There are several examples of people becoming vice-president after running lackluster bids for the presidency. I’m thinking of people like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, and Al Gore. All four of those men went on two win their party’s nomination for president after having served in the second-in-command role. Of course, only one of those politicians went on to win the presidency, although Gore at least deserves an asterisk. Still, if the question is whether or not Joe Biden has a good chance of winning the nomination, these historical examples suggest that he should be optimistic. As for whether history suggests he has a good chance to win the presidency, that’s less clear.
Either way, it’s really not good analysis to suggest that Biden would make a bad contender just because he failed to win the Democratic nomination in either 1988 or 2008. People view him now through the lens of his role as Barack Obama’s affable sidekick, which is also why blemishes in his Senate record are probably overblown as obstacles in his path.
The fact that he ran for president 31 years ago shows his age, and age may be the biggest mark against him. Polls consistently show that the American public is skeptical about electing people who are already in their seventies. Of course, that same concern would apply equally to Bernie Sanders, as well as Donald Trump.
Biden has a little more room to maneuver now that Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio has announced that he will not run for the presidency. Both Brown and Biden are almost ideal general election candidates against Trump in my home state of Pennsylvania, and Biden has a clearer path now to picking up white progressive/labor votes, especially in the western part of the state. Biden also had the advantage of being from Scranton and almost an honorary senator in the Philly suburbs that border Delaware. He would be extremely formidable in Pennsylvania in a matchup against Trump.
It’s likely that some of these strengths would transfer to other key states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but not with the same force.
Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that Sherrod Brown dropped out of the race because he was occupying a unique lane. Despite many similarities with Biden, Sen. Brown is more instinctively progressive and a better hybrid candidate with appeal to the white labor/intelligentsia split in the party. The challenge for Brown was going to be avoiding being typecast as the candidate for Rust Belt Obama/Trump voters. Biden actually has a much more natural appeal to black voters, many of whom see him as the best approximation of a third term for Barack Obama. Where he’ll struggle is with the white academic/socialist left. He’ll get hammered for anachronisms and heresies in his Senate record, ranging from his tough-on-crime record to his treatment of Anita Hill to his Delaware-centric approach to bankruptcy law. He’s not going to be the preferred candidate of the progressive Netroots or the second choice of too many Bernie voters. He will also probably struggle with the youth vote, partly because the youth vote is more socialist and more idealistic, but also because they’ll be more attracted to an obvious “change” candidate.
Biden is starting in a strong position. He leads in all the polls and has enviable personal popularity numbers. He won’t need to win everywhere either. He can pile up delegates with second place and even in some cases third place finishes, and simply outlast most of the other candidates. The odds of a brokered convention are higher than normal for several reasons. It’s easier than ever to raise small donations or fund of Super PACs, so people don’t drop out for financial reasons the way they used to. With so many candidates running, it will be hard for anyone to get more than half the delegates. This is partly because a lot of candidates may be winning delegates, but also because of the proportional way that the Democratic Party doles them out. To win a majority, a candidate will probably have to win a lot of states outright, and if no one emerges to dominate the field, we could easily see the conventioneers as the deciders. That scenario would also favor Biden as someone basically acceptable to all factions.
I could just as easily write a piece about all the reasons that Biden will fail to secure the nomination, but I think he’s being severely underestimated. I also think Sanders is being underestimated, but mainly because he’s being given almost no chance at all. He, too, could benefit from a splintered field, good name recognition, and the proportionate awarding of delegates. It’s hard to see how he could fail to top the minimal threshold for winning delegates in too many states. He’ll also benefit from the reduced role of superdelegates this time around.
Both Biden and Sanders have some advantages at the start, but it could all prove ephemeral if someone new catches the imagination of the people. There are candidates like Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris who each have their own kind of powerful charisma. There are outsiders like governors Jay Inslee and John Hickenlooper who can try to take advantage of their executive experience and distance from Washington DC. There are another twenty or so people thinking about running. Maybe one of them will rise suddenly to the top.
I still think Biden should be considered the front-runner. But first he has to actually declare his candidacy.
Two points –
First, one very good reason Sherrod Brown should not have run for president is that the GOP governor of Ohio would appoint his replacement in the Senate should he win. While I like Brown as an individual, the Senate already tilts to Republicans and giving up that seat would be damaging to progressive legislative prospects even if Brown won. And while I might prefer Brown to several other declared candidates, those differences are less important to me than giving up an Ohio senate seat.
Second, while it seems counter-intuitive based on ideology, Biden was the most common second choice of Sanders voters polled by Morning Consult last month, and Sanders was the second choice of Biden voters:
https:/fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-there-really-lanes-in-the-2020-democratic-primary
Maybe this is mostly an effect of name recognition and Democratic primary voters putting more emphasis on winning, period, than ideological purity. Still, it suggests that lanes may not be so important for the 2020 Democratic nomination.
I do agree Biden has particular strengths as a prospective candidate, and especially that his support base is less likely to be vocal/active online, which may skew the perspective of progressive activists who discount his chances.
You’re right that the odds of a brokered convention are higher than normal, due to the proportionality rules Democrats have, but as I understand it, you need to get 15% to qualify, which is quite a high bar when there are 10+ candidates. That gives candidates with the name recognition of Biden and Sanders a likely floor: they’re still going to get some delegates from, say, CA, while most of Booker, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren, Inslee, et al. may struggle to get to 15%. Harris is helped in CA by being from there (as O’Rourke would be helped in TX should he run).
Biden could well emerge from a brokered convention, and he’s still a decent bet to win without one. Sanders is more likely going to need to win outright before the convention, or at least have a big lead with divided competition.
That’s all well and good until people have to suffer through one of his rambling speeches. There’s a reason he’s done so poorly each time he runs. He’s boring as all get out. And sorry, love the guy, but he’s TOO OLD.
No. Read the Harpers article about him.
If he runs, Biden will just embarrass himself as he did when he ran for President before. He is not a great campaigner and he doesn’t hold up well under the scrutiny candidates (Trump excepted) usually get. He can’t convincingly sell or represent change. He does represent the desire for a return to the partly mythical days when Republicans and Democrats could work out compromises in the cloakroom, or over drinks. Those days aren’t coming back for decades, because now there aren’t many party officials or office holders who really want them back. Democrats can and should do better than Joe. May he enjoy a well deserved retirement.
My reason for being skeptical about Biden isn’t that he failed to win the nomination either of the two times he ran, it’s that he failed to win Jack or Shit either time he ran. He’s won the same number of delegates as me. Zero.
All the other cats you mentioned at least had a lil primary success.
Andrew Cuomo won his primary by a wide margin and that was NY. I suspect, to my dismay, that we’re not done with the era of Unthreatening Centrist White Guys.
So … go Biden! I guess.
Biden is the front runner but it’s too far out to know what will happen until we start seeing some debates and expanding name rec of the unknowns.
However, I think Booman is correct on both Sanders and Biden. If nothing changes, Biden will sweep to the nomination. But I don’t think nothing will change.
I like Kamala Harris, but I don’t think we have a media space that can automatically combat the constant misogyny that she will face. Before Obama, we had at least 20 years in the media where at least overt racism was B-A-D. Not so much with overt misogyny. The MeToo movement has only scratched an itch. That said, I think she is the least likely to get Hillary-ied.
As much as I want a woman President, I would totally settle for a Biden-Harris ticket.
Personally, I’ll be surprised if Biden finishes in the top three.
I honestly have a hard time even answering the question, “Why Biden?”. Outside of the beltway punditry, who is his constituency? What is his core issue?
In an election likely to center on issues of civil liberties, anti-corruption, economic inequality, health care and the environment, he isn’t the obvious leader on any of them. Booker, Harris, and Warren each cover several bases. Sanders has passion on labor issues, Gillibrand on women’s rights, Castro would be the first Latino. If you want a centrist who won’t rock the boat too much, you have your pick of Kloubochar or Hickenlooper. In a field with currently 16 other candidates, he isn’t even the obvious choice for those who simply want to defeat Trump.
In such a diverse field of candidates, Biden would represent a return to the philosophy of the Third Way Democrats from the 80s and 90s. I don’t think that’s remotely where this country is headed.
Two words: Oppo research. If his thoughts have evolved over the last few decades, he’ll have to explain what that thought process was like. His contribution to the prison-industrial complex is duly noted. His rather laissez faire approach to school integration from the early days in his career is going to haunt him. As I said, he’s got some explaining to do, and given his somewhat flat-footed style as a speaker, I doubt he’s up to the task. Biden may be an early front-runner by way of name-recognition, but I hope to whatever deity one might hope to that we can do better once all is said and done.
Turnout is key. Biden cannot get a good enough turnout to win, even against Trump.