Biden in 2020? Allies Say He Sees Himself as Democrats’ Best Hope

[ThatRobGuy]

Biden in 2020? Allies Say He Sees Himself as Democrats’ Best Hope

 

[RDKirk]

At this given moment, maybe so. At this point before 2008, Clinton appeared to be the Democrat's best hope.

 

[Albion]

His allies say he is the best hope.

He thinks he is the best candidate.

Senator Carper, from Biden's home state of Delaware, is supportive.
…..

Question? Was this an unusually 'slow news day?'

 

[GoldenBoy89]

He certainly has both, the experience to handle the job and the temperament to handle Trump.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My allies and supporters believe I am the best hope. I'm not sure about what hope I am the best for but we firmly believe in my being the best hope of some kind so I guess that ought to be good enough for the American people.

 

[grasping the after wind]

He certainly has both, the experience to handle the job and the temperament to handle Trump.

Yeah I agree he is old and likes to argue.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I would like to see Biden run. However, I am also interested to see who else throws their hat in the ring.

We have a long way to go, though. At about this time in the last election, Jeb Bush was favored for the Republicans - a lot can change.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yeah I agree he is old and likes to argue.

I for one, would love to see those two grandpas at each other's throats. I happen to think Biden would probably mop the floor with Trump. I think his relatively modest middle class upbringing would easily make him much tougher than Trump.

 

[Kaon]

Biden in 2020? Allies Say He Sees Himself as Democrats’ Best Hope

Trump will remain president in 2020. But, good luck to him I guess.

 

[Albion]

My allies and supporters believe I am the best hope. I'm not sure about what hope I am the best for but we firmly believe in my being the best hope of some kind so I guess that ought to be good enough for the American people.

and your friends are supportive of your candidacy, I am going to guess.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I for one, would love to see those two grandpas at each other's throats. I happen to think Biden would probably mop the floor with Trump. I think his relatively modest middle class upbringing would easily make him much tougher than Trump.

They won't be allowed to physically beat each other so I think toughness is superfluous and frankly I don't crave viewing two old geezers flailing away at each other. As for logical argument, IMO neither is much good at it though both are well versed in the use of emotional appeal, bluster, sound bites , talking points and slogans. Those things seem to appeal to more people than sound, logically arrived at arguments.

 

[grasping the after wind]

and your friends are supportive of your candidacy, I am going to guess.

They are. They are obviously quite intelligent and discerning individuals as they agree with me.

 

[SolomonVII]

I wonder if an old white male is capable of getting elected by the woke crowd any more?

 

[Albion]

I'd say yes, but by the same token, it may be almost automatic of Dem conventions to put either a woman or an ethnic or sexual minority on the ticket hereafter. That much wouldn't surprise me a bit although Biden may be able to take the presidential nomination away from Sens. Harris, Warren, Booker, etc. etc.

 

[SolomonVII]

A lot of people wonder if even Elizabeth Warren is intersectional enough. For sure she is woman enough, but 1/1024 is not Indian enough for her to not witness her chances take a nose dive.

 

[dgiharris]

At this given moment, maybe so. At this point before 2008, Clinton appeared to be the Democrat's best hope.

The Democratic Party needs to learn from Trump.

The sentiment in the US is anti-establishment. Both parties prior to Trump had a habit of coronating someone from within to be the head of the party instead of letting the people decide.

Obama's win was really the first. Hillary was "establishment" and the people choose Obama. Rather than learn from that the Dems tried to force Hillary... She should have won (technically she did win the popular vote) however imo the biggest reason Hillary lost was because the media misreported how close the actual race was. The media kept reporting "she's gonna win in a cake walk" so if that is the case, why vote? That misreporting easily cost her 5% in votes from people who just didn't feel like voting. I guarantee if the media had consistently reported "whoah this race is a statistical tie within the margin of error" that people woudl have sprinted to the voting booths...

Going forward, as long as the primaries are fair and the Dems go with whomever gets the primary votes then they should win in 2020.

Barring Trump doing something phenomenal and bringing peace to the middle east or curing cancer, I can't see him winning. But to be fair, who would have thunk he'd have won back in 2016???

 

[Albion]

She should have won (technically she did win the popular vote) however imo the biggest reason Hillary lost was because the media misreported how close the actual race was. The media kept reporting "she's gonna win in a cake walk" so if that is the case, why vote? That misreporting easily cost her 5% in votes from people who just didn't feel like voting. I guarantee if the media had consistently reported "whoah this race is a statistical tie within the margin of error" that people would have sprinted to the voting booths...

However, it is also true that predictions of the race being "a sure thing" for one of the candidates causes supporters of the other one to stay home in the belief that it is hopeless and, therefore, not worth their time and effort to vote.

In other words, if Hillary might have lost 5% because of the pollsters, Trump might have lost 5% of his supporters who thought he had no chance--because of those same polls.

And by the way, the several polls that showed Trump with a chance of victory (many more did not), were roundly ridiculed in the media for their published findings. The LA Times poll, for example.

 

[RDKirk]

The Democratic Party needs to learn from Trump.

The sentiment in the US is anti-establishment. Both parties prior to Trump had a habit of coronating someone from within to be the head of the party instead of letting the people decide.

Anti-establishment, for sure. Polls of the US military showed Trump and Sanders neck-and-neck.

Obama's win was really the first. Hillary was "establishment" and the people choose Obama. Rather than learn from that the Dems tried to force Hillary... She should have won (technically she did win the popular vote) however imo the biggest reason Hillary lost was because the media misreported how close the actual race was. The media kept reporting "she's gonna win in a cake walk" so if that is the case, why vote? That misreporting easily cost her 5% in votes from people who just didn't feel like voting. I guarantee if the media had consistently reported "whoah this race is a statistical tie within the margin of error" that people woudl have sprinted to the voting booths...

I noted back then that the trend in the last few weeks was Trump swiftly closing the gap.

 

[RDKirk]

In other words, if Hillary might have lost 5% because of the pollsters, Trump might have lost 5% of his supporters who thought he had no chance--because of those same polls.

Trump's supporters weren't looking at those polls.

And, actually, the issue wasn't the polls. It was a failure to correctly analyze what the polls showed. As I just mentioned, I saw that the trend was Trump closing the gap. The polls may have showed a gap, but they also showed that the gap was closing fast.

 

[Gigimo]

In other words, if Hillary might have lost 5% because of the pollsters, Trump might have lost 5% of his supporters who thought he had no chance--because of those same polls.

And some folks found the polls to be very amusing, I know I did.