r/KyleKulinski • u/MABfan11 Not Banned From Secular Talk • Nov 14 '24
Current Events The Biden campaign decided to give us 4 years of Trump again instead of hurting an old mans feelings
7
u/Redsmoker37 Nov 14 '24
This all goes back to a stubborn, senile old man who refused to give up his car keys until it was way too late. In addition, he basically lied to us in 2020 when he strongly implied that he wouldn't run for a second terms. An open primary could have left us with a better chance. Instead, we let the senile old man pick the heir-apparent.
7
3
u/penpointred Nov 14 '24
yeah I was fkn PISSED when I heard this on Pod Save America (the blame episode)... still pissed. seriously WTF .... and they were still raising campaign funds on top of that too... i hope we get a dem overhaul by 2028 cause whatever team was in charge cant be trusted next time. fuck.
3
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian Nov 15 '24
For reference, what this would look like in my election model for Joe Biden:
(went up a state because i dont think washington would actually go red).
2
u/north_canadian_ice Social Democrat Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24
Thank you for sharing - I think that is how it would have played out.
Biden was losing by 7 in many swing states, IIRC. He probably would have tanked more after a second debate.
His dementia is even more obvious now. It's obvious he hid from press conferences & interviews to hide his severe decline. Seeing him walk on the beach the other day, he looked so lost.
Even in 2016, Biden was a great speaker & very intelligent. In 2019 & 2020, you could notice a decline (but he still had a lot of good moments). By 2023, it was obvious he had some sort of serious decline/dementia issue.
If Biden resigned early in 2023 & let Harris be President, I think it would have enhanced his legacy & he would have been seen as unselfish. But obviously, that didn't happen.
3
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian Nov 15 '24
Yeah in a lot of ways Biden running again really screwed us over. I don't know if we couldve pulled it off given the dems would likely screw up somehow but Biden was basically an anchor around our feet in more ways than one.
4
u/jharden10 Social Democrat Nov 14 '24
Yikes and the podcast only confirmed what many here were requesting: that Biden stepped down. However, he should've done so after the 2022 midterms when the Dems held the Senate. I still think Trump wins due to the economy, but whoever would've won wouldn't have been squeezed for time.
2
u/protomatterman Nov 15 '24
Bernie should just start another party or adopt one at this point. Scotus is lost already so there isn't really anything else to lose. Dems are incapable of winning and the R's are just an awful joke of a party who could easily be beaten by a halfway competent party.
1
0
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
If Biden didn’t run again, I still wonder what people think would’ve changed? Kamala would not have lost to Josh Shapiro or newsome. And both of those guys kind of suck anyways.
6
u/LanceBarney Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
One thing that almost certainly changes is the country doesn’t lose trust in the Democratic Party. At least not to the extent that they did.
We can debate the validity of this claim, but we can’t debate the public sentiment. The public at large fully bought into the notion that Harris, democrats, and the Biden administration were covering up Biden’s cognitive decline. It was an uphill and likely impossible battle for Harris to convince voters she didn’t know Biden wasn’t fit for office.
If Biden never runs for a 2nd term, and instead announces “I ran as a transitional candidate and to defeat MAGA. We did that in 2020 and we sufficiently pushed them back in 2022, so I’m opting not to run for reelection and I’m endorsing Harris” after the midterms, I suspect the narrative is day and night different. Then, when we see Biden decline in age, the narrative is “well, at least he’s not running again. He knew his time has passed” rather than “this is just another guy looking to cling to power until his dying day”.
2
4
u/Dynastydood Nov 14 '24
I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that she would've won in a legitimate primary. Being VP would've given her a leg up, but if there had been any candidate willing to distance themselves from the Biden administration, they would've had strong appeal with the voters the Democrats failed to get this year. Especially in the midst of the Gaza War.
Beyond that, the fact that she was chosen for the candidacy rather than elected democratically was a sticking point with a number of voters, and so she would've performed better in the general election if she had won a primary. Would that alone have been enough to swing the election? No, but there's a lot of little things like that which add up to the defeat, many of which wouldn't have happened without the Biden administration repeatedly spiking the ball.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
I agree with the second part. But I think the first part isn’t true at all. The Gaza thing doesn’t change a lick of the candidates all support Israel, which they all would.
2
u/Dynastydood Nov 14 '24
Ah yeah, I should've clarified there. I'm not at all implying that a pro-Palestinian candidate would've performed well in a primary, I'm just saying that the Gaza War helped create the conditions for maximum levels of dissatisfaction with the current administration, combined with inflation, immigration, culture wars, his visibly declining mental state and the failed cover up, the carelessly botched exit from Afghanistan, the false hope and profound failures with student loan debt forgiveness, the failure of BBB, the consistent embarrassment of being unable to maintain a majority with Sinema and Manchin, Biden's penchant for inadvertently antagonizing foreign leaders, and a number of other things. Each one of those failures bled voters, and Gaza was more like the cherry on top.
Regardless of any stance on Israel-Palestine, the fact is that any candidate who distanced themselves from the Biden administration as a whole would've performed better with swing voters than Harris did. It doesn't even necessarily matter what those differences were, to be honest. It just seems like anyone willing to honestly go after Biden's term in a competitive primary would've been able to make swing voters feel seen. It would've given the party more credibility with those voters that Biden and Harris were never going to reach.
Now, whether or not this hypothetical candidate would've performed well with Democrats is an entirely different discussion, especially considering how good they've gotten at denying reality and accepting anything they're told by MSNBC. It's very possible that any candidate who could've won the general election might've found that first winning over these deluded Democrats was an insurmountable task. After all, these voters the reason we ended up with Biden in the first place, despite how blatantly visible his decline already was by 2019.
3
u/paulcshipper Nov 14 '24
People hungry to be the president would have came out. Liz Warren may have tried again and there were a lot of governors and mayors hungry for power.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
Liz Warren wouldn’t have won the primary either, but god help us, it wouldnt have even been close if she was the candidate. Trump made a fool out of her too much already.
2
u/paulcshipper Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24
You or I don't know who would have won the primary... in fact few really thought Biden would have won..
The point was that we would have had a real primary and people may have shown up.
Also.. to make sure we're on the same page.. I only said she may have run, I said nothing about her winning.. or even supporting her.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
We do know. We know what the bench of the democrat party looks like. And we know how the base of the party tend to vote and that the VP wins when they run. We can say it would’ve looked better to have a primary, and to some extent I agree with that, but there’s no legitimate scenario here where we get a different candidate and win.
1
u/paulcshipper Nov 14 '24
I would appreciate that you separate your beliefs and opinion from your facts. You merely can't imagine a different person winning... and I bleive that's due to us not knowing who would have ran.
No one thought Obama would have beaten Clinton with her being the former first lady, but that happened.
It would have been likely Kalama would have won, but I believe polled shown that any generic Dem would have been more popular than her or Biden.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
Hilary Clinton was not a VP. If Biden has ran in 2016 he would’ve also beaten Hilary Clinton. Obama had a great speech that made him really popular before running. So may knew who he was.
“Generic Dem” isn’t a person who exists. Everything changes the moment they get named. And we know the bench. We got newsome, Warren, Pete, Shapiro, Whitmer. It’s not that strong right now.
1
u/paulcshipper Nov 14 '24
You believe Biden would have beaten Hillary. If anyone expected Biden wasn't going to run again, any one of them could have had a great speech before officially running
With my initial point, if the option was open, more people would come to the bench.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
Who though? I’m saying Obama didn’t come out of nowhere. He did better than many expected, but he didn’t come out of nowhere. We know our bench. Who do you think beats Kamala Harris that isn’t named Gavin newsome or Josh Shapiro?
1
u/paulcshipper Nov 14 '24
We wouldn't know, because it never happened. Considering you already believe everyone who was known sucks, any new person just didn't have to suck.
I'm not saying Walz would have run for president, but he was more appealing than Harris.
This was just a condition where a dark horse candidate had a chance.. be it anyone who actually were in the primary
1
u/OkBoomer6919 Social Democrat Nov 14 '24
They wouldn't have been the only candidates in an open primary.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
They’re the ones that would’ve come in 2nd and 3rd. They weren’t going to beat the sitting vice president.
2
u/OkBoomer6919 Social Democrat Nov 14 '24
Kamala was only polling around 1% in the 2020 primaries. She would not have done any better in 2024 had there been one.
0
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
It’s not 2020. Biden ran for president like three times before he won.
2
u/OkBoomer6919 Social Democrat Nov 14 '24
Biden only won because literally anyone could have beaten Trump in 2020. He was a shit candidate too
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
You’d call anyone that disagrees with you a shitty candidate. Trump is clearly a powerhouse and Biden was the only one who could’ve beaten him and the cult he’s created. lol
2
u/OkBoomer6919 Social Democrat Nov 14 '24
Biden couldn't beat a paper bag unless it had handled covid as badly as Trump did in 2020. The electorate have the memories of goldfish though, which is why they are suddenly just now remembering what Trump did last time and will do again.
1
u/peanutbutternmtn Banned From Secular Talk Nov 14 '24
Who do you think would count as a good candidate?
2
u/OkBoomer6919 Social Democrat Nov 14 '24
Well let me think. I'd start with someone that polled greater than 1% the last time we had a real primary. I'd also start with someone younger than 80 that does not have clear signs of mental decline.
Sorry if those two very basic things means 'anyone who disagrees with you is bad' to you, but it doesn't for anyone with common sense.
Perhaps the lack of common sense is one reason democrats got swept in a historic way not seen since Reagan
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/WinnerSpecialist Nov 14 '24
Biden’s admin didn’t decide on 4 more years of Trump. America did that. They wanted Trump and they are going to get exactly what they voted for.
16
u/DataCassette Nov 14 '24
Biden should never have run for a second term. I don't know if we would have won, but it wouldn't have hurt.