Electability

[Rockfish1]

Of course it's a mistake to nominate someone who has obvious electoral flaws, but political scientists all say that "electability" is mostly bullshit, because we don't know what it is, and it mostly boils down to a conviction that we should probably pick old white guys. Many Democrats are convinced, though, that Joe Biden is the most electable candidate, even though he's flamed out every time he's run for President, and he has obvious electoral flaws.

But leaving that aside, what is the Democrats' most electable candidate (according to early polls) actually up to?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to enjoy ice cream with New Hampshire voters to celebrate Memorial Day. He won’t be far from former Maryland congressman John Delaney, another presidential candidate, who’s in the midst of his 19th trip to the state and plans an itinerary that includes four barbecues, one parade and a wreath-laying.

In Iowa, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is rolling through the cornfields in an RV, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) unveils a “Family Bill of Rights” and tours an ethanol plant.

And here’s former vice president Joe Biden’s agenda for the holiday weekend, according to his campaign: “Joe Biden has no public events scheduled.”

Those seven words are becoming familiar for the Biden team. Aside from a campaign swing right after announcing his candidacy, Biden has kept his head down while his rivals rush from state to state to state. Even when he has held public events, they have included only a handful of questions from voters or reporters.
​

Meanwhile:

In a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, “I’ll bet you’re as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.
​

There was a case for Biden as Obama's VP, because maybe he could persuade racially anxious white people that Obama wasn't too exotic a candidate (while Biden's gaffes made him The Onion's favorite politician). But apart from his entirely supposed electability, what exactly is the positive case for Biden? And why is this most "electable" candidate hiding from voters?

I think Democrats should consider the possibility that Biden isn't any more obviously "electable" than anyone else, and instead of guessing who other people are likely to vote for and picking that guy, maybe Democrats should just vote for whomever they think the best candidate actually is. I don't see how anyone could conclude that that person is obviously Joe Biden. And in fact I don't really see any Democrats making that case. The case I hear is all about electability. For a geriatric candidate who's already outlived the average male life span and would be 82 by the end of his first term, making him look like a lame duck from the start.

Every Democrat running is not Trump, so none of them needs to be particularly not Trump. But insofar as I can tell, Biden's campaign is entirely premised on being the not-Trump who could attract blue collar white guys. But where's the evidence that Biden actually is attracting Trumpbots to his cause? Why would Democrats imagine that this is the way to go? Where are the numbers to support that?

It's no mystery why no one pays me for my political insights, but Biden's popularity mystifies me.

 

[twenty02]

Of course it's a mistake to nominate someone who has obvious electoral flaws, but political scientists all say that "electability" is mostly bullshit, because we don't know what it is, and it mostly boils down to a conviction that we should probably pick old white guys. Many Democrats are convinced, though, that Joe Biden is the most electable candidate, even though he's flamed out every time he's run for President, and he has obvious electoral flaws.

But leaving that aside, what is the Democrats' most electable candidate (according to early polls) actually up to?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to enjoy ice cream with New Hampshire voters to celebrate Memorial Day. He won’t be far from former Maryland congressman John Delaney, another presidential candidate, who’s in the midst of his 19th trip to the state and plans an itinerary that includes four barbecues, one parade and a wreath-laying.

In Iowa, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is rolling through the cornfields in an RV, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) unveils a “Family Bill of Rights” and tours an ethanol plant.

And here’s former vice president Joe Biden’s agenda for the holiday weekend, according to his campaign: “Joe Biden has no public events scheduled.”

Those seven words are becoming familiar for the Biden team. Aside from a campaign swing right after announcing his candidacy, Biden has kept his head down while his rivals rush from state to state to state. Even when he has held public events, they have included only a handful of questions from voters or reporters.
​

Meanwhile:

In a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, “I’ll bet you’re as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.
​

There was a case for Biden as Obama's VP, because maybe he could persuade racially anxious white people that Obama wasn't too exotic a candidate (while Biden's gaffes made him The Onion's favorite politician). But apart from his entirely supposed electability, what exactly is the positive case for Biden? And why is this most "electable" candidate hiding from voters?

I think Democrats should consider the possibility that Biden isn't any more obviously "electable" than anyone else, and instead of guessing who other people are likely to vote for and picking that guy, maybe Democrats should just vote for whomever they think the best candidate actually is. I don't see how anyone could conclude that that person is obviously Joe Biden. And in fact I don't really see any Democrats making that case. The case I hear is all about electability. For a geriatric candidate who's already outlived the average male life span and would be 82 by the end of his first term, making him look like a lame duck from the start.

Every Democrat running is not Trump, so none of them needs to be particularly not Trump. But insofar as I can tell, Biden's campaign is entirely premised on being the not-Trump who could attract blue collar white guys. But where's the evidence that Biden actually is attracting Trumpbots to his cause? Why would Democrats imagine that this is the way to go? Where are the numbers to support that?

It's no mystery why no one pays me for my political insights, but Biden's popularity mystifies me.

Maybe because he's the only moderate candidate running (at least that shows up in polling)?

Plenty of fairly moderate Dem voters out there....and only one choice they have at this point.

 

[Rockfish1]

Maybe because he's the only moderate candidate running (at least that shows up in polling)?

Plenty of fairly moderate Dem voters out there....and only one choice they have at this point.

Right. Everyone except the old white guy is a left wing lunatic. I don't think so.

Also, what's "moderate"?

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Maybe because he's the only moderate candidate running (at least that shows up in polling)?

Plenty of fairly moderate Dem voters out there....and only one choice they have at this point.

True enough, for all the Conservative hand wringing about “socialism”. I can’t remember the last time the Dems nominated anyone who could even be confused as a socialist.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Right. Everyone except the old white guy is a left wing lunatic. I don't think so.

Also, what's "moderate"?

Well the last two D nominees have been a black guy and a woman, so this racial/ gender anxiety among Democratic primary voters seems to be a figment of your imagination.

 

[twenty02]

Right. Everyone except the old white guy is a left wing lunatic. I don't think so.

Also, what's "moderate"?

Hard to say, but here's a guess.....but it's certainly not something that one would see used to describe Sanders/Warren/Harris....the next 3 in highest polling.

 

[tooold4]

Of course it's a mistake to nominate someone who has obvious electoral flaws, but political scientists all say that "electability" is mostly bullshit, because we don't know what it is, and it mostly boils down to a conviction that we should probably pick old white guys. Many Democrats are convinced, though, that Joe Biden is the most electable candidate, even though he's flamed out every time he's run for President, and he has obvious electoral flaws.

But leaving that aside, what is the Democrats' most electable candidate (according to early polls) actually up to?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to enjoy ice cream with New Hampshire voters to celebrate Memorial Day. He won’t be far from former Maryland congressman John Delaney, another presidential candidate, who’s in the midst of his 19th trip to the state and plans an itinerary that includes four barbecues, one parade and a wreath-laying.

In Iowa, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is rolling through the cornfields in an RV, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) unveils a “Family Bill of Rights” and tours an ethanol plant.

And here’s former vice president Joe Biden’s agenda for the holiday weekend, according to his campaign: “Joe Biden has no public events scheduled.”

Those seven words are becoming familiar for the Biden team. Aside from a campaign swing right after announcing his candidacy, Biden has kept his head down while his rivals rush from state to state to state. Even when he has held public events, they have included only a handful of questions from voters or reporters.
​

Meanwhile:

In a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, “I’ll bet you’re as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.
​

There was a case for Biden as Obama's VP, because maybe he could persuade racially anxious white people that Obama wasn't too exotic a candidate (while Biden's gaffes made him The Onion's favorite politician). But apart from his entirely supposed electability, what exactly is the positive case for Biden? And why is this most "electable" candidate hiding from voters?

I think Democrats should consider the possibility that Biden isn't any more obviously "electable" than anyone else, and instead of guessing who other people are likely to vote for and picking that guy, maybe Democrats should just vote for whomever they think the best candidate actually is. I don't see how anyone could conclude that that person is obviously Joe Biden. And in fact I don't really see any Democrats making that case. The case I hear is all about electability. For a geriatric candidate who's already outlived the average male life span and would be 82 by the end of his first term, making him look like a lame duck from the start.

Every Democrat running is not Trump, so none of them needs to be particularly not Trump. But insofar as I can tell, Biden's campaign is entirely premised on being the not-Trump who could attract blue collar white guys. But where's the evidence that Biden actually is attracting Trumpbots to his cause? Why would Democrats imagine that this is the way to go? Where are the numbers to support that?

It's no mystery why no one pays me for my political insights, but Biden's popularity mystifies me.

It does seem like a wet blanket is being thrown over the nomination process. Perhaps the DNC is tied up in nots, looking at various polls and trying to predict the voting tendencies and druthers.

As pointed out Biden is not the president, but also....
Not a socialist.
Not a woman
Not gay
Not black

It's all a bit too negative and playing it too safe. I've been waiting for a candidate to start to make some noise but with the president constantly chewing up the scenery there is little room for any traction from the media.

I still get a chuckle from the line in the Onion (Slate?) article that had Biden calling his Hog a 450cc clam magnet.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It does seem like a wet blanket is being thrown over the nomination process. Perhaps the DNC is tied up in nots, looking at various polls and trying to predict the voting tendencies and druthers.

As pointed out Biden is not the president, but also....
Not a socialist.
Not a woman
Not gay
Not black

It's all a bit too negative and playing it too safe. I've been waiting for a candidate to start to make some noise but with the president constantly chewing up the scenery there is little room for any traction from the media.

I still get a chuckle from the line in the Onion (Slate?) article that had Biden calling his Hog a 450cc clam magnet.

https://politics.theonion.com/biden-pulls-off-dusty-tarp-covering-old-campaign-motorc-1833442728

“The bike has a personality all its own. Ask anyone who’s come to any of my town halls over the years. The thing’s a 450-cc white-hot clam magnet.”

“You hear that baby purring into third gear, your vote isn’t the only thing Uncle Joe’s gonna get,” continued Biden.​

 

[Rockfish1]

Hard to say, but here's a guess.....but it's certainly not something that one would see used to describe Sanders/Warren/Harris....the next 3 in highest polling.

I always pay attention to 538's analyses, but that piece mostly confirms my view that "moderates" are a messy unpredictable muddle. For example, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders won a bunch of Democratic "moderates", but Hillary won the nomination in large part because she was regarded as more electable than Bernie. And while you exclude Kamala Harris from the "moderate" category, she's a former hardass prosecutor whose "moderate" policies have given some liberals pause. The more liberal policies she's expressed openness to now are in large part an effort to reestablish her liberal bona fides.

But again, my point doesn't really have to do with "moderates" because I don't know what that means. My point is that notions of electability are mostly just our own preconceptions and aren't rigorously grounded in . . . well, anything. And I suspect that these woolly-headed notions of electability are driving Biden's popularity because the prime directive among every Democrat I know is to defeat Trump.

But Hillary didn't lose because she wasn't sufficiently "moderate". Indeed, she was the quintessential Democratic "moderate". She won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and lost the electoral college based on the distribution of about 75,000 votes in three key states. The lesson of 2016 isn't that Democrats need to be more "moderate", but that they shouldn't nominate Hillary Clinton.

I don't discount the imperative to defeat Trump. Far from it. I stand second to none in being appalled that Republicans gave us this corrupt cartoonishly unfit un-American imbecile who lies like he breathes. I'll absolutely vote for Biden if he's the nominee, as any decent person should.

But Hillary Clinton would have won if she'd had the same turnout among Democrats that Obama had. I'm doubtful that Biden could make that happen, and I'm also doubtful that he can really make inroads with the Trumpbots. And as much as I respect your views (which I do), then if you vote for Trump because Democrats pick Harris, then I say f#ck you (as politely as I can), because Kamala Harris is a perfectly mainstream political candidate and is obviously not a corrupt cartoonishly unfit un-American imbecile who lies like she breathes.

 

[tooold4]

https://politics.theonion.com/biden-pulls-off-dusty-tarp-covering-old-campaign-motorc-1833442728

“The bike has a personality all its own. Ask anyone who’s come to any of my town halls over the years. The thing’s a 450-cc white-hot clam magnet.”

“You hear that baby purring into third gear, your vote isn’t the only thing Uncle Joe’s gonna get,” continued Biden.​

Yep, that's the one, a perfectly condensed summation.

The DNC has upped the ante to qualify for debates in September. Currently it would cut the number of candidates down to eight. Inevitable and understandable I suppose, and the number won't stay at eight. But the choice for a candidate that can inspire and generate some support and energy could go from too early to tell, all the way to the train has left the station, in short order.

 

[hoosboot]

I always pay attention to 538's analyses, but that piece mostly confirms my view that "moderates" are a messy unpredictable muddle. For example, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders won a bunch of Democratic "moderates", but Hillary won the nomination in large part because she was regarded as more electable than Bernie. And while you exclude Kamala Harris from the "moderate" category, she's a former hardass prosecutor whose "moderate" policies have given some liberals pause. The more liberal policies she's expressed openness to now are in large part an effort to reestablish her liberal bona fides.

But again, my point doesn't really have to do with "moderates" because I don't know what that means. My point is that notions of electability are mostly just our own preconceptions and aren't rigorously grounded in . . . well, anything. And I suspect that these woolly-headed notions of electability are driving Biden's popularity because the prime directive among every Democrat I know is to defeat Trump.

But Hillary didn't lose because she wasn't sufficiently "moderate". Indeed, she was the quintessential Democratic "moderate". She won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and lost the electoral college based on the distribution of about 75,000 votes in three key states. The lesson of 2016 isn't that Democrats need to be more "moderate", but that they shouldn't nominate Hillary Clinton.

I don't discount the imperative to defeat Trump. Far from it. I stand second to none in being appalled that Republicans gave us this corrupt cartoonishly unfit un-American imbecile who lies like he breathes. I'll absolutely vote for Biden if he's the nominee, as any decent person should.

But Hillary Clinton would have won if she'd had the same turnout among Democrats that Obama had. I'm doubtful that Biden could make that happen, and I'm also doubtful that he can really make inroads with the Trumpbots. And as much as I respect your views (which I do), then if you vote for Trump because Democrats pick Harris, then I say f#ck you (as politely as I can), because Kamala Harris is a perfectly mainstream political candidate and is obviously not a corrupt cartoonishly unfit un-American imbecile who lies like she breathes.

I've likely had substantially more exposure to Kamala Harris than most folks here and I have to say that your analysis of her candidacy is pretty spot-on. She's an extremely pragmatic mainstream politician who is trying to shore up her liberal bona fides by mulling a few of the more popular current liberal policy ideas. The idea that Harris or Booker are wild-eyed socialists would make Richard Nixon and Jack Kemp wild-eyed socialists.

My concern about Harris is more about seasoning than it is about how liberal she is though. It seems like the current electoral climate has people pushing a Biden/Harris ticket for many of the reasons you bemoan. I could be perfectly fine with that ticket, but I think there are better ones available.

 

[toastedbread]

Yep, that's the one, a perfectly condensed summation.

The DNC has upped the ante to qualify for debates in September. Currently it would cut the number of candidates down to eight. Inevitable and understandable I suppose, and the number won't stay at eight. But the choice for a candidate that can inspire and generate some support and energy could go from too early to tell, all the way to the train has left the station, in short order.

I think I like Tom Perez as a person, but he really blew it with the criteria. There are a handful of candidates who don't belong in any debate, including a couple who are cartoonish. 1% is a joke. If your name randomly makes it onto the poll list, it's entirely conceivable that you could snag 1% on a random poll of 500 people. That's 5 people choosing your name. The new 2% is hardly a higher standard. The minimum number of donors is easy to game, with candidates spending $10 to acquire a $1 donation.

My concern about Harris is more about seasoning than it is about how liberal she is though.

You don't think she has enough of the right type of experience?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Hard to say, but here's a guess.....but it's certainly not something that one would see used to describe Sanders/Warren/Harris....the next 3 in highest polling.

I think Buttigieg is a moderate on many positions.

 

[hoosboot]

I think I like Tom Perez as a person, but he really blew it with the criteria. There are a handful of candidates who don't belong in any debate, including a couple who are cartoonish. 1% is a joke. If your name randomly makes it onto the poll list, it's entirely conceivable that you could snag 1% on a random poll of 500 people. That's 5 people choosing your name. The new 2% is hardly a higher standard. The minimum number of donors is easy to game, with candidates spending $10 to acquire a $1 donation.


You don't think she has enough of the right type of experience?

Ideally, I would have liked to see her on the national stage, dealing with national issues a little longer. But, today's environment fast forwards political advancement much more quickly than yesteryear. Harris is hella-smart. She demonstrates a fantastic understanding of important issues. And she has a terrific political demeanor. I think I'd be very happy with her as President.

 

[toastedbread]

Ideally, I would have liked to see her on the national stage, dealing with national issues a little longer. But, today's environment fast forwards political advancement much more quickly than yesteryear. Harris is hella-smart. She demonstrates a fantastic understanding of important issues. And she has a terrific political demeanor. I think I'd be very happy with her as President.

mmm arguably she's far more seasoned than Obama was prior to his run. I don't have an opinion on her as a candidate, but she isn't lacking for qualifications. Compared to the rest of the primary candidates, she is clearly in the top tier of qualification imo.

 

[hoosboot]

mmm arguably she's far more seasoned than Obama was prior to his run. I don't have an opinion on her as a candidate, but she isn't lacking for qualifications. Compared to the rest of the primary candidates, she is clearly in the top tier of qualification imo.

I don't know that I'd agree with that. IMHO, she has about as much "seasoning" as Obama did when he announced and, while it was an issue he transcended, it was an issue nonetheless. I was very happy with his Presidency, so I suspect that the same could be true of a Harris Presidency. The campaign will tell us a lot about her ability to rise to meet the bigger stage of the Presidency. The moment never seemed too big for President Obama.

 

[tooold4]

mmm arguably she's far more seasoned than Obama was prior to his run. I don't have an opinion on her as a candidate, but she isn't lacking for qualifications. Compared to the rest of the primary candidates, she is clearly in the top tier of qualification imo.

As for "electability", picture the president on stage with Biden in a debate.

now,

Picture the president on stage with Kamala Harris.

( I see what I did )

 

[toastedbread]

I don't know that I'd agree with that. IMHO, she has about as much "seasoning" as Obama did when he announced

I'd say her tenure as California AG provides her a substantial "seasoning" edge over candidate Obama. Anyhow, I'll avoid getting too much into the weeds, and instead agree to disagree.

 

[toastedbread]

As for "electability", picture the president on stage with Biden in a debate.

now,

Picture the president on stage with Kamala Harris.

( I see what I did )

I've thought Harris comports herself well in Judiciary hearings as opposed to say Booker. I'd say she's well seasoned.

 

[hoosboot]

I'd say her tenure as California AG provides her a substantial "seasoning" edge over candidate Obama. Anyhow, I'll avoid getting too much into the weeds, and instead agree to disagree.

IMHO, it's similar enough to Obama's time as a State Senator to not really be a "substantial" edge, but to each his own. If I were the wonderful Wizard of Oz, I'd just like Harris to have been on the national stage a bit longer. That said, I like a lot about both Harris and Booker.

 

[toastedbread]

IMHO, it's similar enough to Obama's time as a State Senator to not really be a "substantial" edge, but to each his own. If I were the wonderful Wizard of Oz, I'd just like Harris to have been on the national stage a bit longer. That said, I like a lot about both Harris and Booker.

California AG doesn't count as national stage? That's a pretty darn big stage. Arguably more "national stage" than your average national politician.

 

[hoosboot]

California AG doesn't count as national stage? That's a pretty darn big stage. Arguably more "national stage" than your average national politician.

While I appreciate that portion of her experience, what's "national" about it?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Electability is a very measurable quality, after the election is over. Before the election, it is useless.

Let us recall how liberal the US had been in the 60s and 70s. On most issues Nixon would be in the far left of today's Democrats. So in 1980 it seemed hopeless the GOP would nominate someone who was running right of Goldwater. It worked for them.

Let's not forget Trump wasn't electable.

Voting on electability is like asking someone who they will be cheering for in the upcoming game and them answering, "whomever wins".

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Voting on electability is like asking someone who they will be cheering for in the upcoming game and them answering, "whomever wins".

Nicely put.

 

[toastedbread]

While I appreciate that portion of her experience, what's "national" about it?

"National stage" has a different meaning than "national". The AG of the most populous state in the country has a very prominent platform. Becerra is probably more well known than many Senators.

How many Americans could name the Senators from Montana? For that matter, technically all members of the house are on the "national stage".

Aa for the purely "national" part, state AGs routinely file suit against the federal government on issues effecting the entire country. While it's a different form of experience, its no less national.

 

[iuwclurker]

Moderate's pretty easy to define for a moderate. It means focusing primarily on pocketbook issues.

 

[iuwclurker]

Practically speaking, moderate would mean a candidate who could ride the anti-Trump wave in 2020 into winning a Senate seat in a red state.

 

[twenty02]

I always pay attention to 538's analyses, but that piece mostly confirms my view that "moderates" are a messy unpredictable muddle. For example, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders won a bunch of Democratic "moderates", but Hillary won the nomination in large part because she was regarded as more electable than Bernie. And while you exclude Kamala Harris from the "moderate" category, she's a former hardass prosecutor whose "moderate" policies have given some liberals pause. The more liberal policies she's expressed openness to now are in large part an effort to reestablish her liberal bona fides.

But again, my point doesn't really have to do with "moderates" because I don't know what that means. My point is that notions of electability are mostly just our own preconceptions and aren't rigorously grounded in . . . well, anything. And I suspect that these woolly-headed notions of electability are driving Biden's popularity because the prime directive among every Democrat I know is to defeat Trump.

But Hillary didn't lose because she wasn't sufficiently "moderate". Indeed, she was the quintessential Democratic "moderate". She won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and lost the electoral college based on the distribution of about 75,000 votes in three key states. The lesson of 2016 isn't that Democrats need to be more "moderate", but that they shouldn't nominate Hillary Clinton.

I don't discount the imperative to defeat Trump. Far from it. I stand second to none in being appalled that Republicans gave us this corrupt cartoonishly unfit un-American imbecile who lies like he breathes. I'll absolutely vote for Biden if he's the nominee, as any decent person should.

But Hillary Clinton would have won if she'd had the same turnout among Democrats that Obama had. I'm doubtful that Biden could make that happen, and I'm also doubtful that he can really make inroads with the Trumpbots. And as much as I respect your views (which I do), then if you vote for Trump because Democrats pick Harris, then I say f#ck you (as politely as I can), because Kamala Harris is a perfectly mainstream political candidate and is obviously not a corrupt cartoonishly unfit un-American imbecile who lies like she breathes.

You know there is a 0.0% chance I would vote for Trump

 

[toastedbread]

Of course it's a mistake to nominate someone who has obvious electoral flaws, but political scientists all say that "electability" is mostly bullshit, because we don't know what it is, and it mostly boils down to a conviction that we should probably pick old white guys. Many Democrats are convinced, though, that Joe Biden is the most electable candidate, even though he's flamed out every time he's run for President, and he has obvious electoral flaws.

But leaving that aside, what is the Democrats' most electable candidate (according to early polls) actually up to?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to enjoy ice cream with New Hampshire voters to celebrate Memorial Day. He won’t be far from former Maryland congressman John Delaney, another presidential candidate, who’s in the midst of his 19th trip to the state and plans an itinerary that includes four barbecues, one parade and a wreath-laying.

In Iowa, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is rolling through the cornfields in an RV, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) unveils a “Family Bill of Rights” and tours an ethanol plant.

And here’s former vice president Joe Biden’s agenda for the holiday weekend, according to his campaign: “Joe Biden has no public events scheduled.”

Those seven words are becoming familiar for the Biden team. Aside from a campaign swing right after announcing his candidacy, Biden has kept his head down while his rivals rush from state to state to state. Even when he has held public events, they have included only a handful of questions from voters or reporters.
​

Meanwhile:

In a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, “I’ll bet you’re as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.
​

There was a case for Biden as Obama's VP, because maybe he could persuade racially anxious white people that Obama wasn't too exotic a candidate (while Biden's gaffes made him The Onion's favorite politician). But apart from his entirely supposed electability, what exactly is the positive case for Biden? And why is this most "electable" candidate hiding from voters?

I think Democrats should consider the possibility that Biden isn't any more obviously "electable" than anyone else, and instead of guessing who other people are likely to vote for and picking that guy, maybe Democrats should just vote for whomever they think the best candidate actually is. I don't see how anyone could conclude that that person is obviously Joe Biden. And in fact I don't really see any Democrats making that case. The case I hear is all about electability. For a geriatric candidate who's already outlived the average male life span and would be 82 by the end of his first term, making him look like a lame duck from the start.

Every Democrat running is not Trump, so none of them needs to be particularly not Trump. But insofar as I can tell, Biden's campaign is entirely premised on being the not-Trump who could attract blue collar white guys. But where's the evidence that Biden actually is attracting Trumpbots to his cause? Why would Democrats imagine that this is the way to go? Where are the numbers to support that?

It's no mystery why no one pays me for my political insights, but Biden's popularity mystifies me.

Isn't it based on the current h2h polls and general popularity numbers? Biden does well on both counts. I think the best argument is that it's simply too early to draw conclusions from these numbers.

One indicator that I believe can be used to exclude candidates is the +/- compared to how a generic D would have performed in their prior election(s). Warren was one of, if not the worst performer in the entire country, Klobuchar one of the best. I've excluded Warren from consideration for that reason.

 

[toastedbread]

You know there is a 0.0% chance I would vote for Trump

I'd honestly probably vote for Trump over Sanders...beyond that not really sure on the rest

 

[twenty02]

Well Sanders won't (hopefully) be the nominee so don't expect that scenario. Good digging though.

 

[Rockfish1]

You know there is a 0.0% chance I would vote for Trump

I do know that. I was being a little silly.

 

[toastedbread]

Well Sanders won't (hopefully) be the nominee so don't expect that scenario. Good digging though.

I was so disgusted when I read that, it made it hard to forget

Then when I read the 0.0% comment, I was like hold the phone!

I'd vote for a bologna sandwich over Trump.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Hard to say, but here's a guess.....but it's certainly not something that one would see used to describe Sanders/Warren/Harris....the next 3 in highest polling.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Can’t you even find a meme that uses proper grammar? Weak.

 

[twenty02]

More polls last few days...more of the same.

Biden steady in mid 30s....20 points ahead of anyone.

 

[stollcpa]

More polls last few days...more of the same.

Biden steady in mid 30s....20 points ahead of anyone.

He’s going to get slimed. The lefties can’t allow him to win.

 

[Lucy01]

More polls last few days...more of the same.

Biden steady in mid 30s....20 points ahead of anyone.

He should be 100 points ahead of the other lunatics!

 

[zeke4ahs]

Can’t you even find a meme that uses proper grammar? Weak.

Sorry snowflake

Lol. What a reply. Dead...

 

[All4You]

More polls last few days...more of the same.

Biden steady in mid 30s....20 points ahead of anyone.

Exactly...when you are polling with this kind of lead over the next in line, there is no reason to be on a multi-state RV tour over Memorial Day weekend nearly 9 months before the first caucus/primary. I mean, if he could capture around 1/3 of the current support of candidates 3-24 while ceding 2/3 of the current support of candidates 3-24 to the number 2 candidate, he would still have a double digit polling lead. No reason to go out there and Biden it all up this early.

But hey, what would I know...at best I probably fall into the "mealy mouthed moderate muddler" camp, at worst I am the reason Trump got elected.