• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Biden disses Clinton: ‘I never thought she was a great candidate. I thought I was...'

Neoweee

Member
Why are ya'll acting like Diamond Joe -- while clearly not as left-leaning on all subjects or as active as Hillbear -- wouldn't have at the very least kept the country on a solid track, empowered other dems, pushed the democrat angle on most issues, appointed center-left leaning SC justices, and kept our international involvement and issues on the right track? ESPECIALLY if he had run with someone like Warren?

Ya'll are fuckin trippin in here. People are talking favorably about Joe not because his record is somehow better than Hillary's, but because he would have appealed better to those swing state voters that Hillary couldn't carry. If you think Joe would have lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, I'm going to laugh in your face. And that's really the bottom line. In a choice between "he's not to bad" and Donald J Trump, we could have had the "he's not so bad" guy and you would be feeling infinitely better about the next 4 years than you do right now.

That's the point. Absorb it.

There's not really any historic indication that he is good at headlining a national campaign, nor any sign that he would have beat Hillary in the primary.

Are you really, honestly saying that Ohio would have gone to Biden? You really think Biden is an 8 point swing over Hillary? Eight points? Some states were close, and could have very well swung based on choice of candidate. But Ohio wasn't even in the top 10 closest states this year, and people treating it like some regular swing state are just mentally copy-pasting the 2004 electoral map to a very different reality.
 
That's the gag. Joe lost and lost HARD both times he ran.

At this point I think the only reason Hillary hasn't responded to any of Biden's prodding is because she knows how much of a fucking joke he is.

Like, how you gonna talk shit from outside the club?

You and I seeing eye to eye on Hillary might've been the biggest breaking news this past week.
 

phanphare

Banned
Why are ya'll acting like Diamond Joe -- while clearly not as left-leaning on all subjects or as active as Hillbear -- wouldn't have at the very least kept the country on a solid track, empowered other dems, pushed the democrat angle on most issues, appointed center-left leaning SC justices, and kept our international involvement and issues on the right track? ESPECIALLY if he had run with someone like Warren?

Ya'll are fuckin trippin in here. People are talking favorably about Joe not because his record is somehow better than Hillary's, but because he would have appealed better to those swing state voters that Hillary couldn't carry. If you think Joe would have lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, I'm going to laugh in your face. And that's really the bottom line. In a choice between "he's not to bad" and Donald J Trump, we could have had the "he's not so bad" guy and you would be feeling infinitely better about the next 4 years than you do right now.

That's the point. Absorb it.

great post, thank you
 
There's not really any historic indication that he is good at headlining a national campaign, nor any sign that he would have beat Hillary in the primary.

Are you really, honestly saying that Ohio would have gone to Biden? You really think Biden is an 8 point swing over Hillary? Eight points?

I believe I said as much. No brand in DC comes with as much vitriol and toxicity as the Clinton brand, whether fair or unfair (Bush brand notwithstanding). Joe would have come with very little of that, and a strong story of his own that middle class voters in the midwest could identify with and appreciate. Joe's superior ability to empathize with people and feel always made him a strong candidate as that sort of reliability and likability is essential to low-information voter turnout. He would have been a far less divisive candidate. It would have been more difficult to depress the democratic vote for him with fake news than it was for Hillbear (buh her emailz, buh her huzband, buh calculating blah blah).

The shit isn't fair, but neither is life. From my perspective, Joe would have been the stronger candidate. Weaker resume? Unfortunately. Less left leaning? Unfortunately. More electable candidate? You bet your ass. Enough to make the difference? I believe so.
 

royalan

Member
Why are ya'll acting like Diamond Joe -- while clearly not as left-leaning on all subjects or as active as Hillbear -- wouldn't have at the very least kept the country on a solid track, empowered other dems, pushed the democrat angle on most issues, appointed center-left leaning SC justices, and kept our international involvement and issues on the right track? ESPECIALLY if he had run with someone like Warren?

Ya'll are fuckin trippin in here. People are talking favorably about Joe not because his record is somehow better than Hillary's, but because he would have appealed better to those swing state voters that Hillary couldn't carry. If you think Joe would have lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, I'm going to laugh in your face. And that's really the bottom line. In a choice between "he's not to bad" and Donald J Trump, we could have had the "he's not so bad" guy and you would be feeling infinitely better about the next 4 years than you do right now.

That's the point. Absorb it.

Nobody is comparing Biden to Trump or a Republican by saying he's much further to the right than Clinton. That's just the truth.

Also, Dreams, you haven't been around if you seriously don't think that many people have tried to make the argument that Biden is the better choice from a policy perspective. That's the whole problem!

If you want to argue that Joe is more likable/charismatic than Hillary, that's fair! I think Hillary herself might even agree with that. But to say that, on the issues, Biden is the better choice or to the left of Clinton is bullshit.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Why are ya'll acting like Diamond Joe -- while clearly not as left-leaning on all subjects or as active as Hillbear -- wouldn't have at the very least kept the country on a solid track, empowered other dems, pushed the democrat angle on most issues, appointed center-left leaning SC justices, and kept our international involvement and issues on the right track? ESPECIALLY if he had run with someone like Warren?

Ya'll are fuckin trippin in here. People are talking favorably about Joe not because his record is somehow better than Hillary's, but because he would have appealed better to those swing state voters that Hillary couldn't carry. If you think Joe would have lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, I'm going to laugh in your face. And that's really the bottom line. In a choice between "he's not to bad" and Donald J Trump, we could have had the "he's not so bad" guy and you would be feeling infinitely better about the next 4 years than you do right now.

That's the point. Absorb it.

Yes, I'm sure that the guy who wrote the '94 Crime Bill, voted for NAFTA, supports states rights to civil union, voted for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and voted for the Iraq war wouldn't have been absolutely destroyed by the same people that tore apart Hillary's voting record. His public perception now is irrelevant. You have to imagine what WOULD have happened had he run and won the primary, including all the areas of attack he would've faced up to election day, including the elaborate propaganda campaign orchestrated against the Democrats. Whether he could've carried those swing state voters would've entirely depended on how he was perceived by those voters, which is impossible to know without actually witnessing this imaginary election season firsthand.
 

phanphare

Banned
Nobody is comparing Biden to Trump or a Republican by saying he's much further to the right than Clinton. That's just the truth.

Also, Dreams, you haven't been around if you seriously don't think that many people have tried to make the argument that Biden is the better choice from a policy perspective. That's the whole problem!

If you want to argue that Joe is more likable/charismatic than Hillary, that's fair! I think Hillary herself might even agree with that. But to say that, on the issues, Biden is the better choice or to the left of Clinton is bullshit.

can you quote someone who said that, I haven't seen anybody in this thread say that
 

royalan

Member
can you quote someone who said that, I haven't seen anybody in this thread say that

Of course nobody said that, those are my words. lol

But did you miss the first three pages? And it pops up in ALL of these threads. People who say they don't like Hillary because she's a "moderate centrist shill" or whatever, and then say they would have supported Biden. But then balk when you suggest that they support Biden because he's charismatic.
 

phanphare

Banned
Of course nobody said that, those are my words. lol

you were implying that other people were saying that and you were calling it bullshit. I want to know who said it. if no one said it why'd you refute it?

and yeah I read the first few pages. mostly a bunch of "yeah he's not wrong" posts.
 

Abounder

Banned
Biden's putting it way too lightly - she was an alltime terrible candidate. Toxic ratings, FBI investigation, flew home every night, skipped WI, and barely put in any of the work that her winning predecessors exemplified on the trail. She let scandals take her over instead of owning it (compare how Powell handled his own email shit), and let the rookie birther dominate the trail and all forms of media. Godawful.
 

royalan

Member
you were implying that other people were saying that and you were calling it bullshit. I want to know who said it. if no one said it why'd you refute it?

and yeah I read the first few pages. mostly a bunch of "yeah he's not wrong" posts.

I'm not talking about a specific poster, because this has been an ongoing debate since November 9, 2016.

Do you honestly think those "yeah he's not wrong" posters would straight up admit that they prefer Biden merely because he's more charismatic? They implication is that they believe him to be a better or more fitting politician.
 

phanphare

Banned
I'm not talking about a specific poster, because this has been an ongoing debate since November 9, 2016.

Do you honestly think those "yeah he's not wrong" posters would straight up admit that they prefer Biden merely because he's more charismatic? They implication is that they believe him to be a better or more fitting politician.

it's may of 2017 and Trump won. that's the lens through which those posts have been made. consider that. it's really easy to see where they're (and myself) are coming from in that respect.
 
8 Years of Trump and/or Pence. Congrats.

So basically it's Biden's fault for mourning his dead son, not running, and for bigots voting for a bigot over an actually, blatantly obviously more qualified candidate? This is beyond embarrassing. You should actually be ashamed of making such a stupid post
 
Considering that in 2008, Biden fizzled out early while Obama just barely scraped ahead on delegates, with Clinton winning the actual popular vote, the answer is probably no. Sanders massively underperformed the last upstart to come from behind and win the Democratic primary against the established favorite.

Wonder how Clinton feels losing with the popular vote twice. That shit must sting.
 
The number of Sanders supporters that wish Biden had run always makes me laugh. Like, really? That kind of policy-boomerang pretty much screams "I just really don't like Hillary."

A substantial chunk of Bernie's support was probably just anti-Hillary. If he were a genuine progressive uprising, it wouldn't have been such a dismal year for progressive causes at all levels of the ballot.
I've noticed this. This is definitely part of why he wouldn't have won if he did indeed decide to run: him and Sanders seem to have the exact same base of supporters, meaning that they would have just stolen votes from each other while Clinton gets everyone else and nets an easy victory in the primary. Sanders supporters would face a hard choice about whether they want to vote for him or Biden, while Clinton voters seem like they would have still voted for her. This is pure fantasy.

The other part is what can be seen in the OP itself: the fact that he said this at all despite it being completely unnecessary, helping no one, and just rubbing salt in the wound, and more significantly, how he seems to have realized this and already tried to WALK IT BACK. The man's a walking gaffe machine. There's a reason this man has two failed Presidential bids, and this statement and it being walked back is more evidence in the pile. He just can't help himself and would end up shooting himself in the foot once again. The guy is his own worst enemy and I see absolutely zero evidence that that aspect of him has changed at all.
 
So basically it's Biden's fault for mourning his dead son, not running, and for bigots voting for a bigot over an actually, blatantly obviously more qualified candidate? This is beyond embarrassing. You should actually be ashamed of making such a stupid post

I assume he was alluding to the left berating one another being problematic to winning future elections.
 

Fisty

Member
Biden's putting it way too lightly - she was an alltime terrible candidate. Toxic ratings, FBI investigation, flew home every night, skipped WI, and barely put in any of the work that her winning predecessors exemplified on the trail. She let scandals take her over instead of owning it (compare how Powell handled his own email shit), and let the rookie birther dominate the trail and all forms of media. Godawful.

Yeah, the decades of baggage that the Clintons have been carrying around were like an albatross around her neck. Shit people were smearing Bill with DECADES ago were common talking points yet again in 2016. She was a terrible pick for the candidacy, and the democrats were FAR too overconfident. The GOP can rally it's base under any circumstances, it's not so easy on the left... especially when there are videos of you flatly stating you don't support gay marriage
 

phanphare

Banned
I've noticed this. This is definitely part of why he wouldn't have won if he did indeed decide to run: him and Sanders seem to have the exact same base of supporters, meaning that they would have just stolen votes from each other while Clinton gets everyone else and nets an easy victory in the primary. Sanders supporters would face a hard choice about whether they want to vote for him or Biden, while Clinton voters seem like they would have still voted for her. This is pure fantasy.

The other part is what can be seen in the OP itself: the fact that he said this at all despite it being completely unnecessary, helping no one, and just rubbing salt in the wound, and more significantly, how he seems to have realized this and already tried to WALK IT BACK. The man's a walking gaffe machine. There's a reason this man has two failed Presidential bids, and this statement and it being walked back is more evidence in the pile. He just can't help himself and would end up shooting himself in the foot once again. The guy is his own worst enemy and I see absolutely zero evidence that that aspect of him has changed at all.

wait, in what universe would Bernie and Biden have the exact same support compared to Hillary and Biden? Biden is to the right of Hillary who is to the right of Bernie and Biden is more of a traditional democrat which would overlap more with Hillary not Bernie. Bernie's support would have likely been similar with Biden pulling more from Hillary's pool.
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
He's not wrong. He still wouldn't have been my first choice in the primary but he would have been a much better candidate, especially against Trump.

Hillary lost to the most unfavorable person to ever run for president. Think about that for a moment. That arguably makes her one the the worst candidates ever.

So how does this help bring Democrats forward?

You have to acknowledge the problem (or at the very least the possibility that there is a problem) before you can fix it?
 

royalan

Member
He's not wrong. He still wouldn't have been my first choice in the primary but he would have been a much better candidate, especially against Trump.

Hillary lost to the most unfavorable person to ever run for president. Think about that for a moment. That arguably makes her one the the worst candidates ever.

What does that say about the candidates she beat?
 
What's the point in touting Hillary's progressive platform compared to Biden if she's not even going to get elected to enact it? Or if she did she might still have been saddled with a Republican congress? Because on many occasions on GAF last year I saw the argument against Bernie (and for Hillary) that he was less electable and that his progressive agenda wouldn't get through congress. So why give a fuck about Biden being further to the right if A. He's not Trump and B. Would have been a better candidate against Trump?
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Not the same electorate. Different match up. But you know this.

Royalan and the rest of forever clintoners on gaf keep making the same argument over and over despite it being addressed so many times.

Also ignores the starting point in terms of visibility of both candidates and where the gap started and ended up.

What's the point in touting Hillary's progressive platform compared to Biden if she's not even going to get elected to enact it? Or if she did she might still have been saddled with a Republican congress? Because on many occasions on GAF last year I saw the argument against Bernie (and for Hillary) that he was less electable and that his progressive agenda wouldn't get through congress. So why give a fuck about Biden being further to the right if A. He's not Trump and B. Would have been a better candidate against Trump?

Haven't you heard? Clintonites are so pragmatic that they make progress by losing every single branch of government.
 
wait, in what universe would Bernie and Biden have the exact same support compared to Hillary and Biden? Biden is to the right of Hillary who is to the right of Bernie and Biden is more of a traditional democrat which would overlap more with Hillary not Bernie. Bernie's support would have likely been similar with Biden pulling more from Hillary's pool.

Biden's past voting record is to the right on hillary.

However, unless you've been asleep for eight years, you'd know that Biden has been indispensable in crafting the progressive moves the Obama administration has done.
 
He's not wrong. He still wouldn't have been my first choice in the primary but he would have been a much better candidate, especially against Trump.

Hillary lost to the most unfavorable person to ever run for president. Think about that for a moment. That arguably makes her one the the worst candidates ever.



You have to acknowledge the problem (or at the very least the possibility that there is a problem) before you can fix it?
Ok but the problem of Hillary not liking having to campaign is well established and was so in the weeks after the election.

We know democrats need charisma in order to go to the polls.

Maybe focus should be on basic civics education. Because I know a lot of people like to say GOP supporters are dumb, and they are in some ways, but they are extremely smart when it comes to voting. They know even if a candidate sucks, it's better to support them actively because other parts of their agenda can have a better chance of succeding.

Democrats fail to grasp this.

So maybe energy should be better spent trying to get liberals and progressives educated on this. Rather saying things that will clearly open wounds and anger Democrats across the board.
 

phanphare

Banned
Mr.Shrugglesツ;237426171 said:
Biden's past voting record is to the right on hillary.

However, unless you've been asleep for eight years, you'd know that Biden has been indispensable in crafting the progressive moves the Obama administration has done.

cool

what's that got to do with the point of my post?
 

royalan

Member
Not the same electorate. Different match up. But you know this.

Of course I do. Just like you should probably know that elections aren't held in a vacuum. After all, Trump had almost universally worse favorables than Hillary. But he won. Favorables don't mean shit. I mean, we learned this on BOTH SIDES last year.

This is bigger than just defending Hillary Clinton. 2016 is done and dusted. But the biggest error Democrats could make is thinking that the one mistake we made in 2016 was Hillary Clinton. We made many mistakes. One of the big ones? Confusing who people like for who people are willing to get up, go out, and vote for.

Royalan and the rest of forever clintoners on gaf keep making the same argument over and over despite it being addressed so many times.

Also ignores the starting point in terms of visibility of both candidates and where the gap started and ended up.

Attack the point, not the poster. Or you don't have a point.
 

IrishNinja

Member
8 Years of Trump and/or Pence. Congrats.

8? FOH

Biden/Trump debates would have been GOAT.

i admittedly would've paid to see this, yeah

He's not wrong, although I don't think he would have been a great candidate in the primaries. He would have been ripped apart and it would be ugly. Mix in personal gaffes and things would get worse..

you mentioned how it was setup to be an ugly primary (presumably cause of hillary's last go) but obligatory gaffes aside,why exactly do you think joe would've been ripped apart?
 
8? FOH



i admittedly would've paid to see this, yeah



you mentioned how it was setup to be an ugly primary (presumably cause of hillary's last go) but obligatory gaffes aside,why exactly do you think joe would've been ripped apart?
After witnessing the shellacking Biden put on Paul Ryan in 2012, I can see him going toe to toe quite well with Trump
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Of course I do. Just like you should probably know that elections aren't held in a vacuum. After all, Trump had almost universally worse favorables than Hillary. But he won. Favorables don't mean shit. I mean, we learned this on BOTH SIDES last year.

This is bigger than just defending Hillary Clinton. 2016 is done and dusted. But the biggest error Democrats could make is thinking that the one mistake we made in 2016 was Hillary Clinton. We made many mistakes. One of the big ones? Confusing who people like for who people are willing to get up, go out, and vote for.



Attack the point, not the poster. Or you don't have a point.

Huh. The post you responded to and mine both had issues you ignored. I also attacked you not as an ad hominem, but for dishonesty. Repeatedly bringing up a point several times refuted is dishonest and a way to stall and sidetrack a conversation.
 
Biden probably would've won but the shit news here is that he's doing the same racket as other prominent politicians here and taking in that sweet hedge fund cash and hopefully has no plans to run for President next year.

Also maybe if he wants to complain about Hillary sucking he should have leveraged the fact that he was the only viable alternative that could get establishment support before Hillary choked everyone else out before voting started.
 

Durden77

Member
Biden would have stomped Trump, but I don't really think this kind of talk helps anyone. We don't need hindsight right now, we need future builders.
 

phanphare

Banned
Mr.Shrugglesツ;237431703 said:
You weren't trying to paint biden as less progressive than clintion?

I was saying that biden and clinton's support would overlap more so than bernie and biden's
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Of course I do. Just like you should probably know that elections aren't held in a vacuum. After all, Trump had almost universally worse favorables than Hillary. But he won. Favorables don't mean shit. I mean, we learned this on BOTH SIDES last year.

This is bigger than just defending Hillary Clinton. 2016 is done and dusted. But the biggest error Democrats could make is thinking that the one mistake we made in 2016 was Hillary Clinton. We made many mistakes. One of the big ones? Confusing who people like for who people are willing to get up, go out, and vote for.

If it took the 2016 election for some Democrats to figure out that you have to give people something to vote for...well...then I'm not sure what to say exactly... but a couple of things to spring to mind.

1. At least they are learning?

2. These Democrats need to get off their high horse and stop acting like they are the smartest people in the room. Because if it took them this long to figure that out then, clearly, they aren't.
 
can you quote someone who said that, I haven't seen anybody in this thread say that

I'd say it simply because I have faith that Joe's stances are Joe's stances.

If Hilary had come out supporting UHC I'd believe in her actively working towards it as much as I did in Trump draining the swamp.

Trump is the only realistic presidential candidate I trusted less than Hilary since before I was born.

Example: If the country swung right on gay marriage I'd expect her to have flipped on it again the moment it was advantageous.
 

royalan

Member
Huh. The post you responded to and mine both had issues you ignored. I also attacked you not as an ad hominem, but for dishonesty. Repeatedly bringing up a point several times refuted is dishonest and a way to stall and sidetrack a conversation.

lolwut?

What point?

What issue have I ignored? Disagreeing with someone is not ignoring their issues.

What do you have to do with any of this? I haven't responded to a post of yours in this thread until now. Either address what I'm talking about with specifics or move on.

I'd say it simply because I have faith that Joe's stances are Joe's stances.

If Hilary had come out supporting UHC I'd believe in her actively working towards it as much as I did in Trump draining the swamp.

Trump is the only realistic presidential candidate I trusted less than Hilary since before I was born.

Example: If the country swung right on gay marriage I'd expect her to have flipped on it again the moment it was advantageous.

Thanks for giving me an example to point to on this page. Biden as a senator was far to the right of Hillary on nearly every issue. But any potential progressive evolution by him is seen as honest. With Hillary it's seen as opportunistic.
 

phanphare

Banned
well you got one royalan, whew

I'd say it simply because I have faith that Joe's stances are Joe's stances.

If Hilary had come out supporting UHC I'd believe in her actively working towards it as much as I did in Trump draining the swamp.

Trump is the only realistic presidential candidate I trusted less than Hilary since before I was born.

Example: If the country swung right on gay marriage I'd expect her to have flipped on it again the moment it was advantageous.
 
Yeah, we all know that already.

Well, I think we can go too far in trying to dance around everything properly. If only we find the exact number of syllables to use discussing Hillary's lack of appeal, if only we mention mistakes made every second tuesday that it rains. But really, it probably doesn't matter at all. We all know Clinton was a bad candidate, if only because so many people hated her, regardless of how much good she could have helped accomplish, and I can't see much effect from saying or not saying that.
 
Top Bottom