I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like our vice-president doesn’t always get the kind of respect he deserves.
[Barbara] Boxer, who was a colleague of Biden’s during his long years in the Senate, told Politico on Wednesday that there was no reason for him to run. She was speaking after a televised debate on Tuesday among the Democrats who have announced they are running.
“I just don’t think there’s a rationale for his campaign,” the California senator said. “I think he should endorse Hillary and go out that way.”
When I see stuff like that it makes me want to explain possible rationales for a Biden campaign for the presidency.
I’ve been meaning to get to that, but it’s been one thing or another getting in my way and it just hasn’t happened.
While I’m dithering, I keep seeing shots across Biden’s bow. I mean, if you have to bring up Anita Hill to bash the man, I think you’re living in amber.
I don’t know if Clinton disingenuously came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership to differentiate herself from Sanders or from Biden (as the BBC suggests), but everyone knows who was in charge of pushing that agreement in Obama’s first term, and it wasn’t the vice-president.
All I know is that it looks at least as likely that he will get in than that he will not, and the window is closing so we’ll hear soon enough.
Unfortunately, I still haven’t carved out enough time to thoroughly explain a rationale for Biden’s candidacy, but I will give you three things to research and discuss:
1. Character matters- politicians accumulate voting records that reflect their unique constituencies. Sanders represents a state that is skeptical of gun control. Clinton represented Wall Street. Biden represented that corporate tax haven of Delaware. You want to hold these things against them, go ahead. But they don’t mean shit, really. No matter who wins they Democratic nomination, they will face implacable congressional opposition to anything they want to do legislatively. We choose parties by ideology, but we ought to pick presidents by character. I like Biden’s character and I have more trust in his heart than I do the hearts of his most likely opponents.
2. Foreign Policy matters- whenever Biden and Clinton have disagreed on foreign policy in the last decade, I’ve found myself in Biden’s camp, or closer to it anyway.
3. Electability matters- it’s just my opinion and my opinion can certainly be wrong, but I think that between Biden, Clinton, and Sanders, it’s Biden who is acceptable to the greatest number of people. It could be that he’s too undisciplined, too much of a gaffe-machine, to take advantage of the good will people have towards him, but almost no one hates Joe Biden and even fewer people fear him.
I’m not going to tell you that Biden is head and shoulders above Clinton and Sanders or that he’d magically be able to get things done in DC just because he gets along better with the Republicans. I just think he has the best character, better foreign policy instincts than Clinton, and a better chance to avoid blowing a winnable election than the others.
That’s the Cliff Notes.
That’s why I hope he gets in.
Another politician from the right-of-center DLC field will help to define the differences between Clinton and Sanders?
.
I don’t think Biden’s much more electable than Clinton. You sort of dismissed ideology in favor of character, but ideology determines your electability more than positive or neutral character traits. Dukakis/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama had rather different campaigning styles and personality traits and by and large had the same ideological coalitions — and their electoral performance pretty smoothly maps to a brute demographic trajectory as long as you account for the curious drop in white turnout in 1996 (96 was a low-turnout election across the board, but whites dropped more than blacks/Hispanics), the Reform Party and its own ideological shifts, 2004 Bush’s one-time overperformance with Latinos, and the aftermath of the 2007 financial Crisis. Dukakis and 2012 Obama got pretty similar exit poll margin %-s among demographics — with the only real difference being age, but it balances out since Dukakis did relatively better with older voters and worse with the youth. Yet the change in brute demographics changed Dukakis’s crushing defeat to a comfortable win.
With that premise in mind: Biden doesn’t put into play any demographics or regions beyond what Clinton does, so I don’t really see him being much more electable. I don’t really see him being less electable either, depending on how much you think the non-Democratic white woman vote will come through for Clinton.
OK, maybe I’m too out of touch with America. Heaven knows I can’t figure out most of what’s going on — for example why do people think either Ted Cruz or Ben Carson are smart people? Why do people think Paul Ryan is a budget genius? But as far as Biden goes, I just don’t think there is that large a part of the Democratic Party to the right of Hillary, which is where Biden is. I don’t like the prospect of voting for Hillary, but at least she’s preferable to any of the clowns in the Republican Party. I’m not so sure about Biden. I seriously think I would have a hard time deciding between him and Marco Rubio, the least crazy evil of the bunch. Biden is Mr. Law and Order, Mr. Make It Impossible to Discharge Student Debt in Bankruptcy, Mr. Patriot Act. I might even prefer Trump to him.
Surely “He’s not Hillary” is all the justification necessary?
Works for me, and doubtless countless more.
Any authentic room for a viable Biden candidacy in the DEM primary disappeared months ago. His “will he or won’t” game to muscle in some room, got old at least a month ago. Now it all has the stench of ratfucking. Reminiscent of the Wesley Clark “will he or won’t he” crap Democrats had to go through in 2002.
There used to be a not nice word for girls/women that played a similar game with boys/men. Oh, sure the boys/men could see it, but most of them remained suckers for all the time.
If it is in fact ratfucking it has the same purpose as it did in 2002 and appear to have been successful so far this time — gotta stop, slow down, undermine momentum for the insurgent guy. Probably didn’t matter to the DEM elites in the 2004 election if the nominee was Kerry or Edwards; both would have lost. If it’s not ratfucking this time, it’s because there’s a potential that Clinton will fail on the FBI decision on the e-mail question or some currently undisclosed investigation of the Clinton Foundation that is troubling. Biden wouldn’t (shouldn’t) be privy to any investigation findings, but others that are could be whispering to him that he should consider running.
I’m stupid I guess. What’s the source? Girls? Boys?
(seriously, what are you saying?)
Flirting, teasing, being coy leaving the question of “will she or won’t she” on the table but unanswered. The variation that boys/men engage in is different, but I don’t know that’s there a comparable word for it. At it’s base is a power imbalance, with the teaser having some sort of power over the object.
…so it’s the Republicans pushing for Biden to run?
No. Biden is the tease. Haven’t a clue if there’s anyone pushing Biden to jump in and all the “will he or won’t he” noise is Kabuki, or others are telling him what he wants to hear, that he still has another chance to fulfill his long-held aspiration to be President and the “will he or won’t he” tango is a test to see how large and loud the chorus of “please run Joe” is and can get.
I wish Biden would have entered the race many months ago. At this juncture I don’t know how many undecided potential supporters there are out there, and I’d rather he not embarrass himself. At this juncture, the only reason that I see for him entering is to pick up the pieces if/when Hillary’s campaign implodes. Hillary has nowhere but down to go and it looks (to me) like she’s heading that way. Other than that it’s like trying to buy a ticket to the Super Bowl on Super Bowl Sunday…
…pretty sure Biden could get one if he wants.
I like Joe too. He seems like a good person, from what I can tell (but that’s hard to know). He could add a certain je ne sais quoi to to the primary campaign. But he’s undisciplined. In terms of character, that worries me a bit. People like him now because he’s flying below the radar. If he runs, wait till the noise machine revs up; his negatives will rise.
Anything Barbara Boxer is dismissive of should always be examined closely. She is frequently wrong, and never in doubt. It is especially annoying to see her rush to annoint HRC, who is unelectable, dishonest, untrustworthy, and sneaky.
Please, run, Joe.
Clinton isn’t unelectible. However, Boxer is incapable of being objective on the question of a Clinton restoration. Or maybe Hillary and Bill have been a wonderful aunt and uncle to Boxer’s grandson.
Well, it’s my position, but YMMV.
Babs is a total HRC partisan. As you note, not objective.
That’s the best argument for a Jimmy Carter candidacy I’ve seen yet.
Yes, yes and yes! hope he gets in. Not at all too late – look what’s going on in the not yet race already. Looking forward to your next post on this topic and hope the Biden ppl are too.
If he can dominate SuperTuesday, he has about three weeks to decide. Presumably if he’s leaning toward getting in, he has his logistics ducks already lined up in SuperTuesday states and enough going in the first four to be respectable.
It’s his decision if he wants to put himself through the Presidential grinder. He as much as Hillary Clinton knows what the reality of it is.
Realities for Biden. He has no money. The bulk of the talent that managed Obama’s two wins have either signed on to Clinton’s campaign or have contracts with it.
Well there is that. But neither of them are are killers. He still has funders who know he will deal, and there is no doubt some untested talent chomping at the bit who just might have a more creative approach than fighting the last political campaign. Or some old talent that has been sidelined and could work well with him.
Realities are for consideration and strategy around.
Wider choices of policy in the Democratic primary might boost turnout and enthusiasm and add momentum.
mark Penn and Trippi may be available.
Realistically, serious campaign money doesn’t materialize overnight. How much could he raise in the last two months of this year? In his own right, Biden doesn’t have a large donor base and very little of Obama’s is sitting around waiting for him to jump in. A few multi-millionaire and billionaires could possibly be tapped for SuperPac funding, but that money doesn’t go as far as campaign money, and they would be coming in late for ad buys.
Clinton is poised to spend roughly $56 million between October 1 through SuperTuesday (at a minimum) plus at least $20 million in SuperPac money. She has five months in which to raise that last $24 million. Sanders is in good shape to match the Clinton campaign spending through SuperTuesday and raise the minimum additional $30 million he’ll need. This is going to be a real test of the power of micro-targeting used by the Obama campaign in 2012 and in which Clinton’s team is heavily invested. Can enthusiasm trump tech? I hope so because I think that micro-trageting is creepy.
…like I did for Sanders twice and Clinton once. I think tech helped my enthusiasm in both cases. Joe could raise a bundle in a month, I bet. I hope he goes after Sanders vying for the authenticity vote. That would be a much more interesting campaign at least.
Biden is in for an ugly surprise if he thinks that he can beat Sanders for the authenticity vote on his own terms.
One thing that a lot of political commentators hate to acknowledge is that a voter’s perception of authenticity is largely tied to ideological alignment, even more than honesty or consistency. Trump and Carson are viewed as ‘tells it like it is’ straight-shooters to their base and dishonest/crazy clowns to people outside of it. Gaze upon all of the non-Trumpian/Carsonian sneering at how they must be really in the contest for their egos or for a book deal.
Sanders’ voters are for him based on ideology. Why else would they support a 74-year old socialist?
I don’t see an authenticity issue. Biden isn’t pretending to not be Hillary. He really is not Hillary.
Can’t get more authentic than that. Which renders authenticity a wash.
Faux interesting. Joe isn’t Obama. He may have more experience, but he’s not as smart nor politically savvy. I once liked Biden before he went all pro-financial services and military. A risk that seems to exist for a high percentage of initially reasonably liberal Democrats as they stay in office and age.
As we’ve moved away from a paucity of information being available in the early goings of primaries outside of Iowa and NH that those in the later primary states had no power to impact and were forced to accept whoever was left when our chance to vote rolled around, we’ve moved ever closer to the party elites holding a coronation before the election cycle even begins. That crown slipped off in 2008, but now it’s as if it has been glued to her scalp.
Why were there only two choices in 2000? Were Gore and Bradley the best Democrats had to offer? Not the most primary voters had a chance to see much of Bradley before he was out of contention. If Biden is so interesting, why was he so quickly dispensed with in 2008 against two relatively inexperience politicians? Why only one candidate in this cycle and only one decent and experienced politician (and not young) rising to challenge her when nobody else would?
I honestly don’t remember Bradley as a contender that year. Nor that it was going to be a close election until the last two months or so. Life was good. Clinton, despite impeachment, was beloved. Gore was going to win. Who even paid attention that year? Likewise, now, it should simply, logically, be Biden. Why it’s not is the real question. I’d rather Sanders and movement toward America coming to terms with Socialism, but I’ll take the continuity of Biden on Obama (he seems to listen at least a little to what those of us who voted for Obama liked) same as I wanted Gore on Clinton back in 2000.
I honestly don’t remember Bradley as a contender that year. Nor that it was going to be a close election until the last two months or so. Life was good. Clinton, despite impeachment, was beloved. Gore was going to win. Who even paid attention that year? Likewise, now, it should simply, logically, be Biden. Why it’s not is the real question. I’d rather Sanders and movement toward America coming to terms with Socialism, but I’ll take the continuity of Biden on Obama (he seems to listen at least a little to what those of us who voted for Obama liked) same as I wanted Gore on Clinton back in 2000.
Electability is a bogus category. It means essentially who can pull close to 70 million votes and at least 268 electoral votes. And a elite consensus of electability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that seems much like anointment instead of democracy.
There are a variety of ways that can be done.
With the states more entrenched than ever into the blue or red camp, it’s easier than ever to recognize that electability is a bogus category. At the national level both the DEM and GOP nominees each have 45% of the vote in the bag. Absent a substantial third party personality contender, it’s almost impossible to drop below 45% in an open seat presidential election. 2-3% of the vote wanders off into dead corners. So, it’s only a question of who can get the majority of the remainder.
If the nominees were Jindal and Chafee, which one is “unelectible?”
As DEMs get so little of the white male vote as it is, it would be difficult for the DEM nominee to lose more of it.
.
Take the next step. Yes, a woman nominee could lose another percentage point or two of that white male vote, but she’ll pick up as much or more than that of the white female vote. Must recognize that if only white people — men or women voted in 2012, Romney would be president.
Obama won 43% of the white male vote in 2008 and 38% in 2012. This may not be a majority, but it’s a pretty damn big chunk of what is supposedly the Republican core constituency. And whites are hardly a monolith. He earned about 10% of white voters in the deep south, nearly 60% of white votes in northeast.
1948 — MS – Truman got 10% of the vote. The AA vote in that state at that time couldn’t have been more than 2.5%. The racist white vote, 87%, went to Thurmond. How does Obama getting 10% of the white voters in the deep south indicate any change from 64 years ago?
The white male vote has been relatively stable since 1968 — and while getting 43% of it is better than 38%, it moved in a negative direction between 2008 and 2012. Which is nothing for a DEM to brag about and should instead have been seen as a bad sign for the 2014 midterms.
The white vote in the United States is becoming extremely age and region-polarized. In 2008, Obama won a majority of whites under 45 everywhere outside of the South and an absolute majority of whites age 18-29 in the country. Obama wasn’t able to repeat that for 2012, but nonetheless getting 45% of the white 18-29 vote in 2012 is a big improvement over Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore.
This is extremely bad news for the Republican Party. They’re already badly slipping with whites in the Midwest and Chesapeake; Obama did better in 2012 and 2008 with whites in this region than Gore and Kerry. As far as the Rockies go, while the Republican Party shouldn’t be in panic mode yet, Obama did much better in a number of these states (Montana, the Dakotas) than Clinton. That’s meaningful for the Senate going forward, which is probably the Democratic Party’s biggest Achilles’ heel.
For all of the talk about the Republican Party becoming the white party, it’s more accurate to state that they’re becoming the Confederate party. Or, even more accurately, the party of rural Confederates since if demographics trends continue as-is and the Democratic and Republican Parties remain largely the same the GOP can kiss the Carolinas, Georgia, Texas, and Florida goodbye.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that the Democratic Party is currently prepared to exploit this chink in the Republican Party’s armor. Listening to a lot of party leaders, they cast the terms of their battles in terms of Multicultural America vs. Revanchist Whites instead of Revanchist Rural Southern Whites vs. Everyone Else.
Just another reason why I’m voting Sanders, since he’s the only one even trying to shift the battlefield.
Do get tired of all the claims that demographics will save Democrats and kill of Republicans. Not wrong in narrow historical windows. However, the US voting population has been getting less white for decades and in that same period of time, the GOP gained power and today controls Congress and most Gubernatorial offices and state legislatures.
Agree 100%. At this moment, in this political climate, the white vote is at a specific place. It will not stay there. Depending on the political issue of this campaign (which has not come up), it may skew more highly Republican or go more Democratic.
At the same time the white working class vote is going away from the Dems, the student vote is as well. It is not clear that the single white women’s vote will be necessarily as Democratic as it has been in the past.
So any claims of “democratic inevitability” are just a pile of shit, really. Democratic inevitability happens, amazingly, whenever Democrats win. When they lose, which has been pretty often lately in “Blue states” like Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc etc etc, there is always some lame-ass excuse as to why. Post-hoc inevitability is just crap, really.
You’re talking about immigration, yes?
dataguy, I think that you’re a bit off on this subject. The mainstream i.e. Clintoniann view on Democratic position on immigration reform (path to legalization, tighten up border security, stricter employer penalties, and a bit of plutocratic sugar like nodding-and-winking at H1-B visas) may not be optimal but it’s reasonably popular. For all of the whining Trump and other identarians do on this issue, the Democratic Party’s position and worldview holds the advantage with whites, especially non-Southern whites. What’s more, this is a long-term advantage, not a flash-in-the-pan one.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163457/americans-pro-immigration-past.aspx
http://www.nationaljournal.com/newsdesk/Hispanics-Voice-Overwhelming-Support-Obamas-Actions-Immigrat
ion
The point is that it is a mistake to think that there is a “white male vote”. Whites vote very differently in different parts of the country. The Republican focus on the white vote has earned them success in the deep south, but the same strategy is a losing one in other parts of the country.
IMO Joe had/has no reason to get in until the last possible moment… And if he wasn’t he probably would have said so already.
Definitely most likable candidate in either party and that in the long run may be all that’s needed. Clinton fatigue is rampant. Bernie is making noise about the right things but I just don’t see him catching on in huge swaths of the country. That’s too bad but probably true.
And either Bernie or Clinton will likely perpetuate knee jerk opposition anything the White House proposes. Maybe true too with joe but with less insanity.
GOP insanity does not depend on who is in the White House, unless it is a Republican. It is rooted in the fact that they controlled the entire show for only four years and they blew it bigtime. The GOP electorate thinks they sold out because that’s what their media tells them; the GOP actually overreached. And that’s the fundamental root of the insanity; a magical thinking media environment.
Large sections of the GOP electorate hate Obama simply because he is black… Or “uppity”, or aloof, or a Muslim.
And Clinton hate extends to adulator lying Bill made worse by Hillary because she is a “shrill woman”.
Joe simply doesn’t make as many peoples skin crawl.
Yet…because he hasn’t gotten the full treatment, just a prototyping run on plagiarism (of all things). I’m sure that the folks who took down John Kerry’s heroism will think of something to hit Joe Biden in the gizzard.
The question is will he be ready for them when they do. And that’s true for Sanders and Clinton too. Don’t be too complacent about what the GOP rolled out the last time against Clinton or what they might roll out against Sanders (it might be something orthogonal to ideology).
Trump called Bernie a communist yesterday. Your point is well taken. My point is a chunk of VOTERS will not viscerally call Joe a nigger or bitch or communist and stick with candidates who play to to that even in dog whistles.
“I just don’t see him catching on in huge swaths of the country.”
People keep saying this, and meanwhile he’s catching on in huge swaths of the country.
Let’s hope so
“I don’t know if Clinton disingenuously came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership to differentiate herself from Sanders or from Biden … “
I don’t get your drift. Sanders has always been strongly opposed to the TPP.
That’s the entire thesis.
Add up all three and you get something likely a good majority of us want: continuity.
I’m not an Obama fan, but quite a few of my friends are. And the Obama-Biden low-key style in the face of Republicans these past seven years provides relief, at least. I could easily be persuaded to take befuddled Biden over befuddled Clinton (no, not befuddled Sanders, he of the three seems to be the clearest thinker).
(I’d truly like to hear Bernie Sanders inaugural address. What a day that would be!)
Why not? Bring on Biden. I like Joe.
Any signs that he’s feeling differently now than he was 5 weeks ago when he was on Colbert’s show?
I don’t think he’s going to run, myself, but I’ve been wrong about predicting whether someone is running many times in the past…
Cheers,
Scott.
Four reasons Biden should stay out,
Wall Street connections
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/02/biden-defends-vote-on-bankruptcy-bill/
Sexual Harassment
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/biden-and-anita-hill-revisited/?_r=0
Pro Life
http://www.westernjournalism.com/joe-biden-makes-stunning-pro-life-statement-but-is-okay-with-aborti
on/
This;
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115065/shutdown-2013-joe-biden-marginalized
It’s amazing to me that people consider him an option. Yes, he is quite personable, but he’s to the right of where we need to go. All that matters at this point is the SCOTUS. And I don’t trust him with nominations.
I don’t think many see the distrust on women’s issues. Set in amber, lol. How appropriate.
SCOTUS is my problem with Biden. All those so-rational hoops that keep getting smaller and smaller.
Plus he didn’t do that great last time around. Maybe his positives are a bit higher now, but still I think he needs an issue to run on, and I’m not sure that he’s got one.
It’s not that he’s personable. It’s that he’s not-Hilary.
I mean, what else is there? That matters?
Also, too, Violent Crime Control Act 1994, Bankruptcy Reform Act 2005, vote for Iraq War, strong supporter of Patriot Act. Unless he goes Bill Clinton one better and strongly apologizes for the VCCA, saying plainly that he now realizes it was a terrible mistake and he will do everything in his power as president to roll it back and do major prison reform, I could only vote for him if the alternative was Ted Cruz. Or Carly Fiorina, I guess.
Biden may run, but he has absolutely zero chance at winning the nomination unless HRC drops out.
So, I guess there’s that.
Sorry, I just repeated what you said. I don’t know how to remove it.
I understand wanting an alternative to Clinton, but Biden? If you want a fantasy candidate, pick Elizabeth Warren, who at least is the most passionate spokesperson for Democratic policies today. If you want a “realistic” alternative, pick one of the people actually running for the nomination.
But Biden is virtually interchangeable with Clinton in most respects. Their policy views and their ideological lapses overlap almost completely. Where they differ, the odds tip towards Clinton. She already has an organization on the ground, is universally known, is quite popular among Democrats, is 5 years younger than Biden (who would be in his eighties at the end of a second term) and of course, if she won, she would be the first woman elected president.
1. “You want to hold these things against them, go ahead. But they don’t mean shit, really.”
The idea that it doesn’t matter who wins the presidency is absurd. The president is not simply a figurehead, subject to the whims of Congress. President Obama has done a pretty damn good job, despite Republican opposition. What the president chooses to focus his energy and resources on matters a great deal. George W. Bush demonstrated what happens when you decide that any monkey in a suit can be president. If you want to make the case for Biden, “he seems like a nice guy” really doesn’t cut it.
2. Foreign Policy matters
This is my biggest problem with Clinton, but I haven’t seen evidence that Biden is better. They both blew it on the Iraq vote. They both took pride in supporting the Patriot Act and voted to reauthorize it in 2006, long after it was known that the Bush administration was abusing it. Biden and Clinton don’t seem to have disagreed much at all on foreign policy or civil liberties.
3. Electability matters
This is the weakest part of your argument. Joe Biden has run for president twice already and bombed at it. Hillary Clinton nearly won the nomination in 2008. She already polls much better than Biden, despite the fact that he hasn’t been subjected to the negatives that come with actually being a candidate. The Clintons also have much a stronger organization and ties to women and minority communities. Her election alone would be historic in a way that Biden’s wouldn’t. There is simply no contest in the electability question.
Too much of the “Biden should run” stuff seems to be based on some personal animus against Bill and Hillary, not based on different policy positions. Even what I’ve read about Beau’s comments to Joe seem to have that cast.
People haven’t mentioned it, but Joe also looks very worn out to me. Compare his appearance in the 2007-2008 cycle with now. He looks tired. Sure, given what he’s been through, and the meat-grinder of being in the White House for 6+ years, it’s not unexpected. But he doesn’t seem to me to have the fire necessary to be a candidate strong enough to beat Clinton.
She whipped him last time. Lots of people were surprised that he was picked to be VP since he did so badly in the race. Obama showed that temperament mattered to him, and Joe’s been a good VP. But that doesn’t mean he would be a compelling presidential candidate.
Finally, it’s clear that the Teabaggers will try almost anything to weaken Hillary as a candidate. I can’t help but think that a lot of this “Joe should run, he’d be a unbeatable candidate!” is their muddying the waters to try to weaken her. Look at all the polls that include him. How many polls on the GOP side include, say, Rmoney?
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
So how does he get the nomination if he does jump it? Hillary isn’t going to quit, and she has some very committed supporters. Sanders supporters won’t desert him. Will Biden and Clinton split one segment of the party and make things easier for Bernie?
A few more reasons in favor of Joe getting in: 1) his verbal unpredictability and colorfulness would add some entertainment spice to what is an unbelievably long primary campaign. 2) he would be a third heavyweight in the debate field, probably going after Hillary from the sensible center on some FP issues, and hopefully knocking out some of the deadweight like Link Appleyard and Jimmy Webb.
Reasons against: 1) his entry would risk diluting the H vote, causing a possible bitter intraparty rift leading to a badly divided convention. Some serious lingering resentment could result if H is denied the nom. 2) Joe could end up either badly embarrassing himself by failing once again to come close to being the nominee, or could end up being a spoiler, capping his career in negative ways.
If he does enter, I’d say it’s a fair risk that his candidacy results in a party so divided at the convention that it goes limping into the general, shades of 1968. Ultimately I hope he opts not to get in.
He will actually stand up for the President’s record and run against REPUBLICANS.
My opinion, he get in or not doesn’t change the final resul 🙂
Túi hút chân không