• millie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Failing to run the incumbent was the bad strategic move. Also giving her control of the DNC, but Biden would have been an easy win at the time.

    Like, I would have loved to see Sanders, personally. Strategically, though? If you’re just thinking about getting a Democrat in the office? Biden was the play.

    Hit on 16 in blackjack, run your incumbent in elections. The odds do, in fact, matter. The actual odds, not the figures arrived at by making a few hundred thousand cold calls and finding the people who actually want to talk about politics, as if that weren’t a biasing factor in political position.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Failing to run the incumbent was the bad strategic move

      It was the end of Obama’s 2nd term, and he couldn’t run again. There was no incumbent.

      If you’re just thinking about getting a Democrat in the office? Biden was the play.

      Biden would have had the same chance in 2016 as Hillary. The entire reason Obama beat Hillary out in the 2008 primary was that people didn’t want another white Centrist. The reason Biden won in 2020 was because of Trump, not because he was a good choice. He barely won.

      run your incumbent in elections. The odds do, in fact, matter.

      Didn’t work out for Trump, since he was so unpopular. Biden is also basically there, he’s just less hated than Trump. But this time, a lot of people are going to sit out if they’re not invigorated (as they were invigorated against Trump in 2020).

      The actual odds

      It’s very convenient to wave your hand and make nebulous claims about the “actual odds” without any evidence. Polling is no longer mostly done via cold calls, it’s mostly internet surveys, or via services that have paid-to-participate groups that are easy to control for, demographically.