Think Biden might have won?

[supermike80 1,803]

Obviously hindsight is 20/20.   Kamala was probably the worst nominee for the President we have seen in modern times.  So bad she got trounced in the general election.   Which has me wondering if Biden had stayed in, could he, would he have possibly won?

I think it's possible.  I definitely think he would have received more votes than Kamala.

[Fnord 2,051]

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Obviously hindsight is 20/20.   Kamala was probably the worst nominee for the President we have seen in modern times.  So bad she got trounced in the general election.   Which has me wondering if Biden had stayed in, could he, would he have possibly won?

I think it's possible.  I definitely think he would have received more votes than Kamala.

Nope. I voted for Kamala against Trump. I would not have voted for Biden. He was obviously not all there. Mind you I despised Kamala and would never have voted for her in the bygone pre-Trump era when I had the luxury of only voting for people I actually supported. Now it feels like I vote a lot more against candidates than for them.

[jbycho 590]

6 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Nope. I voted for Kamala against Trump. I would not have voted for Biden. He was obviously not all there. Mind you I despised Kamala and would never have voted for her in the bygone pre-Trump era when I had the luxury of only voting for people I actually supported. Now it feels like I vote a lot more against candidates than for them.

Thank goodness you lost. 

More proof the liberals are a cancer on this country. 

[supermike80 1,803]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Nope. I voted for Kamala against Trump. I would not have voted for Biden. He was obviously not all there. Mind you I despised Kamala and would never have voted for her in the bygone pre-Trump era when I had the luxury of only voting for people I actually supported. Now it feels like I vote a lot more against candidates than for them.

That's kinda where I am going.  I feel, and this is just my opinion, that many people decided to not vote, or even voted for Trump over Kamala, because of how bad she was.  I wonder if those who truly despised Kamala would have at least voted for Biden in the hope Trump wouldn't win.   Kamala was scary bad and I think a lot of people saw it and just couldn't cast a vote for her.   But I'm not sure.  I'm just posturing here.

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

Just now, supermike80 said:

That's kinda where I am going.  I feel, and this is just my opinion, that many people decided to not vote, or even voted for Trump over Kamala, because of how bad she was.  I wonder if those who truly despised Kamala would have at least voted for Biden in the hope Trump wouldn't win.   Kamala was scary bad and I think a lot of people saw it and just couldn't cast a vote for her.   But I'm not sure.  I'm just posturing here.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people actually running the Democrat party were perfectly fine with losing this past election.  They know they focked up and didn't know how to get it back under control.  So, their plan was to just let crap happen.  If Harris won, they keep going while continually lying to the public that the problems of the country were set in place by Trump and useful idiots like some on this board, will go along with it.  If Trump won, they wait until 2028 and blame Trump for everything that went wrong.

The Democrats were going to either lose in 2024 or 2028.  They knew this.  They probably felt that it was better to lose in 2024 and hope that Trump fixes most of their fockups (yet still blame him for all kinds of crap),  and take a shot at 8 straight years... 2028-2034, than it would be if they won in 2024 but lose from 2028-2034.

To me, this is why Trump and Musk are more reliable than either of the two parties.  With Trump and Musk, I know who's in charge.  If Harris won, we know she wasn't in charge and have no idea who was, just like we have no idea who was calling the shots under Biden.  Had someone other than Trump won the primary in 2015, Republican's would be in the same boat.

[supermike80 1,803]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the people actually running the Democrat party were perfectly fine with losing this past election.  They know they focked up and didn't know how to get it back under control.  So, their plan was to just let crap happen.  If Harris won, they keep going while continually lying to the public that the problems of the country were set in place by Trump and useful idiots like some on this board, will go along with it.  If Trump won, they wait until 2028 and blame Trump for everything that went wrong.

The Democrats were going to either lose in 2024 or 2028.  They knew this.  They probably felt that it was better to lose in 2024 and hope that Trump fixes most of their fockups (yet still blame him for all kinds of crap),  and take a shot at 8 straight years... 2028-2034, than it would be if they won in 2024 but lose from 2028-2034.

To me, this is why Trump and Musk are more reliable than either of the two parties.  With Trump and Musk, I know who's in charge.  If Harris won, we know she wasn't in charge and have no idea who was, just like we have no idea who was calling the shots under Biden.  Had someone other than Trump won the primary in 2015, Republican's would be in the same boat.

Sorry but there is literally no way I can support that the dems wanted to lose.   Not in a million years.

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Sorry but there is literally no way I can support that the dems wanted to lose.   Not in a million years.

I didn't say they wanted to lose, I said they knew they were going to lose and were willing to accept it.  Harris was the only candidate they could get to take job.  No real candidate, like Shapiro in PA, wanted any part of this campaign.  THAT's why he wasn't the VP choice.  He and the party knew this was a losing ticket.  It's why they chose Walz, who was just as unlikeable as Harris.  They didn't care about him, he can go back to Minnesota and run for something there.

Also, I noted that it was the people actually running the party.  The true shot callers... not the rank and file morons like AOC and the like.

[The Real timschochet 6,416]

Who knows? But I would say that Kamala had the better shot. I thought she would win. 

[supermike80 1,803]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I didn't say they wanted to lose, I said they knew they were going to lose and were willing to accept it.  Harris was the only candidate they could get to take job.  No real candidate, like Shapiro in PA, wanted any part of this campaign.  THAT's why he wasn't the VP choice.  He and the party knew this was a losing ticket.  It's why they chose Walz, who was just as unlikeable as Harris.  They didn't care about him, he can go back to Minnesota and run for something there.

Also, I noted that it was the people actually running the party.  The true shot callers... not the rank and file morons like AOC and the like.

I still can't get behind the party being OK with losing.  I just can't.   Just not in the nature of political parties.   I don't disagree with you about Shapiro....That could very well be true.

[Cdub100 3,837]

49 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Obviously hindsight is 20/20.   Kamala was probably the worst nominee for the President we have seen in modern times.  So bad she got trounced in the general election.   Which has me wondering if Biden had stayed in, could he, would he have possibly won?

I think it's possible.  I definitely think he would have received more votes than Kamala.

Yes he would have won easily.

I just wish the choice wasn't losing my job or cutting my sons d1ck off.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,701]

He might have gotten a few more votes but it would have been a disaster watching Dems try to carry him to the finish line.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

14 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I still can't get behind the party being OK with losing.  I just can't.   Just not in the nature of political parties.   I don't disagree with you about Shapiro....That could very well be true.

Here's my reasoning, we all saw the campaign they ran.  It was all about the "Who's who" of victimhood.  They never discussed the economy and immigration to the standards at which was obvious that were the most important to the citizens... as well as government funded transgender surgery as we later found out.  Throughout the election run, even when Biden was the expected candidate, these topics were the most important according to all the polls (even though I'm not really a big supporter of them),  and the only answers the Democrats had... and STILL to this day, talk about, is how Trump is a liar, a felon, and racist.  They're playing the victim instead of discussing the topics.  They wanted to win and hoped their bs campaign would work, but I don't think they expected it too.

I mostly think it's the billionaires we don't know about, who fund the party, and the higher ups who just pander and never actually give answers.  I don't think people like Elizabeth Warren even know who's calling the shots.

[edjr 6,578]

2 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Yes he would have won easily.

I just wish the choice wasn't losing my job or cutting my sons d1ck off.

assumed he was already focked in the head with you as a dad 

[Strike 5,186]

I don't think they had a chance with either candidate.  Polls showed people were pissed about immigration and not happy with the economy.  Honestly, I'm trying to think of ANYTHING people were satisfied with from the previous administration. And @The Real timschochet, we know you are happy with anything your overlords do so that comment doesn't apply to you.  Any chance they might have had hinged on putting up a totally different candidate that had no affiliation with the Biden administration and could demonstrate that they would not be continuing the same policies as Biden's administration.  I don't know that they had that person on their bench so I think Trump would have won regardless of who they put out there.

[Mike Hunt 261]

Biden was toast after the debate, he looked and acted 90 instead of a spry 82.  No way Biden would have won and Dems knew it. Had Biden addressed the border crisis with strength he might have had a slim chance if he never debated.

I thought Harris had a 60-40 chance to win until she started talking and laughing about everything. Goofball Walz did not help matters, he hurt the ticket as it was doomed.

Bien should never have ran again.  If he did not run and they help primaries Harris would been first or second ousted like last time.

Trying to figure out who would have won if they had a primary. though. Bradley Cooper??  I mean Newsome?

[Cdub100 3,837]

30 minutes ago, edjr said:

assumed he was already focked in the head with you as a dad 

Compared to you I'm dad of the century. 

[weepaws 3,155]

No way, the Democratic team knew that they would not beat trump, that’s way they tried to kill him twice.  Indeed 

[Red White and Blue 81]

No. Once he went full vegetable on TV it was over. He may have done better than Kamala though.

Harris would have probably done a lot better if she had 4 weeks to campaign instead of however long it was.

She got a big boost just being not Trump, until people heard her speak.  

[thegeneral 2,908]

I don’t think so. Biden was dropping like a rock.

He could have just pulled a Trump and cried that he really won I suppose.

[TBayXXXVII 2,483]

1 hour ago, Mike Hunt said:

Biden was toast after the debate, he looked and acted 90 instead of a spry 82.  No way Biden would have won and Dems knew it. Had Biden addressed the border crisis with strength he might have had a slim chance if he never debated.

I thought Harris had a 60-40 chance to win until she started talking and laughing about everything. Goofball Walz did not help matters, he hurt the ticket as it was doomed.

Bien should never have ran again.  If he did not run and they help primaries Harris would been first or second ousted like last time.

Trying to figure out who would have won if they had a primary. though. Bradley Cooper??  I mean Newsome?

I think the problem the Democrats were going to have was that regardless who ran, they had no answers.  It's why they had to keep Biden and/or Harris on the ticket.

If they had a strong candidate that they needed to win, that candidate would've had to trash the Biden / Harris administration because the key topics that the country was concerned with, Biden and Harris had horrible policies.  Even when asked about it, Harris never even addressed the issues.  She said she wouldn't have done anything differently than Biden.  So the only path that someone like Newsom, Shapiro, or someone else, was to say that mistakes were made and changes need to happen.  That was NOT going to happen.  There's no way they could campaign on an economic and immigration policy that would be similar to Trump, especially since they've been trashing those agenda's for 8 years.  They needed to sink or swim on losing policies and hope their name calling was enough to distract the public.  Many on this board fell for that hook, line, and sinker, and still do.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,237]

3 hours ago, Fnord said:

Nope. I voted for Kamala against Trump. I would not have voted for Biden. He was obviously not all there. Mind you I despised Kamala and would never have voted for her in the bygone pre-Trump era when I had the luxury of only voting for people I actually supported. Now it feels like I vote a lot more against candidates than for them.

its funny cause Trump, like Obama was voted for because people wanted him

Hillary, Kamala and Kerry were voted for cause people were against who they were running against

not a single person sat there and thought I want either of those 3

 

[Fnord 2,051]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

its funny cause Trump, like Obama was voted for because people wanted him

Hillary, Kamala and Kerry were voted for cause people were against who they were running against

not a single person sat there and thought I want either of those 3

 

Dems would do practically anything to get a candidate of Kerry's caliber back onto the national stage. What a fustercluck that party is.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,114]

3 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Sorry but there is literally no way I can support that the dems wanted to lose.   Not in a million years.

The only way they would have wanted to lose is if Trump has been in on it the whole time. Which is a very slim possibility.

[Mark Davis 339]

3 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Obviously hindsight is 20/20.   Kamala was probably the worst nominee for the President we have seen in modern times.  So bad she got trounced in the general election.   Which has me wondering if Biden had stayed in, could he, would he have possibly won?

I think it's possible.  I definitely think he would have received more votes than Kamala.

I think he would have lost by more in terms of popular vote. Not sure on the electoral college. It’s possible Trump could have flipped Minnesota, Virginia, New Hampshire, or New Mexico or some combination of those had Biden been the nominee. 
 

I think with the immigration crisis any Democrat was going to have trouble winning but once they essentially decided a real primary wasn’t happening, that effectively ended any real chance. 

[squistion 1,949]

4 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Obviously hindsight is 20/20.   Kamala was probably the worst nominee for the President we have seen in modern times.  So bad she got trounced in the general election.   Which has me wondering if Biden had stayed in, could he, would he have possibly won?

I think it's possible.  I definitely think he would have received more votes than Kamala.

No, she didn't get trounced. Trump only won by 1.5% of the votes and did not get a majority of votes cast.

 

[Horseman 2,361]

15 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, she didn't get trounced. Trump only won by 1.5% of the votes and did not get a majority of votes cast.

 

How many swing states did she win?

[supermike80 1,803]

23 minutes ago, Horseman said:

How many swing states did she win?

I dont even engage him.  Not worth it

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,237]

3 hours ago, Fnord said:

Dems would do practically anything to get a candidate of Kerry's caliber back onto the national stage. What a fustercluck that party is.

you got plenty of hypocrites to pick from

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,237]

2 hours ago, supermike80 said:

I dont even engage him.  Not worth it

hes a moron, 1.5% uh it was a 15 million vote swing

not a single county shifted blue

but Kamala did great

[seafoam1 2,799]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

No, she didn't get trounced. Trump only won by 1.5% of the votes and did not get a majority of votes cast.

 

Do you know what the electoral college is? Or are you a flat earther?