Biden camp thinks the media just doesn't get it (and the Biden camp is right about this)

[highplainsdem]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/11/joe-biden-media-2020-1488835

The first thing you notice at a Joe Biden event is the age: Many of the reporters covering him are really young. Biden is not. The press corps, or so the Biden campaign sees it, is culturally liberal and highly attuned to modern issues around race and gender and social justice. Biden is not. The reporters are Extremely Online. Biden couldn’t tell you what TikTok is.

Inside the Biden campaign, it is the collision between these two worlds that advisers believe explain why his White House run often looks like a months-long series of gaffes. For a team in command of the Democratic primary, at least for now, they’re awfully resentful of how their man is being covered. And yet supremely confident that they, not the woke press that pounces on Biden’s every seeming error and blight in his record, has a vastly superior understanding of the Democratic electorate. This is the central paradox of Biden’s run: He’s been amazingly durable. But he gets no respect from the people who make conventional wisdom on the left.

“I don't know of anybody who has taken as sustained and vitriolic a negative pounding as Biden and who has come through it with the strength he has,” said a top Biden adviser. “So why isn’t the argument not that he's a ‘fragile front runner,’ but instead why is this guy so strong? How is he able to withstand this? Because it is unrelenting. Every story that has been written about Biden for a month has been negative! I would ask Warren and Sanders and these folks: He’s been pummeled for months. For months! So why is he going to fall apart now?”

-snip-

This woke-working class divide is at the heart of the most salient fact about the Democratic primaries: Nothing has damaged Biden. Biden entered the race with about 30 percent support nationally and he has that same 30 percent today.

-snip-

Given Biden’s resilience and consistent lead in the national polls, his advisers range from bemusement to rage in their frustration with how he has been treated by the press and many liberal elites.

-snip-

To Biden world, it’s the media’s cultural affinity for this New New Left that explains why the Biden-will-soon-collapse storyline has such staying power.

“I get this question all the time: Why does the press hate him so much?” she said. “And the answer is because they are younger and they want someone cooler.”

-snip-

Lots more at the link -- this is a very long article -- and it's well worth reading in its entirety.

It also goes into how the Biden campaign views Warren and other candidates who suggest people are supporting Biden out of fear:

The assumption embedded in Warren’s line is that many of Biden’s supporters aren’t really enthusiastic about him, that they are backing him out of some misguided sense of obligation and fear, which also might explain his modest crowds and the lack of any Biden thunder-stick moments in this campaign.

This line of attack drives people inside the Biden campaign mad. To them it smacks of elitism and suggests that Warren and her most vocal supporters believe that Biden’s voters, who polls consistently show are more likely to be working class and people of color, are somehow not smart enough to understand why they support him.

“This gets back to the vitriol of the left,” said the prominent Democrat. “They seem to feel like, ‘Why don’t you dumb voters see what we see? If we yell at you enough will you start to listen to us?’”

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Is this article claiming there's a liberal bias in the media?

It reads that way.

[highplainsdem]

3. More a Democratic-left bias, and it's been very evident. Nate Silver tweeted a while back

that his understanding is that most journalists support Warren, with Sanders considered with a couple of others, Harris and Buttigieg if I recall correctly, in a second tier of favorites, and Biden not among the favorites.

And the Washington Post's Dave Weigel tweeted that in his Washington bubble liberals are for Warren and leftists are for Sanders.

Biden's been getting amazingly negative press coverage, and from what I've seen of various journalists' tweets, I agree with Nate Silver that they favor Warren.

I wonder sometimes, too, just how many of them still have student-loan debt that they hope to see wiped out if Warren or Sanders is elected.

[Dennis Donovan]

5. That's also a RW talking point.

Good journalists leave their political biases at home.

[highplainsdem]

8. Good journalists wouldn't be turning every tiny Biden gaffe into a new story, and ignoring gaffes

by other candidates.

Good journalists wouldn't have a page of recent stories like these from Matt Viser:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/matt-viser/?noredirect=on

Good journalists wouldn't be writing that a front-runner who's had a substantial lead all year has a "fragile" lead.

Too many of them aren't leaving their political biases at home.

[radical noodle]

39. They really just like to report negatives

Anyone who is doing well is fair game to be pulled down a notch or two by repeating these minor stories over and over. When someone else rises, it'll start again with that candidate.

[Autumn]

6. Yes it's claiming media bias. And of course the media being younger is an interesting observation.

Other candidates don't have that complaint.

Why does the press hate him so much?” she said. “And the answer is because they are younger and they want someone cooler.”

[bluewater]

9. Things must be going badly...

if the Biden Campaign is now complaining about fake news.

I wonder what the internal polls they are looking at say?

[highplainsdem]

12. Nate Silver tweet about the bias in favor of Warren:

Link to tweet

I'd guess that if you surveyed journalists involved in reporting/ editing major political stories on who they'd vote for personally, the big winner would be Warren, although with Buttigieg, Harris & Sanders also outperforming their support in the general population.

Silver isn't part of the Biden campaign. He's just well aware of what's being written for news outlets, as well as what's beiing tweeted, and he sees the bias.

[thesquanderer]

13. and yet the media is similarly younger than Warren and Sanders. (n/t)

[Autumn]

14. They are also claiming the press corps has never seen a "true Democratic primary"

and they have fundamentally no understanding and experience in how politics works.

[Apollo Zeus]

15. good point

[KPN]

16. No kidding. The Biden camp appears to be at least. So what does that say?

[tblue37]

31. At least what? nt

[Gothmog]

2. I agree with Biden camp on this

[Cha]

4. Thank you, highplainsdem!

“I don't know of anybody who has taken as sustained and vitriolic a negative pounding as Biden and who has come through it with the strength he has,” said a top Biden adviser. “So why isn’t the argument not that he's a ‘fragile front runner,’ but instead why is this guy so strong?...

That's what I'm focusing on..

[KPN]

18. Ummmm ....

“I don't know of anybody who has taken as sustained and vitriolic a negative pounding as Biden and who has come through it with the strength he has,” said a top Biden adviser.

HRC?

[Bradical79]

46. Lol, my first thought too

Senior campaign advisers to politicians kind of lack perspective on that sort of thing though.

If you say something wrong, the press will write stories about it. It's been like that since before many of these reporters were born. Difference is now, you aren't just reading the NYT, Washington Post, or your local paper. Now it's a world where you're getting your news from multiple websites, 24 hour networks, their websites, bloggers, and social media.

If the leading candidate does something like tell a story about something that didn't happen, any news network worth their salt is going to report on that. It seems like a dogpile because every national story gets amplified due to the number of accessable outlets, and it's not like different outlets are going to say "you do this story, we'll do that story..." etc.

[calimary]

20. Yep. This is spot-on.

It’s really stunning to me to see the age change in the correspondents. They’re all 20/30-somethings. And many of them don’t have a sense of history or what led to this. Or at least their reportage doesn’t reflect it much.

And DAMMIT, I wish to God they’d stop wearing sleeveless tops and dresses. STOP WITH THE BARE SKIN! It doesn’t add a thing to any sense of credibility. All you notice is the bare skin. VERY wrong for a reporter or correspondent. It telegraphs the wrong things.

That’s another item on my “If I Ran MSNBC” list. NO bare arms. It’s just too suggestive. Short sleeves vastly preferred. Unless you’re going to a cocktail party and want to look alluring, as Megyn Kelly did, while seated at a small table with Vladimir Putin and two other men. She had a tight black dress on with tiny off-the-shoulder shoulder straps, low cut in front, skirt had a slit up-to-here, open-toed spike-heeled fuck-me shoes with fire-engine red toenails, heavy makeup and tousled “just got outta bed” hair. I swear, she looked like a fucking street walker. Gee, why didn’t you just show up naked, girlfriend? Maybe she thought that’d get her the interview.

Or there’s the take-the-kids-to-the-zoo-on-a-hot-day look that Alex Witt wore on camera one Saturday. HORRIFYINGLY inappropriate! She had on a casual white “peasant-style” top with only tiny spaghetti straps holding it up. Her long blonde hair hung down in front, covering the spaghetti straps. I swear, you’d have thought she was sitting there at the anchor desk completely topless! All you saw when the camera closed in a little was bare neck and front, bare shoulders and arms, and long hair hanging down from either side of her head. What the hell is this? The “Lady Godiva Hour”??? I even tweeted to her about how inappropriate her attire was that day. And it doesn’t matter how hot the weather was outside on that hot summer day. These studios are all air conditioned.

There needs to be some decorum and good taste for on-camera people. Especially women. Dammit, we worked and struggled and fought like crazy for YEARS to earn those coveted jobs on camera and in the field and at the anchor desk! To establish that full equality with men, in that once-male-dominated industry! It is NOT appropriate to dress like what you’re really aiming for is UNDER the anchor desk, for Pete’s Sake!!! This is THE NEWS. NOT a fucking peep show!

Sorry to rant, but for me, as one of those early fighters during the 1970s, to be taken seriously as a news reporter and not just some sex object, this just still burns me up. (Not that I ever could have been mistaken for a sex object, mind you.)

[tblue37]

32. I think FOX convinced all the other networks that treating their female reporters as

eye candy was ratings gold.

[calimary]

72. They have one show on there that we call "The Salad Tongs Show."

A living room setting. Big curved couch with coffee table in front. And splayed (literally) on the couch are four women, two on either side of a man in the middle. The women are all dressed the same: tight sleeveless sheaths with short and/or split skirts, long, bare, and what looks like carefully oiled legs with fancy, eye-catching spike-heeled fuck-me shoes on the end. And they’re all seated, relaxed back so they’re almost laying down, with their legs crossed at the knees, so it looks like four wide-open sets of salad tongs on display.

Frankly I don’t understand why they don’t just cut to the chase and make it a bedroom setting.

Just fucking damn disgusting!

[Bradical79]

51. And they need to start covering those ankeles..

They're here to report the news, not create an epidemic of erections.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. LOL, I agree 100% with the sleeveless tops on the women.

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2019, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

It detracts from their professionalism. There's a male co-anchor sitting there wearing a long-sleeved shirt, a tie and a suit jacket, while the woman seems to be dressed for an evening at a night club. And with the exception of Rachel Maddow and some of the guests, it's all of them, even otherwise very credible, serious women like Nicole Wallace. Are they specifically told to dress like they'll be off to a party as soon as their shift is over? Is there some unwritten rule that you can't look like a serious person but instead have to have as much skin showing as possible (there's often a lot of cleavage, too)? Why won't some of these women show up dressed like a lawyer about to argue a case before the Supreme Court instead of one of the Fox "News" blondes? Would they be fired?

Added: Nicole Wallace is actually dressed appropriately today. Hope she keeps it up.

[bluewater]

7. Biden Campaign complaining about fake news now?

Not a good look.

[Autumn]

10. It's those young people ya know.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I guess it's only a problem when said young people work for the press, and not when they're voters.

[Celerity]

44. it is ALL our fault

[LanternWaste]

45. It's a pretty dapper look. (relevant difference between 'observe' and 'complain')

On the other hand, he's not opening his own newspaper though...

[Renew Deal]

11. He's still better than president last guy

But seriously, people aren't really paying attention yet. Just ask Presidents Dean and Hillary '08.

[Docreed2003]

17. Playing devils advocate

If Biden had attempted to punch a speed punching bag and it hit him in the face knocking him backwards, do you think for a second this wouldn't make all the news channels and covered as another example of Biden's gaffes/age/whatever?? (One candidate did just that and it didn't make anymore waves than a joke gif here on DU)

I like Joe a lot and much of the crap being hurled at him is unfair and it reeks of a repeat of the same kinds of nutty attacks that some threw at Hillary for months from 2015-2016.

Look, I'm no fool...the media wants a horserace and it's very clear who they see and are pushing in that horserace and it's Biden, Bernie, and Warren. If you can't see that, then I'm not sure you're paying attention.

[KPN]

19. Agreed. That is why I defend other candidates when the Biden supporters here attack them here --

a consistent, more than just daily occurrence (attacks that is).

We need to all stop playing this game. We are only undermining ourselves. At the same time, Biden is not my preferred candidate for a number of reasons -- though I do like and respect him and will vote for him in the GE should he be our candidate, and I will not simply sit idly by when I see attacks specious against my preferred candidates at this time. It's silly and, as I said, undermines us all.

[Docreed2003]

24. Exactly

I'm all for real policy discussions, but much of the constant barrage of attacks and criticisms of our candidates has little to do with actual policy.

[WA-03 Democrat]

68. Go Joe Go!

I will vote for whoever wins our primary. Don’t like the attacks on any of our candidates from anyone. I want the best person for job. I love Biden. Everyone of our candidates is a billion times better.

[calimary]

23. Yep. It's better for ratings.

Conflict and controversy. That’s what sells, so that’s what they want. Whether it’s stupid and nonsensical or not.

[Docreed2003]

25. Exactly

[highplainsdem]

27. Actually, Bernie's misadventure with the punching bag was the subject of a Jeanne Moos piece on CNN

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/28/boxing-bernie-sanders-moos-pkg-ebof-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/wacky-world-of-jeanne-moos/

though I don't recall it making the news anywhere else.

I agree that if it had happened to Biden, it would have been given much greater coverage, including at least a few ponderous editorials opining that it showed Biden was too old and needed to drop out of the race.

When Warren gave her much-praised speech at the NH Democratic convention last weekend, her first lines included a gaffe where she said "first lerst" and then quickly corrected to "first lesson."

That got ZERO coverage. I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't watched video of the speech.

Now if Biden had said "first lerst" that would have made headlines and led cable news at the top of the hour. And there'd have been a dozen solemn opinion pieces on why, since "lerst" isn't even a word, it showed that Biden's cognitive decline was accelerating.

But Warren said it, so as far as the media was concerned, it never happened.

There's no way to know how many other gaffes by candidates other than Biden are being ignored. They're simply not mentioned.

Realistically, if the press is being responsible, such gaffes SHOULD be ignored. But anti-Biden journalists are using them for headlines on hit pieces, while other candidates get a pass.

[BeyondGeography]

28. C'mon, that's pathetic

A slightly off-balance Warren munches one itty bitty word after a two-minute standing ovation, immediately corrects it and because the media didn’t cover it as a gaffe that’s a sign of bias? Please. What a reach.

[highplainsdem]

34. I doubt she was off-balance because of the ovation, after her campaign paid for hundreds of tickets

for supporters, bused some of them in, and gave them noisemakers. She wouldn't have been surprised at all, and might even have had some idea how long it would last. (I'm told this just shows a good ground game, though her supporters don't seem to want it brought up.)

And yes, the media would have covered "first lerst" if Biden had said it.

I suspect Warren's made a lot more unreported gaffes in her speeches, but I have no interest in listening to them.

[BeyondGeography]

36. That's ok, I'll give you a heads-up on any problematic syllables going forward

[highplainsdem]

37. LOL. Yes, I'm sure you will...

[treestar]

41. The poster is right that if Biden has done it

It would have been a big deal. And saying something like you said would have been considered an "excuse."

[BeyondGeography]

42. That's your POV, doesn't make it right

All power to ya.

[Skya Rhen]

21. It's a fact that Biden is the candidate that the media loves to bash - yet he continues to soar.

[demmiblue]

22. His use of the word "woke" is cringey.

This writer seems like he has a conservative mindset... the verbiage sprinkled throughout the piece gives it away.

Also, I thought many here despise Politico.


Interesting:

The New Yorker Fires Star Reporter Ryan Lizza Over ‘Improper Sexual Conduct’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-yorker-severs-ties-with-star-reporter-ryan-lizza

[calimary]

26. Well that was handled with little fanfare.

I hadn’t heard about this til now. That explains why he suddenly disappeared from on-camera. Scaramucci is probably enjoying this one.

But the date on the story is 2017. Shit, has it been that long ago? Where’ve I been?

[demmiblue]

29. It is weird... I feel like time is going by like a blink of the eye,

yet it is simultaneously going excruciatingly slow counting the days until the oranganus is out of office.

[highplainsdem]

30. Kenneth Baer (Obama aide, also speechwriter for Al Gore) says this is a must-read:

Link to tweet

"[Biden is] the only person to demonstrate substantial support across a multiracial coalition. So actually he is most in step with the party. But no one ever sees it that way because that is not the world as seen through Twitter.” Must read from @RyanLizza

[peggysue2]

33. Joe Biden's staying power contradicts . . .

the fragility myth of his candidacy. And yes, the fear/safe factor has been discussed on this board, another bogus charge to explain away Biden's support. Joe Biden's appeal and reach is what it is, stretching across liberal/moderate/conservative voters that make up the Democratic Party. Social media does not represent the Party's voters. If it did, Warren and Sanders would be leading with wide margins across the country.

They're not.

In order to ensure a win in 2020, we must reach the widest swath of the Democratic electorate including Dem-leaning Indies. And that is precisely Joe Biden's strength because that's where the numbers are. In the end, it's all about the math and the Electoral College. Biden has the reach that other candidates simply do not possess.

So, the media can tear itself apart with hit piece after hit piece. Joe Biden is still standing which would--in a logical world--indicate his resilience and strength. Instead we get articles like this one from Politico, first sentence:

The first thing you notice at a Joe Biden event is the age

A hoot, no? Since neither Sanders nor Warren are spring chickens.

Which should bring us to the question that's been circulating lately:

Do you want to be woke or do you want to win???

For me, WINNING IS EVERYTHING this time out. And winning with the most qualified and experienced statesman in the group is simply a no-brainer. Biden understands and has expressed that this election is a do-or-die moment, that the definition of who and what we are is on the line. Which is why his opening statement--we're struggling for the soul of America--has resonated.

Here's another reason why the spin on Joe Biden is so frustrating: we watched this same repetitive attack on Hillary Clinton in 2016. The but, but her emails nonsense only added to the Republican smear machine and helped the Trump Humpers wriggle across the finish line (along with help from some very questionable friends). We want to counteract the cheating/dirty tricks and general election garbage? Win big, massively across the entire country, appeal to as many voters as possible, not merely in solidly Blue communities.

Joe Biden was made for this moment. That's why I support him.

[Thekaspervote]

43. Thx for your well thought out factual post!!

Go Joe go... we’ve got your back!

[onetexan]

52. Well reasoned & well argued. Thank u peggysue2!

couldnt agree with u more

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. I don't know that anyone is worried about Biden's supporters not being enthusiastic.

Take a look around. They're pretty enthusiastic.

But they're supporters, and that's what supporters do. I'm worried about everyone else not being excited.

[jcgoldie]

40. Saying that much of Biden's support is based in fear has nothing to do with elitism

Its not at all the same as saying poor people or people of color don't know why they are supporting him. That argument completely misses the point. The strongest argument that I have seen for Biden voiced here on DU on a daily basis and elsewhere is that the most important issue of the election, the one which subsumes and encapsulates all others is beating Trump, and Biden has the best chance to do so based on polling about elect-ability. Thats precisely why Biden supporters repeatedly post general election matchup polls here.

Thats not an elitist argument its a pragmatic one. No-one is saying that people don't know why they support Biden. They are saying that his strongest message thus far has been Trump is terrible and you need to do the safe thing. The counterargument is that other candidates are also electable and have other qualities which make them preferable. Being scared of losing to Trump is not the only issue. In fact, I would argue, if we don't have the strongest candidate with the most inspiring message it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[highplainsdem]

49. You should read this OP about a new column from Jennifer Rubin about Biden's appeal:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287273068


We have reasons for voting for Biden other than electability. If you haven't noticed that, you haven't been paying very much attention.

And yes, we are happy that polls show he's most electable.

Anyone who wouldn't be happy if polls showed their candidate was most electable would be nuts.

And I would disagree with you (and I'm sure other Biden supporters would as well) that "other candidates...have other qualities which make them preferable."

No, they don't. Not as far as I'm concerned, anyway.

It's rather simple. If I thought they had qualities that made them preferable, I'd prefer them.

Anyway, you just made the "Biden supporters are afraid" argument again. Sigh. And it is elitist because you're suggesting we're blind to other, superior candidates because we're so afraid they won't be as electable.

[jcgoldie]

59. I didn't say that

No-one is saying everyone has the same reasons for supporting Biden or anyone else. If your support is not primarily based on electability then my post has nothing to do with you. And yet I do notice you posting arguments for Biden on a daily basis based in large part on the argument of electability. In fact that's the first argument I hear out of many people who support Joe Biden. "He can beat Trump and I do not know if anybody else can." You are denying that this is true?

[Bayard]

47. What's a TikTok?

[highplainsdem]

50. Link:

https://www.tiktok.com/en/

[onetexan]

53. I work in tech & dont know either

[highplainsdem]

57. Wikipedia article on TikTok:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok

[JI7]

64. something that should not exist

[MerryBlooms]

71. First thing came to my mind was a character from Oz...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tik-Tok_(Oz)

No idea it was an app.

[EveHammond13]

48. we always need to remember the state of the electorate is Idiocracy

for the time being

[James48]

54. Joe is... lackluster.

He’s a nice guy.

He’s just not inspiring.

Not emotion grabbing, not effort inspiring. Not thought provoking.

He’s just “Joe.”

I like Bernie.

But hey, I’m just a 59-year old former Republican turned Dem by the younger Bush, having been inspired by Barrack, and now thinking Bernie has the best shot, the energy, and the conviction in his soul.

My 2-cents.

[highplainsdem]

56. Rachel Maddow would disagree with you:

[JI7]

65. disagree, i find Sanders to be lackluster boring uninteresting

the fact he has little accomplishments in his many years in office and only slogans confirms my view.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. I don't find yelling and finger-wagging to be very inspiring.

[Gothmog]

58. Joe Biden's appeal actually isn't a mystery

Link to tweet

Biden shows reverence for the most popular Democrat around, former president Barack Obama; others find fault in everything from the Affordable Care Act to immigration policy. Biden does not bombard voters with a torrent of multi-part plans; he gives them a few basic positions and defends them. Biden does not campaign from the neck up; he campaigns with his heart on his sleeve. Biden is deeply optimistic; his opponents think Americans are the problem, not Trump. (I don’t suggest that his opponents are wrong, merely that their stance apparently isn’t as popular as they thought.) Biden wants normalcy plus reform; his opponents want a peaceful revolution. Biden knows people want to be heard and seen; his opponents (with the exception of Sen. Kamala D. Harris) don’t fully grasp this. They want to “help," to pepper people with ideas and a to-do list, while Biden takes the time to listen to them. (Think of the well-meaning friend who has a thousand suggestions when you are grieving and you’d rather they just shut up and commiserate.)

This is the grouchy-white-guy-in-the-diner problem all over again. Reporters are blinded by their own age, background, education and geography. Instead of going to West Virginia diners to find the Trump voter, reporters should go talk to the residents of The Villages in Florida, the African American churchgoing ladies and the buttoned-down professionals in the affluent suburbs (the Romney-Clinton voters). These people have endured a noisy, offensive and intrusive presence in the White House. They don’t necessarily want a different noisy, intrusive presence — even one they agree with on substance.

Part of the “mystery” of Biden’s appeal would be solved if the moderators flipped their questions, as one smart Democrat not in the Biden camp put it. Instead of asking Biden or another moderate, “Why aren’t you going with the big, bold idea of Medicare-for-all?,” the moderators might consider asking Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), “Why blow up Obamacare, and why don’t you trust people to choose Medicare if given the option?” Instead of assuming that extreme proposals are the standard, requiring the moderates to explain why they are such wet blankets, the moderators should press the super-progressives on questions such as: What makes you think that voters want to go through another health-care makeover? Why should poorer people pay for richer people’s health care or subsidize their college debt?

Better yet, ask the candidates to relate the personal story from a voter who moved them the most, or the last voter whose phone number they took so that the candidate could call later, or the most insightful thing they have heard from a voter. It might reveal who is talking at voters and who is listening to them.

[cannabis_flower]

60. Joe started with 30% in April

He still has 30% after 5 months. When Harris lost support, Warren got it. I'm observing that while Warren has been gaining support, Joe just stays around 30%. I'm of the opinion that Biden will continue to hold on to that 30% and that Warren will continue to gain momentum and pass Joe up around about the time people start paying attention. I don't think Joe will implode, I think he'll stagnate. It won't be long until Elizabeth is at 40% and Joe is stuck at 30%.

[DrFunkenstein]

61. Biden's Debate Performances Were Flawless, Just Like His Past Campaigns

Why don't these young whippersnappers get it? Sure, he couldn't generate the same heat as Michael Dukakis and Dick Gephardt, let alone break into the top four of Iowa in 2008, but all these media youngsters want to talk about is credit card lobbyists and silencing dissenters in Congress before the Iraq invasion.

I mean what part of "balancing the ticket for Obama" don't they get?

[George II]

67. "Camp Grandpa Biden"? You realize he's less than seven years younger that Elizabeth Warren.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

66. One of the reasons I stopped posting on dailykos in the 2016 primary

Was how amazed people were acting that Hillary was wiping the floor with Sanders in the southern states thanks to her strong relationship with black voters.

Obviously they didn't frame black voters critically as a group but progressives and especially young progressives fail to acknowledge that in the south black voters and particularly black women are older and more conservative/moderate. So often these voters were derided as low informed and that once they started to focus on policy they'd migrate to Sanders. It failed to occur a reason why they gravitated to Hillary Clinton was her policies fitted with them and there was also the case she had a history of working with and for them as First Lady whereas Sanders was an old man who for 30 years represented one of the overwhelmingly white states in the country.

I feel the same is happening with Biden. He too has a huge lead in the south, thanks to that constituency of black voters. And once again the tag low informed is being banded about.

[highplainsdem]

69. Vanity Fair's Tina Nguyen on this Politico article: Team Biden has a point.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/joe-biden-vs-millennial-reporters

“I don’t know of anybody who has taken as sustained and vitriolic a negative pounding as Biden, and who has come through it with the strength he has,” a top Biden adviser tells Ryan Lizza in a fascinating new story at Politico. “So why isn’t the argument not that he’s a ‘fragile front-runner,’ but instead why is this guy so strong? How is he able to withstand this?”

Team Biden has a point. Ever since he formalized his candidacy back in April, Biden’s been the clear front-runner across numerous polls nationwide, consistently holding about a third of the vote while his shinier younger rivals (Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke) and his progressive counterparts (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren) are, effectively, running a race for second place. At the same time, Biden retains his strong support among key voter groups that his rivals would need to win: He still commands a majority of the black vote and the Latino vote, despite African American candidates like Harris and Cory Booker attempting to brand him as an outdated ally. And in perhaps the most important metric for voters—who is most likely to beat Trump?—Biden has the widest lead of them all.

So what gives? The overwhelming sense in Biden’s camp is that he isn’t too old, but the reporters covering his campaign are too young. “You have a press corps in which most of them were in college when Barack Obama ran for president, and they have fundamentally no understanding and experience in how politics works,” a well-known Democratic ally of Biden’s told Lizza. “They have not really covered a true Democratic primary ever, because there hasn’t been one since 2008.”

The problem, she continued, is that all those young reporters think the party is controlled by “woke millennials,” and they view it “through the lens of coastal issues”; as a result, they cannot comprehend the majority of the party’s voters, who tend to be older and more moderate (including many black and Latino voters). Then come the shots at AOC:

-snip-

Once again, Team Biden has a point. Younger and cooler candidates have indeed been losing ground in national polling, with upstarts like Buttigieg and O’Rourke sliding into the low single digits, while the top three candidates are all white and at least 70 years old. As other candidates drop out, Team Biden predicts, voter support will concentrate at the top, with Joe. White bread might be boring, and a little retrograde, but it’s inoffensive and it gets the job done. “The party is older than people think. It’s more centrist than people think,” the senior Biden adviser explained. “But they say he’s out of step with the party! Well, he’s the only person to demonstrate substantial support across a multiracial coalition. So actually he is most in step with the party. But no one ever sees it that way, because that is not the world as seen through Twitter.”

I couldn't find out exactly how old Nguyen is, but from her LinkedIn page I learned she was still in college about ten years ago, so early 30s at the oldest.

I was glad to see her admit Team Biden has a point.