Elections Could Joe have won?

[BFoe]

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.

When Trump left office just 4 years ago, he had lowest approval rating of any POTUS ever—that’s also historically bad. It’s interesting, because Kamala may not have been the preferred candidate when compared to other Dems 4 years ago—but that’s a comparison against fellow Dems, not against Trump—whereas his historically low approval rating was a direct measure of his presidency. Didn’t see, to matter in 2024 though.

 

[mkess101]

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

Yeah I'd tend to agree. Especially the Latino guys I know-they're some of the most staunch conservatives I've met. If the Dems don't figure out a way to distance themselves from some of the really far left culture stuff, they are never gonna win that Latino male vote back (to where they need it anyway).

 

[irish_thug]

When Trump left office just 4 years ago, he had lowest approval rating of any POTUS ever—that’s also historically bad. It’s interesting, because Kamala may not have been the preferred candidate when compared to other Dems 4 years ago—but that’s a comparison against fellow Dems, not against Trump—whereas his historically low approval rating was a direct measure of his presidency. Didn’t see, to matter in 2024 though.

Trump's situation was unique with regards to presidential polling, specifically because of covid.

 

[Helden]

No, after how old he looked during the debate, it was over

 

[Loiosh]

the Latino guys I know-they're some of the most staunch conservatives I've met.

I've been shouting that from the rooftops for years but nobody listens. Most of the immigrants everyone wants out are conservative. Minorities of color, also.

If the Dems don't figure out a way to distance themselves from some of the really far left culture stuff, they are never gonna win that Latino male vote back (to where they need it anyway).

They couldn't have done that more clearly than they did this year, that isn't the answer.

 

[TrueBias]

Nope. In fact, shit had gotten so out of control, I'm questioning if this was all part of a bigger plan.

 

[mkess101]

I've been shouting that from the rooftops for years but nobody listens. Most of the immigrants everyone wants out are conservative. Minorities of color, also.




They couldn't have done that more clearly than they did this year, that isn't the answer.

I think they half ass tried, but too little too late.

 

[Cajun]

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.

Hillary did better though and nearly won. I think it was the wrong woman. But your other points are valid. Biden likely would have lost at this point in his life.

 

[The XL]

Joe would have been the favorite to win prior to his debate with Trump. He was cooked the second it was apparent at that debate that he was a glorified vegetable.

 

[The XL]

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.

The argument that men won't vote for a woman is off base, I think. Hillary and Kamala were two of the worst candidates in US history. Hillary is extremely unlikable and is the personification of the establishment, and Kamala Harris was never a serious candidate. She polled at under 1% in the 2020 primary and dropped out after being destroyed by Tulsi Gabbard, who wasn't some powerhouse herself.

I don't really think much of Michelle Obama, but if she would have ran, she would have been a big favorite to beat Trump. Harris was already a terrible candidate and she was joined at the hip with a increasingly unpopular Biden administration.

 

[jeremyemilio]

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.

He would have been trounced. People don't have a very good handle on how close Trump came to pulling off 2020. That was mid pandemic, which he handled like a buffoon, and even still, he probably wins that election if he doesn't discourage the mail-in and early voting in his own voter base. The Dems were voting for weeks, and Trump set himself up so that he had to overcome that head start and beat them in a day. All so that he could claim "fix" if he lost... talk about an idiot strategy. In 2024 he didn't repeat that mistake, and learning that lesson paid off.

But, look, even setting all of that aside, Biden picked up historic vote totals in 2020, and yet had he run and managed to pick up identical totals in 2024 he still loses to Trump's 2024 vote totals in all 7 swing states and with the same electoral college margin that defeated Harris. Here are the numbers (as of November 14, when I originally posted this info elsewhere; since then some of Trump's totals have no doubt increased even further as late vote counts have come in):

In 2020 Biden took Arizona 1,672,143 votes to Trump's 1,661,686; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 1,747,059, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Georgia 2,473,633 votes to Trump's 2,461,854; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 2,662,971, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Michigan 2,804,040 votes to Trump's 2,648,852; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 2,814,251, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Nevada 703,486 votes to Trump's 669,890; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 750,101, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Pennsylvania 3,459,923 votes to Trump's 3,378,263; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 3,529,983, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Wisconsin 1,630,866 votes to Trump's 1,610,184; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 1,697,769, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Maybe. He definitely wouldn't have lost worse than Kamala did.

I disagree. He'd have been trounced. The Dem establishment knew he was heading for a trouncing and that's why they forced the change. I'm sure they also knew that Kamala was a longshot who was most likely to lose. (How could they not? It's not like it was a secret how unpopular she was.) But there was no chance to rally around anyone else, and she gave them a (teeny, tiny) shot. The only reason to do what they did was because they fully understood that as small as the chances were with Kamala, Biden gave them no chance at all.

I feel like anyone thinking he could have recovered after that debate either didn't watch the debate or just doesn't have a very good memory of what happened.

 

[JBJisGOAT14]

No and Kamala didn’t have a chance either, we aren’t voting in a woman anytime soon. Dems needed to run a moderate candidate and shy away from social justice issues that majority of Americans don’t relate too. Mark kelly is good on paper, but he is not charismatic.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

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.

- She lost because she sucked more than Trump(thas a great achiviement btw). The dems are a party of alieting, of of touch douches, that pandered to the lowest common of american society, and any opositing talk was labelled as racist. While america was being burned by antifa doufus, and children being killed, and black american owned business getting shutdwon.

And the jobs increasing was only because people got kicked out of work during covid, and some of those job sites openend again. Same thing happened here. Kamala lost because she was pround of Jacob Rape.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

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.

- If they had a normal smart human being like Obama. But no Dem dorks had to run with a gimmick so bad, that even Vince Russo would be ashmed. Now were left with the walking foreing affairs disaster know as Trump.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

I disagree. He'd have been trounced. The Dem establishment knew he was heading for a trouncing and that's why they forced the change. I'm sure they also knew that Kamala was a longshot who was most likely to lose. (How could they not? It's not like it was a secret how unpopular she was.) But there was no chance to rally around anyone else, and she gave them a (teeny, tiny) shot. The only reason to do what they did was because they fully understood that as small as the chances were with Kamala, Biden gave them no chance at all.

I feel like anyone thinking he could have recovered after that debate either didn't watch the debate or just doesn't have a very good memory of what happened.

Eh. Kamala got trounced as well and she was just as awful in her debate with Trump. It's hard for most people to get a read on how bad Kamala was at that debate because the media was in such a high level of spin mode after it. There are people who actually think she did well at the debate.

 

[Source]

- If they had a normal smart human being like Obama. But no Dem dorks had to run with a gimmick so bad, that even Vince Russo would be ashmed. Now were left with the walking foreing affairs disaster know as Trump.

I’m hoping for the best but expecting a dumpster fire.

 

[nhbbear]

He might have done better than camela but likely would not have won. There was simply no good options this election cycle. I don’t foresee any good options in 2028 either.

 

[terrapin]

No way could Joe Biden have won. He has been mentally unfit for a very long time, having bad days even a few years ago....

Its a very sad state affairs when both candidates are unfit to be the president but at leaste Joe Biden was only unfit due to age and not fundamental character.

 

[terrapin]

I've been shouting that from the rooftops for years but nobody listens. Most of the immigrants everyone wants out are conservative. Minorities of color, also.




They couldn't have done that more clearly than they did this year, that isn't the answer.

I don't think they made it very clear actually. I think they didn't mention it, but that's not the same thing as standing against the insanity on the left on some of those issues. Is it?