If Biden agrees to only serve one term then he’s admitting he’s too old. There is a very good reason nobody has ever said they would not run for re-election.
Now, I seem to recall that the immortal James Knox Polk made that exact promise when he ran back in ‘44– and kept it. Am I misremembering?
I dont want him to say that. But I do want a young vigorous Veep just in case 4 years as Prez makes Joe rethink it. Right now, he is healthy. But sure, Prez does drain your health.
No it doesnt. We need to put forward the candidate with the best chance of unseating Trump, not just a chance. Myriad Democrats have the potential to beat Trump. The only reason anyone would think Biden has the best shot at winning, rather than just the generic (D) standard shot, is because its so early and there is no one else to talk about yet.
What did I say ?
*Put in the man who has the highest chance of beating Trump. *
And that man aint Joe Biden. Is all im saying.
Biden polls by far better against Trump than anyone else. And that’s not just name recognition. Authenticity is going to be HUGE in this election. Trump will eat a scripted, fake candidate alive.
That candidate aint necessarily a man.
True. Careless oversight on my part.
This is exactly my point: he polls far better than…who? Lets see how well he polls a year from now when all the candidates are known. Right now, he is a big fish in a small pond.
Actually, it wasnt exactly an oversight rather than using the same language as the poster to whom I was responding. Point still taken tho.
One suspects that the poster to whom you were responding did mean “man” - some are of the concept that HRC showed a woman by virtue of gender is not as likely to beat Trump as a man would, that sexism is deeper than racism.
No one is arguing for his coronation. Just that he should run, and if no one younger is better than him, that he should not be denied the nomination solely because of his age.
I would assume that Biden fans feel that the only alternatives for the Democratic nomination are of the Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren / Kamala Harris variety.
Well, while i dont really agree with your first sentence, I certainly can agree with the rest of your post.
Being younger than the Republicans is their brand? Since when? Before the election, the average age of Democratic House leadership was 64. For Republicans it was 53. Republicans in the House average about five years younger than Democrats. It’s been this way for quite some time - since the tea party came along in 2010, Republicans in Congress have been an average of about four years younger than Democrats.
I think part of the problem is that the Democratic leadership comes from districts that they are an absolute lock to hold. Feinstein, Hoyer and the rest will simply be there until they die or voluntarily retire.
And that’s a major party the Democrat have - its establishment has lost it connection to its base. The party needs new blood, and it needs energetic young insurgents like Clinton and Obama as presidential candidates.
The gerontocracy is a bigger issue in American society than just the Presidency.
Companies/society have tended to push management responsibility upward- people younger than say… 45 with significant management responsibility (outside the military) seem to be the exception more than the rule these days. And considering that we tend to require major candidates to have significant experience, that means that they have to either be some kind of fast-mover or have the wealth/connections to get involved in politics early (a-la Beto O’Rourke) so that by the time they hit their mid-40s, they’re experienced enough to run. And the problem there is that we get people who wanted politics as a career from an early age, which seems vaguely sketchy and suspicious to me.
Wrong.
We deserve the person who is best available to serve, even if they would have been even better 4 or 8 years ago.
When was Einstein’s peak? Quite possibly when he was 26 (in 1905) and came up with the Theory of Special relativity. Was he someone to not choose for thinking in physics after that because he was after his peak?
Clearly I was no fan of Reagan but few would dispute that his “best work” was his presidency, almost all of which was in his 70s. Now his best work was pushing the country in a direction I disagreed with but that matters naught.
Let’s see … in art Grandma Moses didn’t get going until 78.
Hell Sanders, who I am also no fan of, clearly hit his peak last election cycle, in his 70s making the biggest impact he has ever made on the national zeitgeist.
I strongly endorse the need to develop new talent and grow he bench, and the desirability of having younger voters having representation of their generation or at least close to it at various levels. And I am not leaning to Biden as the very best person for the job. I can’t say that consideration of his age plays no role in that assessment. But being past his peak has nothing to do with it.
Not at all.