Former Vice President Joe Biden aired his grievances with President Trump’s coronavirus response during an interview that aired on MSNBC Monday morning.
No, no, Joe. Let him speak. Let him show to the world what a moron he is.
Take nothing for granted, Joe - should you win the nomination, you need to point out all the ridiculous malarky he spews every single day, including about the virus. Hammer him on it every single day. And then remind your voters of this:
Soon it will be time to roll out TV/facebook advertisements on how Trump really fucked the pooch, and he is personally responsible for the deaths and economic harm.
Mike, you on this? Is Wednesday too early for the advertisements to start?
And P.s. How about making Joe’s January 2020 piece part of the advertisements:
Blockquote On Super Tuesday, Joe Biden broke the narrative that had defined the Democratic primary race. The surprise wasn’t that he won, though that was unexpected. It’s that he won new voters in a high-turnout election — almost every state saw a turnout surge, and a Washington Post analysis suggests Biden won 60 percent of voters who didn’t cast a ballot in 2016.
“We increased turnout,” Biden said in his victory speech. “The turnout turned out for us!”
This is a result that requires some rethinking. Before Super Tuesday, the conventional wisdom was simple. Bernie Sanders was the turnout candidate, and Biden the uninspiring generic Democrat. You could see this in Sanders’s packed rallies, his die-hard social media brigades, his army of individual donors — and in Biden’s inability to match those markers of enthusiasm. If new voters flooded the primary, it would be proof that Sanders’s political revolution was brewing. But if the political revolution failed and turnout stagnated, Biden might slip through. What virtually no one predicted was Biden winning a high-turnout contest. But he did.
So what did the narrative get wrong? As someone who believed that narrative, what did I get wrong?
In conversations over the past week, I’ve heard a few theories. I am not saying I fully believe these arguments, but given that some of them directly implicate my own blind spots, they’re worth considering.