Biden’s three tweet threads just minutes ago :
“After three days, we have even more evidence of how President Trump’s disastrous foreign policy has left the U.S. isolated. Rather than looking to America for vision, our closest democratic allies sought to manage and mitigate the damage Trump might do at this year’s G-7.
The distance Trump has put between the U.S. and the rest of the world on the issues that matter most to Americans couldn’t be more clear. There is no more telling metaphor for this administration’s abdication of American leadership than the empty chair at the G-7 climate meeting.
When it comes to meeting the existential crisis of our time, Trump has walked away from the table — literally. If we give Trump four more years, the planet may never recover from his utter disregard for the climate crisis and scientific fact.”
Biden also released a health care ad today.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1166319450909315072
I think it’s disgusting. Using personal tragedy to push for a policy that will enrich insurance companies and leave millions with poor coverage, and lying about what proponents of Medicare for All are fighting fear. He’s stoking fears and trying to kill off any policy criticism by using these tragedies. Maybe it will effective but I think it’s gross. If you want no one to go through that pain having to worry about coverage or bills, you don’t push for a plan that has $1,000 copays.
There are more horses asses in this world than horses. And that’s a fact, Jack.
I want to replace Trump and have progressive policies in place. I think Joe Biden is an incredible threat on both fronts.
I’m still reeling from this.
https://twitter.com/idaveprice/status/1166076090294657025
This is the guy and the message you think will win?
You seem to enjoy attacking strong experienced Democrats. You are treating Biden the way you did Hillary Clinton, both giants in our party. I really wish you would knock it off. I look forward to your positive diary about whomever you do support since there are plenty of choices.
Yes, I like attacking centrists with bad records who I think are bad candidates. This election is too important and I’m confident Biden will blow it (just like every other time we’ve gone with an experienced “giant in our party” in the last 40 years and lost). What it comes down to is that I think Biden is a threat. Even if he somehow stumbles to a win in the general, he is woefully unprepared for the moment to do the work that is needed on the critical issues of our time – climate change, health care, inequality, criminal justice reform, etc. For many in my generation, the one who is going to have to live in this future (and hopefully we’ll be able to make it to current estimate lifespans but it’s not looking likely), he is unacceptable.
I’d like hear rather more about who you support and why and rather fewer attacks. It is far easier to criticize than support (just read yelp). Surely there is already enough hostility, anger, and divisiveness in our government, politics, and culture without egregiously piling on more.
I don’t see how your age is relevant to any of this. I’m in my late sixties, and my present and future is very much under attack along with yours.
I very much prefer Elizabeth Warren over all the current candidates. On all the issues you enumerate — climate change, health care, inequality, criminal justice reform — she is the strongest candidate.
I note that your list (perhaps unintentionally) omits arguably the most immediate crisis: wealth concentration. That remains Ms. Warren’s signature issue, and her proposed wealth tax remains the most viable plan for addressing it.
I think our politics needs more polarization. It needs less partisanship for sure, but I think needs more distinctions and accountability. And I don’t care much for civility when the issues are life and death.
I think there are big generational differences that one can’t truly understand from being in other generations (same for gender and race differences). Millennials are not just putting off starting families because of massive debt loads and weak job prospects (which are very big reasons!), we are asking whether it’s moral or responsible to have children at all. How can we subject them to a world in which all they will know is constant catastrophe and lifespans that may be decades shorter than what we have now? Those are discussions I have with my wife right now. I don’t think Boomers do.
Biden promises nothing that will reverse our trajectory, just a temporary slow down from the acceleration Trump has brought. That is why I view Biden as a threat and unacceptable.
I think wealth concentration is included in inequality, which I put on the list. As far as the most immediate crisis, sure it’s up there, but looking at what is happening in Brazil, the climate crisis is here and has been here for years. Frankly, we have too many immediate crises.
I think only two candidates are up to the task of confronting the challenges we face. They are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Julian Castro has the right commitments but there are few signs that he can make it to the top tier to win. The other candidates don’t have it. And some, like hopeless longshots like Delaney are actively bad, like Biden.
The ambition, scope, and detail of Sanders’s and Warren’s plans as well as their history of actually fighting for those policies is absolutely unmatched in the field.
Sure, I could be nicer and more civil, but I get upset by essentially campaign ads posted here without critique. Maybe I am a lone voice here but I want to be heard as someone saying that Biden is unacceptable, and his supporters should be mindful of that. There are already admonitions of “vote blue no matter who,” so the fall in line threats will certainly come. Young voters and the left are not going to come out for Biden. Even his wife knows it, who told a crowd a couple weeks ago that she understands Joe is not preferred by many but that they have to just suck it up if they want to beat Trump.
This does get to another generational point. Biden is leading (and may win the nomination) almost entirely because of Boomers. He has more than double the support of any other candidate with voters 50+ and especially 65+. He’s got 1/3 of the support of either Sanders or Warren among young voters.
Maybe Boomer Dems should think about what it means to saddle the next generation with a candidate they don’t like?
You definitely lost me at more polarization. That’s all Trump has to offer and I definitely want to get away from that.
I think Trump has been helpful on this front because he’s made some of the differences (or what should be differences) clear. We have had some stark differences in policies but because they weren’t engaged in with abject cruelty and rudeness, there was not much of a values debate around them. Because of Trump we are having those, and it is painful and ugly but I think important. If you deny the humanity of a class of people, you are my enemy, you are not someone with whom I simply have a difference of opinion.
That’s what I mean by more polarization. And I think it would let us also hold Democrats to account. But we have too much partisanship, so if someone is “our guy” they are almost always good because they are “our guy.” I ain’t down for that but I know that many on this blog are.
I’d like to take the points you make in this substantive response one by one.
@I think our politics needs more polarization:
When talking with people who largely agree with you (I certainly agree with much more of what you offer than I disagree with), it hurts your cause to be hostile and polarized. Nearly all of us are as freaked out as you. In dealing with genuine crises, groups of people who remain calm and focused (even if their insides are turning handsprings) generally do better at handling a common threat than groups where everybody is panicking. Distinctions and judgement do not require partisanship. None of us here are injuring or killing you.
@I think there are big generational differences that one can’t truly understand from being in other generations:
I think every generation is quite sure that it is the very first generation in history to face such historic, immediate, and profound threats. Every generation is convinced that the current time is “different”. History teaches just the opposite. Another common experience of every generation is to recognize as middle-aged or senior people that those who came before were not as stupid, evil, and self-centered as they thought as a twenty-something. One comedienne phrased it along the lines of “My father had an amazing life. He was an absolute moron when I was a teenager. By the time I turned fifty, he was very wise. He certainly learned a lot in those thirty years.”
Your generation is not the first to ask whether or not it is moral to have children. I’m a boomer and pretty much ALL of my peers had those discussions — for me and my friends, starting at about 20 (mid-college). The issues change, but their gravity does not. In my college years, the world was running pell-mell towards nuclear catastrophe with not a sane soul in sight. Russia, China and US were building nukes as fast as possible. Nuclear power plants were still proliferating with not even a promise of how to safely handle the resulting waste. Overpopulation was already an issue, and everyone I knew was grappling with it.
I like the commitment you demonstrate towards addressing these issues. I encourage you to remember that most of us here at BMG share that commitment. We are not your enemy.
@wealth concentration is included in inequality:
Sure. I like mom and apple pie, and I oppose inequality. There is a world of difference between racial inequality, gender inequality, and wealth concentration. It has long been observed that gender inequality is profound even in (and some researchers say especially in) groups fighting to address racial inequality. Wealth inequality transcends all of them.
In your own comment, the first specific things you mention are “massive debt loads and weak job prospects” — immediate symptoms of wealth inequality. People who are wealthy don’t have massive debt loads and don’t care about their job prospects.
@Frankly, we have too many immediate crises:
I enthusiastically agree. Nevertheless, we must somehow take these in some sort of order since we cannot address all of them simultaneously.
One approach learned from combat is triage. For some of these, it’s already too late. The damage is done and nothing we do will change it. For some of these, we’ll get through the crisis anyway whatever we do. The remainder are those where our energy and limited resources can make a huge difference.
We certainly need to stop Brazil from burning the Amazon. It is no accident that population starting the fires has nowhere near the wealth of those of us who want the burning to stop. One figure offered to Brazil in exchange for clearing jungle was $22 M. A much more reasonable figure is $22 BILLION.
Why don’t we offer the higher number? Because that number is “too large” for the billionaires who set our policy (and that of Germany and Europe). Wealth concentration.
@I get upset by essentially campaign ads posted here without critique:
I’ve been here since about 2006. Posting campaign ads is a venerable tradition. “Critique” such as your first comment (“I think it’s disgusting”) punishes people for posting. If you feel that a comment is egregiously incorrect (saying that green is red), then offer a correction.
I think a better way is to offer an ad for your candidate or offer a comment describing why you think your preferred candidate is better on whatever issue is emphasized in the ad.
@Maybe Boomer Dems should think about:
It seems to me that the imbalance you cite is a direct result of the abysmal voter participation rate of millennials in comparison to boomers. I get that it is perhaps gratifying (at least temporarily) to slam a door and yell. Such tactics are seldom persuasive.
A better way to address Mr. Biden’s strong support among boomers is to increase the participation rate of millennials. I think that testimonials in support of a candidate are more effective at that than attacks on a different candidate.
I note that Joe Biden’s support among black voters is as strong or stronger as his support among boomers.
Try out the following and see how it sounds:
“This does get to another racial point. Biden is leading (and may win the nomination) almost entirely because of blacks. He has more than double the support of any other candidate among blacks. He’s got 1/3 of the support of either Sanders or Warren among white voters.
Maybe black Dems should think about what it means to saddle whites with a candidate they don’t like?
”
Do you stand by the sentiment? Or do you react as I do with horror at the racism that drips from it?
6 6s for the above comment!
@Doubleman–I hope Tom lets you borrow the keys to the family car after making you endure all that . Just remember, you horse’s ass/racist, that “It’s far easier to criticize than to support.
@bob-gardner: Keeping your 100%-insulting streak alive, I see.
I believe the greatest challenge we face is repairing the damage Trump has done to our standing in the world
It is for that reason that I support Joe Biden over Elizabeth Warren.
JFK said : “To govern is to choose.”
It is on us to choose wisely now for ourselves and our posterity.
It’s also too important to be attacking each other rather than fighting against our common enemy.
Who/what is the common enemy?
Yeah, I hate Trump. He’s an enemy.
Lack of health care coverage is also an enemy.
Income inequality is an enemy.
Our criminal justice system is an enemy.
Climate change is an enemy.
Massive corporate concentration and power is an enemy. Etc. Etc.
Which one(s) are we supposed to be uniting against?
All of the above, yet EVERY Democrat running, or at least every Dem with a decent chance of being nominated or elected agrees those are issues that need to be addressed. Differences in how they propose to do that should not make them your enemy.
“Disastrous foreign policy” gives Trump more credit than I would for having any foreign policy!:)
We have devolved to the point where commentators are seriously discussing whether or not Mr. Trump’s increasing disorientation and pathology is an immediate threat. We’ve long since passed even noticing that every word from his mouth is a lie and every action corrupt, treasonous, criminal, or all of the above.
If anyone thinks that Trump’s foreign policy is on the minds of swing voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, I have a deed to Greenland I’d like to sell you.
The Siberian Candidate’s disastrous Trade War with China is gonna ruin not only mid West farmers but also ‘swing voter’ consumers when they’re hit with a 30% bump up this Christmas shopping. Ho, Ho, Ho, we’re all screwed!
Support for the president rebounded in the past year, with 67% of farmers saying they’d back him for reelection in 2020, according to a survey of 1,150 growers carried out by Farm Futures between July 21 and Aug. 3. That’s up from last year, when backing fell to just under 60% following the introduction of Chinese retaliatory tariffs on American soybeans
Yeah, about that deed to Greenland I have for sale……
One more time — there are no “swing voters” in at least Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. The 2016 election was determined by the presence or absence of base voters (white racists, mostly male, turning out for Donald Trump and urban blacks staying home instead of voting for Hillary Clinton).
Donald Trump did not win any of those three states by attracting swing voters. He won by appealing to his most extremist base. Hillary Clinton did not lose by failing to attract swing voters (in fact that was her strongest group) — she lost by failing to energize urban black voters (who are NOT “swing” voters any stretch of the term).
I suggest that the impact of Mr. Trump’s completely suicidal trade war is being felt throughout the Red State farm-belt. That’s the very core of his support, and his tariffs have caused farm exports to China to collapse. Meanwhile, extreme weather (surely worsened by climate change) is having a brutal impact on farmers for the second year in a row.
Donald Trump cannot be re-elected without the continued support of America’s farmers.
Call them what you will. Trump’s “foreign policy” blunders are not key to Democrats taking back voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin who voted for Obama and then switched to Trump.
Why do you constantly sound like a Trump apologist? You do a better job spinning for him than the people the WH actually gets booked on the TV shows.
A Trump apologist? Please….
It’s just that I live in the world of a working class family and for the life of me, can’t recall a single moment in my 64 years that we’ve ever discussed “the president’s foreign policy” at the kitchen table.
Sure, it’s a disaster. Yes, Biden would do better. It’s just not a winning strategy. Hillary ran on her experience as a former secretary of state and on the fact that Trump is a bad man…..you really want to try that again?
Biden, or whomever wins the nomination, needs to run on everyday kitchen table issues.
You’re wrong. Foreign policy IS a kitchen table issue in our household.
Why? Because if we screw up our foreign policy, it’s going to impact our domestic policy. Example : Trump’s crazy trade war means that China now imports their wheat from Canada and their soybeans from Brazil, costing thousands of American farmers their jobs and millions of American consumers higher prices for Chinese imports.
Did you miss my earlier post that showed 67% of farmers still supporting Trump?
Sure, economic policy is a kitchen table issue and it’s tied to foreign policy but you’re putting the cart before the horse here.
Trump’s base loves the “getting tough with China” charades but most Americans have little understanding of how we interact with China and really do not care, so long as they can pay their bills at the end of the month.
Most Americans, Trump included, think that trade deals have winners and losers between nations. That is false. Trade deals have winners and losers between classes. In our trade deal with China, our working class is the overall loser, same as with NAFTA. where in both cases, our ownership classes win in all nations.
Case in point: Trump keeps harping on China stealing “Our intellectual property”. How many Americans own “intellectual property? I don’t. No one I know does. How would I benefit if China stole “our” intellectual property? Personally, my prescription drugs, electronic devices, software, and NFL logo gear would all cost a hell of a lot less. So I’m good with that;
When I think of Biden’s foreign policy I think of the Iraq War. When I think of his domestic policy, I think of his slavish devotion to the credit card companies. But unlike Fred, I don’t think of Spiro Agnew.
Let’s cut the BS and get real . Here’s Joe Biden answering the question yesterday on Jonathan Capehart’s Podcast:
CAPEHART : Would you keep the tariffs against China?
BIDEN : I like going toe – to – toe with China on things that matter. It is not the fact that we have a deficit with China as it relates to our trade, it’s the fact that we’re not dealing with China in a place where it hurts most. They’re stealing our intellectual property. They’re demanding anybody invest in China has 51% ownership of a Chinese entity. They’re demanding that et cetera. What I’m gonna do as president is we make up 25% of the world economy. Either we, in fact, are gonna be the organizers of the rules of the road on trade or China is, so we have to bring together the rest of the world. We have to get up to 40% of the people who agree with us instead of offending all of our trading partners who are allies, join us, and say, “China, here are the rules, man. We’re not gonna deal with you unless you follow the following rules.”
CAPEHART : Sounds like [ the Trans – Pacific Partnership].
BIDEN : It is except for one thing. I argued then and I argue now. You have to have environmentalists and labor at the table before any agreement is made. That’s what has to happen, and we’ve got to rebuild the American economy, the American economy. Invest in these people, invest in these workers, invest in the idea that we can, as my mother would say, “Where is it written that we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world? Where the hell is that written? I don’t see where that’s written.” We brought back manufacturing. He’s (Trump) blowing it up.
So does Biden plan to keep the tariffs or not? Sounds like Biden dodged the question with a lot of BS.
First, the President is responsible for foreign policy, and no, not every presidential responsibility has a direct impact on a family’s life, but we should still want that to go well. Besides, anybody who truly wants to make America great again should definitely want us to re-establish ourselves as a leader in global affairs. The apologist part wasn’t so much about foreign policy as your constant spinning in a way that makes Trump look like he’s the guy people really want. You constantly insist that yes, of course the Dem is better and of course you will support the Dem, but you would not have to if that attitude were more obvious from the rest of what you say.
Always with the negative vibe, Moriarty.
Every time the nattering nabobs of negativism knock Joltin Joe Biden down he gets back up stronger.
Fred channeling Spiro Agnew.
I love that movie, good reference
The data I’ve seen says that for every Obama-to-Trump voter, there were 100 or 1000 voters in the following two groups:
1. White males who sat out 2008 and 2012 and turned out to vote for Trump in 2016 , and
2. Urban blacks who turned out to vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and stayed home in 2016.
For example, consider Milwaukee in 2008 and 2016:
There 28,094 fewer votes for Clinton than for Obama. Had those voters turned out, Clinton would have had 1,410,630 total votes. She would have beat Mr. Trump by 5,346 votes. The results from Michigan and Pennsylvania are similar.
Donald Trump did not become president by switching Obama voters into Trump voters.
Anybody who thinks the trade wars aren’t hurting GOP support in the Red states isn’t paying attention.
I still think enough people who weren’t fans of Clinton based on all the dirt thrown at her over the past quarter century thought they could get away with staying home and acquiescing to her election without actually having to vote for her. After all, every poll showed her on the cusp of being comfortably elected even the day before.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, the difference in turnout of urban blacks in Michigan , Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania was, numerically, the difference that turned the election.
It sounds as though we agree that what did NOT happen was Obama voters in 2008 and 2012 voting for Trump in 2016. I’ve not yet seen any credible data that suggests that this was a significant factor, at least in comparison with the two groups I cited above.
I think those defections were real, but agree they are not really relevant anymore. Trump is underwater by double digits in GA, AZ, and NC. His approval rating in Texas is far lower than his margin of victory over Clinton. Any of those states returning to the Democratic column would be significant, and now they all have competitive Senate races as well which will drive up voter turnout and interest. CO and VA are totally blue states now, something we can thank Trump for. Trump is losing in both by almost Massachusetts level margins.
PA and MI came back to the fold big time in 2018. Florida re-enfranchised nearly a million new voters who were immorally barred form voting in the last election due to the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris rule that helped rig that state for Bush 43’.
WI and OH may be lost, but IA has felt the pinch of the tariffs the most and may be back in the fold. It along with one of those sunbelt states is more than enough to offset the loss of WI and OH. I do worry about MN which is one of the few states where Republicans gained house seats in 2018, but even there the suburban realignment Schumer infamously predicted became a reality. Clinton just had that bad of a campaign in 2016. I am confident our next nominee will not.
I think 2016 is a poor barometer for gauging how 2020 goes precisely because Hillary Clinton is no longer on the ballot and Donald Trump still is, this time as an incumbent with a record. The only thing he has going for him is the growth from the recovery he inherited from President Obama, which he is going out of his way to wipe out with trade wars and tax cuts even big business didn’t want, let alone need. He overheated the economy and it’s going to cool considerably before next November.
I think the top five Democrats are more than capable of making the argument to swing voters and independents that they will do a better job than Trump. The question is whether or not we nominate a candidate who can keep those suburban voters in the fold while exciting minorities and young people. It’s also possible a ticket that balances these priorities would do best.
Agreed.
It sounds like you share my view that we do not need to attract some speculated group of voters who went from Obama to Trump back to our side of the ballot.
What we DO need to do is get voters who agree with us to turn out. I still think our stomv nailed it when he said that our surest path to defeating Donald Trump is overwhelming his supporters with newly-energized first-time voters.
A large majority of Americans agree with us. The rub is that a great many of them do not vote.
I was a little bummed out when a student admitted he went to the “straight pride” parade this past weekend looking to “fight the libs”. So unfortunately there is a segment of young alienated male that likes Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, who are gateway drugs to even worse cretins like Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump and Alex Jones.
Much as liberals allowed talk radio in the 90’s and 2000’s to go unchallenged, I fear we are allowing another generation to become radicalized without offering them a strong counter. For my era it was the Daily Show, but I worry the YouTube/Twitter generation lacks a liberal voice as compelling as Jon Stewart.
Female students and students of color put him in his place, but I don’t see a lot of young liberal males in my high school. So that’s a future demographic that concerns me, otherwise I agree entirely with your take. Maximizing turnout is a better strategy than watering down our message.
Well if you’re looking at late night then Stewart’s successor Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers have all chosen sides. Did you further engage your student who wanted to “fight the libs”? I ask because when I was in high school I would never have gotten away with such a vague comment. It was made very clear that our opinion was only as good as our ability to back it up. What policies specifically does he not like and why?
It was part of a community share out for “what did you do this weekend”, but I could tell from listening to him he picked up on some themes from those guys. I definitely expect to hear more from him as we discuss the enlightenment and women’s rights this week.
I think people my age watch those guys, I don’t know if kids between 15-20 are doing so. Their lives are all online in a way even mine was not.
Joe Biden is the best qualified candidate with the right foreign policy skill set who we need at this most perilous time in the world.
What do you mean by best qualified? And “right foreign policy skill set”? On the biggest foreign policy issue of our generation he was on the wrong, disastrous side. Some of the other candidates running were on the right side.
He is the best qualified and has the right skill set if you want to continue general US empire-making that we’ve been pursuing for decades and decades. But can you honestly say that is the right way to go?
Can you explain why he is the best qualified?
If you are talking about the Iraq AUMF then for crying out loud we should have forgiven those votes ages ago! That vote was designed to give Bush the leverage he needed and plenty of perfectly mainstream Dems voted for it. Bush ran away with it and made a mess, but that is not the fault of the Senators who voted for it. I actually recall giving Biden a serious look in 2008 precisely because of Iraq. He put forward the idea that maybe the country should be partitioned into three to reflect the ethno-religious realities in a post-Saddam environment.
For me the Iraq vote is one of the most important votes of the generation and I do not excuse it lightly. It was clear at the time that it was a disaster but also very much a good thing of the conventional wisdom. Spare me the explanations of the vote. For those of us on the left, we knew it was a disaster from the beginning. For you and Fred I imagine it was just one of those things. For some of us it is a disqualifying action.
But why do we have to support the guy with lots of votes we “should have forgiven.”?
You guys really need to explain the reasons why Biden is the best choice because it you support progressive ideas he seems like the worst choice of the candidates.
As Dukakis once put it, when it comes to Presidents I look for competence, not ideology. I don’t do issue checklists in most presidential primaries because I start with the premise that there isn’t enough daylight between the candidates on issues to count and that any of the top Dems are likely to amass the same sign/veto record and nominate similar judges anyway. In 2016 I even went as far as to say that Hillary and Bernie could have completely swapped issue profiles and I still would have been for Hillary based on experience (not to invite a rehash of 2016, but just as an example). Biden has the best resume for a job it is nearly impossible to truly prepare for.
Regarding Iraq, my preference would have been a vote against too because I thought we should be focused on Afghanistan, but you have to remember the politics and if so many mainstream Dems voted for it then certainly there was some rationale. It’s not as if that vote makes them DINOs and it is just one of many votes over a career which for Biden especially has lasted years (and for me a career lasting years is a feature, not a bug).
How far does that go? Did you really like Cheney? By this measure you should have.
Is Biden being on the wrong side of most important issues over his very long career competence? I really don’t understand this. Do values and judgment not matter?
Can’t stand Cheney, but I didn’t think I’d have to say that the competence not ideology preference was limited to Democrats. There IS plenty of daylight between Cheney and most Dems to make an overriding difference on the issues.
You realize that’s a big reason he lost, right? I wouldn’t go to Zorba the clerk for advice on electoral politics. He should stick to pushing for better trains.
So, Christopher, the fact that Biden didn’t understand the consequences of his own vote shows his foreign policy expertise, and going along with the crowd of “perfectly mainstream Dems” demonstrates Biden’s leadership.
This fits in with the logic of Fred’s invective filled rants against negativity.
I’m contemplating taking another BMG break since these threads are getting more and more polemical and detached from reality based commentary.
The reality is this President is losing across the board. He lost the Republican House majority in a landslide in 2018 and from all indicators the Democratic majority is safe in 2020, at least that’s what the litany if retiring Republican incumbents seem to think. His approval rating is underwater in 40 states, including the states he took from Hillary and states that have not voted for a Democrat for President in decades. If it were an electoral map, he would go down to the biggest defeat for an incumbent since Jimmy Carter.
Mathelman has an excellent thread on why a district Trump easily carried could go blue. The Senate is looking better and better. Pickups in AZ, ME, CO, and NC with top recruits selected by the DSCC. KY and TX also have strong candidates and MT would have one if Bullock ran for that seat. It’s looking much better. KY governors race is looking good too.
This is a very different primary from 2016 and we have more and better choices to pick from. The question should be what direction we want to go in as a party and a country, not, who can beat Trump. I think any Democrat could beat Trump.
For this reason it’s inaccurate to argue only Biden can win, it’s also inaccurate to argue Biden is a Hillary retread. He’s a far better candidate than she was and he’s run a better campaign. If you think going back to the status quo is enough and moderation is a better course than full throttle progress, by all means vote for Biden. I think Warren would be a better president because she is a stronger progressive with a stronger vision for what she wants to do.
I’ll vote for Biden. On climate, on guns, on choice, on equality, and even on foreign policy he’s better than Trump. Yet when you put him head to head against Warren, there’s no comparison. She’s a much better progressive.
So let’s argue on our own terms and not those of Trump supporters. Who do we like and why? There’s no reason to choose a candidate you like less because you think they can beat Trump more than the candidate you like. I think any of our main candidates have a strong shot against Trump. What matters is who you like and why.
Please don’t leave; IMO you provide some of the most valuable commentary here (though I agree a couple of people, though I hope you don’t think I’m one of them, seem to be getting a bit harsh).
I just want better argumentation.
If it’s another cycle of “only my candidate is electable” vs. “your candidate is a corporate sell out” I honestly don’t see a place to contribute to that. It’s what made the Sanders/Clinton debates so tiresome here, and I honestly regret my role in helping perpetuate that tone.
What policies do Biden supporters find attractive? What does he offer on those fronts that other candidates with more detailed plans do not? I find that a more interesting discussion and appreciate the thread starters focus on foreign policy, something getting short shrift in this race.
I actually respect your rationale for voting for Biden Christopher, although I respectfully disagree with it, because it’s consistent with the rest of your worldview. You’re a little bit more center than left, you value long tenure in office over ideological commitments, etc. You’re willing to own up to his failures such as Anita Hill and the Iraq vote. I disagree that we should just move on from them, but respect that you have and you at least acknowledge they were bad calls. At least you’re voting for Biden because he’s your favorite candidate.
I think Warren is the only candidate with a governing agenda she is willing to go to bat for on day one. Bernie would rather win an argument about how great socialism is in Denmark than do the heavy lifting of coalition building that would actually bring some of those policies to the United States. I think Biden’s rhetoric is out of touch and his record is out of date. That does not diminish my respect for him one bit, I just wish he sat this one out.
I think Harris is refreshingly aggressive and has the best education plan in the race. I met Buttigieg and like him, I also think he has a lot of fence mending to do back in South Bend before he can be entrusted with the nuclear codes. I am 100% committed to electing ANY of them president against Donald Trump, and most polls show any of them handily beating him.
It’s the idea of voting for a candidate you aren’t enthusiastic or disagree with because polls show him with a wider lead over Trump in some states that I find terribly offensive. It’s is a terrible waste of a primary vote. We still have a choice and we should make an enthusiastic one.
Your paragraph about Warren is exactly why I think there is a good chance she will ultimately prevail in this nomination fight.
“If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Harry Truman
Honestly, with the “Kompromat Interloper’s” finger on the nuclear button, I don’t sleep at night. Some of you know this is true because you see me posting and commenting here at 3 or 4 in the morning.
I would support Joe Biden, or any Democratic nominee, just to get a good nights sleep again.
So would I. I just find it oddly self defeating that the response so far to “I’d rather vote for a more progressive candidate than Joe Biden” is “you’re a purist who will elect Donald Trump”. I think that kind of logic helps move our country rightward instead of forward, and is a key reason Democrats always negotiate themselves into a corner instead of fight to maximize their policy influence like the Republicans do. It’s also the worst argument to use to convince me to support him in the primary. Prove to me where he’s the most progressive-don’t cite electability and polls-those metrics were irrelevant in the last election and largely irrelevant in this one.
You fall in line in a general, I get that, but why can’t progressive values guide our primary process? Why is that so anathema to some Democrats?
I also don’t get the Never Biden grumbling on the left. If he’s the nominee it will largely be because Warren or Sanders failed to consolidate the liberal vote and failed to convince black voters to switch from Biden. If that happens, that isn’t Joe Biden’s fault. Let’s have a primary, more debates, and see where the voters in the early states go before we endlessly argue about Joe Biden one way or the other. If he’s the nominee we should support him, if he’s not the nominee it’s not the end of the world.
As to the thread starter, I lament that we have not had a strong foreign policy as a party to counteract the Presidents darts at a board approach.
Here’s an agenda I would like to see:
1. Wind down all post-9/11 military operations
2. Restore the Iran Deal/place Iran on a pathway to normalization
3. Cut all ties to the Saudis
4. Pressure Israel to stop settlement construction and get back to the table with Abbas and the PA
5. Kill any hope of a bilateral US-UK deal to stop Brexit
6. Counter Putin on all fronts but also give him off ramps to de-escalate
7. Restore Paris Accords and Make them Binding
8. Contain NK nukes and deploy missile shields to SK. Isolate Kim, but repeal all regime change language and strategies.
9. Restore free trade with China and bring them into a revived and expanded TPP. We all play by the same rules to trade freely and fairly.
10. Pressure India to restore Kashmiri autonomy and de-escalate with Pakistan.
I’ve heard next to nothing about any of these topics from any of our candidates, including the one I support. It’s shameful, and it shows how Trump’s navel gazing inward facing foreign policy has become tragically bipartisan. Both parties are consumed by domestic issues to the detriment of continued American global leadership.
Though as a caveat regarding free trade with China, I do wish we could somehow tie it to their human rights record.
As do I. I think the focus in any new agreement should be on leveling the playing field between their workers and our workers. As Hong King shows us, investors actually have a lot of power in restraining Chinas worst impulses. We should be unafraid to call them out.
What’s so odd about the administration is the they use their bullhorn to exaggerate Chinas economic misdeeds while downplaying its considerably worse human rights record. American global leadership abroad and racial justice at home are the clearest areas where I miss Obama and loathe Donald Trump.