So how do you feel about people on this board ranting on about Sanders’ “Soviet Honeymoon”? Or saying that the “Pocahontas” thing will sink Warren?
Personally, I think it’s fine. Those particular attacks are stupid, but they will certainly surface in the general election and it’s ridiculous to think we can or should just sweep them all under the rug and go into the general election campaign with no real idea how they will play to voters.
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I feel offended by it. Several posters on this board who are well known as committed Democrats, including myself, have expressed concern that Biden’s gaffes seem to be getting worse and more frequent.
Do you think some or all of us are lying? That we are in fact not concerned about this, but merely pretending to be in order to advance the chances of our preferred candidate? If so, I would suggest that you either put those posters you have such a low opinion of on ignore, or take it to the Pit.
I don’t think you are lying but I do think that your perceptual filter is set to see that which is consistent with what you want to see.
That is not a low opinion unless being human is considered lowly.
I do think it is fair to discuss that Trump will try to pin “old” and “senile” on Biden, just as it is fair to anticipate Soviet honeymoon and Pocahontas. That is very different than making those attacks.
Lying? No, merely *incorrect *as to your *opinion. *
Because, unless you can back that up with a cite?
The fact his campaign team has decided to limit his appearances because of his increasing propensity to stick his foot in his mouth… does that count as a cite?
I mean, his campaign admits it!
What America needs is something it has never had before: a very old President who gets tired easy and can’t stop his mouth. Wait… y’all sure you’re not looking for the Democratic Trump?
“Some close to Biden are floating” the idea isn’t really the same as “his campaign admits it”, don’t you think?
Correct, they’re not the same thing.
Front-runners traditionally make fewer campaign stops and appearances than the rest of the pack.
In fact, search “front runner” and “fewer appearances” and on Google, at least, eight out of the first ten hits are all from news stories about past campaigns: Bill Clinton; Newt Gingrich; Trump in 2016; Rick Santorum, etc. Front-runners in their various races, who, like most front-runners, are out and amongst the voters a bit less than their competitors. And that’s because if you’re the front-runner, there’s no appreciable upside to a grueling-as-possible schedule—but always potential downsides (expense if nothing else).
So some of this “floating” may be reporters trying to goad actual Biden campaign staff into saying something newsworthy.
Invoking the possibility of Obama’s assassination when white-supremacist violence is rising seems reckless, at the very least. Even if there was a more salient point, I can’t understand why any candidate—let alone Obama’s own vice president—would say this.
From here:
I do not believe Biden is the right answer. It is not “his turn” or at least it shouldn’t be. He’s tired and we need better.
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, on those becoming politically aware at that time, on him, to those who were not alive at the time. Think of the impact a thank god it did not happen, murder of the closest you might have to political hero, Obama, would have had on you.
Well, he continued, "“Unless I’m mistaken, Donald Trump did for your generation what the loss of two of my heroes did for mine. What they did was make you realize, my God, we’re in trouble.”
A great oration? Nah. But reckless? That is silliness. His point is salient and, I believe accurate. Trump’s election, his promotion of White nationalism from the White House’s bully pulpit, his belief that he is The Chosen One, The Savior, has had that sort of impact on many younger voters. Sometimes nightmares becoming reality are the only antidote to apathy.
I am not sure if Biden is the right answer. It is not “his turn” and no one makes the argument it is. Stupid shit like this does not convince any one who leans to him that someone else is better.
I’m trying to think of the context in which this is a nice thing to say. I can’t imagine it atm. This is a Biden quote from the article.
Telling women they’re old by looking at them while the men are not. Even if the age differences were very stark, I’m not seeing the goodness of saying this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, it appears you’d prefer trump? Since Biden has the best chance of beating tump.
I have sadly resigned myself to the fact that we will in all likelihood have another Trump term, yes.
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.
Well, why make it easier for him?
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.
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?