Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

Why are you blaming biden for other people not running? Did biden hold a gun to their head and tell them not to?

Where did I blame?? Nowhere. Stop trying to read in between the lines.

I blame namely "closed" primaries where incumbent automatically gets the nomination. I get it, both parties don't try to upset the boat, It's costly and may get messy, but most importantly as I stated being the incumbent is huge and is general default.

If you want me to point fingers it's still on Biden just saying he would be 1 term and step aside. While I saw it, the other Dems were shocked just a few months ago on Biden's declining health. I'll be fair that the reports his health has declined dramatically so I guess the Dems were blindsided.

You know what, I'll admit and I need to see who I was replying too here, but talking about the primary now is moot, since his health seems worse and more Dems are concerned. Just act now.

Also I'm replying to this person and not rehashing the Joe "fit is fit for office" right now.

[DarkTZeratul]

I blame namely "closed" primaries where incumbent automatically gets the nomination.

That's literally not a thing.

[Skjaldborg]

Biden, specifically? No. That's not how it works, to begin with.

But casting doubts and aspersions against him sure isn't helping, so it's baffling that you think your attitude is in any way a positive for Democrats. You're playing the Republican's game.



And that has to do with the upwell of fascism in America, not so much Biden himself. Trump had record turnout in 2020, and lost anyway, because Biden's turnout was even better.



What "confidence"? He won the primary, Democrats picked him to be the candidate, that's how the process works.



Then why are you doing everything you can to make the Democratic candidate look like a bad option? You're not helping.



So what?

It wasn't a "sham", it was a primary. It wasn't hotly contested, because everyone was pushing for Biden the whole time. That's what you don't seem to get. There weren't big names challenging Biden nor was there that much effort put in because everyone wanted Biden again. He got 87% of the primary votes. That's how incumbency works out, generally. You just don't like the results, so you're trying to present the democratic process as somehow undemocratic, because you didn't get the result you wanted.

I feel like you only see in extremes. You say Democrats wanted Biden again…

In my former home state of South Carolina, only 4% of registered voters turned out, and Biden’s only competition was Williamson.

Going by your logic on non-voters, that means almost 96% of SC Dems are totally vibing with Williamson. Which is bunk.

People didn’t turn out because it was a primary and Biden was the presumptive nominee. There essentially wasn’t even a primary contest, it was all formalities and the party wanted to avoid another brutal contest like 2016 to avoid the appearance of disunity, and unite against Trump. So potential candidates likely stood aside for the good of the cause (besting Trump).

Similarly, I wouldn’t put to much value on the Dem primary results when turnout was so stupidly low and many voters only care about beating Trump in the general. There’s tons of psychology here that you’re handwaving, and likely plenty of hidden, internal party dynamics at which we can only guess.

I don’t think it’d be surprising at all for party leaders like Pelosi and Schumer to have told people to avoid running just to keep the path clear for Biden and project unity, unlike 2016.

[Edge-]

I blame namely "closed" primaries where incumbent automatically gets the nomination. I get it, both parties don't try to upset the boat, It's costly and may get messy, but most importantly as I stated being the incumbent is huge and is general default.

Other candidates could have run. Some did, like Dean Phillips. They got zero support.

If you want me to point fingers it's still on Biden just saying he would be 1 term and step aside.

Citation needed*

Because - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-...ry?id=67662497

Former Vice President Joe Biden denied discussing with his campaign advisers whether he would only seek one term in office if elected president-- claims that were first published by POLITICO Wednesday.

The report cited anonymous advisers to Biden who said there have been internal conversations about recent signals from the 77-year-old former vice president would only seek one term if elected in 2020.

“No, I never have,” Biden said when asked by a reporter on Wednesday if those discussions were taking place. “I don’t have any plans on one term.”

A senior adviser for Biden's campaign has also pushed back on the report, calling it “just not true.”

You know what, I'll admit and I need to see who I was replying too here, but talking about the primary now is moot, since his health seems worse and more Dems are concerned. Just act now.

Also I'm replying to this person and not rehashing the Joe "fit is fit for office" right now.

Sure. But this happening out in public, leaking all over the place and shit is literally just helping Republicans right now. Which continues to be what most of us have said and has been our position. Democrats being undisciplined and panicky has absolutely exacerbated the topic and kept it in the spotlight, quickly returning after the few days respite following the shooting.

[masterhorus8]

I feel like you only see in extremes. You say Democrats wanted Biden again…

In my former home state of South Carolina, only 4% of registered voters turned out, and Biden’s only competition was Williamson.

Going by your logic on non-voters, that means almost 96% of SC Dems are totally vibing with Williamson. Which is bunk.

People didn’t turn out because it was a primary and Biden was the presumptive nominee. There essentially wasn’t even a primary contest, it was all formalities and the party wanted to avoid another brutal contest like 2016 to avoid the appearance of disunity, and unite against Trump. So potential candidates likely stood aside for the good of the cause (besting Trump).

I mean, even by what you said, people didn't show up to pick another candidate.

[Edge-]

I feel like you only see in extremes. You say Democrats wanted Biden again…

In my former home state of South Carolina, only 4% of registered voters turned out, and Biden’s only competition was Williamson.

Going by your logic on non-voters, that means almost 96% of SC Dems are totally vibing with Williamson. Which is bunk.

Non-voters don't get a say. They had their chance and chose to remain silent. That's simply how voting works. You don't get to complain about the results if you couldn't even be bothered to participate.

[Endus]

I feel like you only see in extremes.

Dude, I'm not the one screaming that the sky is falling and the Democrats are manipulating things behind the scenes.

You say Democrats wanted Biden again…

In my former home state of South Carolina, only 4% of registered voters turned out, and Biden’s only competition was Williamson.

Going by your logic on non-voters, that means almost 96% of SC Dems are totally vibing with Williamson. Which is bunk.

That isn't my logic at all. When I was speaking about non-voters, I said they didn't care which of the candidates won, and in terms of the general election, that means they're fine with all the Republican's talking points.

Williamson wasn't exactly that divergent a candidate.

People didn’t turn out because it was a primary and Biden was the presumptive nominee. There essentially wasn’t even a primary contest, it was all formalities and the party wanted to avoid another brutal contest like 2016 to avoid the appearance of disunity, and unite against Trump. So potential candidates likely stood aside for the good of the cause (besting Trump).

Sometimes, that's how primaries go. It doesn't mean there wasn't a primary, or that the primary was a "sham". That's just a false statement.

By the same principle I said above, nobody in South Carolina really wanted to vote against Biden. Making my points for me, really.

- - - Updated - - -

I blame namely "closed" primaries where incumbent automatically gets the nomination. I get it, both parties don't try to upset the boat, It's costly and may get messy, but most importantly as I stated being the incumbent is huge and is general default.

This literally did not happen, so I don't know why you're inventing things to be angry about.

[Paranoid Android]

Jeezus fuck you people.

I even had this in comments:

Also I'm replying to this person and not rehashing the Joe "fit is fit for office" right now.

You are all so debate lord that you just have to reply.

[masterhorus8]

I don't remember who here said it, but not voting doesn't mean there won't be a winner. That's honestly the best point to get across right now.

[Skjaldborg]

Dude, I'm not the one screaming that the sky is falling and the Democrats are manipulating things behind the scenes.



That isn't my logic at all. When I was speaking about non-voters, I said they didn't care which of the candidates won, and in terms of the general election, that means they're fine with all the Republican's talking points.

Williamson wasn't exactly that divergent a candidate.



Sometimes, that's how primaries go. It doesn't mean there wasn't a primary, or that the primary was a "sham". That's just a false statement.

By the same principle I said above, nobody in South Carolina really wanted to vote against Biden. Making my points for me, really.

- - - Updated - - -



This literally did not happen, so I don't know why you're inventing things to be angry about.

Okay, so rather than take the percentage for Biden’s primary votes, consider instead the turnout and interpret that as a vast majority of Dems don’t care about Biden and will just vote against Trump.

Dem voters don’t care who’s on the title card against Trump. It doesn’t have to be Biden and never did.

[Endus]

Okay, so rather than take the percentage for Biden’s primary votes, consider instead the turnout and interpret that as a vast majority of Dems don’t care about Biden and will just vote against Trump.

Dem voters don’t care who’s on the title card against Trump. It doesn’t have to be Biden and never did.

No one's been saying it "has to be Biden". That doesn't justify those of you arguing that it "can't be Biden".

Even Biden said it could've been any of 50 other Democrats. But Biden was the pick in the primary. That's how the process works.

[PhaelixWW]

Dem voters don’t care who’s on the title card against Trump. It doesn’t have to be Biden and never did.

Even if 95% of voters felt that way, the remaining 5% can entirely shift an election. There's a reason why people keep talking about how few people would have needed to shift their votes to change the result of an election, especially with the Electoral College at work.

And a candidate can't reasonable win with only votes from his/her party. Many Independents (who aren't just disgruntled former-Republicans), won't be so quick to "just vote blue". Even if all they do is stay home and not vote, that still quite heavily impacts election results.

I mean, all you have to do is look at polling differences between Democrat candidates. If this trend were as pervasive as you claim, there should be no difference in those polling numbers at all... yet there is.

[D3thray]

quibble: if biden had been a shitty president i'd agree with you here, but biden was not a shitty president.
if biden was doing anything materially concerning i'd agree with you, but biden has not done anything materially concerning.

biden is not turning blue states into battleground states, a media narrative and concern trolls are turning polling of blue states into battleground states.
it's literally just spending a month lying about biden nonstop and then going 'well everyone is believing all these lies we've been telling so we better get rid of biden because he's a problem now' - which is fine when you're talking to other smooth-brained political idiots, but that line of reasoning falls very flat with anyone who has more than two functioning neurons and a piece of lint to rub together.

as a society we could respond to this by collectively demanding better media coverage and framing the conversation about the fact that '20-'24 was adequate in terms of federal management, but instead we're responding by going "eewww biden is old and someone we never noticed that before just now but suddenly it's a huge problem we're gonna have a hissy fit about"

trump is 3 years younger than biden. people are now saying biden was too old in 2020. that means trump is too old now.
where is the narrative about trump being too old? where is the coverage of contrasting the stutter of someone who is not a good public speaker but who is saying things that aren't psychotic vs. a game of psychopath mad libs?

it's incredible how manufactured all of this is.

Some good copium you’ve got there, grade A.

Why manufacture all that if you’re the Democrats? It’s just going to hurt you. There’s no incentive to do so.

[Skjaldborg]

No one's been saying it "has to be Biden". That doesn't justify those of you arguing that it "can't be Biden".

Even Biden said it could've been any of 50 other Democrats. But Biden was the pick in the primary. That's how the process works.

This is super disingenuous of you considering that you’ve spent days (weeks?) repeating that Biden won the primary overwhelmingly - whatever that’s worth in this case - which is at least implying that it «has to be Biden.»

I am also going to point out that the thrust has absolutely not been that «it can’t be Biden.» It obviously CAN be Biden because he’s been the presumptive nominee so far (not the actual nominee, FWIW).

The point has been, «it doesn’t HAVE to be Biden! We don’t have to hit the iceberg!»

- - - Updated - - -

Even if 95% of voters felt that way, the remaining 5% can entirely shift an election. There's a reason why people keep talking about how few people would have needed to shift their votes to change the result of an election, especially with the Electoral College at work.

And a candidate can't reasonable win with only votes from his/her party. Many Independents (who aren't just disgruntled former-Republicans), won't be so quick to "just vote blue". Even if all they do is stay home and not vote, that still quite heavily impacts election results.

I mean, all you have to do is look at polling differences between Democrat candidates. If this trend were as pervasive as you claim, there should be no difference in those polling numbers at all... yet there is.

All I see this argument doing is severely devaluing any emphasis on Dem primary results this year. So Dems will vote against Trump no matter what, who cares who won the primary? An often uncontested primary?

[Endus]

This is super disingenuous of you considering that you’ve spent days (weeks?) repeating that Biden won the primary overwhelmingly - whatever that’s worth in this case - which is at least implying that it «has to be Biden.»

Errr, no. It explicitly states that Biden was the one who ended up being picked, not that he was the only possible choice. I have no idea how you're drawing the latter conclusion off anything I've said.

The point has been, «it doesn’t HAVE to be Biden! We don’t have to hit the iceberg!»

Stop listening to Republican propaganda horseshit. It's not an iceberg. Biden doesn't present any real problem.

[PhaelixWW]

All I see this argument doing is severely devaluing any emphasis on Dem primary results this year. So Dems will vote against Trump no matter what, who cares who won the primary? An often uncontested primary?

Perhaps that's just because you're confused.

[Skjaldborg]

Errr, no. It explicitly states that Biden was the one who ended up being picked, not that he was the only possible choice. I have no idea how you're drawing the latter conclusion off anything I've said.



Stop listening to Republican propaganda horseshit. It's not an iceberg. Biden doesn't present any real problem.

I’m drawing that conclusion because you’re using «Biden won the primary» as some all-purpose defense against his being replaced. You say the Dems chose him, but the candidate isn’t chosen until the convention in August.

Furthermore, the primaries were held before the debate. I still lived in SC in February, and voted for Biden in the primary as a civic duty and privilege. If that primary were held today AND I had other, compelling options, I might not vote for him in the hypothetical primary.

February may as well have been lifetimes ago. Plus we saw the debate, in real time. I saw an old dude with my own two eyes. I don’t need Republican propaganda to tell me I’d rather have somebody without Biden’s easy-to-resolve negative aspects as my candidate.

INB4 «but Trump is also old and was spewing garbage,» I was already decided on this election in 2016, I can’t vote for Trump less than I am. My concerns about Trump are why I want to optimize my candidate pre-election, so if we can get a younger version of Biden I’ll be ecstatic. I’m not worried about me or MAGAts, I’m worried about ignorant people who aren’t energized by Biden’s objectively poor debate showing and now illness.

Because at the end of the day, a huge fraction of Americans are complete morons who won’t dive into issues and will be convinced that being old translates to incapability. I wish I could live in the fantasy where angrily yelling «fascism» would get voters to move, but we don’t. Condemning apathetic voters feels good but it doesn’t win.

[Nymrohd]

Even if 95% of voters felt that way, the remaining 5% can entirely shift an election. There's a reason why people keep talking about how few people would have needed to shift their votes to change the result of an election, especially with the Electoral College at work.

And a candidate can't reasonable win with only votes from his/her party. Many Independents (who aren't just disgruntled former-Republicans), won't be so quick to "just vote blue". Even if all they do is stay home and not vote, that still quite heavily impacts election results.

I mean, all you have to do is look at polling differences between Democrat candidates. If this trend were as pervasive as you claim, there should be no difference in those polling numbers at all... yet there is.

I'd assume for people who are not particularly into politics and are low information (be it by choice or because they work constantly to survive), plenty of the names they might be asked about on a poll are just unfamiliar.

[Endus]

I’m drawing that conclusion because you’re using «Biden won the primary» as some all-purpose defense against his being replaced. You say the Dems chose him, but the candidate isn’t chosen until the convention in August.

I'm using it because there's no real reason to replace him. Why would I entertain the argument when there's no actual, legitimate reason?

Furthermore, the primaries were held before the debate. I still lived in SC in February, and voted for Biden in the primary as a civic duty and privilege. If that primary were held today AND I had other, compelling options, I might not vote for him in the hypothetical primary.

February may as well have been lifetimes ago. Plus we saw the debate, in real time. I saw an old dude with my own two eyes. I don’t need Republican propaganda to tell me I’d rather have somebody without Biden’s easy-to-resolve negative aspects as my candidate.

Gotta tell ya, if you didn't know Biden was old and has long had a stutter before the debate, you're not very well-informed in the first place. Why are these reasons for concern, again?

INB4 «but Trump is also old and was spewing garbage,» I was already decided on this election in 2016, I can’t vote for Trump less than I am. My concerns about Trump are why I want to optimize my candidate pre-election, so if we can get a younger version of Biden I’ll be ecstatic. I’m not worried about me or MAGAts, I’m worried about ignorant people who aren’t energized by Biden’s objectively poor debate showing and now illness.

Then maybe focus on the actual problem, incompetent Democratic voters, rather than what's not a problem, Biden?

It's the "but her emails" all over again. Republicans found a nothingburger point, drove it home, and dumbasses fall for it. That was never a problem with Clinton, it's a problem with Democrat voters being gullible idiots.

Put literally anyone else in the spot and there'll be a new "problem". AOC? Too young and inexperienced. Bernie? Too old and socialist. Warren? Too female and socialist. Harris? Not white enough, though they'll phrase it more carefully, but it's what they'll mean. Buttigieg? Too gay, same deal as Harris. And so on. This was all off the top of my head, it's all dumb as fuck, and Democrats will fall for it all over again, because they're not paying attention. The electorate is more of a problem than the candidates.

[PhaelixWW]

I'd assume for people who are not particularly into politics and are low information (be it by choice or because they work constantly to survive), plenty of the names they might be asked about on a poll are just unfamiliar.

Realistically, at this date, we're only talking about Kamala Harris, right? If people don't know who the VP is, then they're so hopelessly out of touch that no amount of campaigning is going to change things at this point.

And Biden still leads Harris in aggregate swing state polling, even post-debate.

(Note: These comparisons are all same-poll, head-to-head vs. Trump, and from the last 10 days. No results on 538 for Harris in Michigan and North Carolina, so no comparison for those states.)


Nevada: Biden +3 vs. Harris




Arizona: Biden +1 vs. Harris




Wisconsin: Biden -1 vs. Harris




Pennsylvania: Biden +3/-2 vs. Harris





Georgia: Biden +7/EVEN/+1 vs. Harris






Sure, the margin is narrow, but it's still there. This idea that some other candidate can sweep in and be more likely to win is just ridiculous at this time.