What Could Happen to Hillary Clinton If Joe Biden Enters the Race

[Purveyor]

Despite Hillary Clinton’s strong showing in the first Democratic debate last week, many people are still wondering whether Joe Biden will finally throw his hat into the ring.

Among the open questions is how the vice president’s entry would possibly affect Clinton’s bid for the nomination. So ABC News dove into the details of recent polling to see what people have been saying about the two candidates. Here’s what we found:

They Think Clinton’s a Stronger Leader, for the Most Part

When Clinton goes head to head in the polls with Biden on who’s a stronger leader, she usually comes out on top. This September, though, when Quinnipiac University asked respondents whether each candidate had “strong leadership qualities,” Biden was better off, although only by one point.

Polls from April, May, July and August of this year tell a different story, with Clinton leading. It remains to be seen whether the recent speculation surrounding Biden’s candidacy makes him seem more presidential to voters in the long term, or if this spike is just a fluke.

Biden’s Favorability Numbers Are Higher

Overall, registered voters just like Biden better. In a September Quinnipiac poll, when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of each candidate, only a third of respondents had an unfavorable view of Biden, while half had an unfavorable view of Clinton. Indeed, more people had an unfavorable view of Clinton in September than a favorable one: Her net rating for the category was a negative 14.

more...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/happen-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-enters-race/story?id=34481121

[NCTraveler]

1. While I believe Biden mainly takes away from Clinton in the polls.

The day he jumps in the race it will become about two people. Clinton and Biden. It will give the media the race they want without having to tear Clinton down or Build Sanders up. All news coverage will be about Biden and Clinton. The race will be on and there will no longer be an unchallenged frontrunner as we have had this whole cycle.

[Purveyor]

3. I'm wondering. Has any sitting two-term VP been denied the party nomination for President if they

sought after it?

[NCTraveler]

4. One of the most recent ones. Gore. nt.

[Stallion]

6. ...but he did get Democratic nomination

nm

[NCTraveler]

7. Well, President Gore wasn't very good then. Winning actually means something.

Nixon lost his first Presidential run as well. He was serving VP at the time.

[Purveyor]

9. I meant the nomination for the office not getting elected.

[NCTraveler]

11. And I should have actually read it. You were very clear at second glance. lol Thanks. nt.

[virtualobserver]

27. Gore "lost" the GE 5-4 in the SC while winning the popular vote by 500,000

Jeb stole the election for his brother in Florida on multiple levels.

Gore would have won if not for the total corruption of every area of government that the Republicans controlled.

[HooptieWagon]

29. Gore also could have won,...

...had he carried his home state, regardless of Florida.

[whatchamacallit]

12. The PEOPLE, who care less and less what the media want, will keep Bernie in the mix

whether the establishment like it or not.

[NCTraveler]

13. I don't disagree that people will keep Sanders in the "mix".

Never made an argument they wouldn't. As you say though, "keep him in the mix." That means he is currently in the mix. I can see him continue his current efforts in bringing the primary to the left. Great work he is doing. That aspect really doesn't address my point. It is a complete aside.

[cilla4progress]

30. I think it will make the Dems look like they don't have their act together,

instead of unified as they do at this time.

I think his candidacy is unneeded, redundant, stale and sad.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. His favorables will immediately erode

when people start looking at his record.

The 2005 Bankruptcy "Reform" Act and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill are two reasons I will never vote for him.

If HRC is seen as in Wall Street's back pocket, Biden keeps their hemorrhoids warm.

[Robbins]

5. Don't be so sure

dems don't appear to have any troube with Clinton's wall street ties,her past support for free trade deals,her hawkish foregin
Policy,and her troublesome SS comments.

Reaction to debate shows many dems are fine with all this.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Yes, but

anyone who thinks that the liberal wing will embrace Biden over Bernie is deluding themselves.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Sanders best chance of winning is Biden entering the race.

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

He keeps his supporters intact, while Clinton and Biden split the party. O'Malley disappears.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Good point

I would be curious as to how many people who have expressed a desire for Biden are peeling off from the HRC camp.

[Romulox]

8. Economically, both Biden and Clinton are Center/Right. There is virtually no difference. nt

[Purveyor]

10. Perhaps the best thing to happen would be new light shining on the bankruptcy bill debacle and

walking it back.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. It would be nice if he would publicly repudiate both bills

but kind of late now.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. It'll take l/t five minutes for "plagiarism" to come out of a Hillary supporter's mouth or fingers.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Hell, I could forgive him that

It didn't put anyone in jail or on the street.

[Hepburn]

40. Or vote to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11

[senz]

14. I would vote for Biden over Clinton.

If nefarious rightwingers from either party succeed in destroying the candidacy of the only candidate who actually cares about the American people, I would welcome Joe Biden into the race.

Because I think he has at least some ethics, some humanity.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. He has humanity unless

1) You are poor
2) You are a criminal
3) You are on death row
4) You are a child in trouble with the police
5) You are a woman who wants to control her own body

[CharlotteVale]

18. [phone]

[senz]

19. Not sure ALL of that is true,

but I was writing in the spirit of "lesser of two EVILS."

[Kelvin Mace]

23. No, pretty much true

The two bills he is chiefly responsible for pretty much screwed the poor and middle class, plus made us an incarceration nation. While he claims to support a woman's right to choose he is on record as saying abortion is "always wrong". When hou give cover to the forces of misogyny, you are NOT a friend to wome and their right to control their own bodies.

Lesser of evils? Certainly. Though who is the "lesser" is subject to debate in my opinion.

[senz]

36. I've seen other pro-choice Catholic Democrats "say" that it's wrong.

The way I read it (and I think I'm right) is that these politicians would not force their religious views on others but, to remain in good standing with their church, they will say that they think it's wrong or that they would never have one themselves.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't really care about their private thoughts; I just want to know that they won't try to force those thoughts on others.

Also, and I wish you would pay attention to this:

1) No politician is perfect. None. No one. Not even Bernie, and he's probably the first politician for whom I've felt genuine love.

2) We're never going to get exactly what we want. Never. It doesn't work that way. The best we can do is to pick the one who comes closest to what we want, keeping in mind that if we want our vote to make a difference, we need to back someone who stands a reasonable chance of being elected. I'm giving more money to Bernie than I thought I ever would to any person or organization because I want to support what he's doing.

Okay, that's what I want to say. I hope you understood it.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Oh, I agree, but I make some fine distinctions

in that it is one thing to say "I don't believe in abortion personally, but I will not impose that view on anyone else. " and "Abortion is always wrong, but I will not impose that view on anyone else." The first statement says in essence, "We have a difference of opinion, but yours is as valid as mine." The second says "We have a difference of opinion and you are wrong."

Also, the latter statement provides ammo for the anti-abortion crowd, the former does not.

As to your other points:

1) Absolutely, no candidate is perfect and I will not get everything I want unless I clone myself and get the clone to run for office. I am realistic about that. Bernie's view on drones, guns, and Israel are at odds with my own, but don't cross the line.

2) I don't expect to get exactly what I want. I just have a few very bright lines which I will not cross. Being soft on genocide, war crimes, war mongering, and exploiting the poor and minorities. Also, bare-faced deceit crosses you off my list, no matter how many people want to call it "pragmatism".

Both Biden and HRC have crossed some of those bright lines and there is no way I can vote for them. The "pragmatic" argument about the "lesser of evils" doesn't really cut it with me since I would still be endorsing evil.

That said, I would reconsider if Bernie lost and was offered the VP post. It is not a cert, but I would think about it long and hard.

(I am under no delusion that my vote, or the people who think as I do's vote matter to the pro-HRC/Biden camps.)

[senz]

39. Okay, you seem like a reasonable person.

Many purists aren't.

You would probably agree that everyone has an absolute right to their own opinion, no matter how horrible that opinion may seem to us. I think we can agree that what goes on in a person's mind is theirs and no one else's. Probably the worst, most dystopian scenario is that of mind control (as illustrated in 1984). You seem to be saying that it's okay for candidates to think what they want but not to say what they think. I find that a little dicey but probably too complex to delve into here. Certainly, opinions can indicate character, and in office holders, character matters (which is one reason neither of us considers HRC fit for office, although I've learned more about her character from her behavior than her opinions).

On to the other stuff ...

1) The only way your clone could give you exactly what you want would be if your clone were king or dictator. Otherwise, your clone would be subject to various powers/conditions beyond his/her control. I suspect this is one of the misunderstandings that causes purists to turn so resoundingly against candidates they previously supported.

2) I pretty much agree with what you say here.

But ...

It sounds like you consider your vote a personal "endorsement" of the candidate and therefore a reflection on you and your value as a human being. I don't see it that way. I think in terms of the effect my vote will have on my fellow human beings and the environment. Our votes give or deny candidates the power to effect significant changes in people's lives. If my refusal to vote for candidate A, who is bad, ushers in candidate B, who is horrendous, then my vote will have, in reality, contributed to harming those around me. My self-concept isn't so precious that I'd sacrifice others to it. Here too, things can get dicey; there are times when Hillary's dishonesty and venality make me loath to vote her to any position whatsoever, including that of dog catcher.

As for Bernie as VP -- surely you are aware that the VP has no power whatsoever. Bernie can do more good as a senator than he would as VP.

But most of all, try to remember that none of this is symbolic. All of it is real.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Thanks, I am trying

to be more reasonable in my older age.

(It is also nice to have an informative conversation on the topic )

(BTW, this is, of course, now moot since Biden has declined to run)

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Biden said that abortion was always wrong, and this is factually incorrect from any honest ethical view of the matter. For example, an abortion which removes a damaged fetus unable to survive from the mother before it kills her is NOT wrong. So, we have a person in power, seeking even more power, making an absolute declaration on a public issue that is demonstrably wrong.

Oh, and this is a debate that men really have no right imposing their view upon. Men will NEVER find themselves in the position of being pregnant and having to "experience" childbirth in all of its bloody, and possibly lethal, reality.

Ultimately, the issue of abortion boils down to the question of whether a woman has agency over her body or not. If she does not and the state can force her to bear children, we have gone off an ethical cliff. It is perfectly acceptable for a public official to hold the opinion that abortion should be legal, but they themselves would not have one. But to advocate a view that is empirically false, and claim it is simply a matter of opinion is unacceptable. (and yes, I realize conservatives do it all the time, but we pride ourselves in living in a reality-based community, thus we should hold our leaders to that higher standard.)

As to the rest:

1) I meant the suggestion of cloning myself as a deliberate reductio ad abdsurdum of the premise of a situation where I would find someone I would agree with completely. And then you go and interject the metaphysical issue of a clone not remaining an exact duplicate since from the moment it was created it would be affected by its own unique view of the universe. Well, I guess I would have to run for office myself, then use my clone to take my place in my "previous" life in order to assure perfect agreement (at least by assuring his creation in a voting booth, sixty seconds before the polls close).



2) I view my vote as an assent for a person to act on my behalf on the macro diplomatic/military/social/political scale. If I vote for someone who it is reasonable to foresee will act in manner untenable to my ethical beliefs, then I am ethically culpable for what they do. HRC calls Henry Kissinger a friend and treats him with respect and deference. As Henry Kissinger is an unindicted war criminal, it is reasonable to assume that HRC does not see his past actions as problematic, thus she would have no problem repeating policies with the same outcome, i.e. millions of innocent dead people. Thus, to vote for her, would be to steep my hands in the blood of anyone who dies as a result of her pursuing Kissingerial policies.

Also, the question of voting for one horrid person to avoid the elevation of someone worse is not something that comes down to me (and my vote) personally. In order for something like that to happen, I would have to be an actual power broker, say a member of the Supreme Court, prepared to vote for what I believe is right (my guy winning) at the expense of the actual facts of the case and the actual law. At the very least I would have to be a member of the Electoral College or a member of the House when a contested election is referred to the House for resolution.

As an individual voter, my one vote is pretty meaningless.

Now, a group of like-minded people all voting the same way is a different animal. And politicians (and their supporters) dismiss such people at their peril. But, if we (as U.S. citizens, or members of DU, or Democrats) want a better Republic, then we have to stop accepting and voting for candidates who are the lesser of two evils. The fact that we find ourselves in such a predicament means we have been shirking our civic, moral and ethical obligations to society.

[senz]

43. We seem to work from different premises

and that's fine. Premises, like opinions, belong to the holder.

1) (And this has nothing to do with premises) -- you misunderstood my response to your "clone" statement. I did not take the term literally. What I tried to say is that the president is not a dictator and therefore cannot be held responsible for everything that the government does during his/her term. Our form of government does not give absolute power to the president; he/she cannot do everything we might want him to do -- because other people have a say in it. I hope that makes it more clear.

2) Here's where we disagree so strongly that I don't think we can get much further in this discussion. You see your vote "as an assent for a person to act on my behalf on the macro diplomatic/military/social/political scale." I don't see it that way. I see the candidates as entirely separate from me. I never think of them as acting on my behalf. I have many reasons to dislike Hillary, but I do not see her friendship with Kissinger as an indicator that she would do the kinds of things that Kissinger did. I see her friendship with him more as kissing up to fame and power, not as deep identification. Friendship is not twinship. It is possible to like and even love those with whom we disagree. If the person you voted for does something terrible, it does not make you terrible. You have no control over their mind and behavior. You are not the same person. You thought the candidate was better than his/her competitors, so you chose accordingly. You did not take on his karma nor his conscience; you just chose as wisely as you could, given what was offered.

I don't understand how you square this,

Thus, to vote for her, would be to steep my hands in the blood of anyone who dies as a result of her pursuing Kissingerial policies

with this

"As an individual voter, my one vote is pretty meaningless."

As for voting as a group for the lesser of two evils, the election of 2000 would not have been so close if Nader voters had voted for the left-leaning Gore over rightwinger GWB. And oh the lives that were lost or destroyed because some would not vote for the lesser of two electable evils, thereby handing the election to a much, much greater evil.

[840high]

31. If those were my only two

choices - definitely vote for Joe.

[NCTraveler]

32. I need a decoder ring. Nt

[senz]

37. Am I that opaque? I thought it was pretty clear. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Biden and Clinton split the Right of Center vote because they're both cut from the same cloth and

are the Establishment candidates....they split the 1% vote

Bernie gets everyone else, the 99%.
PROGRESSIVES
Working Class
The Poor
Unions
Millennials
Veterans
Heartland America

[brooklynite]

25. "To DREAM the Impossible Dream....."

Sanders hasn't attracted all those votes since his campaign started in May; in fact his polling for the past month has been flat.

[flamingdem]

21. To me the logic is that it gives Bernie a chance

He'll be the alternative. I don't think he can win the General though so this feels dangerous to me, Biden that is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. She'd come in 3rd. Which seems apt considering her policies.

[vadermike]

28. biden

At this stage IMO i actually think Biden could win the General better than Hillary ..IMO...

[davidpdx]

33. I think Biden getting into the race benefits no one, including Biden

As much as I like and admire Biden, I don't think he should run. I think the longer he puts off making a decision, the more he has to be leaning toward no.

[Fawke Em]

41. Apparently, Hillary and Joe would trade barbs about who was more of a hawk

and who had Obama's ear more often, judging by today's slate of news.

I hope he runs.