Current Affairs Joe Biden POTUS #46

[D*ck Solomon]

For an "anyone but Trump" campaign the democrats don't half choose them....

 

[catcherintherye]

I'm not trying to justify Biden's actions of the 1970s or 1990s but to understand them, and to do so within applicable historical context(s). If it's not good for the left to seek historically grounded understandings, then the left you envision isn't my own. Biden's "calculation" was that you have to work with the opposition to accomplish basic legislative tasks. I'd say the political practices of the earlier time informed the current culture, for both good and ill. What you're doing here is applying our current cultural outlook to the political practices of an earlier time.

Do you try to understand why your opponents think the way they do or do you fear that any such understanding might stain your moral character?

The issue with your arguement, is that there was widespread criticism of segregation in the 70s and widespread criticism of the 90's legislature at the time. Thats the context, particularly in left spaces that Biden claims to have inhibited.

It would be like someone now supporting police violence, on the basis of it being the 2020 context. Yes some people do, and some people don't. However we all know what is hegemonic and counter hegemonic in this discussion.

I always remember a quote from Orwell, where he said "when I see a police officer hitting a striker worker, I don't need to ask myself who's side I'm on, I instictively know". Even if you take the morality out of it, the idea that the 90's or 70's were somehow massively more racist without any credible counter narrative that a politician could have amplified is not the case. He knew what side he was on, and he owns that decision, as much as he owns the decision to work alongside a Black president. It's not credible to have one as a conscious reflection of his beliefs and the other not.

I do try to understand what others think. I mean the whole discussion started on the basis of me responding to a Trump supporters perception people are uncritical of Biden. I mean you could say I am many things, but I'm not wholly uncritical of Biden! It's with the thoughts of people outside of organised left wing thought in mind that I make the criticisms. If you want to be taken seriously, I think you have to be honest about people's fallabilities, however difficult and even if they are people you admire, respect or would vote for.

I'm not sure how me trying to understand what other people think would be a stain on my, or anyone elses character? You'd have to run that one by me again!

I'd also make clear, I'd vote for Biden if I were in the US. I'd also acknowledge, that for some black people, who fought against segregation it would be an insult for me to do so. I know for lots of other black people they hold him in high esteem for his work as a VP. Both views are valid, and we should avoid making saints out of our leaders.

 

[catcherintherye]

That is one of the criteria that parties and voters choose a candidate though.

Whilst I can agree that Clinton had multiple weaknesses that lead to her losing the electoral college I still don’t find it particularly persuasive that Sanders would have done significantly better.

He would have likely done better with white working class voters/younger voters but done worse with suburban, older and African Americans.

Clinton polled terribly amongst African Americans, who were more favourable to Sanders.

They lost because they lost the key working class, rust belt states where Sanders polled very well. It's not a jump to say he holds them, and therein likely has enough to win the Presidency. I also think, he'd have had to have been spectacularly bad to have emulated the attrocious campaign Clinton did to make a guy like Trump seem electable. To do that, was widely akcnoledged as almost impossible. She somehow managed it.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

There's very little doubt that the GOP would have a lot more success at running an anti-Bernie campaign, than an anti-Biden campaign.

And right now, that's enough reason for Biden over Bernie as the nominee, not just for the "Establishment", but for huge swathes of the population. And it's probably the right decision to be honest (and I say that as someone who is more ideologically aligned with Bernie), the immediate threat is that urgent.

 

[catcherintherye]

And right now, that's enough reason for Biden over Bernie as the nominee, not just for the "Establishment", but for huge swathes of the population. And it's probably the right decision to be honest (and I say that as someone who is more ideologically aligned with Bernie), the immediate threat is that urgent.

Two things can be true simultaneously.

The DP establishment had no idea the Covid 19 outbreak would come and the impact it would have on Trumps popularity. They also didnt know his response would be so poor. That the election would take the twist of essentially wanting a safe pair of hands. They ultimately didn't really care. Any possibility that a socialist/left leaning person could run would be stopped at all costs. Thats the key first point. It was never initially about defeating Trump, it was about defeating the left.

I haven't seen the swing state polls you mention, but baseline voting had Biden/Sanders neck and neck. There was no sense in going for Biden over Sanders at the point they did. In honesty, given what had happened with Clinton, it was probably a slightly bigger risk. It was an ideological and not pragmatic decision.

As it's played out, it's worked out well for Biden. I can concede given how the cards lay, as of today Biden looks the stronger choice to beat Trump than Sanders. Thats speculation and conjecture on my part, for all we know Sanders may have managed to be even further ahead than Biden, facing a pitiful incumbent whos overseeing the biggest recession in American history. My gut feelingis though, Biden is objectively a more difficult challenge for where Trump is at currently.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Clinton polled terribly amongst African Americans, who were more favourable to Sanders.

They lost because they lost the key working class, rust belt states where Sanders polled very well. It's not a jump to say he holds them, and therein likely has enough to win the Presidency. I also think, he'd have had to have been spectacularly bad to have emulated the attrocious campaign Clinton did to make a guy like Trump seem electable. To do that, was widely akcnoledged as almost impossible. She somehow managed it.

Please provide your evidence for this belief as everything I saw at the time and since has been the complete opposite

According to YouGov at no point was Sanders ever ahead in polling among non white voters, even young ones

YouGov US: Data Analytics & Market Research Services

Explore YouGov's market research and data analytics services for valuable insights. Make informed business decisions with our consumer analysis & intelligence.

today.yougov.com

When it came to actual votes Sanders was marginally ahead in the under 30 age group but that was not a large % of the votes cast.

Huge split between older and younger blacks in the Democratic Primary

One of Sanders’ challenges is that younger blacks are not voting in large numbers.

www.nbcnews.com

2016: Clinton, Sanders and black voters pick the winner

The Vermont maverick faced a particular challenge if he was going to succeed: Black voters were overwhelmingly with the former first lady.

www.nbcnews.com

African American support is one of the major reasons why Clinton swept the Southern states in the primary and one of the reasons that Biden won the 2020 primary.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Clinton polled terribly amongst African Americans, who were more favourable to Sanders.

They lost because they lost the key working class, rust belt states where Sanders polled very well. It's not a jump to say he holds them, and therein likely has enough to win the Presidency. I also think, he'd have had to have been spectacularly bad to have emulated the attrocious campaign Clinton did to make a guy like Trump seem electable. To do that, was widely akcnoledged as almost impossible. She somehow managed it.

If anything, one of the reasons Sanders was thought to have no chance in the general, other than "socialism," is because he's historically done so poorly with people of color. HRC and Biden, establishment democrats, have traditionally done much better with that demographic than Sanders, whose base is arguably young white hipsters

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Two things can be true simultaneously.

The DP establishment had no idea the Covid 19 outbreak would come and the impact it would have on Trumps popularity. They also didnt know his response would be so poor. That the election would take the twist of essentially wanting a safe pair of hands. They ultimately didn't really care. Any possibility that a socialist/left leaning person could run would be stopped at all costs. Thats the key first point. It was never initially about defeating Trump, it was about defeating the left.

I haven't seen the swing state polls you mention, but baseline voting had Biden/Sanders neck and neck. There was no sense in going for Biden over Sanders at the point they did.

You keep repeating the bold bit, but that doesn’t make it true.

National polling is MEANINGLESS* in Presidential elections. But even if it wasn’t, Biden was better positioned (slightly, but consistently) than Sanders. And that’s before taking into account that (by your own admission) the GOP would have a much easier time messaging against Bernie.

* = actually for Democrats it’s not just meaningless, it’s actively damaging. It promotes complacency and magical thinking about 50 state strategies.

 

[Death]

Sanders vs Trump would have half of the establishment Dems refusing to back Bernie, and at least a few publicly back Trump.

100%

 

[LinekersLegs]

Sanders vs Trump would have half of the establishment Dems refusing to back Bernie, and at least a few publicly back Trump.

Who do you believe out of the 2020 primary field would have refused to have backed Sanders if he had won the nomination?

Possibly Bloomberg but that is the only one I can even think of and I think when it came to crunch he’d have just sat on the sidelines.

 

[LinekersLegs]

If anything, one of the reasons Sanders was thought to have no chance in the general, other than "socialism," is because he's historically done so poorly with people of color. HRC and Biden, establishment democrats, have traditionally done much better with that demographic than Sanders, whose base is arguably young white hipsters

Sanders improved among Hispanic voters compared to 2016, hence his win Nevada, but didn’t seem to make much of an progression among African Americans, especially the older generation.

 

[Ruairi77]

I didn't label him a segregationist, I said he supported aspects of segregation. I also stated privately people would support Trump, as opposed to publicly.

"but segregation supporting moderate Democrats like Biden would have had more problems with Sanders than Trump."
seems like labeling him a segregationist to me.

You also said "most Democrats would privately support Trump against Sanders"
I don't think this is correct. A very tiny minority might but that's it.

 

[Ruairi77]

100%

no, again, you're wrong.

 

[Ruairi77]

Who do you believe out of the 2020 primary field would have refused to have backed Sanders if he had won the nomination?

Possibly Bloomberg but that is the only one I can even think of and I think when it came to crunch he’d have just sat on the sidelines.

Didn't Bloomberg promise to support the nominee no matter who it was?

 

[LinekersLegs]

Didn't Bloomberg promise to support the nominee no matter who it was?

Yeah but he also promised to spend his huge war chest on the nominee‘s campaign as well and that doesn’t seem to have materialized even for Biden who he endorsed...