🇺🇸 Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

[Erik20]

I forget who but someone asked me if it came down to Bernie & Joe who do you think would pull out as the front runner this is why I said Bernie all day.

Also a second woman has now came out

Second woman accuses Biden of misconduct

Seems like that second woman has an agenda though, she wants Biden to drop out and support a female candidate instead... (I'm not condoning his behaviour by the way)

Bill Maher recently said that "liberals like to eat their own," this story might be an example of that.

 

[Aximili86]

If the only way to win is electing old dudes with troubling records that act completely inappropriately towards women and even young children, then what is the point? Pyrrhic victories are a bad thing.

I don't put much stock in his front runner status anyway. At this point in the 2016 primary season, Jeb Bush was the Republican front runner.

That's true about Jeb. Still, Biden's got a little fire to him in the way Jeb clearly didn't, but I tend to think Joe will probably sit this out now. 6 months ago I would have said it' 50/50, but somehow I can't get my head around the idea he's going to want to jump into the race in the face of this and defend it all for 18 months.

Which, of course, is the whole point here. The harder-left leaning of the party didn't give a crap about this out of an election cycle, but will now because they don't want the milquetoast reasonable old boring guy part of a successful prior administration running. They want either an elderly commie or a fresh-faced not-commie-but-left-of-Obama 40-something, either or. Cutting the head off the Biden snake this early is smart, because none of these people are going to survive an actual debate with him, that whole huge moderate center part of the country are going to think he comes off as the rational pragmatic one.

It's a weird one. He's "guilty" of this, it's just that there was 99% no ill-intent behind it rather more just "ancient guy that grew up in the 50s and doesn't really get it", which also doesn't make it okay either. But either way it makes sense his opponents in the party would seize on it. He's their best chance of beating Trump, but that doesn't really matter when you're committed to "free college! break up the banks! do away with all gasoline in 8 years!". Clearly Biden's not going to stand for that type of ****, so he's gotta go.

 

[Marvolo]

Kids, guys. Biden smells the hair and kisses young girls on the cheek. There is absolutely nothing okay with that.

A kiss on the cheek is a harmless gesture in many countries, is part of a friendly hello in more than a few so I dont see it as a big deal. The smelling the hair thing is weird and could make someone uncomfortable, but I dont think it qualifies as assault or a big deal.

 

[Teelie]

Cultural context matters though. It isn't something common in the U.S. and it was more than just a peck apparently. He held it for longer than would be normal even in countries that do that. Assault might be a stretch but it is definitely an unwanted interaction on the women's part.

 

[Donner]

A kiss on the cheek is a harmless gesture in many countries, is part of a friendly hello in more than a few so I dont see it as a big deal. The smelling the hair thing is weird and could make someone uncomfortable, but I dont think it qualifies as assault or a big deal.

Really? That's a pretty bad excuse. First of all, it's not a common thing in the US for grown men meeting a pre teen girl for the first time to kiss them on the cheek or head. Secondly, they're visibly uncomfortable when he touches them. Third, he continues to touch them. Pulling their hair back, wrapping his arms around their chest, smelling their hair. It's creepy and inappropriate and it is a big deal because if this was any other guy, you would probably say it speaks to a much deeper issue but because Joe Biden is that grandpa that everyone adores, he gets a pass. No ****ing way.

 

[Schlosser85]

That's true about Jeb. Still, Biden's got a little fire to him in the way Jeb clearly didn't, but I tend to think Joe will probably sit this out now. 6 months ago I would have said it' 50/50, but somehow I can't get my head around the idea he's going to want to jump into the race in the face of this and defend it all for 18 months.

Which, of course, is the whole point here. The harder-left leaning of the party didn't give a crap about this out of an election cycle, but will now because they don't want the milquetoast reasonable old boring guy part of a successful prior administration running. They want either an elderly commie or a fresh-faced not-commie-but-left-of-Obama 40-something, either or. Cutting the head off the Biden snake this early is smart, because none of these people are going to survive an actual debate with him, that whole huge moderate center part of the country are going to think he comes off as the rational pragmatic one.

It's a weird one. He's "guilty" of this, it's just that there was 99% no ill-intent behind it rather more just "ancient guy that grew up in the 50s and doesn't really get it", which also doesn't make it okay either. But either way it makes sense his opponents in the party would seize on it. He's their best chance of beating Trump, but that doesn't really matter when you're committed to "free college! break up the banks! do away with all gasoline in 8 years!". Clearly Biden's not going to stand for that type of ****, so he's gotta go.

Am I the only one not confident about Biden as a candidate anyway?

 

[Aximili86]

Well, he's seriously gaffe-prone, but I think that gets blunted pretty significantly when you're coming up against Trump. Anything Biden babbles that's wrong or coming off obnoxious is going to look smalltime compared to the opposition.

Thing is, he's the only (serious) one of these people who can win the middle-class-mid-west-middle-ideology thing. Harris maybe if she tempers some of her more millennial-popular stuff that those people don't buy into, but basically none of the others. Those mom & pop blue collar traditional Democrats aren't tolerating the idea of a Sanders or Warren or Gillibrand or probably Booker.

You've gotta win back all those midwestern states (all but Illinois) that Trump got last time around. You're simply not going to do that with anyone who buys into the notion the Ocasio-Cortez type of stuff isn't bat**** insane.

Like, if there's a better option than Biden, awesome, bring it on. If there's an Obama type out there who hasn't stepped up to the plate and has the goods in terms of national appeal, that's the way to go. But as of now? Biden's the only guy (assumed to be running or thinking about it) with any appeal to those who aren't on the coasts and aren't under 35/40 and like their manufacturing or fossil fuel type of jobs. He can get those people to steer the ship back Democrat.

 

[childeroland]

Senate Democrats just turned down her Green Deal. AOC might not be as relevant beyond theater as people think. Biden might not be as hurt by the stories (at least so far) as one might think when reading them.

 

[Sithborg]

I mean, that McConnell allowed to be a vote was just for show as well.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, sure, Ocasio-Cortez is irrelevant individually, she's in way over her head and doesn't grasp the basics of how the world works.

But you've gotta factor in that a bunch of these people have been backing at least some of the stuff she's been putting out there. Booker, Warren, pretty sure Harris has affirmed some of the positions. Unsure on Bernie specifically, but he's in that revolutionary wheelhouse too. That wing of the party is gaining momentum, and that's fine for California & New York. But how do you expect to win the steel town types, the moderates, those Bruce Springsteen fan types that a signficant portion went Trump last time around due to pretty much economic unease? About half (or more) of that whole region have gone blue in national elections for a long time, and Trump took it all except Illinois.

And that's with a fairly-favorable to those Democrats (policy-wise, not personality) alternative like Clinton. You're not going to claw back the rust belt, the traditional Michigan/Wisconsin/Nebraska types with someone wanting to do away with all fossil fuels in a decade, takes a pretty hardcore anti-second-amendment position, wants a universal income for those not just unable but (their words) "unwilling" to work, that type of thing. Yes, the country's more liberal on various stuff than it used to be, but outside of the coasts most people still see those ideas as insane. That'll be the case late in 2020 too, you don't want to run someone that much further left of Obama or Biden for this. You've won the coasts already, that's not even in play, you've gotta focus on the center of the country here. To those people, someone like Warren opens their mouth and they just laugh. "That person's not to be taken seriously" type of thing. Biden, for all his problems, that part of the country sees as having a practical head on his shoulders.

But again, if there's someone in that Obama-Biden wheelhouse who's not Biden, bring it on. Best case scenario, just can't think of anyone like that with either the profile or the personal grit/tenacity to not fold against Trump once the arrows start flying. Hell, even in a primary debate Biden would school the lion's share of those currently in the race officially.

 

[Sithborg]

At which point I should point out that Bernie beat Hilary in 2 of the states she lost to Trump.

 

[Aximili86]

In a primary. Whole other game.

 

[moviedoors]

Am I the only one not confident about Biden as a candidate anyway?

As I said earlier, I think his poll lead has more to do with name recognition, like Bush in the 2016 race, than people actually being enthusiastic about his positions.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Thing is, he's the only (serious) one of these people who can win the middle-class-mid-west-middle-ideology thing. Harris maybe if she tempers some of her more millennial-popular stuff that those people don't buy into, but basically none of the others. Those mom & pop blue collar traditional Democrats aren't tolerating the idea of a Sanders or Warren or Gillibrand or probably Booker.

You've gotta win back all those midwestern states (all but Illinois) that Trump got last time around. You're simply not going to do that with anyone who buys into the notion the Ocasio-Cortez type of stuff isn't bat**** insane.

I'm sorry, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of demographics that will ensure we never see real change in this country if Dems continue to think like this. Let's ignore for the moment the idea that "mom and pop blue collar traditional Democrats" are the only group that matters is fundamentally flawed. They're a much smaller portion of the base than they get portrayed as and they're dying off fast.

Millennials are the generation driving this nation now. It's utterly foolish to disregard their interests and ideology. But let's keep talking about the fabled "middle-aged, middle class" that will supposedly keel over and faint at the sight of any real progressive. It is INCREDIBLY demeaning to suggest that these working class voters, who are the people to receive the most benefit from such policies, are too closed- minded or downright stupid to understand that when a compelling candidate connects with them to pitch new-ideas.

 

[Sithborg]

Yeah, its clear a shift is happening. I mean, analysts came to the same conclusion when Romney lost. Its just the timelines of how the shifts are happening to make meaningful change was misinterpreted.

 

[MaceB]

You can nuance it however you like... but picking a left winger over a moderate is going to alienate a lot of every day center-left voters, and it will dig the heels in with a lot of conservatives. Picking a moderate might alienate left wingers... but that's nothing new for them, and at the end of the day, they are far less likely to vote for Trump. Middle aged, middle income white moderates are a reliable voting block that is open to being convinced every 4 years. That's why they are focused on.

Do I want a progressive, liberal candidate? You bet I do. I'd love to vote for someone who reflects my ideals for once. But if you're looking to beat Trump, then the safest thing would be to find a candidate who can speak to moderates and flip some of these purple states. Is that the traditional wisdom? Yeah. Does it suck? Sure does. Doesn't make it wrong though.

Maybe the stars are right, and we'll end up getting a progressive candidate through the primaries this time. If that's the case, then it's our job to band together and support that person. But if polling bares out a support for Biden or Beto or a Harris, then we're gonna have to support them too. They're good candidates, and they most likely have the best chance of winning. I already see my liberal friends veering into the "attack all of our opponent" wasteland. Don't do that. You don't like Biden or Warren? That's cool... support your candidate in the primary. But don't bag on your oppoenents. Republicans will do that plenty in the general, and we don't want to weaken our candidate (whoever it is) by fighting each other.

Some liberals don't feel that way. Some liberals feel like they were disenfranchised in '16 (they were) and they are out for blood this time. With the Russians more than willing to jump on that train and exploit those divides... I think Democratic voters are playing with fire by doing that. Just shut up about other candidates. Focus on your guy or girl. Sell the positive. Sell the positive. Sell the positive.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

I’m sorrry, but the whole “people will never support a radical over a moderate” rhetoric went out the window after Republicans elected a man who called Mexicans rapists.

 

[MaceB]

The conservative base and the liberal base are very different. It's dangerous to not appreciate that. Folks say, "see - we don't want a politically correct candidate!" No... conservatives don't want a politically correct candidate. The Democratic base still very much does. Conservatives might not care about sex scandals, and white collar crimes, and PAC money... but liberals do. It's unfortunately, but we aren't operating on the same playing field.

So if you're looking to Trump as a model, saying that we should be looking for a similarly unconventional candidate on our side... I think you'll end up disappointed by the result.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Am I the only one not confident about Biden as a candidate anyway?

Well he has flamed out twice, and is basically running on being Obama's VP this time around. So yeah, I'd say you are on point.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The conservative base and the liberal base are very different. It's dangerous to not appreciate that. Folks say, "see - we don't want a politically correct candidate!" No... conservatives don't want a politically correct candidate. The Democratic base still very much does. Conservatives might not care about sex scandals, and white collar crimes, and PAC money... but liberals do. It's unfortunately, but we aren't operating on the same playing field.

So if you're looking to Trump as a model, saying that we should be looking for a similarly unconventional candidate on our side... I think you'll end up disappointed by the result.

Older Democrats are set in their ways. They are going to vote for Democrats. What will win Democrats the presidency is new voters. In this case actually engaging young voters. The idea that it is the other way around has no logic behind it, nor is it supported by the numbers. Democrats usually win when there is high turnout. Why? Because they bring along new voters. People who don't usually vote, or haven't done so at all in the past.

 

[Aximili86]

Let's ignore for the moment the idea that "mom and pop blue collar traditional Democrats" are the only group that matters is fundamentally flawed.

Who said they're the only ones that matter? Of course they're not. But they are the people the Democrats need to win back in order to beat Trump. These people went Obama both times, they went Bubba Clinton, but didn't go Hillary. That's a problem, one you don't overcome with someone in-line with a Berkeley student in terms of world outlook.

They're a much smaller portion of the base than they get portrayed as and they're dying off fast.

2016 says otherwise. They're why you lost, you've already got the progressives on board. Don't expend effort on courting the Bernie Bros, they're not going to sit home a second time and let Trump get a second outing. They've learned that lesson.

Millennials are the generation driving this nation now.

I mean, again, if that were the case Trump wouldn't be in the White House. Millennials are a huge piece of the pie, but they're not a unilaterally dominant factor just yet, not when enough of the rest of the demos aren't on the same page.

It's utterly foolish to disregard their interests and ideology. But let's keep talking about the fabled "middle-aged, middle class" that will supposedly keel over and faint at the sight of any real progressive.

Risk it, by all means. You run a Warren, you're getting another 4 years of losing your minds over Trump. But hey, millennial prerogative I guess. Personally I don't even think Biden will run now, at that age who needs the trouble, but aside from Harris there's also not really anyone else in the race who has a chance yet. That could change of course, really early days, but so far it's pretty evident the party still doesn't quite grasp what went down last time around.

 

[samsnee]

The fact that Kamala Harris is out there campaigning and missed several important votes this week, including funding for her home state, doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Sithborg]

If a lone democratic senator is needed to make a difference, then she would have been there.

 

[MaceB]

Older Democrats are set in their ways. They are going to vote for Democrats. What will win Democrats the presidency is new voters. In this case actually engaging young voters. The idea that it is the other way around has no logic behind it, nor is it supported by the numbers. Democrats usually win when there is high turnout. Why? Because they bring along new voters. People who don't usually vote, or haven't done so at all in the past.

If Democrats lose the rust belt again, then they'll lose again. Courting millennials is great in the coastal states, but in the center of the country it's still the economy, guns, and God. The traditional wisdom is you need a centrist who can appeal enough to each group to make it work. Too far to one side, and you lose the other. You say that Older Democrats are built into the cake. I don't think that's necessarily true. Bernie Sanders may be the best candidate, but will a 60 year old white male Democrat in Ohio vote for him? I don't know. There's reason to speculate not. That's why we usually pick moderates - we try to make everyone reasonably happy without giving everything to anyone.

 

[samsnee]

If a lone democratic senator is needed to make a difference, then she would have been there.

That's not the point. Her first job is to her constituents, not to her campaign. I don't want a President who is going to focus more on campaigning than actually running the country.