About those Biden polls
The establishment continues to try to force Joe Biden down our throats, but this latest effort is more laughable than most.
Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump by 7 percentage points in a head-to-head match-up, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.A plurality of registered voters, 44 percent, said they’d choose Biden in the 2020 presidential election, while 37 percent of voters said they would vote for Trump.
The percentage of Democrats who would choose Biden — 80 percent — was slightly higher than the 78 percent of Republicans who would vote for the president‘s reelection. The former vice president, who ran for the White House in 1988 and 2008, has been floated as a 2020 contender, and Biden himself has said he’s not ruling out a third try.
OK. You following this so far?
Creepy Joe is the overwhelming favorite, especially amoung Democrats, right?
No. In fact, they are counting on you to not read the very next paragraph, which destroys the entire narrative.
Biden holds a less-than-commanding position within his own party: Among Democrats, an unnamed generic Democrat runs 9 points better than Biden in a match-up with Trump. "Notably, 89 percent of Democrats say they would vote for a generic Democrat over Trump, but only 80 percent of Democrats say they prefer Biden over Trump,” said Morning Consult Managing Director Tyler Sinclair.
In other words, Democrats would prefer almost ANY other Democrats over Biden.
It turns out that Biden was the only Democratic choice given in this poll.
ROTFL.
It's not just the average voter. Washington insiders aren't buying the Biden narrative either.
But in his old stomping grounds in the U.S. Senate, there are plenty of skeptics who point to the former vice president’s age, his support for the Iraq War and his two failed presidential bids as reasons to doubt he would be successful.“It’s hard to see someone [winning] who voted for the Iraq War. People are looking to turn the page,” one senior Democratic aide said.
A second senior Democratic aide said “polls show that voters want someone who is new.”
After 2016 and the rise of the DSA, this should seem obvious.
I'm guessing that Dem establishment must be in one giant bubble.
Comments
We haven't forgotten his 2008 faceplant
He was lucky to have gotten Wall Street's nod to be their minder for the shiny new puppet they were pushing that year.
Maybe Biden was the poll's choice to approximate Generic Democrat as closely as they could, but it didn't work. Pity they didn't include Bernie and Hillary in their hypothetical matchups. I bet Trump would still beat Her.
Please help support caucus99percent!
This is a big f**king deal.
Or so I've heard. Biden, Schmiden. How stupid do the MSM and establishment people think we are? (Don't answer that!)
Do they think we're stupid, or do they know we can't do much
about them? Hard to tell. For example, for years, their byword was "The left has nowhere else to go."
Good to see, you, Edg.
Jacobin Magazine Has Been Covering Biden in Some Detail
... over the past few issues. Here's an excerpt from one of four articles about Biden.
The other three articles are
There is no evidence that Biden is a strong candidate. He withdrew from the 1988 race because he had plagiarised a campaign speech from Labour Leader Neil Kinnock. In 2008, he finished fourth, even behind John Edwards. If Biden's the nominee in 2020, look for Trump to cruise to a second term.
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma
"who hates “class warfare.”
He hates who hates “class warfare or he hates talking about it? He said something stupid about millennials complaints that they can't find decent jobs in this economy. Basically called them whiners.
Guess that article answers my question whether Biden would have beaten Trump if he had run instead of Her. Great idea to run him during the time of the metoo movement. Creepy uncle Joe can't keep his hands off little kids. The video that shows how many kids he touched is as creepy as him.
My bet is that Kamala Harris is going to be one of the candidates. She's a combination of Hillary and Barry. If she does run all the republicans will have to do is run ads on why after she had a slam dunk case against Mnunkin she didn't prosecute him for illegally foreclosing on thousands of Californians. This was after he donated $5,000 to her campaign. He foreclosed on one elderly woman who owed $.27 for her property taxes.
The other one is going to be Booker. Neither one has a chance to beat Trump.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
That series is comprehensive and brutal
The GOP don't need to do any further oppo research on "the working class love me" Joe. Just package the series up into bullet points. I realize that Jacobin is yet another controlled sandbox to sheepdog the lefties along; but clearly someone gave them the OK to butt fuck Joe. LOL. If schadenfreude is all I can get, I will take it.
I remember when he was just "the Senator from MBNA" - owned by the banks from day one. And, I won't forgive him for letting Clarence Thomas, that sock puppet for Scalia, get onto the SCOTUS. Only a paid lobbyist or a corporate Dem could think Joe is anything but the same old same old. About twenty years past his sell-by date.
The Corporate Dems haven't got anyone who can win. Old bums like Joe. Flawed corporatist IP creatures like Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, and Deval Patrick. And...nobody.
ain't necessarily so
Not necessarily. Jacobin's actually done pretty well advocating the social-democratic position.
Unless, of course, you have some direct evidence to offer that they've been compromised?
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I go mainly by whom they publish
Way too much stuff by Ben Tarnoff, who is sort of my gold standard for suspicious socialists. His father, Peter Tarnoff was president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His mother was an undersecretary of state for drug affairs. He's married to the daughter of some tax lawyer. Here is their wedding announcement in the NYT. He was getting published in the NYT, the Guardian, and the WSJ in his twenties, which just screams "connected". I simply don't believe that that kind of privileged background makes one a socialist who will stand up for the people when they threaten to cut off his trust fund checks.
Another guy who posts a lot there is Seth Ackerman. Now, I like Seth's writing a lot. The problem is that he, like many of the people who post at Jacobin, is a grad student. And, as someone pointed out, if you want a career in academia, you can't really be a bomb thrower. I mean, the whole point of the last forty years was to get real leftists out of academia and the media and replace them with tame folks.
So, while the stuff Jacobin publishes is OK, its nowhere near edgy. That's why I call it a sandbox. YMMV, but I have been conned so many times by tame liberals that its "guilty until proven innocent" for me. There are simply too many false flag liberals out there these days.
TPTB have infinite money. They can flood the media with highly credentialed candidates like Tarnoff. That's what the whole "unpaid internship" racket has been about for 20 years - only the rich can play. Who wouldn't take a self-funding, Harvard grad over some starving working class activist with no credentials other than his writing? They bought the corporate media in the 70s. Today, they are buying the buyable part of the alternative media and censoring the part they can't buy. Pretty soon, we will be in a complete propaganda bubble, where the opposition is owned by TPTB, and politics is even more Kabuki than today.
Jacobin
OK, I can see your point, especially about wholly-owned subsidiary Ben Tarnoff. Thank you for the heads-up on him.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I feel ambivalent about calling out Tarnoff...
but his background just freaks me out. The background reminds me of Obama's sheepdipping - moved through a series of positions that looks good on a resume. I'm not saying Tarnoff is a phony; and he is certainly not as big or well-funded a phony as Obama. But, Tarnoff doesn't have to captivate the population at large; he only has to sheepdog his age cohort of starry-eyed young socialists into toning it down, into believing in the (broken, hijacked) political process.
Again, I have no further concrete evidence, just a feeling. If someone provides facts that Tarnoff is a true believer, I will change my mind.
You can call me a product of the 1960s, but I remember the Rockefeller heirs funding Ramparts magazine. It was just a phase of young adult rebellion for them. When it was over, I couldn't name one rich kid who stuck with the leftwing rhetoric. They had their fun, and then moved on to some cushy position. Been there, done that.
Ramparts magazine
Even that had its uses, keeping the Overton Window in a reasonable place -- which it isn't now! There was still that tinge of liberal noblesse oblige that FDR's branch of the Roosevelt house (and, more importantly, the Delano house his mother came from) advocated and acted upon.
And, of course, one must always watch what one reads, trusting in one's soul first and foremost to determine truth from falsehood.....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
That's a fair point
As I said, I am ambivalent here. But, perhaps, that's the point of putting people like Tarnoff in the spotlight. Still, being a fresh face is different than being an ally.
To your point: Everyone, even Rockefeller heirs, were more idealistic then. JFK and RFK were motivated by wanting to atone for their fascist-loving dad, Joe K. The elites were motivated by, as you say, noblesse oblige. The upper class hadn't been completely subsummed by the blight that began in the CIA, which recruited almost exclusively from the Ivy League in its early days.
But, the seventies ruined the old political class. Democrats disgraced by LBJ's war, and Republicans disgraced by Nixon. That left the field to Carter - led by the nose by Zbig B and the CFR. Carter was then thrown over by the CIA (i.e., Poppy Bush and William Casey). That was game, set, and match. America has never recovered, politically.
Looking back on that precipitous descent, I would say that the Rockefeller heirs were from before America lost its soul.
However, I don't think that today's Ben Tarnoff's are as innocent as the Rockefeller heirs. I think Tarnoff is there to siphon off dissent. I don't recall him being very interested in reducing the military budget or the prison population. He's interested in stuff that interests the well-educated well-off.
Now, perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps it does make sense to fight inside the Silicon Valley elites to keep them from being completely coopted. (The Google rebellion against working for the Pentagon is one of the few positive things I have heard recently. OTOH there is no outcry inside Facebook or Twitter about the censorship campaign they are running.)
Thank you for the info. My point was that, no matter
how we feel about the chosen one of the Democratic PTB, we cannot do much about him or her becoming the Party's nominee.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The purpose of
polls whose results are made public is to shape public opinion, not to measure or reflect it.
That's not a poll, that's an advertising campaign.
And the slogan is always the same:
"Same Shit, Different Package"
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
"Taste good, less filling"
The democrats think that in order for them to win they just need a better message. "Vote for us because we're not Trump" didn't work very well for Hillary did it?
Let's hear from Michelle Obama about voting for third parties.
Michelle Obama pitches Clinton: 'It's not about voting for the perfect candidate'
Now for some hubris.
Oh Michelle. The last eight years is exactly why Trump is the president and not Hillary.
Why democrats think that people owe them their votes when they haven't done anything to help them or to stop the republicans from hurting them is just boggling my mind.
My not voting for Obama's second term was because it meant that I was giving him my permission to continue killing people in the Middle East and being okay with his policies here at home. This is one of the reasons for why I didn't vote for Hillary either. I knew that she would continue doing everything he did during his tenure.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Yep.
Biden for bidet!
"The establishment continues to try to force Joe Biden down our throats"
Perhaps "up our asses" is more accurate? Seems more like a rectal insertion to me.
Biden for bidet!
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein
I wonder if Biden is really the one they intend to anoint.
Some people call Merrick Garland a pro-choice Republican. Shortly before Obama named Merrick Garland as his nominee for the SCOTUS, msm carried the story that Obama was considering nominating a Republican for the SCOTUS. Was Obama really seriously considering nominating a Republican?
Possibly, Obama had heard that the Republicans intended to stonewall his nominee and thought of nominating a Republican, assuming the Senate would be likelier to affirm a Republican. Or, was the story "leaked" only so that even a pro-choice "Republican" like Garland would seem like a relief? I don't know, but I think anything is possible.
Hey, at least Kamala Harris hasn't groped women.
That we know of.
"My mother believed and my father believed ..."
LOL please run Joe run! Bidenisms: Funniest Joe Biden Quotes and Gaffes
vice precedent for life why not
Harris/Biden 2020
death lulz
My opinion of the (intentionally) funniest thing Biden ever
said:
During a 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination debate, the moderator asked Biden if Biden thought his tendency to ramble on would be a problem for him as President. Biden's entire answer was "No." Or maybe the question was if Biden could curb his tendency to ramble and Biden's entire answer was "Yes." I don't remember which way it went, but I do remember laughing and thinking that was the single funniest moment in all of the 2008 debates.
Typically, Biden is not that witty. In hindsight, I wonder if Biden's team either suggested the question or knew about it in advance. I never would have thought of anything like that in 2008. Ah, but I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGEIMCWob3U]