The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (3 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.

 

[SystemShock]

If we can't beat Trump without the presumptive nominee being challenged, we don't deserve it.

That's a poetic sentiment, but, this is a time to be pragmatic.

 

[Heathen]

That's a poetic sentiment, but, this is a time to be pragmatic.

There's no poetry involved. It's the truth.

No, i don't agree with your assessment that we should all clear way for the supposed victor.

I'm not sure in what perfect world you think primaries aren't supposed to be played out in a normal manner and not to appease those that think candidates having to defend their records will lead to them losing to Trump.

That's not pragmatic, it's paranoid.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

There's no poetry involved. It's the truth.

No, i don't agree with your assessment that we should all clear way for the supposed victor.

I'm not sure in what perfect world you think primaries aren't supposed to be played out in a normal manner and not to appease those that think candidates having to defend their records will lead to them losing to Trump.

That's not pragmatic, it's paranoid.

Avoiding unnecessary risks is the pragmatic part

 

[MT15]

Unbelievable, the DNC had 4 years to groom competent candidates and we are delivered Joe Biden. A bumbling, old, rich, white guy. The exact stereotype they've been vilifying for a long time now. Trump will certainly win, as history shows we'd rather the devil we know.

Biden is only “rich” as you put it, very recently when he wrote a book after leaving the WH. He spent almost all of his career with one of the lowest net worths in the Senate. He has never been one to avail himself of the many opportunities politicians have to line their own pockets. He’s far more in touch with regular people than Trump has ever been.

 

[MT15]

It's no joke with Biden. The man likes to feel up kids. If what he does passes for normal in your experience then I feel sorry for you.

can you please tell us your definition of “feel up”? And can Intense show us his videos of said activity?

And you said, apparently with no sense of irony, that Democrats always overplay their hand?

 

[Beach Friends]

He’s far more in touch with regular people than Trump has ever been.

If by "regular people" you mean 12 year old girls, then yeah.

 

[SystemShock]

There's no poetry involved. It's the truth.

No, i don't agree with your assessment that we should all clear way for the supposed victor.

It's not about clearing the way for anyone, it is about forming a unified front from early on.

I'm not sure in what perfect world you think primaries aren't supposed to be played out in a normal manner and not to appease those that think candidates having to defend their records will lead to them losing to Trump.

These are not "normal" times. But if you think it best to continue to create division among the progressives/liberals until the very end, well, that's what you think it is best. If nothing else, remember: Ginsburg is 86, Meyer is 81.

That's not pragmatic, it's paranoid.

Paging Mr. Montoya.

 

[Heathen]

Avoiding unnecessary risks is the pragmatic part

I think a debate with his challenger with 23 states left to go and 150 votes between them is more pragmatic than letting Joe get into one on one debates with workers and curse them out. We can talk all day about the 'well you didn't see how nice he was to x people', but when you've got an anger issue, it's something that voters will take into account.

Would some here have called for Obama to drop out after he was down 300 delegates to Clinton in 08 so the party could be unified?

 

[Heathen]

It's not about clearing the way for anyone, it is about forming a unified front from early on.

I'm not sure what you want to change. This election process is normal. We don't just stop asking tough questions at a certain point.

These are not "normal" times. But if you think it best to continue to create division among the progressives/liberals until the very end, well, that's what you think it is best. If nothing else, remember: Ginsburg is 86, Meyer is 81.

The time before Bush got into office and his admin eventually started the crippling Iraq war and helped ramp up a recession wasn't a "normal" time either. No time period is normal in this day and age.

It's not about me wanting to seed division, though i thank you for randomly assuming that.

It's about letting the American people see as many answers as they can from a candidate before he or she is nominated. The voters will ultimately decide anyway, so why are people so worried about a guy solidly in the lead having to defend his record?

Folks confident in that record would welcome challenges. It speaks volumes that so many in the Democratic party are timid to that, and does not bode well for the general election debates.

We need to either stop this paranoid "everybody fall in line and ask no questions so I can feel better about our chances" routine or elect someone with a stronger record. It's simple.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I think a debate with his challenger with 23 states left to go and 150 votes between them is more pragmatic than letting Joe get into one on one debates with workers and curse them out. We can talk all day about the 'well you didn't see how nice he was to x people', but when you've got an anger issue, it's something that voters will take into account.

Would some here have called for Obama to drop out after he was down 300 delegates to Clinton in 08 so the party could be unified?

I think we’re in a time where context doesn’t really apply
While I wanted Warren, defeating Trump is really the only issue - a broad (and deep) enough contingent has already made a pretty clear choice
And while I don’t teally like that SC essentially decided the race, I am ok with making the pragmatic choice

 

[Heathen]

I think we’re in a time where context doesn’t really apply
While I wanted Warren, defeating Trump is really the only issue - a broad (and deep) enough contingent has already made a pretty clear choice
And while I don’t teally like that SC essentially decided the race, I am ok with making the pragmatic choice

I guess sometimes it gets lost what we're debating here. Maybe what we disagree on is "if" we should stop vetting Joe Biden, or if Sanders should quit, etc. I'm not sure which it is.

Clearly I'm in the camp of "business as usual" because i think it's not going to make a difference either way, most voters who are against Trump will vote Democrat. This is why the logic from moderates that Sanders supporters not turning out lost Hillary the election in 2016 was IMO nonsense. It's Biden's responsibility, not every individual who identifies as part of this party, to unite the party. If you don't do that well enough, sometimes you'll lose. Especially to someone with so many dogmatic followers as Trump.

And i do think if Sanders were the nominee there would be many here just fine with picking apart his record. And i would be fine with that as long as they too voted against Trump at the end of the day.

 

[SystemShock]

It's not about me wanting to seed division, though i thank you for randomly assuming that.

Not that you want to seed division, but that it will seed division.

It's about letting the American people see as many answers as they can from a candidate before he or she is nominated. The voters will ultimately decide anyway, so why are people so worried about a guy solidly in the lead having to defend his record?

I think by now we all know what Sanders is all about.

Folks confident in that record would welcome challenges. It speaks volumes that so many in the Democratic party are timid to that, and does not bode well for the general election debates.

Again, not a question about welcoming challenges, or being timid.

We need to either stop this paranoid "everybody fall in line and ask no questions so I can feel better about our chances" routine or elect someone with a stronger record. It's simple.

Paging Mr. Montoya.

 

[Heathen]

Not that you want to seed division, but that it will seed division.

How?

I think by now we all know what Sanders is all about.

If by we you mean yourself then explain what you think Sanders is all about. It's likely very different from my interpretation, which I assume wasn't included in the "we".

Again, not a question about welcoming challenges, or being timid.

I'm not sure how you can't see that hiding a candidate from debates, making sure he has a time limit, doesn't debate certain people, or that folks that have legitimate questions about him being scolded isn't the very definition of a "timid" campaign.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I guess sometimes it gets lost what we're debating here. Maybe what we disagree on is "if" we should stop vetting Joe Biden, or if Sanders should quit, etc. I'm not sure which it is.

Clearly I'm in the camp of "business as usual" because i think it's not going to make a difference either way, most voters who are against Trump will vote Democrat. This is why the logic from moderates that Sanders supporters not turning out lost Hillary the election in 2016 was IMO nonsense. It's Biden's responsibility, not every individual who identifies as part of this party, to unite the party. If you don't do that well enough, sometimes you'll lose. Especially to someone with so many dogmatic followers as Trump.

And i do think if Sanders were the nominee there would be many here just fine with picking apart his record. And i would be fine with that as long as they too voted against Trump at the end of the day.

1st let me say that i want you to keep your energy and (youthful, i assume) political 'purity'. the political process - both inter and intra - needs dynamism - not trying to convince you to stop your bernie support - just explaining why this commie is ready to call it for Joe, even though he was probably my 10th choice out of 15
at this point we're arguing the week 16 "rest the starters" philosophy
regular season is over for all intents and purposes, so it's best to preserve resources - money, time, stamina, surrogates, et al
-- i had said before that i was fine with bernie staying in the race but i only wanted him talking a bit about his progressive stances and mostly going on the offensive against trump
if they were to debate, it would HAVE to be about philosophies and NOT about personalities and supporters - let them argue which healthcare would have been best vs COVID but also show that both are VASTLY superior to trump

the other real world concern now is - there is no need or want to be political right now
on the more ethical side, there does not need to be any campaigning during this crisis
on the ickier political side, there is no reason to take the spotlight off Trump's ineptitude - let him continue to screw up and get hammered, then ramp up when that cycle dies down - luckily the ethical and the icky align in this moment

 

[V Chip]

I think a debate with his challenger with 23 states left to go and 150 votes between them is more pragmatic than letting Joe get into one on one debates with workers and curse them out. We can talk all day about the 'well you didn't see how nice he was to x people', but when you've got an anger issue, it's something that voters will take into account.

Would some here have called for Obama to drop out after he was down 300 delegates to Clinton in 08 so the party could be unified?

First off, to be transparent I'm a Warren supporter (even though she's dropped out, I still am a Warren supporter).

I believe Sanders has every right to stay in the race, and should for the time being.

Having said that... given how adamantly and vociferously Sanders supporters "called" on Warren to drop out, even before Iowa but definitely after, saying she had virtually no path to the nomination and that her continued presence only hurt the party and specifically the Sanders campaign... I'm surprised most of his followers haven't been all that consistent with their logic in the current situation.

 

[Heathen]

First off, to be transparent I'm a Warren supporter (even though she's dropped out, I still am a Warren supporter).

I believe Sanders has every right to stay in the race, and should for the time being.

Having said that... given how adamantly and vociferously Sanders supporters "called" on Warren to drop out, even before Iowa but definitely after, saying she had virtually no path to the nomination and that her continued presence only hurt the party and specifically the Sanders campaign... I'm surprised most of his followers haven't been all that consistent with their logic in the current situation.

I don't know of any Sanders supporters who called on Warren to drop out after Iowa but before Super Tuesday.

Anecdotally, every camp has its share of dolts.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

i guess this goes here
this is the Director of Elections of Maricopa County, AZ suddenly walking offstage during the presser about how polling will go for the primaries (many fewer polling stations - which would force more people into fewer places, no?)
people are obviously speculating, but i haven't seen any 1st or 2nd hand accounts here

 

[Heathen]

A reminder for anyone that wants to tune in that Biden will be debating Sanders for 2 hours tonight on CNN 7pm CT for most

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/15/21178137/how-to-watch-democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-joe-biden