The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (4 Viewers)

[Intensesaint]

A place for all the gaffs, slip-ups and overall outlandish things Democratic candidates will say or do in lead up to the 2020 Election.

 

[wardorican]

Expecting Kamala Harris

Hoping Tammy Duckworth

Same.

Kamala, if chosen, better surround herself with a better team, because she's great when she's prepared, but awful when not. She needs to be better off the cuff. That generally means she needs to be better prepared on more topics. She's always the one who has disappointed me the most when she doesn't deliver.

 

[DaveXA]

DaveXA-

Great to see you here!

What do you think is Tammy Duckworth’s down side?

She doesn't have the name recognition that Harris and Warren have. At least not outside people interested in politics. Sure, becoming the running mate would solve that to some degree. And, frankly, from what I've seen in interviews, I don't get this feeling of confidence. At least not like I do when I hear Harris or Warren speak.

But, I'm not exactly fond of Biden and most Democrat candidates. I wish we had a better candidate. It is what it is I guess.

 

[Richard]

Biden is big on relationships, having had a good one with Obama, and hopes to have a similar one with his VP if elected. It may come down to who he is most comfortable with out of his top choices. I believe Warren is not seriously under consideration any longer. Naming her does nothing for the ticket other than firming up the base, which may have some value, but not enough to swing things her way. She is also not of an age that would make her viable as a presidential candidate in 2024, which I understand is another critical point for Biden.

Duckworth presents the advantages of military and governmental experience and serves on the Armed Services Committee. She has a compelling personal story and is someone who can easily be seen as presidential timber, though maybe not quite yet. She is considered to be one of the most effective members of Congress, but she does lacks substantive foreign policy experience other than her military background.

Harris was my favorite for the top of the ticket among Democrats who were running. I still think she might have been the best choice. However, she may have been friends with Biden's son, but I think she lost some points with him during the debates. It may not keep her off of the ticket, but I think her lack of foreign policy experience will. As far as I know, she serves on no committee that deals with foreign policy regularly.

That brings us to Rice. She has worked in the State Department, was UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor. During her tenure in the Obama Administration, she worked with Biden often, if not daily. So they have the requisite relationship, she is the right age and she is loaded with foreign policy experience (not all good, I grant you). She checks all of the main boxes for Biden. He has said that he wants someone for VP that could handle the job as president from day one, that can deal with Russia and China and understands foreign policy. If Rice isn't his VP choice, I have clearly misread the tea leaves.

 

[DaveXA]

Biden is big on relationships, having had a good one with Obama, and hopes to have a similar one with his VP if elected. It may come down to who he is most comfortable with out of his top choices. I believe Warren is not seriously under consideration any longer. Naming her does nothing for the ticket other than firming up the base, which may have some value, but not enough to swing things her way. She is also not of an age that would make her viable as a presidential candidate in 2024, which I understand is another critical point for Biden.

Duckworth presents the advantages of military and governmental experience and serves on the Armed Services Committee. She has a compelling personal story and is someone who can easily be seen as presidential timber, though maybe not quite yet. She is considered to be one of the most effective members of Congress, but she does lacks substantive foreign policy experience other than her military background.

Harris was my favorite for the top of the ticket among Democrats who were running. I still think she might have been the best choice. However, she may have been friends with Biden's son, but I think she lost some points with him during the debates. It may not keep her off of the ticket, but I think her lack of foreign policy experience will. As far as I know, she serves on no committee that deals with foreign policy regularly.

That brings us to Rice. She has worked in the State Department, was UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor. During her tenure in the Obama Administration, she worked with Biden often, if not daily. So they have the requisite relationship, she is the right age and she is loaded with foreign policy experience (not all good, I grant you). She checks all of the main boxes for Biden. He has said that he wants someone for VP that could handle the job as president from day one, that can deal with Russia and China and understands foreign policy. If Rice isn't his VP choice, I have clearly misread the tea leaves.

Nice overview. I will say that I'm definitely not a fan of Rice. I think she's got baggage that worries me, and I think she would have a huge target on her back. Maybe not Clinton level, but definitely beyond the other candidates.

Imho, she would be a big distraction for the ticket. Harris would bring more to the table in terms of personality and defining issues. I think Harris would do really well. I want to see her debate Pence, lol.

Duckworth has a lot to like in terms of resume, but I'm not really a fan of her personality. I haven't been impressed in the few interviews I've seen. That and her visibility is relatively low compared to the others. That could change though.

 

[Richard]

I think any of the three clean Pence's clock in the debate.

I am just worried that the presidential debate will be Biden dozing off while Trump mutters "Person, woman, man, camera, tv. See, I still got it!"

 

[Taurus]

For all the people who whinge about that Wallace interview, he could have been much harder on Trump.
He could have pursued the line of conversation where he said "I took the same test."
He could've said "And I still remember that question. Do you? I have it right here. Do you still recall *any* of it?"

 

[Heathen]

I'm not the biggest fan of her, but I think it will be Kamala Harris, followed by Warren. I like Duckworth a lot but she doesn't have that draw like the other two do. Both Harris and Warren are sharp as a tack, and I think it could somewhat unite the moderate/slightly left of moderate vote to a degree, which is still the bulk of the party.

 

[Richard]

I'm not the biggest fan of her, but I think it will be Kamala Harris, followed by Warren. I like Duckworth a lot but she doesn't have that draw like the other two do. Both Harris and Warren are sharp as a tack, and I think it could somewhat unite the moderate/slightly left of moderate vote to a degree, which is still the bulk of the party.

I believe you would have to weigh whatever value there is in uniting the Democrats who are less than happy with Biden against the chances that adding Warren to the ticket would unite Republicans. The only thing worse than naming Warren would be to choose Sanders in terms of justifying claims by Republicans that Biden will move the country toward socialism. It doesn’t matter if either of them truly would. Trump ads, social media comments and talking points on TV have alluded to Biden moving the US toward socialism, so naming Warren/Sanders would give them an “I told you so moment” and provide momentum for Trump’s campaign.

With Trump’s campaign in a nosedive, you don’t provide him with a gift that feeds into his fear narratives. With Trump having provided no real plan to the country for what a second term would look like, Biden needs only to look presidential, avoid stepping on his tongue and not give Republicans a reason to rally against him. The GOP will try to paint anyone Biden names as a radical leftist, so choosing someone that can avoid those comparisons is the best strategy. While Rice or Harris may lean left on some issues, they have plenty of cover to not being considered radical like Warren would be.

 

[SFIDC3]

Expecting Kamala Harris

Hoping Tammy Duckworth

Same here, there is just something about Tammy I really like, she is definitely a fighter....but I'm not sure she is ready....

 

[zztop]

I believe you would have to weigh whatever value there is in uniting the Democrats who are less than happy with Biden against the chances that adding Warren to the ticket would unite Republicans. The only thing worse than naming Warren would be to choose Sanders in terms of justifying claims by Republicans that Biden will move the country toward socialism. It doesn’t matter if either of them truly would. Trump ads, social media comments and talking points on TV have alluded to Biden moving the US toward socialism, so naming Warren/Sanders would give them an “I told you so moment” and provide momentum for Trump’s campaign.

With Trump’s campaign in a nosedive, you don’t provide him with a gift that feeds into his fear narratives. With Trump having provided no real plan to the country for what a second term would look like, Biden needs only to look presidential, avoid stepping on his tongue and not give Republicans a reason to rally against him. The GOP will try to paint anyone Biden names as a radical leftist, so choosing someone that can avoid those comparisons is the best strategy. While Rice or Harris may lean left on some issues, they have plenty of cover to not being considered radical like Warren would be.

Has the needle of the center moved so far right that a person like EW would be considered a socialist?

 

[SaintForLife]

It will be interesting to see where the polling is once we get closer to the election.

 

[bdb13]

It will be interesting to see where the polling is once we get closer to the election.

I think that last one you quote it is actually decent news for Biden, and the headline for it is a bit misleading Imo... Basically Biden is getting back about a quarter of the votes that Obama received but Hillary didn't.

 

[CoolBrees]

Yeah talk about a slanted headline.

That article doesn’t say he has three times the support among Obama voters.

It actually shows Biden has clawed back 25% who went for Trump instead of Hillary last time out.

 

[Richard]

Has the needle of the center moved so far right that a person like EW would be considered a socialist?

I don’t know that the center has moved right or left. I am speaking to the perception that people that aren’t progressives have of Warren. Even if it’s not accurate, it only matters whether Trump could use her words as fodder for the argument and I believe he could. I don’t believe it will come to that anyway, because I don’t think Biden would select a running mate in her age bracket.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think that last one you quote it is actually decent news for Biden, and the headline for it is a bit misleading Imo... Basically Biden is getting back about a quarter of the votes that Obama received but Hillary didn't.

It doesn't seem misleading to me. Would "Biden gets back a quarter of voters who switched to Trump" be a better headline?

I do think Biden is ahead right now, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he wins.

Trump Has 91 Percent Chance of Winning Reelection: Political Science Professor

President Donald Trump is almost certain to win reelection in 2020, according to a political science professor whose “Primary Model" has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996.

www.mediaite.com

 

[bdb13]

It doesn't seem misleading to me. Would "Biden gets back a quarter of voters who switched to Trump" be a better headline?

I do think Biden is ahead right now, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he wins.

Trump Has 91 Percent Chance of Winning Reelection: Political Science Professor

President Donald Trump is almost certain to win reelection in 2020, according to a political science professor whose “Primary Model" has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996.

www.mediaite.com

I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion either and won't feel particularly comfortable until the election results are in, and yes I believe that would be a better headline... otherwise it doesn't contain the caveat that they're only referring to Obama voters who voted for Trump last time.. not Obama voters in general as the headline suggests.

 

[Heathen]

I believe you would have to weigh whatever value there is in uniting the Democrats who are less than happy with Biden against the chances that adding Warren to the ticket would unite Republicans. The only thing worse than naming Warren would be to choose Sanders in terms of justifying claims by Republicans that Biden will move the country toward socialism. It doesn’t matter if either of them truly would. Trump ads, social media comments and talking points on TV have alluded to Biden moving the US toward socialism, so naming Warren/Sanders would give them an “I told you so moment” and provide momentum for Trump’s campaign.

With Trump’s campaign in a nosedive, you don’t provide him with a gift that feeds into his fear narratives. With Trump having provided no real plan to the country for what a second term would look like, Biden needs only to look presidential, avoid stepping on his tongue and not give Republicans a reason to rally against him. The GOP will try to paint anyone Biden names as a radical leftist, so choosing someone that can avoid those comparisons is the best strategy. While Rice or Harris may lean left on some issues, they have plenty of cover to not being considered radical like Warren would be.

I agree with a lot of this, but I think you have to consider what I believe to be a fact that Biden could nominate Harris or Sanders right now and still win. It isn't some hanging by a thread scenario. Polls suggest he could win Texas and Georgia. This will IMHO be one of the largest blowouts in history. The Republicans are going to cry Socialism if John McCain ran against them. There was never any substance to their fearmongering..They cry out against social Democrats, not the silly red scare monikers they throw at the wall. All of that is irrelevant now in the face of a populace who overwhelmingly simply wants Trump out.

 

[Richard]

I agree with a lot of this, but I think you have to consider what I believe to be a fact that Biden could nominate Harris or Sanders right now and still win. It isn't some hanging by a thread scenario. Polls suggest he could win Texas and Georgia. This will IMHO be one of the largest blowouts in history. The Republicans are going to cry Socialism if John McCain ran against them. There was never any substance to their fearmongering..They cry out against social Democrats, not the silly red scare monikers they throw at the wall. All of that is irrelevant now in the face of a populace who overwhelmingly simply wants Trump out.

You may be right. However, national polls aren't the same as state polls. A seemingly comfortable 6-8 point lead can evaporate over three+ months. For example, say Biden has an 8-point lead in Florida (I have seen polls with a smaller lead). He names Warren his running mate and the next poll only shows a 3-4 point lead. Trump would only need to make up a point per month to make the state competitive again. Warren is too old and is a drag on the ticket. It doesn't matter if there is substance to the Trump team's fearmongering; it only matters if it resonates with enough people to swing the election. They aren't leaving office without a fight and you know it is just going to get nastier the closer we get to November.

As much as I want to believe it is over, it isn't. Too many things could happen between now and election day.