Biden gambles on high-risk primary strategy

[left-of-center2012]

If it seems like the former veep is running for the nomination of a different party than the rest of his rivals, that’s because he is.

From his schedule, his messaging, to policy positions, the former vice president is carving a divergent path through the primaries based on a theory that few of his rivals appear to believe — that the Democratic base isn’t nearly as liberal or youthful as everyone thinks.

“He is keeping his eye on becoming the nominee. And the more important thing, if you do become the nominee, you have to win the Electoral College in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said Jim Mowrer, who ran veterans issues in Iowa for Biden’s 2008 presidential race. “If you’re only speaking to a specific group in the Democratic Party, those things are not going to be appealing to the general electorate.”

“The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the members of the Democratic Party are still basically liberal to moderate Democrats in the traditional sense,” he told reporters in early April. Privately, several Biden advisers acknowledge that their theory of the case is rooted in polling data and voting trends that are in plain sight. They contend that the idea of a hyper-progressive Democratic electorate is advanced inaccurately by a media stuck in a bubble propagated by Twitter, and out of touch with the average rank-and-file Democrat.

Biden’s team points to recent polls, showing that a majority of the Democratic primary electorate identify as moderate or conservative, 56 percent is over 50 and nearly 60 percent are not college educated. And they point to the results of the 2018 midterm elections that they say saw moderate Democrats win their congressional and state primaries.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/joe-biden-democrats-2020-strategy-1358530

[comradebillyboy]

1. High risk strategy? I think not.

If anything, Biden might be playing it too safe.

[qazplm135]

2. high risk?

I'd say it is his only path.

He's not going to out-progressive anyone. To try would be to expose himself as a vast hypocrite.
He's going to have to run as he is, a moderate.
He can and I suspect will tweak it here and there, talking in ways that embrace progressivism in some areas, with a few calculated flips (like Hyde). But ultimately, to have a shot, he has to run in a way that doesn't involve a wholesale manufacturing of who is.

Whether it works or not? Eh, 50/50 probably.

[uawchild]

3. Turning off the progressive wing is actually the biggest risk for Biden

Despite what Biden's campaign is betting on, the Democratic Party has grown more liberal:
As the starting-gun sounds in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, many people believe that the Democratic Party is more liberal than it used to be. And they’re right, at least if you go by how rank-and-file Democrats characterize themselves. But, as we will see, this complicates Democrats’ efforts to take back the White House in 2020.

A bit of history is in order. A quarter of a century ago, when President Bill Clinton was in the White House and governing as a “new” Democrat, the Democratic party was not a liberal party. In fact, back then, 25 percent of Democrats regarded themselves as liberal, 25 percent as conservative, and 48 percent as moderate. In contrast, as of 2018, the party’s liberal cohort had doubled to 51 percent, while the conservative share of the party had been cut in half to just 13 percent, and the moderates had shrunk by one-third, to 34 percent.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/01/11/the-liberal-faction-of-the-democratic-party-is-growing-new-polling-shows/

[left-of-center2012]

4. "the progressive wing is pulsing with energy"

You left this part out:

"They contend that the idea of a hyper-progressive Democratic electorate is advanced inaccurately by a media stuck in a bubble propagated by Twitter, and out of touch with the average rank-and-file Democrat."

[uawchild]

6. "they contend" it's not so liberal, that's what's risky

That contention is the issue isn't it? Biden's campaign is contending that, but is it true?

That's why I edited my post to address that point. Sorry for the inconvenience that you posted a reply in mid-edit. Let's discuss your valid point here.

From the OP: "It’s a high-risk strategy at a time when the progressive wing is pulsing with energy. There is a danger of looking disconnected from the rising Obama coalition, or seeming to adhere to an outdated view of the party."

Yes, your point is well taken, the Biden Campaign CONTENDS that the party isn't as "hyper-lprogressive" as the media portrays". Ignoring the pejorative tag of "hyper-progressive", other sources, like the one from Brookings I just posted, show that it is getting consistently more and more liberal.

Let me post another counter to Biden's contention that shows graphically how more and more liberal the party has become:

"In 2018, for the first time, a majority of Democrats said they considered themselves to be “liberal,” according to Gallup. At 51 percent, the 2018 share is only 1 point greater than the share of Democrats who identified as liberal in 2017, but it’s very different from how Democrats’ political ideologies broke down in the 1990s and early 2000s.

In 1994, during Bill Clinton’s first term, the share of Democrats who identified as liberal and the share who said they were conservative were the same, at 25 percent. Nearly half, or 48 percent, identified as moderate. But around 2000, more Democrats began to identify as liberal and fewer as conservative. Gallup found that from 2002 to 2014, the share of Democrats who said they were liberal grew by roughly 1 percentage point each year. Since 2014, the increase has been about 2 points per year, on average.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-democrats-now-identify-as-liberal/

The risk for Biden is that his contention is wrong, that the party IS more liberal than he thinks and will vote that way in the primaries.

The Blue-Wave in 2018 seemed to show that from where I sat.

Time will tell.

[MineralMan]

5. I don't see it as a high-risk strategy.

It's a strategy that took Obama to the White House, after all.

[uawchild]

7. Time flies by

Ah, the good old days of 2008... lol

Ok, seriously, MM, that was 11 years ago.

Forget for a moment that I think Obama's strategy was more liberal than Biden's is, Hope and Change and all, let's look at what has changed in the party since just 2008.

That chart again from 538:



Time is moving forward, and honestly, might have left Biden's strategy behind.

He might be plateaued out at 35-40% of democrat voters judging by that chart.

The only question in my mind is whether the progressive candidates will divide up their segment of the party with so many candidates allowing Biden to sneak in with a plurality.

If winning with a plurality is Biden's plan, which it seems to be, I think it will lose out by the end of primary season.

Cheers!

[MineralMan]

8. We'll see, won't we?

[uawchild]

9. Time passing

Let me apologize for my snippy tone, I get carried away sometimes.
I needed to go back a post and edit some of that out. My humor come across better in person than it does in text.

And yeah, time will tell.

The thing is I have become increasingly aware of how fast time is moving past me.

Time used to seem limitless. Like when you mentioned 2008, my auto-response is "yeah that's recent" then I realize its 11 years ago.

And getting really morbid, that means, for example, by 2020 that twelve years worth of voters will have died since 2008. That's about a half a generation of people. And it flew by.

12 years worth of older and probably more conservative democrats will have passed away and have been replaced by 12 years worth of younger more progressive people.

This is why I feel Joe Biden is out party's past and not its future.

It's why I wish younger leadership will step up and take us into the 2020 election.

cough

I get so soapy at times... lol

Cheers!