An Essay That Gives Everyone Something To Chew On
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I think the appeal of Biden right now among Democrats is based on three factors: (1) His connection to Obama, (2) many Democrats believe he has the best shot to easily defeat Trump, and (3) he is known and seen as a safe pick. I think the author of the article is hitting on #3 when he calls Biden "normal."
Obama is very popular among Democrats and Biden's connection to him is driving his support right now among Democrats IMO. Biden's strong poll numbers against Trump is also helping him. But yes, there is a sense of normalness and safety in a Biden nomination (a return to normalacy) that is appealing to many Democrats and probably general election voters. One could argue though that even this sense is tied into his connection with Obama.
I'm really looking forward to the first debate. It is going to be interesting to see how all these candidates perform, how Biden looks on stage with the other candidates, and who is able to make an early impression.
Last edited:
538 called Biden, "Hillary 2.0", which I thought was the most apt description of Biden. This makes sense as he has a) Gobs of 'qualifying experience'; b) major name recognition (something that can't be said for at least half the Dem candidates) c) is tailoring his message on whatever the polls say; and d) has focused his total campaign on beating Trump (effectively treating the primaries as foregone conclusions).
Nope. Biden is not Hillary 2.0. Biden has strengths that Clinton didn't have (one being that he is liked more than Clinton was) and he doesn't have a lot of the baggage Clinton had. Biden could appeal to certain voters who wrote Clinton off from the beginning.
There is a reason Trump and his campaign are worried about Biden. He would be a much tougher general election opponent than Clinton.
Last edited:
Biden and Obama have friendship bracelets. That's a BIG plus for Biden.
Biden of today would be a tougher opponent than Clinton, but I don't think Biden that wins the primaries is a tougher competitor. He'll be a white, 70+ year old male which will hurt party enthusiasm; He'll likely have multiple position flip-flops which will show that he doesn't hold his own convictions but rather will follow the 'will of the party' (as seen by his abortion stance flip), which will allow Trump to mitigate his position of 'being a moderate' democrat.
You are right that he has a few differences than Hillary. Hillary was a foregone conclusion to win the primaries. Biden isn't even that. With the rule changes for super delegates, there is a distinct possibility that Biden, Sanders, Warren, and either Booker or Harris will chop enough votes that noone wins first ballot, which would create an interesting quandary for the Dem party to see who the 'supers' support, whereas Hillary had all the supers locked up in '16. He is also male, so he won't garner a disproportionate volume of female voters who were ready for a female president. (You don't really think Biden will pull the middle-class housewife at the same percentages Hillary did do you?)
I disagree. Biden is popular in the Democratic party, regardless of his age or skin color. Plus, in the general election he would be running against a white 70+ year old man who is despised by every coalition in the Democratic Party. They will come out to vote for Biden.
The only worry for Biden in the general could be the Sanders left. But even if that becomes a problem, he should be able to offset that with his appeal to Independents.
Perhaps, but this isn't uncommon for a general election candidate and Trump had the same thing in 2016.
Yes, because they can't stand Trump. Trump is polling very bad among women voters. Biden is also currently performing better with women then men in the Democratic primary than the other top candidates.
There is no doubt in my mind that Biden will be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton was. I think Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016 had he ran. Clinton had a lot working against her that Biden doesn't and Biden has some built in strengths she didn't.
I do agree though that Biden isn't a lock for the nomination but he the favorite at this point.
Bidens biggest hurdle in the 2020 election (aside from getting handsy with underaged girls) will be the ability to complete a coherent sentence.
Exactly.
He's very old for the stamina, physical and mental, required for a POTUS run.
I predict he'll falter in the hot intensity of a debate.
We shall see.
I can't imagine how you could look back on Biden's career and the absolute moronic crap he has said and the totally inappropriate behavior that everyone with eyes could see but the MSM and Dems ignored for years and not think he is a total buffoon.
Last edited:
I have no idea. The article I posted made a lot of sense. Always Trumpsters aside, I think most people are tired of the back and forth insults between the president and his detractors, and would love to see a return to “normalcy.” Of The Democratic frontrunnrrs that would be Biden, as long as he doesn’t get suckered into going hard left with the rest of them. As I said before my pick is Tulsi Gabbard. I have donated to her campaign, and signed up to be a volunteer. I haven’t voted since 1972, but I would make an exception for her. I think if she were given a fair chance by your party she would give Trump a run for his money. But her anti-war stance is so counter to the desires and profits of the Democratic Party establishment she has no chance. I said earlier, and I’ll repeat it again, with the exception of Gabbard the rest of the nominees look like a list of junior varsity candidates. Today’s polls are misleading, IMO. Come election day I think Trump will win handily. Let me emphasize: that does NOT make me s Trump enabler. I probably dislike the man as much as you, just for different, more legitimate reasons. I am very thankful, however, that he beat Hillary, arguably the most corrupt politician of her generation.
What is it about Gabbard that you like?
Do you agree with her support of universal health care?
Do you agree with her that the national minimum wage should be increased to $15.00?
Do you agree with her that community college should be tuition-free for all Americans? Do you agree with her that universities should be tuition-free for students coming from families making less than $125,000?
Do you agree with her that the federal assault weapons ban should be reinstated?
Do you agree with her support of a Green New Deal?
No, I disagree with her on every one of those issues. I’ve said on this board more than once the primary issue to me, the most important issue, the issue I regard as more important than all those others combined is the issue of war and peace, the never ending regime change wars both parties have willingly gotten us into, with no desire to end them. Gabbard is the only politician of this age who I believe will do everything in her power to bring that to a screeching halt. On that issue she is not driven by polling data. I will fight against her tooth and nail on her progressive/leftist agenda regarding the domestic front. But I will gladly grab my pitchfork and join her at the barricade in the struggle against the neocon/neoliberal alliance that comprises the war machine in this country.
You don't think Bernie Sanders will?
Hasn't Bernie Sanders been rather consistent on this issue for much longer than Gabbard?
Interesting article I tend to agree with the author about Biden as a safe candidate.
I dont agree with Ponca Dan that Hillary was the most corrupt politician I think this award should be awarded to DJT.
As far as low job rates and economy will some one explain to me the Trump policies that made this happen.
I think Bernie will give it secondary status vs his socialist/communist agenda. He’ll say all the right things, but put war and peace on the back burner. Also, I think the Republicans would do to Bernie what they did to Obama, and what the Democrats are doing with Trump: resist every breath he takes. Tulsi has a commendable record of reaching out to Republicans on issues where compromise can be reached. I don’t think the Republicans would erect a stone wall against Tulsi to the degree they would against Bernie (or any of the other candidates; can you imagine their reaction to a President Warren, for example?). And I don’t think Tulsi would resort to the name-calling that has become endemic to today’s political discourse. Sanders is old, white, apparently a communist sympathizer, has grown rich from his political activism, and would turn off a huge section of the voting public. Gabbard is young, a veteran, very intelligent, level headed, attractive, articulate and her anti-war stance would appeal to everyone from left-leaning students to anti-war activists such as Ron Paul libertarians. She ticks off all the liberal requirements: a woman, woman of color, not a Christian, left wing domestic agenda. Her problem is the Democratic establishment will seek to destroy her reputation. They’re already calling her a Putin puppet, an Assad sympathizer, even hinting that she’s a traitor. She’s a traitor all right. A traitor to the neocon/neolib alliance that has grown fat on the backs of our young men and women dying and killing in their preposterous nonstop war making. The Dems have a winning candidate right in front of them and they're so stupid they don’t even know it.
We’ll just have to disagree on Hillary’s corrupt reputation. DJT is a standard corrupt politician. Hillary took corruption to a fine art. I shudder at what this country would look like today if she had won.
The tax reform bill Trump signed helped to
jump start our economy which was sputtering under Obama (unfortunately Trump’s tariffs are cutting deeply into the savings people realized from the tax cuts, but that’s a story for another thread). Also Trump has initiated a process to reduce the incredibly burdensome regulations that business were facing. The reduction isn’t to the degree it ought to be, but the policy has given business leaders the confidence to make long term plans, spend capital on new machinery and inventory, make new hires. Trump deserves high accolades for his handling of domestic economic policy. It could be, and should be much stronger, but considering the resistance he has faced he should get a standing ovation in that regard.
First of all, Sanders' agenda is not communist. Don't be silly now.
Secondly, you would agree though that Sanders' has been consistent on foreign policy his entire career, much longer than Gabbard, correct? Sanders is also not part of any neocon/neolib alliance, correct? And, Gabbard's domestic agenda is not that much different from Sanders.
Last edited:
The economy had already been jump started long before the tax bill that Trump gifted to his wealthy friends was passed. The economy was not "sputtering" when Trump too office. The economy was growing and we had been led out of The Great Recession.
So far, Trump simply hasn't screwed up what he was handed. There are signs that some of his policies are hurting but so far, we are continuing to benefit from the Obama recovery.
btw, Gabbard voted against the tax bill...
I have been reading that Sanders’ latest policy passer is practically word for word with Russian communist rhetoric back in the days of Stalin. I’lol try an find the link for you.
Sanders anti-war rhetoric predates Gabbards’ because he’s 75 and she’s 37. Her stance against regime change war has come from personal experience. For Sanders it’s all just theoretical. If Sanders is the nominee the whole campaign will be about his socialism, war and peace will be relegated to the back seat. With Gabbard it would be the centerpiece of her whole campaign, and she could hammer daily on the rhetoric Trump used in 2016 vs his hiring of neocon war mongers like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. No other Democrat, including Sanders, would have the gravitas of Gabbard.
I know you say that, you’re following the Democratic Party playbook. But we both know that is hogwash. In spite of his MANY policy mistakes you cannot take the economy away from him. No one short of totally blinkered Democrat loyalists will believe it. If Democrats try that line they will get laughed out of the room, and deservedly so. If the Democrats don’t understand that reality they will be in for another huge shock in 2020.
Oh, and I said before the only reason I would vote for Gabbard is to get the country off its war footing. Her left wing domestic policies are just as foolish as the rest of the Democrats. And I would support all Republican attempts to thwart it.
Again, Sanders is not a communist. And comparing him to Stalin is foolishness Ponca. Absolute foolishness.
Sanders is a social democrat. He calls himself a democratic socialist, but if you look at his positions, he is a classic social democrat. He has much in common with European social democrats.
No it would not. It isn't even the centerpiece of her campaign right now. Gabbard's domestic agenda would be just as front and center as her foreign policy positions. I also think you underestimate how much Sanders would be forced to talk foreign policy if he was in the general election, although I do agree Sanders would want to focus on his domestic agenda.
I get that you like Gabbard and I think that is great. But my point is that Gabbard is a progressive and has a lot in common with Sanders, who you are comparing to Stalin. And Sanders has been consistent for a long time in his opposition to the neocon vision which you claim to want to see in a candidate.
Last edited:
This is what I mean by you being an enabler Ponca.
What is hogwash is the notion that Trump saved the economy. Everyone except Trump supporters and enablers knows that the economy turned around and was growing under Obama. Obama inherited a mess, The Great Recession, and led us out of it. Trump inherited a rather strong and growing economy. All the numbers and statistics showcase this. It doesn't take a genius to see what really happened.
You want to push the Trump talking points, so be it. But you are wrong.
Try not to jump to conclusions! I said I had read where a recent policy paper he released was virtually plagiarized from communist rhetoric under Stalin.
I may not be a Democrat, but I have been following Tulsi since before she announced. And her whole campaign centers around her anti-regime change stance. She brings it up in virtually every appearance. The “socialist” stuff is only talked about when someone asks her about it. That is her “hook,” the issue she drives home to show she is different from the rest of them. It’s a far better winning issue than promising free stuff to everybody for everything, which the other candidates seem hell bent on out promising their opponents.
But she is advocating "socialist stuff," correct? Just like Sanders. And she advocates for a foreign policy very similar to what Sanders advocates for.
Again, I think it is great that you support Gabbard. You are supporting a progressive Democrat. Good to know.
Obama inherited a mess and sputtered around for 8 years trying to get it up and running. He succeeded in turning things around (as usually happens in the boom and bust cycles), but to pretend today’s economy is because of Obama is flatly fraudulent, and the average voter knows that. No one is going to believe your talking points for one minute. If Democrats take that tack they’ll be clobbered in 2020.
No, assessing the economy in a similar manner to the Trump administration is not enabling Trump. It’s an objective opinion based on the reality of what’s right in front of your nose. Let me say one more time: I can barely tolerate the sight of DJT. His speaking style is like fingers on a chalkboard for me, baring his lower teeth like a rabid animal. I detest his wall and his tariffs. But there is no denying his tax breaks and reduction in regulations have had a magnificent impact on the economy. If you can’t see that you are seriously blinded by Democrat loyalty, and partisan blindness is a sure path to losing.
Yeah, I prefer to think I support an anti-war Democrat. Should a pro-free trade candidate appear I’ll switch to him/her in a heartbeat.
Exactly.
And the economy was stronger and growing when he left office. He left the economy in great shape (for the most part) for Trump. Trump inherited a growing economy.
Trump has made some contributions and we have yet to see the full impact of those contributions Thankfully, Trump inherited a strong and growing economy and any negative impact will hopefully be offset by other factors.
I am not the one pushing a talking point, you are. You are pushing a Trump talking point.
Again, the numbers and statistics clearly show what has happened from 2008 forward.
You are enabling him by pushing his talking points Ponca. You do it often on here when it comes to certain issues.
Ok, but you are supporting a progressive Democrat.
Again, I think that is great. I like Gabbard too. I don't think she will get the nomination, but I think she may have a place in a future Democratic administration. Which you should also keep in mind come next November.
OK, well, we’re just talking past each other. I’m not a Republican and I’m not much of a Trump sympathizer, so when I give him credit for something I don’t see it as enabling. Unless you want to concede that I’m disabling him when I rant against his wall and his tariffs, which I have done far more often than defend his domestic economic policy. You, on the other hand, are a Democrat, and your insistence the economy is good because of Obama is straight out of the party's ledger. But really it doesn’t matter who's enabling whom. I just think as an outsider looking in it will be a foolish mistake for any Democrat to try and take credit for the economy. If Biden’s the candidate he’ll have no choice but to make that case. At which point IMO Trump will eat him alive. I think if any other candidate, Harris or Warren or any of them, including Tulsi, try to take credit they will lose all credibility with everyone but the yellow dog, dyed in the wool, vote for a Democrat no matter who or what voter. And that’s a pretty significant minority.
We just disagree on this Ponca. I also think you are completely miscalculating how such a discussion would play with voters. Remember, Biden is easily beating Trump right now and Biden has been making this case about the economy ever since he started running.
And all Trump can do is call him names.
Here you go. This is what I saw about Sanders policy paper:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/06...giarizes-stalin-with-economic-bill-of-rights/
And here:
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-...mong-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates/
Last edited:
Biden is not beating Trump right now. That’s as ridiculous as saying the economy is because of Obama.
P.S. - Obama had the slowest growth of any president coming out of a recession. And that’s with keeping interests rates historically low
And here’s an article explaining that Tulsi’s anti-war rhetoric is legitimate, not poll driven.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/tulsi-g...nda-and-the-media-is-out-to-kill-her-chances/
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/tulsi-g...nda-and-the-media-is-out-to-kill-her-chances/
Gabbard supports the right to a decent job that pays a living wage, the right to quality (universal) health care, the right to a complete education, the right to affordable housing, that women are accorded equal rights, and the right to a clean environment.
Is she a communist and like Stalin?
FDR did give a speech that is referred to as The Second Bill of Rights on January 11, 1944. Was FDR a communist and like Stalin?
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm
Yes he is.
I'll even cite Fox News for you...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...-steady-leader-biden-leads-trump-by-10-points
