Jump to content

Things seem to be going quite well for Joe Biden

Parliament

By Parliament
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted

Biden and Bernie both had their shot in 2016. Bernie at least took it. I know he had personal reasons, but fuck Biden for not running against Hillary.

Fuck Biden doubly, since he hasn't been paying attention to the GOP and thinks he can work with a party of liars willing to sell out every principle they claimed to have in exchange for more power. 

The sooner Biden is out of the race, the better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thatguy
Thatguy

Alright T-tom. I am going to address this post because I am the best one for the job. I will address it number by number. 1) I am assuming that marginalized group you are talking about is us, Bla

Chooky
Chooky

Somebody should write a song about the privileged fortunes of being a senator's son because this is a totally new phenomenon.  Somebody with musical talent, because it ain't me.  

Dahobbs
Dahobbs

As you continue to ponder hypocrisy, please also refuse to address the following: T-Mobile spending over $195,000 at Trump Hotel while it lobbied for approval of its merger with Sprint, despite

Posted Images

henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I'm having a hard time getting my head around polling/sentiment right now. But I think there's a huge disconnect in my head because I pay a lot of attention and know who everyone is, and it seems foreign to not know who at least the top 6-7 candidates are. I'm assuming that the folks polling at 42-41 or so with Trump (Beto, Harris, etc.) are just not well known. Hard to remember not everyone are nerds like we are. It's also just because if someone called me and said "I'm going to read you a list of names and you tell me which you would vote for over Trump", I'd say "just put me down for all of them" and hang up. 

I do hope you're right. I'm having a hard time making sense of the polls right now. Which is probably normal.

i was with a group of friends i don't see enough over the weekend, and they're the types to know at least a decent amount about the top 6-8, and the general attitude was that next week's debate was "opening day" for paying attention.  we'll get there.

in a separate conversation i had with someone who used to work in dc and follows all this shit very closely - he reminded me when looking at these polls, don't even look at the opponent.  just look at trump's numbers.  as long as he's stuck at 40-42, it really won't matter, even when considering the funky electoral math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie has been pushing electability v Trump hard.

The new sticker the campaign e-mailed about...

 

it's smart.

we've had this discussion here for months.  because of trump, people have stopped caring about things they really should care about.  in polling over the past 2-3 months, "ability to beat trump" is tops on people's lists, over healthcare, immigration, you name it.

it shouldn't be like this, but it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i was with a group of friends i don't see enough over the weekend, and they're the types to know at least a decent amount about the top 6-8, and the general attitude was that next week's debate was "opening day" for paying attention.  we'll get there.

in a separate conversation i had with someone who used to work in dc and follows all this shit very closely - he reminded me when looking at these polls, don't even look at the opponent.  just look at trump's numbers.  as long as he's stuck at 40-42, it really won't matter, even when considering the funky electoral math.

Are you not concerned that there's 6-8% of the population, or however much is enough to win MI/PA/WI, that's playing coy about Trump out of some sense of "I'm open minded!" or wanting to be won over? That, of course, will be swayed by whatever the talking point is about whoever the dems put up, be it socialist, Pocahontas, coastal elite, etc.? 

I guess I think there are more of the "well, I didn't want to vote for this huge giant piece of shit, but you made me by putting Hillary up!" crowd than many people believe. It scares you to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Stunns38 said:

I don’t think Sanders can win those battleground rust belt states like Biden can. They think he’s too radical even though he tries to appeal to them. It’s all about perception.

 

Hillary lost the "blue wall" (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) by 80k votes. If she won those states, then she's in the White House and we're not talking about this (except me hoping someone would primary her and everyone yelling at me for that instead of yelling at me for being a Bernie Bro).

So to recapture the WH we need those three states.

GREAT NEWS!!!

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in two of those states (Wisconsin & Michigan)! With that increased enthusiasm, all we need to flip is Pennsylvania and we're golden!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

Hillary lost the "blue wall" (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) by 80k votes. If she won those states, then she's in the White House and we're not talking about this (except me hoping someone would primary her and everyone yelling at me for that instead of yelling at me for being a Bernie Bro).

So to recapture the WH we need those three states.

GREAT NEWS!!!

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in two of those states (Wisconsin & Michigan)! With that increased enthusiasm, all we need to flip is Pennsylvania and we're golden!

I mean I agree with you but you have to stop saying "Bernie beat Hillary in those states" as if it means anything. It means literally nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Are you not concerned that there's 6-8% of the population, or however much is enough to win MI/PA/WI, that's playing coy about Trump out of some sense of "I'm open minded!" or wanting to be won over? That, of course, will be swayed by whatever the talking point is about whoever the dems put up, be it socialist, Pocahontas, coastal elite, etc.? 

I guess I think there are more of the "well, I didn't want to vote for this huge giant piece of shit, but you made me by putting Hillary up!" crowd than many people believe. It scares you to death.

there isn't a 'hillary' on the ballot this year.  nobody on the dem side is going to send undecideds towards trump.  we didn't know who trump was in 2016.  we know who he is now.

even if trump keeps every single voter from 2016 who wanted to vote for him, he won't keep the folks that just voted "against hillary."  and anyone who "needs to be won over" and ends up voting for trump is full of shit and was never "undecided".

consider this - every single fucking poll has trump in the 40-42 range.  a variety of polling sources.  a variety of proposed opponents.  even with the economy baked in.  numbers like this don't lie.  he didn't fire pollsters because he was kicking ass everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hey guys it feels really really good to see all the candidates go Julius Ceasar on Biden.

Let's just enjoy this moment like friends.

Because fuck Joe Biden

bernie just had a nice interview with cuomo on cnn.  i'll see if i can snag and post to the bern thread.

i'll take all the biden interviews i find and post them on the imaginary unicorn sighting thread.  that thread needs some love.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

there isn't a 'hillary' on the ballot this year.  nobody on the dem side is going to send undecideds towards trump.  we didn't know who trump was in 2016.  we know who he is now.

even if trump keeps every single voter from 2016 who wanted to vote for him, he won't keep the folks that just voted "against hillary."  and anyone who "needs to be won over" and ends up voting for trump is full of shit and was never "undecided".

consider this - every single fucking poll has trump in the 40-42 range.  a variety of polling sources.  a variety of proposed opponents.  even with the economy baked in.  numbers like this don't lie.  he didn't fire pollsters because he was kicking ass everywhere.

Yeah. I get it. I think there's a lot of validity to what you're saying and of course I hope you're right.

But the last sentence of your second paragraph is sort of what I'm saying. I fear there's a swath of people that tell people they're "undecided", when we all know where they'll go. They'll make up some excuse. Just couldn't vote for a socialist. We can't afford free college for everyone. Or of course, abortions(!!111!). There was definitely a handful of those last time, for whatever reason. Maybe they like to appear sophisticated and discerning, etc. Maybe their wives don't sleep with them anymore and they just want the feeling of being courted. Maybe they wanted to pretend, until they had to pull the lever, that they were above voting for an obvious scumbag. But they came home to roost. 

I hope they're all out in the open now. Also, fuck them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I hope they're all out in the open now. Also, fuck them.

i hope so too.

another thing to consider - is that the olds like fox news and trump and being stubborn.  young people hate trump and republicans in general.  obviously not trying to make a blanket all-or-nothing statement, but that's the way the trends are heading, and that's undeniable.

so in theory, every year we get from 2016 is good news for the dem side and bad news for trump.  we saw it in 2018.  olds get older and stop voting, and new people turn 18 every day.

you have to also consider the types of people who answer landlines and speak to pollsters.

and yet, 40-42.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i hope so too.

another thing to consider - is that the olds like fox news and trump and being stubborn.  young people hate trump and republicans in general.  obviously not trying to make a blanket all-or-nothing statement, but that's the way the trends are heading, and that's undeniable.

so in theory, every year we get from 2016 is good news for the dem side and bad news for trump.  we saw it in 2018.  olds get older and stop voting, and new people turn 18 every day.

you have to also consider the types of people who answer landlines and speak to pollsters.

and yet, 40-42.

Yeah. I read an article, 538 I believe, that showed that just the demographic changes from 2016 to 2020 would have won Hillary the three rust belt states that lost her the election. So the bar is basically "don't be worse than Hillary". Not a high bar.

Somewhere off in the distance, Hillary hatches a plan..

 

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Basically you have faith the shy Trump voter thing won't happen twice. I'm not as sure. But I'm a cynic. I'm also just planning to spend the next 18 months preparing myself for the worst.

there was a cnn poll not long ago where the headline was like "the majority of americans think trump will get re-elected".  and the poll said something like 54% thought that.  but the article was about how they didn't want it, they just thought it would happen, because the country is so fucking damaged that people are assuming the worst, because it's happening right now.  so you're not alone.

and i don't think it was some "shy" thing, or "shame" thing.  i think it was a lot of people (me included*) who just had no idea what type of president trump would be.  how he would represent our country.  knowing someone's a windbag buffoon doesn't mean you automatically properly predict the shit-circus going on right now.  i think that number has dwindled, and i think there are the "loud and proud" types, and the "i was wrong, and i'm done with this clown" types.

 

*before this gets away from me, i did not vote for trump.  but i did not like hillary (still don't), and had no idea what trump would be like as a president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16600

Posted
Posted
If you read all polls right now with an implied "(I guess)" before Joe Biden's name, it becomes a lot easier to understand where this race is at.
(I guess) Joe Biden polls pretty well so long as people haven't yet decided on better alternatives.
Yup. 30 percent with 100 percent name recognition says 70 percent are looking elsewhere. It may be enough to carry him through the primaries if the field stays this big though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16600

Posted
Posted
Biden’s appeal is that he’s the front runner.   
The reason he is the front runner is familiarity/name recognition.  
Dude hasn’t done one cable news town hall, there’s a reason for that.  
Bernie and Biden will be standing next to each other on the debate stage.  That should go well. 
Combined age: tree fiddy

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16600

Posted
Posted


I don’t think Sanders can win those battleground rust belt states like Biden can. They think he’s too radical even though he tries to appeal to them. It’s all about perception.

I've hashed this out on here several times so I'll save my breath, but know that this sentiment is incorrect based on available data. Bernie was more popular than Clinton in the rust belt and likely wins in 2016 if he's the nominee. The Bernie is unelectable narrative is a persistent one, but it isn't based in reality.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


I've hashed this out on here several times so I'll save my breath, but know that this sentiment is incorrect based on available data. Bernie was more popular than Clinton in the rust belt and likely wins in 2016 if he's the nominee. The Bernie is unelectable narrative is a persistent one, but it isn't based in reality.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

If Bernie had won the nomination I believe he'd have beaten Trump.  I'd have voted for Bernie in a heart beat, given the opportunity.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)

Also, where were Biden's incredible bipartisan compromise skills over the 6 years that Obama couldn't get shit through Congress?   Would have been nice if he had pulled out the magic "call me son" card to get Merrick Garland confirmed.

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Also, where were Biden's incredible bipartisan compromise skills over the 6 years that Obama couldn't get shit through Congress? 

Ah, but did you see how well they, the Biden family, did in the Ukraine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21029

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I'm having a hard time getting my head around polling/sentiment right now. But I think there's a huge disconnect in my head because I pay a lot of attention and know who everyone is, and it seems foreign to not know who at least the top 6-7 candidates are. I'm assuming that the folks polling at 42-41 or so with Trump (Beto, Harris, etc.) are just not well known. Hard to remember not everyone are nerds like we are. It's also just because if someone called me and said "I'm going to read you a list of names and you tell me which you would vote for over Trump", I'd say "just put me down for all of them" and hang up. 

I do hope you're right. I'm having a hard time making sense of the polls right now. Which is probably normal. We're 9 months out.

When showing the major D candidates numbers head to head with Trump, the one constant is Trump polling around 40-41% against all of them. Bernie and Biden typically have the biggest lead, followed by Warren, then one of Harris/Beto/Buttigieg are even or slightly ahead/behind. 

I really believe the presidential election polls at this point are still basically a name recognition game.  I know Bernie is hyping up his numbers vs. Trump, but frankly it's damage control for his below average showing in a lot of recent D Primary polls. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
When showing the major D candidates numbers head to head with Trump, the one constant is Trump polling around 40-41% against all of them. Bernie and Biden typically have the biggest lead, followed by Warren, then one of Harris/Beto/Buttigieg are even or slightly ahead/behind.  I really believe the presidential election polls at this point are still basically a name recognition game.  I know Bernie is hyping up his numbers vs. Trump, but frankly it's damage control for his below average showing in a lot of recent D Primary polls. 

 

 

I wonder if there's any data out there on incumbent polling pre-primary vs. once the other side has a candidate. Would be interesting.  

Re:Bernie, I think he's already DOA. He's on the wrong side of the momentum/enthusiasm curve. He's not going to do anything in the debates to gain any major traction. Everyone knows who he is and what his gig is.

Beto too, for different reasons.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

McCain was dead in the water in 2007 and ended up the nominee.  It's way to early to count out the big names.  

McCain was also a great candidate.  Obviously Palin hurt him, but before that, he was the best GOP nominee of my lifetime.  Which really isn’t saying much.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
McCain was also a great candidate.  Obviously Palin hurt him, but before that, he was the best GOP nominee of my lifetime.  Which really isn’t saying much.
McCain was a better candidate than Bush who beat him in a primary and was a two term president? C'mon man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85517

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

McCain was dead in the water in 2007 and ended up the nominee.  It's way to early to count out the big names.  

Tis true.

Except Bernie is up against (in the top tier) a former 2-term VP, 3 sitting Senators, White Obama and Mayor Pete.  Tough field. 

McCain was up against 2 out of office governors, a retarded former Mayor of NYC and Ron Paul.

One field was much more formidable than the others. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Am I interpreting this tweet correctly that this person is attempting to blame republicans for Joe’s issues?

There's nothing to interpret, it's pretty straightforward.

Joe keeps praising segregationists because he wants to create the impression that he can work with conservatives (not "Republicans" specifically, because some of the segregationists he is talking about weren't Republicans). If he stopped doing that, people wouldn't be so mad at him for praising segregationists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85517

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

There's nothing to interpret, it's pretty straightforward.

Joe keeps praising segregationists because he wants to create the impression that he can work with conservatives (not "Republicans" specifically, because some of the segregationists he is talking about weren't Republicans). If he stopped doing that, people wouldn't be so mad at him for praising segregationists.

It just rings so hollow.

"I worked with segregationists 30 years ago!" means nothing when he couldn't even work with Senate Republicans from 2014 to 2019. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29376

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It just rings so hollow.

"I worked with segregationists 30 years ago!" means nothing when he couldn't even work with Senate Republicans from 2014 to 2019. 

Also when what he worked with segregationists on was eliminating school busing and jailing lots of black people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...