Joe Biden For President (part two)

[Noogies]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I wrote him in (2016), voted for him in 2020 and was totally pissed off at him and the DNC for his candidacy in 2024.

Pretty much my timeline (as a spectator with an intense rooting interest) except I wouldn't have written him in in 2016. I will admit to some curiosity as to why you couldn't bring yourself to vote for Hillary.

[Oerets]

One of the many issues with the current Democratic party is just how diverse and complex the makeup of members are. With the influx of new blood with their diverse agendas.

There will always be a tradeoff and deal making with any candidate selection. Given the time involved and importance with this election. The safe bet was Biden a known quantity.
If not for the debate he would still be in the running.

Harris is also the safe bet and seems like a good choice so far.

Until the Dems get a trifecta of House Senate Oval Office again.

[Rajoo]

Kamala Harris had an unusual donor to her earlier campaigns: Donald Trump

Campaign finance records show that Trump — before he entered politics — donated $6,000 to Kamala D. Harris’s reelection campaigns while she was California attorney general.

This included a $5,000 donation to Harris’s campaign in September 2011 and another $1,000 in February 2013, while his daughter Ivanka Trump gave Harris’s campaign $2,000 in 2014.

“Was a wise investment,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) wrote on social media of Trump’s donation alongside an image of a $5,000 check.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rris-donation/

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Noogies

I know this is all very theoretical, but why would he need to wait for her to win the nomination? To me, that kind of defeats the purpose of him resigning in the first place.

If Joe resigns now and Harris has a great convention and wins the nomination the tRumpies will say it was because Biden gave it to her. If Harris has a great convention and gets nominated with solidified Democrat support then Biden resigns their bitching about Biden giving the presidency to Harris is muted. The delegates will have spoken and no cries of Democrat party chaos. If Donny chickens out of debates (likely) the Dems can claim he's too chicken to stand up to PRESIDENT HARRIS.

Am I the only one that thinks Kamala has better dance moves that Donny?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

If Joe resigns now and Harris has a great convention and wins the nomination the tRumpies will say it was because Biden gave it to her. If Harris has a great convention and gets nominated with solidified Democrat support then Biden resigns their bitching about Biden giving the presidency to Harris is muted. The delegates will have spoken and no cries of Democrat party chaos. If Donny chickens out of debates (likely) the Dems can claim he's too chicken to stand up to PRESIDENT HARRIS.

Am I the only one that thinks Kamala has better dance moves that Donny?

Very good post, thanks for the graphics and agree with you completely. Yes, she has to establish her credentials on her own and so so far seems to be doing a great job of it with grassroots fundraising like Obama did. And hope she shuns every advisor or campaign people associated with Biden. Bad hombres and mujers if you ask me.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Noogies

Pretty much my timeline (as a spectator with an intense rooting interest) except I wouldn't have written him in in 2016. I will admit to some curiosity as to why you couldn't bring yourself to vote for Hillary.

Its not Hillary but the party I was opposed to then, especially conducting a sham primary to coronate HRC as their candidate. Also then the DNC had their superdelegates and HRC had already sown up the nomination. Bernie was her only legit opponent and not even a registered Democrat. After this sham, they did away with the super delegates. But I still do not find anything to like about this party and want nothing to do with the GOP.

Also I bet on Hillary to lose since I did not see how she could beat Trump (expecting majority of men to vote against her and vote for Trump who was a political unknown then) with her campaigning or lack thereof. She actually believed in the polls that gave her 90% chances to win.

[donquixote99]

90% was probably accurate. If you ran 100 elections showing the same polling data, the favored candidate would probably have won about 90 times. It was just our luck to get one of the 10 times. There is a perception problem here--90% sounds like a sure thing to people. It isn't. 99% things, even, fail to happen every day.

Hillary and her people may have committed this error, though it behooves them to understanding polling data properly.

Now if someone cranks the probability numbers and says the odds against something are a million to one, but it happens, then I have to think there was an estimating error.

[Oerets]

We can and will continue to argue over who the best president would be to run.

In the end we need not get tangled up in personalities. We don't want to become a party that goes the way of the other now do we. All that matters is getting the Oval and all the better control of the other two.

The President was never meant to be as powerful as most people think they are. Was alway partnership with hopefully cooperation between the branches.

So picking a President all thou important it still remains a party position with it's values one votes for. In most years anyway in the past.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

90% was probably accurate. If you ran 100 elections showing the same polling data, the favored candidate would probably have won about 90 times. It was just our luck to get one of the 10 times. There is a perception problem here--90% sounds like a sure thing to people. It isn't. 99% things, even, fail to happen every day.

Hillary and her people may have committed this error, though it behooves them to understanding polling data properly.

Now if someone cranks the probability numbers and says the odds against something are a million to one, but it happens, then I have to think there was an estimating error.

Hillary did not "understand" the Electoral College. She was urged to spend more time in the rust belt and she did not.

[Rajoo]

National polls are meaningless when it comes to electing a POTUS since just a handful of states decides who gets to be in the Oval office. Yet we get fixated on national polls with multitude of pollsters tilting the results one way or the other, perhaps by choice which is what I suspect, since most of them are paid by one campaign or the other in order to manipulate elections.