Whither Joe Biden?

Vice President Joe Biden.

Vice President Joe Biden.

Politico:

Two days after huddling with advisers about plans for a presidential run at his home in Delaware, Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday made a short unannounced trip to Washington, D.C., to meet with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at his Naval Observatory home.

Warren, a liberal icon who for months has been urged by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing to mount a presidential primary challenge of her own, notably has held off on endorsing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the party’s current frontrunner for the nomination. Warren’s said the race remains wide open…

The variables that would help determine if a run for president by Vice President Joe Biden principally revolve around Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who is facing a barrage of attacks from Republicans eager to pollute her image ahead of the 2016 primaries. If Hillary makes it through the next few weeks of the kitchen sink being thrown at her, a Biden run won’t make much sense and will fizzle quickly.

Another consideration is that Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign has energized liberal Democrats but doesn’t have much realistic hope of himself winning the presidency, has a lot of momentum to transfer to someone in this race. The conventional wisdom has been that Hillary would ultimately inherit Bernie’s mojo, but she still needs to present the affirmative case to liberals that she deserves their support.

In the meantime, sure. These conversations are going to happen.

28 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Diogenesdemar says:

    Say it's so, Joe!

    • BlueCat says:

      It won't work unless something more than the drip drip causes HRC to tank significantly. I do think Biden would be the best at working with congress. Even though we can’t expect Rs to do anything but obstruct until they get the WH back, if we can elect more Dems to the House and Senate under a Dem President like long time, well liked legislator Biden, a lot can be accomplished by rallying the Dems, something that Obama was lousy at from day one. I don't see that as a Sanders or Warren strong suit either.

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        Perhaps not, although I'd much prefer a President Biden to a President Clinton …

        … Of more immediate concern, however, is what I see as being a needed credible challenger to Her Highness  Inevitableness during the primary campaign. I firmly believe that a Biden challenge would be good for America, the Democratic Party, and even whatshername.

        • BlueCat says:

          With you on that. If Biden is in at caucus time, I'll caucus for him. If not, I'll caucus for Bernie. HRC will almost certainly win anyway but I'd like to send her a message.

  2. Davie says:

    Here is one potential consequence if Joe does jump in:

    Making the case for Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic primaries is harder, of course, because Hillary Clinton is still far and away the Democratic frontrunner. But Bernie's fortunes have been on the rise, while Clinton's have shrunk somewhat. Again, we're just talking possibilities and not probabilities, and it is entirely within the realm of the possible that Clinton gets so bogged down by scandal that Bernie starts equaling her poll numbers nationwide. If Joe Biden jumps in the race, it might actually help Sanders, since the mainstream "we want someone who's electable" Democrats would then have two clear choices — and they might wind up splitting their votes between Clinton and Biden. If so, Sanders would have to win only a three-way race, rather than a head-to-head contest with Clinton. So there is more than one route for Sanders to actually claim the Democratic nomination.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/sanders-versus-trump-woul_b_8012570.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media

    Hillary is currently coming under withering fire from the GOP because she is the clear favorite.  Who thinks the GOP attacks would be any less virulent if Sanders or Biden were perceived as the frontrunner?  Which of the three do you think is best capable of withstanding those attacks?

    But as long as Trump is in the race, the Republicans have a far worse problem. 

    Overall, the GOP has a net favorability rating of -25 (34% favorable and 59% unfavorable), and this score has been negative since April 2011, averaging -15 percentage points. More broadly, the GOP has suffered from mostly negative or low positive scores since October 2005, about a year into President George W. Bush's second term, when his approval rating began to sink.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/169091/democratic-party-seen-favorably-gop.aspx

    Which is all you need to know to explain Trump's popularity and the dismal support for the entire GOP field.

    • BlueCat says:

      Pretty sure nobody thinks the GOP attacks would be any less virulent on any front runner so that's not really something we need to factor in. My problem with HRC isn't that being attacked by mean Republicans will make her less electable. Mean Republicans attacked the hell out of Obama to no avail.  In herself with just a little help from mean Republicans, she has  plenty of qualities that make her electability problematic, depending on her opponent.  

      I also assume, from all of her history to date, that she will be an extremely secretive President, that getting any transparency out of an HRC administration will be like pulling teeth and that she will not be able to resist using her position to punish her perceived enemies and set herself up to become even more wealthy than her political career by marriage has already made her to date. Pursuing vengeance and amassing wealth appear to be among her very favorite activities. 

      Not qualities I particularly look for in a potential leader of the free world though we appear to be stuck with her and any R would be much worse. But she's going to have to get the nomination without any help from me. Pretty sure that won't be a problem for her. After she does I'll vote for her as the less repulsive of two evils. In caucus I won't support her. I will support Biden, if he's running, Sanders otherwise.

  3. yameniye says:

    The Dems have failed to do anything about progression.  HRC, Warren, Biden and Sanders are all older than me, and I am old.  O'Malley could not get traction if sand was poured on the walk in front of him.

    The entire meme that HRC is destined to be president in '16 has been flawed from the beginning.  Although the GOP has hate in its body for everything Clinton, they really hate her, and will do anything and everything to attempt to ruin her.  Fortunately she keeps on winning.

    But, having HRC as the designated winner prevents others from getting up and testing the waters.  With Sanders and Biden putting pressure on her, she is at least starting to notice the little people and react a tiny amount.  A Biden/Warren ticket would sure get HRC to react a lot more.

    • Canines says:

      That's what I'm waiting for: for Biden and Warren to present themselves as a ticket for the rest of the contest. If it's Joe solo, I suspect many will just say "meh."

      • BlueCat says:

        Whether it's HRC, Biden or Sanders, any of these seniors had better get a young exciting minority running mate like Castro. Rs can't win without at least 34% of the Hispanic vote. GW got it. Romney only got 27%. Dems need the young and minorities, not just women. And not just choice.

        • notaskinnycook says:

          That question just crossed my mind as I was reading down the thread. Who will HRC choose as her second?. Sanders or Warren would be a sop to the progressive wing. Although, someone like O''Malley, who really doesn't stand a snowball's chance on his own wouldn't be a bad pick either.  

          • Mr. Toodles says:

            Julian Castro,  currently HUD Secretary, previously 3 term mayor of San Antonio. He's 40, has a twin brother who is a sitting member of Congress, and is Stanford grad with Harvard Law Degree. 

            With him, you have great entry to the latino community, plus he is young and good looking. 

            His negatives, at least from a certain perspective, are that he is a supporter of affirmative action, and his mother helped found La Raza Unida.

            I like him, and have since I learned about him. He should be on any short list for VP.

            • BlueCat says:

              Supporting affirmative action is pretty much a Dem thing so I don't see that as much of a draw back. People who strongly object aren't going to be voting for a Dem anyway. If not him it can't be just another older white pol. If the African American, Latino and young voters who came out for Obama don't come out in similar numbers any Dem candidate is going to have a tough time. The Dem ticket has to be one that energizes those Obama voters and ensures that the R can't possibly reach the 34+% of the Latino vote an R needs to win. 

               

            • notaskinnycook says:

              But, unless he turns 42 before January of '17, Castro isn't qualified. He has to be 42 and able to serve as President from day one. Remember William Henry Harrison.

          • kickshot says:

            Sheila Jackson Lee

  4. mamajama55 says:

    If there is indeed a three way contest between Bernie, Hillary, and Joe (nice how we're on first name bases with our candidates), I'd say Bernie's chances of winning are excellent. Smarter pols than me have undoubtedly already scoped this out.

     

  5. Andrew Carnegie says:

    The Lech vs. The Liar vs. The Loon.

    Joe Biden caught ‘snuggling’ with Defense chief’s wife

    • mamajama55 says:

      We could get all cute and alliterative with the GOP top 3, too. That would be a fun game. Quick, name these candidates:

      The Snake, the Swagger, and the Sociopath. No?

      How about the Bully, the Buffoon, and the Bastard?

      This could go on.

    • BlueCat says:

      AC, if you ever wanted to engage in an intelligent discussion many of us would be happy to. We aren't monolithic behind all Dems or a fixed set of policies or everything Obama's does or all of anything. We have independent thoughts and we share them. We respond to one another, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing and sometimes agreeing to disagree.

      We'd be happy to engage with you on that level and some of us would actually agree with you once in a while. For instance… you don't like HRC. Neither do I. But you aren't at all interested in thoughtful discussion or finding so much as a square inch of common ground. You're only interested in posting juvenile cartoons and insults and parroting talking points. I have no idea why you bother to post here. You can't really be so stupid as to think your childish posts will cause any progressive to switch to your side. You're clearly not here to convince or pursuade anyone of anything

      So, why are you here? You don't even have the power to annoy anymore if that's what you want. Pretty sure most of us just view you as a pathetic, boring waste of space, just so much clutter. Is that your goal? If so… congrats. Mission accomplished. Please feel free to piss off.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.