Joe Biden In 2020? Probably Not

There's already speculation that former Vice-President Biden might try for a third run at the White House, but it seems unlikely.

Biden Sunglasses

Former Vice-President Joe Biden is reportedly leaving his options open for a third Presidential bid in 2020:

Joe Biden has been saying yes to nearly all the political invitations coming his way, with new ones arriving almost daily. Privately, the former vice president and his staff have started talking about how to begin planning a strategy with a roughly 18-month timeline so that if he decides on another presidential run, he’ll be best positioned to get it off the ground.

Biden will be 77 by the time of the next Iowa caucuses, but Biden 2020 just might happen.

He will be in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Sunday night for a speech at the state Democratic Party dinner. After that, he’ll appear at a fundraiser for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and deliver, by turns, a speech to the Florida Democratic Party, an address to investment leaders’ SALT Conference in Las Vegas in May, and commencement addresses at Harvard University, Colby College and Morgan State University. It’s the kind of schedule that would fit with a candidate in the early stages of a White House run, but adviser say that at this point his activities are guided only by keeping his commitment to staying involved and helping rebuild the Democratic Party.

While former President Barack Obama is holding back to avoid being drawn in directly with his successor, Biden will be stating a case, and making sure people hear him state it. The former vice president, according to people who’ve spoken with him, is eager to be much more political, though not directly anti-Trump.

“He doesn’t sit still well,” said a Biden adviser. “He wants to have a voice. The more stuff he does like this, the more people hear his voice.”

People frequently approach Biden to say they wish he’d have run in 2016, that they think he would have won. Occasionally, he’ll get very critical of Hillary Clinton in private conversations, but to most people he just says, “Thank you.” And for the people who tell him they want to see him run against Trump, Biden keeps going back to the same line: “I’m not planning on it, but I’m not going to tell anyone I’m not doing it.”

Then again, he’s also told some people, “If I’m walking, I’m running.”

Within the world of former Obama aides, the affection for Biden runs deep. The same is true among many Obama donors and Democratic operatives. They differ on whether they want that to lead to a 2020 run, both because they worry about seeing him lose and because they worry about holding back a new generation of party leaders.

“In a lot of ways, Joe Biden is the answer and the antidote to everything that’s Donald Trump. You take a president who has more conflicts of interest than any president in the history of this country and compare him to a public servant who refused to own a share of stock, the contrast couldn’t be more stark,” said Andrew Weinstein, an Obama bundler and former Florida Democratic Party finance chair, who said he hasn’t been contacted, but sees a “compelling case” for a Biden run.

“I have heard nothing, I swear to God I’ve heard nothing,” said one top Obama fundraiser who is close to Biden and would be open to seeing him jump in. “It’s not real until they start calling the major bundlers. Right now, they’re just going around having fun being in demand.”

(…)

People who’ve been in conversation with Biden say he’s been waiting to let loose to push his vision of attention to the middle class — a mission that isn’t, in his mind, in conflict with paying attention to civil rights. In what’s become a new priority for him since the election, he’ll be spending much of his time urging young people disappointed with Trump’s win not to become disaffected and unplug from politics.

“The core commitment from my perspective in building a great country is the opportunity for people to get to the middle class and stay in the middle class,” Biden said Friday, at the inaugural event of the Biden Institute at the University of Delaware. “We have to return to this sense of anything is possible, anything is possible in America. In order to do that, we have to rebuild this consensus that there used to be a basic bargain in America.”

 

(…)n his previous president flirtations and formal runs — 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 and 2016 — Biden has never been known for extensive advance planning, and he continues to tell aides that he’s unlikely to pull the trigger this time, though … maybe.

The brain trust around him remains the same: his sister, Valerie Biden Owens, close aide and friend former Sen. Ted Kaufman, consultant Mike Donilon and former chief of staff Steve Ricchetti. That’s been augmented, as the discussions about his plans continue, with three younger aides working for him at the end of his term who’ve stayed in the orbit even as they’ve taken other jobs: Kate Bedingfield, his former communications director, and top political aides Greg Schultz and Michael Schrum.

At least on the record, Biden says he’s not running, but of course, that’s not uncommon this early even for people who end up running:

Speaking at an annual Democratic Party dinner in New Hampshire on Sunday evening, former Vice President Biden drew a groan from the crowd when he addressed the elephant in the room.

Addressing a crowd in Manchester, Biden told the first-in-the-nation state that though his visit “caused a lot of speculation–guys I’m not running!”

Biden addressed the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club dinner, thanking those gathered for supporting Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and pledging to do whatever he can to help elect more Democrats, calling it “really, really genuinely important.”But, he said, he’s “also committed to do what I can do to help shape the public debate.”

On the surface, a run by Biden in 2020 seems incredibly unlikely. As noted, he’d be 77 years old before the campaign would even get started, and 78 by Inauguration Day in 2021. By the end of a hypothetical first term, Biden would be 82 years old and, while one certainly hopes that the former Senator and Vice-President lives a long and healthy life it’s obvious that at this point he has more days behind him than ahead of him. Whether he wants to spend those days engaged in what could be a rough and tumble campaign just as intense as his previous efforts in 1988 and 2008 against opponents that would no doubt be younger than him. It’s also unclear whether he’d have the energy for such a campaign at that age. As we’ve seen over the years, running for President can be stressful and exhausting even for the youngest candidate. Is Biden up for that? I don’t know, but it certainly would seem to be something that Biden and the people around him would think about before making a decision like this assuming that Biden really is considering a 2020 run and this isn’t all just media speculation.

All of that being said, it isn’t hard to see why attention might be paid to Biden at this early point in a cycle that really hasn’t even started yet. For one thing, since Election Day last year, there have been plenty of pundits and Democratic Party insiders who have speculated that the party’s fortunes might have been very different in 2016 had Biden decided to enter the race and found a way to beat the seemingly unbeatable Hillary Clinton. Given the fact that Clinton lost largely because she failed to connect with white, working-class voters in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin and that this is a constituency that Biden has always fared well with, there may be some merit to this theory, but it’s really just all speculation. As things stood in the reality that existed in 2015 and 2016, it was unlikely that Biden could have won the nomination had he entered the race, although he likely would have been even more competitive than Bernie Sanders was. Additionally, it was obvious from the amount of time that the Vice-President took to decide about his 2016 plans that his heart just wasn’t into the race. It’s unlikely that will really change when 2020 rolls around.

 

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2020, Joe Biden, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Scott says:

    No, no, no. I like Joe Biden but it is time for a new generation. Baby boomers like myself need to move on to a supporting role.

  2. al-Alameda says:

    Democrats are really weak if they have to turn to a 77 year old Joe Biden.

  3. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @al-Alameda:

    You go with what works. Show me a better alternative than Joe and I’ll get on board, but I have to admit that I like the idea of him running. The contrast between him and Mangolini would be stark, put the unbelievable amount of graft this administration is carrying out into specific relief, and help peel some WWC voters away from Trump.

    Even if he didn’t win the primaries, his time at the pulpit would be devastating for Trump & Co.

  4. Davebo says:

    @al-Alameda:

    Democrats are really weak if they have to turn to a 77 year old Joe Biden.

    While this is slightly more credible than the speculation that Chelsea Clinton is considering a run it’s not much more credible.

    The guy is a major figure head in the Democratic Party so yeah, he attends dinners and makes speeches.

    He says he’s not running, just as he did in the past and well.. he didn’t run. I’d take his word for it.

  5. CSK says:
  6. Gustopher says:

    It’s a hobby for him — it’s what keeps him young, and good for him. I love Joe Biden.

    I don’t think he will be the nominee. I don’t even think he will seriously run. But, it seems like a perfectly rational response to the Trump presidency. It’s either that, or vomiting on the White House lawn, and this is a lot more positive.

    And, if he is the nominee in the end — Ok, then he was the best of the bunch that ran.

  7. grumpy realist says:

    Nope, Not Running.

    Totally OT, but if you want to take a look at something that will have you howl with laughter, look at the aftereffects of the Fyre Festival.

    Problem with ripping off rich hipsters and trust fund brats (as opposed to poor people) is that Daddy always knows a lawyer to call….

  8. slimslowslider says:

    @grumpy realist:

    If I am not mistaken, our own Guarneri was in the Bahamas last week…

  9. teve tory says:

    Kirsten Gillibrand 2020! Maybe Kamala Harris as veep.

  10. HarvardLaw92 says:
  11. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    It’s perfect. Is it yours?

  12. michael reynolds says:

    What we need in 2020 is someone who essentially counter-programs Trump. We’ll want some experience, integrity, honesty and authenticity. A governor would be best. Let’s see how Roy Cooper does in North Carolina. His latest polling is reasonably strong, he’s in the black on approval by 20%. I know very little about the guy, but if you wanted a frame for a successful candidate, governor of North Carolina isn’t a bad place to start.

  13. CSK says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Yes. “Mangolini” just popped into my head yesterday, I think on the Nerd Prom thread.

    Glad you liked it.

  14. john430 says:

    Inside a liberal there’s always a totalitarian screaming to be let loose.

  15. al-Alameda says:

    @john430:

    Inside a liberal there’s always a totalitarian screaming to be let loose.

    Hitler and Mussolini thought so too, it’s all in ‘Mein Trumpf’.
    #Fun_Game

  16. teve tory says:

    @john430: I know, like this weekend when Obama said he was looking into changing the first amendment so he could punish journalists who criticized him.

    Wait, that wasn’t Obama….who was that….

    You trumpers are just dumb.

  17. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @john430:
    Is it possible that you are actually that stupid?
    Oh wait…you voted for Trump…asked and answered.

  18. al-Alameda says:

    @Davebo:

    While this is slightly more credible than the speculation that Chelsea Clinton is considering a run it’s not much more credible.

    As much as conservatives desperately want Democrats to run Chelsea, that’s not going to happen.

  19. michael reynolds says:

    @john430:
    Inside every person is a totalitarian screaming to be let loose. That’s why we have the Constitution and freedom of speech and the press – all attacked by Trump. It’s why we have labor unions – attacked by the GOP.

  20. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    There is a huge void in the Democratic Party waiting for a leader to fill it.
    Where is the voice consistently criticizing Dumb Don?
    Where is the person calling BS on this fake-tan buffoon?
    Where is the person stepping up for the millions who are about to lose their insurance, and the people with pre-existing conditions who are about to get fvcked?
    Who is going to rally the troops for the mid-terms?
    We are waiting….

  21. teve tory says:

    you should google “Liz Warren”.

  22. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @teve tory:
    Yeah…huge fan…but I don’t think that’s going to happen.
    I’d be happier with her in the Senate anyway.
    I would also love it if she came out with a DNA test that shows she is indeed part native American.
    That would be fun to put in the Comb-overs face.

  23. teve tory says:

    I prefer her in the senate too, i just meant she’s consistently anti-trump, publicly and loudly.

    Deval Patrick, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris…the dems have some good talent, we just haven’t heard much about it yet.

  24. Ben Wolf says:

    Doug Mataconis,

    You also thought Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in, Trump couldn’t be the nominee and Sanders wouldn’t win a primary outside Vermont. What has changed that you consider your opinion to be better on who is and is not a good candidate?

  25. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:
  26. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @CSK:

    It’s genius. I’ll give appropriate credit in the future 🙂

  27. Kylopod says:

    A walk down memory lane…

    “Obama says he is ‘absolutely positive’ he will not run for president in 2008.” — USA Today, 7/24/2005

  28. Tyrell says:

    This is the perfect time for a third party to crank it up and get moving. Most people are dissatisfied with both parties. There are plenty of qualified people who would be interested in a third party – a clean start away from the political quagmires, scandal ridden, influence connected, and self centered partison organizations the two parties have become. It would be a fresh, clean start that so many are looking for.

  29. Kylopod says:

    @Tyrell:

    Most people are dissatisfied with both parties.

    Yup. That explains why 94% of voters supported one of the two major-party candidates in the last election, despite there being not one, not two, but three prominent third-party options available.

    I love the way you repeat this mantra as if it’s a profound bit of wisdom rather than one of the most tired, naive cliches in politics that people have been saying pretty much forever. People are always saying they’re dissatisfied with the two parties, but time and again, most end up voting for them anyway. If anything, 2016 was a massive testament to the power of partisanship: the two most unpopular candidates in history, and most voters backed them anyway.

    All that said, I am not especially a fan of America’s rigid two-party system. Many countries do fine with three, four, or more competitive parties. But it’s not something that’s just going to go away with vague, sentimental platitudes. It’s built into our entire political culture and reinforced heavily by the winner-take-all format of most elections, and as much as I would like it to, that isn’t about to disappear anytime soon.

  30. teve tory says:

    This is the perfect time for a third party to crank it up and get moving.

    There are already numerous third parties. They never get anywhere.

  31. teve tory says:

    Americans don’t want a third party with an unspecified platform. Americans want democrats. The GOP has won the popular vote for prez one time in 28 years. Get rid of gerrymandering–and SCOTUS has already blocked it 3 ways so far this year–and wait for a few more FoxNews Geezers* to keel over, and problem solved.

    (*little known fact==the average age of a Fox News viewer is “Is there some family we can contact who can get here soon?”)

  32. Dividist says:

    As a Boomer, I would be prefer our generational presidential legacy not finish with the embarrassment holding office now. Riding into the sunset with good ol’ Joe would be preferable.

    OTOH, perhaps beginning with Clinton blow jobs and ending with Trump pussy grabs are appropriate bookends to our Oval Office contribution.

  33. Dividist says:

    @Kylopod:

    “People are always saying they’re dissatisfied with the two parties, but time and again, most end up voting for them anyway.”

    Exactly. The often cited “40% Independent” vote has been repeatedly debunked by political science scholarship over the decades. A large percent of the Indies are “leaners” that vote at the federal level identically and consistently the same as self-identified partisans. At most 20% of the electorate (Perot high-water mark) are constitutionally capable of switching their partisan leanings or voting 3rd party. These days, it’s probably less.

    If Teddy Roosevelt – a wildly popular ex-President who also served as Vice-President, Governor of New York, Secretary of the Navy, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, war hero, and Congressional Medal of Honor winner – could not win on a 3rd Party Ticket – it just cannot be done in our political system.

  34. JohnMcC says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl: I just saw Rep Tom Cole (R-OK) on ‘Morning Joe’ state “as a proud Chickasaw” he had issues with Pres Andrew Jackson. He went on to say that his great grandfather had been part of the ‘Trail of Tears’.

    Sen Warren of course is native to Oklahoma and was repeating a long-held family story about her heritage when she checked that box ‘native american’. Probably a pretty common family story in OK.

  35. Pch101 says:

    “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out” is on the masthead of FrontPageMag, David Horowitz’s freakshow waste of server space.

    As if you needed any more evidence that John8675309 is just a second-rate joke.

  36. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    The POTUS just called for a Government shutdown.

  37. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:
    Why did the Orange Blob do that, you might ask?
    Because the world’s greatest negotiator got his arse handed to him in the spending bill negotiations.
    The man is an incompetent.
    And anyone who voted for him is a fool.

  38. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:
    Dumb Don has both Houses of Congress on his side and yet he has still accomplish anything.
    This is the guy that was supposed to show us all how easy solving our problems can be…if only we got rid of the dumb politicians.
    Unfortunately, by a fluke, we ended up with a dumb businessman who has failed at a vast myriad of ventures before.

  39. john430 says:

    @Pch101: Well, I could have signed your name to it and then it would have been a dirty joke.

  40. john430 says:

    @michael reynolds: As far as freedom of speech goes, remind left-wing college thugs of that will you? You’re close to Berkeley. Go protest their violations of First Amendment rights and then…run for it. You are a phony hypocrite mouthing platitudes while actively working to suppress differing opinions.

  41. john430 says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl: Yup, I voted for Trump, albeit reluctantly. I just couldn’t see myself voting for the vacuous, enabling wife of a sexual predator.

  42. al-Alameda says:

    @john430:

    Yup, I voted for Trump, albeit reluctantly. I just couldn’t see myself voting for the vacuous, enabling wife of a sexual predator.

    Exactly, so why not vote for the sexual predator.

  43. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @john430:

    I just couldn’t see myself voting for the vacuous, enabling wife of a sexual predator.

    With every comment that you copy and paste from extremist right-wing websites you prove to us how dumb you really are.

  44. john430 says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl: Reading over your comments and those of other so-called “liberals” I know who the real fascists are. Look in the mirror, fool.

  45. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @john430:

    I know who the real fascists are.

    Apparently you don’t even know what the word means, because if anyone is a fascist in today’s body politic it is Comb-over Donnie and his cult of followers, like you.

  46. grumpy realist says:

    @john430: Yes, voting for the sexual predator himself is SUCH a more moral position….

    Thus showing exactly how much your so-called “morality” is worth.

  47. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @grumpy realist:

    He belongs to a church that sheltered & protected child molesters for decades. What else can you expect from him?

  48. john430 says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl: Oh sure! You left-wing retards ignore Clinton’s freewheeling predations and slam Trump who probably just talks the talk,,,

    @HarvardLaw92: So—failing any legitimate argument, you attack another persons faith. Typical Nazi fascism. The 1940s are calling. The German SS want you back.

    Harvard Law, my ass. EZLAW Night School in Dumb Hollow, Ky. is more like it.

  49. Pch101 says:

    When I pointed out that John was a second-rate joke, I was being generous.

  50. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @john430:

    So—failing any legitimate argument, you attack another persons faith.

    No, I attacked your church’s conduct. Lame attempt at deflection …

    Are you actually trying to defend the manner in which your church protected and coddled pedophiles?

    Harvard Law, my ass. EZLAW Night School in Dumb Hollow, Ky. is more like it.

    So, right after attempting to invent an ad hominem, you actually come out with an ad hominem of your own? 🙄

  51. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @john430:

    You left-wing retards ignore Clinton’s freewheeling predations

    Show me where?
    The discussion was about Mrs. Clinton and the extremist right- wing talking point that she somehow enabled him…which you copy and paste without stopping to consider how stupid it makes you sound.
    Why not go back to where you came from and listen to them tell you what to think some more???

  52. gVOR08 says:

    There are a few people on, for instance, this list I wouldn’t be enthusiastic about, but any of them, even Cuomo, are infinitely to be preferred to a second Trump term, or anyone else in evidence on the R side.

    Too bad the Constitution doesn’t allow prez and veep from the same state. I could really get behind Klobuchar/Franken. Of course that sort of thing didn’t stop Bush/Cheney.

  53. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @john430:

    Typical Nazi fascism. The 1940s are calling. The German SS want you back.

    Oh, and while we’re on the subject, the Nazis eradicated my entire extended family save my grandparents. The rest of them – all of them – went up chimneys at delightful places called Dachau, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka. So your little tantrum was in exceptionally poor taste.

    Especially considering the manner in which your church helped so many of those Nazis who murdered them escape justice. Do you even bother trying to think before you open your mouth, because it certainly doesn’t look like you do. Do yourself a favor – quit defending that church of lies while you still have a soul left to save. If you propose to pray for anything, you might start praying for that.

  54. Dividist says:

    @Daryl’s other brother Darryl:

    “There is a huge void in the Democratic Party waiting for a leader to fill it.”

    I’ll just put this out here as a reference to link around 2019 or so…

    Michael Moore called the election and he is on the right track for 2020 :

    “Why don’t the Democrats run somebody that people love?”


    I think it is worth noting that political strategists don’t have a lot of imagination. Whatever worked last time is what they probably want to do next time – only bigger and better. What worked last time is that a entertaining, blustering, successful rich fuck with absolutely no government experience won the Presidency of the United States. So the thing to look for in 2020 look is a progressive clone on the Democratic side. Look for ambitious billionaire entertainers. Two possibilities –

    Mark Cuban – who appears to be already running – or – my favorite dark horse – Marc Benioff a San Francisco favorite son and as close as you can get to a corporate progressive hero.

    Maybe Moore is right about Oprah or The Rock, but I’m sure that there are billionaires all over the country who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say – “If that idiot could be president, I could be president.”

  55. Pch101 says:

    @Dividist:

    What worked last time is that a entertaining, blustering, successful rich fuck with absolutely no government experience won the Presidency of the United States…

    ..who came in second place.

    Any analysis that claims that Trump became president because he was popular was bad analysis.

    He wasn’t popular. He came in second. He had low approval ratings going into the election. He won fewer votes than did Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

    Furthermore, Trump proved to be the best thing that the Libertarian party, which won a record number of voters in response to Trump’s candidacy.

    The Democrats do need to have charismatic leaders, but Trump is not an example of one and he is not in the White House because of his ability to win over the masses — he came in second. Nobody really predicted that the candidate who came in second would win the presidency and that the whole thing would come down to a historic fluke that amounted to less than 100,000 votes..

  56. john430 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: So you demonize a worldwide faith because of a few bad apples? Mind if I do likewise and remind you of the Jews who aided, and fought FOR Hitler? Airing filth sometimes blows back on you.

    I met Jews like you in California…self-loathing Jews who hated Jewry, hated Israel and sided with Palestinian thugs who like killing Jewish children. Such people disgust me.

    MY grandfather was a G.I who was among those who liberated a concentration camp. A name and place he would not talk about.

  57. al-Ameda says:

    @john430:

    So you demonize a worldwide faith because of a few bad apples? Mind if I do likewise and remind you of the Jews who aided, and fought FOR Hitler? Airing filth sometimes blows back on you.

    “A few bad apples” ?
    Those many many ‘few’, and with the tacit support of Church hierarchy and leadership were the cause of a child molestation scandal that happened over the course of at least three decades and continues to cause many to question the moral authority of the Church. This was a scandal of biblical proportion.

    (Full Disclosure: I am a Catholic, albeit a lapsed Catholic).

  58. Pch101 says:

    @john430:

    Are you just naturally dumb, or did you also receive advanced training?

  59. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    When they are already in a hole, I’ve found that handing them a shovel works every time.

  60. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @john430:

    So you demonize a worldwide faith because of a few bad apples?

    A few bad apples? USCCB’s own numbers put the magnitude of this scandal at some 4,392 child abusing priests with some 10,667 separate victims.

    note: those figures do not include the allegations which were withdrawn by victims too tired, too scared or otherwise too reluctant to press their claims, and they represent only the victims who were willing to come forward at all. You can bet that there are orders of magnitude more who are/were either too afraid, too shamed or too dead to reveal their own victimization at all.

    We won’t even get into how senior leadership, apparently including one of your own popes, did everything in their power to keep it all quiet, shame victims and protect assets instead of people. Hell, they facilitated the abuse for decades …

    That isn’t a few bad apples. It’s a corrupt, diseased organization which is rotten from top to bottom. It’s racketeering. I used to be a federal prosecutor and, frankly, it’s the most vivid example of a RICO violation that I’ve ever seen in the course of my career. If there was justice in the world, we’d be seizing assets, conducting auctions and trying to make victims whole again.

    You don’t have a few bad apples. You have a corrupt organization which can’t be redeemed.

    I met Jews like you in California…self-loathing Jews who hated Jewry, hated Israel and sided with Palestinian thugs who like killing Jewish children.

    I’m not going to dignify that with a response, other than to say “keep digging”.

  61. Dividist says:

    @Pch101:

    “Any analysis that claims that Trump became president because he was popular was bad analysis.”

    Okay. But I did not say he was popular and did not use the word “popular” anywhere in my comment. So I guess you are fine with my analysis. Thanks.

  62. Pch101 says:

    @Dividist:

    You claimed that “What worked last time is that a entertaining, blustering, successful rich f**k with absolutely no government experience won the Presidency of the United States.”

    You then went on to say that “Look for ambitious billionaire entertainers.” So you obviously think that this was a sound approach.

    But you confuse correlation with causation.

    Just because that’s what occurred does not mean that it “worked.”

    A lot of this election outcome was a fluke. One would not deliberately create a campaign with the goal of losing the popular vote by a substantial margin. Trying to replicate 2016 in 2020 would be a very bad idea, as a lot of it came down to a bizarre result that hinged on a small group of voters.

  63. john430 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I’ll keep digging under the rock that you crawled out from. A “few bad apples” in an estimated 414,313 Catholic priests worldwide, ministering to an estimated 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide is just that . A “few”.

    With religious bigotry such as yours, I just may be inclined to feel less outraged next time I read of a Jewish cemetery being desecrated.

    Don’t beclown yourself by responding. You couldn’t dignify anything by your presence. Enjoy your disbarment.

  64. john430 says:

    @Pch101: For one who couldn’t even qualify for the Special Ed classes, you sure are opinionated. Likely it’s your ass talking because your mouth knows better.

  65. Kylopod says:

    @john430:

    So you demonize a worldwide faith because of a few bad apples? Mind if I do likewise and remind you of the Jews who aided, and fought FOR Hitler?

    I have avoided this discussion so far, but since you continue to insist on “digging,” I no longer can help myself. Like HL92 here, I have family that perished in the Holocaust. (My grandmother, who just passed away last month, was a survivor of the camps.) First of all, the Holocaust was not an attack on the Jewish religion; it was an attack on the entire Jewish people. Jewish atheists and Jews who had converted to Christianity were sent to the gas chambers alongside their Hasidic brethren. The Nazis literally didn’t care; they wanted to eradicate the entire Jewish gene pool.

    So your attempt to bring up kapos (Jewish prisoners who collaborated with the Nazis) as an analogue to Catholic priests who molest children is absurd. The kapo phenomenon had nothing to do with Judaism as an institution. They weren’t clergymen, and they certainly weren’t being aided by Jewish religious institutions.

    If a bunch of people who happened to be nominally Catholic had been caught abusing children, no one would have linked it to the Church. The issue is that the Church protected these abusers and allowed their abuse to continue even when they knew what was going on.

    About a decade ago, it came out that a principal of one of the Jewish day schools I attended as a kid had sexually molested numerous students. He had left the school about two years before I enrolled, but my brother was there for a year of his reign, and at least one of the victims I know is the same age as my brother. There is also a bar mitzvah teacher in my home community who was apparently an abuser. When I found all this out an adult, it gave me a weird feeling: I had known about pedophiles for a long time, but I had never realized how widespread it was or how close I may have come to being a victim. It was like discovering I’d been in a lion’s den all those years without realizing it and just happened never to be mauled.

    The abuse problem in the Jewish community is nowhere near as pervasive or widespread as it is in the Catholic Church. But it does exist, and it isn’t just “a few bad apples,” but reflects some real negative trends in certain segments of the religious community, particularly the Haredi or ultra-Orthodox world, where there’s often outright hostility toward non-Jewish authorities, a factor that has contributed to the cover-up in many of these cases.

    Lest you dismiss me as a “self-hating Jew,” I should point out that to this day I am a practicing Orthodox Jew who keeps kosher and observes the Shabbat. This should come as no surprise. Likewise, there are many devout, practicing Catholics who are absolutely disgusted by the revelations about the Church. If you’ve never encountered them, you really need to get out more. Describing the problem as merely a “few bad apples” isn’t protesting religious bigotry, it is attempting to minimize and ignore a campaign of torture against human beings.

  66. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Kylopod:

    Didn’t take much effort to strip his particular mask away, no?