Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Influencing the outcome is the entire point of the exercise.

Also, it's not a competitive sporting event. It's not a criminal trial or a college scholarship application. There's nothing unfair about the guy who's earned a former president's trust and respect, enjoying the former president's support during his campaign.

Are you making the contest unfair when you donate to one candidate instead of another, and put their sign out in front of your home? Of course not.

What surprises me is the idea -
- that Obama thinks Biden is the best choice,
- and that Biden should be the nominee for the good of the country,
- and that his opinion, voiced publicly, can influence that outcome,
- and he decides not advocate for the right choice and the good of the country,
- because that would be unfair to the other candidates.
Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that even if Obama thought Biden was the best choice, he also thought that all the other candidates would still be better than Trump?

Did it occur to you that Obama might have also trusted Democratic voters to agree that Biden was the best candidate? And that they did just reinforces that Biden was the best candidate in Obama's eyes?

If one doesn't front load every assumption with some form of 'Obama is the antichrist' his actions seem a lot easier to understand, actually. Maybe that's where you keep getting tripped up?
 
wareyin said:
Did it ever occur to you that even if Obama thought Biden was the best choice, he also thought that all the other candidates would still be better than Trump?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact, it's one of my starting premises: Democrats, in general, believe that even a literal turd would be better than Trump.

Did it occur to you that Obama might have also trusted Democratic voters to agree that Biden was the best candidate? And that they did just reinforces that Biden was the best candidate in Obama's eyes?
Click to expand...
I admit, this had not occurred to me. If voters don't need Obama to tell them who the best candidate is, that certainly answers the question of whether Obama's endorsement carries any weight.

If one doesn't front load every assumption with some form of 'Obama is the antichrist' his actions seem a lot easier to understand, actually. Maybe that's where you keep getting tripped up?
Click to expand...
No, that's not it. I find Obama's actions are actually quite easy to understand. I'm going with some form of Stacyh's 'Obama didn't want to endorse Biden early, and then have to explain why if voters didn't agree'. I just don't agree with her conclusion that this is a wise and meaningful endorsement.

I also don't think Obama is the antichrist, or anything close to it. I think that on balance, he's a better person, and probably a better president, than Donald Trump.
 
wareyin said:
Did it ever occur to you that even if Obama thought Biden was the best choice, he also thought that all the other candidates would still be better than Trump?

Did it occur to you that Obama might have also trusted Democratic voters to agree that Biden was the best candidate? And that they did just reinforces that Biden was the best candidate in Obama's eyes?

If one doesn't front load every assumption with some form of 'Obama is the antichrist' his actions seem a lot easier to understand, actually. Maybe that's where you keep getting tripped up?
Click to expand...

I say it again, consider that 4 years ago, a bunch of voters complained about how the process was unfair, with the democratic establishment pushing a favorite candidate, and that potentially affected the chances of the democratic nominee winning. If Obama, as part of the democratic establishment, were to endorse a candidate ahead of time, we would have the same voters complaining. So Obama avoided endorsing a candidate beforehand in order to keep it as far as possible.

Now, theprestige complains that no one criticizes me for "reading Obama's mind" like they do for him, but the difference is, I'm right. That's why Obama did not endorse anyone, because he wanted to make sure the process was fair.

Granted, I gave my explanation before it actually was reported, but then again, it was obvious to anyone who didn't start with the premise that Obama was the spawn of Satan.
 
theprestige said:
Yes. In fact, it's one of my starting premises: Democrats, in general, believe that even a literal turd would be better than Trump.
Click to expand...

Putting aside the obvious bias required to think that even the worst of the candidates was a literal turd, sure. Since even a turd would be better, but this group of people is full of candidates that all have actual strengths, all of us who may have had other favorites should be reasonable enough to be happy to vote for whoever won.

theprestige said:
I admit, this had not occurred to me. If voters don't need Obama to tell them who the best candidate is, that certainly answers the question of whether Obama's endorsement carries any weight.
Click to expand...

Why would voters need anyone to tell them who to vote for? Democratic voters aren't exactly known for falling in line behind whatever the top guy says for the day even if it contradicts what he said yesterday - that's Republican voters you're thinking of. Of course, having a sports figure/singer/former President that you like endorse a person/product does make people more enthusiastic for it. How is this a confusing idea?


theprestige said:
No, that's not it. I find Obama's actions are actually quite easy to understand. I'm going with some form of Stacyh's 'Obama didn't want to endorse Biden early, and then have to explain why if voters didn't agree'. I just don't agree with her conclusion that this is a wise and meaningful endorsement.
Click to expand...

The idea that a fractured Democratic party would be in worse shape to win than a united party is still giving you problems? It seems like a simple concept to me.

theprestige said:
I also don't think Obama is the antichrist, or anything close to it. I think that on balance, he's a better person, and probably a better president, than Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

I'm torn between calling that high praise from you, and incredulously pointing to the "probably" qualifier.
 
pgwenthold said:
I say it again, consider that 4 years ago, a bunch of voters complained about how the process was unfair, with the democratic establishment pushing a favorite candidate, and that potentially affected the chances of the democratic nominee winning. If Obama, as part of the democratic establishment, were to endorse a candidate ahead of time, we would have the same voters complaining. So Obama avoided endorsing a candidate beforehand in order to keep it as far as possible.

Now, theprestige complains that no one criticizes me for "reading Obama's mind" like they do for him, but the difference is, I'm right. That's why Obama did not endorse anyone, because he wanted to make sure the process was fair.

Granted, I gave my explanation before it actually was reported, but then again, it was obvious to anyone who didn't start with the premise that Obama was the spawn of Satan.
Click to expand...

The complaint four years ago was that Hillary had quietly secured a number of superdelegates - actual votes for her - before the primaries had even started. This reasonably created the impression of an establishment fix. And I think it was partly supposed to. It was Hillary's time, and signaling to other potential candidates that this was not their election cycle makes a certain sense.

I think even Bernie understood this, at least to begin with. He went into the race not to win it - that had already all been arranged for Hillary - but to force her to shift leftward in response to his engagement.

Then he turned out to be surprisingly popular, and people began thinking maybe he could have had a chance, if Hillary and the DNC hadn't already decided she'd get the nom.

I think an actual celebrity endorsement is a different thing altogether. Though I admit the same people would have complained anyway.
 
Stacyhs said:
It was a wise move by Obama not to endorse anyone until the nominee was clear. If he'd endorsed someone else and they'd lost the nomination, he'd have to answer why he didn't support the nominee before. Unlike Trump, Obama thinks before he opens his mouth.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
>snip<

No, that's not it. I find Obama's actions are actually quite easy to understand. I'm going with some form of Stacyh's 'Obama didn't want to endorse Biden early, and then have to explain why if voters didn't agree'. I just don't agree with her conclusion that this is a wise and meaningful endorsement.
.
Click to expand...

But that's not what I said. I said "anyone". I did not say "Biden".
 
Stacyhs said:
But that's not what I said. I said "anyone". I did not say "Biden".
Click to expand...

Thanks. I appreciate the correction. I'm not sure what meaning I should infer from your wording, though.

In the end, Obama endorsed Biden. Did he do it because he thought all along that Biden was the best candidate? In that case, your "anyone" is really just "Biden", and our two versions of what you said are essentially the same.

Did he do it because he was agnostic about the best candidate, and he was just going to wait until a presumptive nominee emerged, and endorse whoever it turned out to be? In that case, your "anyone" is very much different from my "Biden." But this leads back to the perception that Obama's endorsement of Biden is just a rubber stamp, without any significance other than Obama lending his celebrity cachet to whoever ends up going against Trump in November.
 
theprestige said:
Thanks. I appreciate the correction. I'm not sure what meaning I should infer from your wording, though.

In the end, Obama endorsed Biden. Did he do it because he thought all along that Biden was the best candidate? In that case, your "anyone" is really just "Biden", and our two versions of what you said are essentially the same.

Did he do it because he was agnostic about the best candidate, and he was just going to wait until a presumptive nominee emerged, and endorse whoever it turned out to be? In that case, your "anyone" is very much different from my "Biden." But this leads back to the perception that Obama's endorsement of Biden is just a rubber stamp, without any significance other than Obama lending his celebrity cachet to whoever ends up going against Trump in November.
Click to expand...

You can infer what you like even if it's wrong, which it is. I think most people can differentiate between "anyone" and "Biden".
 
Stacyhs said:
You can infer what you like even if it's wrong, which it is. I think most people can differentiate between "anyone" and "Biden".
Click to expand...

Well, let's not go nuts. Biden is closer to being a bland nonentity than the other candidates were. Look at that rascal Sanders, or that spitfire Warren, or that saucy Buttgieg! Biden is as plain tapioca compared to those spicy puddings!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well, let's not go nuts. Biden is closer to being a bland nonentity than the other candidates were. Look at that rascal Sanders, or that spitfire Warren, or that saucy Buttgieg! Biden is as plain tapioca compared to those spicy puddings!
Click to expand...

I guess that leaves Kamala Harris to be one-ah spicy meatball!
 
theprestige said:
I'd rather not infer if I don't have to. Please explain the significance you intend by this distinction. Why is it important to you?
Click to expand...

It was a wise move by Obama not to endorse anyone until the nominee was clear. If he'd endorsed someone else and they'd lost the nomination, he'd have to answer why he didn't support the nominee before.
Click to expand...
I'm going with some form of Stacyh's 'Obama didn't want to endorse Biden early, and then have to explain why if voters didn't agree'.
Click to expand...

It's important because I didn't say he didn't want to endorse Biden. I said he didn't want to endorse anyone until the nominee was chosen. Simple as that.

I suspect Obama always wanted Biden to be the nominee but we can't know that. Maybe he preferred Harris or Buttigieg. Who knows?
 
pgwenthold said:
I say it again, consider that 4 years ago, a bunch of voters complained about how the process was unfair, with the democratic establishment pushing a favorite candidate, and that potentially affected the chances of the democratic nominee winning. If Obama, as part of the democratic establishment, were to endorse a candidate ahead of time, we would have the same voters complaining. So Obama avoided endorsing a candidate beforehand in order to keep it as far as possible.
Click to expand...

Worth note: Obama waited until June 9th to endorse Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary - at which point she had long since captured the nomination. His view seems pretty obvious - he won't endorse in the primary, he will for the general.
 
Mumbles said:
Worth note: Obama waited until June 9th to endorse Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary - at which point she had long since captured the nomination. His view seems pretty obvious - he won't endorse in the primary, he will for the general.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
I have no problem with Obama not endorsing one of multiple competing candidates. But given that he wouldn't, it wasn't a good look for Biden to base his campaign on being the guy Obama picked.
 
Delvo said:
I have no problem with Obama not endorsing one of multiple competing candidates. But given that he wouldn't, it wasn't a good look for Biden to base his campaign on being the guy Obama picked.
Click to expand...

But he did pick him ....as his VP for two terms. That says something. As I pointed out earlier, it's not that Obama wouldn't; he was asked not to endorse him by Biden himself during the primary.
 
When Valentine's Day came around Obama dutifully told Biden he loved him. How can anyone doubt the sincerity of someone following the established formula in the customary way? The passion must be there, it was so stated in the memorandum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom