Straight Dope Message Board

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Really?

Did you even make any effort to understand what the context of that statement was?

The discussion was about the impact of events of that time, the murders of those leaders, his political heros, kids being shot at (and some killed and wounded) at Kent State...

As best as I can tell from your NYT link, that context was all his creation, so I don't see how that improves it. It seems just as weird regardless of how he got himself there. 751

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Biden

I think of where we are at the moment. You know, none of you men are old — women are old enough, but a couple of you guys are old enough to remember. I graduated in 1968. Everybody before me was, drop out, go to Haight-Ashbury, don’t trust anybody over 30, everybody not getting involved. I’m serious, I know no woman will shake their head and acknowledge it, but you guys know what I’m talking about. Right? But then what happened? Dr. Ki— I only have two political heroes. I have one hero who was my dad, but I have two political heroes were Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. My senior semester they were both shot and killed. Imagine what would have happened if, God forbid, Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would have happened in America?

Can someone translate the sentence in bold for me? What’s with the gender implication? It sounds like some kind of wink wink nudge nudge thing he’s going for, but it’s a weird thing to use as a set up to talking about assasination.

I’m not outraged that Biden hypothesized about Obama being killed, but it is pretty dumb . Why is it necessary to put Obama in the bullseye to make his point? Many of us remember quite well the fear of some nutjob taking Obama out. Asking us to re-contemplate something we contemplated repeatedly 10 years ago (until the present) is like a man asking a teenaged girl to imagine what would happen if her period started in the middle of PE, she’s wearing white shorts, and she doesn’t have protection. Every girl has mentally played out this scenario at least a dozen times before she’s 16. She knows that this would be bad. It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume this isn’t universally obvious.

1968 was a real bad time, Joe. We get it, really. 752

[Lamoral]

Sounds like a reference to the old joke, or whatever you'd call it, that you're never supposed to say how old a woman is or imply that she's old. It could be used in a funny and light hearted fashion by someone who knows how to talk.

Biden is pathetic. He tangles himself into knots every time he talks. He doesn't speak with authority. He sounds confused. He sounds weak. He would get his ass stomped into the ground by Trump. Fuck off, Joe. 753

[you with the face]

The only thing missing in that paragraph was the onion that you know he tied to his belt.

I might vote for Biden in the primary if he could work that reference into his next speech. 754

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

Biden is pathetic. He tangles himself into knots every time he talks. He doesn't speak with authority. He sounds confused. He sounds weak. He would get his ass stomped into the ground by Trump. Fuck off, Joe.

So, it appears you'd prefer trump? Since Biden has the best chance of beating tump. 755

[Lamoral]

I have sadly resigned myself to the fact that we will in all likelihood have another Trump term, yes. 756

[pjacks]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So, it appears you'd prefer trump? Since Biden has the best chance of beating tump.

The sad irony here is that the same people who keep repeating this mantra are also the same exact people who dismissed the polls 4 years ago that showed Sanders polling better against Trump than Clinton. What changed?

But of course polls taken this far in advance have very little predictive value, and most voters are barely paying attention to the presidential race. They see "Biden" as an option and think of the scandal-free, folksy VP a few years ago. They think it's still the same Uncle Joe they know so well. Once they start to realize that he can barely speak coherently anymore and his handlers are keeping him hidden away for nap time, his margins against Trump will slowly shrink the closer we get to election day.

IMHO the thing that killed Clinton's campaign wasn't Russia, or Comey, or even her decades-long blood feud with the GOP. It was when she collapsed from pneumonia and was thrown into a car like a sack of potatoes, seemingly confirming to moronic voters a weeks-long barrage of conspiracy theories about her health. That was the exact moment she lost the election. Americans don't want to vote for someone who doesn't seem healthy, virile, or capable of being Commander in Chief.

So nominate Biden and see what happens. He won't have the option of hiding during the general election campaign unfortunately, and sticking to nothing but teleprompters diring rallies and town halls will be a no-no. Every day we will be hearing about some new baffling thing that spews out of his mouth, and we will be treated to constant clips of him shuffling and stumbling around like a lost nursing home resident. You all better hope he doesn't faint or something, as any old man would while doing something even half as physically & mentally taxing as running for president. 757

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

I have sadly resigned myself to the fact that we will in all likelihood have another Trump term, yes.

Well, why make it easier for him? 758

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by pjacks

The sad irony here is that the same people who keep repeating this mantra are also the same exact people who dismissed the polls 4 years ago that showed Sanders polling better against Trump than Clinton. What changed?
....
IMHO the thing that killed Clinton's campaign wasn't Russia, or Comey, or even her decades-long blood feud with the GOP. It was when she collapsed from pneumonia and was thrown into a car like a sack of potatoes, seemingly confirming to moronic voters a weeks-long barrage of conspiracy theories about her health. That was the exact moment she lost the election.....

Well, that's because we knew that Sanders was doing better as his Bros and the GOp were mercilessly attacking Clinton with Fake news and propaganda, while letting Bernie slide. Later we found out the kremlin was actually HELPING Bernie. So that better in the polls was completely caused by the Bros, kremlin and GOP.

538 disagrees, and honestly i dont even remember that episode. 759

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So, it appears you'd prefer trump? Since Biden has the best chance of beating tump.

Based on... What, exactly? Opinion polls over a year out from the election? It sure ain't based on his actual performance, what he's saying, or anything tangible. In fact, from what I'm seeing, the logic goes like this:

"I support Biden because he has the best chance of beating Trump."
"Why do you say that?"
"Because he's polling well."
"Why is he polling well?"
"Because people think he has the best chance of beating Trump."

... Which seems like a very poor strategy, all things considered. Especially when you consider that basically every time Biden has taken a news cycle, it's been news that makes him look really bad, in ways that actually matter. The more we see of him, the worse he looks - which is why his aides are trying to minimize his public appearances.

In fact, opinion polls or not, Biden has several very significant liabilities against Trump. He's a symbol of exactly the same establishment that Clinton was. He's famously cozy with wall street. He voted for the Iraq war. If Trump can run the 2016 playbook against anyone, it's against Biden. You really want to repeat the mistakes of 2016? Really? 760

[Boycott]

Hillary made a similar point in 2008 and got panned for it. I sort of understand the point but Biden himself was a target of a mail bomb last year. Very bad reference. He has to stop going off on one. His answers to the media pool often have the longest transcripts. He should be able to answer in half as many words since that's what you have to do on the debate stage. 761

[Richard Parker]

In 2007 before Iowa, the majority of Democrats thought Clinton was more electable than Obama. I wonder what those numbers look like in hindsight. 762

[Boycott]

I think people forget the 2008 primary and how dirty it got at times. Dog whistles from the Clinton campaign vs latent sexism from the Obama campaign. If twitter was as big then as it is now that would have been quite a fight.

In the end it was when Obama pulled off Iowa where there was a giant shift to his side. I think black voters particularly in the South where waiting with eagerness to see what the majority white Iowa decided. 763

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Based on... What, exactly? ...

The theory of his electability is based not just on polls that say he is electable but on the fact that he has been and continues to be fairly popular with several (not all) of the key voter groups: working class white voters (who Clinton did historically absurdly poorly with); Black voters (won't get Obama level but you need to get at lest Clinton level turnout and share); and voters from center Left to the center (which include many suburban and swing district voters). No one else running has the track record of favorability ratings with all of them.

The converse is that he does not do well with younger more progressive voters (with fears that they'll once again sit on their asses), and that he does not appeal to those who do not want a return to normalcy but would prefer a more disruptive non-establishment approach. But no reason to think he would do any less poorly with them than Clinton did after a long bruising campaign with Sanders, and every reason to think that Trump in office has been that wake up call that the perceived perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, that establishment is better than fascist and that fascism is worth fighting against even if the result isn't your favorite.

Is that theory true? Not sure because it depends on how a campaign plays out. And there are alternative theories to be made for why someone else might be more electable.

But it is not merely due to head to head national match ups more than a year out which inform little. 764

[Ryan_Liam]

How's that Monmouth Poll doin' DSeid? 765

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

How's that Monmouth Poll doin' DSeid?

Given Biden's latest 'war stories', we may yet find that poll prescient.

WTF, Joe... how hard is it for you not to step on your own dick? 766

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Boycott

I think people forget the 2008 primary and how dirty it got at times. Dog whistles from the Clinton campaign vs latent sexism from the Obama campaign. If twitter was as big then as it is now that would have been quite a fight.

In the end it was when Obama pulled off Iowa where there was a giant shift to his side. I think black voters particularly in the South where waiting with eagerness to see what the majority white Iowa decided.

This is a good post. I am obviously not black, but my sense all along is that black voters would support someone other than Biden if they can demonstrate their mettle as a candidate, and they'd pull away from Biden if they felt he was a dangerously weak and feeble candidate. I don't think we're there quite yet, but there's enough evidence that the voters can shift and flip the tables on Biden. His campaign surely knows that. 767

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Boycott

I think people forget the 2008 primary and how dirty it got at times. Dog whistles from the Clinton campaign vs latent sexism from the Obama campaign. If twitter was as big then as it is now that would have been quite a fight.

Very nearly got much dirtier. Remember the "Michigan Compromise"?

The quick version: Michigan held its primary before all of the "big four" did, and, under party rules at the time, this meant that its delegates would not be seated at the convention. I am assuming that the plan was, the "early states" would have their primaries to determine a front runner (so now they were "important"), and then, once there was a clear-cut choice for the nominee, the delegates would be let back in. Because of this, most of the candidates skipped Michigan; Clinton, however, was on the ballot, and the delegates were pretty much split between her and "uncommitted" (delegates who could vote for anybody).

However, at the end of May, nobody had a majority. The Clinton campaign demanded that Michigan's delegates be seated "as elected." The party came up with a plan that was a compromise between the original count and splitting the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. The Clinton campaign demanded that the original count stand, and ended the conversation with, "We're taking this to the floor of the convention." 768

[septimus]

Others aren't focusing on the important reason why Joe Biden's age is a problem.

According to the SocSec Actuarial tables, a man of Biden's age has a 5.1% chance of dying between now and Election Day. The comparable chance for a woman of Warren's age is only 1.8%. 5% is a big deal in a high-stakes game.

Now, both Biden and Warren are probably much healthier than the average person their age, so those numbers are high; I show them just as a base-line for consideration. However death is NOT the big problem. A simple death might allow Democrats to rally around a second choice. What I'm worried about are accident, illness, fatigue, or loss of mental acuity. These are all problems much more likely to affect a 77-year old than a younger person. (I don't have actuarial tables showing the chances of such a problem, but since death is 5% I'd guess the risk is much greater than that.)

If Biden could be trusted to withdraw promptly and thoroughly in the event of an accident, illness, fatigue or loss of mental acuity, then perhaps the risk would be worth running. But many illnesses or accidents are "minor." Withdraw or don't withdraw? Any uncertainty or indecision would focus the campaign in a bad way for Democrats. (Recall that Hilary's quite minor illness became a big talking point in 2016.) If the withdrawal, whether voluntary or forced, comes at the end of the primary season, Democrats might be thrown into consternation. Who gets the job? (The person in 2nd-place by delegate count might not be the proper choice: the campaign would have played out differently without Biden.)

And even the mildest of problems is likely to be exaggerated by the media, particularly in this Fake News era. He continues to make gaffes? Political opponents will blame it on dementia. He's late for a press conference? Trump will make sarcastic comments about Joe's cardiologist.

The risk that some event — accident, illness or even just gaffes — will make Biden's age a central issue in the campaign is just too great. No, the fact that Trump is also old — though almost 4 years younger than Biden — is NOT the counterargument: Trump could have a heart attack on Fifth Avenue and wouldn't lose support.

I'm surprised this isn't as clear to others as it is to me. The risk of running a man that old is just too great. Elizabeth Warren for President! 769

[asahi]

Elizabeth Warren isn't that much younger than Biden, and Bernie's older, but both come across as mentally sharper than Uncle Joe. Bernie can pull this off because he says the same thing over and over again, which makes it easy to stay on message, and he's passionate about it. What Warren does, however, involves a higher degree of difficulty, and she manages to string out her wonky proposals but does so with simplified language and passion. If the candidates were baseball pitchers, we'd say that Biden and Bernie rely on the fastball; Warren, by contrast, can change speeds and location. She has a broader repertoire. 770

[carrps]

Originally Posted by asahi

Elizabeth Warren isn't that much younger than Biden, and Bernie's older, but both come across as mentally sharper than Uncle Joe. Bernie can pull this off because he says the same thing over and over again, which makes it easy to stay on message, and he's passionate about it. What Warren does, however, involves a higher degree of difficulty, and she manages to string out her wonky proposals but does so with simplified language and passion. If the candidates were baseball pitchers, we'd say that Biden and Bernie rely on the fastball; Warren, by contrast, can change speeds and location. She has a broader repertoire.

Warren is 6 years younger than Biden. That's a lot to me. 771

[DSeid]

I don’t think his age will actually be a major factor but as generic items gender plays a role too. Women live longer. A generic 71 year old women is from many perspectives quite a bit younger than a generic 77 year man or even than a 71 year old man. 772

[septimus]

Originally Posted by asahi

Elizabeth Warren isn't that much younger than Biden ...

This was answered in the post immediately prior to yours, but let's look at numbers.

Warren is 6.59 years younger than Biden. That's most of a decade.

A 70 year old woman has the same probability of dying as a 64½ year old man. A 77 year old man has the same probability of dying as an 80-year old woman. Thus, assuming illness rates correlate with death rates, Biden is effectively at least ten (gender-adjusted) years older than Warren. Yes, that's Ten with a T.

Of course, those are average numbers, and I'm the first to scream objections when overall averages are applied to specifics. All three of the front-runners seem healthy and strong for their respective ages (and all three seem healthier than Trump). Among the group, it is Warren whose stamina seems most impressive. How many "selfies" have already been taken with Warren since she began campaigning? 40,000+ by one estimate!

Originally Posted by asahi

Elizabeth Warren isn't that much younger than Biden ...

No. Ten years. With a T. 773

[RTFirefly]

I share septimus' concern about Biden's age. I'm obviously working from a small sample here, but my experience with my and my wife's aging family members is that the same person who still is sharp as a tack at 80 is all too often someone you don't want to see answer the phone to an unfamiliar number by 82 or 83.

And AFAICT, there's really no way to predict which 'sharp' 80 year olds will still be similarly sharp at 85. My dad was, my mom wasn't. If there's a way of determining whether I'll go the way of my dad or the way of my mom, I'd love to know it.

And I'd love to know about Biden, but obviously I can't, and neither can anyone else. But it makes me wonder whether his parents lived into their 80s, and if so, how they fared mentally as they aged. 774

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by septimus

:...
Of course, those are average numbers, and I'm the first to scream objections when overall averages are applied to specifics. ..

And rightly so as they are meaningless. Look a certain % of 35 yo are already DEAD, and thus quite a bit less healthy than Warren or Sanders or Biden or for that matter trump.

And note it's only us dems obsessing over age, i dont see any GOpers worrying about trumps age.

So maybe, lets shut up about age and concentrate on beating trump, instead of disqualifying our top three candidates over a more or less meaningless number. That plays right into the GOps hands. 775

[pjacks]

Joe Biden is basically one of those decomposing characters from a Tim Burton movie now.
I wonder... if some other parts of his Skeksis body start randomly bleeding during a debate with Trump next year, will that affect his polling numbers? 776

[RTFirefly]

IMHO, there are lots of reasons to not want Biden to be the nominee, but this bullshit story about Hunter Biden and Ukraine isn't one of them. Fuck that Trump/Rudy bullshit - Dems need to stand united in rejecting literally Trumped-up fabrications like this. 777

[Velocity]

So, I have a question........for those who support Biden, how happy would you be with him as president? I don't mean happy in the sense of "Anyone would be better than Trump," but happy from a (D) standpoint. Do you truly feel he's your guy who represents your views (as opposed to Warren, Bernie, etc.) or is it just anyone-but-Trump?

If Warren, Bernie and Biden all stood exactly the same chance of defeating Trump, would you still be going with Biden? 778

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Velocity

So, I have a question........for those who support Biden, how happy would you be with him as president? I don't mean happy in the sense of "Anyone would be better than Trump," but happy from a (D) standpoint. Do you truly feel he's your guy who represents your views (as opposed to Warren, Bernie, etc.) or is it just anyone-but-Trump?

If Warren, Bernie and Biden all stood exactly the same chance of defeating Trump, would you still be going with Biden?

Yes. He's more moderate. Bernie is now off the rails. Warren is a gun grabber, so are Harris, Beto and Booker. I like Mayor Pete, but a openly gay may wont play in Peoria in 2020. I hope America changes enuf so Pete can go for the ring in 2028.

Oddly Beto was my second choice until...... 779

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by Velocity

So, I have a question........for those who support Biden, how happy would you be with him as president? I don't mean happy in the sense of "Anyone would be better than Trump," but happy from a (D) standpoint. Do you truly feel he's your guy who represents your views (as opposed to Warren, Bernie, etc.) or is it just anyone-but-Trump?

If Warren, Bernie and Biden all stood exactly the same chance of defeating Trump, would you still be going with Biden?

Here are my reasons for supporting Biden:

Due to his long career in politics and through the various positions he has held, no one is better positioned to immediately and urgently call upon experts throughout the country to come back into government service to try to restore some semblance of normalcy to our government. Trump has done an immense and breathtaking amount of damage. It's not immediately apparent, but he has hollowed out our State Department, Departments of Energy, Education, etc., EPA and many more. He has corrupted the DOJ and our national security agencies. Someone with wide experience, both foreign and domestic, must put it all back to rights.

I'm all for liberal progress and in fact agree with Warren on many of her positions. In any other election, I would probably support her over Biden. But her issues are just not the priority in this election. I am really frightened for the basic infrastructure of our democracy. It has been severely weakened.

That doesn't mean Warren can't serve in a very influential manner within a Biden Administration. In fact, I think she could be a significant component, and I hope, like Hillary Clinton sucked it up for Obama to serve as his first Secretary of State, Warren would be agreeable to fulfill a role. 780

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Yes. He's more moderate. Bernie is now off the rails. Warren is a gun grabber, so are Harris, Beto and Booker. I like Mayor Pete, but a openly gay may wont play in Peoria in 2020. I hope America changes enuf so Pete can go for the ring in 2028.

Oddly Beto was my second choice until......

We all know what Beto said about AK-47s. Or was it about AR-15s? Whatever. The others haven't called for banning guns. As for Buttigieg, I'm not so sure I agree. The Dems don't need the right to elect a Dem. 781

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

We all know what Beto said about AK-47s. Or was it about AR-15s? Whatever. The others haven't called for banning guns. As for Buttigieg, I'm not so sure I agree. The Dems don't need the right to elect a Dem.

Booker and Harris have confirmed they are Ok with confiscating AR15s.

No, they dont need the MAGA hat wearers but they do need the moderates in the Rust belt, etc. Those people arent always as progressive as the coasts are. It's changing. 782

[RTFirefly]

Here's some great messaging from Biden: what's bad is that Trump tried to pressure a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election. What's even worse is that we're down 2 points in Iowa.

I kid you not. 783

[CarnalK]

I thought it was funny. A little gallows humor.

I mean, unless the email went on to make a serious case. Otherwise, I take the snippet as a joke. 784

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Here's some great messaging from Biden: what's bad is that Trump tried to pressure a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election. What's even worse is that we're down 2 points in Iowa.

I kid you not.

Perhaps it's my leftward bias,
how I read that...
Despite Trump admitting to what clearly impeachable behaviour that should stop him in his tracks, we [Democrats] are down 2 points - let's doe something about it 785

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Velocity

... If Warren, Bernie and Biden all stood exactly the same chance of defeating Trump, would you still be going with Biden?

Ive been wavering between Warren and Biden lately but beyond electability it would still be close. Likely Biden.

I think the ACA is something to laud and build on not tear down, that what is called MfA is at best problematic. I don’t like Warren’s position against using nuclear power as part of all of the above. I think Biden is a better choice for dealing with international affairs. I think Biden would likely actually deliver more of the progressive agenda than bold but doomed to not pass plans would. But Warren hits on wealth inequality more and I see that as a key issue.

Close.

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Here's some great messaging from Biden: what's bad is that Trump tried to pressure a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election. What's even worse is that we're down 2 points in Iowa.

I kid you not.

I thought it was funny. Clearly intended as such. Your humor mileage may vary.

Listening to talking heads today the take is that this Ukraine bit will help Warren. I think it will help Biden. Not only is it pretty clear there is nothing there it ends up highlighting his active role in the Obama administration. That plays into his messaging bigly. 786

[Thing Fish]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

Perhaps it's my leftward bias,
how I read that...
Despite Trump admitting to what clearly impeachable behaviour that should stop him in his tracks, we [Democrats] are down 2 points - let's doe something about it

No, it’s not that the Dems are down 2 points against Trump, it’s that Biden is down 2 points against Warren. 787

[Boycott]

More than 30 high-ranking Obama administration officials are hosting a Wednesday soiree for Joe Biden intended to be equal parts fundraiser and public show of support for the former vice president’s 2020 campaign.

This is good for him.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...draiser-065567

I've heard remarks from Obama WH officials like Susan Rice and Eric Holder praise his character and resume but this as far as I know is the first public rallying by Obama WH alumni to their former boss. 788