The Swamp

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:14 pm If he’s being driven left on this, that’s good, correct?

Not if it runs counter to the strawmen in your (the royal you) head.

I dunno. With those poll numbers released today, the DNC really should consider dropping him.

A unique lead that no other Democrat could have and definitely not like Hillary had 4 years ago. Biden is the perfect candidate for this imperfect time.

(And if he embraced anything close to M4A I’ll absolutely praise it. If “he” posts Buttigieg-ian platitudes with no change, I’ll remain skeptical at best.)

You're right, it's not anything like Hillary had in 2016.

Pretty sure I posted this already: https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics ... index.html

Pretty sure I haven't posted this already: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... s-in-2016/

God help me...

You're comparing a race with an open seat to one in which there is an incumbent. There's a HUGE difference for a challenger coming into the summer with double digit lead over an incumbent. When it's an open race, there is a huge variance and the "unknowns" drive the "undecideds" and there's just more room for a swing.

This double digit lead won't last. His floor is probably closer to 40 percent (sadly.) But if things don't get better with COVID for 3 more months, which sure seems likely, he's not going to have any place to find footing to claw back the independents he's currently hemorrhaging.

And I'd like to formally request that we start a 2020: Presidential Election Thread.

You guys can continue to fuck a dead horse in here, but this process is done. On to the next phase.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:14 pm If he’s being driven left on this, that’s good, correct?

Yes, but, is there a reason to make a statement describing health care as "a right" without an accompanying announcement of sorts when your previous policy statements are contrary to this? I'm looking at his website now and it's:

"THE BIDEN PLAN TO PROTECT & BUILD ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

I. GIVE EVERY AMERICAN ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE"

and later

"IV. ENSURE HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT FOR ALL, NOT A PRIVILEGE FOR JUST A FEW

Joe Biden believes that every American – regardless of gender, race, income, sexual orientation, or zip code – should have access to affordable and quality health care."

So, that sure sounds like the right to pay for health care, not the right to have health care, which would suggest he's not moving to the left at all.

Giff wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:50 pm Pretty sure I haven't posted this already: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... s-in-2016/

At this point in the 1988 cycle, Michael Dukakis led nationally by almost 5 points ... But Dukakis ended up losing by nearly 8 points in November

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:47 pm Pretty sure I posted this already: https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics ... index.html

That was a single poll at Hillary’s peak. According to RCP, Clinton was up by about 7 points then, maxing at 46.8 (she finished with 48.2).



Today, the RCP average gives Biden a 10-point lead, with 50.6.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6247.html

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:24 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:50 pm Pretty sure I haven't posted this already: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... s-in-2016/

At this point in the 1988 cycle, Michael Dukakis led nationally by almost 5 points ... But Dukakis ended up losing by nearly 8 points in November

Yeah but Trump has already played his Willie Horton card.

Dukakis was an unknown quantity in June 1988. He was subsequently tarred with liberal positions on crime and dealing with the Soviet Union.

Biden has been in the public eye for decades (as has Trump).

Anyway, if your point is "Biden could lose," of course you're right. If your point is "Biden has a significant risk of losing because look at what happened to Hillary and Dukakis," that's a much weaker argument.

My overall view on the race is that Trump is terrible at making an affirmative case for his own leadership but is good at tearing down opponents. And being a moderate white man does not insulate his opponents from those attacks — just look what he did to Jeb Bush in 2016. So as long as voters focus on Trump’s “leadership,” or lack thereof, Biden should do fine. But Biden gives Trump a lot to work with if he can shift the focus to attacking his opponent. That’s why Trump has started calling for a bunch of debates.

Biden is a pretty known figure though. Most people have probably made up their mind about him. It's not to say he couldn't have an absolutely horrific gaffe that costs him a lot of support, but absent something like that, it's hard to imagine a huge number of people switching from Biden to Trump at this point. Trump's attacks don't stick because for better or worse:

1) Biden has been in the public eye for 40+ years.
2) He's a man.
3) He's a white man.
4) He's a straight, white man.

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:29 pm My overall view on the race is that Trump is terrible at making an affirmative case for his own leadership but is good at tearing down opponents. And being a moderate white man does not insulate his opponents from those attacks — just look what he did to Jeb Bush in 2016. So as long as voters focus on Trump’s “leadership,” or lack thereof, Biden should do fine. But Biden gives Trump a lot to work with if he can shift the focus to attacking his opponent. That’s why Trump has started calling for a bunch of debates.

I'm pretty sure the debate challenges were a direct result of Trump's mental fitness being questioned.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:31 pm Biden is a pretty known figure though. Most people have probably made up their mind about him. It's not to say he couldn't have an absolutely horrific gaffe that costs him a lot of support, but absent something like that, it's hard to imagine a huge number of people switching from Biden to Trump at this point. Trump's attacks don't stick because for better or worse:

1) Biden has been in the public eye for 40+ years.
2) He's a man.
3) He's a white man.
4) He's a straight, white man.

And outside of voting record in the Senate, everything Trump can use is an indictment of himself, too.

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:34 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:29 pm My overall view on the race is that Trump is terrible at making an affirmative case for his own leadership but is good at tearing down opponents. And being a moderate white man does not insulate his opponents from those attacks — just look what he did to Jeb Bush in 2016. So as long as voters focus on Trump’s “leadership,” or lack thereof, Biden should do fine. But Biden gives Trump a lot to work with if he can shift the focus to attacking his opponent. That’s why Trump has started calling for a bunch of debates.

I'm pretty sure the debate challenges were a direct result of Trump's mental fitness being questioned.

Honestly, it's probably both. More debates means more chances for Biden to trip before the goalline. But I don't doubt Trump's sensitivity to those attacks plays a role too.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:12 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:14 pm If he’s being driven left on this, that’s good, correct?

Yes, but, is there a reason to make a statement describing health care as "a right" without an accompanying announcement of sorts when your previous policy statements are contrary to this? I'm looking at his website now and it's:

"THE BIDEN PLAN TO PROTECT & BUILD ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

I. GIVE EVERY AMERICAN ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE"

and later

"IV. ENSURE HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT FOR ALL, NOT A PRIVILEGE FOR JUST A FEW

Joe Biden believes that every American – regardless of gender, race, income, sexual orientation, or zip code – should have access to affordable and quality health care."

So, that sure sounds like the right to pay for health care, not the right to have health care, which would suggest he's not moving to the left at all.

Yeah, but his plan also includes expanding subsidies and Medicaid. Cost for a gold-level plan would max out at 8.5% percent of income.

Plus a public option (single payer), repealing the law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with pharm companies, external reference pricing for other medications, limits on drug price increases, allowing drug purchases from other countries, etc. Boring shit that will reduce health care prices (and thus insurance prices).

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:38 pm

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:34 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:29 pm My overall view on the race is that Trump is terrible at making an affirmative case for his own leadership but is good at tearing down opponents. And being a moderate white man does not insulate his opponents from those attacks — just look what he did to Jeb Bush in 2016. So as long as voters focus on Trump’s “leadership,” or lack thereof, Biden should do fine. But Biden gives Trump a lot to work with if he can shift the focus to attacking his opponent. That’s why Trump has started calling for a bunch of debates.

I'm pretty sure the debate challenges were a direct result of Trump's mental fitness being questioned.

Honestly, it's probably both. More debates means more chances for Biden to trip before the goalline. But I don't doubt Trump's sensitivity to those attacks plays a role too.

I'm also fairly convinced that trump and giuliani were just grandstanding and probably would've weaseled out if Biden had accepted them.

There is not a single needle moving thing that Trump could criticize Biden for that the same questions don't apply (mental stability) or are worse (relationship with women).

I obviously wanted Warren and I think she probably would have gotten the job done, but it's hard to see the events of the last few months and argue with the point that it is becoming very, very clear that Biden is the presidential candidate the Democrats needed right now in this moment. Perfect is the enemy of good enough and Biden has the empathy and gravitas that's probably going to throw a lot of people his way who might have been frightened by a minority, woman or more liberal candidate. You're already seeing this in the polling in the Midwestern swing states like MI, PA and WI. Biden just isn't threatening to those people (for better or worse, mostly better if the object is to beat Trump).

Trump benefitted very much from a lot of voters in those states (and others) giving him a chance as opposed to a woman*. Frankly, a lot of those people very well might have switched to Hillary in 2020 if she were running against Trump again, but they're definitely not going to hesitate to vote for Biden short of something catastrophic. The trick now is to try and grow the tent as much as possible to help win back the Senate and run up the score in the House as much as possible. (And downballot and local races as well.)

* - it gets forgotten but Trump's lack of a political record to run against benefitted him greatly with a lot of unsophisticated voters. He doesn't have that advantage any longer.

Giff wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:03 pm There is not a single needle moving thing that Trump could criticize Biden for that the same questions don't apply (mental stability) or are worse (relationship with women).

Well, technically Trump has never accused a guy of being drunk in an accident that killed his wife and child when the guy wasn’t drunk and had the right of way. So that’s one angle.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:15 pm I obviously wanted Warren and I think she probably would have gotten the job done, but it's hard to see the events of the last few months and argue with the point that it is becoming very, very clear that Biden is the presidential candidate the Democrats needed right now in this moment. Perfect is the enemy of good enough and Biden has the empathy and gravitas that's probably going to throw a lot of people his way who might have been frightened by a minority, woman or more liberal candidate. You're already seeing this in the polling in the Midwestern swing states like MI, PA and WI. Biden just isn't threatening to those people (for better or worse, mostly better if the object is to beat Trump).

Do you think a potential selection of a woman of color to be his vice president, when combined with his age and certain health questions that go with it, would concern some of those people who find him "comfortable", for lack of a better word (and that's actually a pretty decent word to describe him to them)?

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:16 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:03 pm There is not a single needle moving thing that Trump could criticize Biden for that the same questions don't apply (mental stability) or are worse (relationship with women).

Well, technically Trump has never accused a guy of being drunk in an accident that killed his wife and child when the guy wasn’t drunk and had the right of way. So that’s one angle.

Yeah, Trump has never accused anyone of doing anything they didn't do. You must agree that Obama/Biden is the most CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY!

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:26 pm

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:15 pm I obviously wanted Warren and I think she probably would have gotten the job done, but it's hard to see the events of the last few months and argue with the point that it is becoming very, very clear that Biden is the presidential candidate the Democrats needed right now in this moment. Perfect is the enemy of good enough and Biden has the empathy and gravitas that's probably going to throw a lot of people his way who might have been frightened by a minority, woman or more liberal candidate. You're already seeing this in the polling in the Midwestern swing states like MI, PA and WI. Biden just isn't threatening to those people (for better or worse, mostly better if the object is to beat Trump).

Do you think a potential selection of a woman of color to be his vice president, when combined with his age and certain health questions that go with it, would concern some of those people who find him "comfortable", for lack of a better word (and that's actually a pretty decent word to describe him to them)?

I think history has proven that the VP pick rarely moves the needle in any significant way. Last time it did was probably LBJ to help JFK carry the South (and even then only because it was a really, really close election).

Funny I was thinking about that on Monday driving back from Corpus on the Lloyd Bentsen Memorial Highway.

Giff wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:49 pm Yeah, Trump has never accused anyone of doing anything they didn't do. You must agree that Obama/Biden is the most CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY!

I was very specific.

So was I: "needle-moving"

The shameless and the shame-able don’t play by the same standards.

Mr. D (and JoeK to a degree) - honest question. You've done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Biden, the man, and the candidate. What would you have the Democratic party do at this point in time, regarding their presumptive candidate for president?

sancarlos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:53 pm Mr. D (and JoeK to a degree) - honest question. You've done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Biden, the man, and the candidate. What would you have the Democratic party do at this point in time, regarding their presumptive candidate for president?

Oh please do tell. I’d love to know this too. Because this thread has been a damn mess for a long while.

A_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:00 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:53 pm Mr. D (and JoeK to a degree) - honest question. You've done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Biden, the man, and the candidate. What would you have the Democratic party do at this point in time, regarding their presumptive candidate for president?

Oh please do tell. I’d love to know this too. Because this thread has been a damn mess for a long while.

I would like to see Biden pick Warren or Baldwin for VP. Since he’s very possibly a 1-term candidate, a VP who would excite me as the 2024 standard-bearer would be a big plus. But I’m very confident he’ll pick Harris, who I’m very blah about.

I think where I differ from you guys is that I don’t buy the “all that matters is beating Trump argument.” If it did, the Dems should've just nominated Mitt Romney or some other straight-up Republican. Policy matters too. Compared to other countries, we terrible economic inequality, a horrific gun violence problem, and a health care system that doesn’t work well for most of the population. I want a President who actually addresses those issues.

And the president is the only one who can direct policy. Congress is for suckers!

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:38 pm And the president is the only one who can direct policy. Congress is for suckers!

Do you really not think that the President plays a big role is setting the Congressional agenda, particularly if his party controls it? I guess everyone who’s spent the last 80 years crediting FDR for the New Deal is a sucker!

ETA: the administrative state, which is run by Presidential appointees is also very important to shaping policy. But sure, keep mocking me with your snappy quips.

Serious question. Would you be splitting the hairs of Biden's policies if you were LGBTQ, BIPOC, or another minority?

Are you asking whether me, but as a black woman, would be *more* pro-Biden?

A_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:00 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:53 pm Mr. D (and JoeK to a degree) - honest question. You've done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Biden, the man, and the candidate. What would you have the Democratic party do at this point in time, regarding their presumptive candidate for president?

Oh please do tell. I’d love to know this too. Because this thread has been a damn mess for a long while.

I’m not aligned with the party or with Biden’s policies, so I’m not sure where to go with this. He’s the candidate, he’s better than status quo, that’s about it. And I’ve made the Romney point to (non-computer friends) if not here ... party affiliation aside I don’t know he’s not a better option both electorally and for me personally. Whatever minor policy gaps may exist are more than made up for in a less attackable background and current faculties.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:20 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:00 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:53 pm Mr. D (and JoeK to a degree) - honest question. You've done a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Biden, the man, and the candidate. What would you have the Democratic party do at this point in time, regarding their presumptive candidate for president?

Oh please do tell. I’d love to know this too. Because this thread has been a damn mess for a long while.

I’m not aligned with the party or with Biden’s policies, so I’m not sure where to go with this. He’s the candidate, he’s better than status quo, that’s about it. And I’ve made the Romney point to (non-computer friends) if not here ... party affiliation aside I don’t know he’s not a better option both electorally and for me personally. Whatever minor policy gaps may exist are more than made up for in a less attackable background and current faculties.

“Minor policy gaps.” My god, the privilege.

Romney is the guy who wanted to harass immigrants from our south until they self-deported. Who went to Trump for support. Who has voted for all of the terrible judges Trump has nominated (I think). Who is clearly opposed to abortion rights.

Yes, as a straight, native-born, non-disabled, reasonably-well-off white man, you‘d be fine under a Romney presidency. Hell, you and the people you care about are fine under Trump, which is why you feel less urgency in getting rid of Trump compared to most of the rest of us.

But JFC. Just because you have the luxury of not caring about the differences between Romney and Biden doesn’t mean everyone is.

Think youre overestimating the distinctions between Biden and Romney. Still, JoeK is slamming people on policy but what the hell is that policy beyond gun violence, economic inequality, health care inaccessibility = bad. You actually have to have real life workable legislative solutions that are likely to succeed. Hard problems, but pointing them out without solutions and a path to bipartisan support is pretty useless.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:06 am Still, JoeK is slamming people on policy but what the hell is that policy beyond gun violence, economic inequality, health care inaccessibility = bad. You actually have to have real life workable legislative solutions that are likely to succeed. Hard problems, but pointing them out without solutions and a path to bipartisan support is pretty useless.

I'm not sure the first part of this is quite accurate. Medicare-For-All is a policy solution. And Sanders has many other policy proposals.

But the path to getting majority support and overcoming the veto points in our governing system is definitely a problem.

Lets put McConnell at -10, Romney at zero and Sanders at 10. What number is Biden at?