JoeBiden 2020, Off to a Rocky Start

[Milchshake]

The fantasy of Joe Biden, Successful Presidential Candidate in 2016, was ridiculous. And lest we forget why Biden is completely unacceptable in 2020, one reason is that he openly longs for the day of segregationist Democratic senators.

Former vice president Joe Biden returned to national politics Tuesday during an afternoon rally in Alabama for Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones, and his speech was a striking departure from his party’s current tone.

As Jones smiled from across the podium, Biden treated the crowd of about 1,000 people to a riff on the Senate’s glory days — days when the party included segregationists.

“I’ve been around so long, I worked with James Eastland,” said Biden, referring to a segregationist senator from Mississippi. “Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists. You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.”

Biden talked wistfully about Washington’s old politics, even showing off his vocal impression of the last Democrat to represent Alabama in the Senate, Howell Heflin. (Richard C. Shelby, the state’s senior senator, was elected as a Democrat but switched to the GOP in the 1990s.)

But Hillary calling people Deplorables was totally worse. I mean the internet outrage was immediate.

[Tijuana]

The fantasy of Joe Biden, Successful Presidential Candidate in 2016, was ridiculous. And lest we forget why Biden is completely unacceptable in 2020, one reason is that he openly longs for the day of segregationist Democratic senators.

Former vice president Joe Biden returned to national politics Tuesday during an afternoon rally in Alabama for Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones, and his speech was a striking departure from his party’s current tone.

As Jones smiled from across the podium, Biden treated the crowd of about 1,000 people to a riff on the Senate’s glory days — days when the party included segregationists.

“I’ve been around so long, I worked with James Eastland,” said Biden, referring to a segregationist senator from Mississippi. “Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists. You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.”

Biden talked wistfully about Washington’s old politics, even showing off his vocal impression of the last Democrat to represent Alabama in the Senate, Howell Heflin. (Richard C. Shelby, the state’s senior senator, was elected as a Democrat but switched to the GOP in the 1990s.)

But Hillary calling people Deplorables was totally worse. I mean the internet outrage was immediate.

I mean, at what point in US history did Democrats not think race mattered over everything? Seems consistent.

[Milchshake]

I mean, at what point in US history did Democrats not think race mattered over everything? Seems consistent.

Ask Theodozra or Mark Lilla, back in the good 'ole days before Hillary 2016, Democrats didnt use identity politics. Or maybe people made shit up to concern troll liberals.

[Blur4stuff]

There's one thing you can bet on going forward. Dem nominees will say and do some stupid things because all politicians do. They aren't perfect. The right will attack them for it despite voting for and defending Trump, a man who has done much, much worse. The level of hypocrisy you're going to witness over the next four years will be mind blowing.

Joe is a decent guy, but honestly he's too old. I'd rather elect someone that's part of gen x.

[Stormspellz]

Joe won't run, furthermore you are missing the context of the quote and the point of it. Its about the dysfunctional congress split by partisan lines.

[JQuill]

I mean right now he's the 2nd best odds to win in 2020 (behind only Trump who of course is highest) and we don't even know if he's going to run. That tells you all you need to know about how successful a candidate he would be against Trump and would have been in 2016.

The fact is Biden is at this moment the strongest potential candidate the Dems could put up, although that doesn't necessarily mean he will be come 2020. Someone could rise up between now and then and overtake him certainly, but that's something we'll have to wait and see on.

[I Push Buttons]

There's one thing you can bet on going forward. Dem nominees will say and do some stupid things because all politicians do. They aren't perfect. The right will attack them for it despite voting for and defending Trump, a man who has done much, much worse. The level of hypocrisy you're going to witness over the next four years will be mind blowing.

Joe is a decent guy, but honestly he's too old. I'd rather elect someone that's part of gen x.

Biden didn't say anything stupid here... He reminisced about reaching across the proverbial aisle (in this case within his own party) to work/compromise with people he disagreed with to make slow and steady progress... And how we need to get back to that. Which is absolutely true.

"Progressives" are retards just like Tea Baggers. They screech "NOW NOW NOW NO COMPROMISE REEEEEEEEEE!" as they push their agenda all while obstructing actual legislation and accomplishing exactly nothing... That's not how government works.

[Pendulous]

Just begging that no matter what he said, his words got to some people. Doug Jones is the only logical candidate to take the Senate spot.

[Worvon]

I mean, at what point in US history did Democrats not think race mattered over everything? Seems consistent.

To be fair, at what point did conservatives not try to restrict the rights of anyone that wasn't white? Seems consistent.

[Macaquerie]

Biden didn't say anything stupid here... He reminisced about reaching across the proverbial aisle (in this case within his own party) to work/compromise with people he disagreed with to make slow and steady progress... And how we need to get back to that. Which is absolutely true.

"Progressives" are retards just like Tea Baggers. They screech "NOW NOW NOW NO COMPROMISE REEEEEEEEEE!" as they push their agenda all while obstructing actual legislation and accomplishing exactly nothing... That's not how government works.

As a long term strategy, uncompromising partisanship tends to be more effective than all this reach around the aisle business. If you are seen as too willing to compromise or make a deal, then the other side can just take up the most extreme position and wait for you to meet them halfway, which is invariably going to work in their favor. This is effectively what the Tea Party did to Obama over the last eight years, sure they didn't manage to accomplish much, but since the system was tilted toward their corporate donors to begin with, doing nothing was basically a win for the Republicans.

[Gestopft]

As a long term strategy, uncompromising partisanship tends to be more effective than all this reach around the aisle business. If you are seen as too willing to compromise or make a deal, then the other side can just take up the most extreme position and wait for you to meet them halfway, which is invariably going to work in their favor. This is effectively what the Tea Party did to Obama over the last eight years, sure they didn't manage to accomplish much, but since the system was tilted toward their corporate donors to begin with, doing nothing was basically a win for the Republicans.

Anything done without bipartisanship can be undone in the same way (at least theoretically). Lasting results require more than just the party that has temporary power. However, reaching across the isle would be much less risky for politicians if gerrymandering wasn't such an issue: representatives that are more concerned about the other party taking their seat than about getting primaried are more likely to view bipartisanship as a necessary approach, since they actually have to be worried about all of the people they represent instead of just one party's voters.

[Ahovv]

Hillary lost to "Grab em by the pussy" Trump. You can get away with saying just about anything and get elected, so I don't see why that's a concern with Biden.

[Lynarii]

As a long term strategy, uncompromising partisanship tends to be more effective than all this reach around the aisle business. If you are seen as too willing to compromise or make a deal, then the other side can just take up the most extreme position and wait for you to meet them halfway, which is invariably going to work in their favor. This is effectively what the Tea Party did to Obama over the last eight years, sure they didn't manage to accomplish much, but since the system was tilted toward their corporate donors to begin with, doing nothing was basically a win for the Republicans.

It's more effective if you're looking for an authoritarian dictatorship. It's horrible for a democratic republic. The point of reaching across the aisle is that the government in a democracy is supposed to represent all it's citizens, not just a single group of them. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are capable of adequately representing the needs and wants of the entire country, it's simply too large and too varied.

Also, hating your opponents in a discussion should be confined to internet fuckwads. I expect better of the people representing me, I expect that they can disagree quite firmly on what the right solution to a problem is, but I also expect that they can then turn around and cooperate when it's in the best interests of the country as a whole. Good government isn't a zero sum game, one person's success doesn't have to directly translate to another person's failure. Societies exist because cooperation makes it possible to get results that net positive across the greater majority of people. It's sickening to have a congress where a 'victory' can be claimed because one group successfully harmed the other, with little to no actual benefit for anyone.

[Macaquerie]

It's more effective if you're looking for an authoritarian dictatorship. It's horrible for a democratic republic. The point of reaching across the aisle is that the government in a democracy is supposed to represent all it's citizens, not just a single group of them. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are capable of adequately representing the needs and wants of the entire country, it's simply too large and too varied.

Also, hating your opponents in a discussion should be confined to internet fuckwads. I expect better of the people representing me, I expect that they can disagree quite firmly on what the right solution to a problem is, but I also expect that they can then turn around and cooperate when it's in the best interests of the country as a whole. Good government isn't a zero sum game, one person's success doesn't have to directly translate to another person's failure. Societies exist because cooperation makes it possible to get results that net positive across the greater majority of people. It's sickening to have a congress where a 'victory' can be claimed because one group successfully harmed the other, with little to no actual benefit for anyone.

Well you have to decide what's more important to you, abstract ideals of good governance, or concrete policy goals that will actually help the people you are supposed to be serving. If you are convinced that your health care bill will save millions of lives, is it really better to try and compromise with the opposition, or should you resort to every trick in the book to push that through knowing that in the end it's more important to keep people alive than to maintain civility in government?

Partisan conflict isn't all just empty bickering, sometimes people disagree because there are fundamentally irreconcilable interests at stake, and all the good intentions in the world won't lead you to a solution that satisfies everyone. And when you're faced with this kind of situation, should you really throw out all of your principles just to put on a facade of cooperation for the cameras?

[Lynarii]

Well you have to decide what's more important to you, abstract ideals of good governance, or concrete policy goals that will actually help the people you are supposed to be serving. If you are convinced that your health care bill will save millions of lives, is it really better to try and compromise with the opposition, or should you resort to every trick in the book to push that through knowing that in the end it's more important to keep people alive than to maintain civility in government?

Partisan conflict isn't all just empty bickering, sometimes people disagree because there are fundamentally irreconcilable interests at stake, and all the good intentions in the world won't lead you to a solution that satisfies everyone. And when you're faced with this kind of situation, should you really throw out all of your principles just to put on a facade of cooperation for the cameras?

No, and I'm not saying that you should. Reaching across the aisle is not about compromising on everything all the time. Sometimes you can't. Sometimes you shouldn't. But the state of things now is that they aren't compromising when they can and should.

Also, I do think that how you win is relevant. If you use 'every trick in the book' to do something, then you can't cry foul when the other side does the same thing back to you. And ultimately that kind of back and forth can lead to a lot more people getting harmed than the original 'good goal' helped. There are some hills worth dying on, but not all of them.

[Deleted]

Well, he'll probably face a Yiannopoulos/Bannon -ticket or something so he has no chance anyway.

[downnola]

It's more effective if you're looking for an authoritarian dictatorship. It's horrible for a democratic republic. The point of reaching across the aisle is that the government in a democracy is supposed to represent all it's citizens, not just a single group of them. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are capable of adequately representing the needs and wants of the entire country, it's simply too large and too varied.

Also, hating your opponents in a discussion should be confined to internet fuckwads. I expect better of the people representing me, I expect that they can disagree quite firmly on what the right solution to a problem is, but I also expect that they can then turn around and cooperate when it's in the best interests of the country as a whole. Good government isn't a zero sum game, one person's success doesn't have to directly translate to another person's failure. Societies exist because cooperation makes it possible to get results that net positive across the greater majority of people. It's sickening to have a congress where a 'victory' can be claimed because one group successfully harmed the other, with little to no actual benefit for anyone.

This is a great post and I agree with all of it. However, I want to point out that politicians are representatives of their constituencies, and their actions can be placed squarely at the feet of the voters. People like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were voted into office specifically not to compromise. Similarly, Donald Trump was voted into office specifically to drop trou and unleash fecal matter all over the "establishment," constitution, and government in general. There's been a break down of civic responsibility in the United States, and it seems to me that we have to rectify that as individuals and citizens before we see any change in how politicians represent us . They're ultimately a reflection of American society itself, despite the populist "establishment elite" dog shit we constantly hear in daily political discourse.

[zenkai]

The fantasy of Joe Biden, Successful Presidential Candidate in 2016, was ridiculous. And lest we forget why Biden is completely unacceptable in 2020, one reason is that he openly longs for the day of segregationist Democratic senators.

Former vice president Joe Biden returned to national politics Tuesday during an afternoon rally in Alabama for Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones, and his speech was a striking departure from his party’s current tone.

As Jones smiled from across the podium, Biden treated the crowd of about 1,000 people to a riff on the Senate’s glory days — days when the party included segregationists.

“I’ve been around so long, I worked with James Eastland,” said Biden, referring to a segregationist senator from Mississippi. “Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists. You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together. The political system worked. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked.”

Biden talked wistfully about Washington’s old politics, even showing off his vocal impression of the last Democrat to represent Alabama in the Senate, Howell Heflin. (Richard C. Shelby, the state’s senior senator, was elected as a Democrat but switched to the GOP in the 1990s.)

But Hillary calling people Deplorables was totally worse. I mean the internet outrage was immediate.

Clinton wasn't liked but at least she wasn't an idiot, (exlcuding technology). Biden is just a moron, this is why he was kept out of the public eye most of his 8 years as a VP. I am sure the Democrat party will come up with someone better than Biden, it's not that hard.

[Rukh]

Hahahahahaha,.....hahahaha.

Joe makes a speech about how politics may have been divisive but people still respected each other, OP makes a point to be an example of the problem with modern politics.

[Theodarzna]

Ah, yes the days also when Democrats would often work to curtail monopoly power, were critical of corporate power. It reminds me of Wright Patman, a man who had been elected in 1929 and worked through the whole depression era as a tireless crusader against corporate power. Of course he was done in the 1970's by an alliance of new college educated Democrats who were fine with banks.

Hillary more importantly called voters she needed deplorable, or voters she didn't need motivated to vote purely as a "fuck you".