The Democratic Candidates

what dreams

Joe Biden has a speech impediment. Yes, he's old, but he also has a stutter. I attribute much of his incohesion to the stutter, not his age. It's possible the stutter is exacerbated by his age. 

I read an interesting article in the WaPo after the last debate. Its main point was that judging a potential president based on a debate performance is stupid. It's not a president's job to sit around and debate all day. Debating skills aren't necessary to carry out the duty of the office. 

The debates are pure theatre, and ultimately, none of the three we've seen so far have had much impact,  nor will they in the general. They're fun for nerds to talk about. Average voters don't watch them.

Lerxst1992

dignin said:

Everyone was great last night. All great candidates.

My only real concern is how well Biden will do as time goes on. It seems the more time he has the worse he does. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong. But as the field narrows he will get more time and we will see how well he holds out. Still will do well against Trump in a debate, but that's a pretty low bar. 

On the topic of Trump and the debates, I think people have a little bit of revisionist history there. He was terrible in the debates with Clinton. She mopped the floor with him.

That's what the "elites" said on CNNs post debate coverage back then but I recall trump really resonated with the blue collars during those debates.  Hillary was never able to inspire or portray a central theme to what she was about including during her debate performances 

I am worried Joe has many of the same people that worked for Hillary telling him what to say. He sounds like he is trying to tell us why socialist healthcare is bad and he starts spouting detailed dollar amounts and stats just like hillary used to do. And he sounds bad.

Keep it simple joe. Talk like an executive:


" Democrats got murdered after the aca mandate and now these 2 socialists want to make govt healthcare mandatory. Let's learn from experience and give people choice and options"


Boom. One sentence (sorry 2). Zero stats  

Biden has terrible debate coaches imo. 

F Me In The Brain

what dreams said:

Joe Biden has a speech impediment. Yes, he's old, but he also has a stutter. I attribute much of his incohesion to the stutter, not his age. It's possible the stutter is exacerbated by his age. 

I read an interesting article in the WaPo after the last debate. Its main point was that judging a potential president based on a debate performance is stupid. It's not a president's job to sit around and debate all day. Debating skills aren't necessary to carry out the duty of the office. 

The debates are pure theatre, and ultimately, none of the three we've seen so far have had much impact,  nor will they in the general. They're fun for nerds to talk about. Average voters don't watch them.

I did not know he had a speech impediment.
I am not mocking that....if you look at the transcript of what he said I don't think that is something attributable to a speech impediment, but I don't know.  Just an "I don't think" - how is it that he didn't used to make no sense when he spoke?

Not sure I understand your position that the debates don't matter.  I think at best they exist to allow people to see a question and answer session with candidates vs canned speeches....although I know much of what the answer with is canned.
At worst they allow more exposure for anyone who is curious to learn.

I do agree that the format leaves much to be desired, though 

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Also good on Castro for calling Biden out.  And fuck the media for saying "Castro's attack on Biden"  He caught Biden flipping on what he just said 2 sentences ago but he's the bad guy? He's the attacker.  Biden is the victim.  Fuck off with that shit!   No wonder this country is so fucked when it comes to politics.  Castro should be praised for calling him out on his lying, mind-changing bullshit.  But that's not what CNN, MSNBC, and the DNC want, they want to spread lies about personal attacks, making fun of Biden's memory, etc.  I mean, did Biden not fucking say the exact god damn opposite of what he said just a couple statements before? That's not a personal attack, that's questioning clarity of what someone said.

Preach.

Also props to Castro telling Buttigieg that this is a fucking primary, this is what elections are for - ain't nobody got time for "please this is not what the American people want" blah blah blah.

We're supposed to respect our elders, especially our white male elders -- you know, the ones mostly responsible for our nation's structural racism, overpopulation, the proliferation of gun violence, climate change,  etc. etc.

Who the fuck does this random Chicano think he is to talk to our white elder statesman that way?  

So this is a racism thing.  Got it.  Genius comments prevail 

That was one factor in my explanation for the public shaming of Julian Castro. So, yes, that's absolutely a thing, but it's not everything.

Also, I've never not been a genius. I was born this way.

How about Castro was wrong,  sloppy and premeditated and deserves the criticism.  You can be young and stupid and deserve the criticism for not understanding a nuanced point. 

Premeditated? I'm positive that everyone on that stage had "go after Joe" top of mind. He's the front-runner after all. So in that respect, yes, such a response was premeditated. But unless he had a transcript of Biden's ramblings beforehand, there's no possible way that his exact response was premeditated. Biden said buy into and not much later tried to assert that he didn't say that. It is in no way wrong to point out that he's being misleading. Sure, Biden may not have meant  "buy into," but that's what he said. And we're not here to read his mind; we're here to find out exactly what his vision and policies are for our nation and its citizenry. If anyone was sloppy during that exchange (and throughout the latter half of the debate), it was Biden. If the point one is trying to make is nuanced, one should choose one's words more carefully than Joe Biden did in this instance.

Exactly?

This is exactly why dems lose elections. There is some bizarre expectation that  Democrats have  to cite verse chapter and exact dollar amounts under every possible scenario under a plan as inherently complex as healthcare.

It's a bizarre standard to hold a candidate to but the media and voters tend to hold Democrats to. Maybe it's fair to expect them to have details online, but certainly not reasonable to expect them to memorize arcane details on a debate stage

But not all politicians have this requirement. Republicans are not expected to memorize such detail. Especially trump.

This is a baked in disadvantage to dems. 
.

Jearlpam0925

F Me In The Brain said:

what dreams said:

Joe Biden has a speech impediment. Yes, he's old, but he also has a stutter. I attribute much of his incohesion to the stutter, not his age. It's possible the stutter is exacerbated by his age. 

I read an interesting article in the WaPo after the last debate. Its main point was that judging a potential president based on a debate performance is stupid. It's not a president's job to sit around and debate all day. Debating skills aren't necessary to carry out the duty of the office. 

The debates are pure theatre, and ultimately, none of the three we've seen so far have had much impact,  nor will they in the general. They're fun for nerds to talk about. Average voters don't watch them.

I did not know he had a speech impediment.
I am not mocking that....if you look at the transcript of what he said I don't think that is something attributable to a speech impediment, but I don't know.  Just an "I don't think" - how is it that he didn't used to make no sense when he spoke?

Not sure I understand your position that the debates don't matter.  I think at best they exist to allow people to see a question and answer session with candidates vs canned speeches....although I know much of what the answer with is canned.
At worst they allow more exposure for anyone who is curious to learn.

I do agree that the format leaves much to be desired, though 

'Speech impediment' and 'incoherence' are not synonymous. 

Sounds like the point here is that old Joe should just coast through the Primary and speak to General Election voters.

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Also good on Castro for calling Biden out.  And fuck the media for saying "Castro's attack on Biden"  He caught Biden flipping on what he just said 2 sentences ago but he's the bad guy? He's the attacker.  Biden is the victim.  Fuck off with that shit!   No wonder this country is so fucked when it comes to politics.  Castro should be praised for calling him out on his lying, mind-changing bullshit.  But that's not what CNN, MSNBC, and the DNC want, they want to spread lies about personal attacks, making fun of Biden's memory, etc.  I mean, did Biden not fucking say the exact god damn opposite of what he said just a couple statements before? That's not a personal attack, that's questioning clarity of what someone said.

Preach.

Also props to Castro telling Buttigieg that this is a fucking primary, this is what elections are for - ain't nobody got time for "please this is not what the American people want" blah blah blah.

We're supposed to respect our elders, especially our white male elders -- you know, the ones mostly responsible for our nation's structural racism, overpopulation, the proliferation of gun violence, climate change,  etc. etc.

Who the fuck does this random Chicano think he is to talk to our white elder statesman that way?  

So this is a racism thing.  Got it.  Genius comments prevail 

That was one factor in my explanation for the public shaming of Julian Castro. So, yes, that's absolutely a thing, but it's not everything.

Also, I've never not been a genius. I was born this way.

How about Castro was wrong,  sloppy and premeditated and deserves the criticism.  You can be young and stupid and deserve the criticism for not understanding a nuanced point. 

Premeditated? I'm positive that everyone on that stage had "go after Joe" top of mind. He's the front-runner after all. So in that respect, yes, such a response was premeditated. But unless he had a transcript of Biden's ramblings beforehand, there's no possible way that his exact response was premeditated. Biden said buy into and not much later tried to assert that he didn't say that. It is in no way wrong to point out that he's being misleading. Sure, Biden may not have meant  "buy into," but that's what he said. And we're not here to read his mind; we're here to find out exactly what his vision and policies are for our nation and its citizenry. If anyone was sloppy during that exchange (and throughout the latter half of the debate), it was Biden. If the point one is trying to make is nuanced, one should choose one's words more carefully than Joe Biden did in this instance.

Exactly?

This is exactly why dems lose elections. There is some bizarre expectation that  Democrats have  to cite verse chapter and exact dollar amounts under every possible scenario under a plan as inherently complex as healthcare.

It's a bizarre standard to hold a candidate to but the media and voters tend to hold Democrats to. Maybe it's fair to expect them to have details online, but certainly not reasonable to expect them to memorize arcane details on a debate stage

But not all politicians have this requirement. Republicans are not expected to memorize such detail. Especially trump.

This is a baked in disadvantage to dems. 
.

I completely agree with this.  Debating skills are not relevant to the job of being the President.  You have a cabinet, you have advisers and you have time to think through your decisions.  It's not a memorization contest.  And the disadvantage is self made.  Democrats have the unfortunate habit of eating their own.  

what dreams

Jearlpam0925 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

what dreams said:

Joe Biden has a speech impediment. Yes, he's old, but he also has a stutter. I attribute much of his incohesion to the stutter, not his age. It's possible the stutter is exacerbated by his age. 

I read an interesting article in the WaPo after the last debate. Its main point was that judging a potential president based on a debate performance is stupid. It's not a president's job to sit around and debate all day. Debating skills aren't necessary to carry out the duty of the office. 

The debates are pure theatre, and ultimately, none of the three we've seen so far have had much impact,  nor will they in the general. They're fun for nerds to talk about. Average voters don't watch them.

I did not know he had a speech impediment.
I am not mocking that....if you look at the transcript of what he said I don't think that is something attributable to a speech impediment, but I don't know.  Just an "I don't think" - how is it that he didn't used to make no sense when he spoke?

Not sure I understand your position that the debates don't matter.  I think at best they exist to allow people to see a question and answer session with candidates vs canned speeches....although I know much of what the answer with is canned.
At worst they allow more exposure for anyone who is curious to learn.

I do agree that the format leaves much to be desired, though 

'Speech impediment' and 'incoherence' are not synonymous. 

Sounds like the point here is that old Joe should just coast through the Primary and speak to General Election voters.

Joe Biden has always been a rambling goofball. Always. If you need proof, find some old video from the 90s when he first ran for president. His style of speaking has not changed one bit.

My point has nothing to do with him coasting into the general election. I have no idea yet whom I will vote for in my primary. I don't even know who will be on the primary ballot yet.

Good luck to all of you when the world decides to put you out to pasture when you turn 70. I have a feeling you won't like it.

F Me In The Brain

This same old discussion.  Nobody is putting Old Joe out to pasture.  He wants to hold the highest elected position in the country.  
Your opinion is that age doesn't matter.  
Ok.
My opinion is that age matters if you think about things rationally instead of ideologically.  

There should be an age threshold on the back end just as there is on the front end. 
Old Joe should not be out to pasture.  He should be looked past as a candidate because he would be 77 when sworn in....and 81 at the end of his first term.  

F Me In The Brain

How about when he is 80 and campaigns for his second term?  Will it be ageism to speak out, then?
Let him serve in one of the most demanding jobs at age 85 when the normal retirement age is 65.

Totally laughable.

Why not pick someone who is in their prime and can live to the pace of the demanding job?

mickeyrat

F Me In The Brain said:

This same old discussion.  Nobody is putting Old Joe out to pasture.  He wants to hold the highest elected position in the country.  
Your opinion is that age doesn't matter.  
Ok.
My opinion is that age matters if you think about things rationally instead of ideologically.  

There should be an age threshold on the back end just as there is on the front end. 
Old Joe should not be out to pasture.  He should be looked past as a candidate because he would be 77 when sworn in....and 81 at the end of his first term.  

at the least he should have a strong VP.

F Me In The Brain

mickeyrat said:

F Me In The Brain said:

This same old discussion.  Nobody is putting Old Joe out to pasture.  He wants to hold the highest elected position in the country.  
Your opinion is that age doesn't matter.  
Ok.
My opinion is that age matters if you think about things rationally instead of ideologically.  

There should be an age threshold on the back end just as there is on the front end. 
Old Joe should not be out to pasture.  He should be looked past as a candidate because he would be 77 when sworn in....and 81 at the end of his first term.  

at the least he should have a strong VP.

I agree... certainly if he ends up being the elderly nominee.  However, who is to say he listens to the VP?  We are choosing him to be President.
The idea that people think it is wrong to consider age as a factor is ridiculous to me.

mickeyrat

F Me In The Brain said:

mickeyrat said:

F Me In The Brain said:

This same old discussion.  Nobody is putting Old Joe out to pasture.  He wants to hold the highest elected position in the country.  
Your opinion is that age doesn't matter.  
Ok.
My opinion is that age matters if you think about things rationally instead of ideologically.  

There should be an age threshold on the back end just as there is on the front end. 
Old Joe should not be out to pasture.  He should be looked past as a candidate because he would be 77 when sworn in....and 81 at the end of his first term.  

at the least he should have a strong VP.

I agree... certainly if he ends up being the elderly nominee.  However, who is to say he listens to the VP?  We are choosing him to be President.
The idea that people think it is wrong to consider age as a factor is ridiculous to me.

I meant in case the reasonably possible/probable happens......

F Me In The Brain

mickeyrat said:

F Me In The Brain said:

mickeyrat said:

F Me In The Brain said:

This same old discussion.  Nobody is putting Old Joe out to pasture.  He wants to hold the highest elected position in the country.  
Your opinion is that age doesn't matter.  
Ok.
My opinion is that age matters if you think about things rationally instead of ideologically.  

There should be an age threshold on the back end just as there is on the front end. 
Old Joe should not be out to pasture.  He should be looked past as a candidate because he would be 77 when sworn in....and 81 at the end of his first term.  

at the least he should have a strong VP.

I agree... certainly if he ends up being the elderly nominee.  However, who is to say he listens to the VP?  We are choosing him to be President.
The idea that people think it is wrong to consider age as a factor is ridiculous to me.

I meant in case the reasonably possible/probable happens......

Yeah, I get it.  Agree with you that VP could be especially important given the election of an elderly person.

Jason P

Trump uses a piece of scotch tape to hold his tie down will lead to a week of late-nite roasting and twitter fueled laughing and pointing ... Biden's teeth fall out in a live debate leads to radio silence ... odd

Anywho, instead of all this bickering and non-sense, why don't we just put both Biden and Trump in a Truman Show sound stage where we trick them into an endless debate until they both pass away and in the meantime elect Keanu Reeves as our next POTUS.  

what dreams

So then let's all eliminate Sanders and Warren from our prospective candidate pool as well, if we're going to say that we don't want an elderly candidate to win the office. 
I agree it's difficult to listen to Biden bumble his way through a debate or speech. But I'm not going to jump on the ageism train in explaining it away. If you don't like Joe Biden because of his policy positions, his record, etc., then just say that. But if I go back through this thread and see a person applauding Warren or Sanders but crapping on Biden's age (which I won't because who has time for that), I will only conclude that you're using his age as an excuse to bash his candidacy instead of bashing his positions/record.
All three of them are old. When they're not trying to get through the god-awful grueling physical marathon of running for office, when they're actually sitting in the office with their cabinet and staff making decisions, I'm way more comfortable with Biden than the other two because I'm not a fan of the free-stuff-for-everybody approach to governing. 
You know who is also old? Pearl Jam. On three recent past tours, EV has busted his knee, his back, his voice is shot -- he should just retire from rock and roll. It's embarrassing watching an old guy try to be what he used to be. Right?

Hi!

Biden/Klobuchar 2020

benjs

what dreams said:

So then let's all eliminate Sanders and Warren from our prospective candidate pool as well, if we're going to say that we don't want an elderly candidate to win the office. 
I agree it's difficult to listen to Biden bumble his way through a debate or speech. But I'm not going to jump on the ageism train in explaining it away. If you don't like Joe Biden because of his policy positions, his record, etc., then just say that. But if I go back through this thread and see a person applauding Warren or Sanders but crapping on Biden's age (which I won't because who has time for that), I will only conclude that you're using his age as an excuse to bash his candidacy instead of bashing his positions/record.
All three of them are old. When they're not trying to get through the god-awful grueling physical marathon of running for office, when they're actually sitting in the office with their cabinet and staff making decisions, I'm way more comfortable with Biden than the other two because I'm not a fan of the free-stuff-for-everybody approach to governing. 
You know who is also old? Pearl Jam. On three recent past tours, EV has busted his knee, his back, his voice is shot -- he should just retire from rock and roll. It's embarrassing watching an old guy try to be what he used to be. Right?

I don't care if you're 20 or 70 - for three and a half years we've watched incredulously as Trump delivered statement after statement making no sense. I'm sorry if others disagree with me, but Biden's response about health care - factoring in record players, not telling parents how to parent, repeating "look" at the beginning of his long-winded explanations, Venezuela, and embarrassingly asking for more time to continue to speak in a meandering nonsensical way - was as bad as many of Trump's speeches. I don't know if it's dementia or "just Joe", but he hasn't instilled any confidence in my mind over these three debates. Even on script, I find him a very bad speaker. To those who believe Biden is the best bet for a Democratic president, I'd love to hear what they're seeing which I'm not. 

mrussel1

F Me In The Brain said:

mickeyrat said:

F Me In The Brain said:

This same old discussion.  Nobody is putting Old Joe out to pasture.  He wants to hold the highest elected position in the country.  
Your opinion is that age doesn't matter.  
Ok.
My opinion is that age matters if you think about things rationally instead of ideologically.  

There should be an age threshold on the back end just as there is on the front end. 
Old Joe should not be out to pasture.  He should be looked past as a candidate because he would be 77 when sworn in....and 81 at the end of his first term.  

at the least he should have a strong VP.

I agree... certainly if he ends up being the elderly nominee.  However, who is to say he listens to the VP?  We are choosing him to be President.
The idea that people think it is wrong to consider age as a factor is ridiculous to me.

I think age should be considered as one of the many factors.  Biden's age is of concern to me.  However, Harris's attack on him and now Castro's were both dirty and intellectually dishonest.  The gaffes and bumbling sentence issue has been around for 40 years.  There's lots of politicians (check the last two Republican presidents) who, when transcribed, make little sense.  I hear that kind of talk at work in meetings all of the time.  Obama and Clinton were both unusually polished public orators.  None of this makes Biden too old to be president.  
That being said, I'd be happy to vote for someone else with similar policy positions and ready made loyal coalition.  I'd be happy to vote for Klobuchar.  However, she's not truly in the mix.  When I check my priorities, Biden's strengths far outweigh his negatives.  

F Me In The Brain

what dreams said:

So then let's all eliminate Sanders and Warren from our prospective candidate pool as well, if we're going to say that we don't want an elderly candidate to win the office. 
I agree it's difficult to listen to Biden bumble his way through a debate or speech. But I'm not going to jump on the ageism train in explaining it away. If you don't like Joe Biden because of his policy positions, his record, etc., then just say that. But if I go back through this thread and see a person applauding Warren or Sanders but crapping on Biden's age (which I won't because who has time for that), I will only conclude that you're using his age as an excuse to bash his candidacy instead of bashing his positions/record.
All three of them are old. When they're not trying to get through the god-awful grueling physical marathon of running for office, when they're actually sitting in the office with their cabinet and staff making decisions, I'm way more comfortable with Biden than the other two because I'm not a fan of the free-stuff-for-everybody approach to governing. 
You know who is also old? Pearl Jam. On three recent past tours, EV has busted his knee, his back, his voice is shot -- he should just retire from rock and roll. It's embarrassing watching an old guy try to be what he used to be. Right?

Yeah I agree with removing Bernie and Warren as well.  I have been consistent in saying I believe we would be best served by someone younger.

mrussel1

benjs said:

what dreams said:

So then let's all eliminate Sanders and Warren from our prospective candidate pool as well, if we're going to say that we don't want an elderly candidate to win the office. 
I agree it's difficult to listen to Biden bumble his way through a debate or speech. But I'm not going to jump on the ageism train in explaining it away. If you don't like Joe Biden because of his policy positions, his record, etc., then just say that. But if I go back through this thread and see a person applauding Warren or Sanders but crapping on Biden's age (which I won't because who has time for that), I will only conclude that you're using his age as an excuse to bash his candidacy instead of bashing his positions/record.
All three of them are old. When they're not trying to get through the god-awful grueling physical marathon of running for office, when they're actually sitting in the office with their cabinet and staff making decisions, I'm way more comfortable with Biden than the other two because I'm not a fan of the free-stuff-for-everybody approach to governing. 
You know who is also old? Pearl Jam. On three recent past tours, EV has busted his knee, his back, his voice is shot -- he should just retire from rock and roll. It's embarrassing watching an old guy try to be what he used to be. Right?

I don't care if you're 20 or 70 - for three and a half years we've watched incredulously as Trump delivered statement after statement making no sense. I'm sorry if others disagree with me, but Biden's response about health care - factoring in record players, not telling parents how to parent, repeating "look" at the beginning of his long-winded explanations, Venezuela, and embarrassingly asking for more time to continue to speak in a meandering nonsensical way - was as bad as many of Trump's speeches. I don't know if it's dementia or "just Joe", but he hasn't instilled any confidence in my mind over these three debates. Even on script, I find him a very bad speaker. To those who believe Biden is the best bet for a Democratic president, I'd love to hear what they're seeing which I'm not. 

His policy positions and history of getting building a voting coalition in congress to pass laws.  Let's not confuse campaigning with governing.  He's not a great campaigner, but we know how he works when in office.