Why on Earth is Joe Biden thinking of running for President (again)?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
He did what?!? Man, he is toast

[Boris Godunov]

I liked Biden until the bankruptcy bill, but even then I thought he was a no-go as a presidential contender. Senators make lousy candidates, unless the can bring something else to the table (like Hillary can). He'll just be Senator MBNA in the primaries.

[Sikander]

He has some appeal amongst moderates and independants, which means that he has no chance in the Democratic primaries. My only guess as to what is motivating him is his "to do" list, which may have been compiled some time ago.

==============

Joe Biden's To Do List

Become more charismatic (done!)

Lose 30 lbs (lookin' good!)

Screw Marilyn Monroe (damn, too late!)

Hall of Fame Career as NFL QB (crap, got cut from jv!)

Get elected as President of the U.S. and save the world (still workin on it)

[molly bloom]

Clearly he was just Biden his time all along.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Clearly he was just Biden his time all along.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sikander
He has some appeal amongst moderates and independants, which means that he has no chance in the Democratic primaries.

Huh? Every Dem nominee since 1992 has had appeal to moderates and independents. Hence the closeness of the votes in the elections (unless you think the liberal/far left wing of the Dems can muster 48+% of the popular vote all by its lonesome).

Biden will be overshadowed by at least two other candidates, Hillary (if she really runs) and Warner (a moderate Southern governor, oh my!). Not to mention Edwards again, probably, who will fill the whole "moderate charming Senator" niche already. And he won't have a shot, either.

[flash9286]

I think what he means is that Biden is to moderate to win the Democratic primary.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


See, I'm on the other side of the aisle, and I can't figure out what that agenda is, either. It could be the old DLC agenda, but that has a better standard-bearer in Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, or even Harry Reid. And he's well-outflanked on the left by a host of truer believers. I'm stumped trying to think of a single issue with which he's identified. He's Joe Biden, party of one. I'm baffled, I really am.

Evan Bayh, maybe. We'll see. I think the argument is Bayh knows foreign policy much more than Bayh does.

Harry Reid or Chris Dodd? Are you kidding me?

[lord of the mark]

I think Biden might have had a real shot in 1988 (assuming the Hamlet of Albany hadnt run) Certainly the was among the most attractive candidates - understood the need to modernize the party as Gephardt did not, and without the baggage of Dukakis.

Biden has what Warner and Edwards dont have - a real foreign policy resume. (Hillary, is, well, Hillary) Now I dont think that makes it likely that he'll win - even in current conditions the centrality of foreign policy expertise is a tough sell - but it DOES provide a rationale for the candidacy.

as for the bankruptcy thing, i think everybody has to get one free local pander - Vermonters get dairy supports, midwesterners get Ethanol, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by flash9286
I think what he means is that Biden is to moderate to win the Democratic primary.

yeah, but BG thinks Kerry was a moderate. Which indicates the problem with reducing things to a "moderate vs non-moderate" or whatever. Clearly Kerry had past associations with the DLC, wasnt Howard Dean, etc - which is why he did as well as he did. But he was also trying to span the difference to the "left". Which is why so many moderate voters deserted him, despite the poor alternative. Now Bill Clinton was generally able to appeal BOTH to the DLC center AND the left base - how much of that was due to A. National security largely being off the table in that period B. Bill coming after 12 years of GOP dominance C. Bills own gifts as a politician - is a matter of dispute.

[Boris Godunov]

Moderate voters didn't desert Kerry, that's the point. He got the 2nd-most votes in history, after all. Bush's antigay machine was able to drive evangelicals to the polls in record numbers, which is where his margin of victory came from.

Kerry's other problem (and Gore's) wasn't about stances on the issues, it was about personal flaws coupled with bad campaign management. Otherwise, poll after poll showed that Americans substantively agreed with him and the Democrats on the issues more than with Bush and the Republicans.

[Boris Godunov]

And for the record, I never said that Kerry was a "moderate," I only responded that he was clearly able to appeal to moderates in some fashion. Please refrain from telling others what I think, thanks.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Moderate voters didn't desert Kerry, that's the point. He got the 2nd-most votes in history, after all. Bush's antigay machine was able to drive evangelicals to the polls in record numbers, which is where his margin of victory came from.

Kerry's other problem (and Gore's) wasn't about stances on the issues, it was about personal flaws coupled with bad campaign management. Otherwise, poll after poll showed that Americans substantively agreed with him and the Democrats on the issues more than with Bush and the Republicans.

the polarization increased turn out on both sides. The fact was Kerry only got 48% of the vote. If all Bush voters were conservatives, and all moderates voted for kerry, the implication is that there more "conservative" voters than there are moderate and liberal voters combined. Maybe this is a definitional, thing, but I dont buy it. I think there were clearly "moderates" who voted for Bush, driven largely by national security concerns.

As for Kerrys "personal" problems that was heavily the perception that he was trying to play both sides of certain issues - again, compounded by (if not originating in) the attempt to reach out to both wings of the Democratic party. Whether a more skilled politician could have pulled it off better is not possible to say, IMHO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And for the record, I never said that Kerry was a "moderate," I only responded that he was clearly able to appeal to moderates in some fashion. Please refrain from telling others what I think, thanks.

appeal in "some fashion" well then why did you say 1992, you could have said since 1976. Dukakis certainly had appeal to some moderates - he had developed a positive approach to business, which he believed was the root of the Massachusetts miracle, and in fact took moderate views on other issues as well, and chose Lloyd Bentsen as his VP candidate. In 1984 Walter Mondale ran to the right of Gary Hart on national security. Jimmy Carter ran originally as a moderate and was anathema to the left (remember ABC - anybody but Carter? I do) Every Dem candidate from 1976 on has had SOME appeal to moderates, as well as SOME appeal to the left. I assumed Sikander meant something more substantive than a non-zero appeal, though that would be the literal meaning of "some"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the polarization increased turn out on both sides. The fact was Kerry only got 48% of the vote. If all Bush voters were conservatives, and all moderates voted for kerry, the implication is that there more "conservative" voters than there are moderate and liberal voters combined. Maybe this is a definitional, thing, but I dont buy it. I think there were clearly "moderates" who voted for Bush, driven largely by national security concerns.

As for Kerrys "personal" problems that was heavily the perception that he was trying to play both sides of certain issues - again, compounded by (if not originating in) the attempt to reach out to both wings of the Democratic party. Whether a more skilled politician could have pulled it off better is not possible to say, IMHO.

Who said anything about "all" moderate voting for Kerry? "All" moderates never vote for the same candidate in any election, so this is a silly qualifier.

I've relying on exit poll data which showed the following: Independents (assumed to be the typical "moderates") split fairly evenly between Bush and Kerry (Kerry actually scored slightly better), while Bush got a nice "bounce" from conservatives in states where gay issues were prominent on the ballot. Bush's margin was not large--barely 2 percent.

So yeah, Kerry appealed to many moderates, but Bush did as well and he got his base out a bit more. Hence a narrow win for him.

Kerry's trouble was really do to the Swiftboat campaign and his campaign's ineptness in dealing with it. Before that, he was doing much better in the polls. But they stumbled there and never fully recovered. Meanwhile, the Bushies had been painting him as a flip-flopper and what not forever. It wasn't anything new, and he enjoyed some good polls pre-Swiftboating even while such mantras were already in circulation.

Of course, Kerry also came across as dull as a post.