Not To Change The Subject, But Why Did Biden Lose So Badly?

I know there were votes of his that for whatever reason turned some people off, but there aren't enough people in the country, let alone Iowa, who pay enough attention to get down to that level of analysis so I doubt very seriously that had much to do with it. It was certainly not lack of pertinent experience. The guy is not a dwarf, elf, or otherwise odd looking. He speaks well. If change is what the people were looking for it is what he was offering - in detail. He's as solid a Democrat as you'll find. So how is it that a democrat like that does so poorly in a show of hands where principally Democrats or people who are supporting Democrats are brought together? What happened?

just too much oxygen sucked up by the other three, especially Obama--it's hard to compete with a star.

I just don't understand that. Biden always looked better in the Iowa race than Richardson.

overboard and starting anew. We appear to be choosing Obama to do that, based on his "change" mem, but what people don't realize is that Obama is using Clinton's old advisors.

They vote for popularity and a general sense of "good feelings' about a candidate. They don't use their intellects, they use their "gut". I would have loved to see a good Dodd, or Biden showing. But they aren't rock stars.

If he didn't get 15% in a precinct, his supporters had to go to their 2nd choice.

:shrug:

That should prove it!

nt

then there was that little plaigerizing scurfuffle.

than 15%.

Are there states that allow candidates to get delegates with less?

I think 15% is the threshold here as well. Not that it matters, cause it's in March.

It's just that if the total of those votes doesn't reach that threshold, they won't get any delegates. That's why people come back or stay to caucus and change their votes if their candidate doesn't reach the threshold... to get delegates for their second choice.

they got no support.

It would be nice if campaigns had someone at each precinct to tally the *original* votes cast, so that they could measure their initial support.

I think Iowans are lucky in the way their caucus operates, essentially it's "instant runoff caucusing". If your first choice doesn't do well enough, you can go a a second candidate where your support actually results in a delegate.

without your voters having to go off to someone else.

The point is to get delegates, not the knowledge that some people like you.

Biden at all in Iowa. Granted very few did, but more than it appeared. Iowa's system is ridiculous.

Chris Dodd got the same treatment. People are always looking for someone new to vote for, and when you've been around as long as Biden has, it's hard to stand out or acquire the momentum you need to become viable.

It's unfortunate, because experience isn't a bad thing.

But it could also be, MAYbe, that people are wary of a senator with a long long record (tons of ammo for the opposition).

He was not seen as change. Fair or not, it was clear that this was an anti-Washington evening, and frankly, an anti-experience evening. It was not about the details of policy proposals but about people being fed up with government as usual. The interesting thing about that is that usually when people are fed up with politics they disengage, they stay home, they reject the whole process. This time, being fed up meant the opposite: coming out to vote.

I canvassed and phoned for many months in New Hampshire last primary cycle, and I encountered a lot of this 'politics is broken' and 'no candidate is going to change things' attitude, followed by "I'm not going to vote.'

I wish this had happened in 2004.

the most qualified and would be the likely persons to "hire" if this was a job interview. But then, democracy is not logical and reasoned and often becomes mob rule.

who dont' have maps :rofl: - I mean, don't know who Biden is, let alone his record. For people who follow politics closely, the decision is made in their own minds. For the others, it is made by the MSM and the amount of coverage the MSM gave to candidates like Biden, Dodd, Gravel and even Kucinich is miserly.

IMHO.

the rule that allows ANYONE to walk in and register. whether you were an actual DEM or a Rethug looking to sway the Dem results. virtually No one showed up at Rethug votes. And yet Dems were Packed? Change is one viable reason. But to askew that hard is unprecedented.

From under my foil hat. I think the rethugs attended Dem cacaus to vote for someone they feel would be easy for a rethug to defeat in the GE. as it rolled out Obama won Iowa. Edwards came in second. then Hillary. We all know How badly Edwards lost to cheney in the VP debate. I Think we will see The same shake out this time around. not to be defeatist but Now Winning the GE is truly an up hill battle.

in fact one of them was the chair of our county's republican party a couple of years ago, and I had served jury duty with him. They caucused for Edwards with one exception:
My neighbor and her husband have always been republican and when I walked in last night, there they were, for Hillary and the wife was Hillary's precinct captain!

Against any rethug, Edwards,Hillary,Obama. The rethugs are Happy today. with Biden, Dodd and Richardson out.

Biden isn't likable to me. He just seems like he wants so badly to be perceived as a straight shooting, off the cuff type guy (sort of the way the media portrays McCain). Yet every time he tries to do this it comes off badly with him putting his foot in his mouth or saying something stupid (ie. the pakistani/7-11 comment, Obama being clean, etc.) or as calculated grandstanding (ie. some senate hearings he's been involved in, in charge of).

I know he has experience, I know he's a smart guy, I know he's not a DINO and has a fairly good voting record. Would I vote for him over every republican out there and probably even over a lot of Democrats that we have in congress? You bet. But in general I just find him really creepy and not likable at all.

I know the Biden posse doesn't want to hear this, and will hem and haw and insult, and yes I'm fully aware this is not the way we should be judging presidential contendors. But let's face it that stuff does play a part. And besides this is just one person's opinion.

I'm a big Biden supporter. But I understand that some people rub others the wrong way.

-P

Get with current events.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOXzyTGsC1c&e

Has Obama been endorsed by any intellectuals and experienced politicians whatsoever, or is he powered by mindless Hollywood endorsements alone?

His endorsements from Iowa legislators was only 1 less than Hillary's and scads above the other candidates. He has the endorsement of almost every significant foreign policy expert.

People should use google before they make these kinds of statements. It helps to be informed.

The main point is: Obama's argument won. All these so-called "experienced" Washington people have not gotten anything done in decades on health care, energy, or other domestic issues--and helped get us into this mess in Iraq. People get that. Overwhelmingly, the polls showed that votes did not judge experience to be a valuable asset.

Thanks, good to hear!

I did check this CNN resource, and while most other candidates have a few "serious endorsements" there, Obama is according to it only endorsed by actors/actresses. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html

I'm glad to hear that its not up to date though.

And in the past 24 hours, the word "change" has been used by nearly all of the candidates. In contrast, Biden has been running as a known commodity, which I felt more comfortable with. I've never really been in-step with popular sentiment, though.

Plenty of people liked him...they just liked someone else better. Joe was the second choice for a lot of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton people. The chances those candidates were not going to be viable in any precinct were slim...so Joe did not benefit from the realignment.
No matter how "good" he was, he represents "establishment" and I think the overwhelming message Iowa voters sent last night is that they are sick of "the establishment".
Biden had MUCH less money for his Iowa campaign than the frontrunners did, and never started to get any traction until early December...by then most voters were allready suffering from political fatigue. PLUS I think the holiday was a break in Joe's momentum he couldn't afford.
I'm bummed out because I really loved Joe (still do!) but at least we still have him working for us in the Senate.

not perceived as an agent of change.

Perhaps the planted rumors by the Obama campaign had something to dod with his poor showing?

Although Delaware is not New England - I think Biden comes off like a New England liberal in the same cloth as Kennedy and Kerry. I have a feeling that Biden will probably do much better in this state then he would a mid-western state

And, age might have been a factor.

Like it or not, affect matters. Absent support from groups that are already organized its just tough for a candidate like Biden to get off the ground. He doesn't have "it." He doesn't inspire people to mobilize. He can persuade issue voters, but that's unlikely to be decisive in a presidential primary.

I think it's important not to underestimate the "youth" vote.

I'm 55 years old. Perhaps it is the changing of the guard. I honestly felt that with the kind of problems we are faced with...the unique situation we find ourselves in, Biden was the best qualified to address those issues.

It's good to have change. But let's face it, it didn't matter who took Bush's place, there was going to be change.

I am a firm believer that the pendulum doesn't instantly swing to the other side. There is a risk in wanting change "too quickly." Especially if the person doing the changes is not experienced. I honestly felt that Biden could have guided us through this change in a methodic and determined way in preparation for an Obama type Presidency.

Just my two cents.

-P

Caucus-goers are news-savvy, and I'd wager many of them knew about Biden's co-sponsorship of the Bankruptcy Bill a couple of years ago. This bill is going to make things far worse for people struggling financially this year--especially those saddled with medical bills or behind on mortgage payments.

It's inescapable that part of that will be Joe Biden's fault--and anyobdy else who supported this really bad bill. I'd say Joe Biden payed for that more than anything--and more than anyone--else.

Now he needs to make the most of his time in the Senate, fighting this year against Dub and Cheney's desire to allow torture, and against warrantless wiretapping. Those, among other areas, are some places where Joe Biden's natural fighting instincts can do us a world of good. Get us the truth, Joe--we know you can do it!

B-)