The Biden Presidency

Raoul said:
Yes, but he beat Sanders and the rest of the field by running on a set of specific policies - not just because he wasn't Trump. Its those policies that will be used as a guide as to whether he is successfully implementing what he ran on.
Click to expand...

You are making a massive assumption that people voted for Biden because of his policies rather than because they believed he had the best chance of beating Trump. Based on the fact he needed Obama to convince all the moderates to drop out and endorse him, I don't thin the data supports your view that Biden won because people liked his policies rather than because they believed that he had the best chance of winning. I talked to quite a few Biden voters and none of them had Biden as first choice or voted for him because of his specific set of policies. There was simply a belief after Obama got involved that Biden was the best chance to beat Trump.

More Americans Happy About Trump Loss Than Biden Win
"A third of the country is “happy” that Donald Trump lost the election – which is slightly more than the one-quarter who feels the same about Joe Biden winning. "
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_111820/
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You are making a massive assumption that people voted for Biden because of his policies rather than because they believed he had the best chance of beating Trump. Based on the fact he needed Obama to convince all the moderates to drop out and endorse him, I don't thin the data supports your view that Biden won because people liked his policies rather than because they believed that he had the best chance of winning. I talked to quite a few Biden voters and none of them had Biden as first choice or voted for him because of his specific set of policies. There was simply a belief after Obama got involved that Biden was the best chance to beat Trump.

More Americans Happy About Trump Loss Than Biden Win
"A third of the country is “happy” that Donald Trump lost the election – which is slightly more than the one-quarter who feels the same about Joe Biden winning. "
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_111820/
Click to expand...

There's no doubt people are relieved to see Trump go, but that doesn't mean they voted for Biden just because he was Biden. He positioned himself as a distinctly experienced and centrist option who could work with each of the nation's warring factions from both its political fringes, and his centrism was underwritten by a series of specific policies. If he ran any more to the left, it would've been a gift to Trump since he could've easily fearmongered his way to another win by framing the election as a referendum between capitalism and socialism.
 
Raoul said:
There's no doubt people are relieved to see Trump go, but that doesn't mean they voted for Biden just because he was Biden. He positioned himself as a distinctly experienced and centrist option who could work with each of the nation's warring factions from both its political fringes, and his centrism was underwritten by a series of specific policies. If he ran any more to the left, it would've been a gift to Trump since he could've easily fearmongered his way to another win by framing the election as a referendum between capitalism and socialism.
Click to expand...

Except Trump won in 2016 by fear mongering about the establishment and leveraging Hilary being uniquely unlikeable. Both candidates in 2016 had more people voting against the other side's candidate than for their own side.

This time Biden benefited from a massive wave that was distinctly anti-Trump not because anyone really loved Biden. Biden was struggling on all your beloved polls when other centrists were still in the race. He wasn't many peoples first choice. He was Obama's pick basically and the big Dem donors got behind him hard.

When some more data comes out we might be able to see just how many voted against Trump vs. how many were voting for Biden.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Except Trump won in 2016 by fear mongering about the establishment and leveraging Hilary being uniquely unlikeable. Both candidates in 2016 had more people voting against the other side's candidate than for their own side.

This time Biden benefited from a massive wave that was distinctly anti-Trump not because anyone really loved Biden. Biden was struggling on all your beloved polls when other centrists were still in the race. He wasn't many peoples first choice. He was Obama's pick basically and the big Dem donors got behind him hard.

When some more data comes out we might be able to see just how many voted against Trump vs. how many were voting for Biden.
Click to expand...

Maybe Hillary had bigger negatives than Biden ? She was after all a Clinton - the mere mention of that name tends to trigger Rs. She also had the unfortunate disadvantage of being a woman seeking the highest job in a heavily masculinized country (and that's even before we get to the drama about her being out of touch with the rust belt, too corporate, the email scandal etc).

Back to Biden - He would've been dead in the water if he ran on any policies other than what he actually did run on. Anything further left would eroded voter enthusiasm in the center, and anything more to the right it would've alienated progressives. Its that centrist balancing act that was underwritten by a series of fairly middle of the road policies that both sides could to varying degrees get behind, and in the end, its these policies that he should be evaluated by.
 
Raoul said:
Maybe Hillary had bigger negatives than Biden ? She was after all a Clinton - the mere mention of that name tends to trigger Rs. She also had the unfortunate disadvantage of being a woman seeking the highest job in a heavily masculinized country (and that's even before we get to the drama about her being out of touch with the rust belt, too corporate, the email scandal etc).

Back to Biden - He would've been dead in the water if he ran on any policies other than what he actually did run on. Anything further left would eroded voter enthusiasm in the center, and anything more to the right it would've alienated progressives. Its that centrist balancing act that was underwritten by a series of fairly middle of the road policies that both sides could to varying degrees get behind, and in the end, its these policies that he should be evaluated by.
Click to expand...
I think looking at why someone voted for a candidate is a little futile. There are so many aspects to people's electoral decisions that you would have to do extensive polling on all aspects that may have attracted people to Biden, then weigh those, and figure out what his term's priorities would be - or something like that. That would become a total mess; I agree it's better just to look at the the candidate promises and go with that.

Nonetheless, I would go back to the difference between 'doing what you promised' or 'doing well for the country'. Those are basically two different discussions. If you go in hard for the former, you might say, for example, that Reagan was a successful president. (Assuming he largely did what he promised.) But if you take the focus away from Reagan and the context he created for himself, and look at long-term impact, then you have to conclude that his neoliberalization of the US economy has hit the country hard, and continues to do so through the socioeconomic mentality/approach it embedded it in the US. So from that perspective, Reagan's presidency will have to be qualified as bad for the USA. (And if that's too much my personal view on Reagan, then the general point still stands.)
 
Raoul said:
Maybe Hillary had bigger negatives than Biden ? She was after all a Clinton - the mere mention of that name tends to trigger Rs. She also had the unfortunate disadvantage of being a woman seeking the highest job in a heavily masculinized country (and that's even before we get to the drama about her being out of touch with the rust belt, too corporate, the email scandal etc).

Back to Biden - He would've been dead in the water if he ran on any policies other than what he actually did run on. Anything further left would eroded voter enthusiasm in the center, and anything more to the right it would've alienated progressives. Its that centrist balancing act that was underwritten by a series of fairly middle of the road policies that both sides could to varying degrees get behind, and in the end, its these policies that he should be evaluated by.
Click to expand...

This assumes the majority of people were well informed as to all the specifics of Biden's policies and those were vote drivers. I'd wager that percentage is 25-30% of voters at absolute most. It's probably more accurate that Biden simply projected the image of "back to normal" that many people were more comfortable with after 4 years of Trump's over-the-top insanity. He probably could have been both more left or more right with many of his policies and the simple fact of Trump hatred and COVID would have pushed him over the line. I doubt the average person could name you any actual Biden policies from his website that you linked.
 
201103_2020-Exit-Poll-Enthusiasm_FULLWIDTH_v4.png
 
Raoul said:
Yes, but he beat Sanders and the rest of the field by running on a set of specific policies - not just because he wasn't Trump. Its those policies that will be used as a guide as to whether he is successfully implementing what he ran on.
Click to expand...

To add to what @oneniltothearsenal said:
One of the most repeated results from exit polling on Super Tuesday was that Biden overwhelmingly won among the majority of voters whose priority was beating Trump, while Bernie won among the minority whose priority was policy.
Hence, I feel Biden would respect his mandate equally well if he appointed George Bush, Colin Powell, Claire Macaskill, John Kerry, or AOC to his cabinet. For personal and donor reasons he might choose people like the middle 3, but he has got votes from all those different types.
 
berbatrick said:
To add to what @oneniltothearsenal said:
One of the most repeated results from exit polling on Super Tuesday was that Biden overwhelmingly won among the majority of voters whose priority was beating Trump, while Bernie won among the minority whose priority was policy.
Hence, I feel Biden would respect his mandate equally well if he appointed George Bush, Colin Powell, Claire Macaskill, John Kerry, or AOC to his cabinet. For personal and donor reasons he might choose people like the middle 3, but he has got votes from all those different types.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that bit, but why did Dem voters nominate Biden in the first place ? They did it because they thought he could beat Trump. So the question then becomes, why didn't they think Sanders or Warren could beat Trump ? After all, they promoted progressive policies that apparently polled very favorably. The answer is pretty clear - they went with Biden because the policies he promoted were in some way apart of their view that he could actually win, whereas the policies Sanders and Warren were promoting were seen as too risky. So in the end, it would be fair to say that there was a policy component to the successful formula of winning the election.
 
Raoul said:
Yes, I get that bit, but why did Dem voters nominate Biden in the first place ? They did it because they thought he could beat Trump. So the question then becomes, why didn't they think Sanders or Warren could beat Trump ? After all, they promoted progressive policies that apparently polled very favorably. The answer is pretty clear - they went with Biden because the policies he promoted were in some way apart of their view that he could actually win, whereas the policies Sanders and Warren were promoting were seen as too risky. So in the end, it would be fair to say that there was a policy component to the successful formula of winning the election.
Click to expand...

Electability comes before the reasons for it. Biden had same policy as Harris/Pete/Beto/Amy,etc none of them were seen as electable, so they exited early or after SC.
 
berbatrick said:
Electability comes before the reasons for it. Biden had same policy as Harris/Pete/Beto/Amy,etc none of them were seen as electable, so they exited early or after SC.
Click to expand...

That's because they weren't major candidates coming in - only Biden, Sanders, Warren, and maybe Harris were, and yet when the race was distilled down to the final two, Sanders was viewed by the voters as too risky; specifically because of his policies.
 
Ubik said:
Click to expand...


Sean is moving up in the world! From abolishing ICE and Medicare for All in 2018, to supporting GIllibrand in the primary in 2019, this summer talking about the dangers of slogans like Medicare for All and defunding the police, and now giving Biden a list of 10 self-defined progressive candidates for each cabinet position (can claim a win in almost any scenario!). A few more years and he could replace Neera Tanden.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Biden will hire Rahm Emanuel. Too much fuss over it, and not that much upside (Kasich on the other hand gives him his bipartisan dopamine hit).
 
If you don’t think the biggest reason for Biden becoming POTUS was “not being Trump” I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
 
crappycraperson said:
Biden as climate "czar". Why? This position was the easiest gimme for Biden admin to use as a bone to throw to progressives. They will have a separate climate person in WH who would actually deal with domestic policies around climate change, the Kerry post just seems a decorative one to have countless climate summits with other nations. Just hand it to a progressive and let them babble on about green new deal on world stage. US needs to invent a political position akin to State Governors in India so that all these old men who crave relevancy even when their political career is over can be given something.
Click to expand...

margdarshak mandal, but who will pull biden out of it.
 
berbatrick said:
Interview with Kerry on climate change
https://heated.world/p/a-conversation-with-john-kerry
Click to expand...

That was from last year, he also wrote something this week. The interview was fairly empty, he seems passionate about the subject, which is nice, but the new article is a little worrying. Specifically:

The investment community has a role to play. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and the Nature Conservancy have published a major report that includes some critical mechanisms to close the biodiversity financing gap. On Wall Street, more firms are now focused on sustainability, and the first price for a ton of carbon emissions was established by combining the three largest market prices into one. This gives governments, companies, and investors a benchmark to estimate the cost of their carbon footprint and incentivize further reductions in pollution and carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

Apart from showing with certainty that he is going down the carbon markets rather than GND route, the report in bold that it links to has some grander plans. This is what Hank Paulson, the author of that report, has to say:

We need a new asset class of healthy soils and pollinators

As governments rebuild and invest in the wake of this crisis, policymakers must learn to value nature, providing the right conditions and incentives to drive change. One important step would be to create a new asset class comprised of things such as productive soils, crop pollination and watersheds. This might sound far-fetched — especially coming from a former US Treasury secretary — but valuing nature as we do traditional goods and services will create incentives to avoid biodiversity destruction, manage climate change and preserve lives and livelihoods. Harnessing the power of markets can protect our environment and prevent its rapid destruction.
Click to expand...

If Kerry succeeds in putting the planet on the market, it could be the most consequential right-wing administration since Reagan.
 
berbatrick said:
Sean is moving up in the world! From abolishing ICE and Medicare for All in 2018, to supporting GIllibrand in the primary in 2019, this summer talking about the dangers of slogans like Medicare for All and defunding the police, and now giving Biden a list of 10 self-defined progressive candidates for each cabinet position (can claim a win in almost any scenario!). A few more years and he could replace Neera Tanden.
Click to expand...
Watching Seans slow burn grift in real time is truly something special. The kid has a lot of potential.
 
Drifter said:
Click to expand...

Great news. She should also be investigated along with her husband for dumping stock after being briefed on the pandemic. I would also love another Speaker but I doubt that will happen anytime soon especially if the runoffs favor the Dems and all those House bill's get put on the Senate floor. Feinstein was a fecking disgrace during that hearing though.
 
Sweet Square said:
Watching Seans slow burn grift in real time is truly something special. The kid has a lot of potential.
Click to expand...

McElwee told me. “I think all of these people can be moved. They’re pieces on a chess board that’s so much larger than them. And I want to be helping move those chess pieces.”
Click to expand...

FROM DELAWARE WITH LOVE
STARRING
SEAN MCELWEE AS BLOFELD

(this took an embarrassingly long time to make, so here are all the failed attempts:
Dr. No Medicare For All
The man with the golden brain
You only live twice, jack
Centrists are forever)
 
Last edited:
GiddyUp said:
Great news. She should also be investigated along with her husband for dumping stock after being briefed on the pandemic. I would also love another Speaker but I doubt that will happen anytime soon especially if the runoffs favor the Dems and all those House bill's get put on the Senate floor. Feinstein was a fecking disgrace during that hearing though.
Click to expand...
She is straight up unfit for her post. How unfit?

It's an hour long, but give this a listen (I really enjoy these guys):

https://allthingscomedy.com/podcasts/330---feinstein-and-the-flag
 
GiddyUp said:
Great news. She should also be investigated along with her husband for dumping stock after being briefed on the pandemic. I would also love another Speaker but I doubt that will happen anytime soon especially if the runoffs favor the Dems and all those House bill's get put on the Senate floor. Feinstein was a fecking disgrace during that hearing though.
Click to expand...

Pelosi is actually the best option for the left, her potential replacements are well to her right. THe problem is that she is still the main Republican attack (I got more GOP fliers about the senate race with her and Schumer in the background, rather than the squad) and doesn't seem to be particularly good at her job, but I'm sure they'll find something to attack anyone with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.