“THIS IS DO-OR-DIE”: JOE BIDEN’S “ELECTABILITY” ARGUMENT IS HOW DEMOCRATS LOSE ELECTIONS

Well it's good to hear you aren't a socialist or communist. Progressive suit you more?

 

That is how i described myself. and I would say that i am more to the left of the party.

 

I would agree with that.

 

You're right I don't care Trump paid hush money to the porn queen and I care even less about the lefts gross and pathetic accusations.

 

I think there is a certain truth in what you say. But I tend to determine electability different. Usually independents, the non-affiliated voters decide national elections. I look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings independents give each candidate. Also how many that are in the undecided column/not sure column. Usually folks don't vote for someone their dislike. I think the likability factor among independents plays a very important role in determining how or for which candidate they will vote for. History has shown that approximately 90% of Republicans and Democrats vote for their candidates. I don't worry about them. Now with independents, they have been all over the place. They'll vote heavily for one party's candidate one election, then vote heavily for the other party's candidate the next.

It's way too early in the process to put that to work in determining who would liable beat Trump or who would have the best showing. Outside of Biden, Sanders, Warren, most independents haven't ever heard of the rest of the field.

Perhaps having a high favorable or likability factor among independents, at least higher then one's opponent is being electable.

 

so why care if Clinton had a consensual affair then? if Trump broke election laws, he should be punished

 

Clinton's affair was not the issue, it was lying about it in a sexual harrasment court case which is perjury which was an issue.
Paying hush money to someone to protect your family and reputation is not a violation of any law and in fact congress has a slush fund set up just for that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...xposes-congress-editorials-debates/898008001/

 

The link in the OP merely expounds on history and history says Biden is a losing pick for the DNC.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. You could be right, perhaps not. I'd wait until January, February of next year and compare the independent voters favorable/unfavorable, their likability of all the candidates. Independents decide national elections, especially the close ones. Trump wouldn't have won in 2016 without winning independents. The Democrats with the larger party just have to keep them close. But the GOP needs them to win.

Will Biden be attractive to independents? I don't know. Would Biden be more attractive to independents than other candidates? Time will tell, but that information will be available come the first of the year.

You're correct, Hillary wasn't at all attractive to independents. Obama was in 2008 winning independents 52-44 in his 9 point win. Romney actually won independents 51-48 in 2012, but with the larger Democratic base it didn't mean that much. All the democrats have to do is keep it close with independents which 2012 proved. Bush won independents in both 2000 and 2004 as did Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

To show you how independents can change, swing back and forth in 1988 Bush won independents 57-43 over Dukakis, 14 points. Bill Clinton won independents in 1992 43-28 over Bush with Perot gaining 30% of the independent vote. a 15 point win for Bill over Bush. That's a swing of 27 points in four years.

Never ignore independents as the Democrats did in 2016 in nominating Hillary.

 

I ****ing wish. The DNC are all neoliberal scum though at the grassroots the Party is indeed moving toward SocDem policies. AOC and Sanders are the only national level socialists atm though and both are about as far right as can be while socialist. It'll take another few election cycles (assuming current trends hold) before you can start calling the Dems socialist without McCarthyist connotations.

 

yes, so let's ask Trump embarrassing personal questions like that under oath

Trump lied about those things to the American people

Trump is obstructing justice yet again... sad!

how many times has Trump cheated on his wives?

how many people has Trump had sign NSA's to silence them from telling us what they know about our President - when one becomes President... all NDA's shoudl become null and void, no American should be prevented from talking about their Presidnet

 

Clinton was being charged with sexual harrasment and took an oath to tell the truth. He lied under oath and was impeached for it. That was no fishing expedition it was a court case based on a specific charged criminal offense.

 

He was being charged for perjury and investigated for using his office for business gains. Lying to his wife about a blow job (under oath) was all they managed to get him on which is why he was acquitted and that whole thing ended up making the Repubs a laughing stock for a good 2 years.

 

He lied about sex with a subordinate in the workplace which was a relevant question in a sexual harrasment lawsuit. As to the political consequences that's another issue but Dems could learn from that before they continue down this road.

 

it was consensual sex... and that was his home... he lived there

 

The oval office was the workplace and Monica was an employee and a subordinate. Clinton was asked under oath if he ever had sex in the workplace with an employee. He said no and that was perjury.

 

While I agree with the result, I disagree with the premise. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton posed themselves as conservative Democrats, Obama said nothing substantive at all on any issue during the campaign. Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary all presented themselves as left of center and proud of it. Hillary liked to position herself between the center and the far left, comparing herself favorably to the socialists in the party, but there was no question she was a leftist and that's how she ran. It would be more accurate to say that Carter and Bill Clinton were the cautious choices and Gore, Kerry, etc., were the heart choices. Obama was a one-off charismatic type you're not likely to see again in several generations. As it stands, everyone in the Democratic party is a sure loser against Trump because the economy is doing well and Mueller found no evidence of Russian collusion. It's a long time between now and November 2020, so I'm not making any predictions, but as it stands, the Democrats have no chance.

 

You have to understand the Bill Clinton definition of "sex". Oral doesn't count.

 

I would disagree on one point. All the successful Dem candidates since WW2 were elected on charisma not policy and Biden has neither.

 

Obama blatantly race-agitated for eight years and leftists were just fine with that . . . Hands Up Don't Shoot!" which turned out to be a lie and "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," which was an overt attempt to poison potential jury pools and intimidate the presiding judge. All while leftists cheered.

Trump is overtly NOT a racist. Obama overtly was a racist.

 

His definition doesn't matter just as the rapist who figured she was going to enjoy it doesn't have a valid opinion. Clinton tried the word game constantly to weasel out if trouble.
" It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

 

The problem is that the Dem Party leadership -- which includes the blatantly leftist loyal Mainstream Media -- have got no choice in that their entire field of Dem Party contenders are second, third, and even fourth tier lightweights in comparison to Trump who can easily pull in massive crowds at his political rallies. Trump inspires whereas from Biden to Warren (the only two potential heavy-weights running) even those two generally receive mostly just polite Nancy Pelosi SOTU-speech style hand claps from their 'crowds'.



So the upshot is that the MSM has got no choice but to pretend that the eventual DNC selectee for the party is a political heavy-weight and massively popular and a real political contender against the steamroller that is Trump. It's going to be . . . interesting.

 

I have one name for you to disprove your claim: Lyndon Baines Johnson.

And honestly, I don't think Jimmy Carter could have been elected dog catcher based on his charisma. Kennedy yes, Obama yes, Truman? Don't think so. Johnson, hell no, Clinton, not really.

 

yes, it was also consensual and also Clinton's home

he was asked if he ever had an affair on his wife and he said no, trump will never go under oath as the number of lies would be huge

 

Yes, obama thought black people were superior. (Sarcasm alert)
Trump knows his base so he appeals to their racist instincts