The people you need to pull in are the moderates that swing elections. Progressives will vote for Biden, Sanders, or Warren - Trump ensures there will be no issue with turnout. But many moderates will vote for Biden, but not necessarily the others. People on the internet live in a bubble of where the country is and what the country wants. Progressives are only a small section of the country. Non-political, moderate people make up something like 30% of the country - that's where this election will be won or lost. Trump rambles and is incoherent and is offensive and still won the middle in 2016 - because his policies didn't scare the living hell out of middle America. Biden is the same, minus being offensive.
If Biden has a moment like this against Trump... the laugh and smile after she said she wanted to ask him about inequality and race, the endless stuttering, the endless misspeaking, the record player, the incoherence is just off the charts. I just don't see how this works against Trump.
This made sense in the spring, but not anymore. If Bernie and Warren don't have name recognition at this point, that's a massive failure on their part and it's unlikely anything's going to change by the Spring. Also, FWIW, Trump lost every debate he participated in - Primary and General Election - generally by large margins. Debates and details on issues are not what decides these elections.
She won the popular vote by 3+ million votes, but unfortunately lost a whole raft of states by less than 1%. And she was tainted by a sense of corruption than Biden does not have.
When I hear people talking about how Biden, Sanders and Warren poll nationally against Trump, I don’t care all that much. Sure, it’s worth noting to gauge a candidate’s overall stock, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is how they poll against Trump head-to-head in the Midwest and PA. That’s your path to 270. I’m done watching the Democrats win popularity contests and lose the White House. Until the absurdity of the Electoral College goes, these are the only states that matter, and the overall strategy should reflect it. Biden has a consistent statistical advantage in these areas. He’s not my first choice, but as of now he’s the most logical choice in my estimation based upon the aforementioned electoral map and his overall platform. Side note: Last post about Klobuchar, I promise. In 2016, Minnesota was essentially a toss-up but Hillary narrowly carried the state. Last year (as in recently), Klobuchar won re-election by 24 points! 24. In a purple state. Keep in mind, in neighboring states, McCaskill and Heitkamp got absolutely clobbered in their re-election bids. That’s how well liked and respected she is. Easily the most productive member of the Senate, not to mention. She deserves to be in this conversation and I’m amazed she’s not polling better. I only bring up her name because her and Biden are both appealing to the same crowd and she shares strength and credibility in the Midwest. She’s an asset that’s being overlooked.
It's important to remember that Obama is extremely popular amongst Dems and Biden is obviously strongly associated with him -- if Biden wins the nomination Barack (and Michelle) will be all in campaigning and supporting him. While they will support whoever wins it won't be at the same level as a Biden candidacy. There were some mild shots at Obama during the first two debates -- you didn't see that last night -- having Obama's full support is key to winning the presidency. Some of the front runners not named Biden don't have the greatest relationships with Obama and he certainly hasn't forgotten that.
If Biden wins the nomination, I can very much see him picking her as his VP. Gets a woman on the ticket without it needing to be someone who's ideologically opposed to his ideas (Warren) and without it being someone who he has had major personal clashes with (Harris). Abrams, of course, was rumored early on so that could be his choice as well.
I definitely agree that trump lost every debate, and by a good margin using any reasonable methodology, in my humble opinion. Yet debates can move the needle. History's first televised debate in 1960, which I saw, won the presidency for Jack Kennedy in a very, very tight race. Of course, that debate had an enormous audience of over 66 million out of a population of 179 million in the United States. Kennedy simply outclassed Nixon on camera. It wasn't close. A lot of people listening on radio thought Nixon did very well. How big an audience the debate(s) trump has with whoever ends up going against him? We'll have to wait and see. If trump thinks he can win without debating his opponent, it wouldn't surprise me if he runs and hides. If he's behind, and it's pretty clear that he will be by a good margin going in, he'll want several debates, in my opinion. Joe's debate performances have been a mixed bag. I wish he was better at it. At least Biden won't let trump follow him around the stage. That was bizarre in 2016 during one of the Clinton/trump debates, with trump looking like someone you wouldn't want to leave alone with one of your kids. It took an incredibly poor campaign by Hillary, a half-hearted "endorsement" by Bernie Sanders, and some corrupt "help" for trump to squeak out a victory. Countless dissertations will be written and political experts will be scratching their heads about that election for decades, and it'll take decades for the nation to recover from the damage the fool has caused and is still causing this country. What a world!
How was Bernie's endorsement half-hearted? And why is it in parentheses? He flat out endorsed her, and then went around the whole country campaigning for her.
People like Obama and Bernie don't help anyone get elected. 08 Obama was an outsider. The anti-Clinton.
But in 1960, TV and debates were the primary exposure people had to the candidates. The campaigns were not 2 years long, there was no 24/7 news, no social media, etc. The debates were a big part of decision making. That's just not the case anymore. Everyone will be well exposed to the candidates and have made judgments long before the general election debates. They just don't have the same relevance in recent years.
It isn't in parentheses. It's in quotes. I'll give you an explanation, since you asked, but I'm not going to "fight" the 2016 Democratic primary campaign again. Why did I describe his endorsement that way? Because he waited over a month to give his endorsement after losing any chance for the nomination on June 7th, when he lost the California primary. That contrasts sharply with Ms Clinton's wholehearted endorsement of Barack Obama 4 days after losing the race for a majority of the delegates. The result? Many supporters of Senator Sanders chose not to vote in November, or to vote for someone else. Remember, the race was decided by about 75,000 votes in 4 key states. Like I said, Hillary ran a terrible campaign, and trump ran a corrupt one, getting help from Russia, which is irrefutable, but the way Bernie went about endorsing Secretary Clinton had an impact, in my opinion. It could have made the difference. This is from the Wall Street Journal more than two weeks after Bernie's loss in California that gave Hillary the win, and is was another 2 weeks before his actually endorsed her: Bernie Sanders Won’t Endorse Hillary Clinton for Now Democratic presidential challenger wants to hear what the presumptive nominee has to say on a number of issues Julian Routh and Laura Meckler June 24, 2016 3:58 pm ET Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that he would vote for presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in November, but declined to endorse her for now, saying he is waiting until she says what he wants to hear on a number of issues. Mr. Sanders’s back-to-back television interviews underscored the position he and Mrs. Clinton are in as they negotiate about the Democratic Party’s platform. She wants him to get behind her campaign and help move his supporters to her corner. He wants her to move closer to his positions in areas where they have disagreed. For now, Mr. Sanders is struggling with how to answer questions about his intentions. On MSNBC, Mr. Sanders was asked directly if he would vote for Mrs. Clinton this fall. “Yes,” he said. He added that he would do “everything I can to defeat Donald Trump, ” saying that he would be a disaster in “so many ways” if he were elected. Afterwards, when asked by email if Mr. Sanders’s comment amounted to an endorsement, a spokesman replied, “No.” And in a separate interview on CBS on Friday, Mr. Sanders made clear he wasn’t endorsing her now. When pressed why he hasn’t endorsed her, he said, “Because I have not heard her say the things that I think need to be said.” He said he wants her to back tuition-free public college—she wants debt-free; to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour—she backs $12; and a single-payer health-care system that he supports and she doesn’t. “We’re talking,” he said. Asked if he would be prepared to endorse her before next month’s Democratic National Convention, he added, “I would hope that that would happen, or it may not happen.” The Clinton campaign didn’t return a request for comment. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-wont-endorse-hillary-clinton-for-now-1466798302 When asked Friday if his refusal to withdraw from the race is leading to disunity in the party, Mr. Sanders said that wasn’t his top concern. “You talk about disunity, I talk about involving the American people in the political process and wanting to have a government and a party that represents all of us,” he said.
Because a woman needs to hit a higher moral values standard than a man in our culture. (And maybe because Bernie's supporters are young and capricious? I hope they have gotten smarter since 2016...) That response about record players was coherent enough (personally, I understood all the ideas Biden was suggesting in it). If someone needed a clarification, I'm sure Biden could provide it if given time. He has been a politician long enough for us to be sure that he knows policy. Unless rate of gaffes is higher than usual, you can't really stamp him as senile. With regards to TPP, average American doesn't really understand trade deals, so I'm sure any political can BS their way through it and possibly even return fire on Trump for lack of great deals that he has promised. Trump hasn't done enough for middle America for Biden to be afraid of those attacks too much.
I think Trump declared an emergency to sell a bunch of weapons to the human right violating, genocide committing, terror state of Saudi Arabia, perhaps you could find a decent deal over there?
Lmao, yeah Bernie supporters are sexist. Nice. It was coherent enough for you? Good on you bro, that wasn't coherent to me. I don't know what he means by bringing the social workers in the homes because the parents don't know what to do, leaving the record player on at night, making sure the kids hear words... in a response on "what responsibility do you think Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country". TPP, the average American doesn't understand trade deals. Biden can just political BS his way through. Sure, that'l work in the rust belt I guess.
I don't blame Bernie on holding out for policy changes he wanted her to make. Bernie seemingly wasn't offered admin position like Hillary was, and I think the number was 2.5 times more Hillary voters switched to McCain than Bernie voters switched to Trump in 2008. Bernie did his job and endorsed her, he campaigned for her, he fought for his base and the American people.
Wow. Way to move the goal posts on me. My response was to the question you posed to @Major - "Why the moderates didn't come out to vote for Hillary". Who said anything about Bernie's supporters being sexist. (And how, exactly, do you know that they are not?) Whatever, the more fair deal Trump may hopefully get (a big IF that's currently stalling our economy), is not going to bring jobs back to pre TPP levels and won't be much of a boost compared to TPP levels of job gains. Whatever the manufacturing jobs Trump did gain over Obama are being paid by the deficit (ie they may end up being a burden to the economy instead of a boost). Automation is going to take those rust belt manufacturing jobs anyway. If Biden can convey that, he wins the point.
Perhaps I misread your sentence? It seemed like you were connecting Bernie supporters - with your first line saying people require higher moral standards for women? (I don't agree with that line btw). I guess those are separate points, and your second line is saying Bernie supporters being young and erratic are the reason... moderates didn't show up for Clinton? I don't get it. And to answer the question of how I know Bernie supporters aren't sexist... well I dunno for sure... but I'd assume the vast majority aren't, for the same reason I'd assume the vast majority of Hillary supporters weren't white supremacist... it just doesn't fit with the candidate's ideologies right? Bernie has always been a strong advocate of women's rights. I'm not arguing for Trump, I don't think he gives a **** about the jobs or workers, but he's going to beat Biden to a pulp in the rust belt over TPP (and NAFTA) due to Biden being a strong advocate for it previously, and even this year saying he supports TPP.
