Yes, selective in that I selected the last seven elections in a row.
Clinton had no more baggage than Biden, every smear against her proved to be bullshit.
Biden has Anita Hill and his lies about being part of the civil rights struggle and lying about being arrested in South Africa trying to get to Robben Island to see Mandela and his touchy feeliness. He’ll likely be smeared as a paedophile by Trump’s online army of goons and Russian bots.
And the fake Ukraine conspiracy theory will be front and centre from now until November.
Where Biden has an advantage over Clinton is that he’s a man and he’s relatable to the Joe the plumber stereotype.
But watch Tulsi Gabbard. I think there’s a real chance she’ll run third party interference. Even if she doesn’t she’ll be running heavy interference on Trump’s behalf in the media, while claiming not to be doing so, obviously.
I suspect Trump will ditch Pence and pick Haley as his running mate.
Barry did manage to end the rot in the south for the Democrats. I think it was 3 states in 2008 and 2 in 2012, Virginia and Florida both times and North Carolina in 2008. Those latter two were two of the tighter swing states last time and I think Georgia was close as well for the first time since the mid-90s. Starting in 1928, Florida has picked the winner in every presidential election bar Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in 1992. Its still difficult for Democrats to make any inroads in the south, but Biden their best bet on that front.
Biden will appeal to the retirees in Florida. There is a reckoning coming for the Repblicans in the south at some point over the next 15 years or so. Several states are tipping towards going Democrat. Virginia has already done so. Georgia and North Carolina aren’t a million miles away from turning blue and are already quasi-swing states. And then there’s Texas.
That’s all based on the proviso that an already extremely faulty democracy doesn’t completely collapse into a Russian style simulacrum, which it could if Trump wins in 2020.
Crooked Hilary wasn’t a safe candidate. She was a hugely divisive figure and basically unelectable.
1 Like
She was very much seen as the “safe” candidate by the Democratic party establishment. Her choice of running mate was far too “safe”, “safe” enough to be completely anonymous, as was her strategy.
It is quite selective in that you are ignoring incumbency and calling virtual coin flips on suitability one way or the the other. What made Bush a bolder choice in 2000? Because of his education proposals? I suppose they flipped in 2004 to you because of the war in Iraq?
That’s my view view too. Last race was dominated by outsiders in Trump and Bernie. Dems ultimately plumped for the ultimate insider and got a shock.
Now they want to repeat that mistake. Maybe biden can beat trump just by running a better campaign than hilldog, but I think they’re making a mistake thinking “Bernie can’t beat trump”.
Ask FG about that.
1 Like
Running mates have negligible impact on Presidential Elections. Tim Kaine certainly wasn’t the reason Crooked Hilary lost in 2016.
You can’t get less selective than taking the last seven elections in a row. Personality is a massive part of it becasue let’s face, that’s a massive part of getting people to turn out and actually vote.
All seven I named - Bush, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney and Clinton, had dull personalities in comparison to their opponents. They didn’t have the “want to go for a beer with them” factor. They came across as either old men in suits or corporate blancmanges in suits.
In 1984 the Democrats chose Walter Mondale for his perceived “electability”. He won one state.
Biden is the “safe” candidate this time. The hope is that this election might break a trend. He is the dull, “safe” candidate, but he’s not as dull personality wise as Gore or Kerry or Dole, and his opponent is not a normal opponent, he’s an existential threat to the US, so there’s a possibility that “safe” nature could actually prove to be an asset to him. Getting Trump out, even with a candidate who doesn’t have a massive amount to recommend him, could prove to be a massive turnout driver. But neither would I be banking on it.
And that’s without all the Russian election interference that is openly being encouraged, the mass voter suppression, and the real possibility that the votes themselves will be tampered with.
I’m not sure they ultimately did.
It was a procession for her until Sanders (to his credit) gave her a real campaign. He picked up votes as he went along but was too far back.
Clinton was not a normal candidate by any stretch of the imagination. Going by your logic they would have swung back to her in 2008 when Obama was more the outsider.
I don’t think that’s relevant to the US election. The question is whether Biden or Sanders are better equipped to beat Trump, as Trump will run solely on how good the economy is, and regardless of how many people hate trump it is hard to unseat an incumbent in a good economy.
Biden can point to the growth during the Obama years and his focus on continued economic growth, while making incremental improvements on health care, etc. Sanders message is that basically life is shit for everyone and we need a revolution. The problem is it isn’t shit for everyone and we saw that in the voting last night, Biden hoovered up the vote in suburban areas. Look at Virginia, he beat Sanders 2:1 in a state that’s competitive in 2020.
They don’t win it for you but they can help to lose it for you. Palin in 2008 was a disastrous choice for McCain and did a lot to derail his candidacy. Kaine was a lightweight.
Democratic voters chose Clinton over Sanders in 2016, she won the plurality of delegates and the popular vote. Sanders hasn’t changed his message one iota since 2016 and hasn’t been able to expand his base. The Democratic party is a very broad spectrum, you need to be able to attract more than your core support, as Bill Clinton did and Obama did.
Whoever the candidate is has to unite the party, otherwise Trump wins again. Clearly voters think Biden can do that and Sanders can’t. There is significant fear among moderate Democrats that not alone could Sanders lose to Trump, but he could cost Democrats their House majority and any chance they have of the winning the Senate. They spoke loudly and clearly last night.
1 Like
You said “safe”.
That means more than “boring”
Clinton was the DNC’s candidate in 2008. They were able to live with Obama in a way they would not with Bernie this time.
There was nothing particularly abnormal about Clinton as a candidate. What was abnormal was her opponent and his 1930s Germany style campaign.
Safe in political parlance means boring. That’s exactly what it means.
Sanders is seen quite favourably which is interesting, I don’t see a hope of him beating Trump in some of those swing states though which is the problem.
Nonsense, it means more than that. Safe means people’s personal interests including jobs and security.
I absolutely agree that Obama was a bold choice in 2008. Far bolder than Clinton.
I don’t think there was really that much in 2000/2004. Bush would have been a bit more favourable in 2000 than Gore but Gore was crippled by Clinton’s affair. Bush wasn’t hugely popular in 2004, he was seen as safe enough by a country still in fear over 9/11 and only really starting to question the Iraq war in middle America. Kerry was the flip flopper.