Will Joe Biden Drop Out of the Presidential Race
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Oh, it's been a Republican M.O. for many decades to moralise and condemn the left for hostility and divisiveness whilst hurling every insult under the sun.
I know this is a right wing/dirtbag-left fantasy, but the idea Clinton will be the nominee in 2020 has almost no basis in reality. I say "almost" because I can imagine a unicorn existing, which is about as likely.
No, no it hasn't. Any right-wing people hurling insults at Democrats is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it tends to come specifically from party flipfloppers like Trump or "independents" like Micheal Savage (ugh, blech!). Historically, the M.O. of the Republican Party has been to take the moral high ground and then not talk about it. It's a very Christian attitude.
Having grown up and am still living among Texas-style conservatives, I can only say this statement is false, and on the border of delusional. I've seen O'Reilly Factor and other conservative news pundits, I've heard Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts, I've been at church and at dinner with conservative table talk. The idea that Republicans are a gentleman's party is simply untrue.
What is true is that certain wings of the Democrat party use demagoguery as a preferred tool, to the detriment of political discourse, and that Trump's almost exclusive use of it has steered conservatives further towards it. But conservatives have never been above demagoguery, insults, or even moral panics, as exemplified by the panics of D&D and rock and roll (and that's not even beginning to dredge up the rhetoric of segregationists).
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,016
- 3,882
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Oh abso-fucken-lotely not. The republicans have been doing this shit since at least the 80s. Rush limbaugh has been a major voice for them for a very long time and his favorite insult was to call people 'bleeding heard liberals.' To the point there it took while for liberal to stop being an insult, keep in mind that liberal meant something different in the states then it did Europe. Here it just meant left wing.
a) Those people aren't politicians. Bill O'Reilly isn't. Rush Limbaugh isn't. The people around your dinner table aren't. What matters here is the people they support. Think Ted Cruz, he's not throwing slurs around. Think John McCain, he famously scolded people for what they said about Obama.
b) Your experience is very recent. Those sorts of things didn't exist prior to the 90s.
As far as the moral panics go, you are properly identifying it as a conservative thing. That is not the same thing as a Republican thing. There were (and still are in some cases) conservative Democrats. Jack Thompson was a Democrat. I suspect the people afraid Rock n Roll would encourage interracial relations were Democrats. The segregationists you're talking about were Democrats.
Conservative isn't an ideology. It's a pragmatic position. It's just preserving the existing way of doing things. That's different than many political ideologies in that it's totally relative. You have to ask whose way of doing things is being preserved. Republicans and Democrats both had conservative wings in the civil rights era, but Republican conservatives were for the culture of the north, Democratic conservatives were southerners, these two groups weren't fighting for the same things at all.
So you're right, there have always been conservatives who would use demagogery, insults, or moral panic. But that says nothing about Republicans. The difference in the parties is not primarily their views on issues, it's their views on political structures overall. Democrats demagogue because their idea of governance is to represent popular opinion. Republicans see governance as top down leadership and aim to be above the moral common denominator (or at least appear to be so). It's pretty much literally in the names.
Oh Sanders is going to be absolutely phenomenal at energizing voter, republican voter that is. Counter productive. It's crazy, but for a large swath of the american public, socialist is a slur word and communism is just the worse version. So having someone who went on an "honeymoon" (wasn't actually the case, but that doesn't matter) to the soviet union and who unironicly talk about learning from it (much to is credits, but republican won't see it that way) is not going to help the left.
As far as independent that do vote, most of them aren't actually independent, they have very specific party allegiance. So you might have someone who's technically independent but will always vote republican because he's afraid democrats will take his guns.
The mythical independent voter isn't going to save us | CNN
David B. Magleby and Candice J. Nelson write that approximately two-thirds of self-identifying independents actually have partisan leanings -- and by and large vote according to those leanings.
www.cnn.com
Simply put, almost every single person who might show up on election day has already long ago decided who they're going to vote for. The number of people who really don't know is completely dwarfed by the number of people who do know, but aren't sure they'll bother showing up on the day of.
Baring some massive shift in the election style, it's pointless to make your winning strategy dependent on far more people showing up on the day of.
I really don't know. Clinton is touted as having beaten Trump in the popular vote. She is also thought to have incredible power in the Democratic Party Establishment. Were she to run and beat Trump this time, the sweetness of her revenge would be enough to give diabetes to the continent. But the rank and file of the party may be outraged beyond words. She could do much worse this time.
ITMT: I do think many believe Tara Reade but will vote Biden anyway. Hence, why would he drop out? Example https://dnyuz.com/2020/05/06/i-believe-tara-reade-im-voting-for-joe-biden-anyway/ This was also published in the NYT. EDIT: From that column, "All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden. "
Last edited:
The Clintons do remain relatively popular both with leadership and with most of the democratic electorate. But people liking you and people saying the party should break just about every internal norm (Running someone who didn't contest the nomination, has no delegates, Democrats don't nominate those who had a chance and lost, etc.) are two very different questions.
I don't see them replacing Biden for several key reasons, most notably that he was the candidate who most quickly unified the largest and most influential block within the party, black voters, and that I would put money down that, dollars to donuts, the Reade allegations will eventually become a non-issue for most voters, possibly before the convention. Biden, to his credit, is keeping his head down as much as he can, trying to create a Trump versus generic Democrat for most general election voters and making it a referendum on Trump. This is, for the most part, a good political strategy to maximize Trump's negatives, which have remained stable in terms of polling for most of his presidency. If Biden can make the whole election about Trump's handling of the presidency, then that will likely repeat the 2018 congressional map, where swing suburban districts broke for Democrats.
I wanted no rapists in power, that is why I voted for Hillary. But that wasnt good enough for you apparently.
Not supporting Biden won't get rid of Kavanaugh or Trump or Roy Moore.
I would love to investigate Biden. We can do it after he is President. Let's hope Biden picks a good VP to replace him.
If you're ok with letting Trump remain in power, then you are supporting a rapist. You have no moral high ground over me.
I think you misunderstood me. Sanders had won the popular vote in the last 3 states and was 10 points ahead of Biden in the national average. 3 candidates then drop out right before Super Tuesday and all of them endorsed Biden. Given how many voters were suddenly undecided and how little time there was, most of them chose what they percieved to be the safest choice. They voted Biden.
The headlines were worded to minimize being cognizant of Sanders's victories, and you would associate this with Trump winning, or the democratic party in disarray. Then, they would downplay that Biden was finishing 4th or 5th, and then make a big deal about the second place winner, who were all sacrificial pawns in the end. By denying Sanders positive coverage, it would hinder his ability to snowball.
Joe Biden.
A country of 300 million people cannot show up better candidates just senile old war veterans with one leg in the coffin?
2016 wasn't different either, with Trump the Clown and Hillary the Witch.
Trump will win against him, cause at least he is capable of mimicking power. Biden is the armchair grand-dad of politics, and as such will never have convincing power other than "Me Democrat, you see."
Even a broomstick with a decent level of integrity would win against Trump. It is just impossible to find integrity in nowadays politics.
A country of 300 million people cannot show up better candidates just senile old war veterans with one leg in the coffin?
2016 wasn't different either, with Trump the Clown and Hillary the Witch.
Trump will win against him, cause at least he is capable of mimicking power. Biden is the armchair grand-dad of politics, and as such will never have convincing power other than "Me Democrat, you see."
Even a broomstick with a decent level of integrity would win against Trump. It is just impossible to find integrity in nowadays politics.
Increasingly, I'm thinking you are right. Unless there is a health issue... or, erm, incident... it is really going to be Biden. I just can't believe it. This is going to be an interesting general election if Biden is well enough to see it.
It really does seem like the Democratic establishment wants to try Trump with a (D) next to his name.
www.realclearpolitics.com
Joe Biden Caught Lying On Camera, Plagiarizing Other Politicians' Speeches
ONE AMERICA NEWS: Newly found footage from 1987 captured presidential hopeful Joe Biden repeatedly lying on camera. One America's Pearson Sharp has more as Biden backtracks to cover his numerous gaffs.
Of course it's ideology.
All demagogues represent popular opinion, it's basically what demagoguery is.
There's a certain degree of hypocrisy throughout politics. Politicians of any stripe have overwhelmingly been above undignified name-calling in public themselves, but that has to be put in context that at the same time they have been paying campaign teams to come up with appalling mud to throw at their enemies, and happily letting their media allies run riot without so much of a hint of criticism. It was I suspect inevitable that the rancour they set loose in general society would eventually emerge in politics as well.
Trump is simply exceptional and a whole new level in pouring out gratuitous abuse. However, I cannot help but note senior Republican politicians make nothing more than token objection to it on occasion, and Republican voters are solidly behind him. I'm aware a lot of Republican voters don't like that he's so petty, mean, crude and vindictive, but... they put him there in the first place and stuck with him for four more years of it. Actions speak louder than words.
It isn't. An ideology has fixed principles. Conservatism can be slapped onto any set of ideals you prefer under the right circumstances. If you are a proponent of the status quo, you are the conservative side of the argument, no matter what that status quo is. It's not a ideology.
Yes, Democrats are demagogues. That's the defining feature of the party that transcends era.
The other day, a talking points memo leaked out from the Republicans that basically said "don't defend Trump, focus on China." Which reddit being reddit, people took to mean that condemning China is a Republican conspiracy, even though the same people had spent the previous month not defending Trump and condemning China. The Republican establishment can put out a memo saying "don't defend Trump" and left-leaning people take that to mean they're Trump puppets. (in before someone quotes me and says "you don't understand, they are defending Trump by not defending Trump.")
Pick your favorite Republican congressman or senator, there's almost certainly a quote of them saying they don't like the president's personality. But that comes with a caveat along the lines of "but I support the president because the president and the country succeed or fail together, and I want this country to succeed." There is no not backing him now. Trump isn't that exceptionally vile. The exceptionally vile thing going on are the people who would rather see the country fail than Trump succeed. Plenty of people hated Obama, plenty of people were terrible to Obama, I don't think in 2010 there were people hoping for an economic recession to get him out of office. It's one thing to criticize a president for what they've done, it's an entirely different level to hope something horrible happens outside the president's influence to drive him out of office. That's more crude and vindictive than even Trump.
Belief in the superiority or desirability of the status quo is a form of ideology. There will be times when the status quo is hopelessly broken, and yet a big chunk of conservatives still believe in it: that's not going to be "pragmatism".
And yet it's the Republicans voting for one now. And they've had form too: remind us all, which party did McCarthy stand for? Don't blind yourself to your own party's rich history of flaws.
No, I think the worst thing is watching your country already failing, and refusing to accept it because it means Trump might not get re-elected.
Your shitty president accomplished almost nothing positive for three years whilst the going was easy, and then severely flubbed the first crisis that came his way. What a farce. Tragedy unfolds with 70,000 Americans already dead, and the president's mostly worried about his TV ratings.
He's eviscerated your country's international reputation, filled high offices with low-competence cronies, he's busy ignoring and undermining anti-corruption measures... I mean, you have a face full of potential risk of failure rushing right at you. At least by having to suck it up, you might learn not to elect plainly incompetent narcissitic toads to the highest office in the land. Because at least people thinking about that kind of failure want to learn from it and do better in future. You guys just want to be allowed to fail and get away with it.