The Boston Globe ran a recent story which demonstrates the danger of Biden as the nominee while showing the strength of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren is rising and building a strong ground operation and continues to hit home runs in both the debates and her speeches. Biden is trying to catch up on the ground and taking big swings and missing the ball. His defenders continue to try to point to his poll numbers against his challengers and against Donald J. Trump as his raison d’etre .
However, this argument has at least two problems which while related are distinct. The first problem is that poll numbers cannot be the rationale for a candidacy. Simply because a candidate has certain poll numbers cannot be the rationale for a candidacy because in theory that could be true for any candidate and at least one of which is likely to be unappealing for some of the candidate’s backers. Otherwise, it would be similar to saying I love this child and choose this child (maybe for a commercial) because she is twenty three inches tall. There are other children one can find that are twenty three inches tall and the child’s height presumably will change. The rationale for a candidacy must be due to something about the candidate’s message and / or something more intrinsic to the candidate.
Furthermore, this treats these numbers as if they are static. The numbers for a politician in a race are likely to change. Biden’s numbers have slipped previously. They did rebound mostly. Nevertheless, this showed that his numbers are far from permanent. They are written in pencil. This is especially true of general election poll numbers during a primary. Biden is going to be challenged. If he is the best candidate, then he will respond well to the challenge and win. If he does not respond well to the challenge, then he may not be the best candidate. He will certainly be challenged and attacked viciously in the general election by Mr. Thing. Moreover, the campaign gives the voters the opportunity to see his candidacy and how well it survives the spotlight. It appears to me that it will expose him. The spotlight revealed Barack Obama to be an amazing, once in a lifetime candidate. His running mate never has had to carry the full weight of the spotlight and done so well.
Already, he has had problems. First, we had the handsy issue. Then, we had his quote in which he stated that he did not believe that African Americans have been discriminated against, a belief he said was popular in the ‘60s. He stated that he opposed integration and supported segregation unless the local authorities wanted to be integrated. He was criticized for praising segregationists as better than today’s republican party members. Instead of apologizing, he demanded an apology from Senator Booker, an indication of how oblivious he is to his white privilege. There is the issue of the “Biden Crime Bill”. All of this and more he should have known was going to come out when he called himself “the most progressive” candidate in the race. He told wealthy people funding his campaign that there would be no major structural changes to the economy. His campaign is the one that was taking a more measured approach to the existential threat to the planet, climate change. He is not attempting to make sure everybody in the country is covered by insurance, only that they could be in theory. His health care approach is weaker than Medicare for America which at least makes sure everybody is covered either by the public option or by a private health insurance plan or by Medicare or Medicaid or the VA. He stated that women in the workplace weakened families. He opposes decriminalizing the border. The problem with that is that it leaves the potential for family separation and other abuses if a republican president is in power. Clearly, he already has vulnerabilities to his candidacy. So far, he has survived because the African American base backing him is a loyal one. Their loyalty will not continue forever if they see another candidate as less likely to make gaffes and as likely to beat Donald Trump. They are backing him still because they believe him to be the strongest candidate to beat Donald Trump and because of Joe Biden’s attachment to President Obama. His failings on issues do not bother them as much so long as he is much more likely to beat Thing than the other candidates are. Once it is a reasonably close call who is more likely to beat Thing, then these failings and other gaffes will matter. The way a candidate performs during the campaign helps to make this matter clear. Right now and for the foreseeable future, Senator Elizabeth Warren is performing far better in running her campaign (her speeches, debates, avoiding gaffes) than Joe is.
He committed several gaffes in his recent speech. He stated that we must “choose truth over facts” and referred to former British Prime Minister Theresa May as Margaret Thatcher. Both of these gaffes have problems, but I think the second gaffe is worse. What sense does it make to choose truth over facts ? This seems like a Donald Trump way thinking. How can facts be untrue ? Is he not thinking when he is speaking ? I write that because it is unclear how one would say that even if one is misreading a teleprompter. I think that the second is worse because it demonstrates his age. It shows that he is confusing politicians. This is very dangerous for him. Prime Minister Theresa May is stepping down because of a lack of confidence and the inability to get a deal with Brexit. She is not necessarily revered. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was in power from 1979 to 1990 and she with Reagan are rightly or wrongly attributed to have brought down the Soviet Union. Prime Minister Thatcher died six years ago, in 2013. She was in power when Joe was a relatively new senator . This makes Joe look confused about what year it is and confused about the era. This ties in to some concerns that some may have (including voters) when they perform the operation of subtraction , whether it is popular or not. Subtraction when performed correctly yields truth and comparisons will be made by voters, whether that is popular or not.
These are not simply poor positions (which to my mind are more important but perhaps to his base these poor positions are better than Thing’s positions). These are gaffes and the second is very concerning. His base will realize that his numbers against Thing will drop when he makes such gaffes as they will concern general election voters. As they observe Joe make these gaffes and have far more missteps than the other candidates, it is likely that they will realize that he will not be a strong general election candidate. He may look reasonably good in certain states right now, but those numbers apply to this moment in time. Those numbers are not going to stay the same forever. He will be attacked and if, as I view likely, he continues to make gaffes and stumble, those numbers will drop in the states which his adherents use to bolster his candidacy. And once his numbers fall, then the king has no clothes. He is running on his numbers period. Once the numbers begin to fall, then there is no governor, nothing to stop the fall. When Reverend Wright happened, Barack Obama had his character and integrity and his ability to speak to the American public. He overperformed in Indiana and North Carolina and we, Tim Russert said, then “know (knew) who the nominee will be”. Barack Obama could overcome this because he had a there there. Joe does not. He is running on his numbers period. If the numbers change, the rationale for his candidacy disappears.
Do we want our nominee to make these kinds of mistakes during the general election against Thing? I think not. The numbers he has now are temporary. They are not permanent. They will be affected by his gaffes and by the attacks from Thing and the republicans. If a person likes Joe for some other reason, great. However, we normally have a circular logic problem occurring: I choose Joe because I think you like Joe and You choose Joe because you think I like Joe, neither of like Joe all that much and yet we both choose him because we wrongly think the other likes him. Joe has worked hard and served in the senate a long time. This is the time for a new generation to lead and Joe’s time to rest.
Sunday, Aug 11, 2019 · 4:25:07 PM +00:00
·
Dem
There will be comments by the media if/when Joe Biden makes a gaffe, especially because of the narrative that has already been built over a long period of time. The best way for the candidate to avoid stories like this one written by The Boston Globe is to avoid making these types of gaffes. My diary is simply an examination and extension of the story written by The Boston Globe. If they had not written their story, I would not have written this diary. They would not have written their story if Joe had not made these gaffes. Are we supposed to ignore them as if they are not likely to reoccur during the general election ?
Neither I nor the other people posting their comments are running for president. Our grammatical errors will not matter. In fact, if this was only a grammatical error, then I would be less concerned. However, “truth over facts” is not simply a grammatical mistake. To my mind, it appears to indicate mental confusion and/or a denial of objective truth. Nevertheless, again, the second mistake is worse because it makes me afraid that he was thinking that he had returned to a different time. It makes me afraid that he is thinking that the present decade is the 80’s. It makes me want to ask him , “What decade is it ?”
I am not running for president. I am likely to make grammatical errors or omit words in my post. I say that because I am now going through substance abuse rehabilitation. I strongly suspect that my mental faculties are declining as a result of (1) the substance abuse — the abuse of hydrocodone (2) the medication I am on now (buprenorphine). I have been off of hydrocodone and all other narcotics other than what my substance abuse rehabilitation clinic gives me (buprenorphine) and I only take what they prescribe me. I have been clean for over a year. Therefore, despite my two bachelor’s degrees and my master’s degree in mathematics and my doctoral work and all of the academic awards I have won, I am highly likely to make usage mistakes in my post. I regret that. I try to catch them. However, I am not a candidate for president. A serious candidate for president is going to have to be able to stand up to the spotlight of the media.
Sunday, Aug 11, 2019 · 4:56:54 PM +00:00
·
Dem
There is a line of demarcation that separates the time when I liked Joe Biden even if he was not my favorite to my opposition to him. There was an event that led to this change. That event was when I read a direct quote from Joe Biden. That changed my feelings regarding Joe completely. He essentially stated that Africans Americans have had a level playing field with white people and that they did not suffer severely and asymmetrically from discrimination. He stated that this belief was popular in the ‘60s, but he did not hold to it. He stated that we did not need to do anything to overcome racial injustice. At that point, I was done with him. I liked him as a person and as vice president under President Obama. I did not have major issues with his worldview. That quote was crushing. I found it to crush my spirit. If I support and believe in anything at all in life, I support racial justice ! That is my organizing principle to life. I have a long ways to go, but that is what makes my heart beat ! That is what I most care about ! That quote went against everything I hold dear and believe ! That was it. And he is never going to apologize for any of this stuff. There are few if any apologies from white guys in the age bracket of Thing and Joe Biden.