Straight Dope Message Board

[Alessan]

It’s especially weird with the Democrats, since old Democrats don’t win elections. Period. 651

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Maybe you didn’t like his debate performance, but you say that like this was the consensus opinion among pundits, and it’s not what I saw at all:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ebate-slugfest


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...campaign-surge


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...ic-debate.html


https://www.cnn.com/opinions/live-ne...-30/index.html

David Gergen:

Patti Solis Doyle:

Paul Begala:

OTOH, voters weren't impressed.

538 shows national polls by eight different pollsters since the last round of debates. I looked at the most recent polls by all eight. YouGov and Morning Consult have Bullock at 1%, and the other six have him at 0%.

Go back to Montana, Gov. Bullock. Run for Senate. Show us again how you can win in a red state. 652

[asahi]

Meanwhile, back to Biden, Politico's got an article examining Biden's concerns with Latino voters, or more accurately, the Latino voters' concerns about Biden. This is bad, because if Biden is seen as racing to the middle when it comes to immigration, that could depress the Latino vote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...n-2020-1461341 653

[Budget Player Cadet]

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...59324191526914

Joe Biden has expressed frustration to allies that his candidacy will suffer if he is judged too harshly on the slip-ups, which he thinks he can do little to correct so long as he is being true to himself.

Why yes, if you're constantly saying stupid shit that makes you look like you have mental problems typical of people your age, people will take notice.



Biden is not a good candidate. 654

[asahi]

At first I thought Biden was just kind of a "Meh, is this the best we got?" kinda candidate. But the more I see him, the more I see the coverage of him, the more convinced I am that he's a slow-moving disaster. I just don't know who else the Democrats have right now that stands out as an obvious winner. I'd like to see Kamala Harris' or Corey Booker's standing improve, but they both have a lot of work to do and Corey just seems to be a candidate who's really going to be viscerally unappealing to rural white America. 655

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by asahi

At first I thought Biden was just kind of a "Meh, is this the best we got?" kinda candidate. But the more I see him, the more I see the coverage of him, the more convinced I am that he's a slow-moving disaster. I just don't know who else the Democrats have right now that stands out as an obvious winner. I'd like to see Kamala Harris' or Corey Booker's standing improve, but they both have a lot of work to do and Corey just seems to be a candidate who's really going to be viscerally unappealing to rural white America.

I mean... there is a consistent second place in the polls, and he polls extremely well against Trump... 656

[JohnT]

Warren is a "she".

Abrams announced, correctly, that she's not running. But she put it out there that she is interested in the VP slot... and I think she would be excellent in that role for the reasons that Asahi listed a couple (or more, I thought I read it somewhere) of posts above: she's a highly respected minority candidate who would bring out the voters in droves. 657

[Budget Player Cadet]

I meant Sanders; Warren would absolutely also be preferable to Biden. So would most of the rest of the candidates in the running. 658

[JohnT]

I know, just jokin' with you. 659

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Abrams announced, correctly, that she's not running. But she put it out there that she is interested in the VP slot... and I think she would be excellent in that role for the reasons that Asahi listed a couple (or more, I thought I read it somewhere) of posts above: she's a highly respected minority candidate who would bring out the voters in droves.

She's also a failed candidate for governor in a blue-wave year. She has the national credentials of O'Rourke at this point - let them each be elected Governor or Senator and we can talk then. 660

[JohnT]

N/m, read your reply wrong 661

[ElvisL1ves]

In fairness, they both have stronger resumes than Mayor Pete, though. Charisma and ability do matter, but they don't come from ethnicity or orientation. Obama won with charisma and ability, not with blackness, for instance. It isn't as obvious how much charisma and ability Abrams has, and O'Rourke hasn't shown much of them in his campaign so far. 662

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

I meant Sanders; Warren would absolutely also be preferable to Biden. So would most of the rest of the candidates in the running.

Yes, of course, the GOP loves the constant attacks on the frontrunner, so that no matter who it is, we end up losing to trump. 663

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

She's also a failed candidate for governor in a blue-wave year. She has the national credentials of O'Rourke at this point - let them each be elected Governor or Senator and we can talk then.

Well that's hardly fair - O'Rourke and Abrahms are both failed gubernatorial candidates during a blue-wave year... who led very competitive campaigns, one against a well-established incumbent and one against an obvious cheating fuckstick, both in deep red states. Yeah, they lost - but that they were even close is wild. 664

[ElvisL1ves]

No one ever said politics is fair. 665

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

No one ever said politics is fair.

It may not be fair. But it doesn't have to be stupid.

I like Abrams a lot and think she's got talent that eventually will have to be acknowledged. But she and Beto both have the same vulnerabilities: not much experience on the national scene, and a record of losing---no matter what the ameliorating circumstances---that will cling.

They could each be plausible in the VP slot. But these are not the people to be pushing forward as our standard bearer.



As far as ripping down Biden: I think that's stupid, too.* Or at least, stupid if you want to get rid of Trump. Smart, otherwise.



*As my posting record will show I am not in the tank for Joe. But I'm not going to do the work of the GOP/Kremlin by doing my best to paint him as unelectable, either. 666

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

....

They could each be plausible in the VP slot. But these are not the people to be pushing forward as our standard bearer.



As far as ripping down Biden: I think that's stupid, too.* Or at least, stupid if you want to get rid of Trump. Smart, otherwise.


....

Biden is just my guy as I think he can whup trump. Politics wise, others are good, and youth, etc, yes. But attacking him is just giving votes to trump. 667

[JohnT]

I agree: the last thing we need is Trump winning the Dem primary, too. That *would* be a disaster! 668

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Biden is just my guy as I think he can whup trump. Politics wise, others are good, and youth, etc, yes. But attacking him is just giving votes to trump.

Yeah.

I can understand advocacy such as 'my favored candidate has a detailed policy on the gun issue that I think could win over a lot of moderate voters' or 'my favored candidate has such-and-such a record on winning elections in red or purple districts' and the like.

It's true that implicit in such advocacy is a sort of 'my favored candidate is better on this than all the other candidates'---but what isn't in such advocacy is 'here's how the Trump campaign can put together a really effective attack on the eventual Dem nominee.'

Wouldn't it be useful if we could avoid that? (Rhetorical question.) 669

[Thing Fish]

How about “my favored candidate is one of the dozen-plus candidates who isn’t showing possible early signs of senility”?

I hate to break the news to you, but Faux News has already noticed this. 670

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Wouldn't it be useful if we could avoid that? (Rhetorical question.)

Non-rhetorical answer: no, it doesn't matter because, big surprise, the Republicans have people who already know about this shit.

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

How about “my favored candidate is one of the dozen-plus candidates who isn’t showing possible early signs of senility”?

I hate to break the news to you, but Faux News has already noticed this.

Shocking! We all assumed they were twiddling their thumbs waiting for a nice polite Dem primary to wrap up. 671

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

How about “my favored candidate is one of the dozen-plus candidates who isn’t showing possible early signs of senility”?
I hate to break the news to you, but Faux News has already noticed this.

Well, Biden as a "gaffe machine" has been talked about for, what, forty years? So why weren't people talking about his supposed "senility" when he was a Senator? (And VP and all the rest of his life?)

It's an attack that's doubly absurd when you look at Biden's prospective opponent, Donald Dementia Trump. (Again, I am not in the tank for Biden. I'm just of a mind that doing the GOP's work for them by attacking individual Dems is stupid.)

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Non-rhetorical answer: no, it doesn't matter because, big surprise, the Republicans have people who already know about this shit.

Why help Republicans?

I guarantee you that Democratic foes of Bernie have come up with lines of anti-Bernie attack that the right wouldn't have thought up on their own--and the same is probably true for Biden and Harris and Warren and all the rest.

Why help Republicans? Let them muddle along with their dim little mental powers. 672

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Non-rhetorical answer: no, it doesn't matter because, big surprise, the Republicans have people who already know about this shit.

Yeppers.

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Why help Republicans?

Do we have any evidence that suggests that our debates on this board affect anything outside of here?

Besides, they've got a massive permanent campaign infrastructure of think tanks and ideological nonprofits. They've got people whose full-time jobs it is to come up with shit to throw at people on the left.

We're really not going to make a difference, one way or the other. 673

[RTFirefly]

Meanwhile, Warren seems to be getting a lock on the position of being Biden's only serious rival. In the last three A-rated polls (Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA, Fox News), all since the last debate, she's been at 21, 19, 20. Sanders is fading, Harris is back down in the single digits, Mayor Pete's back in the low single digits, and nobody else seems to be emerging from the scrum at 2% and below.

In the words of Dylan, "Things should start to get interesting right about now." At the next debate, Biden had better be ready to defend his role in the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, because Warren will be ready to wrap it around his neck. 674

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

... Do we have any evidence that suggests that our debates on this board affect anything outside of here? ...

I wasn't thinking of this board when I wrote post #669. I was thinking of 'Democrats and other anti-Trump writers and speakers, wherever they may be writing or speaking,' roughly.

Many find it to be enjoyable and fun to rip down candidates who stand in the way of their own favored candidate. And there's a certain feeling of righteousness that settles in as one goes about those attacks. The rationale comes readily to hand: 'I'm helping by pointing out how vulnerable the front-runner will be in the general election.'

The attendant complacency validates the activity. At least it does if one isn't in the habit of self-reflection. As Feynman said, the first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.

As I've posted more than once, I'm not an advocate for Biden. There are quite a few lines of attack against him that I could be posting about here, on Twitter, and elsewhere. It's easy enough to do.

That doesn't make it smart or useful, if the goal is to get rid of Trump. 675

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Meanwhile, Warren seems to be getting a lock on the position of being Biden's only serious rival. In the last three A-rated polls (Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA, Fox News), all since the last debate, she's been at 21, 19, 20. Sanders is fading, Harris is back down in the single digits, Mayor Pete's back in the low single digits, and nobody else seems to be emerging from the scrum at 2% and below.

In the words of Dylan, "Things should start to get interesting right about now." At the next debate, Biden had better be ready to defend his role in the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, because Warren will be ready to wrap it around his neck.

Agreed. Warren is the only one positioned to overtake him when the shit gets real.

I don't think the personal style attacks on Biden are what he needs to be afraid of. He needs to fear this becoming that two person fight with Warren in which it becomes a real meaty debate of ideas for the future and thinking on your feet. She would dominate in that. I don't think she will do a Harris-like holding him to account for past votes because it goes against her brand. She will instead contrast her having ideas with plans for how to make the future better and work to convince voters that she is as electable as Biden is or more on her strengths, not because of his weaknesses.

Will any of the others try to tear her down before that? 676

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

As I've posted more than once, I'm not an advocate for Biden. There are quite a few lines of attack against him that I could be posting about here, on Twitter, and elsewhere. It's easy enough to do.

That doesn't make it smart or useful, if the goal is to get rid of Trump.

Actually, it quite obviously does make it smart and useful. The job here isn't to make sure Biden or any other candidate comes out unscathed from the primaries. It's to see who can weather the coming storm. Pretending this shit doesn't exist until next year is not smart. Biden's old fogey gaffer shit needs to be addressed and overcome, not ignored.

Highlighting schisms in the party is stupid but that's not what Biden's age, Warren's electioneering, or Buttigieg's newbness is about. 677

[asahi]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

In the words of Dylan, "Things should start to get interesting right about now." At the next debate, Biden had better be ready to defend his role in the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, because Warren will be ready to wrap it around his neck.

Agreed -- if opponents are going to be successful against Biden, it will be his record as a senator from 2000 to 2008 that will be the soft target. And there's a lot to choose from. 678

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Actually, it quite obviously does make it smart and useful. The job here isn't to make sure Biden or any other candidate comes out unscathed from the primaries. It's to see who can weather the coming storm. Pretending this shit doesn't exist until next year is not smart. Biden's old fogey gaffer shit needs to be addressed and overcome, not ignored.

Highlighting schisms in the party is stupid but that's not what Biden's age, Warren's electioneering, or Buttigieg's newbness is about.

So you'd agree that all the focus on Hillary's emails and Bengazi and Vince Foster and speeches to Wall Street in 2015 and 2016 were "smart and useful"...? 679

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

So you'd agree that all the focus on Hillary's emails and Bengazi and Vince Foster and speeches to Wall Street in 2015 and 2016 were "smart and useful"...?

Have you dropped a gasket? Of course that's all bad stuff for Clinton and it probably helped sink her (except Vince Foster, come on). But you are contending that it would have been better if that had all been ignored in the primaries and would have either been unmentioned or less effective if it only got brought out in the general.

And it is a different situation now completely. In 2016, it was always going to be Clinton. This time there's an actual choice to be made. 680

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

... Pretending this shit doesn't exist until next year is not smart. Biden's old fogey gaffer shit needs to be addressed and overcome, not ignored.
...

No, all it does it push votes to trump. Attacking any Dem candidates unless it's on electability or issues just gives trump votes, exactly what happened in 2016. 681

[asahi]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, all it does it push votes to trump. Attacking any Dem candidates unless it's on electability or issues just gives trump votes, exactly what happened in 2016.

What we're debating here is whether other candidates should pull their punches out of respect for an old guy who has been told it's his turn and he's electable. I say let voters themselves decide who's electable and let the candidates go at it. 682

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, all it does it push votes to trump. Attacking any Dem candidates unless it's on electability or issues just gives trump votes, exactly what happened in 2016.

Trump is running in the Dem primary too? 683

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by asahi

What we're debating here is whether other candidates should pull their punches out of respect for an old guy who has been told it's his turn and he's electable. I say let voters themselves decide who's electable and let the candidates go at it.

Seconded. 684

[iiandyiiii]

Primaries should be a crucible, which includes political attacks of all types. It doesn't help Trump unless/until we have a nominee (or all-but-certain nominee). 9-12 months from now, it won't matter that Harris challenged Biden strongly on issues related to segregation. In all likelihood, one or both of them will be out of the race, and united behind the nominee (which may or may not be one of them). 685

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by asahi

What we're debating here is whether other candidates should pull their punches out of respect for an old guy who has been told it's his turn and he's electable. I say let voters themselves decide who's electable and let the candidates go at it.

They shoudl all pull their punches when talking about any other Dem candidate.

Stick to issues. Tell us why you are great. Dont tear down others. 686

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Trump is running in the Dem primary too?

The bernie-bros constant attacks on Hillary, even after she was the candidate is one of the factors that allowed trump to win. The kremlin aided this. 687

[Budget Player Cadet]

Meanwhile...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...o-limit-gaffes

Allies to Joe Biden have been floating the idea of altering the former vice president's schedule in an effort to reduce the gaffes he has made in recent days.

The allies, growing increasingly nervous about Biden's verbal flubs, have said it's an approach that's been suggested to campaign officials on the heels of the former vice president’s stumbles.

Biden has a tendency to make the blunders late in the day, his allies say, particularly after a long swing on the road, like he had last week in Iowa. They say something needs to be done to give the candidate more down time as the campaign intensifies in the fall.

Thank goodness that the job he's applying for isn't particularly strenuous. 688

[you with the face]

It's in the country's best interest that he keep flubbing; it's the only thing that might wake people up to the idea that he shouldn't be President.

So please keep talking, Joe. 689

[Boycott]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Meanwhile...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...o-limit-gaffes



Thank goodness that the job he's applying for isn't particularly strenuous.

Whoever told the media that are clearly not allies as the article says. 690

[asahi]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

They shoudl all pull their punches when talking about any other Dem candidate.

Stick to issues. Tell us why you are great. Dont tear down others.

I think we'll see less and less of the circus and more actual debate once the field begins to narrow, probably beginning next month. 691

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Meanwhile...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...o-limit-gaffes



Thank goodness that the job he's applying for isn't particularly strenuous.

Something not lost on Trump last night at his New Hampshire rally. You can see how Trump is going to frame a campaign against Biden: Sleepy Joe. Weak Joe. Old Joe. Forgetful Joe. Nursing Home Joe. Trump is also 70-something but he doesn't have to remember talking points. He doesn't have to remember facts and floor votes from 20 years ago. Joe does, and that's the problem - one of many - he'll have against an unchained Donald Trump. 692

[DSeid]

There is a balance. You don’t want to be left with a nominee who has their unfavorables high going into the general by a
mostly negative primary campaign. But you do need a fair critical evaluation of the candidates.

To his credit Sanders played it right with the “I don’t care about your emails” bit. The level of criticism he played was fine and he criticized lots. Not GOP under the belt ones though. He failed to recognize when the time had come to circle the wagons however and never did so very well. He was a bad loser. 693

[pohjonen]

Originally Posted by asahi

What we're debating here is whether other candidates should pull their punches out of respect for an old guy who has been told it's his turn and he's electable. I say let voters themselves decide who's electable and let the candidates go at it.

Thirded. 694

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Of course that's all bad stuff for Clinton and it probably helped sink her (except Vince Foster, come on). But you are contending that it would have been better if that had all been ignored in the primaries and would have either been unmentioned or less effective if it only got brought out in the general. ..

No, I'm contending that personal (as opposed to policy) attacks by fellow-Democrats, help legitimize those personal attacks.

Originally Posted by asahi

What we're debating here is whether other candidates should pull their punches out of respect for an old guy who has been told it's his turn and he's electable. I say let voters themselves decide who's electable and let the candidates go at it.

Refraining from undermining this front-runner is nothing to do with "it's his turn"---who is saying that, anyway?

"Electable," on the other hand, is not irrelevant, nor trivial. When Biden announced I expected he'd have the usual announcement-bounce, then settle into the top spot by a few percentage points (given the name-recognition factor). Instead he's been comfortably ahead by double-digits most of the months since the announcement. Probably no one posting here finds him to be the most inspirational candidate ever, and our arrogant assumption is that because of that, He Must Go. We are ignoring a vast number of voters, and we are ignoring them to our peril.

If you want to do the GOP's work by deep-sixing someone who would certainly be a vast improvement on Trump, no matter how old, then go ahead.

Originally Posted by DSeid

There is a balance. You don’t want to be left with a nominee who has their unfavorables high going into the general by a
mostly negative primary campaign. But you do need a fair critical evaluation of the candidates.

To his credit Sanders played it right with the “I don’t care about your emails” bit. The level of criticism he played was fine and he criticized lots. Not GOP under the belt ones though. He failed to recognize when the time had come to circle the wagons however and never did so very well. He was a bad loser.

Yes. There is a time to stop the infighting. There is a time to put a lid on personal ambition and think about the good of the country.

Maybe one of the other candidates will, organically (that is, not through knife wounds administered by fellow-Democrats) emerge as a new front-runner. If they don't, though: it's time to be patriots. And adults. It's time to realize that there is a larger issue, here:

We are only beginning to see the harm Trump has done. And he will do more. Now is the time to look at the damn polls and realize that our own personal opinions may not be the best gauge of the nation as a whole. It's time to stop aiding and abetting the forces of repression. Stop working the straight Kremlin line: Oh, no, we're not excited about Biden. He's got all these flaws. Oh, how tragic! We must have candidates who excite us, or we just can't be expected to vote!!1!!!!! So get out the knives and start stabbing! That way we'll get the ideal candidate--one we can revere and adore!

Are we really going to be so foolish? 695

[DSeid]

Punches should not be pulled. But they should not be punches that are shameful to throw.

Look. I expect and hope to see Warren criticized. I need to see how she handles it before I can fully believe in her. But I would not expect or want to see a Democrat doing a Pocahontas approach. Sleepy Joe is self same. 696

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Punches should not be pulled. But they should not be punches that are shameful to throw.

Look. I expect and hope to see Warren criticized. I need to see how she handles it before I can fully believe in her. But I would not expect or want to see a Democrat doing a Pocahontas approach. Sleepy Joe is self same.

Seconded. 697

[CarnalK]

Well, "Sleepy Joe" might not be the way to put it but I think whether to elect a 76/77 yr old man to the job is a legitimate issue. I don't know how you can phrase it that would satisfy the likes of DrDeth and Sherrerd. 698

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by pohjonen

Thirded.

Yes, that means trump walks to re-election. 699

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Well, "Sleepy Joe" might not be the way to put it but I think whether to elect a 76/77 yr old man to the job is a legitimate issue. I don't know how you can phrase it that would satisfy the likes of DrDeth and Sherrerd.

No, mere age isn't, I mean, Look, there's been a couple dozen posts maybe here about how old Joe is- but Sanders is older. And trump is a close third.

Why is Joe too old but Sanders and trump arent?

The answer is simple- Biden is in the lead, so the GOP and Sanders and the Kremlin are attacking him. And trump and the kremlin are scared of Biden.

So Biden gets hit- "too old" "too gaffee' " too whatever" and Sanders gets a pass.

Maybe we shoudl stop helping trump get re-elected and focus on the issues and which candidate is better? 700