Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Endus]

You guy's hate boner for Sanders is near awe inspiring. If Clinton was the best candidate running, then the DNC's run was near doomed from the start...

If there had been a better candidate, they would've won the primary.

Bernie ran, and lost, hard. He was a significantly worse candidate than Hillary Clinton.

[Fugus]

If there had been a better candidate, they would've won the primary.

Bernie ran, and lost, hard. He was a significantly worse candidate than Hillary Clinton.

Whether he was worse than Clinton or not is highly debatable, I have been trying to steer clear of that debate because it is one both me and you would not agree on in the slightest and I have been trying to give my posts without even including him in the "Would have won" side of it because it isn't the important part here.

The point is, Sander's didn't make Clinton snatch Debbie Shultz up and put her into her campaign after the crap she pulled or at least appeared to have pulled against Sanders. Whether you say she did or not, the optics of it to the voters was still largely there and Russia didn't make Clinton snatch her up into her campaign, Sander's didn't make her, the DNC didn't force her to, that was all in Clinton which was a huge slap into the face of her own voter base.

Sander's didn't force Clinton to be smug as hell on camera asking what she would give Sander's supporters if she won responding with how she wouldn't give them anything because "I'm Winning".

None of that gets into other stuff you claim didn't happen or ignore, and I am not even trying to get into that debate with you because that is one that neither of us will resolve or back down from.

What I have been saying takes Sanders himself out of the equation entirely and put in on Clinton's actions and the DNC's itself and the impacts they had on her potential voter base combined with her already high unfavorables and the RNCs smears on her.

As I said, if Clinton was actually the best candidate running as you claim, the DNC was already all but doomed by their own hand.

[Kaleredar]

I didn't notice this being brought up here, but this I still see this as a positive sign for the future:

Stacey Abrams has announced that she's running for governor in Georgia. In 2018, she lost the election to Kemp by only ~55k votes in a 50.2% to 48.8% split. Since then, she's worked tirelessly to bring in new voters in Georgia, and is largely credited with the victories of both Ossoff and Warnock in the state's US Senate seats in 2020. (Somewhere, Manchin is doing the Shia clap gif...)

And the GoP has decided to stir the pot, as well, as Perdue, who lost to Ossof last year, has announced that he will attempt to primary Kemp for the 2022 gubernatorial election. Obviously, Trump is "throwing" his considerable weight behind Perdue in an effort to punish Kemp for not being quite as much of a shit human being as most of the rest of the elected GoP.

Hopefully, the two will fight the kind of dirty campaign that we know the GoP prefers and will just end up clearing the field for Abrams to coast to a victory in 2022.

Ehhh if he’s not running as an independent candidate I don’t imagine it’ll have any appreciable effect.

[Yuujin]

Whether he was worse than Clinton or not is highly debatable, I have been trying to steer clear of that debate because it is one both me and you would not agree on in the slightest and I have been trying to give my posts without even including him in the "Would have won" side of it because it isn't the important part here.

The point is, Sander's didn't make Clinton snatch Debbie Shultz up and put her into her campaign after the crap she pulled or at least appeared to have pulled against Sanders. Whether you say she did or not, the optics of it to the voters was still largely there and Russia didn't make Clinton snatch her up into her campaign, Sander's didn't make her, the DNC didn't force her to, that was all in Clinton which was a huge slap into the face of her own voter base.

Sander's didn't force Clinton to be smug as hell on camera asking what she would give Sander's supporters if she won responding with how she wouldn't give them anything because "I'm Winning".

None of that gets into other stuff you claim didn't happen or ignore, and I am not even trying to get into that debate with you because that is one that neither of us will resolve or back down from.

What I have been saying takes Sanders himself out of the equation entirely and put in on Clinton's actions and the DNC's itself and the impacts they had on her potential voter base combined with her already high unfavorables and the RNCs smears on her.

As I said, if Clinton was actually the best candidate running as you claim, the DNC was already all but doomed by their own hand.

And even if Bernie was the candidate and he made none of the mistakes Hillary did, he would have still lost the election. I have my doubts about whether he would have won the popular vote either.

It's not about hating Bernie Sanders. I love his politics. It is about living in the real world.

[Fugus]

And even if Bernie was the candidate and he made none of the mistakes Hillary did, he would have still lost the election. I have my doubts about whether he would have won the popular vote either.

It's not about hating Bernie Sanders. I love his politics. It is about living in the real world.

We could really debate whether he would have won or lost but I doubt we will agree on it, honestly been trying to avoid having that debate itself overall and trying to keep it confined only to Clinton and her actions and others that pertained to her and the election. Tried my best to remove Sanders from the discussion itself outside of her actions during the events and its impact on her own voters.

[DarkTZeratul]

We could really debate whether he would have won or lost but I doubt we will agree on it, honestly been trying to avoid having that debate itself overall and trying to keep it confined only to Clinton and her actions and others that pertained to her and the election. Tried my best to remove Sanders from the discussion itself outside of her actions during the events and its impact on her own voters.

And in that regard I think her actions during the campaign had vastly more of an impact than anything that happened during the primary. The biggest reason she didn't won was that she and her team got complacent and didn't put in enough effort in several places that they really should have, because they were overconfident and thought they had it in the bag.

[PhaelixWW]

Ehhh if he’s not running as an independent candidate I don’t imagine it’ll have any appreciable effect.

Divisive primaries generally hurt the candidate that ends up making it through. That's a lot of negative press you have to withstand before you even see your ultimate opponent in the political arena. It's a pretty well-known phenomenon.

[Yuujin]

We could really debate whether he would have won or lost but I doubt we will agree on it, honestly been trying to avoid having that debate itself overall and trying to keep it confined only to Clinton and her actions and others that pertained to her and the election. Tried my best to remove Sanders from the discussion itself outside of her actions during the events and its impact on her own voters.

With Biden not running in the election, the only two candidates that really stuck out were Sanders and Clinton. I don't think you can say "X" was a bad candidate without acknowledging what the alternative was.

[Fugus]

And in that regard I think her actions during the campaign had vastly more of an impact than anything that happened during the primary. The biggest reason she didn't won was that she and her team got complacent and didn't put in enough effort in several places that they really should have, because they were overconfident and thought they had it in the bag.

Can agree with you on that, I will openly admit I didn't vote for Clinton myself. But my refusal to vote for her had nothing to do with what Sanders or anyone else had done and specifically with what Clinton had did.

When Debbie was forced to step down after the shit she was pulling and even for the people who try and claim she hadn't done anything the optics were still there to the point even the DNC's own lawyers ended up arguing in court how they didn't have to follow their own rules on impartiality. So, with those optics in mind, for Debbie to step down only for Clinton to immediately snatch her up and put her into her own campaign on the same day, that was just a bridge too far and I could not hold my nose and reward that behavior with my vote.

And while I hated Trump and agree that Clinton would have been the better option, I still have no regrets about writing Sanders name in on that ballot as I wasn't rewarding such repugnant behavior as what she demonstrated on that one. I voted down ballot democrat, but I would have stayed home if I had to click her box that day and that wasn't Russia's fault, or the RNC's, or the DNC's, or Sander's or anyone elses but hers.

Her pride and her ego both during that election and going back far before it cost her greatly in that and we all took the loss because of it because she acted like she had a gun to our metaphorical heads and had no choice.

- - - Updated - - -

With Biden not running in the election, the only two candidates that really stuck out were Sanders and Clinton. I don't think you can say "X" was a bad candidate without acknowledging what the alternative was.

If the choices for food is a wet turd and a runny turd, you can safely say that both choices are bad.

With the X vs Y debate, you can make the argument of which is better or worse but if the choice is bad, the choice is bad regardless of what the alternative is, even if that is still "Less bad".

Edit: To quote another about the whole Trump Vs Clinton election, "It is like being forced to choose between eating and entire live turkey whole or having it shoved up your ass".

[Yuujin]

I think Biden would have won in 2016, for what it's worth.

For sure. Biden has so many factors working in his favor. I also don't believe Biden stepped down because of his son. I'm pretty sure the DNC thought that this was the best chance Clinton could have her dream of becoming the first female president, they could ride on that wave, and also that it was her turn.

None of that has to do with the people who did run though. I'm not saying Clinton was the BEST choice for the job, I'm saying she was the BEST choice for the job of the people who were running.

- - - Updated - - -

If the choices for food is a wet turd and a runny turd, you can safely say that both choices are bad.

With the X vs Y debate, you can make the argument of which is better or worse but if the choice is bad, the choice is bad regardless of what the alternative is, even if that is still "Less bad".

Edit: To quote another about the whole Trump Vs Clinton election, "It is like being forced to choose between eating and entire live turkey whole or having it shoved up your ass".

Sanders ideas would have been better for the country, but at the end of the day I doubt even if elected he would have been able to push any sort of progressive agenda. I mean, look at Biden with his progressivelite agenda. He can't even get that through. It would have been great to have a truly progressive candidate become president of the United States, but I think given the climate he would have been extremely unproductive and the result would have been detrimental to the progressive cause.

[Fugus]

None of that has to do with the people who did run though. I'm not saying Clinton was the BEST choice for the job, I'm saying she was the BEST choice for the job of the people who were running.

Yeah, but as much as people hate to admit it, the presidential election is also greatly a popularity contest too. And what the Democrats did was effectively like running the kid in class that everyone outside the inner circle of their own group hates and hoped to win it based on how much they personally liked her when she wasn't even liked much on the outskirts of their own circle let along outside of it.

Trump as her opponent was about the only chance Clinton had of winning.

- - - Updated - - -

Sanders ideas would have been better for the country, but at the end of the day I doubt even if elected he would have been able to push any sort of progressive agenda. I mean, look at Biden with his progressivelite agenda. He can't even get that through. It would have been great to have a truly progressive candidate become president of the United States, but I think given the climate he would have been extremely unproductive and the result would have been detrimental to the progressive cause.

Agreed, a President Sanders can only sign what hits his desk and you can best bet both parties would fight any major executive orders of his as well as the DNC themselves would likely block most of his political appointments.

The biggest thing about it would be putting the more corporate stuff from both sides on hold greatly as he would call more attention to it while emboldening more at the lower levels like him to run.

Honestly, I didn't expect him to get much done personally due to bipartisan obstructionism. The Democrats barely like talking about the stuff let alone being about anything when push comes to shove. Again better than the RNC, but that's a really low bar to clear.

[Yuujin]

Yeah, but as much as people hate to admit it, the presidential election is also greatly a popularity contest too. And what the Democrats did was effectively like running the kid in class that everyone outside the inner circle of their own group hates and hoped to win it based on how much they personally liked her when she wasn't even liked much on the outskirts of their own circle let along outside of it.

Trump as her opponent was about the only chance Clinton had of winning.

But she won the popularity contest. The only problem is, it turns out it wasn't really a popularity contest. She had to cater to the goths and the preps and she failed to do so, so despite having more votes, she still managed to lose.

[Endus]

Whether he was worse than Clinton or not is highly debatable

I'm not debating if he would have been a good President.

I'm saying it's an objective truth that he was a vastly less popular candidate than Clinton. Or Biden, for that matter.

Like, we literally have the primaries that prove that.

Sanders fans being saltier about Sanders' loss than Bernie Sanders himself always come off as more than a little out of touch.

[Fugus]

But she won the popularity contest. The only problem is, it turns out it wasn't really a popularity contest. She had to cater to the goths and the preps and she failed to do so, so despite having more votes, she still managed to lose.

Depends on what you considered to be the contest.

The primary was the popularity contest among your own inner inner circle as most of the voters don't come to those outside of the diehards.

The general was the real popularity contest which Clinton did win against Trump but not by margins big enough to win against the Republicans built in advantages due to the electoral college. And the margins she won by was honestly completely shitty given who she was running against as that was before Trump turned from shitgibbon to full on cult leader mobilizing all the retards, fuckups, and loons to come out.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not debating if he would have been a good President.

I'm saying it's an objective truth that he was a vastly less popular candidate than Clinton. Or Biden, for that matter.

Like, we literally have the primaries that prove that.

Sanders fans being saltier about Sanders' loss than Bernie Sanders himself always come off as more than a little out of touch.

Endus, I respect your views man, I do. But this is one we will not see eye to eye on and is not worth rehashing again and has no bearing on what I am trying to say.

[Kaleredar]

Divisive primaries generally hurt the candidate that ends up making it through. That's a lot of negative press you have to withstand before you even see your ultimate opponent in the political arena. It's a pretty well-known phenomenon.

Sure, but if the GOP constituency has proven anything it's that they'll hold their nose and vote for whomever their party puts up, no matter how shitty of a person they are or how much of a clusterfuck the primaries were. Just look at 2016.

[PhaelixWW]

Sure, but if the GOP constituency has proven anything it's that they'll hold their nose and vote for whomever their party puts up, no matter how shitty of a person they are or how much of a clusterfuck the primaries were. Just look at 2016.

Nobody's suggesting that Abrams would steal those votes from the GoP, merely that the that general enthusiasm of the GoP to vote after a particularly brutal primary would be somewhat blunted. There will absolutely be some supporters of whichever candidate lost the primary who just decide not to vote. It doesn't have to be an awful lot; the margin is already pretty narrow between the parties in Georgia. If only 3% of the people who voted for Kemp in 2018 had just... stayed home, Abrams would be the governor right now.

[Fugus]

Sure, but if the GOP constituency has proven anything it's that they'll hold their nose and vote for whomever their party puts up, no matter how shitty of a person they are or how much of a clusterfuck the primaries were. Just look at 2016.

Another way of saying it.

1) Democrats come out to vote FOR someone, they don't typically come out as much just to vote AGAINST something else they dislike.
2) Republicans come out to vote AGAINST someone, they don't typically care so much as who they are voting for to get it.

[DarkTZeratul]

For sure. Biden has so many factors working in his favor. I also don't believe Biden stepped down because of his son. I'm pretty sure the DNC thought that this was the best chance Clinton could have her dream of becoming the first female president, they could ride on that wave, and also that it was her turn.

He's repeatedly said that was exactly why he didn't run. The DNC does not have the level of direct control you seem to think it does.

[Yuujin]

He's repeatedly said that was exactly why he didn't run. The DNC does not have the level of direct control you seem to think it does.

I don't know. The story from the New York Times always rubbed me the wrong way.

According to the Times, Obama "gently pressed" Biden on his 2016 presidential ambitions over several weeks. He then ultimately had a strategist deliver a discouraging assessment to Biden of his odds in the race against then-front runner Hillary Clinton.

Based off that he seemed pretty intent on running until a strategist got involved. But I suppose you're right. Maybe Obama has the power. Or maybe the story was fake.

[Breccia]

Biden attends Kennedy Center Honors.

"What's so special about that?"

(points to last 4 years)

"Oh. Right. Why not?"

If we can't laugh at ourselves, we're in trouble. You make me laugh at myself a lot.

-- Biden, at the KCH

"...ah."

Yes. Trump, dickless whining little snowflake that he is, cannot stand being portrayed as anything other than a muscle-bound Adonis who wins at everything and does nothing wrong. Clinton, HW and Carter each missed the KCH once, and each time because they were busy doing something Presidential.

"Didn't Trump say he was going to miss them, and I quote, 'to allow the honorees to celebrate without any political distraction'?"

Yes. He lied.