Are you kidding? Hillary has never said anything that approaches many of Biden’s quips, like the Giuliani “noun verb 9-11” gem.
The knock against Biden is that he’s been wrong on every foreign policy question, per Bob Gates. But seriously, you think last year’s electorate would have cared?
Much of Trump’s appeal was based on Hillary as the presumed opposition, which started early on. It could have changed. I won’t argue that Trump would have likely succeeded in the same way whether it was Biden, Bernie, or anyone else other than Hillary, but it was not etched in stone, so don’t take it for granite.
Bernie had the same advantage Trump did, he wasn’t Hillary. With Biden and Hillary in the picture he would not have done so well. With Hillary in the picture they would have just split the opposition on the Democratic side making it easier for Hillary. If it was just Biden and Bernie in the primaries I think Biden would have the advantage and a Biden/Sanders or Biden/Hillary ticket would be likely. By that point it would have been an entirely different election.
I don’t know. I can’t recall any of his gaffs being particularly off-putting. And I think that actually might make him more genuine and relatable and less of the “slick, ambitious professional politician” Hillary was perceived to be.
Biden’s gaffes are legendary, in the same sense that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster are. Everyone talks about them, but when asked for specimens, they just produce really vague maybes.
I don’t know that he would have won, but he damn sure would have taken Pennsylvania.
No, of course not. Nobody would have won against Trump. Half the voters in this country get their information from “news” sources that are at best described as “completely fictitious,” and they’d have invented a Biden that ate babies and personally escorted Mexicans and Muslims to coal miners’ homes to take their jobs at gunpoint while using up welfare dollars.
The candidate you choose to run against such a misinformation force is irrelevant.
Clinton got the votes. We just have a flawed election system that declared the guy who came in second place the winner.
I think he very well may have. I think he has much more authenticity than Clinton (I’m not saying it’s fair, just that it’s true) and wouldn’t have had the email/Clinton foundation/etc nonsense swirling around that dragged Clinton’s credibility down further. Stronger connection to working class and still has some cachet with the younger voters.
Yes, the GOP would have invented some monstrous evil-Biden but it wouldn’t have been on the foundation of decades of anti-Clinton hysteria.
Yes. Why… because he wasn’t HRC.
Okay, maybe I’m oversimplifying but my feeling is that Hillary was shown to be damaged goods back ~ 2008. The party breathed some fresh air into her before 2016, but she was always an easy target for the `Pubs talking points.
If nothing else, there’s hadn’t been the volume of data collected (good/bad/neutral) about JB as there was on HC.
If I may quote my own post 
to follow up on this thought and relate it to what’s happening now, I think that what’s happening now with Trump’s support can also be broken down into three basic camps:
Trump is probably starting to see a lack of confidence among those who considered him to be a “revolution.” Some are starting to doubt whether he has the character that this country wants and needs, and even if they can overlook character issues, they might doubt that he has the actual competence now. Of course, there’s no way to know just how many doubters there are. There are surely those who believe that the Russia investigation is just a plot by the Establishment to stymie his agenda.
The status-quo Trumpists, the Wall Street Republicans who held their noses and voted for him because they thought he’d be good for business, are also probably beginning to have some serious doubts. I suspect that there are probably a lot of people in this category who are beginning to sour on the entire Republican party. Mind you, that doesn’t mean they’re Democrats at all – they’re just as skeptical of the left as they are Trump. But they’re desperately searching for allies who want to preserve political stability that ensures global economic order. Steve Bannon is probably scaring the ever-living shit out of them at the moment. My guess is, these types will probably join the #neverTrump movement and sit out an election in 2020 if he somehow winds up running again. But they’d bolt right back to the party if Mike Pence becomes president in the interim.
That leaves us with those who saw Trump as the counter-revolution, the anti-Obama. My guess is, they’ve never been happier. They couldn’t be more pleasantly surprised by what they’re seeing. Some probably were skeptical on election night that he’d keep his promises – they’re skeptical no more. In fact he might have attracted others who were previously apolitical to possibly vote in greater numbers in the next election.
Where that leaves us in the final analysis is anyone’s guess. I’m hoping that the latter group represents a fringe and that any increases in his popularity have only a marginal effect otherwise. But who knows…
I agree that Biden probably would have outperformed her in MI, WI, PA (and MN, but HRC held on to narrowly win the state anyways). Are there any states where you think Biden would have underperformed her? VA with all the aristrocratic Washington insiders maybe? Or out west in heavily-Hispanic states like NM, NV, or CO? What about NH (which HRC won by 2,736 votes)? Would Biden have done better or worse there?
I voted for Trump, but I don’t know which of your three camps I fit into.
Doesn’t matter, as long as you take your hiking gear.
Okay, piss poor attempt at humor. I need new material.
There’s a major problem with that scenario. Hillary had a commanding lead over Bernie in the primary, with nobody else in sight. It stretches probability to think that she’d be that far behind two other candidates.
Yeah, and the team that scores the most home runs in the World Series should be the winner. We just have a flawed system of scoring that sporting event. :roll eyes: How stupid are those teams that try and win the most games!?!?
I think Joe Biden would have been a very good antidote to Trump. I’m pretty certain he would have beaten Trump. He would not have made a dumb move like trying, on purpose, to win the popular vote. He would have gone to those places HRC neglected, but not only that, he would have actually connected with the voters there.
Obviously I don’t know for sure, but if I had to guess (and with hindsight), Biden would have done better in these states as well – I think Hillary’s voters were mostly the locked-in Democratic voters, and the ones she lost as compared to 2012 were either mostly non-voters who liked Obama but didn’t turn out or some in the middle who switched to Trump, and I think Biden would have done slightly better with both groups.
I think the Democrats strongly underestimated how much personal hatred there was out there for Hillary herself.
But we’ll see come 2018 and 2020 how the Democrats, and the country, will respond.
Your memory gaps are not indicative of a lack of evidence. Without even googling I can remember Biden referring to Obama as a “clean” and “articulate” African-American, asking a wheelchair-bound politician to stand up, and inappropriately ribbing Chief Justice Roberts at Inauguration Take Two over Roberts’ flubbing of the oath the previous day. With Googling, there are more. He’s no Prince Philip, admittedly, but he had more than his share.
He also had a habit of being a little too hands-on with women.
Again - I’m a big fan of Uncle Joe but he is not without his weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
Trump only won those states by a combined 80,000 votes. It was a razor thin margin. Barring any major blunders or scandals, Biden would have beaten Trump.
I find the phrase “barring any major blunders” used in conjunction with Biden to be quite comical.