Biden's gaffes are worse than Bush and Trump's were when they sought the nomination.
Forgetting Obama's name despite being VP for 8 years and referring to the Parkland shooting (in 2018) as happening when he was still VP are both worrying.
Wake me up when he starts inventing muslim terror attacks, forgets who the president of Puerto Rico is, doesn't understand the difference between England and the United Kingdom, thinks nuking hurricanes is a good idea, vows to nuke terrorist cells in the middle-east, and starts saying windmills cause cancer and kill all the birds, and openly admits to committing crimes whilst in office. etc etc
He's got a long way to go before he meets Trumps level of senility.
And it's pretty thoughtless attacks on Trump such as yours, so common among the Left on political autopilot in the US, which will help give Trump a far greater chance of being elected than would otherwise have been the case.
Resorting to quite baseless non-evidence based insults about "Trump's level of senility" really does help Trump too when viewed from the standpoint of anyone other than a rabid Trump-hater - and such attacks are ever so prominent in the US. They help firm up the GOP base and repel the ever-shrinking middle ground in American politics.
I suppose the point is that Trump's gaffes are already built into current polling whereas those of any Democrat nominee are not, or not to the same extent. Any of the leading Democrats would go into the election ahead and the question is what might plausibly happen during the campaign to overturn that? It could be successful attacks from Trump on Sanders on policy, Biden on gaffes/unfitness or Warren on kookiness. I'm not sure what potential attacks he could have on O'Rourke, Buttigieg or Harris so they're safer bets.
I think that Biden's gaffes are built into polling as well. As a two term Vice President he is obviously pretty well known and people know what they are getting with him. Now it is certainly the case that he has weaknesses as a candidate but the idea put forward by some that he is a weak candidate and that there are much better options out there for the Democrats does not seem to have much evidence to support it.
I disagree with you about Biden not being a weak candidate, but you're not far off the mark when you imply that there aren't much better options out there for the Democrats.
I look forward to Biden's selection (if it does indeed happen) because Biden will fail adequately to challenge Trump's strengths whilst at the same time he'll fail adequately to attack Trump's weaknesses.
Biden just seems to lack the ability to enthuse people. I don't think that not being Donald Trump will be sufficient to get any candidate elected - they've got to have sufficient charisma to get people to believe positively in them and in their policies.
Wake me up when he starts inventing muslim terror attacks, forgets who the president of Puerto Rico is, doesn't understand the difference between England and the United Kingdom, thinks nuking hurricanes is a good idea, vows to nuke terrorist cells in the middle-east, and starts saying windmills cause cancer and kill all the birds, and openly admits to committing crimes whilst in office. etc etc
He's got a long way to go before he meets Trumps level of senility.
And it's pretty thoughtless attacks on Trump such as yours, so common among the Left on political autopilot in the US, which will help give Trump a far greater chance of being elected than would otherwise have been the case.
Resorting to quite baseless non-evidence based insults about "Trump's level of senility" really does help Trump too when viewed from the standpoint of anyone other than a rabid Trump-hater - and such attacks are ever so prominent in the US. They help firm up the GOP base and repel the ever-shrinking middle ground in American politics.
You're literally arguing Biden isn't presidential material and unlikely to win because he gets his dates muddled up like a lot of people do. It's not my fault Trump says stupid things on a daily basis and makes countless gaffes.
In normal times, you'd have a valid point. These aren't normal times.
"Every five years someone was elected to be Tyrant, provided he could prove that he was honest, intelligent, sensible, and trustworthy. Immediately after he was elected, of course, it was obvious to everyone that he was a criminal madman and totally out of touch with the view of the ordinary philosopher in the street looking for a towel. And then five years later they elected another one just like him, and really it was amazing how intelligent people kept on making the same mistakes."
I think that Biden's gaffes are built into polling as well. As a two term Vice President he is obviously pretty well known and people know what they are getting with him. Now it is certainly the case that he has weaknesses as a candidate but the idea put forward by some that he is a weak candidate and that there are much better options out there for the Democrats does not seem to have much evidence to support it.
I disagree with you about Biden not being a weak candidate, but you're not far off the mark when you imply that there aren't much better options out there for the Democrats.
I look forward to Biden's selection (if it does indeed happen) because Biden will fail adequately to challenge Trump's strengths whilst at the same time he'll fail adequately to attack Trump's weaknesses.
Biden just seems to lack the ability to enthuse people. I don't think that not being Donald Trump will be sufficient to get any candidate elected - they've got to have sufficient charisma to get people to believe positively in them and in their policies."
"There aren't much better options out there for the Democrats."
And it's pretty thoughtless attacks on Trump such as yours, so common among the Left on political autopilot in the US, which will help give Trump a far greater chance of being elected than would otherwise have been the case.
Resorting to quite baseless non-evidence based insults about "Trump's level of senility" really does help Trump too when viewed from the standpoint of anyone other than a rabid Trump-hater - and such attacks are ever so prominent in the US. They help firm up the GOP base and repel the ever-shrinking middle ground in American politics.
You're literally arguing Biden isn't presidential material and unlikely to win because he gets his dates muddled up like a lot of people do. It's not my fault Trump says stupid things on a daily basis and makes countless gaffes.
In normal times, you'd have a valid point. These aren't normal times.
I'm not so sure.
Trump spouts bollocks but no-one elected him for his intellect. Reagan never posed as an intellectual either.
But Biden is supposed to be the serious, proper grown-up politician. If it turns out that he's actually getting past it and no longer on the ball, I think that's a bit of a problem. It's also a bit of a problem if the Democrats can't come up with a candidate who is not a generation older than their last President, and any suggestion of encroaching senility doesn't help that.
I don't say these are insuperable obstacles, but they seem real problems to me that can't be wholly eliminated by whataboutery re Trump.
You're literally arguing Biden isn't presidential material and unlikely to win because he gets his dates muddled up like a lot of people do. It's not my fault Trump says stupid things on a daily basis and makes countless gaffes.
In normal times, you'd have a valid point. These aren't normal times.
I'm not so sure.
Trump spouts bollocks but no-one elected him for his intellect. Reagan never posed as an intellectual either.
But Biden is supposed to be the serious, proper grown-up politician. If it turns out that he's actually getting past it and no longer on the ball, I think that's a bit of a problem. It's also a bit of a problem if the Democrats can't come up with a candidate who is not a generation older than their last President, and any suggestion of encroaching senility doesn't help that.
I don't say these are insuperable obstacles, but they seem real problems to me that can't be wholly eliminated by whataboutery re Trump.
But a significant group of people did vote for Trump expecting that once in office he would be more “presidential”; they are now clearly having buyers remorse, as demonstrated in last year’s midterms, and was still there in the recent NC-09 Special - he’s not winning back suburban white women, particularly those with a college education.
Few if any people are judging Biden on his rhetorical skills, but in every poll of policies his come the closest to the majority of Americans.
We’re all obsessing on today - the election isn’t won or lost today, even Iowa isn’t won or lost this far out (incidentally did anyone note Amy Klobuchar quietly moving level with Sanders in one of the credible Iowa polls yesterday?). The move by the Fed on interest rates signals the real possibility of a recession before next November, can the man who’s entire sales pitch was on restoring the economy survive even a downturn let alone a recession? What’s the response if he attacks Iran (probably less likely with the exit of Bolton)?
Reagan may not have had great intellect but he had empathy and humour; his response to the Challenger disaster was masterful, can you see that from Trump? His diffusion of the question of age in the first debate against Mondale was genius in that it was self deprecating and not spiteful, again can you see that from Trump?
You're literally arguing Biden isn't presidential material and unlikely to win because he gets his dates muddled up like a lot of people do. It's not my fault Trump says stupid things on a daily basis and makes countless gaffes.
In normal times, you'd have a valid point. These aren't normal times.
I'm not so sure.
Trump spouts bollocks but no-one elected him for his intellect. Reagan never posed as an intellectual either.
But Biden is supposed to be the serious, proper grown-up politician. If it turns out that he's actually getting past it and no longer on the ball, I think that's a bit of a problem. It's also a bit of a problem if the Democrats can't come up with a candidate who is not a generation older than their last President, and any suggestion of encroaching senility doesn't help that.
I don't say these are insuperable obstacles, but they seem real problems to me that can't be wholly eliminated by whataboutery re Trump.
For sure, his gaffes may cost him the nomination, but against Trump... no chance.
I suspect, if Biden were to lose against Trump, or any other nominee lost, it would be because of the useless Democrat party campaign machine, not because they got a few dates wrong.
Although, it does seem the Trump camp are going all out to try and link Biden's son to corruption in Ukraine. 'But Ukraine!' could be the 'but her emails!' of 2020. Anyone want to shed some light on that?
"Every five years someone was elected to be Tyrant, provided he could prove that he was honest, intelligent, sensible, and trustworthy. Immediately after he was elected, of course, it was obvious to everyone that he was a criminal madman and totally out of touch with the view of the ordinary philosopher in the street looking for a towel. And then five years later they elected another one just like him, and really it was amazing how intelligent people kept on making the same mistakes."
Trump spouts bollocks but no-one elected him for his intellect. Reagan never posed as an intellectual either.
But Biden is supposed to be the serious, proper grown-up politician. If it turns out that he's actually getting past it and no longer on the ball, I think that's a bit of a problem. It's also a bit of a problem if the Democrats can't come up with a candidate who is not a generation older than their last President, and any suggestion of encroaching senility doesn't help that.
I don't say these are insuperable obstacles, but they seem real problems to me that can't be wholly eliminated by whataboutery re Trump.
For sure, his gaffes may cost him the nomination, but against Trump... no chance.
I suspect, if Biden were to lose against Trump, or any other nominee lost, it would be because of the useless Democrat party campaign machine, not because they got a few dates wrong.
Although, it does seem the Trump camp are going all out to try and link Biden's son to corruption in Ukraine. 'But Ukraine!' could be the 'but her emails!' of 2020. Anyone want to shed some light on that?
I think the Ukraine issue is looking more of a problem for Trump than Biden.
The Biden link is his son Hunter works as an oil industry consultant in the former Soviet states. One Ukrainian company was under investigation by the previous administration. It seems Trump spoke to the new President, and was ready to despatch Rudy Giuliani to Kiev, to encourage them to continue the inquiry started by his predecessor, but as far as links with Hunter Biden goes it seems the ultimate fishing expedition. The problem for Trump now is that a government employee has submitted formal complaints under the Whistleblower Protection Act that Trump used the office of the President to try and obtain damaging information on a political rival, which is kind of how Watergate started, and the fact the complaint has become formal means it has to be investigated, so you’re almost back in Mueller territory.
I disagree with you about Biden not being a weak candidate, but you're not far off the mark when you imply that there aren't much better options out there for the Democrats.
I look forward to Biden's selection (if it does indeed happen) because Biden will fail adequately to challenge Trump's strengths whilst at the same time he'll fail adequately to attack Trump's weaknesses.
Biden just seems to lack the ability to enthuse people. I don't think that not being Donald Trump will be sufficient to get any candidate elected - they've got to have sufficient charisma to get people to believe positively in them and in their policies."
"There aren't much better options out there for the Democrats."
Really? What about Sanders, Yang, Warren?
Thanks for your comment, conservativeestimate.
Sanders has the charisma and energy to enthuse people. Unlike Biden, Sanders doesn't put you to sleep when he's speaking. His age (he's older than Biden!) just isn't a problem because he appears to be absolutely fully in command of his faculties. He'd have the energy to run a decent campaign. But he's a self-confessed Socialist, and that's little differentiated in many Americans' minds from being an out-and-out Commie. It just won't wash with too many Americans.
Warren is a far more polished politician (which I think is a good thing electorally) and she has a good backstory (poco aside) and she's less likely to get flustered when faced with Trump in attack mode - and, remember, when Trump was demolishing his opponents in the GOP primaries in 2016, he appeared able to do so less effectively and certainly in a more ungainly manner with his female opponents. But she too has an agenda which is increasingly costly and extreme ... and there are just too many interest groups she would offend with the policies she's so lucidly espousing (gun owners, right to lifers, people against losing their existing health policies, the fossil fuel industries and their employees/supply chains .......). Polls continue consistently to show her, even now, as having the worst head-to-head numbers against Trump of the leading Dem candidates - she's already got a more negative profile so far as the electorate is concerned.
So I don't see Sanders or Warren as being "much better options for the Democrats" than "creepy, sleepy Joe". But, I admit, they'd both be somewhat better than Biden.
Although, it does seem the Trump camp are going all out to try and link Biden's son to corruption in Ukraine. 'But Ukraine!' could be the 'but her emails!' of 2020. Anyone want to shed some light on that?
This piece, from Vanity Fair, neatly summarises why Hunter Biden's business dealings in China and Ukraine may have legs as a scandal, especially given the New York Times' interest. To be honest, the China deal is, for me, far more eye-opening than the Ukraine one is when you see some of the details about how the China deal just magically appeared out of the blue.
In a move sure to trigger 2016 P.T.S.D., The New York Times has published a nearly 3,000-word tale of intrigue involving the Biden family’s various entanglements in Ukraine. In short, the story is this: in the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor”—Viktor Shokin—“who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.” The pressure campaign also just so happened to benefit Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who was then getting paid as much as $50,000 to sit on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was in Shokin’s sights. The question the Times raises, but does not answer, is: were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine coincidental, or corrupt?
The Bidens say Joe acted “without any regard” for the impact on his son, and that Hunter never discussed private business with his father. But of course, that seems unlikely to put this story to rest. The current Ukrainian prosecutor general recently decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma, which could unearth new details about Hunter’s work. No surprise, the story is also being heavily promoted by Donald Trump and his allies, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to the Times, Giuliani has met repeatedly with both the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor and the new prosecutor, and has discussed his findings with Trump—who then suggested he would like Attorney General William Barr to look into the matter. (Perhaps that is why Barr was at a loss for words on Wednesday, when Senator Kamala Harris asked whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”)
Times reporter Ken Vogel, presumably seeking to pre-empt accusations of water-carrying, explained on Twitter that the paper’s interest in the subject predates Trump. “TO BE CLEAR: Independent of @rudygiuliani’s efforts, the intersection of @joebiden & HUNTER BIDEN in Ukraine warrants scrutiny,” he said, noting that the Times had begun reporting on the Burisma story in 2015. Some within the Obama State Department, too, were concerned with the appearance of impropriety, or the possibility that Hunter’s business could complicate his father’s diplomatic efforts. (“I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers,” Hunter Biden told the Times in a statement. “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.”)
Nevertheless, the Times report dovetails with Trumpworld efforts to get the Biden-Ukraine story in the news. The Hill reported in April on Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare. More recently, the right-wing American Greatness and conservative-leaning Fox News both highlighted stories about the Biden family’s entanglements in Ukraine. MAGA-friendly outlets Breitbart and The Daily Wire made hay of the story on Thursday, leveraging the journalistic credibility of the Times.
The Burisma affair—whether coincidence or scandal—may be just the first volley in what is likely to become a broader war over Joe Biden’s conduct and record. Past speculation about Biden family drama has centered on Hunter’s documented struggle with drug use and his recently ended relationship with his late brother’s widow. But the bigger threat might actually be Hunter’s past business enterprises. Already, there’s another attack line looming on the horizon: in his latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer describes how a private-equity firm managed by Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, negotiated a $1.5 billion investment deal with the state-owned Bank of China at the same time that his father, then the vice president, was conducting high-level diplomacy with Beijing. (On one of his trips, Hunter allegedly made use of Air Force Two.) Whether or not the Chinese hoped to curry favor with Hunter’s father, Trump allies are sure to make note of the issue, especially given Joe Biden’s controversial remark this week downplaying China as an economic competitor. (A spokesman for Hunter Biden disputed Schweizer’s claims to the Journal.)
Trump and his family are plagued by their own foreign-business and ethical entanglements, of course, which are too numerous to recount quickly. But that didn’t stop Trump from weaponizing questions about the funding of the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Giuliani’s accusations against Hunter have a familiar ring, and could resonate with voters for the same reason. There doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo for the ordinary voter to find something sleazy about Clinton’s husband or Biden’s son apparently benefiting from their proximity to power. (Why else does a Ukrainian natural gas company want a Biden on its board?)
Democrats might ignore the whole Biden-Ukraine imbroglio if not for the fact that it has the imprimatur of The New York Times. Considering how the paper damaged Clinton’s candidacy by running 10 front-page stories about her e-mail scandal in the days leading up the election, one wonders if the Hunter Biden scandal has legs, too—and whether Democrats might come to prefer a candidate without his baggage.
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 21, 2019 16:43:22 GMT
Worth noting if this story actually goes anywhere (the 'Biden corruption' part notwithstanding - that actually does have the potential to go somewhere else, although it would depend on there being substance, and the months of GOP investigation suggest there is more heat than light here) that the FEC no longer has the requisite number of commissioners to open an investigation, and further expansion of the FEC depends on approval of nominations by Trump. He's only put forward one candidate so far, and they have to be given a hearing by the Senate at a time of the Senate's choosing.
This isn't going to be Watergate because Trump cannot be investigated or charged by the FEC with violation of campaign finance laws (if I understand this correctly) until Mitch McConnell is willing to let that happen. Incidentally, this is also why Yang's probably illegal giveaway is not being investigated.
I believe that Yang's lottery giveaway is not being investigated because it's probably not illegal, quite apart from the inquorate FEC
More pertinently it only becomes illegal if he actually does it.
As far as the FEC’s concerned their lack of a quorum at this point wouldn’t matter as they still employ the relevant investigators; the lack of a quorum would only render them unable to act on any recommendation from an investigation. Even then, given the snail like pace at which they move, Yang is likely to have returned to his relative obscurity before those inquiries were completed.
More pertinently it only becomes illegal if he actually does it.
More accurately it would only have become illegal (assuming the target activity were illegal) when he solicited, conspired or attempted to carry out that activity. Were the target activity illegal, Yang would now be well over the red line for one or more of those inchoate offences.
There's such a strong argument, however, for this lottery being a legitimate campaign marketing activity (and Yang's lawyers have clearly deliberately set it up so that lottery winners would have to agree to provide publicity material for Yang's campaign) that there's no reasonable likelihood of there ever being an investigation.
Give Yang his due for (a) inventiveness and (b) grabbing more than his fair share of attention with this stunt.
Well over 500,000 people entered the lottery, giving Yang's website views a massive boost. To enter the lottery residents needed to give their name, email address and zipcode. Getting the contact details of so many people potentially interested in your main policy position for just $120,000 was sheer genius, quite apart from all the free publicity it generated for Yang. I wonder how many thousands of entrants were from eligible or potentially eligible primary/caucus participants in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina? More than 90% of the email addresses he harvested were said to be "new" addresses not previously on the Yang database. His stunt also drove a massive increase in donations to his campaign, many times greater than the $120k giveaway cost.
This all follows Yang's smaller scale pilot earlier this year when three recipients were chosen from Iowa, Hew Hampshire and Florida. No correlation there, then, with the Democrat selection process!
All very exciting stuff before, as timmullen1 said, Yang fades back into political obscurity.
Post by casualobserver on Sept 22, 2019 10:44:25 GMT
Booker campaign warns end is near without fundraising boost. No loss to the selection campaign if Booker withdraws. Only Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris and Yang offer anything really substantial or novel to the campaign now, with the three front-runners likely to be the three final survivors unless Biden stumbles badly (which is far from impossible).
Post by casualobserver on Sept 22, 2019 11:41:18 GMT
With four and a half months to go to the Iowa caucuses, it's worth seeing where the frontrunners are in the latest polls for the four states which will (at least as far as most of the public is aware) select their convention delegates before Super Tuesday. Technically, Iowa Democrat Convention delegates aren't selected until April 25th or (for a few) June 13th, but that technicality is lost every four years in the media scrum around the "first in the nation" caucuses.
We all know the importance of momentum in the primary process, and those relatively few in the know also realise that Biden's likely to be below his national opinion poll levels in the first three contests - but the headline of a lose-lose-lose streak for Biden in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada could be highly detrimental to the credibility of his campaign.
Iowa has been swinging Warren's way for quite a few months now, with two of the latest three opinion polls there putting her ahead of Biden. Biden's numbers appear to have stalled whilst Warren's still on an upward trajectory. Iowa caucuses demand greater grassroots organisation than ordinary primaries, and that ground game can be crucial and sometimes just doesn't show up in the opinion polls even right before the caucuses take place.
New Hampshire polls are all over the place. Aggregators put all three candidates roughly level, but individual polls show starkly different pictures, with each of the three main polls published this month showing a different leader between the three national frontrunners. The only trends overall are that Warren's steadily climbed over the last three months whilst Biden's significant Summer lead in NH has dissipated.
Nevada is a different story. In this month's only poll from an established source, Biden's behind Sanders but is well ahead of Warren. Polling's been a bit thin in NV, however, so perhaps the only conclusion we can currently reach is that Biden's certainly no longer a clear leader in the Nevada race.
South Carolina is the fourth in the list, chronologically. Unsurprisingly Biden's significant lead there has barely been dented.
The SC primary is just a few days before Super Tuesday - but will Biden still have sufficient momentum after IA, NH and NV to carry him through effectively?
I suspect that the Trump camp is pretty indifferent as to which of Biden, Sanders or Warren gets selected. Whilst each of the three has their individual strengths, each also has significant weak points that the Trump campaign will latch onto like limpet mines, once the Democrats' nominee decision becomes clear. I just wonder if the Trump campaign is keen to see the Democrats' selection battle to continue to be unresolved way past Super Tuesday, counting on an increasingly bitter and desperate nomination battle for the Democrat nomination helping Trump by (a) showing the Dems to be divided and (b) giving less time, and less political space, for the eventual wimmer to unite all Democrats behind him/her?
Bar for the next Democratic Presidential debate raised slightly - to get in, candidates must get 3% or over in four DNC-approved polls.
Not high enough.
I have no idea if this is the Democrats normal process, but any process that lets absolute clowns like Marianne Williamson appear on stage with serious contenders is pretty dumb.
"Every five years someone was elected to be Tyrant, provided he could prove that he was honest, intelligent, sensible, and trustworthy. Immediately after he was elected, of course, it was obvious to everyone that he was a criminal madman and totally out of touch with the view of the ordinary philosopher in the street looking for a towel. And then five years later they elected another one just like him, and really it was amazing how intelligent people kept on making the same mistakes."