>>I guess that's a characteristic that you and I share.
>>
>>>You just preferred the polls.
>>
>>There's nothing wrong with polls, as long as they're
>conducted
>>well and understood in context. The polls were a lot more
>>predictive in 2016 than people gave them credit for. If poll
>>aggregators said Hillary had a 3/4 chance of winning in 2016
>>and Trump won, that's no stranger than throwing two coins
>and
>>getting heads both times. The polls were telling us the race
>>was close. People just refused to believe them.
>>FiveThirtyEight was bouncing around between 65% and 80%, and
>>that was before the Comey announcement.
>>
>>It's EARLY to look at some polls. The horserace polls right
>>now are just measuring name recognition, but Reeq knows
>that.
>>I assume the polls that interest him are his general
>>popularity ratings, which are still quite good. (As I've
>said,
>>he'll have plenty of chance to change that.)
>
>Yeah I dont disagree with any of this. My main points were
>it’s too early to let polls guide “us” and that Biden
>was
>coasting off name recognition- as you said.

That's not *entirely* true, though. Name recognition is something we ALSO measure, and therefore it's something we can adjust for, and even after adjusting for it, he still has a healthy lead.

The problem is not that the polls aren't measuring anything yet. The problem is simply that there is plenty of time for the polls to change. But unless we get into uninformed prognostication, the polls, adjusted as necessary to correct for systematic errors, are just as likely to go up as to go down.


>>>I’ve asked and asked who gets excited for Biden
>>>other than older white Dems...never got an answer.
>>
>>Them, and people with Obama nostalgia. Together, those
>groups
>>constitute the core of the progressive coalition.
>
>This is where I disagree. I don’t think Obama nostalgia
>is a winning strategy- especially as long as Trump
>can claim a good economy.

My fear is that it could end up being our ONLY strategy. If the economy continues to look good, then there is literally nothing else to make a case on other than Trump's character, and the best way to make the case on Trump's character is to compare him with Obama.


>I think “Let’s go back 4 years” is a losing message.

It's often a weak message. But it works for the people who haven't liked the last four years. It worked pretty damn well in 2016.


>I also think the primaries will erode that Obama
>connection. I think as Biden gets attacked, etc-
>people will start to see the difference.

The easy answer to that is that there shouldn't be attacks in primaries, ESPECIALLY on the frontrunner. I know I'm on the losing end of that viewpoint nowadays, though.


>Not to mention, I swore I read that Biden does not
>expect an early Obama endorsement. I didn’t save
>the link or anything, but my main point is pretty much
>any Dem nominee would be able to cash in on
>Obama love AND have a message of their own.

He shouldn't expect any endorsement during the primary. Obama has made it abundantly clear that he will never endorse during a primary. The fact that he didn't endorse Hillary during the '16 primary, despite everyone who worked with him reporting that he strongly supported her in the primary, shows that it's just not something he wants to do. It would erode his own brand and it could backfire. Then again, if he thinks it'll help clear the field, then maybe he'll change his mind. I'm not expecting it.


>>>I think I like him less than I liked Hillary in ‘16.
>>
>>That's only a problem if you're a representative voter.
>You're
>>not; none of us here is.
>
>Right, but that is also my point on the “Let’s go
>back 4 years” message. I don’t think that’s enough
>to win.
>
>There are people in this country who are okay with this
>Trump shit. Their 401ks are up. They hear about low
>unemployment, etc. Even if they are apathetic to Trumps
>shit telling them “Let’s go back” probably won’t be
>enough.

But what else is there?

The argument doesn't have to be "Let's go back to the time when we weren't sure if we were out of the Great Recession yet."

The argument would be: "Look at those fuckers STILL trying to end Obamacare! Don't let them do it! Look at those fuckers still trying to cut Social Security! Look at those fuckers still trying to overrule state law and put people in jail for years on weed possession! Look at those fuckers still claiming climate change is a hoax!" Maybe that's more anti-Trump than pro-Obama, but Obama is the contrast that people will inevitably make, and it's a contrast that we can win. It won us a historic number of congressional seats.


>>>Biden wins the nom and we’re toast. No coalition,
>>>no hype, deflated base, young people stay home.
>>
>>Like I've said a number of times, I don't like Biden, but to
>>play Biden's advocate: he's the MOST likely person to build
>a
>>big coalition, even if only thanks to Obama nostalgia.
>
>I think uncle Joe telling the kids to be nice to the
>bigots and buck up would get old real quick.

Well, and hopefully he'd learn that. From the beginning I saw it as a marketing trick. He's playing the unexcited centrist because a lot of crucial voters LIKE that. If he goes more partisan in the future, when it matters, it will carry even more weight if he's set himself up in people's minds as someone who isn't generally partisan. It's not as elaborate as a chess gambit.

>That,
>along with his other issues? I just don’t see his appeal
>beyond older white Dems. Especially if the Obama
>connection fades.
>
>I mean Reeq has been one of the biggest Biden fans here,
>and he’s sick of his shit.

Maybe I haven't been paying as much attention to Reeq's take on Biden as you have, but I don't remember him ever pushing for him. All I think I've seen him say is that he has strengths as a candidate that nobody else has, and that's undeniably true.

>And again, I think joe gets beat up in GE.

If he does, it's because he's said something stupid. If he plays the "let's go back 4 years" role and somehow still survives the primary, then if he was just 20% more careful as a politician I'd say he'd be our best current bet.

I honestly don't know what you think he'd be beaten up for in a general election. There's a minefield of old policy positions and statements that he'll have to deal with, but those are problems for the primary, not the general.

>As for
>>hype, the election will be a referendum on Trump. The hype
>is
>>to beat Trump. Saying the base will be deflated requires a
>>very selective definition of who constitutes the base. As
>far
>>as young people staying home, they came out just fine for
>>Hillary, and that was when most people were unwilling to
>admit
>>that Trump could win.
>>
>
>Hillary also had the hype of making history.
>
>Maybe “beat Trump” will be enough, I just wouldn’t
>want to gamble on it.
>
>To sum up- my fear is that Biden will end up just popular
>enough with Dems to win the nom and lose the GE. Biden
>gives me 16 flashbacks, as I’ve said.

He's certainly the obvious parallel to Clinton. But in my view that's what makes him the STRONGEST GE candidate. You win general elections as a Democrat by looking less progressive than you are.

>Trump is effective when he has a foe, too. In a GE against
>Biden, he can go on the offensive about the Obama admin
>and claim a better economy, etc.

If the economy is still strong, he'll use it against ANY Democrat. The difference with Biden is that he'd at least be able to make the case that the administration that HE was in found ways to break the freefall that Republicans had put us in, and to follow that with seven years of growth that Trump hasn't accelerated in any way. It's a tricky case to make, because it requires some nuanced discussion, but it's a case that any Democrat would need to make. And while someone like Elizabeth Warren would be far more effective at convincing *ME*, I recognize that someone with a ditzy regular-guy persona like Biden could make the case far better for the overwhelming majority of American voters.

Again, we shouldn't be deceived by what WE want. WE are not that important.

>A fresh face so to speak has a better chance of putting Trump
>on the defensive in my opinion.

Only if the fresh face presents a compelling narrative, and I don't think any of them do, at least not so far.