The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (2 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.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I agree with your post, but I keep seeing everybody say "they". I assume they is the DNC. The DNC certainly wanted a moderate and not a progressive. I'm not arguing that point, but ultimately the democratic voters where the ones who voted for Biden. Nobody made them, it was their choice. Much the same way the Republicans voters chose Trump last election cycle over the other candidates running.

No reason they won't show up and vote again in November. He'll also get the votes that Hillary ignored in the rust belt.

The only danger here for the democrats are progressives not voting due to lack of enthusiasm. But I don't think progressive feel the same disdain for Biden that they did for Hillary.

Given how Trump has botched the coronavirus response, the exploding deficit and languishing economy, I think Biden wins pretty convincingly.

By they, I mean Democrats collectively. They had a few moderates running early, but they settled on Biden who, if he was going to run, should have run last cycle.

I think he's positioned well to win. But it isn't a given.

 

[Lapaz]

Yep, it's literally going to be a train wreck. We all know Trump comes off horribly when speaking off the cuff and Biden is going to give us some real gems of complete gibberish as well.

I know what you're saying. Biden did okay in the debates, but it isn't his strength. Trump will throw out lot's of insults, and his base will love it, but that's not going to win over independents. I don't think their debates are going to affect the election. I think the VP debates could change 1 or 2% of votes, and that would be significant.

 

[Maxp]

I know it won't happen, but if Biden nominated Tulsi for his VP he'd walk away with the election.

 

[JimEverett]

I do think Republicans celebrating are seriously underestimating Joe's appeal in the mid-west and his ties to Obama will definitely help him.

I agree with this. One thing, Trump seems to be severely underwater in Michigan. Another - Joe has always had strong popularity in Pennsylvania, particularly with white working-class voters. Trump loses both those states and his margin of victory is only 2 votes if everything else stays the same as 2016. So, obviously no margin for error: losing the 1 EV in Maine or not getting the EV in the Omaha, NE area (I think that is the one that is heavily contested) would end with Biden as President.

Trump remains deeply unpopular, and I think most impartial observers would say during the corona-virus he hasn't seemed like a leader, which will hurt him come November.

Not sure coronavirus will hurt him. It depends on how Democrats use it, if at all. Criticizing Trump to the point that it seems as if Democrats are blaming him will backfire IMO. A criticism more rooted in something like, "This was unexpected and would be tough for any and every leader, but Trump did not prepare for the worst-case and that is what leadership does . . . ." type of thing might work.
At the same time there are two other aspects of this:
1. This virus and huge lifestyle changes could still be going strong by the fall. Not sure how that would/could play into the election. There are competing thoughts in my head about that (people just sick of it and start blaming Trump in a less "cultish" fashion than what you see some people doing currently, or people continue to rally behind leaders - particularly if this is still a worldwide phenomenon.

2. Trump can also easily hurt himself over this thing with some dumb tweets. People are on edge in a way that they have not been since at least 08-09. Injecting the foolishness that we sometimes see from Trump into the mix could be devastating to him in a way that previous silly comments were not.

Trump won by 80,000 votes spread over 3 states. His signature achievement was the tax package and hoping to take credit for the good economy, which of course is now gone except the massive deficits. A skilled campaigner could point out that job growth slowed under Trump even before the pandemic and only debt increased, and those gains were not long-lasting.

I agree. But I would also add that the coronavirus can strengthen his position if he campaigns correctly: not sure how it would be done, but perhaps something along the lines of - "I have been saying we need to ween off dependence from China and other countries, I have been arguing for stricter border controls, I have been arguing for an Americ-First foreign policy . . . ." That might actually help him and remain somewhat consistent from what he has said in the past and at least some of his actions have shown.

 

[NoPartyMike]

Given how Trump has botched the coronavirus response, the exploding deficit and languishing economy, I think Biden wins pretty convincingly.

"This was unexpected and would be tough for any and every leader, but Trump did not prepare for the worst-case and that is what leadership does . . . ." type of thing might work.

I keep seeing the point that Trump's covid response will bury him, but I'm not sold on that. A major part of Trump's '16 campaign was run on bashing China. He'll run as vindicated on that and will triple down. Joe will make an easy target for his witticisms. The DNC must bring forth a new candidate.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I agree with this. One thing, Trump seems to be severely underwater in Michigan. Another - Joe has always had strong popularity in Pennsylvania, particularly with white working-class voters. Trump loses both those states and his margin of victory is only 2 votes if everything else stays the same as 2016. So, obviously no margin for error: losing the 1 EV in Maine or not getting the EV in the Omaha, NE area (I think that is the one that is heavily contested) would end with Biden as President.

Agree, it's going to be a very tight race I think.

Not sure coronavirus will hurt him. It depends on how Democrats use it, if at all. Criticizing Trump to the point that it seems as if Democrats are blaming him will backfire IMO. A criticism more rooted in something like, "This was unexpected and would be tough for any and every leader, but Trump did not prepare for the worst-case and that is what leadership does . . . ." type of thing might work.

I mostly agree with this. In that this would appeal to someone like me more, and I think going too strongly will only strengthen Trump's base. But I keep coming back to the fact, that I think I don't really understand what motivates voters.

I'd rather see someone model the type of leadership we'd expect, and just let the contrast do the talking. But, that doesn't seem to be the way that politicians play these sorts of events, so I wonder if they understand the electorate better than I do.

At the same time there are two other aspects of this:
1. This virus and huge lifestyle changes could still be going strong by the fall. Not sure how that would/could play into the election. There are competing thoughts in my head about that (people just sick of it and start blaming Trump in a less "cultish" fashion than what you see some people doing currently, or people continue to rally behind leaders - particularly if this is still a worldwide phenomenon.

2. Trump can also easily hurt himself over this thing with some dumb tweets. People are on edge in a way that they have not been since at least 08-09. Injecting the foolishness that we sometimes see from Trump into the mix could be devastating to him in a way that previous silly comments were not.

I'm curious to watch this play out. Typically, in times of crisis, people rally around their leaders. We saw a bump in Trump's approval ratings initially, but I still don't think he cracked 50% (I could be wrong here). I read an article, that I did not fact check (fwiw), that stated that Trump's approval ratings recieved a much smaller bump than other world leaders.

I think for Trump to take full political advantage of this type of crisis, he'll need to project a strong, calm, non-partisan image. If he can do that, then he'll get an approval ratings boost.

I agree. But I would also add that the coronavirus can strengthen his position if he campaigns correctly: not sure how it would be done, but perhaps something along the lines of - "I have been saying we need to ween off dependence from China and other countries, I have been arguing for stricter border controls, I have been arguing for an Americ-First foreign policy . . . ." That might actually help him and remain somewhat consistent from what he has said in the past and at least some of his actions have shown.

Yes, there are things he can take political advantage of that are consistent with his message from the beginning of his presidency as you've pointed out. And those are things that he can make a very strong case that he was right about. Obviously, I don't think his approach or his results were very effective, but he's been very consistent on a point that I think will resonate in November, and it's a point that I think he's stronger on than Biden and I think it will help him some.

 

[SFIDC3]

Joe Biden will be a decent president, and he's leading Trump in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. His VP choice will be a big factor in increasing his lead. It's a shame that he has committed to a woman, because I think Cuomo has become a star, and could be a strong running mate. I was looking forward to voting for a ticket with a woman, but now I wish he hadn't committed to a woman.

I totally agree with this. He really didn't have to do this. That is not saying there are not many women that would be great choices (there are of course) but what if someone comes out of nowhere and happens to be a man (like Cuomo), Biden just hamstrung himself for no really good reason IMO....

2. Trump can also easily hurt himself over this thing with some dumb tweets. People are on edge in a way that they have not been since at least 08-09. Injecting the foolishness that we sometimes see from Trump into the mix could be devastating to him in a way that previous silly comments were not.

Great observation above, totally agreed. And I think there is no question Biden should attack Trump over his administrations response to the virus, but they have to be smart about it. There is enough evidence out there to show the response was...less than adequate...but it needs to be presented in a definitive, sequenced manner that is easily understood....

 

[coldseat]

I agree. But I would also add that the coronavirus can strengthen his position if he campaigns correctly: not sure how it would be done, but perhaps something along the lines of - "I have been saying we need to ween off dependence from China and other countries, I have been arguing for stricter border controls, I have been arguing for an Americ-First foreign policy . . . ." That might actually help him and remain somewhat consistent from what he has said in the past and at least some of his actions have shown.

I could see that working for Trump because the longer this goes, the more fear grows. Americans (like pretty much every nationality) tend to turn to xenophobia and protectionism when faced with fear.

Of course the irony here is that greater global corporation and stronger international ties and trust would have greatly improved the response to the coronavirus not only globally, but here in the US as well. The problem is that democrats have never been able to make that case successfully to American voters and more often than not, gone along with bad polotical arguments and policies out of fear of losing voters.

The case the democrats would need to make to counter that is that we absolutely need to reorient American manufacturing to have control over strategic supplies necessary to respond to any crisis, like this pandemic, but that we also need to increase and strengthen international ties and cooperation so that we can minimize the effects of such crisis and respond more effectively, not only globally, but also nationally. It's a hard and nuanced argument to make, that's why I doubt we'll hear it.

 

[Lapaz]

I know it won't happen, but if Biden nominated Tulsi for his VP he'd walk away with the election.

Tulsi started out popular, and I liked her in the beginning, but she isn't that popular anymore. She's negative on favorability. That "present" vote on impeachment, given the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, lost my support, and I suspect it is the reason she is underwater on favorability.

 

[JimEverett]

Of course the irony here is that greater global corporation and stronger international ties and trust would have greatly improved the response to the coronavirus not only globally, but here in the US as well. The problem is that democrats have never been able to make that case successfully to American voters and more often than not, gone along with bad polotical arguments and policies out of fear of losing voters.

I am curious what you mean by that.

Inter-national cooperation is perhaps nowhere greater than it is than Europe and it has been the hardest hit by the virus. I think you could even argue that it was the cooperation itself that helped the virus spread.
Even intra-nationally there is a least some reason to think that cooperation has not allowed for stopping the spread: take the ability to quarantine large areas (say the NY metro area) - hard to do with intra-national cooperation whereas it appears fairly easy with autocratic regimes (China).
The heralded success of South Korea occurred in a country surrounded by two superpowers that Korea does not fully trust and whose only land border is the most fortified and least crossed in the world.

 

[zztop]

I know it won't happen, but if Biden nominated Tulsi for his VP he'd walk away with the election.

Curious, what was the appeal from her? B/c some of her past seemed very dubious to me. By that I mean not very (D) and more akin to (R)

Tulsi started out popular, and I liked her in the beginning, but she isn't that popular anymore. She's negative on favorability. That "present" vote on impeachment, given the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, lost my support, and I suspect it is the reason she is underwater on favorability.

I honestly never saw how people thought she was very progressive. I'd call her the most right leaning candidate of the group. Stuff like opposing abortion, or being against same sex marriage, anti LGBT etc. Steve Bannon seems to like her. Her political roots were more republican than any of the others, at least from my perspective.

 

[Beach Friends]

Curious, what was the appeal from her? B/c some of her past seemed very dubious to me. By that I mean not very (D) and more akin to (R)



I honestly never saw how people thought she was very progressive. I'd call her the most right leaning candidate of the group. Stuff like opposing abortion, or being against same sex marriage, anti LGBT etc. Steve Bannon seems to like her. Her political roots were more republican than any of the others, at least from my perspective.

I don't think she has a conservative position on any of the issues you mentioned. It seems like she may have been against gay marriage when she was in high school.

 

[wardorican]

I agree with this. One thing, Trump seems to be severely underwater in Michigan. Another - Joe has always had strong popularity in Pennsylvania, particularly with white working-class voters. Trump loses both those states and his margin of victory is only 2 votes if everything else stays the same as 2016. So, obviously no margin for error: losing the 1 EV in Maine or not getting the EV in the Omaha, NE area (I think that is the one that is heavily contested) would end with Biden as President.


Not sure coronavirus will hurt him. It depends on how Democrats use it, if at all. Criticizing Trump to the point that it seems as if Democrats are blaming him will backfire IMO. A criticism more rooted in something like, "This was unexpected and would be tough for any and every leader, but Trump did not prepare for the worst-case and that is what leadership does . . . ." type of thing might work.
At the same time there are two other aspects of this:
1. This virus and huge lifestyle changes could still be going strong by the fall. Not sure how that would/could play into the election. There are competing thoughts in my head about that (people just sick of it and start blaming Trump in a less "cultish" fashion than what you see some people doing currently, or people continue to rally behind leaders - particularly if this is still a worldwide phenomenon.

2. Trump can also easily hurt himself over this thing with some dumb tweets. People are on edge in a way that they have not been since at least 08-09. Injecting the foolishness that we sometimes see from Trump into the mix could be devastating to him in a way that previous silly comments were not.



I agree. But I would also add that the coronavirus can strengthen his position if he campaigns correctly: not sure how it would be done, but perhaps something along the lines of - "I have been saying we need to ween off dependence from China and other countries, I have been arguing for stricter border controls, I have been arguing for an Americ-First foreign policy . . . ." That might actually help him and remain somewhat consistent from what he has said in the past and at least some of his actions have shown.

I think you make a lot of good points here. I may jump in with some more thoughts to this, but I wanted to echo one thing about the Virus that plays into your point about anger.

It's one thing for people to ignore Trump's inability to be empathetic and bash people for not being grateful, when he's throwing paper towels at Puerto Rican's after a hurricane saying "have a good time" when it isn't your home.

This hit everywhere and almost everyone to some degree. A lack of empathy and decisive action will hurt. Joe might get foggy here and there (just like Trump), but he's mostly a warm and nice guy. He's not a push over, so it can come off as combative, but I've never seen him as a jerk.

A lot of the anger has been about where Government fails, because it isn't allowed to be involved.. health insurance, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave.

The sick leave jumped out of almost nowhere to probably the best idea ever, even to just slow down the yearly flu season, let alone a major epidemic or pandemic.

I agree Dems can play this wrong. I think keeping some of the 2016 themes of "we're better together". Focus on uniting, but they have to fight for the disenfranchised.

 

[Beach Friends]

I think you make a lot of good points here. I may jump in with some more thoughts to this, but I wanted to echo one thing about the Virus that plays into your point about anger.

It's one thing for people to ignore Trump's inability to be empathetic and bash people for not being grateful, when he's throwing paper towels at Puerto Rican's after a hurricane saying "have a good time" when it isn't your home.

This hit everywhere and almost everyone to some degree. A lack of empathy and decisive action will hurt. Joe might get foggy here and there (just like Trump), but he's mostly a warm and nice guy. He's not a push over, so it can come off as combative, but I've never seen him as a jerk.

A lot of the anger has been about where Government fails, because it isn't allowed to be involved.. health insurance, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave.

The sick leave jumped out of almost nowhere to probably the best idea ever, even to just slow down the yearly flu season, let alone a major epidemic or pandemic.

I agree Dems can play this wrong. I think keeping some of the 2016 themes of "we're better together". Focus on uniting, but they have to fight for the disenfranchised.

I have seen Joe act like a jerk several times during this campaign Calling a guy "fat," poking his finger in someone's chest, telling a guy he would go outside and slap him, calling a young woman a lying dog face pony soldier (which may have meant something to him, but I am sure all the woman heard was dog face).

The guy has some anger issues

 

[zztop]

I don't think she has a conservative position on any of the issues you mentioned. It seems like she may have been against gay marriage when she was in high school.

when she started her political career she held those positions. As recently as 2016 she was interviewed and stated her beliefs did not change, only that she changed her mind and that the gov't should not get involved. Prior I think she was pushing for laws to keep same sex marriage out, etc.

edit: I found the quote from the interview she gave

in a 2016 interview with the publication Ozy, Gabbard suggested that her personal beliefs on homosexuality actually haven’t changed:

It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government “imposing its will” on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)

Im pretty sure she is still the same person and didn't have anything changing her mind about that stuff. BUT YOU NEVER know. You can say maybe NOW she "looks the part" but with that drastically contrasting history, it's really hard to trust, but thats just me.

edit: some articles I quickly found

UPDATED: Here’s why the Hawaii LGBT Caucus doesn’t support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s reelection campaign

mauitime.com

Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy | CNN Politics

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in the early 2000s touted working for her father’s anti-gay organization, which mobilized to pass a measure against same-sex marriage in Hawaii and promoted controversial conversion therapy.

www.cnn.com

 

[Maxp]

I think she is the only candidate that could pull voters Biden isn't already going to get.

 

[Heathen]

IMO, and it is biased, I think the democratic party left a lot democrats in the swing to the left.

That's backward. The Democratic party has left a lot of democrats by staying stubbornly center when the majority of popular policies are more leftward. Daft platitudes, 'next in line' mentality and "just get him out of the white house" instead of putting forth bold policy proposals is the recipe for another 2016 for Team Blue.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

IMO, and it is biased, I think the democratic party left a lot democrats in the swing to the left.

Interestingly enough, I was saying the same thing about the Republicans around 2005.