But on the other hand, you can’t choose subject matter experts for cabinet positions because you’re stuck picking from the handful of people elected to government.
It’s not “governors” per se so much as “those two governors.” Especially in comparison to the other three candidates I mentioned.
Mondale was a senator for about 12 years and then became VP (executive branch).
Gore was in the House and then the Senate for, what, 20 years and then served two terms as VP.
Kerry had been a senator for almost 20 years.
Compare to Clinton and Dukakis, both of whom had been elected governor, then voted out of office (Dukakis replaced by someone in his own party!), then served one more term as governor before running for the presidency. There’s just an enormous difference in experience levels between these two guys and the other three. That’s my main point.
(I would ideally like my candidates to have experience in both executive and legislative roles. Yes, being a governor gives you the experience of running a government, but can be very parochial and can’t give you experience in, say, foreign policy. Also, states differ widely in what they allow governors to do. For what it’s worth, of the three candidates who had rather little experience, I was a strong supporter of both Obama and Bill Clinton but could have done without Dukakis–so “experience” evidently isn’t everything, at least in my book!)
Let me put it this way. Joe Biden was not my first, second, or third choice among the original Democratic contenders. The thing I was most concerned about was his age. Now that it’s just him and a guy who’s older, incredibly repetitive in his speeches, an inflexible thinker, and a recent heart attack victim, I don’t worry so much about Biden’s age.
So yes, I see it more easily for Biden than for Sanders.
You also can’t choose billionaire donors.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, in my opinion. Governors have executive experience, which is good for being President. But Senators have Washington insider experience, which is equally good. (Despite the fact that some people believe that politics is the one occupation where having no experience somehow makes you more qualified.)
The idea that Hillary was a “safe” nominee is not the way it actually happened. She was the popular Democratic candidate to be sure, but anyone looking at electing a woman and one with such a polarizing record can hardly be viewed as a “safe” pick.
And, despite that, she won the popular vote handily, which is a big difference between Mondale, Kerry, others, and even Gore (who had a significantly smaller vote advantage).
In binary situations the safe(st) pick must be one person. She was it.
Maybe they didn’t make it an issue because people of all ages have heart attacks and go on living productively.
He came back, and looks and acts with so much more vigor and focus than Joe will ever be able to give off.
You have to notice that a man who has a HA and walks it off like he did has a lot of resilience and drive.
Do you think you will ever hear him break off a sentence and say “My times up” ?
How will that sound against dt?
“Look here’s the deal! Elect me. My times up”
Are you a Dr? A nutritionist? Because you are absolutely blinding me with science.
You were the one who brought up his health. Don’t blame the rest of us if you chose a poor position to make a stand on.
Poor? Oh yeah, so poor it need not be addressed, at all, ever…lest we lose control of the narrative, and it not seem so poor.
Heart attacks are recoverable. Mental slowing down like joe is doing is a different kind of health issue. And one that Bernie is just not subject to at this time.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Since you mentioned strokes…
The fact is, BOTH men are in their late 70s. Even if each is perfectly healthy now, and let’s say they are for the sake of argument, either one could experience a stroke, heart attack, diagnosis of cancer, or even a fall… any one of the many serious conditions that affect men who are approaching 80 pretty quickly. It’s a risk for both, and just arguing that one is looking better now isn’t really sensible when we’re talking about another 8 months to inauguration. The chances that none of our three men (Biden, Sanders, Trump) experience any serious health challenges in that period is actually pretty low.
We currently have COVID-19 spreading without, it seems to me, any real prayer of containment. I’m not too worried for myself, but if I were their age and my job were to attend large public gatherings, I would be.
In practical terms, that just means I’m going to be a bit more invested in the VP choice than I might in a normal year, though of course my vote will be D regardless.
Not being addressed? We’re addressing it right now. We’re pointing out how laughable it is.
Sanders had a heart attack. During the campaign. This is a matter of record.
Biden’s “senility” is just something people started rumors about a week ago when they realized they weren’t going to beat him in a fair fight.
“Addressing” is pointing out how laughable something is? OK.
Nobody does not see that joe has lost more than a step. And that bernie has not. In an ordinary world this would be to bernies credit. Are you laughing?
Joe has been lashing out at people for no reason. If it wasn’t the election for democracys survival it might be less alarming. How does this mood he’s bringing help defeat dt?
About half of the “lashing out” is pretty weak sauce. My god, that “lying dog soldier” one. Everyone in the entire audience had a friendly belly laugh but “Biden loses it on a student!!” is the headline. Then Bernie supporters pretend Biden’s getting a pass from the media.
He has been visibly and loudly impatient with the process of democracy which he thinks is the process of letting him get elected potus. Who is that way, and why? I am very scared of him up against the orange.
bernie has basically been tom brady on fox news and MTP today. He hits his marks, makes his points, and doesn’t leave anything on tha table that I can detect. You and I and everyone else knows joe does not have that in him and his policies wouldn’t let him anyway.
As someone who is voting for neither candidate, it does not seem like a good sign for your party to argue over whether the 78 year old candidate who recently had a heart attack or the one showing signs of dementia with a history of brain aneurysms is the one in better health to serve as President of the United States.
I know. “But, Trump did…” However, the person that you will pick to oppose him already has a huge negative WRT ability to serve.
And I fear (well, hope actually) that the response to this will be to pick some slick VP candidate and the theme of the campaign will be, “Yes, I might very well die soon, but if I do, look at this well qualified woman of color from a swing state that will take over!”
Between 2016 and this election you guys seem to have taken a DeLorean back to the 1980s to lose elections that, at least WRT 1988, 2016, and 2020 are very winnable.
This is incorrect. Obama was explicitly considered a progressive on his first run, though in practice he functioned as a moderate once in office. Lots of people were quite disappointed when he turned out not to match his campaign image. So if you’re claiming that ‘being perceived as a moderate’ is necessary, at least 50% of the Democratic candidates who’ve won office serve as counter examples.
Losing the election is not “doing very, very well” in my book, as it’s losing. Winning the election is the important part, coming close to winning still means you lost. I’m specificially talking about winning presidential elections here, not interesting side statistics like winning an irrelevant count or getting ‘almost a tie’. If, as people say, the important thing is beating Trump, then looking at people who managed ‘almost a tie’ or ‘lost the main contest, but won an irrelevant statistic’ seems counter productive.
Bernie currently has 573 delegates to Biden’s 664, that looks like he is in fact winning elections at this time. And you’re right, I don’t get why you’d talk about electability before the primary is done if, as you say here, you consider the more electable candidate is whoever wins the primary. If what you say is true, you should have no opinion on electabiltiy at this point.
I’m only looking at Democrats, specifically in the context of people who claim that Biden is the ‘more electable’ candidate and that therefore people should support him in the primary and be happy when he wins. Biden looks to me like someone who is going to fall apart once the nastiness starts, and the only thing people seem to really argue for his ‘electability’ on is that he’s not a socialist. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Republican media buzzsaw will be foiled by the lack of him fitting one particular descriptor.
It’s very much the way it happened. These boards were full of people talking about how she was completely safe, and criticizing sites like 538 for posting projections that showed anything more than ‘margin of error’ chance for Trump. If you’re going to ignore the actual history of 2016, expect to repeat it. (Hint: The Democrat failed).
As I will keep repeating, what matters is about winning the general election, not holding rallies in California to prop up popular vote count or otherwise ‘winning’ irrelevant statistics.
Biden is someone with most of Hillary’s baggage plus his own. He has the same bad voting and policy history as her most issues (Iraq War, Crime Bill, Patriot Act, DOMA, trade agreements, etc.). He has some worse votes on a few issues (Supported a constitutional amendment to repeal Roe v Wade in 1981, opposes marijuana legalization now). He is in tune with the same big money and has a lot of the same background. Some of his best lines of attacks on Trump will be turned right back on him - Hunter Biden has his unsanitary-looking stuff in the Ukraine, and I expect to hear that name brought up every single time he talks about Trump’s corruption. Trump doesn’t need to ‘swing’ any votes to himself, he just needs to drag Biden into the mud with him and turn people away from voting entirely.
Sanders and the candidates who were in the primary have been treating him with kid gloves (with good reason - going low in the primaries just tends to drag your whole side down). Trump and the GOP hate machine is very obviously not planning to, and I expect them to shred him like they brought chainsaws to a touch football game. This idea that a guy who creepily fondles children on camera and who can’t handle a voter asking him a legitimate question about political news involving his son is going to come out from GOP attacks smelling like a rose is downright scary.