Elections Could Joe have won?

[BFoe]

I’m seeing lots of economy comments…
The economy was and is strong. Stock market is good, unemployment is low, the inflation which was inevitable after COVIDis back to manageable levels, 17 million or so total jobs were added, wages are up significantly (particularly for beeline collar workers), and Biden’s total debt—that’s COVID-related debt and non-COVID combined—was less than Trump’s non-COVID debt alone.

In retrospect I think Biden would’ve performed better than Kamala simply because she didn’t perform well with men across the board. Going into the election, I vastly underestimated this. A lot of men, be they rich, poor, black, white, conservative, or liberal, simply aren’t comfortable with a woman for POTUS. That’s the sad truth.

That said, Biden’s decline was too obvious, and I don’t think he would have won.

 

[SandisLL]

I believe Trump was comfortably ahead in the polls, which was the main reason the Democrats pulled Biden and replaced him with Harris.

As far as the economy goes, yes, many of the numbers were approaching pre-pandemic levels (that is to say, not actually improving, but merely returning to "normal"), but the average American didn't feel that. Voters felt their money wasn't going as far, and they were losing control of decisions that were important to them.

I think Biden would have lost and Harris could have won, but it was all botched badly by the Democrats, and America chose with their

Speaker again will be Mike Johsnon... so get reality.

 

[Rob Battisti]

A lot of men, be they rich, poor, black, white, conservative, or liberal, simply aren’t comfortable with a woman for POTUS. That’s the sad truth.

Come on. You’re smart. You don’t truly believe they didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman, do you? She always was a historically bad choice.

This “they won’t vote for a woman” BS is why the democrats lost.

 

[mkess101]

I’m seeing lots of economy comments…
The economy was and is strong. Stock market is good, unemployment is low, the inflation which was inevitable after COVIDis back to manageable levels, 17 million or so total jobs were added, wages are up significantly (particularly for beeline collar workers), and Biden’s total debt—that’s COVID-related debt and non-COVID combined—was less than Trump’s non-COVID debt alone.

In retrospect I think Biden would’ve performed better than Kamala simply because she didn’t perform well with men across the board. Going into the election, I vastly underestimated this. A lot of men, be they rich, poor, black, white, conservative, or liberal, simply aren’t comfortable with a woman for POTUS. That’s the sad truth.

That said, Biden’s decline was too obvious, and I don’t think he would have won.

White males were never gonna support her. They grossly miscalculated how minority males would vote, though. Turns out a large % of minority males are actually more conservative on the culture war stuff than white males are. It has more to do with that and less about her being a woman imo.

 

[ShadowRun]

Better chance then Harris but no, the way he has ran America people are tired of the BS gaslighting and wants someone that cares more about Americans .

 

[Sakuraba'sEar]

I seriously doubt it. Trump had serious momentum going into November. Biden could not create momentum for himself

 

[Pliny Pete]

Turns out a large % of minority males are actually more conservative on the culture war stuff than white males are.

Its always funny to see the white folks on the news shows act so surprised by stuff like this the day after the elections like its some deep mystery that no one expected two days ago
We try to tell ya but you never listen so continue talking down to us with your saviorisms and you'll all be surprised all over again 4 years from now

 

[Confucamus]

No, but he would've done better than Kamala. I don't think there's anyone who could have beaten Trump's momentum going into the election.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

No. He was polling abysmally since October 2023 both in swing, head to head, national and multi candidate. He was outside the MoE.

The debate was just the obvious truth hitting the dem brass in the face. Sucks for them they took so long too realize what the rest of the population figured out months prior.

 

[Osculater]

He could had if he had not got senile overnight LOL

 

[BFoe]

Come on. You’re smart. You don’t truly believe they didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman, do you? She always was a historically bad choice.

This “they won’t vote for a woman” BS is why the democrats lost.

I think it was certainly a huge part of it, yes. Not even just a woman, but woman of color.

I saw a poll just a few days before the election that really got me worried. The group being polled was simply “men,” and Kamala was down by like 20 points or some shit. I couldn’t find that exact poll just now to link to it, but here’s a USA Today poll from late October showing Kamala up 53% to 36% among women, and the exact opposite among men: down 37% to Trump’s 53%. There was a huge gender gap. Women certainly didn’t think she was a “historically bad choice.”
Men sure did though.

I’m not saying that it was the only factor by any means, but the dogwhistle came through loud and clear: “That’s what Dems get for running identity politics,” which is an interesting thing to say. It was Trump and Republicans playing the “is she black or is she Indian” card, accusing her of sleeping her way to the top, and calling her a DEI hire. It was the Republicans using the usual misogynistic dog whistles (“Can you imagine her in a room with Putin?! She just doesn’t project strength…”.
Kamala spoke so much about the middle class and her middle class background that it became a meme, it was Trump running identity politics—so what does that mean when they say that to us?

“That’s what you get for running identity politics” means: “thats what you get for running a woman of color. If you want to have a chance next time, better run a white male.” That’s what that means.

 

[ferrisjso]

He'd have had a better chance in the swing states but from what I've read he'd have lost solid Blue states that are never in play. Internal polling is internal polling and you have to take their word from it but from what you hear internal polling showed he'd have only done slightly better in the EC than Dukakis. Trump being bummed out he wasn't facing Biden for awhile after Biden dropped out suggests Trumps people had the same polling.

I don't care about bougie politics. Just answering the question.

 

[irish_thug]

Could Joe Biden have beaten Trump? Could he have won the rematch if given the opportunity?

Trump was unliked by many including those from his own party. Joe won before. The economy was doing well.

Joe had his fans and was an easy vote for those who did not trust Trump. Kamala on the other hand turned all the independent voters against the Democrats with her DEI and transgender platform, it was farther left than many Americans felt comfortable with. This caused many independents to switch sides. RFK, Tulsi Gabbord, Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk brought over the independent voters, costing the Democrats the election. They lost ground in every state vs. the last election of Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden.

I think Joe could have won.

Question asks who you think would have won in this scenario. Not who you like or dislike.

In his current state, I doubt it. as others have said, the cognitive decline was too apparent by that point. A year earlier he would have stood a much better chance IMO.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I think it was certainly a huge part of it, yes. Not even just a woman, but woman of color.

I saw a poll just a few days before the election that really got me worried. The group being polled was simply “men,” and Kamala was down by like 20 points or some shit. I couldn’t find that exact poll just now to link to it, but here’s a USA Today poll from late October showing Kamala up 53% to 36% among women, and the exact opposite among men: down 37% to Trump’s 53%. There was a huge gender gap. Women certainly didn’t think she was a “historically bad choice.”
Men sure did though.

I’m not saying that it was the only factor by any means, but the dogwhistle came through loud and clear: “That’s what Dems get for running identity politics,” which is an interesting thing to say. It was Trump and Republicans playing the “is she black or is she Indian” card, accusing her of sleeping her way to the top, and calling her a DEI hire. It was the Republicans using the usual misogynistic dog whistles (“Can you imagine her in a room with Putin?! She just doesn’t project strength…”.
Kamala spoke so much about the middle class and her middle class background that it became a meme, it was Trump running identity politics—so what does that mean when they say that to us?

“That’s what you get for running identity politics” means: “thats what you get for running a woman of color. If you want to have a chance next time, better run a white male.” That’s what that means.

Yes, run a white man next time if you want to win.

 

[BFoe]

Yes, run a white man next time if you want to win.

 

[irish_thug]

I think it was certainly a huge part of it, yes. Not even just a woman, but woman of color.

I saw a poll just a few days before the election that really got me worried. The group being polled was simply “men,” and Kamala was down by like 20 points or some shit. I couldn’t find that exact poll just now to link to it, but here’s a USA Today poll from late October showing Kamala up 53% to 36% among women, and the exact opposite among men: down 37% to Trump’s 53%. There was a huge gender gap. Women certainly didn’t think she was a “historically bad choice.”
Men sure did though.

I’m not saying that it was the only factor by any means, but the dogwhistle came through loud and clear: “That’s what Dems get for running identity politics,” which is an interesting thing to say. It was Trump and Republicans playing the “is she black or is she Indian” card, accusing her of sleeping her way to the top, and calling her a DEI hire. It was the Republicans using the usual misogynistic dog whistles (“Can you imagine her in a room with Putin?! She just doesn’t project strength…”.
Kamala spoke so much about the middle class and her middle class background that it became a meme, it was Trump running identity politics—so what does that mean when they say that to us?

“That’s what you get for running identity politics” means: “thats what you get for running a woman of color. If you want to have a chance next time, better run a white male.” That’s what that means.

Since the 2016 election women have been going on about it being time for a woman POTUS. That speaks more to their willingness to vote for Kamala because she is a woman, not that men are voting against her because she's a woman. She polled horribly as VP, she did absolutely horrible in the primaries.

Historically bad.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

It’s closer. Trump is lucky that Americans hate women and went up against candidates that weren’t the number one choice of dems.

Biden could have said no to debates, but that first debate may have been too much damage done.

 

[Loiosh]

Before the debate, extremely unlikely. His approval was in the basement and his distancing from the media just made it worse.

After the debate, absolutely zero chance. There was no coming back from that.

Anyone who thinks he would have done better than Kamala is wrong, under any circumstances. He had nothing left in the tank and didn't have it in him to inspire and win votes.

 

[Gamer2k4]

I think it was certainly a huge part of it, yes. Not even just a woman, but woman of color.

I saw a poll just a few days before the election that really got me worried. The group being polled was simply “men,” and Kamala was down by like 20 points or some shit. I couldn’t find that exact poll just now to link to it, but here’s a USA Today poll from late October showing Kamala up 53% to 36% among women, and the exact opposite among men: down 37% to Trump’s 53%. There was a huge gender gap. Women certainly didn’t think she was a “historically bad choice.”
Men sure did though.

I’m not saying that it was the only factor by any means, but the dogwhistle came through loud and clear: “That’s what Dems get for running identity politics,” which is an interesting thing to say. It was Trump and Republicans playing the “is she black or is she Indian” card, accusing her of sleeping her way to the top, and calling her a DEI hire. It was the Republicans using the usual misogynistic dog whistles (“Can you imagine her in a room with Putin?! She just doesn’t project strength…”.
Kamala spoke so much about the middle class and her middle class background that it became a meme, it was Trump running identity politics—so what does that mean when they say that to us?

“That’s what you get for running identity politics” means: “thats what you get for running a woman of color. If you want to have a chance next time, better run a white male.” That’s what that means.

Is the male/female voter gap because of the gender of the candidate, or because of the party of the candidate? My understanding is that women tend to vote Democrat and men tend to vote Republican, regardless of who is running. For example, in 2020, 57% of women voters went for Biden, compared to 42% for Trump. That's a 15 point difference, and both candidates were elderly white males.

The problem with statistics is that you can interpret them however you like. It's easy to look at Harris's loss and say, "I guess America just isn't ready for a black woman to be President yet." But that's a simplistic and misleading way of looking at the results. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the first female President was a Republican, because she would have been selected for her competence instead of her ability to check all the diversity boxes.

 

[Source]

Very unlikely. Trump had a rock solid voting base of people willing to vote for him regardless of what he does or says. This sets baseline needed to beat him. Dems don’t have that to the same extent. The independents and party line crosses were going to be a problem for Biden once his cognitive decline became so evident.