Here on DU, a lot of us think the general Democratic population is like us. It's not.

[MineralMan]

If most Democrats were like DUers, then DU would be a lot busier. If you're confused about why Joe Biden has such a large lead in recent primary polling, you might be misunderstanding what most Democrats are actually thinking about. You might be confusing them with your fellow DUers.

The current Biden lead is actually due to:

1. Almost every Democrat in this country wants Donald J. Trump out of the White House. That's their #1 priority for the 2020 election.

2. Among the 20-something current candidates, there is only one who has any White House experience. Joe Biden, who has 8 years of it, along with a lengthy history in Congress.

3. Joe Biden smiles and can make a joke. He doesn't show up grumpy and irascible to talk to voters, like his closest competitor.

4. Joe Biden is not afraid to take on Donald Trump. In fact, he is the only candidate whose campaign launch was focused on getting rid of Trump and the reasons for doing that.

5. Joe Biden is in his 70s, but behaves like a younger person. All that experience he brings to the campaign has taken decades to accumulate. Voters understand that, and don't mind that he's older. Many people also believe that with age comes wisdom.

6. Joe Biden is predictable. He will support progressive legislation. He will sign bills that do things like improve healthcare. He won't surprise people with some trade war nonsense, saber rattling, or promise stuff that can't be delivered during his term in office.

7. Joe Biden isn't a leftist. He is a Democrat. He supports labor. He supports voting access. He supports a lot of things, but isn't clamoring for the latest darling plan from the left. Joe Biden is a "slow and steady progress" guy. Lots of people want that, and will vote for that, as we're seeing in the polls.

8. Joe Biden is currently the only primary candidate that has all of those qualifications. People know that and like that. They also like other candidates who are running, but none of them can bring all of that to the table. One of them will probably be his running mate. People like that, too. But, they want a President who knows how to preside over this weird, complicated nation.

So, don't be surprised that Biden has a strong lead in the primary polls. It would be much more surprising if he did not. He's very likely to maintain that lead, grow it, and end up as our party's nominee. That's a good thing. Really, it is. He can win next November and we can:

VOTE TRUMP OUT!

[mobeau69]

2. He's already had two shots.

A lot of us are concerned about a repeat of 1987 for Joe. He made some serious "gaffes" in Iowa, to put it kindly, and went down in flames.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, he's taking a third shot, isn't he?

He seems to be doing quite well, too, don't you think?

[pandr32]

62. 1st shot since his eight years as VP

People have seen him in the White House for a long stretch now and are not worried about whether he is up to the job or not. Biden is trustworthy so who cares if he ran for Pres twice before he became VP.

[cwydro]

197. Excellent point!

[Cha]

204. Exactly pandr.. I like the way you put

that!

Please see my post..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=117312

Aloha!

[pandr32]

246. Good one, Cha!

Mahalo for the link.
Aloha!

[George II]

13. 1987 was 32 years ago, and he was only 45. He has learned and accomplished a lot since then.

[mobeau69]

36. 32 years ago means nothing to the repubs.

A big concern is that Joe can't generate the kind of enthusiasm that will be required to win in the GE. The debates will be crucial and he's never exhibited the KSA's to go up against the likes of Warren, Buttigieg and Harris.

I'll vote for Joe if he's our nominee just like you'd vote for Warren, Buttigieg or Harris but we'll need some of the people that voted for trump along with a huge democratic turnout that includes the younger voters.

It's a long way to the finish line regardless of what the polls show today.

[DownriverDem]

65. We want to win

Now is not the time to take a chance on folks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. If he can't generate enthusiasm, how is it that he's so far ahead in the polls?

[marylandblue]

75. For some, he seems to be the preference based on perceived electability

in response to fear of Trump. It's not that everyone loves him (though some do), but that he is an acceptable compromise for those who prefer someone else.

[DemocracyMouse]

122. Everyone is making this too complicated...

Joe's just the most familiar name.

So was Tump due to an exceptionally stupid TV show.

Most people don't read newspapers. They watch TV. They "watch" the news.

Joe was in the small screen a lot and he was with Obama. Familar, reliably Democratic. His being "pro union" is a newspaper reader's fuzzy notion. Most folks I talk to at a checkout counter don't even know what a union is.

This country has no intellectual protein. It's a weak, politically tepid country as a result. Ever notice the phrase "I don't talk politics"?

Prople saw Joe on TV. He doesn't offend. Maybe his running mate can carry the thinking classes. Hopefully.

We live in a big, stupid country.

[duhneece]

131. Biden-Harris

Biden-Warren. Biden-Pete. Biden and anyone

[Cha]

205. Ah.. Aloha, duhneece!

[Hekate]

231. Works for me

[MineralMan]

84. He seems to be generating enthusiasm.

People can answer polls however they choose, it seems to me. That he already has a substantial lead seems to indicate a certain enthusiasm on the part of those responding to those polls. Since it doesn't matter who they choose, enthusiasm is often the reason they make a particular choice.

[True Blue American]

111. Many voters connect

Joe with Barack. They had a President and VP they could be proud of.

[MineralMan]

113. And that's a very powerful influence.

[pangaia]

168. For one, everybody in the world know who he is.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

171. That helps, but it doesn't necessarily generate enthusiasm.

For example, everybody in the world knows who Trump is, too, but many millions of them are not at all enthusiastic about him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

277. They know Bernie too, he ran a national campaign in '16, but it doesn't seem to be helping. nt

[lambchopp59]

221. I'm with mobeau on this one

Many of the millennials I know of just can't even drag out the enthusiasm to bother to vote for another baby-boomer "establishment candidate", it's got to be either kind, old but unmistakably progressive Grandpa Sanders, or one of the younger candidates (I hear either Kamala or Pete by name) that they'll vote for. Otherwise they'll either write in their choice, or sit it out.
Leave it to the lukewarm progressives and we risk another four years of Orange Assclownery.

[Jakes Progress]

230. That's a shame.

Then just like the susan sarandons from 2016, they can eat their words later. I'm old. I'll die sooner and not have the whole lifetime of authoritarian government that the millennial will have to endure.

They can write any name they want on the ballot, but they will get trump. But, o won't they feel so self-righteous about themselves. Won't they feel put upon when trump suspends one right after another. They can always get over it by blaming the baby boomers.

I'm sorry that your friends are idiots. The millennials that I work with are sharper than the crowd you run with. Sure they say they don't want more old people, but they aren't so stupid that they won't vote to get rid of a cancer like trump. The millennials that I know aren't nearly that myopic and self-centered.

You need new friends.

[lambchopp59]

258. Your personal offense aside, I choose to live here in the north bay. These are unmistakably

progressive youths.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287118372

[Jakes Progress]

267. What personal offense.

I didn't call you an idiot. You would have to be like the silly babies you talked about in your post, you know, the ones who would rather have children locked up on the border than have someone they don't lust for as president. You indicated they would not bother to get up and vote if they weren't sufficiently entertained. Would rather end LBGTQ rights and take away a woman's right to her body than be bothered to vote for less than a rock star.

You're not like that. Are you?

You aren't one of those short sighted people who talk to their friends at the bar and decide that everybody is just like the group they just left. You know the world is a big place and that there are lots of kinds of people that don't share your every whim.

Oh. And you need a dictionary. Progressive doesn't describe the group in you post. Selfish and self-centered are adjectives that describe republicans - not progressives.

[lambchopp59]

270. "You need new friends". These are my neighbors, co-worker, and it's Sanders or "forget it" to them.

So STOP attacking me personally. Your tone is offensive and I'm done discussing this with you. I don't drink or hang out at bars. These are hospital employees, health care workers, all of them.
None of them are anything you're accusing me or them of being, period.
Don't put concepts in here I'm not introducing at all.

[Jakes Progress]

274. Are you going to vote for the Democratic nominee?

Stop taking it personally unless it applies to you. Are you saying that you will not vote for the Democratic nominee if it is not Sanders?

You worry about my tone. I worry about people who don't care about anybody but themselves. I didn't accuse them of saying they wouldn't vote unless they were "excited" about the candidate; you did. I didn't put a concept in there that you didn't introduce. If they are willing to let trump be reelected rather than cast a vote for another Democrat, then they are exactly what I am accusing them of being. Period.

I live in Texas, so I have co-workers who want trump to win too. I just don't fool myself that they are thoughtful, caring people.

On DU, the policy is that you support the Democratic nominee. I think Sanders is petty and has no idea how to make things better in the country. Sure he says things that are great. That's why I supported him at the beginning of the last presidential primary. Then I listened to him more and found that he had lots of goals, but no way to put them in place. But if he is the nominee, I will put in many hours canvassing and donate funds to assure that he is elected. I will do that for whatever candidate is the Democratic nominee.

You have already said that your friends won't vote to get rid of trump. Will you?

[lambchopp59]

282. Yes

And we are done with this discussion.

[Jakes Progress]

283. That is good to hear.

I would implore you to explain why you will be doing so to your friends. We need their votes. They need to vote against trump.

[Cha]

234. I'm with these "black 18 to 29 year old likely Democractic voters.. "

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

257. This polling is interesting

Link to tweet

[Cha]

259. Here's to it continuing, Goth!

Link to tweet

Mahalo!

[BannonsLiver]

247. Well, I guess we really do make our own beds.

Good luck to them.

[NYMinute]

44. lol

and yet, President Obama trusted him to be his running mate. TWICE.

Your concern is just a back-door way of smearing Biden.

Let me tell you this -- Joe will make a couple of gaffes - but his support will NOT decrease. His gaffes are baked-in.

[Thekaspervote]

201. Yes.. and right now smearing the leader is all too front and center!!

[LakeArenal]

46. Nixon took three shots at it.

And won.

Hillary took two shots at it.

🤷🏼‍♀️

[mobeau69]

59. Nixon was 2 out of 3. Hillary was 0 for 2 and isn't running now.

[Hekate]

126. Once more with feeling: HRC won. We had a treason problem going on.

I can enumerate how many ways she was "beaten" -- I can do this in my sleep by now. The Electoral College be damned; many more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump, and that's despite the gutting of the Voting Rights Law. It was not close.

[mobeau69]

146. True that but unfortunately it won't be recorded that way in the history books

and the reality is that we're living with the moran in the WH.

Maybe they'll have an asterisk next to trumps name a la Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[Hekate]

154. If we don't deal with our little treason problem we won't win this time, either. Right?

In addition, the gutting of the Voter Rights Act and the resurgence of New Jim Crow laws means the suppression of minority votes across a large swath of the country. Those helpful computerized programs for cleaning up old voter registration files mean that -- for instance -- only one person named Jose Garcia in a particular district in Florida might be the valid Jose Garcia, and all the rest of them must be fraudulent, so out they go despite the fact the local phone directory is filled with Garcias.

We have a lot of work to do to, but it won't help if we blind ourselves to the facts -- among which is: this country voted for Hillary over Trump, and saying she was unpopular and (take your pick) not strong enough or not warm and fuzzy enough, while implying we are sore losers obscures the horrible truth of how Trump actually came to sit in the WH.

As for the history books, current books coming out by the day are going to be a stunning testament that the spirit of Paul Revere is alive and well, and that we were warned.

[emulatorloo]

53. The "two shots" argument is irrelevant now. Biden's grown ideologically and gotten more experience

as a campaigner and speech maker.

His past runs are irrelevant to his current performance at rallies and in polls

[DownriverDem]

64. Doesn't matter

Folks want trump gone. It's clear they want someone that can win. Why would they take a chance on folks who have no experience?

[Pluvious]

83. In the Age of President Pussygrabber do "gaffes" still mean what they used to ?

But the crucial vulnerability we have is the stay-at-homes - the side with the most will be the losing side...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

87. Biden's so-called gaffes have become something of a false meme, like Ford's alleged clumsiness,

which wouldn’t have become a thing if Chevy Chase hadn’t made it one on SNL after Ford fell on the steps of AF1. Ford fell or tripped a couple of times on account of a bad knee, but he probably wasn't any klutzier than average - nevertheless, SNL turned him into a klutz in the public's mind. Likewise, because the media like to remind us that Biden is “gaffe-prone,” everything he says will be carefully parsed, and a slightly inartful statement, if it had made by anyone else, will be called a gaffe if Biden says it. And we'll see blog posts and headlines and SNL skits about another Biden "gaffe."

These false memes have a way of sticking. My memories of Gerald Ford are mostly the SNL skits. Let's not allow anything like that to happen to Biden, shall we?

[Pluvious]

95. Very good point - reminds me of the false "Gore said he invented the Internet" meme

People will believe what they want to.

Remember Jonestown.

[mobeau69]

98. Sometimes the word "gaffe" is used euphemistically.

There's that need for caution, you know.

[Cha]

207. Sometimes it's not.

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

218. And there goes the New York Times again, making my point.

[Demsrule86]

109. So did Reagan.

[Butterflylady]

144. He went down in flames, as you put it, not me.

However he was up against Obama and Hillary. Both super stars of the Democratic party. Now he maintains that status because of being the most experienced democrat in the field. Mineral man has stated his qualities quite eloquently. I agree with whole heartily.

[Cha]

203. Great point, Butterflylady.. "..went

down in flames..." doesn't cut it.

[nvme]

182. The third time is a charm

jus sayin

[Politicub]

183. He gets an unlimited number of shots.

Your post made me laugh.

[Honeycombe8]

191. So did Reagan. So did Nixon. One of Biden's times was against Obama.

I don't support Biden for the Presidential nominee, but I've satisfied myself about his prior times at bat. One of those times was against Obama. So, come on...no one had a chance against Obama.

[Cha]

202. Oh gawd.. "..2 shots.." That

was then and this is now.. Post having 8 years experience in the White House with President Obama.

In President Obama's words..

In A Surprise Send-Off, Obama Awards Biden Presidential Medal Of Freedom

snip//

Calling the former longtime Delaware senator "the best vice president America's ever had" and a "lion of American history," Obama gave his White House partner the surprise award in an emotional ceremony, initially billed as a farewell.

After extolling the job that Biden has done, Obama ended it with the unexpected news that he was giving the vice president the nation's highest civilian honor, with distinction — a designation most recently given to President Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Gen. Colin Powell.

"To know Joe Biden is to know love without pretense, service without self-regard, and to live life fully," Obama said.

snip//

Throughout the ceremony it was evident not just how close the two men were but how close their families and staffs had become, and Obama said his "family is honored to call ourselves honorary Bidens."

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/509545778/in-surprise-send-off-president-obama-awards-biden-presidential-medal-of-freedom

Transcript of President Obama's speech..

He fought to make college more affordable and revitalized American manufacturing, as the head of our middle-class taskforce. He suited up for Our Cancer Moonshot and giving hope to millions of Americans touched by this disease.

He led our efforts to combat gun violence. And he rooted out any possible misappropriations that might’ve occurred. And as a consequence, the recovery act worked as well as just about any large- scale stimulus project has ever worked in this country. He visited college after college and made friends with Lady Gaga…

Behind the scenes, Joe’s candid honest council has made me a better president and a better commander in chief. From the Situation Room, to our weekly lunches, to our huddles after everybody else has cleared out of the room, he’s been unafraid to give it to me straight, even if we disagree.

In fact, especially, when we disagree. And all of this makes, in my belief, the finest vice president we have ever seen. And I also think he has been a lion of American history.
The best part is, he’s no where close to finished. In the years ahead as a citizen, he will continue to build on that legacy internationally and domestically. He’s got a voice of vision and reason and optimism and love for people and we’re gonna need that — that spirit and that vision as we continue to try to make our world safer and to make sure that everybody’s got a fair shot in this country.

snip//

So all told, that’s a pretty remarkable legacy, an amazing career in public service. It is, as Joe once said, “a big deal.”

Much More..
http://time.com/4633826/joe-biden-obama-presidential-medal-freedom/

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

232. Cha

[Cha]

233. Aloha, Hekate..

[MineralMan]

272. It's odd that we have to keep reminding folks about that.

Isn't it?

[Cha]

275. It's like they weren't

paying attention during those 8 years.. like some of us were.

[brooklynite]

3. That's not really news...

[MineralMan]

4. No, it's not news. Its my opinion.

If you want news, Google has a News tab. I write opinions.

[True Blue American]

10. Mineral Man,

I agree with every word you posted, and it certainly seems those in the Heartland agree with you.

Young and old are responding to Joe’s message. Other wise his numbers would not keep getting better among all people.

[MineralMan]

20. Thank you. I agree.

I think there's a decent chance that Biden could flip a few pink states that nobody expects to flip.

The American voting public has seen the worst with Trump. It just might be that they are going to react strongly to that next November, as long as they have a Democratic candidate who doesn't worry them too much.

Joe Biden fits that bill to a "T."

[True Blue American]

22. I also think

Joe will get quite a few disgruntled Republican votes, too!

[MineralMan]

27. No doubt he will, along with some Democrats who are close

to the actual middle, politically.

Some people voted for Trump as sort of a protest. It's kind of like Minnesotans electing Jesse Venture as Governor. It didn't take long for people to realize their mistake. By now, many, many people who voted for Trump regret that decision, I have no doubt. Other people, I suppose, voted for him because they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason.

Nobody's really polling to see about that, really. They will next year. I'll be interested to see how many people wish they had not voted for Trump.

[True Blue American]

119. Since I am

Moderate Democrat I want a moderate candidate. One who does not rant at me shoving their ideas of what they think I want.

For the average candidate it would be wise to shut up and listen. Beto went on a Listening Tour first.

[FM123]

63. Yes, Joe will probably get a quite a few of those unhappy repugs to vote for him over trump.

I was rather surprised when I read this article that unhappy repugs like Ana Navarro that hate trumpy would actually vote for a Democrat if it were someone like Biden. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/opinions/joe-biden-is-normal----and-that-sounds-really-good-to-me-navarro/index.html

[NurseJackie]

18. Ha!

If you want news, Google has a News tab. I write opinions.

[MineralMan]

23. Thanks!

[Cha]

208. Ikr!

[cwydro]

60. Apparently, it's only news if you post about a lunch companion.

[MineralMan]

85. I know I've never had lunch with a presidential primary candidate.

In fact, I don't actually know anyone who has.

[Yonnie3]

86. ...

[brooklynite]

252. Apropos of today's news, did I mention the dinner I had with Steve Bullock?

If not, I apologize.

[ancianita]

17. But it's well stated and well framed news. We do tend to forget here that most Dems are not like us.

And that DU's opinions don't necessarily lead or reflect nationwide Democratic voters' opinions on who is likely to be best as president.

[BannonsLiver]

249. Reports from cocktail parties and cotillions aren't news either.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

6. Name recognition...

and a comfortable feeling of familiarity cannot be discounted. To the average Dem as you described he’s like a big warm blanket.

[marylandblue]

7. Everything you said is true, except you left out one thing.

He has the highest name recognition and familiarity of all the candidates. This will automatically make him more attractive to the average voter than the average DUer. The debates will be the first time general voters see other candidates for themselves. That could change things. Or not.

[MineralMan]

9. Anyone with his record in politics would have name recognition.

I left it out because it's so obvious.

[marylandblue]

73. Yes, but it's important in assessing his poll numbers this early.

It will be less important in a few months. If his lead still holds by the fall, that will look a lot stronger than it does now.

[Jarqui]

140. I had the same reaction, marylandblue

Like a lot of people, I didn't know who Mayor Pete was in January 2019. Most still don't. When they get to know him, some will switch over to him.

I like all the top Democratic candidates and probably/nearly the whole field. I have preferences but I do not deeply dislike any.
When the debates and media coverage heat up, I think they'll collectively close some of the gap because we have so many good people running with will attract support when people get to know them.

[WeekiWater]

14. "He has the highest name recognition and familiarity of all the candidates."

I don't think he has a higher name recognition or familiarity as Sanders. Biden wasn't front and center for eight years. Sanders has been campaigning for over four. And look at where Sanders is polling. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sanders has higher name recognition. They have both hit a saturation point.

[marylandblue]

71. I'm not just talking about Sanders, who people know now and don't like

But everyone else is lesser known. Even ones who are relatively well known, like Warren, may be known for the wrong things.

[WeekiWater]

77. I do agree with your overall point.

I'm excited to see which candidate or two peaks at the right time. And I think one or two will.

[NYMinute]

45. People are tuned in

All the top 7 candidates have name recognition. Definitely the top 2 do and still he is ahead.

It is not about name recognition. People know Biden and want Biden.

[marylandblue]

72. " It is not about name recognition. People know Biden..."

Umm, yeah...

[NYMinute]

133. Almost all Democrats know Biden, BS, Harris, Warren, Beto, Booker and Klobuchar.

Name recognition is not an issue there.

Especially between Biden and BS -- both are equally well-known.

[marylandblue]

161. See post 160 on why I added the word "familiarity."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=116992

[NYMinute]

184. By that definition

No new candidate can ever have "familiarity"

[marylandblue]

210. Yes, that's why Biden starts with an advantage nobody else has.

[cwydro]

200. There are a few not so well known.

Buttigieg wasn’t even known by many here. I still see complaints about how “difficult” his name is lol.

Harris and Klobuchar I had to research when I first started hearing their names.

I disagree that “almost all” Democrats know those you mentioned. Not even all DUers do.

[rgbecker]

248. So we're going with BS for Sanders while all the rest get last names?

Divisive.

[Fresh_Start]

78. Biden and Sanders have comparable name recognition

So Biden isn't leading just because of name recognition, he leading Warren/Harris/etc due to name recognition. But he's leading Sanders because people prefer Biden to Sanders.

[marylandblue]

79. This isn't about Sanders.

[Fresh_Start]

100. you are the one who claimed that Biden is leading because of name recognition

I'm pointing out that this is not true in all cases.

here is your statement: "Everything you said is true, except you left out one thing.
He has the highest name recognition and familiarity of all the candidates."

And that is not an accurate statement.

[marylandblue]

160. I said "name recognition AND familiarity."

Sanders has high name recognition due to his 2016 run, before that it was low. Biden has been well known since at least his 1988 Presidential run, and then as Obama's VP. People know a lot more about Biden and his record than they do about Sanders. I call that familiarity. It's a subjective judgement since I don't know of any polls asking about that.

[Cha]

212. You are exactly right.. and BS is always on

the tv.. so I've read on DU.. High Name Recognition. not high in polls.

Thank You.

[aikoaiko]

213. The debates will be difficult for Joe.

If I remember correctly, it was his poor responses in 2008 that did him in.

Between his tolerance of segregation, his treatment of Anita Hill, his protection of credit card companies, and anti-weed stances, there are a lot of issues that could trip him up when he speaks about them.

[drray23]

279. He absolutely shredded paul Ryan for the VP debate

Joe Biden is very sharp. He can think on his feet and has a vast amount of knowledge to draw from. I dont think he will have any issues in debates.

[WeekiWater]

8. I would consider Castro as having WH experience.

He was the youngest member of Obamas cabinet. Serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is a pretty big deal. As it is a part of the Executive Branch I would consider it WH experience.

I agree with what you have written.

[MineralMan]

12. That's true, although HUD isn't all that visible,

so most people don't know about that experience, I suspect.

[WeekiWater]

19. Completely agree.

Sad as many of its policies generate an enormous impact on peoples lives. I really like listening to Castro talk about his time there and where he would like to go from here. He is really well versed on it.

[MineralMan]

173. Being HUD director is pretty narrow experience.

It's issues are 100% domestic and confined to a single issue - housing. While that's a very important issue, it's far from being one of the most important issues out there. I like Castro. I don't think his qualifications from experience, though, for being President are very strong. I don't consider him to be a candidate likely to rise very far in this cycle.

[WeekiWater]

178. I consider the impact of HUD to be more expansive than you do.

That said, I do agree with your overall point.

By that same measure, I think it would be an argument to make against Senators, House members, and lower office holders. Castro was also the Mayor of a large town.

[thesquanderer]

102. I think WH experience isn't much of a factor anyway.

Nixon beat VP Humphrey.

Carter beat incumbent Ford.

Reagan beat incumbent Carter (and VP Mondale, though Reagan also had WP experience at that point).

Clinton beat incumbent HW Bush.

W Bush beat VP Gore.

Trump beat first lady and sec'y of state Clinton.

Also, in the 2008 primaries, one of Hillary's big knocks on Obama was inexperience (3 am phone call, etc.)... McCain echoed it in the general... Obama still won the nomination and the general. Carter and Bill Clinton also won despite knocks on their experience by primary and/or general opponents. History seems to show that the general population doesn't respond to "experience" despite politicians so often making a big deal of it.

[MyOwnPeace]

129. Just a little picky here..........

"Nixon beat VP Humphrey."

Remember that Nixon had 8 years as VP under Eisenhower. He should have had "easy sailing" against just about anybody - except Kennedy!
Actually, the "experience" should have helped him there too, along with the fact that Kennedy was a "Catholic" and people were afraid that "the Pope would run the country."*

* Trust me - I heard that MANY times during the Kennedy/Nixon campaign!

[thesquanderer]

143. Right, I could have gone back further and added Kennedy beat Nixon (nt)

[LuvNewcastle]

147. That's true.

What Americans seem to like is an 'outsider.' The winners usually win by running against Washington; they run on a platform of change, in some form or another. This elect might be different, though. People have gotten more change than they voted for.

[True Blue American]

16. I would imagine

Joe will bring the smartest into his cabinet, capable of doing the work he gives them. I would not be surprised to see a few moderate Republicans there.

[WeekiWater]

21. I would be shocked to see republicans there. Shocked.

Not even sure how that flows from the conversation. Castro isn't even close to a republican.

[True Blue American]

25. Notice, I said

Moderate Republicans. Joe has a well deserved reputation of working across lines. We need that.

[WeekiWater]

39. I see no indication he would have republicans.

"Joe has a well deserved reputation of working across lines."

All of our accomplished candidates have that. Working across lines and inviting the enemy into the house are two totally different things.

[angrychair]

141. This is the worst selling point imaginable

There is absolutely no such thing as a "moderate" Republican.

Name one "moderate" Republican?

You are inspired by a center-right govt that will set healthcare and the environment back even more a we cater to .001% of coal miners in a state we will never win in the GE.

[getagrip_already]

29. there are no moderate republicans....

not any more. If they ever existed, they are gone now.

[WeekiWater]

42. Charlie Crist was a moderate Republican.

He is not a member of the Democratic Party.

"there are no moderate republicans." So true.

[True Blue American]

104. Charlie is now a Democratic Congressman.:)

As to no moderate Republicans I disagree. If they want to join us I have no problem with tat as I am a moderate Democrat!

[MyOwnPeace]

132. 'Ya know.............

I get a feeling that I've heard something like this before:


"______ will bring the smartest into his cabinet, capable of doing the work he gives them."

My GAWD, I hope we've learned our lessons!!!!

[Doitnow]

196. I don't even like it when someone says they want "change." They'd have

to explain to me just what kind of change they want. That means they'd have to get into the issues. We sure got "change" in 2016 #@$%^^&&*##$%^%^!

[katmondoo]

11. I would feel safe with Joe Biden and that is his biggest draw.

I still like Elizabeth Warren. My wish is Biden/Warren

[MineralMan]

15. I agree. Feeling safe is also very important.

That feeling is a combination of all of the factors I mentioned, I think. You're right. Nobody's afraid of Joe Biden, except maybe Donald Trump, and he should be.

[Boomer]

117. Not a workable combination

Warren has more power as a Senator than she would as VP. It would only be a worthwhile trade-off if she could work closely with the president, and I can't see Biden and Warren working together -- not with his corporate-friendly sensibilities. The most likely outcome would be that she was isolated and neutralized.

[Gothmog]

24. DU does not represent the demographics of the Democratic Party

[MineralMan]

31. No, it doesn't. More's the pity, perhaps, but

that is the truth.

[Magoo48]

142. I'm extremely grateful that there is a huge progressive-Democrat demographic spread out along

the continuum left of the majority here on DU. This moment in time is critical for many reasons. Of course, IQ45 and his Republican Clowns of the Apocalypse must be defeated, that’s imperative. At the same time, strong, dynamic, all out action on climate change is imperative right now as well. Mr. Biden’s supporters would have us believe that he is the only candidate with this magic, folksy personality who can win against Agent Orange. That’s unfair to the remaining candidates, some of whom are perhaps more action oriented and from a little further left. I mean, the restructuring of our extraction, vulture capitalism economy so that it will serve an all out onslaught on the prevailing environmental paradigm just doesn’t sound like something which Mr. Biden might consider. I’m still undecided because I’m faced with this conundrum that juxtaposes a great guy and climate change immediacy whose depth and breadth is only being fully recognized a bit further to the left.

[MineralMan]

151. The entire point of the opening post in this thread is that

what you and I might see as the most important issues are not necessarily the most important issues to many voters.

I would remind you that Joe Biden was working on climate change legislation as far back as 1987. Who else running for the presidency can say that?

Donald J. Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord. Remember that? The situation is more dire than you recognize. The problem has been exacerbated by Trump and the Republicans, to the point that it will take at least a couple of years just to reverse the harm they have done.

Do not forget that anything we do involves legislation, and can't be corrected by executive orders and presidential proclamations. Our very best hope is to win the 2020 election resoundingly, including increasing the Democratic majority in the House and actually achieving a Democratic majority in the Senate.

We are going to need to elect a very popular President to do that, through his coattails.

Very frankly, "restructuring our...vulture capitalism economy" is not something that is going to happen instantly, no matter who the next President is. That's a long-term goal that will require a strong Democratic majority in Congress, as well - a majority that is willing to undertake such a step.

Short of an all-out revolution and a complete change of how our government works, drastic actions are not going to occur. They simply are not. That isn't how this behemoth of a nation operates, nor is it how it has ever operated.

Being practical is not regressive. It is simply recognizing how things are and how they work.

[Ghost Dog]

167. Surely, "the most important issues to many voters"

become those issues most hotly debated (and exposed and overexposed in the msm) during campaigns? Or do I mean vice-versa¿

[MineralMan]

170. Not necessarily.

The issues most important to average voters are often not discussed at all by the media. Instead, issues that are most important to the media get discussed. That's one of the reason that the average voter doesn't really follow the news that closely. That's why the average voter decides who they will vote for based on very, very limited information.

That's the point of the opening post in this thread. For some people here on DU, global climate change is the most important issue, or racial equality, corporations, or taxes, or something else. Those are not necessarily the issues that most voters think about when voting. We talk about them on DU, but they are not topics of discussion in people's everyday lives.

Which leads to my initial point that Joe Biden is leading the pack in the polls for completely different reasons than the ones thought to be the most important by DUers.

In South Carolina, for example, Biden has over 40% of those polled preferring him. On DU, he has 14%. I just read on DU that black voters aren't for Biden. the South Carolina polling said just the opposite, with him leading among black voters polled by a large margin.

DUers do not reflect the general Democratic population. Not even close. We need to pay attention to that.

Reread my opening post. It says what my opinions are.

[Ghost Dog]

174. Yes, I agree with all your well-expressed points. Thanks MineralMan for all you do.

I and others would therefore assert that grassroots work is necessary (along with media production) so as to bring the most vital issues: environmental stress and change; social and economic injustice; hegemonistic anti-pluralism in international relations; to the fore in the minds of as many voters (and candidates) as possible.

[MineralMan]

176. That is hugely important, to be sure.

Education is the real challenge. Many people, however, resist being educated with all their might. Those people vote, too. That's always the dilemma, isn't it?

Unfortunately, any Kardashian can generate more votes for a candidate they like than most of us. That's a sad commentary, but it's true.

[Thekaspervote]

206. +1000 I certainly do wish that more Dems could see that slow and steady wins the game

[Magoo48]

240. Well said. Good points. So much to consider, and yes, ousting Agent Orange is #1.

Thanks for your considered response. 🧐

[getagrip_already]

26. Joe biden doesn't wag his finger at you like a grumpy uncle in a crumpled suit.....

Just thought I'd add that.

[MineralMan]

49. Bernie's hand gestures while speaking are always distracting

to me. They seem unnatural and habitual, rather than expressive. I've been coaching the guy I work with, who is expanding his public speaking presence. He has a similar problem. After making a few suggestions, based on rehearsal videos, he has improved his body language during his talks. I've also been working on his pacing, inflections and delivery, and he's improving there, as well.

Really, I'm passing along lessons I learned during about 20 years of standing up in front of large groups and speaking. I was terrible at it, at first, but got some coaching and steadily improved. I'm afraid that there are any number of politicians who could use some coaching, and Bernie Sanders is one of them.

Joe Biden? He does just fine. I suspect he has had coaching in the past.

[drray23]

280. Beto comes to mind immediately

He has a good message, but he is agitated, tilting at windmills when he delivers it. Its distracting and maybe he could use some coaching.

[MineralMan]

281. I haven't really watched him much,

but I did notice that. Unless his polling takes a bit jump, I'm not feeling it, really.

[Kahuna7]

28. Not to mention he is the only candidate who has gravitas on the

Last edited Mon May 13, 2019, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

foreign policy and international stage. That is important to me. Any Democrat will support the Democratic platform. They always do. Our relationships with our allies need to be repaired and restored. Biden is the only candidate who can hit the ground running in this regard.

[MineralMan]

32. Yes. For those who think about international relations,

experience in that area is paramount. Trump has screwed up America's international relationships horribly. That said, only a small minority of actual voters pays close attention to diplomacy and international affairs. But, that minority is horrified at what Trump has done.

[Mr.Bill]

40. Right now Foreign Policy

is the most broken part of our federal government. And it's only going to get worse between now and November 2020.

[MyOwnPeace]

139. Congrats to you, Mr. Bill..........

for recognizing what I also believe to be true. So many crucial issues, defense, climate, commerce, etc., depend on our relationships with foreign countries. And as of now, IQ45 has been the one who farted in the elevator and NOBODY wants to be there with him.
Who are his "friends?" Any that you dare name would probably claim to be so because they are working him to their advantage.

No matter who our candidate is, we must Get Out The Vote!!!!!

We cannot fail.................

[LakeArenal]

47. Yes The world likes Joe.

Joe knows and liked the world.

[Ghost Dog]

169. "relationships with our allies need to be repaired and restored"

For example, all candidates, imo, should be asked for their position regarding the USA's long-standing and recently re-asserted claim that Canada's Arctic waters are not Canada's.

[mtnsnake]

30. Joe is a strong candidate but to anoint him as our only hope this early is no less than ridiculous

Joe is a fine candidate, but the fact that he is so far ahead of the other candidates in the polls this early in the campaign has more to do with name recognition, his lack of having a platform early on, his late entry into the race, his success as VP under Obama, and name recognition. Oops, did I say name recognition twice?

Once the debates begin and voters start learning how qualified and impressive some of the other candidates are, the polls could change in a heartbeat, and they probably will.

I would have total confidence in Biden if he ends up winning the nomination, but to act as if he's the only one of or candidates who can beat Trump is simply laughable.

[MineralMan]

38. I did not do that. I'm commenting on his early lead in primary polling.

I've seen Biden in debates, and he holds his own quite nicely in them. Remember his performance against Ryan?

His current lead isn't just about name recognition. Of course he has that. He's been around for decades. It's more about the points I raised in my post, really.

I'm not "acting as if the's the only one" at all. I'm looking at the early polling and trying to help people understand why he has that lead. I don't doubt for a moment that there are other candidates who might win against Trump. However, I'm pretty certain that Biden would.

I'm also not trying to shift people's support away from their favorite candidate. Who is popular on DU is irrelevant, really, which was what I was saying in the first place. I think people should support whomever they like best. In the end, though, it will be decided by a lot more people than post on DU. I can't really address that group, so I post here.

[Demit]

67. He did well debating Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin one-on-one, yes.

In matters that existed seven and eleven years ago, respectively. Much has changed since then, and he'll have far more formidable opponents, with much sharper minds, in the primary debates to come.

[MineralMan]

82. Do you think he'll do poorly? I don't.

I expect him to do just fine.

[Demit]

101. I don't make predictions. But I do recognize that there are different variables to consider.

His two debates back in the day were as helpmeet to the guy who was actually running for president, or who already was president. The presidential elections didn't hinge on how well the VP debates went. This time he's running alone, on his own merits.

It's just as likely that he could falter, and not put on the strong performance that you hope he will. We won't know what happens until it does.

[emmaverybo]

162. Sharp-minded debaters don't always come across well to voters. Biden's warmth, self-confidence,

and natural personality wedded to his knowledge could outshine “sharp.” Gore and Kerry were strong intellectually, superior as debaters to their opponents, but failed to win points with voters who read debates on an emotional basis. Biden’s communication skills have been underestimated in the “buzz.” Many of those depicting him as a gaffe-prone, mediocre, even bumbling speaker and debater simply have little or no experience watching him in action.
He’s quite a bright man and connects with audiences. His experience in foreign relations and policy
provide another advantage. He’s been following; he’s kept up these past years.

[Demit]

180. I watched two of his rallies, in Pittsburgh and in Iowa. They were friendly crowds, and

still he stumbled. Misusing words, losing his train of thought, repeating himself. These were my observations.

He will be on a stage with multiple keener, younger, minds. Maybe his "Look folks, here's the deal" folksiness and his stories about all the foreign leaders he's known over the years will be enough to carry him forward. And maybe it will wear thin. It's going to be a long, grueling campaign.

[Demsrule86]

115. It is not name recognition.

[Cha]

220. I know.. That implies that

there's nothing behind that.. which couldn't be further from the truth.

They know who Biden is.

[MBS]

163. Agreed.

See my comments on same thread.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=116811

[oldsoftie]

33. You're right. Now let the bashing begin!!

[MineralMan]

51. Perhaps. I don't know.

[Bluepinky]

34. I do like Biden for all the reasons you listed.

I also think he’s a dynamic speaker and is very relatable, important to many voters.

I’m currently still undecided, will vote for any Democrat who wins the primary and will get rid of the large, metastatic orange tumor in the White House. It would be great if Biden chose a woman as his running mate (Harris, Warren or Klobuchar) or even Buttigieg.

[Renew Deal]

35. If it was, Kucinich would have been president in 2004

[MineralMan]

43. That was before I first came to DU.

I was very surprised to see support for Kucinich expressed here. He never won a single primary election, if I remember correctly. That's when I began to realize that DU skewed way to the left in many ways. That's fine, but recognizing that is important when looking at the larger picture.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. I think it's a mistake to lump minorities in your sweeping statement.

I might even make the same mistake in my comments. So, from my pov, not since the sixties has the Democratic party been a champion of minority issues. Which is to say, that minorities learned very quickly that the "General Democratic" population isn't like us. We were treated like bargaining chips for decades, and even told to tamp our voices down prior to elections in order not to scare off the White (racist) Dem vote. Probably the Southern vote.

So, in sum. Most minorities already know that the Dem party isn't always going to be the champion for our crusades, and probably won't be until our numbers are significant.

Outside of that, it is time for alliances because Trump, indeed, must be voted out.

[MineralMan]

52. Oddly enough, I did not mention minorities at all in my post.

So far, from what I've seen, Biden is doing about the same with minorities as he is in general. He's also doing well with women, who are not a minority. When you get right down to it, the same things apply to everyone, really. I brought up just a few things that affect people's attitudes toward presidential candidates. None of them have anything to do with racial or other minority issues.

I could talk about those, but that wasn't my intention, so I did not raise any of those issues in my post. I might do that in some later post.

[Baitball Blogger]

56. Progressive ideals and minority objectives are locked in step.

I can't speak for other minorities, but I can say that I recognize myself as a progressive because I know they are much quicker and committed to advancing causes that can benefit us. I am wary of Biden because, as he may have passed legislation that advanced our causes, so has he embraced decisions and legislation that did quite the opposite. And it's the "quite the opposite" that concerns me.

That said, let's just put this all aside and get Trump out of office.

[MicaelS]

41. And most of those Democrats...

Do not give a damn about Anita Hill. That is a much older cohort's obsession.

[MineralMan]

54. I give a damn about Anita Hill, but that was a long time ago.

That Clarence Thomas is sitting as a SCOTUS justice is a travesty. But there he is, and I know why.

Could Biden have done better? Yes, but Thomas would still be on the court.

It's not really relevant to this election, though, for most people. For some, it's an important factor, but not for most.

[TruckFump]

48. He's safe, he's known, and he's a comfortable entity associated with Obama.

IMO, many, many people are tired of the manic presidency of tRump. Every day there is a new crisis. It's like watching mania personified. And the lies...one never knows what is actually happening -- the story changes.

IMO, this nation is ready for "normalcy." Joe is normal and trusted. He is not a liberal -- but gawd save us -- he sure as hell is not Trump! I have no problem not only supporting Joe Biden but also working for him if he gets the nomination.

IMO, you are correct: VOTE TRUMP OUT -- that is the winning ticket. The more of the voting population the Dems appeal to, the better the odds of getting rid of the orange asshole.

[pdsimdars]

50. This post is DU thinking.

[Cha]

211. ".. DU thinking.."? What you do

you mean by that?

[Ghost Dog]

235. I see this post has nearly 9500 views and rapidly rising

at this point in time.

[pdsimdars]

241. Well, there you go. Du thinking.

[DashOneBravo]

55. K&R

[DoctorJoJo]

57. He Wouldn't Be My 1st Choice, But a Biden/Harris Ticket Would Be Unbeatable!

[MineralMan]

58. I agree. That would be an excellent ticket!

[DownriverDem]

66. Biden is my first choice

And a Biden/Harris ticket would be formidable.

[infullview]

61. The only way Biden makes sense

Last edited Mon May 13, 2019, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Is if he chooses a strong, capable, *young* running mate that can step into the presidency with confidence. He needs a woman such as Harris to be his running mate.

[TygrBright]

69. Could you consider editing your title, please?

I thought this was going to be a layered and thoughtful discussion of the diversity in Democratic Party values, ideology, and membership.

If I had known it would be a list of reasons why many Democrats not on DU support Biden I'd probably still have clicked on it (I like what you write) but I'd have been better prepared to enjoy it.

helpfully,
Bright

[ananda]

70. Well said.

Go Joe !!!

[yaesu]

74. well, in the end, it all depends what percentage actually votes, & for the 60% who didn't vote

its going to take a leftest. Center left just doesn't inspire much dedication.

[sarabelle]

76. I find one big thing wrong with this post:

IT'S NOT PLASTERED ALL OVER THE INTERNET...FB...TWITTER etc.

You are absolutely right. And the majority of the responses to your post prove exactly what you say. DUers think most Democrats are like us and that a majority of Democrats like us.

If we would only get behind the Democrat that most Democrats favor we would win and not repeat 2016, Most Democrats favored HRC in 2016. Most Democrats favored Al Gore. QED

[Fiendish Thingy]

80. The current Biden lead is actually due to:

Name recognition, and the perception that, as the best known candidate, Biden must be the most “electable” candidate.

Most Americans who are not DUer’s don’t even know who their own congressperson is.


Once the debates start in June, I think we will see a significant shift, as voters get to know the candidates better, and see them on a stage interacting with each other. I bet Biden is not looking forward to sharing the stage with Warren, Harris, or Mayor Pete.

By the time voting starts next January, I think the field will be down to single digits, maybe just half a dozen, and the front runner at that point is far from etched in stone.

[highplainsdem]

93. Sanders and Biden are both at nearly 100% name recognition. That hasn't helped Sanders.

[mtnsnake]

97. Your post is the most realistic view of the way the future is shaping up

Well said!

[AllyCat]

81. "Darling plan from the left"? Biden is great

But that kind of comment is demeaning to those who don’t just want 45 out. We want CHANGE that helps Americans.

[Demsrule86]

127. In order to get the change you want, you have to have voter support.

We don't have voter agreement on certain progressive policy ideas...and that is a fact. We have a center left coutry. Change hearts and minds at the grass roots level. But for now, we need to retain the house, win the Senate and win the presidency.

[AllyCat]

227. By doing more of the same ?

The centrist plan hasn’t worked. We need bold new ideas. Things that polling shows resonates with people. I have no doubt Biden would sign off on legislation promoting those values. But I would like to see a candidate for POTUS promote those values and LEAD our HR and newly-Dem Senate into the 21st century. I hope Biden’s other supporters don’t call these values undecided progressives’ hopes “darling plans of the left”.

[saidsimplesimon]

88. There you go again,

making a logical, reasoned and compelling argument to support your candidate. Well done, imo.

[MineralMan]

90. Predictable, eh? Thanks!

[saidsimplesimon]

96. It's difficult for me

to "get over" the fact that President Obama had both an intellectual and emotional argument that was inspirational. It probably explains why Sen. Sanders has a following.

I remain undecided.

[BeyondGeography]

89. Biden is in many ways a less impressive version of Hillary Clinton

Lower personal negatives, but inferior in a lot of other ways.

Clinton had extra-gaudy poll numbers too at this point in 2007. Biden’s advantage looks to be the absence of a single extra-compelling alternative such as Barack Obama. There won’t be another Obama anytime soon, but he or she won’t have to be at that level to defeat Biden because he’s not as strong a front runner as she was.

This far out, Biden’s numbers look impressive, but if experience is any guide they have nowhere to go but down. The big question is can one candidate rise above all the others to make this a two-person race? My money would be on Warren for that. We shall see.

[MineralMan]

105. Well, the fact that there are so many Democrats in the primary race

is certainly a factor. It's a little confusing for many people. Here on DU, we live and breathe politics. That's not the case for most people. Not at all. Politics are boring, infuriating, or even maddening for a lot of people. The more candidates, the more stuff to avoid thinking about. That's the reality for a majority of voters, really.

So, you're right. The multitude of options in this primary race is probably triggering sort of an automatic vote for the most recognizable, likable candidate. People saw President Obama drape the Presidential Medal of Freedom around Biden's neck on the evening news, and heard him praise his friend. That kind of think has an effect on most voters, who do watch some news, but who never watch MSNBC.

I've been around politics and election since 1960, when I was a 15-year-old boy arranging chairs in halls where a candidate was going to speak, and then stacking them again afterwards. I've worked at polling places on Election Day dozens of times. I've carried trays of appetizers around the room at political gatherings as a young guy, and listened in on conversations. I've talked to and volunteered for many candidates in elections for everything from city council to Governor. I've canvassed my precinct many times, knocking on doors, answering questions, and handing out campaign literature.

What I have learned is summed up in the post that started this thread. Most people make their voting decisions based on different things than we talk about here on DU. It's a lot simpler than that. They like what some candidate said about some issue that affects them. They like the way the candidate shakes hands or speaks. They often feel like they know a candidate who they've seen again and again on the news. They vote with their emotions, rather than on a wide range of issues. Some just vote for whatever candidate from the party they identify with is on the ballot. Sometimes, they don't vote at all, if they think they know who will win.

Biden rings a lot of bells with those random voters, and those voters are the ones who make the difference between a Republican and a Democrat winning in general elections. Not just for President, but for legislative and local offices as well. When just a few tens of thousands of votes decides a presidential election, it's not really issues that made the difference. It's voter interest, and whether or not something gets them to show up and vote.

It could be a smile on TV, or a few words about something the voter heard in passing. It could be a TV ad that reached someone, or some precinct canvasser who took the time to answer a question. Often, we don't know why someone voted or didn't vote, but we sure as heck know when lots of people don't vote. That changes elections.

DU is a great place, but it has never elected anyone to any office. The 2500 or so active DUers who post here, even occasionally, might influence twice that number or even three times that number, but that doesn't mean much in a statewide or even a district election. What wins or loses election is the voters we will never see on this site, and who will never know that DU exists. They're the ones who elect people to office.

[Ghost Dog]

172. Are you saying it cannot be "extinction emergency";

urgent need for systemic (not just hope, but real) change?

[MineralMan]

175. I wonder if you understand how few people even know what

that term means? It is less than 1% of the population, I'm certain. So, it can't be a primary issue of concern, because people have never heard of it. Elections are not about issues that few people know about. They should be, but they are not. A sizable majority of voters decides how they will vote based on things you wouldn't even consider to be an issue at all.

That is where general like or dislike of a candidate makes all the difference. Anyone who is a citizen over the age of 18 can vote. So, we don't get to choose what matters to individual voters. We often have no idea what matters to a large percentage of voters.

Are we close to an "extinction emergency?" Perhaps, but most people aren't aware of that, and don't want to be aware of that.

Are we close to shifting toward a fascist-style government? Why, yes, we are. I doubt that even 10% of the voting population believes that to be the case, though.

Elections are driven by other things. What are desperate issues for you or for me are of no concern whatsoever to many others. In fact, those others outnumber us significantly.

So, we have to deal with ignorance, both accidental and intentional. Our candidates have to appeal to enough people who don't give a damn about extinction events or global climate change to convince them to vote for our candidates. That means sometimes focusing on things you don't care about.

We win only when we successfully appeal to people we thing are ignoramuses, along with those who are not.

[mtnsnake]

118. Interesting

Your post is worthy of its own thread because there is so much food for thought in it. I could definitely see a lot of folks agreeing with you that Biden is "a less impressive version of Hillary Clinton" which brings up the concern that if Biden wins the nomination, the Right Wing will immediately cast him as Hillary Lite.

[Fresh_Start]

217. almost everyone running is a less impressive version of HRC..I'm thinking Mayor Pete

might be more impressive in his own way,

Biden has a huge advantage over HRC since he is male...and hasn't been the subject of as many conspiracies as HRC.

[BeyondGeography]

226. By "version," I mean generation and political disposition

Both worked well with Republicans when that was possible, voted for IWR and the bankruptcy bill, have similar attitudes toward money in politics, have international stature, are very well-known and are well-liked by minority voters, etc. Warren and Sanders are the only two others in that age group and one started much later in politics while the other is not someone who anyone would call a version of HRC. Both are much more populist.

[JohnnyRingo]

91. I know two devout Trumpies who said they'd vote for Biden.

That says a lot.

[MineralMan]

108. That's a good sign, for sure.

[Cha]

216. So, they're less

"devout" now.. that they've had 2 years of him?

Thanks!

[Kaleva]

92. What goes on here isn't going to have any measureable impact in the real world.

It really doesn't matter if DU is in synch with the majority of Democrats or not.

DU is a benefit and a great source of info for us regulars and it's been my go to place for many years now. But what I get out of it doesn't really go beyond me.

[highplainsdem]

94. K&R

[ProudProgressiveNow]

99. KR NT

[Gothmog]

103. I am not surprised that Biden has a large lead and I am happy with this lead

I work on campaigns and volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection efforts. On the ground, the Democratic Party is very different from the demographics on DU.

[MBS]

106. Three more electability factors to consider

Feel free to call me paranoid, but 3 years of the current nightmare, on top of various forms of Republican misbehavior from Nixon onward, give me good reason for paranoia.

Also for context, feel free to note my current candidate choice, which (despite the fact, or maybe even because of the fact, that I'm much closer to Joe's age than Pete's) reflects my preference for a younger candidate IF (crucial condition!) all other factors are equal. I should also add that (as I remind myself daily) it's VERY early in the primary process - we haven't even had a single debate yet, not to mention the fact that the first primary is at least 7-8 months away– so I am not irreversibly committed to any candidate at this point. I'll also note that I truly love Joe Biden, I think that he's a wonderful man.He definitely has been (by far!) the best vice-president in my lifetime, I wish him a long life in which he will continue to contribute his deep expertise to our country and to the world, and I without question will strongly support him if he's the general-election candidate.

NOW, knowing this context, please consider the other following paranoia-fueled factors to be taken into account:

1.Already I'm getting the sense of "inevitability" from the press, from the Talking Heads, from many voters, and from Joe and his campaign staff, with whiffs of comments like, "let's get on with it," "the primary phase will be over on Super Tuesday," etc etc etc permeating the air, and frankly this makes me very nervous. We cannot fall into the inevitability trap. Joe's campaign, and Joe himself, cannot take anything at all for granted about his electability. Nothing is inevitable,especially not in this election, with an army of immoral, corrupt fascists in the White House as opponents. Joe and his staff have got to turn over every stone for any and all vulnerabilities in the life histories of himself, his family, and his staff, and they've got to be ready with a compelling response to any dirty tricks, including preventive measures as well as defensive responses.

These considerations are of course true for any candidate; but I'm mentioning them with regard to Joe because of the current CW, and because, well, we've seen this movie before, and we want this time around for the movie to have a happy ending.

2. Anything can happen to any of our candidates and (all fingers crossed we have one) our Democratic president between now and 2024/2028, and we have to be ready for anything, including such possibilities as sudden, unexpected, serious illness or accident, catastrophic political deal-breaker-type event, and worse. We must have a Plan B ready to go in the case of catastrophic events. This means that we (AND the press) must continue to vet serious, viable Democratic candidates throughout the primaries and up to the Democratic convention – and, of course, do so, without stirring up intraparty rancor and division –so that we are not left empty-handed should something unexpected occur.
This consideration also means that, more than ever, the VP general-election candidate must be impressive in his or her own right, someone of the highest moral character as well as someone with intellect, compassion, emotional strength, and serious political experience, who can, without question, take over the presidency if needed. Yes, all presidential candidates present their VP as someone who fits the bill in this regard. But it's never been more important in our history to have a VP who is TRULY worthy of being president; and, at this dangerous point in our history, it's the criterion that matters most, by far.. Geography, demographic appeal, gender and race, debating skill, etc - all of that stuff is way, way down the list.

3. To state the obvious, the Trumpistas and the Republic party, along with Russia, probably China, and their far-right allies across the world (Netanyahu comes immediately to mind, as well as far-right leaders and movements in the UK, France, Hungary, Brazil, and more) will be doing everything possible to (a) suppress votes and voters (b) fiddle with vote tallies (c) infiltrate and warp the press and social media with trolls, fake "news," doctored photos and videos, and more. Since the Trumpistas and Republicans will do everything possible to subvert the election, it's up to the Democrats to develop an organized effort to counter all of their dirty tricks, and to offer material, consistent, effective support to all nonpartisan efforts to do the same. Poll watchers (preferably lawyers and experienced political activitists) in every precinct in the country would just be the first step. Vigilance on social media would be another. But we're going to have to do much more, and we'll have to enlist allies to help us.

[Ghost Dog]

236. "Since the Trumpistas and Republicans will do everything possible to subvert the election..."

I recommend trustworthy truly impartial international observers be invited to closely observe and unreservedly report. Along with the other four of five-eyes, of course.

[MBS]

242. completely agree. n/t

[redgreenandblue]

107. My Facebook feed is already being flooded with "handsy Joe gropes women" memes.

I expect that to be ramped up to a million closer to the election.

That, together with attack ads featuring that video of him where he talks about "prostituting himself" to big donors.

I'm not so convinced that Biden is a winning candidate.

[MineralMan]

112. And my Facebook feed has none of that.

I'm not sure that individual Facebook feeds are all that important, really.

[Ghost Dog]

237. This 15-minute TED talk will explain some of that

for you:

https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

[Demsrule86]

128. I have none of that.

[Celerity]

159. the disgusting parody website is STILL number one on Google search returns

I cannot believe his SEO team still has not sorted it. It has been up for several weeks now.



A parody website with embarrassing photos of Joe Biden is outranking his official campaign page on Google

PUBLISHED FRI, MAY 3 2019 5:50 PM EDT

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/joe-biden-parody-website-is-beating-official-campaign-site-on-google.html

[Cha]

222. There is none of that on my FB..

Desperate people are pulling that kind of shite.

[LongtimeAZDem]

269. Sounde like you have creepy FB friends

[llmart]

110. Great points.

I like #5 the best. We've seen what happens when you put somebody with zero experience in the highest office and it isn't pretty. Joe has it all going on for him. I read his book "Promise Me Dad" and it gave me a new perspective on Joe Biden. He is an amazing human being. And yes, he's flawed as most human beings are, but he has the experience and the temperament we need to stand up to trump.

I can guarantee you that trump won't be parading around behind Joe in the debates and intimidating him. Joe doesn't intimidate easily if at all. He'll put him in his place really quick if he tries any of those stunts.

[Demit]

145. I didn't see Hillary Clinton being intimidated.

I saw Trump trying to intimidate her, and I saw HRC ignore him and continue speaking smoothly.

[llmart]

148. I heard Hillary talk about this in one of her interviews.

She said that if she had to do that debate over she'd would have turned around and told him to knock it off. She regretted not being more forceful.

[Demit]

157. Sure, I read that as well. But it didn't sound like she was saying she felt intimidated.

He certainly attempted to intimidate her, but it didn't work. She stayed poised. His antics never knocked her off her game.

[saljr1]

114. My take is that once the debates start someone is going to emerge out of the pack of Democrats and

Biden's numbers will start to go down. I like joe but he has 40 years of a record for the Republicans to pound on. He ran twice and did poorly. Biden's numbers are good now because he like a security blanket to a lot of the Americans.

[MineralMan]

116. Yes, and it could very well be Joe Biden who emerges.

Think about that. He does fine in such settings.

[mtnsnake]

124. More that a few think that person will be Warren, Buttigieg, or Harris

I have no idea who's going to emerge from the pack in a highly significant way, but someone will, and it might be someone who surprises us all, once the debates begin. One thing's for sure. This race isn't over by a long shot just because folks are trying to paint it that way. History proves over and over again that any polls this far out often end up taking a nose dive in the end.

[Demsrule86]

130. Biden is a great debater and there are 20+ candidates...

President Biden sounds great to me.

[BannonsLiver]

250. Seems more like wishful thinking to me.

[Hekate]

120. Sound reasoning. You make it sound like the average Dem in this country has good sense...

[MineralMan]

123. Yeah, well, maybe there's some sort of collective intelligence out there,

but then, again, there is Donald Trump, so...

Really, presidential elections are a big crapshoot, given the Electoral College and our 50 states. They're usually pretty close. It's really Congress and state legislatures that matter much more, overall. But, those are not popular topics of discussion here on DU. We're all about the "big picture."

I truly hope that Donald Trump has presidented his way right out of the White House. That's our best hope, really.

[thesquanderer]

121. Perhaps the biggest way DU is not like the general Dem population...

...is that the general Dem population seems less tribal about their choice. Unlike here, I think, based on this month's Morning Consult poll, more than anyone else, Biden supporters would choose Sanders as their second choice, and Sanders supporters would choose Biden as their second choice.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Biden's supporters' second choice:
Bernie Sanders 31%
Kamala Harris 13%
Elizabeth Warren 10%

Sanders's supporters' second choice:
Joe Biden 36%
Elizabeth Warren 17%
Kamala Harris 7%

Also of interest...

Warren's supporters' second choice:
Bernie Sanders 25%
Joe Biden 19%
Kamala Harris 18%

Harris' supporters' second choice:
Joe Biden 25%
Elizabeth Warren 17%
Bernie Sanders 12%

Buttigieg's supporters' second choice:
Joe Biden 31%
Kamala Harris 16%
Elizabeth Warren 12%

[MineralMan]

125. I like your use of the word "like."

In the end, that's what it really comes down to, isn't it? Which candidate do the voters "like" best? Likability leads to electability, it seems.

[CTyankee]

165. And where does this lead us with regard to our female candidates?

There's a negative in almost all of the reporting on the women in the race. And, of course, "nobody" liked Clinton either (how many popular votes did she win?). Elizabeth Warren puts out a plan and a decent one but of course "nobody" wants that from HER. Harris is strong and persuasive and a real fighter but of course she's "nasty" or at least unpleasant. Klobuchar is reportedly mean to her staff, which oddly we don't hear about regarding male candidates). It goes on and on.

You get my drift?

[pnwmom]

136. And that would add to the evidence that at the moment its about name recognition. nt

[thesquanderer]

156. Not entirely. From the same poll...

...9% of the people were not sufficiently familiar with Biden or Sanders to have a favorable or unfavorable opinion about them, but Warren at 18% wasn't so far behind as to make the difference in the rankings I posted. That is, Warren was 21 points behind Sanders as a "second choice" for Biden supporters, but most of that could not have come from unfamiliarity with Warren, since only about 9% of people are less familiar with her than they are with Sanders or Biden (logically assuming that the vast majority of people who have head of Warren have also heard of Biden and Sanders). Same with the fact that Sanders supporters picked Biden as their second choice by 19 points over Warren. The 9 point difference in name recognition doesn't account for even half the 19-21 point difference in support. You could add 9 points to her rankings in those lists, and Biden supporters would still prefer Sanders as their second choice, and Sanders supporters would still prefer Biden as their second choice.

But sure, you look further down the list and see candidates with much lower name recognition, and that would factor into their poor showing. Which means that outside the top tier, this polls will probably have little value until we get to debate season.

[Ghost Dog]

238. Thanks for the info at your Morning Consult link

It occurs to me to ask: is anyone surveying superdelegates' preferences?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

134. This jumped out as so true...

Dems like other candidates who are running, but none of them can bring all of that to the table


I think the biggest reason is that Biden, as a person, is the antithesis of trump as a person. Joe exudes decency.

[MineralMan]

137. It seems that way to me, too.

If we want the exact opposite of what Trump is, Biden is it.

[c-ville rook]

135. It is time we are honest with ourselves...

Any “D” is better than the current “T” in office.

But we cannot run to the Right out of fear of losing the White House. Yeah, I saw the Iowa and SC polls too. However, is there one person on this thread that thinks for one second if it came down to these two states that Trump will not have a second term?

I am all for appealing to the center, as much as practical and reasonable. And yes, I have heard almost every pundit on the Left and the Right say ... “the center, white working class”. And if the economy is good, despite how it looks after the election — we are as likely to be fed a fist sandwich courting them as not. Plus, Iowa and SC is not the center no matter who says they are. Our last candidate for Presidential candidate was dead center and how did that work out for us?

I see no need to anoint a candidate yet. And the circular firing squad and doubting a message of decency is not helping. Unfortunately, that means we’re gonna have to come up with some real ideas and policies to combat the hateful rhetoric of the Right. Which is sad since they just have to spew crap they do while the smart kids are plowing through their homework.

However, automatically running to the Right or even center out of fear of an election? I will let Harry Truman answer that,

“Give people the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who votes like a Republican and they’l choose the Republican everytime.”

[MineralMan]

138. It is not 1948 any longer.

It has not been for a very long time.

Trump is his own worst enemy, I think. Yes, he still has his base, but that's it, really. We can win in 2020, if we put someone up who will be the antidote to Donald Trump, but who doesn't frighten people at the same time.

Frankly, it's not about us, which is the point of my thread starter. It is about the faceless mass of voters out there across the country.

A great deal depends on this election. I suggest we find our best shot for winning it. Losing it for any reason is not a viable option.

[Doreen]

149. As far as running a third term and doing better

even after losing the first two has something to do with this time is more urgent to get what is in the WH out.

I like most of his policies though some I do not like. No matter how much we like a president they all do something we do not like or agree with but we still need to get one in who can get the most done that we want/need done.

I like his personality, his intelligence, his experience, his common sense, and yes, ( like it or not ) I do like the fact he worked with Obama for his 8 year term.

[angrychair]

150. While I will vote for whomever the Dem candidate is

I will fight against a Biden bid to the very last second.

Every publicly available statement from Biden is in direct opposition to the positions I hold on healthcare, the environment and education/student loan debt.

Based on his public statements he is more center-right on these issues than any candidate we have had in years.

Courting coal miners is not going to win us elections but supporting ridiculous positions like "clean coal" and "burying carbon" will continue to make real people, real sick.
Our education system is broken and student loan debt isnt going to be fixed by lowering the interest by one or two percentage points.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

153. +1

[underthematrix]

152. Preach. He was also President Obama's wingman which makes him

My Guy.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

155. Joe Biden has supported plenty of non-progressive legislation.

[BannonsLiver]

251. A lot of people tend to focus on the progressive side rather than searching for purity.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

256. With so many other options, I look at the whole picture.

[Demsrule86]

271. So has Bernie ...most long term senators have... called compromise.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

273. This post is about Joe Biden and a claim made about him.

You can call it compromise if you want.

[Peacetrain]

158. The Amen Choir is right here!!

That is the same thing we see here..

[Ghost Dog]

164. But isn't "slow and steady progress" just too slow,

given the present urgent need for rapid radical change?

And, isn't "clamoring for the latest darling plan from the left", in spite of the snideness of the phrasing, exactly what is needed?

[MineralMan]

185. Before we can do anything, we have to undo what Trump has done.

How do you suggest we do anything faster than "slow and steady?" Everything the federal government does has to start with bills in Congress. Presidents can do a few things, but most of those turn out badly, as we have seen. They cannot start programs, create laws, or spend any money without Congress approving of it.

As for "darling plans from the left," let's look at one of them, for example. Perhaps the forgiving of all student loans. Or maybe a huge infrastructure program. Both of those things are trillion dollar projects. Everything having to do with money begins in the House of Representatives, and also must pass in the Senate. Do you suppose either of those things could be passed in the current Congress or even in the next Congress? I don't. The minute the question "How does this get paid for" comes up, the plan is over, because it can't be paid for.

The same is true for a single-payer healthcare proposal. Healthcare is never going to be free. Either we pay one way, or we pay another way. Either way, it will cost another trillion dollars or so. Again, "How does this get paid for" has no answer that will be accepted by a majority of any Congress I can visualize.

Bottom line is that we can't just do those things. They have to be eased into, somehow. We could come up with a trillion dollars by shutting down our entire military, but that's not going to happen, either. Not now. Not anytime soon. We could come up with a trillion dollars by instituting a confiscatory tax on wealth, or by taxing every transaction on Wall Street. I like those ideas, but making them happen would have to get through Congress. What do you think the odds of that would be?

So, which plan do you want? Which one can happen in the real world? Do you want all of them? Well, that's not going to happen.

In the meantime, we have this global climate change threatening everything. I have not seen a plan that would actually stop that from happening. I don't think such a plan exists. We could probably slow it down if we suddenly stopped burning fuel altogether, but that hardly seems possible. How long would it take to install solar and wind power enough to let us stop burning natural gas to generate electricity to run all of the electric vehicles and transport vehicles, let alone replace every vehicle in a short time? How would we do that, and how would we pay for that?

That's what I mean by "darling plan from the left?" I've seen lots of people calling for lots of things that are simply not going to happen, no matter how this next election goes.

So, as an alternative, I suggest electing people who will start that "slow and steady process," beginning by correcting all the harm Trump has done in the past two years. Once we do that, we can begin planning for the future and trying to get something done that might work.

Or, we can lose another election. That's easy enough to imagine. I'd rather we didn't do that. I'd rather we won this one, and maybe even get a majority in the Senate. If we can do that, we can begin to start making progress again. Begin. Just begin.

[Ghost Dog]

190. Yeah. How to move such a behemoth...

Assuming a win, I'd certainly recommend both instituting a confiscatory tax on wealth and taxing every algorithmic transaction on Wall Street, massively, as a way to jumpstart a Green New Deal.

[redstatebluegirl]

166. Thank you thank you!

Been wanting to say this for a long time, you said it really well!

[get the red out]

177. Thanks MineralMan

As a southerner, you are describing probably the majority of Dems that still exist here. I am quite liberal, but very pragmatic.

[MFGsunny]

179. Great list of domestic skill sets. For me, I would also add foreign affairs experience plus

greater trust in the international community as a better known entity.

Thank you for posting this, Mineral Man!

[MineralMan]

186. Well, Biden has some pretty good chops in that area, too.

In fact, probably the best international relations chops of any of the candidates, frankly. We need that, and we need that very badly.

We could start by reaffirming our commitment to the Paris Accord. We could do that on day 1.

[srobertss]

181. Very true I think

I just heard about a recent Hill-HarrisX poll that had a result of 54% of the country believing that Barr’s conclusions on the Mueller report were correct!! And 65% thought further investigations would hurt the country!!! I don’t know much about this polling service or how the questions were asked but that was a jaw dropper for me. More hearings would certainly start to erode that, but it shows me that most people do not share my viewpoint. I do think we could do very well by energizing younger and marginalized voters, but Im not sure my generation of boomers believes that. I listened to Bidens campaign launch and felt like healing salve was being applied to my sunburn and thought, “This is going to go a long way.” If a Bernie supporter can feel that....

I hope we start to see more and more people shift attention towards the Senate. Whoever gets into the White House will be crippled by a Republican Senate.

[Ferrets are Cool]

187. You are correct about your Subject Line

And while you "may not" be wrong about all 8 things you listed, you missed the MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Name Recognition...which is a sobering, sad state of affairs. Joe is my LAST CHOICE, even though I will vote for him. But then, I would vote for my pet turtle if he had a D behind his name before I would vote for a repug.

[TwilightZone]

188. Name recognition is a canard.

Sanders has nearly 100% name recognition. Warren has 88%. The rest may have some claim to 'name recognition' being an issue, but those two clearly don't.

If name recognition was the primary criterion driving the polls, Biden wouldn't be leading by 30 points.

[Honeycombe8]

193. No...Biden is the only one with widespread name recognition.

Many people aren't into politics. Most of those have never heard of Elizabeth Warren. And I would bet only a few know who Sanders is.

But everyone knows Biden, if only because he's been in the national public eye for decades.

A lot of people vote the name they recognize when they go into the booth, if they aren't political voters.

[Ferrets are Cool]

199. Thank you for posting this

[Fresh_Start]

219. data says Biden and Sanders are virtually tied at name recognition

so Biden is not the only one with widespread name recognition.

As a test, who was Carter's Vice President?

[Honeycombe8]

224. Nixon isn't remembered as VP.

But a lot of people knew the name Nixon just generally before he was elected President. He'd been around a while.

Biden's been on the nat'l scene for decades, in high profile roles. Sanders hit the nat'l scene in 2015 or 2016? And then only in the Democratic primary runup. Biden was chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a while, was on a lot of political talk shows over the years, in the national news.

For people who don't read/watch the news or get involved in politics, it defies common sense to think they know who Sanders is, although they may recognize the name.

There really is no contest with name recognition between the two. Sanders would have to chair some important high profile Senate Committees for a couple of decades, to reach the name recognition of Biden.

I'm speaking only of those people who aren't into politics. They don't watch the news. They don't always vote. Their extent of political knowledge is a blip they hear on the radio on the way to work, or a few lines of the news at night before they change the channel.

But you think what you want. The polls are telling you: the people know who Biden is.

[Cha]

225. Exactly.. BS has made sure he has name

recognition. Hasn't he been on the TV all the time.. Sunday shows and all through the week?

But his name recognition has currently brought him high negatives.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=114114

[FakeNoose]

189. Biden will do well in the swing states - especially Pennsylvania and Michigan

MM I agree with everything you say. Joe Biden will be seen as a safe bet, not too flashy, but he's the guy you want to have a beer with. He's just like your friendly neighbor who always has a smile and a good joke. He knows how to get things done, and he's good at helping other Democrats get things done.

With the right running mate, he will be formidable! I'd almost say unbeatable but we all lived through 2016 so I'm not going to jinx it.

[Indykatie]

192. Thank You For Writing This About Biden

There is a big disconnect about Biden's strengths in the twitterverse I visit from time to time. Some think the polls are wrong and Biden isn't leading or he's leading but only because of name recognition. Others think the only ticket that can excite the base is one led by Harris or Warren.

[MineralMan]

194. Funny thing is that everyone thinks they're part of the "base."

It's a cognitive bias. People tend to think a lot of people agree with whatever they think. I mean, their friends do, so everyone must, right? My definition of the Democratic "base" is that it's made up of people who always show up at the polls and vote for the Democrats on the ballot. That's the base. In fact, the real base is the Democrats who show up at every primary election. They are the ones who decide who the Democratic candidate is going to be. A lot fewer show up for the primaries, though, so they have more influence than the ones who don't.

Who isn't part of the base? People who have ever voted for a third party candidate and people who stay home if their favorite is not on the ballot. Those people are not the Democratic base and never have been.

The Democrat base always votes for Democrats for every office and they always show up for every election.

Nobody who doesn't do that is part of the Democratic base. No way.

[MineralMan]

195. Many thanks to everyone who replied in this thread.

And my special thanks to everyone who DU recced this thread. Any time I get 100+ recs for a thread, I know I'm on the right track. I appreciate it! Very much!

[Honeycombe8]

209. I've had my differences with you, but you the man! That was a good post. nt

[MineralMan]

214. That's very kind of you to say.

[proud patriot]

198. I have family

who are "green" Bernie/Tulsi fans only .. they keep talking about the establishment being unfair
etc etc media etc etc are to blame blah blah ..

I keep reminding them Dem Voters Dem Voters Dem Voters ..

They just don't get it .. I try

[MineralMan]

215. All you can do is try.

[BannonsLiver]

253. It's called sour grapes.

They get it, but they’re not getting their way so they get mad.

[demosincebirth]

223. I like "he's not a leftist, he's a democrat."

[Cary]

228. Practical

[YOHABLO]

229. Using the term ''left" is actually a pretty broad statement. What's so bad about the ''left''?

Biden is a center right Dem. Just wait, when he's up against the other candidates he'll be framing his speech more ''left''. Hillary did it and so did Obama. Whether they follow up on that will be seen after the election. But Democratic candidates today always campaign from a populist ''left" position.

[Chemisse]

239. Joe Biden has all the media attention.

Because he is the front runner, which is due to all your points, plus his name recognition.

And that will tend to keep him in frontrunner status.

I'd really like to see who rises to the top when all the candidates are looked at. We are not well-served when the media picks its darling - to either slam or support, or both - and leaves the others to the side.

[McCamy Taylor]

243. Correct. Real Democrats want Trump out. Number one priority.

DU's Democrats? Some of them do not act as if ousting Trump is their number one priority.

[debsy]

244. It is ridiculous to say that most DUers aren't even thinking about voting dumpster out.

That is the whole point of supporting someone else in an election.

I should have known this was an advertisement endorsing Joe Biden, even though the headline doesn't hint at that. If people voted their interests, they would vote for someone who represents their ideals like Senators Harris and Warren or Mayor Pete. Voting for Joe Biden is not voting for someone who represents our interests. Yes, he has a lot of experience in DC and also in the veep's office but that doesn't mean he is the best candidate for the job. Here we are again with people telling us we can't elect a woman to office. We have to support the career DC candidate who did a lot to support big banks and special interests rather than the common citizen. I'm not saying he did nothing, but he hasn't been as much of a champion for the little guy as Elizabeth Warren.

[MineralMan]

245. "Voting for Joe Biden is not voting for someone who represents our interests."

That's what you wrote. I disagree, and Biden's polling numbers indicate that many other Democrats disagree with your characterization. My post was not an "advertisement." It was my opinion about something. You disagree. That's fine. But the statement you made that I quoted is simply not true.

Besides, I did not say that most DUers don't want to vote Trump out. I'm quite certain that every DUer wants to do that.

[BannonsLiver]

254. It'll probably be awkward for you if Harris ends up as his running mate.

[R B Garr]

255. K&R! Thank you, MM!

Great points.

[MineralMan]

260. My pleasure!

[Gothmog]

261. Joe Biden's early state polling looks more like those of past winners than losers

It is still very early but Biden's numbers are encouraging. This is from Harry Enten https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/joe-biden-state-national-polls-frontrunner/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29

Leading in all the early states at this point has historically been a fairly good sign. Dating back to 1980 (the year in which we start getting solid state polling data), nine candidates in competitive primaries have led in polling around this point in the cycle in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

All but one candidate (Ted Kennedy in 1980) who led in Iowa and New Hampshire would go on to win their party's nomination. The eight eventual nominees were Ronald Reagan in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush in 2000, Mitt Romney in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. All these candidates also held advantages in Nevada and South Carolina in years in which early polling was available and those states held early contests.
A number of national polling leaders who would go on to lose the nomination are not listed above. Joe Lieberman led in neither Iowa or New Hampshire in 2004. Rudy Giuliani trailed in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina at this point in the 2008 cycle. Hillary Clinton was behind John Edwards in Iowa and was neck-in-neck with Barack Obama in South Carolina in May 2007. Scott Walker, who was briefly leading nationally with much less support than Biden, followed Jeb Bush in May 2015 New Hampshire polling.

The big picture here is that, at least in early state polling, Biden doesn't have the obvious weakness that many frontrunners who failed to get the nomination in earlier years had.
Instead, Biden's lead in the early states is consistent with his frontrunner status, who at least for the moment is doing the things he needs to do in order to win.....

Second, Biden's doing well with voters who are tuned into the race. Early state voters are the most likely to be paying attention to the race right now. They're the most likely to pick up on momentum for a candidate first. Biden's polling as well among highly enthusiastic Democrats as he is among Democrats at-large. In New Hampshire, Biden is ahead of Sanders, who is from next door Vermont and won the New Hampshire primary by more than 20 points in 2016, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is also from next door.

[MineralMan]

262. I think a lot of voters are saying, "OK. Joe Biden. He's my choice."

And that's that for them. They know him. They like him. They trust him. They think he can beat Trump. That settles it.

I think a lot of voters are happy Biden opted to run. One guy I talked to said, "Sanders couldn't beat Hillary. Warren's OK, but she's not piling up the numbers. I like Beto, but he lost a statewide election in Texas. Mayor Pete's a nice guy, but all he has run was a mid-sized city. The rest nobody's heard of."

Biden? Biden can win this, and he'll do great in fixing things. Depending on who he picks as VP, we might have the next President all lined up, too.

[Gothmog]

263. Biden can beat trump-if the choice is between Woke and winning, I go with winning

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[VOX]

264. I'm intrigued by O'Rourke, but Biden, Harris, Warren, Booker are all terrific.

And I will back whichever DEMOCRATIC candidate emerges on top from the primaries.

[MineralMan]

265. I'm hopeful we all will back our nominee and work to help elect him or her.

[VOX]

266. Absolutely and without question.

And the opposition will be working on dividing us, as was the case in 2016. Hopefully we’re all a bit wiser now, and can quickly extinguish any infighting before it spreads.

The only potential candidate I have some issues with is Bernie, but I’ll gladly vote for him, should he make it.

[OhioChick]

268. Agree 100% n/t

[Gothmog]

276. 73% of Democratic respondents said Biden's experience makes them more likely to back him

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

278. Good sign.

[marlakay]

284. Everyone I know that is not involved like we are

Is undecided, I don’t have one friend or family member that has picked anyone yet.

They say they are waiting to get to know them better because there is so many.

Even my older mom said that.

We all live in different states, Oregon, CA, Texas, WA.