-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Joe Biden predicts he will run for president in 2020, but not yet 'committed'
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Skellig Gra
Member
A problem, but not an insurmountable one. What we can't do is just maintain the status quo and prop up the current establishment because they are getting pretty crusty.
You know what? I like this idea.
I love how people are arguing that policy matters... No, policy doesn't matter. It arguably never did, and now that message is more clear than ever. She wiped the floor with Trump in all three debates and no one seemed to give a shit.
Populism rules the day. Promise things like free college and free healthcare to get stupid fucking milennials to go out and vote, because clearly no one actually cares about what a candidate actually plans to follow through on. Make sure they're relatively young, charismatic, and funny. Being good looking helps too.
Case in point. No one cares about positions on issues- He's likeable, and he doesn't have as much baggage. What more do you need, the American public asks?
What in the world are you talking about? Nothing has even happened yet. It has been ONE MONTH since the election.
There are already more potential 2020 contenders than there were for 2016.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Trump would be heading into his potential 2nd term at practically the same age though.
Calamari41
41 > 38
And don't doubt that his age will be a huge topic in the election. Running Romney in 2012 all but took healthcare off the table for the Republicans. Why take age off the table in 2020?
BoosterDuck
Banned
Joe the Hero!?I have nothing against Hillary but she just wasn't good at destroying Trump, which should be an easy task for anyone with some charisma (which, sadly, Hillary lacks on stage).
Joe is the hero we needed
I'm pretty sure Obama can be a vp.
This is the 3rd term loophole. If you were president for 2 terms, then VP and something happens with the pres (resignation, impeachment, death), you can technically be president for 3 terms.
You just can't be elected to presidency for 3 terms but if you are by succession it's fine.
Aaronology
Member
Will? No need to wait. It's already happening.
i'm pretty sure you have to be eligible to be president to be VP
clevbrowns94
Member
No, we need someone who has the best chance to beat Trump. Trump has an incumbent advantage (Bush and Obama both got reelected despite being unpopular in their first terms), which will make it harder to beat him. Biden has name recognition and he can appeal to working class white voters. Plus, if there is a Trump recession from his crazy trade wars or whatever, people will be longing for the days of Obama and his economy, with Biden a symbol of that.
It might be possible depending on the interpretation of eligibility, but it's too legally complicated to be worth doing. And frankly, the biggest function of the Vice President is to serve as a reliable replacement for the President if that need arises. If there are questions about whether your running mate can actually do that, then why bother?
crisdecuba
Member
No, Joe. This year was your last, best chance. You'll be 78 in 2020. Let it go.
Edit: Actually if it's Obama as VP it may be doable hehehe
Edit: Actually if it's Obama as VP it may be doable hehehe
clevbrowns94
Member
Trump actually went beyond getting too touchy feely in public and he sexually assaulted multiple women, assuming they were telling the truth, and he still got elected. These elections will ultimately come down to who can appeal to working class white voters, especially in the rust belt area. That's really it, and not much else will matter. Just like 2016.
As soon as the votes were in nuts were already talking about Clinton running again, or Bernie, or Warren, or whoever else. Hell, it shows just how out of touch they are when Nancy Pelosi was just re-elected as House Democratic leader. They already had a chance to start down a winning path and they said screw it, business as usual. They do not think that democrats want or need a new direction.
The writing is already on the wall as far as I'm concerned.
So instead we'll put in power the kind of rich, special-interest influence peddler and power broker who works to get politicians into the "elite wing" in exchange for favors in the first place. Trump has bragged about how many politicians owe him favors or that he has in his pocket. His type is the very foundation of "establishment politics". And look at how well he's draining the swamp after all... the political elite and your typical establishment politician has little to fear from the results of this election.
Aaronology
Member
Can you elaborate on why you believe Pelosi is not suited for the position?
spookyfish
Member
If he'd run this time, he would have won.
Not so sure about 2020.
But whatever, Creepy Joe.
Not so sure about 2020.
But whatever, Creepy Joe.
George Washington
Member
He will be too old in 2020 (78). DNC needs some new faces.
Skellig Gra
Member
A 78 year old Biden is not your "best chance" to beat Trump.
QuantumSquid
Member
PLEASE
Angelus Errare
Banned
Honestly, it's probably the best shot.
I would love to see Joe run, but I think it's too late for him as he's extremely old. The DNC needs to start looking forward and getting some young blood ready to run in 2020 and beyond. We're relying on these older politicians that have been in the system forever, names that have been circulating around since the 90's and early 2000's. I'm hoping with Obama out of the White House and in the fields supporting the DNC, he will be able to convince them of this.
Aaronology
Member
I don't entirely disagree with the pragmatic sentiment. I often used that argument in my decision to back Clinton over Sanders. However, one issue is that not everyone is going to agree on who actually is the pragmatic choice, and secondly I don't think invoking pragmatism specifically to denounce "exotic" choices like a minority or a woman is particularly wise.
"In 2008 we could nominate the first black man but..."
clevbrowns94
Member
Then who is? Only one I can think of who might be better is Sherrod Brown being from Ohio, but we don't know if he would even run.
Edit: Plus Trump will be 74 by then. Yeah, 78 is old, but it's not like the GOP is putting up a young candidate that would make age a factor.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Anecdotally, I know one of those and he will not support Biden either. In fact, Obama himself may not be as popular to that crowd either. So I personally wouldn't make that assumption over their behavior, especially this early.
I'm not sure who "the nuts" are, but do you think the reason people are gravitating towards the most familiar names is because those are the only names most people are familiar with? There is an absolutely bench of younger, albeit lesser experienced, candidates who can and probably will make a run for the presidency. But that's four years away, and they need time to build up name ID. So of course the only names people can think of now are the exact same names we've been thinking about for the last two years. Just like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were the top two names being passed around as the big '08 contenders immediately after '04, and yet that primary didn't quite swing in their direction when it came time for it.
And, Nancy Pelosi was re-elected because she has a huge amount of interaction with every House Dem, and has enormous sway over her conference. I'm not sure what dumping Pelosi is supposed to achieve in your eyes, aside from the party distancing itself from any and all people associated with the pre-2017 Democratic party, which, imo, is needlessly destructive.
You don't have to fight fire with fire. In fact, that usually doesn't work out for Dems (e.g. Kerry, Edwards, Hillary).
We need to come to grips with why Clinton was a bad candidate. We can't throw pragmatism completely out the window just because the supposedly pragmatic candidate lost, but we also have to recognize what made Clinton undesirable in the first place. Her being a woman was a pro or a con depending on who you asked but it was her history that really made her unlikable for so many. Clinton really was, imo, uniquely a poor choice to run against Donald Trump.
minor effort
Banned
I like Biden but at 78 in 2020 his age would already be a major factor, and make the idea of him running for reelection in 2024 at 82 even more of an unlikely possibility.
Given the incumbency advantage sitting presidents usually have, Democrats probably want a candidate they can guarantee would run for reelection from the onset.
Given the incumbency advantage sitting presidents usually have, Democrats probably want a candidate they can guarantee would run for reelection from the onset.
Biden would almost definitely have to sell himself as a one-termer to make it work. Pitch it as voting to reaffirm Obama's legacy against Trump's attempts to dismantle it. Then just choose a very young VP as designated successor. The advantage for Biden is that Trump nullifies all of his weaknesses. Old? So is Trump. Prone to rude comments and creepy leers? Meet President Trump. History of some racist legislation around crime control? How can anyone complain when the alternative is Trump?
I think there's some advantage to running someone who can claim to be restoring Obama's legacy rather than moving past it, just for the sake of the long term historical narrative of the US and race relations in it, but at the same time the Dems desperately need to be pushing young talent.
hipsterpants
Member
I'd be down. Of course I'm looking forward to seeing all the other candidates that come forward and making a decision based on that. Hopefully it's a tough choice (in the good, I like several of them way).
It's funny that right after an election with tons of liberals decrying the "coronation" of Hillary before the election season even began here we are looking for some singular savior before Trump has even taken office. We need an open an unbiased primary to select the best candidate to beat Trump.
It's funny that right after an election with tons of liberals decrying the "coronation" of Hillary before the election season even began here we are looking for some singular savior before Trump has even taken office. We need an open an unbiased primary to select the best candidate to beat Trump.
mrhyderager
Member
"Khaleesi is coming to Westeros" is exactly what turned me off of the Clinton campaign. Not the statement but the mentality that it expressed. Even as it was a joke, it was the "the presidency is hers to take" mentality put to words. Not a fan.
At this point, it's just talk. Trump hasn't even been inaugurated yet but the inevitability of a Trump presidency is so distasteful, people are desperate for a savior.
The difference with Clinton is that any major opposition was strongly discouraged by the party elites. Biden may not have ran anyway due to the loss of his son but the fact that he was discouraged from doing so in order to give Hillary a clear path was a symptom of a bigger problem.
I like Biden, as both a politician and a person, a great deal. He's clearly a genuine politician who legitimately wants to improve America rather than line his pockets or receive arbitrary power. He'd receive the campaigning benefits of the Hillary campaign and, through the way he's able to have others perceive him, counteract Hillary's tragic flaws (which were not necessarily her fault).
But what you mentioned is a huge factor. Youthful optimism is what we need to stop Trump. Making Biden the candidate will actually put the Dems at a disadvantage in terms of age. Plus even in the best case scenario with Biden winning, he'd be a one term president. And knowing Trump, he'd try to run again in 2024 and we'll see even more progress undone.
What the Democrats need is a new Obama, someone who can unite all Democrats against Trump with an optimistic vision of the future. We can't have someone like Booker who is deep in the pockets of Wall Street or someone like Warren who is at complete odds with corporations and banks (even if she's in the right with some of her takedowns) because this will just create division.
Biden can absolutely play a role in a new Democratic administration but, as much as it pains me to say it, he cannot be the face of it.
Warren's best chance was running this year against Clinton, she opted to stay out of that race. I think she had a much better chance against Clinton and subsequently Trump. Its still early to talk about 2020 - individuals that step up against Trump and Republicans have the most to win. People who are able to do something against all odds in the 2018, who become a national story. The other option is also liberal celebrities.
I don't see why after watching a circus win this election - people continue to talk about platform or liberal/conservative.
I don't see why we don't have everyone run in the primary and the best person ends up winning. Doesn't matter what their qualifications are before the primary. Fight populism with populism.
All dems put forward is overqualified millionares which are bad candidates because they are unable to relate at a most basic social dynamic level. Hillary is apparently bad with large crowds, Kerry was apparently unable to connect with some, Gore was ...I'm not sure betraying Clinton... still can't figure that one out.
If the takeaway from 2016 is that the Democrats cannot be successful if they don't pander to racist white people and sexist males, I can't really disagree with their analysis*, but I also won't be part of the Democratic Party.
* I do disagree with it, but I understand the thought process.
tiredheadcrab
Member
I wanted him to run this election, but Hilary happened and the rest is depressing so I wont repeat it.
I am not sure I'd vote from him in the 2020 primaries. I liked Obama because he was a bit younger and more "in" I guess. Thats really who should run in 2020. Someone that is likable and can really fuck with DT. I mean Hilary did a great job debating him but Obama would have cleaned Trumps clock and then some.
I am not sure I'd vote from him in the 2020 primaries. I liked Obama because he was a bit younger and more "in" I guess. Thats really who should run in 2020. Someone that is likable and can really fuck with DT. I mean Hilary did a great job debating him but Obama would have cleaned Trumps clock and then some.
Aaronology
Member
I believe you're overstating the discouragement from the "party elites". And even if you weren't, I ask myself if I'd actually want to back a Democrat who avoided the primary out of fear of steep political opposition, when confidence and the ability to confront steep political opposition is a key trait I desire in a President. Anyone who was afraid to fight the presumption of a Clinton nomination shouldn't have been running in the first place.
I'm merely referring to how Biden's potential bid was reported. Maybe I am overstating the party's discouragement but there were plenty of whispers about how the party, Obama included, did not want Biden to run against Clinton. If I'm exaggerating, it's because the reports were exaggerated. I don't see any reason to assume they were though.
As for your second point, I agree, but let's not pretend like this last democratic primary was welcoming to all contenders. Sanders had to fight tooth and nail to be taken seriously and even now, people attack him for having the audacity to run Clinton through a challenging primary.
The message is they can't be successful if they run boring, stiff, troubled candidates in the general election for reasons that won't have any meaning to a general electorate
The message isn't that you need a moderate. Positions don't really matter. The message is we need a star. Find a super progressive star who is charming and charismatic and appeals to people.
Aaronology
Member
Fair.
Sanders did not encounter any significant challenges that Obama hadn't faced prior, and he enjoyed advantages our current President didn't eight years ago. I reject the narrative that he was handicapped in any significant way by the DNC. The debate schedule is the sole area I recognize DWS tipping the scales, but the effect that had on the primary pales in comparison to Sanders abandoning the South.
Secondly, many people on this board and elsewhere were less offended by the act of Sanders challenging Clinton and more by the methods he employed to do so. His campaign did some shameful shit and it's sad to witness so many people sweeping that behavior under the rug as if Trump's victory validates any of it. We've had endless (and admittedly necessary) discussions on the lessons Democrats need to learn from Clinton's failures but it's still depressingly rare to see anyone attempting to address the reasons Sanders was defeated prior to that.
I contend that how the media reported on Sanders, including the conspicuous lack of reporting, was something Obama did not have to deal with. Whether or not that was due to informal requests on behalf of the DNC, I'm not sure, but there's enough evidence to raise some suspicion. But that's all it is, suspicion, not proof. I'm not willing to die on the hill of conspiracy but do feel that at the very least, some of the complaints the Sanders camp launched against the DNC were not baseless. Where people fall on the issue is largely a matter of personal bias rather than empirical facts.
As for the mistakes the Sanders campaign made, I don't think anyone is sweeping them under the rug. But again, biases will determine whether or not someone feels the degree of shamefulness as you put it is exaggerated or not. The same goes for some of the shit Clinton's campaign tried to pull. No one ran a spotless campaign this year. I don't see how that has much to do with specifically why Sanders' lost though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked