Biden leans into Obama identification

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Former Vice President Joe Biden is labeling himself an “Obama-Biden Democrat” as he seeks to straddle a line to appeal to centrists and progressives in the Democratic Party.

Biden’s strategy is intended to strengthen his appeal to white working-class men — who largely fled the Democratic Party in support of President Trump in 2016 — while keeping him relevant with an Obama coalition of women, minority and younger voters.

The moves also ties Biden closely to former President Obama, a popular political figure whose appeal is strong with African-American voters — but who also won states dominated by Trump in 2016 such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Democrats ceded those three states and Wisconsin to Trump in the last presidential cycle, and may need to win back that ground to unseat him.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Biden referred to himself as an “Obama-Biden Democrat and, man, I’m proud of it.”

He added that “the vast majority of members of the Democratic Party are still basically liberal to moderate Democrats in the traditional sense.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/437877-biden-leans-into-obama-identification

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Good. He's behaving the way Al Gore should have.

[elleng]

2. Thanks for the reminder.

[SKKY]

10. Great minds think alike!

[elleng]

3. 'Democrats ceded those three states and Wisconsin

to Trump in the last presidential cycle, and may need to win back that ground to unseat him.' CEDED??? How the hell did we do THAT???

and MAY need to win back that ground. Ya THINK??

[sfwriter]

6. By not campaigning there is one theory.

"CEDED??? How the hell did we do THAT??? "

By not adequately campaigning in the heartland and those three states, all Democratic stalwarts, in particular.

It is a quite popular theory among some and Clinton spends a chapter in What Happened? discussing and refuting it. Her take is that polling tanked there after Comey's October email announcement. It did, and she had no margin to spare.

Pete Buttigieg has pointed out, and caught hell for it from Clinton loyalists, that even the base messaging failed to offer those rural white voters a vision of the future. Remember these are guys who have seen wages and union membership plummet over the Obama years. He contrasts the appeal of Trumpian "Make America Great Again" with Clinton's "I'm With Her."

He is in Indiana and campaigned on her behalf and talked to those guys. He said she was ill served by her polling and messaging. The quote that got him in hot water with those Clinton Aids was:

“Donald Trump got elected because, in his twisted way, he pointed out the huge troubles in our economy and our democracy,” Buttigieg said. “At least he didn’t go around saying that America was already great, like Hillary did.”

[elleng]

8. Zacly, in fact.

See Debbie Dingell on the subject.

[sfwriter]

9. Yeah, I think so too.

Clinton's argument re: Comey requires her to be close enough to losing that those few votes mattered. But we are not here to rehash. Forward soldiers and all that.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Well considering she lost three states by a combined 77,744 votes...

...and had she carried those states, she's president right now, I believe her point has a lot of merit to it.

[sfwriter]

17. It never should have been that close.

And no single answer seems more likely than any other. Comey, Russians, Messaging, Campaigning are all reasons that could have delivered those votes.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. There might be a sliver of truth to it but it's not substantial...

Hillary and Trump both spent three days in Michigan during the final month of the campaign. Clinton spent five days in Pennsylvania, including her final major rally in Philadelphia with the Obamas on the eve of the election, while Trump campaigned there seven days that final month. Neither campaigned in Wisconsin, which, I guess Hillary could have made pushed for, and maybe it would've won her the state, but that doesn't win her the electoral votes.

Hillary could have spent an extra day or two in Pennsylvania but it's easier to say all this with the added benefit of hindsight.

The fact is: Hillary did campaign in PA that final month - spending nearly as many days there as Trump. The fact is: no one really expected PA to shift like it did - as most every poll had Clinton leading, in some instances by a margin outside the MOE. The fact is: even Trump probably thought he had an uphill battle in PA and it's why he spent a bulk of his time in Florida (10 visits).

Pete's rationale is too easy. It's a big reason I've become disappointed with his campaign.

Hillary didn't do that much worse than Obama among white, male voters. Trump won 64% in 2016. Romney won the group with 60%.

Hillary actually did better among white women than Obama did - winning 47% of the vote, while Obama won only 45%. That difference almost entirely negates the decline she saw among white men. Overall, Hillary lost the white vote by sixteen points in 2016. Obama lost it by fifteen - essentially the exact same.

Where Hillary struggled was matching Obama's enthusiasm with minorities in PA.

Blacks made up only 10% of the voting in PA in 2016. In 2012, they made up 13%. Obama won blacks with 93% of the vote. Hillary won 'em with 92%. Essentially the same. But that three-percent was significant enough that had turnout been the same, Hillary wins PA.

Whites aren't going to vote Democratic again. Democrats have to stop chasing this mythical unicorn. Minority voters is where it's at. No amount of pandering to whites is going to bring PA back in the Democratic column. It might make a win bigger - but Hillary did about as well as Obama did in 2012 with white voters all things considered. She did worse, though, with black voters since they didn't turn out at near the level and frankly, that's where the nominee has to tap into - and I only see a handful of candidates who can energize minority voters.

[sfwriter]

18. I saw very little in her messaging.

“Pete's rationale is too easy. It's a big reason I've become disappointed with his campaign. ”

I think offering voters a clear and consistent vision of the future is a seriously valid point. I got to see two of her speeches in person, donated to her, voted for her. I was never moved by her.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Then you weren't paying attention...

I pointed out why Pete was wrong.

And it's probably why I don't want him to be the nominee because he'll fail, too, by chasing this idea Democrats can win back white voters - voters who haven't been members of the party, at least at the presidential level, since the 1960s.

The focus has to be on younger voters and minority voters. Had turnout among minority voters been at the level they were in 2012 in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Hillary wins.

[sfwriter]

4. That's smart. I'm skeptical.

Because when he ran as a Biden Democrat in 2008, he dropped out after coming in fifth in the Iowa Caucuses, behind Bill Richardson with just .9% of the vote.

It will be interesting to see what comes of his "Obama-based" appeal to white working-class men who fled to Trump. I have preconceptions about those people that I know are not wholly accurate, but loving diversity isn't one of them.

There is speculation that no other Democrat can bridge the diversity as well as Progressive / Centrist split of the party. I think Kamala Harris can make a real claim to do that.

Also in the article:

"“If I were him, I'd get up there and every single day I'd just say Obama, Obama, Obama and by the way I was his loyal VP," the strategist said.

Another Democratic strategist Chris Lehane put it this way: “His target is the rank-and-file Democratic voter who hold the Obama years in high regard as a moment of hope and progress.""

Christ, its like the mayonnaise telling you what bread it was last on. We need to hear more about his positions and see some of what that "white appeal" to Trump voters will entail. This primary is about America's future, not Democratic Party history.

Maybe I've missed it, but I have yet to hear a good forward looking statement from him.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. Obama was the last stable leader

How is that a bad thing?

[sfwriter]

13. Sorry, I don't follow.

I think you are thinking I’m being critical of Obama, so I’ll answer that.

I’m not. I might not have made my point clear. I think it is bad for Joe Biden, or any Democrat, to make that the center of their campaign. It’s only smart for Biden because that’s his best card.

Any Democrat will be more stable than the sack of weasels we have now. Obama was stable. Hopefully voters recognize that.

But you can’t campaign on, “look at all the awesome stuff Obama did.” I think most voters expect some vision of the future, not the past.

Biden can’t win with, “Look at this awesome guy I worked with.” Those handlers who are saying make the campaign about Obama are just wrong. Ultimately Obama isn’t on the ballot.

Additionally, I’m not sure evoking Obama will bring back white men who thought things were so bad that they voted for Trump. Obviously those guys Biden is supposed to bring in we’re seriously displeased with the Democrats.

I argue you win them with a vision of a better future, not an appeal to the past.

If Iguessed the wrong question there, just restate it.

[Politicub]

5. I'm a proud Obama-crat.

It seems so long ago that we lived in a stable democracy, yet it's been only a little more than two years ago.

[sfwriter]

7. No shit.

Any Democrat is more rational than the sack of polecats we call Republican leadership now. Trump's mind is a box of weasels. I miss competence. I miss rationality. But I vote with an eye on the future, not the past.

[oasis]

14. "...still basically liberal to moderate Democrats in the traditional sense".

That's about as accurate as one can get when describing the vast majority of Dems.