)

refers to the portion of the total electorate (e.g. 28% comes from 70% of the 40% of the electorate who were Democrats.)

[PhillyGuy]

@Buck_Godot

So even despite a massively lopsided poll in favor of Trump’s policies it may be that taking them would cost him more than he would gain.

Your disagreement and mine is just one variation on what may be the main point of contention in Politics & Elections – median voter theorem vs. election results determined by base turnout. I’m on the median voter side, which says that appeal to the center helps candidates. And the center on immigration is, unfortunately, Trumpy. However, median voter vs. turnout isn’t a slam dunk either way, and there are political scientists who would give your brief essay an A. Maybe, with grade inflation, A+

[PhillyGuy]

@SyncoSmalls

Biden does not listen or show empathy very well.

Remember, it is harder for him to do it than a workplace supervisor whose subordinates are being paid to listen.

I think Biden does it well.

Anticipating the content of Biden’s antisemitism speech a few days ago, center-right American Jews were complaining in advance that it would go at least a little in the good-people-on-both-sides direction. But the speech clearly did not, and American Jews, who paid attention, were pleased.

Then, Joe showed he was listening to the the anti-Israeli, or pro-Palestinian side, by telling the Israelis to stay out of Rafah (which would, to my ears, mean an Israeli defeat rendering all the horrors and sacrifices of the war meaningless), and even apparently doing something about it (limiting sale and delivery of American manufactured bombs).

This show of empathy, for both sides, may result in him losing votes in both camps. This is because Joe has no power to make sure voters listen to the message intended for them. But if he ignored Gaza, his refusal to show empathy, for both sides, would lose even more.

If Gaza is still in the news in October, and Biden loses, and we have to blame someone, we can blame Hamas leadership, just as we can blame those responsible for the October 7 Israeli intelligence failure.

If Arab-Israel is a valid example for this thread, Harry Truman did something similar, pleasing the Jewish vote by quickly recognizing the Israeli declaration of independence, while slapping an arms embargo*, supposedly on both sides, that only really impacted Israel (Arab arms were largely British). Maybe Truman showed true empathy there, and maybe he was clumsy, and maybe he was just plain wrongheaded. But he did win the 1948 election.

_____________________
* I’m not saying there was a Palestinian American vote in 1948, but there were anti-Israel voters.

[Velocity]

I’m reminded of the quip, “The Republicans are a party held hostage by their base, while the Democrats hold their base hostage.”

[Saint_Cad]

@Akaj

If they had precluded Trump from ever holding office again, someone like Nikki Haley might be the nominee – and that person might very well have had a better chance of beating Biden than Trump does.

Or at least send a message to Americans that an insurrectionist shouldn’t be President. Good point.

[Cheesesteak]

@SyncoSmalls

Not the lack of affordable housing and living wages.

What do you want him to do about either of these? Maybe he should instruct Republicans to stop killing the minimum wage bills that Democrats keep submitting.

Anyone complaining about Biden not fixing these things is an infant, anyone voting for Trump because Biden didn’t fix these things is a deluded infant. As if Trump is going to sign a bill raising the minimum wage.

[Cheesesteak]

@SyncoSmalls

You can’t fix a problem if you refuse to admit there’s a problem.

You also can’t fix a problem if you don’t know how to fix the problem.

How do you fix the housing situation?

If you can’t answer this, it’s ridiculous to blame Biden for not fixing the problem. He isn’t a magician, he can’t whip up an immediate answer to a problem that has been DECADES in the making.

In politics there are almost always multiple “answers” to every problem we have, and the big trick, where politicians fulfill their duty, is convincing enough people that your answer is the right one. NOBODY has an answer to the housing problem.

[Jay_Z]

@Cheesesteak

In politics there are almost always multiple “answers” to every problem we have, and the big trick, where politicians fulfill their duty, is convincing enough people that your answer is the right one. NOBODY has an answer to the housing problem.

Exactly. If Biden talks straight about the housing problem, you’ll get a million sound bites of him “admitting” that the housing problem sucks, therefore it’s his fault.

It’s just not something that works. I lived through Jimmy Carter. You have to talk your book, that’s just the way it is. At most, a “Yes, but here’s our plan to address it.” It’s part of the game. Project confidence.

[RTFirefly]

@Velocity

At the risk of nitpicking, can you give an example? I can’t recall a single instance of ever hearing a Democratic candidate say, “Fuck black people (or gays, or women, or union workers, or undocumented migrants,) now that we said that, will you please vote for us, rural white voters?”

Well of course not. It’s more stuff like opposing programs that might help Those People, or (going a little ways back) supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.

[RTFirefly]

@Velocity

The part I find the most mind-boggling is Democrats who say “We need to run Biden because Trump is the R nominee.” That’s like saying, “Our enemy is coming at us with a gun so we need to wear a cotton T-shirt instead of a Kevlar vest.”

Are you and I living in the same country?

Because in the U.S.A. I’m living in, incumbency is a rather big advantage. Not just in practical terms, but in the place it occupies in people’s heads. Newsom or Whitmer wouldn’t have that advantage.

Another thing is that there would have been no way to change candidates without its being an implied admission that the Dems had been fucking things up for the past three years. That would have lost a lot of marginal Dem voters. (By which I mean people who are likely to vote Dem if they vote, but are less than reliable voters.)

And a third thing is that dropping Biden would have also surely meant dropping Harris. And I can tell you that that would be (to give an example in response to your other question) seen as throwing persons of color under the bus. You want to depress turnout by one of the Democratic Party’s key constituencies? That’s the way to do it. It wouldn’t absolutely kill our chances of winning in November, but it would make it one hell of an uphill battle.

[RTFirefly]

@SyncoSmalls

My vote will be a protest vote because the Dems (and voters who blindly vote Dem) are overdue for a wake up call.

That might make sense in a more normal situation. By which I mean, Dems lose, they learn their lesson, and having done so, they get back to winning four or eight years down the road.

If you think we’re in that situation now, I’ve got some really valuable NFTs I’m sure you’d love to buy.

[PhillyGuy]

@RTFirefly

Another thing is that there would have been no way to change candidates without its being an implied admission that the Dems had been fucking things up for the past three years.

No, because he implied he would be one term — I recall many stories like this:

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

All he needed to do was to repeat more clearly and stick to it.

Re Harris, if there had been a competitive Democratic primary season, she would have debated other viable candidates. If she did well, the headlines would have said she beat expectations, and her popularity would have risen. If she did poorly in the debates, she would have lost the nomination to someone better positioned to win.

If Biden had announced his retirement, the chances, this cycle, of someone too far left, or too old, getting the Democratic nomination, were low.

Playing a blame game a year from now, should Trump win, will be a waste of energy. But I’ll say now that Biden running for re-election was a selfish move.

[Saint_Cad]

@SyncoSmalls

I know not everyone is going to see exactly what I’m seeing, but you will not be able to convince me that Biden is saying and doing all the right things in this video.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. Biden could be the best president since Teddy Roosevelt but you would never know it from the optics he and his staff present. Yet Democrats bury their heads in the sand and say it’s all good and you don’t understand. Biden could cure AIDS and yet they would screw it up getting the message out.

[Saint_Cad]

@Akaj

I take back all the nice things I said about you.

Good point because of EV being proportional … oh wait, they’re not in my state and being in a blue state I guarantee all 10 EVs are going Biden no matter who I vote for … so why not throw some votes Harris’ way so that she is encouraged to run in 2028?

[Dr.Drake]

@RTFirefly

our chances

This phrase struck me. I just don’t feel that “us” with Biden. He’s either the best or second-best president in my lifetime, but not inspiring. I wonder how much of that is determined by the media?

[Horatius]

@Jay_Z

Exactly. If Biden talks straight about the housing problem, you’ll get a million sound bites of him “admitting” that the housing problem sucks, therefore it’s his fault.

I remember in Canada, in the 90s, then Prime Minister Kim Campbell, either just before or during an election campaign, actually admitted that Canada was in an recession, and it would likely be 18 months or so before unemployment would start dropping in any significant way. She got raked over the coals for that, and lost the election.

18 months later, employment started dropping.

Take what lesson you will from that.

[RTFirefly]

@SyncoSmalls

Looking at the data and asking themselves what they need to do better so the election is less tight next time could lead them to being smarter.

“next time”

First thing is to do the best we can to ensure that there IS a ‘next time.’ Withholding your vote means you’re not going to do the one thing we can all do in that regard.