Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
Mostly agree with all these picks except for Buttigieg - Quite simply put the man has zero foreign policy experience. I always thought he only got as far as he did in the primaries because the Democrats were milking the woke LGBT card as well as his stint in the military (all be it as a reserve). The last time a US mayor got elected to President was almost 230 years ago, and so he'd almost certainly needs a higher political office if he wanted to mount a firm future challenge for the White House.

I realize Trump picked Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador despite the fact she had minimal foreign policy experience, but let's be honest Trump didn't exactly have a large talent pool that wanted to work for him (won't be the case for Biden), and she was and still is considered a rising star in the Republican party. Despite Haley denying it, she definitely has political ambitions for higher office, and her time as UN Ambassador served as a big fat tick in the box for foreign policy on her resume (basically won her the Jewish vote). Haley was also an outspoken and independent politician, which was how she got the UN Ambassador position elevated to the Cabinet and NSC anyway. That's how I could see Biden picking Buttigieg to UN Ambassador as a way to groom him for higher office. Buttigieg's hypothetical staffing to UN Ambassador would be a complete political appointment, and not on the basis of his experience/competency.

With souring relations between the US, United Nations, and China, I'm just not sure if Biden can afford to staff someone with minimal experience on the international stage to UN Ambassador. Current UN Ambassador Kelly Craft got her way to the position (as well as her previous position as US Ambassador to Canada) by donating to the Republican party, and not because she had any sort of foreign policy experience.... All she does now is throw her toys out the pram when she doesn't have her way in UN meetings. That's why I think Biden would need to pick a more seasoned and experienced candidate (perhaps a former ambassador or diplomat) to the UN Ambassador position in order to mend fences, rebuild America's 'image' on the international stage, and more importantly to 'stand up against China'.

I could see Biden picking Buttigieg for a less important Cabinet position, say HUD or Transport Secretary, if he really wanted to satisfy his political left-leaning base that loves identity politics... But I'm not sure if Buttigieg would accept the nomination. It'd make more sense for Buttigieg to mount a challenge for a Senate/House (work his way onto the Senate/House Foreign Affairs Committee to gain foreign policy experience) or Indiana's Governor (build on his domestic policy track record) position if he wanted to step foot in the White House one day.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hi crash8pilot,

Spot on ....Once Biden is elected all will be back to normal which means more international military adventure. Trump administration is an anomaly in the eyes of foreign institution which is sad, cause whatever his fault, he didn't start any new war.
 

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
Mostly agree with all these picks except for Buttigieg - Quite simply put the man has zero foreign policy experience. I always thought he only got as far as he did in the primaries because the Democrats were milking the woke LGBT card as well as his stint in the military (all be it as a reserve). The last time a US mayor got elected to President was almost 230 years ago, and so he'd almost certainly needs a higher political office if he wanted to mount a firm future challenge for the White House.

I realize Trump picked Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador despite the fact she had minimal foreign policy experience, but let's be honest Trump didn't exactly have a large talent pool that wanted to work for him (won't be the case for Biden), and she was and still is considered a rising star in the Republican party. Despite Haley denying it, she definitely has political ambitions for higher office, and her time as UN Ambassador served as a big fat tick in the box for foreign policy on her resume (basically won her the Jewish vote). Haley was also an outspoken and independent politician, which was how she got the UN Ambassador position elevated to the Cabinet and NSC anyway. That's how I could see Biden picking Buttigieg to UN Ambassador as a way to groom him for higher office. Buttigieg's hypothetical staffing to UN Ambassador would be a complete political appointment, and not on the basis of his experience/competency.

With souring relations between the US, United Nations, and China, I'm just not sure if Biden can afford to staff someone with minimal experience on the international stage to UN Ambassador. Current UN Ambassador Kelly Craft got her way to the position (as well as her previous position as US Ambassador to Canada) by donating to the Republican party, and not because she had any sort of foreign policy experience.... All she does now is throw her toys out the pram when she doesn't have her way in UN meetings. That's why I think Biden would need to pick a more seasoned and experienced candidate (perhaps a former ambassador or diplomat) to the UN Ambassador position in order to mend fences, rebuild America's 'image' on the international stage, and more importantly to 'stand up against China'.

I could see Biden picking Buttigieg for a less important Cabinet position, say HUD or Transport Secretary, if he really wanted to satisfy his political left-leaning base that loves identity politics... But I'm not sure if Buttigieg would accept the nomination. It'd make more sense for Buttigieg to mount a challenge for a Senate/House (work his way onto the Senate/House Foreign Affairs Committee to gain foreign policy experience) or Indiana's Governor (build on his domestic policy track record) position if he wanted to step foot in the White House one day.
Indiana is too red for Buttigieg, no chance for him.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The last time in the US where the incumbent didn't win was with a guy who had been vice-president before being president.
I think Trump will be re-elected.
Well, he did get elected to begin with, and the opposing candidate was Hillary, so I think we can take that as granted.
I think both political parties in the US are utterly broken.


He got elected because Trump ran an admittedly brilliant strategy against the much-hated Hillary, rightly attacking her in simple terms, for her corruption, pro-establishment status quo, pro-outsourcing, voted for illegal and costly wars, and in contrast Trump portrayed himself as an non-politician businessman ready to change D.C. politics, so bet on me!

That was 2016, and he still lost the popular vote.

In 2020, Trump has lost all his political instincts, his strategy waffles between "Law and Order" which is not resonating with voters, to portraying Joe Biden as Senile which clearly failed after the debates, and portraying Joe as "radical left marxist antifa" which also isn't resonating because that's too far fetched. Even his "Blame China" strategy backfired because China is more effectively managing the coronavirus response than US, exposing his own incompetence. That's without going into his poor race relations strategy, poor COVID strategy and COVID diagnosis. He offers literally NOTHING different than before except more antagonism and disunity.

Just going by strategy difference between 2016 and 2020, he is BEYOUND screwed this time around. I'm ready to call a Biden victory right now
 
Last edited:

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
He got elected because Trump ran an admittedly brilliant strategy against the much-hated Hillary, rightly attacking her in simple terms, for her corruption, pro-establishment status quo, pro-outsourcing, voted for illegal and costly wars, and in contrast Trump portrayed himself as an non-politician businessman ready to change D.C. politics, so bet on me!

That was 2016, and he still lost the popular vote.

In 2020, Trump has lost all his political instincts, his strategy waffles between "Law and Order" which is not resonating with voters, to portraying Joe Biden as Senile which clearly failed after the debates, and portraying Joe as "radical left marxist antifa" which also isn't resonating because that's too far fetched. Even his "Blame China" strategy backfired because China is more effectively managing the coronavirus response than US, exposing his own incompetence. That's without going into his poor race relations strategy, poor COVID strategy and COVID diagnosis. He offers literally NOTHING different than before except more antagonism and disunity.

Just going by strategy difference between 2016 and 2020, he is BEYOUND screwed this time around. I'm ready to call a Biden victory right now
Some lunatic takes predict that He will contest the election and might success due to recent SCOTUS composition.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why do you think the US polls are so wrong, then? They've consistently shown Biden ahead, not just nationally but also in the states he needs to win. In fact he's ahead in more states than he needs for the 270 electoral college votes. He's also probably less likely to suffer from poor turnout as postal voting is hugely up in many swing states.

The only glimmer of hope for Trump is that the pollster (Trafalgar) that correctly called Michigan for Trump in 2016 is showing him narrowly ahead or in a tie in some places he needs to win. But Trafalgar were wrong in other states in 2016 and aren't regarded as a gold-standard when it comes to polling.
Right, just like that time in 2016 where Hillary won since she was ahead in the polls...
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Right, just like that time in 2016 where Hillary won since she was ahead in the polls...

Did you not see the 2018 polls predictions for mid-term elections? The updated methodology was much more accurate and even predicted the flipping of the House to the Democrats.

The polls were not far off in 2016. The popular vote was correctly predicted by national avg. polling (+2.1% or +3 million). The state-level polling was less accurate, but within the normal range or margin of error. You have to remember, Trump won by RAZOR-thin margins in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, well within the margin of error of the state-level polls. Trump micro-targeted rural districts within key swing states that help give him an advantage in electoral college and that allowed him to become President.

The 2020 polls are more accurate now. Since 2016, pollsters have modified their weighting and random sampling methodology to weight education to account for "secret Trump vote" more and added new ways to reach out to voters. Basically, Trump micro-targeted rural non-colleged educated whites, and 2020 pollings weights more on education than before.

With updated polling methodology changes, we have much greater confidence that what we’re seeing in the polls today is a genuine picture of reality.
 

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
Did you not see the 2018 polls predictions for mid-term elections? The updated methodology was much more accurate and even predicted the flipping of the House to the Democrats.

The polls were not far off in 2016. The popular vote was correctly predicted by national avg. polling (+2.1% or +3 million). The state-level polling was less accurate, but within the normal range or margin of error. You have to remember, Trump won by RAZOR-thin margins in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, well within the margin of error of the state-level polls. Trump micro-targeted rural districts within key swing states that help give him an advantage in electoral college and that allowed him to become President.

The 2020 polls are more accurate now. Since 2016, pollsters have modified their weighting and random sampling methodology to weight education to account for "secret Trump vote" more and added new ways to reach out to voters. Basically, Trump micro-targeted rural non-colleged educated whites, and 2020 pollings weights more on education than before.

With updated polling methodology changes, we have much greater confidence that what we’re seeing in the polls today is a genuine picture of reality.
Besides in 2016, Third party votes were quite strong. Now they are really weak. Also Hillary never got 50% during polling, Biden constantly achieved that.
 

Franklin

Captain
For China it doesn't matter if its Biden or Trump that wins the election. Under Biden the retoric on China may change but not the underlying policies. Trump is a wolf but Biden is a fox. They both want the same thing (ie maintain American primacy in the world by hook or by crook) but they are trying to do it in a different way. The fundamental change in the way the west views China is that greed has turned to fear. When they looked at China in the past they see the potential money and profits they can make. But now when they look at China they see a power that could potentially upend the entire post WWII liberal world order. I can only see China western relations worsen in the coming years. Its not about what China does but what it is. A rival power that can potentially knock them off of their purch. And its not even about China its about power. If another country was in the same position as China is in now the response would have been the same. Just look at Japan in the 1980's.
 

bajingan

Senior Member
If Biden wins, i think he will be more aggressive towards russia than China, democrats have an axe to grind against russia (due election interference etc) they still seems to think that there was no way hillary would have lost if not because of putin
Which in turns will make russia even more aligned to China, which is great news having russia as an ally will help to neutralize the asian nato forming against China
 
Top