It has offically been a year since Joe Biden took office. How would you rate his presidency after a year with Joe?

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, Dobs said:

???

They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists

They're stealing our election

They're letting 3 trillion muslims in every year

The altar to Trump is built on fear, the second clause to that "government sucks" is "government sucks because it's making all these scary things happen." His whole campaign was fear-mongering.

That’s fair.  
 

I forget who said it after the 2016 election, but some pundit somewhere said “Trump won because his critics took him literally but not seriously.  His supporters took him seriously but not literally.”

[Timur]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

I was under the impression that was only the GE, because Third Party and Independent candidates who claim to be withdrawing are left on the ballot. But I could be wrong. I've never filled out an American Primary nomination ballot, or any American election ballot, and I've only seen digital images of GE ones, so...

They actually do remain on ballot in some cases. In Arizona, I believe 10% of voters voted for Rubio even after he dropped out.

[Timur]

 

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

That’s fair.  
 

I forget who said it after the 2016 election, but some pundit somewhere said “Trump won because his critics took him literally but not seriously.  His supporters took him seriously but not literally.”

I actually seen a video where a couple of his supporters didn't believe that he would actually literally make Mexico pay for the Wall, so that makes sense.

[pilight]

10 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

When I began dating my wife, it was clear very early that we were likely heading for marriage -- but she still told me to wait at least until our first anniversary before I propose, as you should see how someone acts in all four seasons before deciding to spend the rest of your life with them.  Ha.  (In my case, although I wanted to propose immediately, I waited 14 months -- good advice, as we're still together more than 12 years later)

That's funny.  I proposed on our third date and she responded "What took you so long?"  There are lots of ways to skin that cat.

[jnewt]

On 1/22/2022 at 12:03 PM, MrPotatoTed said:

To say that Biden was not the choice of “rank and file” Democrats is to deny the existence of black Democrats.  Hispanic too, for that matter.

Biden was not the choice of white guys in college.  
 

But those aren’t the only people who exist.

Sanders outperformed Biden by about 20 percentage points among Latinos on Super Tuesday.

Yes, Biden dominated him among black voters, but I can't really imagine he was the first choice among most of them, just the first choice of "electable" Democrats who were actually running (or still running). He won the primary because of black voters and the fact that he was most non-Sanders non-Warren voters' second or third choices. Let's not pretend that ordinary Democrat voters were enthusiastic about him, though.

[MrPotatoTed]

18 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Sanders outperformed Biden by about 20 percentage points among Latinos on Super Tuesday.

Yes, Biden dominated him among black voters, but I can't really imagine he was the first choice among most of them, just the first choice of "electable" Democrats who were actually running (or still running). He won the primary because of black voters and the fact that he was most non-Sanders non-Warren voters' second or third choices. Let's not pretend that ordinary Democrat voters were enthusiastic about him, though.

You might be right about Latinos, I honestly don't remember.  But we are again claiming that black voters are not "ordinary" democrats.

I get it, Biden wasn't your first choice.  Wasn't mine either!  But he was the most acceptable to the widest range of voters, and isn't that kind of what we're looking for at the end of the day?

It takes a coalition to win the Presidency, and Biden put together the winning coalition with the broadest appeal.

 

[jnewt]

29 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You might be right about Latinos, I honestly don't remember.  But we are again claiming that black voters are not "ordinary" democrats.

I get it, Biden wasn't your first choice.  Wasn't mine either!  But he was the most acceptable to the widest range of voters, and isn't that kind of what we're looking for at the end of the day?

It takes a coalition to win the Presidency, and Biden put together the winning coalition with the broadest appeal.

 

Wasn't saying black voters aren't ordinary voters, just that they are not the only ordinary voters. And Biden really only excelled with them.

But I don't agree that being the most acceptable to the widest range of voters is what we really should be looking for. "Acceptable" is very uninspiring (as is Biden) and I'm just saying we can and should do better than that.

[MrPotatoTed]

5 hours ago, jnewt said:

Wasn't saying black voters aren't ordinary voters, just that they are not the only ordinary voters. And Biden really only excelled with them.

But I don't agree that being the most acceptable to the widest range of voters is what we really should be looking for. "Acceptable" is very uninspiring (as is Biden) and I'm just saying we can and should do better than that.

Who is “we” in this sentence, and HOW do they do better?

Biden built the winning coalition.  He won enough votes to convince the others (after much doubt initially) that he was the inevitable choice.  They presumably looked at their internal polling and realized he was right.  They quit voluntarily, and nearly all of them urged their supporters to vote for him instead.

 

What were we supposed to do differently?

[Pringles]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Who is “we” in this sentence, and HOW do they do better?

 

The imaginary perfect candidate that doesn't exist. 🙂 😛 

[Hestia]

9 hours ago, jnewt said:

Wasn't saying black voters aren't ordinary voters, just that they are not the only ordinary voters. And Biden really only excelled with them.

But I don't agree that being the most acceptable to the widest range of voters is what we really should be looking for. "Acceptable" is very uninspiring (as is Biden) and I'm just saying we can and should do better than that.

It's not about excelling with groups. It's about winning the most votes and Biden won a great deal of Black support. Wasn't my first choice either, or second, or third. But he won and I don't think you can claim super reasonably that the primary would've gone much differently if Buttigieg or Klobuchar had stayed in the race. Their cash was drying up, their support was stagnating after the early primaries. Even if Warren had dropped out, polls suggested her voters would be evenly split between Biden and Bernie. I also don't think "inspiring" or "uninspiring" is a good term. Maybe he's uninspiring to you. But you're a progressive and moderates likely wouldn't inspire you. Same vice versa. 

[Cenzonico]

The consensus seems to be "Joe Biden has been so far mediocre in his performance. But then again, we could have gotten worse" to "The absolute worst". If I'm going honest I was expecting a more positive consensus but I think what we have here makes more sense. The average voter wasn't enthusiastic about Joe, but he was seen as the much better alternative to Donald Trump. And now that we have him Americans continue to be uneasy about the current and future direction of our country. Of course I'm using a sample size of 28 as of writing so this take should not be taken as gospel, but it's still fun to theorize either way.

[jnewt]

11 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Who is “we” in this sentence, and HOW do they do better?

Americans in general or Democratic primary voters more specifically.

As for how? I don’t know and I’m not pretending to know. But we’ve had back to back nominees who would not be most people’s first (or really even second or third) choice and didn’t offer anything beyond “at least they’re not Trump.” Which, sure, getting Trump out of office was the first goal, but we have stop letting party leaders and/or the media tell us who is or who is not electable. Even if you held the belief that only a moderate could have won in 2020, Biden was not the strongest choice. But we all told ourselves that it was either Biden or Bernie, even though it wasn’t. The non-progressives could have stayed in the race and possibly built their own coalitions. We had plenty of non-progressives who I think would have performed at least as well, if not better than Biden in the general.
 

I guess I just disagree with the general premise that Biden was the only one who was “electable” though. 

[MrPotatoTed]

11 hours ago, jnewt said:

Americans in general or Democratic primary voters more specifically.

As for how? I don’t know and I’m not pretending to know. But we’ve had back to back nominees who would not be most people’s first (or really even second or third) choice and didn’t offer anything beyond “at least they’re not Trump.” Which, sure, getting Trump out of office was the first goal, but we have stop letting party leaders and/or the media tell us who is or who is not electable. Even if you held the belief that only a moderate could have won in 2020, Biden was not the strongest choice. But we all told ourselves that it was either Biden or Bernie, even though it wasn’t. The non-progressives could have stayed in the race and possibly built their own coalitions. We had plenty of non-progressives who I think would have performed at least as well, if not better than Biden in the general.
 

I guess I just disagree with the general premise that Biden was the only one who was “electable” though. 

Hilary Clinton absolutely was a ton of people’s first choice.  That’s why almost nobody ran against her on the Democrat side.

Unfortunately, she was also many others’ worst nightmare (unfairly so in my opinion, but it is what it is). 
 

 

[Pringles]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

Let's not dress things up. She was no better than Trump, in the end, just very different. And she was among the LAST type of President the nation truly NEEDED, as it stood at that time. She was a symbol of all that had been wrong with U.S. Government for the preceding several decades desiring to plow forward with an ever-failing and out-of-touch Government policy and viewpoint, uncaring of how the dynamics of the common people were changing. Unfortunately, it was the Loudmouth Toxic Orange Ogre who was the one who successfully capitalized on that sinking ship (as well as it's manifestations in the Republican Party like Jeb Bush, Rubio, and Kasich). Trump's victory was, in large part, because the Establishment had overstayed their welcome and both ignored their failures and inability to adapt and their lack of a feel, or care, for the pulse of the zeitgeist.

I absolutely loath Hillary Clinton, and her rapist husband. But if you can't see that as a political leader, she would not have caused the amount of damage than Donald Trump has plagued our political society with in just one term. You're part of the problem. 

 

[Hestia]

15 hours ago, jnewt said:

As for how? I don’t know and I’m not pretending to know. But we’ve had back to back nominees who would not be most people’s first (or really even second or third) choice and didn’t offer anything beyond “at least they’re not Trump.”

"Who would not be most people's first or second or third choice". Biden won almost 49% of the vote in South Carolina, and came in second in Nevada as well. Those were primaries with everyone involved. The fact that he gained a substantial amount after Klobuchar/Buttigieg dropped out shows that he was, in fact, many people's first/second/third choice. It actually shows that Sanders was not many peoples' second/third choice. Same with Warren. You're not proving anything other than putting statements out there and not backing them up with actual fact - it's an opinion.

[Hestia]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Biden wasn't up against, "top tier," Democrats who also happened to offer very alternative viewpoints, other than Sanders and Warren. They were all otherwise, "political lightweights." Many of them had little name recognition or experience. It was very much like Dole and the 1996 Republican Primaries.

If you look, there weren't too many top tier Democrats available. Klobuchar was a senator, Warren and Sanders were senators, Buttigieg's star took off. Gillibrand was a senator, there were multiple governors. Harris was a senator who dropped out and was semi-well known. The field was huge. I don't know if you can feasibly point out too many heavy hitters that would have done well. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

My point is, that, like in 1996 for the Republicans, the most significant, influential, prominent, and powerful Democrats (or Republicans in 1996) except Biden, Sanders, and Warren (or Dole in 1996) avoided running completely. It's strange - ALMOST suspicious...

I don't think that's true. Who are those prominent Democrats that didn't run? Kerry? Clinton? They would've been lucky to get 5-10%. I think you're pretty off base considering how big the field was.

[Hestia]

Just now, Patine said:

Pelosi, Schumer, the Castro Brothers (and not the Cuban ones), McKenna, Newsom, etc. As long as you avoid prominent New Yorkers, it seems there were quite a few possible choices out there who were in a more prominent league.

Pelosi and Schumer, first off, would never leave congressional leadership spaces. Pelosi especially, she was House Speaker. That's a powerful post in itself. Julian Castro did run for President, but dropped out at some point. Joaquin stayed out because his brother was running. McKenna idk who that is so I don't think they're all that prominent. Newsom was just elected California governor - most don't run after just being in office 2 years. 

[Rezi]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Pelosi, Schumer, the Castro Brothers (and not the Cuban ones), McKenna, Newsom, etc. As long as you avoid prominent New Yorkers, it seems there were quite a few possible choices out there who were in a more prominent league.

Pelosi and Schumer are legislative leaders who typically would rather lead their branch than become the Executive. One of the Castro brothers (Julian) did run. I don't even know who McKenna is. The only one that's somewhat of a fair point is Newsom, but he was still a young one term governor who is almost certainly holding a presidential run for a later election.

[Rezi]

Just now, Patine said:

Inslee is who I meant, not McKenna. McKenna is different Washington State politician (the Attorney General, I believe). My mistake.

Inslee also ran and gained little support. Which is unfortunate because I did like him.

[Hestia]

Just now, Patine said:

Inslee is who I meant, not McKenna. McKenna is different Washington State politician (the Attorney General, I believe). My mistake.

That's okay. Inslee also ran.

[mark2]

i would say that the "could be worse" tag still applies, but big ol Uncle Joe has done a job that is significantly worse than "meh"

[Cenzonico]

34 minutes ago, mark2 said:

i would say that the "could be worse" tag still applies, but big ol Uncle Joe has done a job that is significantly worse than "meh"

I probably could have worded the answers better for sure.