2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Gatorubet 30115]

6 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Whoever the running mate is needs to be a viable Presidential candidate in 2024. Only Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Whitmer fit that profile. 

2020 we have ONE mission.   2024 can take care of itself. 

And given the pain the USA is going to be going through for some time (and the reality of a one term Joe), maybe delaying Klobuchar, Harris, or Whitmer running against the Biden Veep in 2024 -  a person who will inexorably be identified with a large portion of that 2020-2024 pain -  is a better long term strategy for the party.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Gatorubet

[SaucyJack 3487]

On 4/25/2020 at 9:37 AM, Larry T. Spider said:

It really wouldn’t take a monumental shift in those poll numbers for Biden to be even with trump.

I would be shocked if trump gets 16% of the Texas black vote as he got 11% last time.

In 2016 Trump lost the female vote by 2%. I can’t see him making a comeback with that demographic based on his first term. Yet the poll has it 46-46.

Clinton won the Latino vote 61-34. Any poll that has this as a close demographic is just wrong.

Seeing some of those numbers so far off yet the overall results with Biden being close could be seen as really encouraging. Or it’s all crap, just throw it out.

Another view showing Hispanic margin larger.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/02/donald-trump-did-not-win-34-of-latino-vote-in-texas-he-won-much-less/

[Macanudo 12928]

My reasoning on Klobuchar is her DC experience and Whitmers homegrown (no matter how small) vocal opposition.  Trump's campaign will wail on Whitmers "opposition" to opening her state and appeal to his degenerates who see keeping the economy "closed" as bad and whatever Trump advocates for as "really, really good."  That message plays to Trump's idiots in Florida, Pennsylvania, and other closely contested states. 

Klobuchar is from a safer state that doesn't have as much to use against her. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20708]

5 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

My reasoning on Klobuchar is her DC experience and Whitmers homegrown (no matter how small) vocal opposition.  Trump's campaign will wail on Whitmers "opposition" to opening her state and appeal to his degenerates who see keeping the economy "closed" as bad and whatever Trump advocates for as "really, really good."  That message plays to Trump's idiots in Florida, Pennsylvania, and other closely contested states. 

Klobuchar is from a safer state that doesn't have as much to use against her. 

 

She was never truly vetted in the primary until she made noise in Iowa and NH. And then a possible wrongful murder conviction when Klobuchar was a prosecutor surfaced. She's well known for being abusive to her staff. There's already plenty to use against her, and there might be more with proper vetting. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Listen, I should be the ideal Klobuchar backer and I’m hollering “Hell no” on her as Biden’s VP.

[Mapache 1117]

I think a Biden/Kamala ticket will be the best path to victory in November. Biden needs to secure the black voters and their turnout to win comfortably 

[Macanudo 12928]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

She was never truly vetted in the primary until she made noise in Iowa and NH. And then a possible wrongful murder conviction when Klobuchar was a prosecutor surfaced. She's well known for being abusive to her staff. There's already plenty to use against her, and there might be more with proper vetting. 

And you dont think there are some real skeletons in Harris' closet during her time as Attorney General? 

[Larry T. Spider 1741]

Whitmer’s father was the president and ceo of blue cross blue shield of Michigan for 18 years. She has said that single payer healthcare is unrealistic. She may be the best option but I feel like we are completely punting on healthcare this election.

Its fine if we get the dotard out, which has to be goal one. But, it’s just amazing to me how you can rise to prominence in the Democratic Party with these views. 

[Hank Kingsley 20708]

2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

And you dont think there are some real skeletons in Harris' closet during her time as Attorney General? 

I think Kamala has been properly vetted. She was a leading candidate at one point and people have been digging for a while.  No one really bothered looking into Klobuchar until late in her primary run. 

At one point the Minnesota NAACP called on her to suspend her campaign.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[Hank Kingsley 20708]

I think Democrats really need huge turnout from black voters (again). And I don't think we should look at Biden's success with black voters as enough. It would be foolish to roll the dice with Klobuchar. They can win Minnesota with her as just a regular Biden surrogate. 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Biden can get older black voters. They need younger voters in general and <45 black voters specifically.

There's a pretty simple way to make huge inroads there, but, you know, identity politics.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Macanudo 12928]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Biden can get older black voters. They need younger voters in general and <45 black voters specifically.

There's a pretty simple way to make huge inroads there, but, you know, identity politics.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are you suggesting AOC*?  Because that would make all sorts of people's heads explode .

 

 

 

* Yes, I'm aware that she is not old enough to run as VP or President yet.

[Message Board User 12389]

Klo would be a net negative for the campaign.

Perhaps a huge net negative. 

He should probably play it “safe” and go with Kamala.  

[mdmost 42865]

12 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Are you suggesting AOC*?  Because that would make all sorts of people's heads explode .

 

 

 

* Yes, I'm aware that she is not old enough to run as VP or President yet.

Bernie. It's always Bernie with b-t. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

19 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Whoever the running mate is needs to be a viable Presidential candidate in 2024. Only Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Whitmer fit that profile. 

It also needs to be someone who can beat Mike Pence in the single VP debate, preferably in embarrassing fashion, because that’s actually important.

Mike Pence’s performance against Tim Kaine was probably worth a point, and created the durable impression that Pence would be a dignified and thoughtful influence on Trump.  
 

Only one potential nominee has the combination of good humor and intimidating presence required to make Pence look bad on TV, and that’s Kamala Harris.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

It also needs to be someone who can beat Mike Pence in the single VP debate, preferably in embarrassing fashion, because that’s actually important.

Mike Pence’s performance against Tim Kaine was probably worth a point, and created the durable impression that Pence would be a dignified and thoughtful influence on Trump.  
 

Only one potential nominee has the combination of good humor and intimidating presence required to make Pence look bad on TV, and that’s Kamala Harris.

My guess is Harris would destroy Pence.  The more I analyze this, the more obvious it becomes to me that Harris needs to be the pick.

[Pancho 44487]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Biden can get older black voters. They need younger voters in general and <45 black voters specifically.

There's a pretty simple way to make huge inroads there, but, you know, identity politics.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Inroads? Seriously?

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

Would Pence even debate her? Maybe if Mother is allowed to sit next to him on stage? 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, mdmost said:

Bernie. It's always Bernie with b-t. 

It's funny how even an oblique reference triggers you. It's kind of a microcosm of how much personality-based political obsession deranges people's minds and how hate is a more powerful motivator than love.

I'm not advocating a Sanders VP selection, because I genuinely don't care about VP ever in any circumstance, but from a purely analytical stance it's funny that it's not even being discussed and doesn't even enter the mind even though it makes sense from a simple standpoint of campaign strength. The second place finisher (who was miles ahead of everyone else) with a massive grassroots movement and online fundraising machine in the midst of quarantine (and a candidate whose fundraising is all gladhanding millionaires and billionaires, which means he can't fundraise effectively) who is powerful with the very people the main candidate isn't... seems pretty obvious. But also absurd to even contemplate because of how you and others personally feel about online posters lol

Biden can't offer the nation's voters anything but not being Trump; he can't convincingly articulate a vision of a better tomorrow so he's just going to hope an extremely lazy id pol play will accomplish something. Perfect for the modern Democratic party.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

57 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It also needs to be someone who can beat Mike Pence in the single VP debate, preferably in embarrassing fashion, because that’s actually important.

A VP debate is never important.

[honolulu horn 6157]

I haven't read the whole thread -- is Stacey Abrams a no-go for some reason that I'm not aware of? Seems like she'd be a good option.

[TxEx84 375]

21 hours ago, zork said:

Nothing to see here:

 

I guess you missed this:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/25/biden-accuser-mom-called-larry-king-live-1993-over-assault-advice-mj-lee-vpx.cnn

 

[Message Board User 12389]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A VP debate is never important.

Who am I?  Why am I here?

[Message Board User 12389]

2 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

I haven't read the whole thread -- is Stacey Abrams a no-go for some reason that I'm not aware of? Seems like she'd be a good option.

A few months ago I thought as you did.

But the last six weeks have shown the importance of experience and I’m a little tired of her self promotion and constant shilling for the position.

[gmr548 16517]

It's funny how even an oblique reference triggers you. It's kind of a microcosm of how much personality-based political obsession deranges people's minds and how hate is a more powerful motivator than love.

I'm not advocating a Sanders VP selection, because I genuinely don't care about VP ever in any circumstance, but from a purely analytical stance it's funny that it's not even being discussed and doesn't even enter the mind even though it makes sense from a simple standpoint of campaign strength. The second place finisher (who was miles ahead of everyone else) with a massive grassroots movement and online fundraising machine in the midst of quarantine (and a candidate whose fundraising is all gladhanding millionaires and billionaires, which means he can't fundraise effectively) who is powerful with the very people the main candidate isn't... seems pretty obvious. But also absurd to even contemplate because of how you and others personally feel about online posters lol

Biden can't offer the nation's voters anything but not being Trump; he can't convincingly articulate a vision of a better tomorrow so he's just going to hope an extremely lazy id pol play will accomplish something. Perfect for the modern Democratic party.

 

Bernie is too goddamn old to be VP for a presidential candidate that's too goddamn old.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

Bernie is too goddamn old to be VP for a presidential candidate that's too goddamn old.

How much did voters care about this argument in the primary?

Guys, it's not a sign of strength to literally be incapable of learning anything ever.

[Horndog 2218]

44 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Would Pence even debate her? Maybe if Mother is allowed to sit next to him on 

I'm thinking there will be no debates, pres. or VP.

[gmr548 16517]

How much did voters care about this argument in the primary?
Guys, it's not a sign of strength to literally be incapable of learning anything ever.

In the primary for Vice President? We're talking about a different office with a different role. The only reason anyone cares who the running mate will be, especially in April, is because Biden is ancient. The same conversation would be had if it was Bernie at the top of the ticket. Don't be obtuse.

[mdmost 42865]

21 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

I haven't read the whole thread -- is Stacey Abrams a no-go for some reason that I'm not aware of? Seems like she'd be a good option.

Not enough experience. The VP choice for Biden needs to be someone who can take the reins in 2024 if Biden is no longer able. 

[gmr548 16517]

Bernie's Senate seat would also be filled by a Republican.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Not enough experience. The VP choice for Biden needs to be someone who can take the reins in 2024 if Biden is no longer able. 

Why in 2024?  I would expect someone to try and primary Biden.  I don't buy into this idea that the VP has to be someone we want to be the next president, in 2024 anyway.  If Joe were unable to finish his first term, sure.  But I also think that is some conspiracy theory bullshit, just like it was with Hillary.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Stacey Abrams is doing more important things like driving out voter registration /participation in a flippable state and exposing voter suppression and election fraud in the process. I fully expect her to win a rematch against Kemp in 2022, expand Medicaid, and do all she can to make Georgia truly purple/ possibly blue with the growth of Atlanta and its suburbs.

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

In the primary for Vice President? We're talking about a different office with a different role. The only reason anyone cares who the running mate will be, especially in April, is because Biden is ancient. The same conversation would be had if it was Bernie at the top of the ticket. Don't be obtuse.

Most of the people here spent a year+ pumping candidates the masses of voters dismissed out of hand and didn't care about for a second. NONE of us were champions of the guy who ended up winning handily and those of us who were advocates of the clear 2nd place were considered fringe idiots here. This place is not reflective of voters at large in any way, so our petty obsessions here mean nothing in terms of reflecting the voting populace at large.

I'm not talking about pleasing the Shag, I'm talking about turning out voters in a November election.

The plusses of a Sanders selection (near-universal name recognition, a clear vision of a future you can articulate and sell, very high favorability, grassroots juggernaut, popularity with youth (across all races), popularity with Latinos) are extremely important, yet out of the realm of consideration for Biden because of an identity politics strategy that was soundly rejected by voters already.

I'm not even advocating a Sanders selection, I'm just commenting on how stupid Biden and the Dems at large are that this very obvious option isn't even in their minds.

4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Bernie's Senate seat would also be filled by a Republican.

There would be a special election in Vermont.

[Larry T. Spider 1741]

The election is largely a referendum on trump and is not about biden, much less his VP pick. However, for the few fence sitters out there, a good vp pick will matter because biden is so old. I think it will really start to show as heavy duty campaigning goes on. You can squash a lot of the “one heartbeat away from the presidency” nonsense by having a solid vp lined up.

For the record, when I say fence sitters, I’m not talking about people deciding between biden and trump. I’m talking about people deciding to get off their couch and vote or not.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

1 minute ago, Larry T. Spider said:

For the record, when I say fence sitters, I’m not talking about people deciding between biden and trump. I’m talking about people deciding to get off their couch and vote or not.

I agree and this is also one of the reasons I think Kamala is the obvious choice.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Biden leading in Ohio too.

[gmr548 16517]

There would be a special election in Vermont.

Jesus. Honestly, I usually come down on your side when you're calling out us surly "shitlibs," but your first paragraph is entirely greviance that isn't relevant at all. The majority of discussiom on this thread has nothing to do with preference - just speculating based on political strengths/ weaknesses.

Bernie isn't being considered because he's old. It doesn't go past that. Honestly I'd be surprised if he was interested in the job. Maybe he'd be blacklisted for the reasons you listed if he were hypothetically 60 and not 80, but he isn't and here we are. It's an instant disqualifier when the single reason anyone cares who Biden's VP is, is because of how old Biden himself is.

Politically, he couldn't get new and underrepresented voters out during his presidential campaign, a token VP slot isn't going to do it. All that'd do is open up the campaign to attacks on it being two 80 year old white dudes from both the left and the right. I don't think he'd be the home run you believe he would. In general VP is a very low impact position - most people don't give a fuck. Young people definitely don't. But picking someone who exacerbates the very problem anyone who does care about the position expects it to solve is, uh, not a great move.

[406W30th 1111]

I find it hard to believe it will be anyone but Kamala. VP isn't usually worth much but I agree with most here that it's an atypical situation w/ a candidate who's so old.

Kamala ran a terrible campaign but she landed some big, if very scripted, punches in the debates. Then again, those punches didn't knock anyone out so ultimately they didn't really matter, but Joe definitely had to take note.

She also dropped out pretty quickly, which led to some speculation at the time that she had an agreement in place for the VP pick w/ Biden.

Harris bothers me for a lot of reasons but I like her a lot more than Klobuchar. Whitmer does nothing for me either and Warren is much better in the Senate. I still think Tammy Baldwin is a dark horse candidate, despite her seat being subject to a special election in Wisconsin.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I agree and this is also one of the reasons I think Kamala is the obvious choice.

Who does Kamala motivate to vote?

35 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Bernie isn't being considered because he's old.

He's not being considered by Biden for these reasons:
- He's old
- He's white
- He's male
- He's politically incompatible (too far left)
- He probably doesn't actually want to be VP

I'm not arguing that Bernie should be chosen. I don't care.

The point is very simple: What the voters care about and what pundits/posters care about are completely different things. If this were driven by what voters have actually demonstrated that they care about with their votes, this would be a very different conversation.

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who does Kamala motivate to vote?

 

No one is motivated to vote by the VP pick.  They can only be motivated to not vote by a poor pick, eg. Sarah Palin. The point isn't to get people to vote based on who the pick is per se.  It's the first wide example of Biden's decision making, and can be used to shore up problems in the campaign.  Here, (1) that the Dem field went from hugely diverse to two old white straight men and (2) that the nominee is old and probably can't run for re-election and maybe won't even be able to finish the term.  It also provides a contrast to the old, white men who completely dominate the Republican party, which can't be done with Sanders on the ticket. Picking a relatively speaking young woman of color accomplishes those things.

Harris also potentially could be very good on the attack during the campaign, allowing Biden to play elder statesman in the setting of a massive emergency with no real US leadership.

[gmr548 16517]

He's not being considered by Biden for these reasons:
- He's old
- He's white
- He's male
- He's politically incompatible (too far left)
- He probably doesn't actually want to be VP

I'm not arguing that Bernie should be chosen. I don't care.

The point is very simple: What the voters care about and what pundits/posters care about are completely different things. If this were driven by what voters have actually demonstrated that they care about with their votes, this would be a very different conversation.

Voters have made it overwhelmingly clear that priority number one, two, and three is just winning and getting Trump out. They've also made clear they think Biden is the one to do it. I may not agree with that line of thinking, but it is what is. So in that sense, the question would come down to whether or not VP Sanders maximizes the chance at victory. I'd say no. I think you lose more on the age issue than you gain in young voters turning out because of the VP. I could be wrong, but it's pretty clear that's never getting tested either way.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

No one is motivated to vote by the VP pick.  They can only be motivated to not vote by a poor pick, eg. Sarah Palin. The point isn't to get people to vote based on who the pick is per se.  It's the first wide example of Biden's decision making, and can be used to shore up problems in the campaign.  Here, (1) that the Dem field went from hugely diverse to two old white straight men and (2) that the nominee is old and probably can't run for re-election and maybe won't even be able to finish the term.  It also provides a contrast to the old, white men who completely dominate the Republican party, which can't be done with Sanders on the ticket. Picking a relatively speaking young woman of color accomplishes those things.

Harris also potentially could be very good on the attack during the campaign, allowing Biden to play elder statesman in the setting of a massive emergency with no real US leadership.

I don't agree with that.  Palin in particular motivated quite a lot of evangelicals who were otherwise pretty lukewarm about McCain.

Frankly, Biden was a really very good pick.  He was necessary to provide comfort to a lot of white working-class people that it'd be ok to vote for the young black guy.  If you remember in 2008, there was a fair amount of pressure on Obama to pick Clinton has his running mate in order to restore party unity.  Had he done so, that ticket would've gone down in flames, I'm quite sure of it.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Pundit-brain: "People have had enough of old, white men. The voters clearly want fresh faces and more representation!"

*voters overwhelmingly choose ancient, dying white men*

Pundit-brain: "Ah well, nevertheless..."

[lemonlime 5503]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't agree with that.  Palin in particular motivated quite a lot of evangelicals who were otherwise pretty lukewarm about McCain.

Frankly, Biden was a really very good pick.  He was necessary to provide comfort to a lot of white working-class people that it'd be ok to vote for the young black guy.  If you remember in 2008, there was a fair amount of pressure on Obama to pick Clinton has his running mate in order to restore party unity.  Had he done so, that ticket would've gone down in flames, I'm quite sure of it.

I'm not sure.   McCain was always going to win with the evangelicals.  But in the setting of a crashing economy and an old candidate with health problems, he needed someone competent as the veep pick.  He lost states like NC, Indiana and Ohio, and that was at least in part because of moderates and the suburban vote.  Picking Palin mainly increased his turnout in say, SC and Alabama, where he was going to win anyway.

Agreed on the Biden pick.

Edit to add: and I think the Biden pick somewhat proves my point.  The Biden pick didn't motivate people to go out and vote for Obama.  But another pick, such as Hillary, could have depressed turnout for Obama.

Edited April 27, 2020 by lemonlime

[Ghost of LL 15492]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

I'm not sure.   McCain was always going to win with the evangelicals.  But in the setting of a crashing economy and an old candidate with health problems, he needed someone competent as the veep pick.  He lost states like NC, Indiana and Ohio, and that was at least in part because of moderates and the suburban vote.  Picking Palin mainly increased his turnout in say, SC and Alabama, where he was going to win anyway.

Agreed on the Biden pick.

Edit to add: and I think the Biden pick somewhat proves my point.  The Biden pick didn't motivate people to go out and vote for Obama.  But another pick, such as Hillary, could have depressed turnout for Obama.

Well, perhaps that's a different point.  When you said "no one is motivated to vote by the VP pick," I took you literally.  In fact, there are plenty of people who can be motivated to vote by a VP pick.  I'm really quite convinced that there were plenty of people who would've stayed home otherwise were very eager to go out and vote for McCain-Palin.

The number of people who saw Sarah Palin as unqualified and radical and consequently decided not to vote for McCain (myself among them) may have been greater than the number of people who Palin attracted to the ticket.  So as a net, no one did vote for McCain's VP pick.  

[lemonlime 5503]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, perhaps that's a different point.  When you said "no one is motivated to vote by the VP pick," I took you literally.  In fact, there are plenty of people who can be motivated to vote by a VP pick.  I'm really quite convinced that there were plenty of people who would've stayed home otherwise were very eager to go out and vote for McCain-Palin.

The number of people who saw Sarah Palin as unqualified and radical and consequently decided not to vote for McCain (myself among them) may have been greater than the number of people who Palin attracted to the ticket.  So as a net, no one did vote for McCain's VP pick.  

I don't think I stated my point clearly.  I don't think that the VP slot changes anyone's mind.  The evangelicals who voted for McCain because of Palin were never, ever going to vote for Obama.  The choice of Palin may have reassured them, such that they turned out to vote, as opposed to sitting it out in disgust.  But the choice of Palin failed to reassure another part of McCain's natural base, and was a bad pick from that perspective.  

Likewise, I doubt anyone voted for Obama specifically because of the Biden pick.  But it was reassuring to people on the fence, unsure of a youngish, black man with the middle name Hussein, in a way that Hillary Clinton would not have been.  So the people who were naturally in the dem camp, didn't start looking elsewhere.

Biden has to reassure dems who are concerned that he's too old, won't survive his term, won't run for reelection, and women who are concerned about the direction of this country.   

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Ohio tickling these balls rn

[Storm the Field 5273]

 

13 point shift.

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

World, "You chose rapists twice."

American voters, "I like rape."

 

[Hookah Horns 3082]

7 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

 

13 point shift.

I'd like to know what it is about Trump that conveys strength. His obstinance? Being a thin skinned whiner doesn't usually get one viewed as "strong."