7 ms·

> Yeah, same here, but that's because we live in progressive bubbles. Biden is a stopgap, he was what was required to get rid of Trump, which was job #1, a P1

> Yeah, same here, but that's because we live in progressive bubbles. Biden is a stopgap, he was what was required to get rid of Trump, which was job #1, a P1 if you will. A "progressive bubble" or other media-created marketing phrase is not a factor, it's a pure transaction: Trump has to go. People rose to the occasion this time. > You cannot imagine someone actually liking Biden without being soft in the head This isn't a fair interpretation of what they were saying, nor realistic. People are going to lament that a big part of Biden's support was functional, in order to get Trump out, but people complain about unchangeable things all the time. It's not significant.

shawnz 6y ago
I think the point is, if everyone agrees Biden is just a stopgap, why didn't they just pick someone better? For him to be a "stopgap" at all must imply that some Democrats today see him as the best end-game option, and we just need to "convince" them to be even more progressive
- Macha 6y ago
  If the risk is that someone like Romney, or McCain get in, I think progressives would feel more free to take risks and pick a more progressive candidate. To most progressives, while they're not fans of Romney and revisionism aside weren't fans of McCain, having one of them in power feels less dangerous than having Trump in power. If next election they're up against an attempt for Trump to get back in, then yes, you could expect a large progressive turnout for a Biden re-election. But if he's against a more moderate republican, I don't think you'll see the turnout that happened this year repeat, which may turn out to be a problem for his supporters.
  - kibwen 6y ago
    Note that Biden has already indicated that he would prefer to serve only a single term. Of course that doesn't mean he definitely won't be running in 2024, but if true then the race will be more wide open than a typical incumbent candidacy.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      He's nearly 78 now. He'd be 81 next time around, and his campaign this election cycle could hardly be called vigorous. The electorate will be younger also. I don't think there will be much appeal even as an incumbent unless his accomplishments in office are remarkable.
      - klipt 6y ago
        Assuming republicans control the senate, it would be practically impossible for Biden to accomplish anything remarkable. It seems the best we can hope for is a president who doesn't try to fire CDC experts and who doesn't appoint far right judges.
      - NearAP 6y ago
        His campaign was 'not vigorous' as you called it because of the pandemic
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      Do you have a source for him saying that? I can only find that he says he intends to be a “transitional candidate” to the next generation.
      - kibwen 6y ago
        A search for "biden single term" brings up the first result as this: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-0... "Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term. While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital. According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president. “If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.” The adviser argued that public acknowledgment of that reality could help Biden mollify younger voters, especially on the left, who are unexcited by his candidacy and fear that his nomination would serve as an eight-year roadblock to the next generation of Democrats."
- kibwen 6y ago
  > if everyone agrees Biden is just a stopgap, why didn't they just pick someone better? Because the electoral college distorts what "someone better" means. Democrats picked someone more popular than Trump in 2016 and lost. Biden's home state is the swing state of Pennsylvania. Home state advantage is generally fairly minor, but in this case the margins are so close that it might have actually made the difference (obviously we'll have to wait for the final count, which we won't have for days).
  - UncleOxidant 6y ago
    Exactly right about the electoral college distortion. If we went by popular vote we could probably have had someone much more progressive. But we have to thread the needle of the electoral college.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      The electoral college advantage doesn’t systematically advantage republicans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/28/a-big-electoral-college-advantage-for-the-democrats-is-looming https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/2.... Don’t forget that Obama’s “blue wall” states are smaller than average and benefit from the EC. And they’re historically quite progressive economically. Obama in fact had a structural EC advantage in 2012: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-get-lucky-in-the-electoral-college/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-get-lucky... > In fact, Mr. Obama would probably have won the Electoral College even if the popular vote had slightly favored Mitt Romney. > If all states had shifted toward Mr. Romney by 5.3 percentage points, Mr. Obama would still have won Colorado and therefore the Electoral College — despite losing the national popular vote by 1.5 points. Losing the upper Midwest produces an EC disadvantage for Democrats, but that’s not an impediment to a traditional progressive candidate in the Sanders mold. Moreover, the EC gives an average of a few point advantage one way or the other. It’s not enough for a “much more progressive” candidate. You can see this by looking at the House popular vote, which is proportional (and not affected by gerrymandering). Republicans regularly win the House popular vote: https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/chat-blue-wave-1.png https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/chat-...
- ineedasername 6y ago
  The problem was that more progressive policies were divisive even within the party, and out of the more moderate candidates running Biden has the most name recognition and probably the most "we know we're going to get". If by "someone better" you mean more progressive, then you're exactly right: you need to convince a portion of the moderate majority to be more progressive. That is a difficult & long term process.
  - smhost 6y ago
    > more progressive policies were divisive even within the party divisive within the Party, but not among the constituency.
    - klipt 6y ago
      "more progressive policies" is a broad term, could mean anything from "Medicare for All" to "Abolish the Police", and some of these are much more divisive than others.
      - smhost 6y ago
        "abolish the police" isn't a policy
        klipt 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
        smhost 6y ago
        if you read past the headline, the actual policy it proposes is to reduce the number of police and cut the budget.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  I honestly don't think any of the Dems in the primary except him would've beat Trump given how important WI, MI, and PA were.
  - mikeshank 6y ago
    Na, those votes were coming regardless of the loon running
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    Beto, hands down. But he never stood a snowball’s chance because of how stupid the FPTP-imposed primaries are. You need to out-left or out-right all other candidates your party puts forward to get their backing for the real elections. It’s a recipe for disaster.
    - snowron6 6y ago
      >You need to out-left or out-right all other candidates your party puts forward to get their backing for the real election. How can you claim that when Biden was one of the least left leaning democratic candidates?
- tshaddox 6y ago
  Well, in practical terms, you have to be able to win the Democratic primary to be the Democratic candidate. There’s no “they” that could have picked someone better, and the people that you or others may have thought were better did far worse than Biden in the primaries.
  - whymauri 6y ago
    Sure, but it's pretty clear that certain candidates get more backing from the DNC mothership and the media than others. In turn, this affects voter perception.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    As un-democratic the electoral college is, the US parties do a much better job in picking candidates in a democratic manor. Especially when compared to Germany, our parties run their party leaders as top candidates for chancellor. Party heads are elected by party members, but in practical terms any results under 85% plus percent is already seen as a lack in confidence. So yeah, who ever wins party primaries is the candidate the parties base wants. Obviously, distorted by money, but still.
- NearAP 6y ago
  They did pick someone - him. Let's not forget he was the nominee because he won the primaries meaning he was considered the best of the contestants. Not everybody is as progressive as Sanders and not everybody liked Sanders tone
- pjc50 6y ago
  I have a feeling that if you somehow ran a ranked-choice vote-transfer algorithm, you'd still end up with Biden as the candidate fewest people take issue with. The eternal problem of the left is getting people to agree on the specifics of how things should be improved.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jules 6y ago
People only rose to the occasion by chance. Had there not been corona and had the economy still been booming, Trump would probably have won. Surely it is possible to find someone out of 300 million people with the same qualities as Biden -- not a big ask, since his #1 quality is that he's not divisive -- but 30 years younger?
- klipt 6y ago
  His #2 quality is probably having been Obama's Vice President. The majority liked Obama though to vote him in twice, and Biden represents more of that.
  - jules 6y ago
    That's a good point.
    - zebraflask 6y ago
      I would chime in with that's the entire point, another 8 years of Obama-esque policy.
      - jules 6y ago
        Biden will be 86 in 8 years...
  - mikeshank 6y ago
    oh god no, not more of that
- NearAP 6y ago
  For democrats who chose him during his primaries, his #1 quality was that he was a moderate/centrist. The democrat party isn't only made up of leftists/progressives. There were a considerable number of democrats who were scared of Bernie and turned off by his supporters. For GOP/Independents who voted Biden, his #1 quality was also that he was moderate and a close second was that he was not divisive.
Udik 6y ago
> People rose to the occasion this time. A bit nitpicky, but I think it's important: "people" cannot be really considered responsible for the win. If just 1.5 voters every hundred had flipped side, Trump would have won. At this point, with the results so close, who wins the elections is basically a coin toss- which arguably isn't a terrible thing in democracy, as it means that the parties compete fiercely and almost optimally for votes. But still in the end the outcome of these elections seems due mostly to chance.
- dtech 6y ago
  Note that due to the electoral college, it's not as close as you make it seem. On the national level the current votes is 51% for Biden vs 43% for Trump, that's quite a large difference.
  - Udik 6y ago
    On the NYT website it says 74.5 million votes for Biden vs 70.3 million for Trump. It makes about 51% vs 48% (without counting the other candidates).

shawnz 6y ago

I think the point is, if everyone agrees Biden is just a stopgap, why didn't they just pick someone better? For him to be a "stopgap" at all must imply that some Democrats today see him as the best end-game option, and we just need to "convince" them to be even more progressive

Macha 6y ago
If the risk is that someone like Romney, or McCain get in, I think progressives would feel more free to take risks and pick a more progressive candidate. To most progressives, while they're not fans of Romney and revisionism aside weren't fans of McCain, having one of them in power feels less dangerous than having Trump in power. If next election they're up against an attempt for Trump to get back in, then yes, you could expect a large progressive turnout for a Biden re-election. But if he's against a more moderate republican, I don't think you'll see the turnout that happened this year repeat, which may turn out to be a problem for his supporters.
- kibwen 6y ago
  Note that Biden has already indicated that he would prefer to serve only a single term. Of course that doesn't mean he definitely won't be running in 2024, but if true then the race will be more wide open than a typical incumbent candidacy.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    He's nearly 78 now. He'd be 81 next time around, and his campaign this election cycle could hardly be called vigorous. The electorate will be younger also. I don't think there will be much appeal even as an incumbent unless his accomplishments in office are remarkable.
    - klipt 6y ago
      Assuming republicans control the senate, it would be practically impossible for Biden to accomplish anything remarkable. It seems the best we can hope for is a president who doesn't try to fire CDC experts and who doesn't appoint far right judges.
    - NearAP 6y ago
      His campaign was 'not vigorous' as you called it because of the pandemic
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    Do you have a source for him saying that? I can only find that he says he intends to be a “transitional candidate” to the next generation.
    - kibwen 6y ago
      A search for "biden single term" brings up the first result as this: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-0... "Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term. While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital. According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president. “If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.” The adviser argued that public acknowledgment of that reality could help Biden mollify younger voters, especially on the left, who are unexcited by his candidacy and fear that his nomination would serve as an eight-year roadblock to the next generation of Democrats."
kibwen 6y ago
> if everyone agrees Biden is just a stopgap, why didn't they just pick someone better? Because the electoral college distorts what "someone better" means. Democrats picked someone more popular than Trump in 2016 and lost. Biden's home state is the swing state of Pennsylvania. Home state advantage is generally fairly minor, but in this case the margins are so close that it might have actually made the difference (obviously we'll have to wait for the final count, which we won't have for days).
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Exactly right about the electoral college distortion. If we went by popular vote we could probably have had someone much more progressive. But we have to thread the needle of the electoral college.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    The electoral college advantage doesn’t systematically advantage republicans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/28/a-big-electoral-college-advantage-for-the-democrats-is-looming https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/2.... Don’t forget that Obama’s “blue wall” states are smaller than average and benefit from the EC. And they’re historically quite progressive economically. Obama in fact had a structural EC advantage in 2012: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-get-lucky-in-the-electoral-college/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-get-lucky... > In fact, Mr. Obama would probably have won the Electoral College even if the popular vote had slightly favored Mitt Romney. > If all states had shifted toward Mr. Romney by 5.3 percentage points, Mr. Obama would still have won Colorado and therefore the Electoral College — despite losing the national popular vote by 1.5 points. Losing the upper Midwest produces an EC disadvantage for Democrats, but that’s not an impediment to a traditional progressive candidate in the Sanders mold. Moreover, the EC gives an average of a few point advantage one way or the other. It’s not enough for a “much more progressive” candidate. You can see this by looking at the House popular vote, which is proportional (and not affected by gerrymandering). Republicans regularly win the House popular vote: https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/chat-blue-wave-1.png https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/chat-...
ineedasername 6y ago
The problem was that more progressive policies were divisive even within the party, and out of the more moderate candidates running Biden has the most name recognition and probably the most "we know we're going to get". If by "someone better" you mean more progressive, then you're exactly right: you need to convince a portion of the moderate majority to be more progressive. That is a difficult & long term process.
- smhost 6y ago
  > more progressive policies were divisive even within the party divisive within the Party, but not among the constituency.
  - klipt 6y ago
    "more progressive policies" is a broad term, could mean anything from "Medicare for All" to "Abolish the Police", and some of these are much more divisive than others.
    - smhost 6y ago
      "abolish the police" isn't a policy
      - klipt 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
        smhost 6y ago
        if you read past the headline, the actual policy it proposes is to reduce the number of police and cut the budget.
whateveracct 6y ago
I honestly don't think any of the Dems in the primary except him would've beat Trump given how important WI, MI, and PA were.
- mikeshank 6y ago
  Na, those votes were coming regardless of the loon running
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Beto, hands down. But he never stood a snowball’s chance because of how stupid the FPTP-imposed primaries are. You need to out-left or out-right all other candidates your party puts forward to get their backing for the real elections. It’s a recipe for disaster.
  - snowron6 6y ago
    >You need to out-left or out-right all other candidates your party puts forward to get their backing for the real election. How can you claim that when Biden was one of the least left leaning democratic candidates?
tshaddox 6y ago
Well, in practical terms, you have to be able to win the Democratic primary to be the Democratic candidate. There’s no “they” that could have picked someone better, and the people that you or others may have thought were better did far worse than Biden in the primaries.
- whymauri 6y ago
  Sure, but it's pretty clear that certain candidates get more backing from the DNC mothership and the media than others. In turn, this affects voter perception.
- hef19898 6y ago
  As un-democratic the electoral college is, the US parties do a much better job in picking candidates in a democratic manor. Especially when compared to Germany, our parties run their party leaders as top candidates for chancellor. Party heads are elected by party members, but in practical terms any results under 85% plus percent is already seen as a lack in confidence. So yeah, who ever wins party primaries is the candidate the parties base wants. Obviously, distorted by money, but still.
NearAP 6y ago
They did pick someone - him. Let's not forget he was the nominee because he won the primaries meaning he was considered the best of the contestants. Not everybody is as progressive as Sanders and not everybody liked Sanders tone
pjc50 6y ago
I have a feeling that if you somehow ran a ranked-choice vote-transfer algorithm, you'd still end up with Biden as the candidate fewest people take issue with. The eternal problem of the left is getting people to agree on the specifics of how things should be improved.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jules 6y ago

People only rose to the occasion by chance. Had there not been corona and had the economy still been booming, Trump would probably have won. Surely it is possible to find someone out of 300 million people with the same qualities as Biden -- not a big ask, since his #1 quality is that he's not divisive -- but 30 years younger?

klipt 6y ago
His #2 quality is probably having been Obama's Vice President. The majority liked Obama though to vote him in twice, and Biden represents more of that.
- jules 6y ago
  That's a good point.
  - zebraflask 6y ago
    I would chime in with that's the entire point, another 8 years of Obama-esque policy.
    - jules 6y ago
      Biden will be 86 in 8 years...
- mikeshank 6y ago
  oh god no, not more of that
NearAP 6y ago
For democrats who chose him during his primaries, his #1 quality was that he was a moderate/centrist. The democrat party isn't only made up of leftists/progressives. There were a considerable number of democrats who were scared of Bernie and turned off by his supporters. For GOP/Independents who voted Biden, his #1 quality was also that he was moderate and a close second was that he was not divisive.

Udik 6y ago

> People rose to the occasion this time. A bit nitpicky, but I think it's important: "people" cannot be really considered responsible for the win. If just 1.5 voters every hundred had flipped side, Trump would have won. At this point, with the results so close, who wins the elections is basically a coin toss- which arguably isn't a terrible thing in democracy, as it means that the parties compete fiercely and almost optimally for votes. But still in the end the outcome of these elections seems due mostly to chance.

dtech 6y ago
Note that due to the electoral college, it's not as close as you make it seem. On the national level the current votes is 51% for Biden vs 43% for Trump, that's quite a large difference.
- Udik 6y ago
  On the NYT website it says 74.5 million votes for Biden vs 70.3 million for Trump. It makes about 51% vs 48% (without counting the other candidates).