Biden's first press conference

[NUance]

 

[NUance]

What do you think?   Does this instill confidence in President Biden?  

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, NUance said:

What do you think?   Does this instill confidence in President Biden?  

 

I think he's exactly what we thought he was - a 78 year old man with some cognitive decline. 

 

This is why I'm hoping he's surrounded himself with competent people. Because I don't think he's going to live four more years, and I don't think he's the same Joe Biden we saw five years ago. 

 

We've got to stop electing these old, old people. No ageism here, just practicality. 

[NUance]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I think he's exactly what we thought he was - a 78 year old man with some cognitive decline. 

 

This is why I'm hoping he's surrounded himself with competent people. Because I don't think he's going to live four more years, and I don't think he's the same Joe Biden we saw five years ago. 

 

We've got to stop electing these old, old people. No ageism here, just practicality. 

 

Agreed!  America is the most powerful country in the world.  But the choice we were given to lead our nation was between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.  An egotistical jacka$$ and a senile crook.  What kind of a choice is that?  

 

Clearly our political system is broken.  /smh 

[funhusker]

10 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Agreed!  America is the most powerful country in the world.  But the choice we were given to lead our nation was between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.  An egotistical jacka$$ and a senile crook.  What kind of a choice is that?  

 

Clearly our political system is broken.  /smh 

I wouldn't place all the blame of our general election candidates on the system. I think the electorate should get their fair share of the blame.  

 

 

[Moiraine]

33 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I think he's exactly what we thought he was - a 78 year old man with some cognitive decline. 

 

This is why I'm hoping he's surrounded himself with competent people. Because I don't think he's going to live four more years, and I don't think he's the same Joe Biden we saw five years ago. 

 

We've got to stop electing these old, old people. No ageism here, just practicality. 

 

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I wouldn't place all the blame of our general election candidates on the system. I think the electorate should get their fair share of the blame. 

 

 

The electorate is too old. Therefore it elects other old people.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I wouldn't place all the blame of our general election candidates on the system. I think the electorate should get their fair share of the blame.  

 

 

 

Exactly. trump & President Biden went through the primary process and were selected by the electorate. It's not only the system, it's the electors. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Actually the system didn't want Trump or Biden, and neither did the RNC or DNC. Big money donors could name a dozen candidates they would have preferred. 

 

This is on us. 

 

Also....anyone who WANTS the job is suspect. What sane person would want to go through that? 

[DevoHusker]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Actually the system didn't want Trump or Biden, and neither did the RNC or DNC. Big money donors could name a dozen candidates they would have preferred. 

 

This is on us. 

 

Also....anyone who WANTS the job is suspect. What sane person would want to go through that? 

 

 say what now? If the system didn't want them, and their Party leadership didn't want them, how is it on the hypothetical "us"??

[TGHusker]

50 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 say what now? If the system didn't want them, and their Party leadership didn't want them, how is it on the hypothetical "us"??

It is on the 'us' (not speaking for @Guy Chamberlin mind you - my thoughts) when we go back to 2016.  That is where we have to start.  I think there is very much a mix of "hypothetical us" and system (party) issues at play.  The GOP had several much more qualified candidates than Trump in the primaries. But the hypothetical us, bought into Russian propaganda / misinformation machine that was backing Trump and stirring up discontent among the GOP voters.  Trump picks off each opponent one by one. On the other side, the Dem party failed the electorate by stacking the deck against Bernie and clearing the way for a real bad candidate to be their nominee.  The hypothetical us in that case are all of the Bernie voters who stayed home or who voted for Jill Stein. Enough voters to give the election to Trump in those 3- 4 states that mattered. 

 

2020 comes around - again no Dem candidate really caught on fire.  Biden wins the nomination  by default when Amy, Pete, Elizabeth all drop out - to rescue the party from a Bernie win and what was forecasted as a sure defeat by Trump over Bernie.  Biden was the 'moderate' who could win GOP voters (although he's not governing as a moderate now IMHO). Therefore we get old Uncle Joe.

 

The GOP failed in 2016 by not adequately governing themselves - too many good alternatives who failed to get out of the race.  The GOP should have done in 2016 what the Dems did in 2020 - consolidate around one candidate who could defeat Trump.

The Dem party I think failed in both elections by policing itself too much.  By all rights, Bernie should have been the nominee both times (not that I would have wanted that outcome as we still end up wt an old guy and a more liberal guy.)  There was more passion behind Bernie than any other candidate in both election cycles.

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 say what now? If the system didn't want them, and their Party leadership didn't want them, how is it on the hypothetical "us"??

 

Who else is there?

 

Money wants to side with a winner. Money definitely has its favorites, but it's stuck with the candidates we vote for. So is the DNC and The RNC. 

 

Sometimes we're just lazy and vote for a Bush or Clinton because we already had a President with that name. Sometimes we change our minds throughout primary season. Sometimes we really confound the system. 2016 was an open election in both parties, and the lesson for both parties was that America wanted an outsider. Hillary may have won the nomination, but the success of Bernie Sanders in the primaries was both unexpected and terrifying to the system. On the GOP side, Trump was considered a novelty act who couldn't possibly win the nomination, much less the general, until he did. The people who prefer not to talk to pollsters had spoken. 

 

In 2020 there were something like 26 different Democratic candidates.  The system gave us plenty of choice, but not very exciting ones.  Party leadership definitely had a hand in the last second culling of the herd before Super Tuesday, giving voters a choice between Bernie Sanders and Not Bernie Sanders. By this point there was a single criterion: who had the best chance of beating Trump. Turns out it was the guy given up for dead just two primaries before. The people who didn't want Trump had spoken.

 

Not saying the system isn't screwed up, but it's still forced to elect the people we vote for. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

The hypothetical us in that case are all of the Bernie voters who stayed home or who voted for Jill Stein. Enough voters to give the election to Trump in those 3- 4 states that mattered. 

 

 

Bernie voters turned out for Clinton as well or better than previous primary runners up, and Jill Stein's numbers don't explain anything: there were far more third party votes for Johnson/Weld and Evan McMullin, which would logically have drawn from typical Republican voters. 

 

I think a lot of "us" were forced to come to the same conclusion Hillary Clinton did: it was her turn. Deal with it. As they always do, the majority of Americans opted not to vote at all. 

 

Guess we'll be looking back forever on the election where one party ran the least liked politician in America against the second least liked politician in America. 

[DevoHusker]

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Who else is there?

 

Money wants to side with a winner. Money definitely has its favorites, but it's stuck with the candidates we vote for. So is the DNC and The RNC. 

 

Sometimes we're just lazy and vote for a Bush or Clinton because we already had a President with that name. Sometimes we change our minds throughout primary season. Sometimes we really confound the system. 2016 was an open election in both parties, and the lesson for both parties was that America wanted an outsider. Hillary may have won the nomination, but the success of Bernie Sanders in the primaries was both unexpected and terrifying to the system. On the GOP side, Trump was considered a novelty act who couldn't possibly win the nomination, much less the general, until he did. The people who prefer not to talk to pollsters had spoken. 

 

In 2020 there were something like 26 different Democratic candidates.  The system gave us plenty of choice, but not very exciting ones.  Party leadership definitely had a hand in the last second culling of the herd before Super Tuesday, giving voters a choice between Bernie Sanders and Not Bernie Sanders. By this point there was a single criterion: who had the best chance of beating Trump. Turns out it was the guy given up for dead just two primaries before. The people who didn't want Trump had spoken.

 

Not saying the system isn't screwed up, but it's still forced to elect the people we vote for. 

 

I certainly did not have a say in who either side was offering when it came time to vote. 

 

Out of the roughly 26 D candidates, the whittling began almost immediately, and while early primaries in IA and NH may have thinned the herd, it was decided by the party powers and the money. 

[deedsker]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

 

Sometimes we're just lazy and vote for a Bush or Clinton because we already had a President with that name. Sometimes we change our minds throughout primary season. Sometimes we really confound the system. 2016 was an open election in both parties, and the lesson for both parties was that America wanted an outsider. Hillary may have won the nomination, but the success of Bernie Sanders in the primaries was both unexpected and terrifying to the system. On the GOP side, Trump was considered a novelty act who couldn't possibly win the nomination, much less the general, until he did. The people who prefer not to talk to pollsters had spoken. 

 

In 2020 there were something like 26 different Democratic candidates.  The system gave us plenty of choice, but not very exciting ones.  Party leadership definitely had a hand in the last second culling of the herd before Super Tuesday, giving voters a choice between Bernie Sanders and Not Bernie Sanders. By this point there was a single criterion: who had the best chance of beating Trump. Turns out it was the guy given up for dead just two primaries before. The people who didn't want Trump had spoken.

 

The fringe of a party has some power, but not enough to take over. The difference in 2016 was that there was only one candidate in the DNC vs. a multitude in the RNC. Sanders won a lot of support from the edge case of liberal policies, but without anyone to split the mainline vote, Hillary got plenty of votes to win. In the RNC, the fringe on the right stuck to Trump and everyone else split the more mainline candidates. After enough states went to Trump, he could coast on the rest to lead him to the nomination. 

 

In 2020, Sanders lead the DNC as others broke up the mainline candidates and only after everyone bailed besides Biden did he finally start to win most states.

[Guy Chamberlin]

54 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I certainly did not have a say in who either side was offering when it came time to vote. 

 

Out of the roughly 26 D candidates, the whittling began almost immediately, and while early primaries in IA and NH may have thinned the herd, it was decided by the party powers and the money. 

 

Well it has always sucked to have a late state primary. For years California had it's primary in June, when the winner was almost always decided. Crazy for the state with the biggest electoral vote. That's a system problem, but it doesn't necessarily tip to party powers and money. Weirdly, it seems to be the opposite. 

 

I don't know where or when you voted, or your party affiliation, but after the Nevada primary the Democrat leadership was unhinged about Bernie Sanders winning the nomination. Joe Biden was flagging badly, and carried the smallest campaign chest of anybody: down to $600,000 for all of Super Tuesday. Everything changed when Biden won South Carolina in a landslide. The party powers and the money had nothing to do with that: Biden had bet everything on securing the Black vote in SC, and probably did so with a single endorsement. 

 

That changed everything. I have no doubt the rumors were true: Barack Obama himself called upon Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttegieg to exit the race just days away from Super Tuesday in an attempt to consolidate a Dem centrist to defeat Sanders. And even with that subterfuge, the Dems and the Money were still at the mercy of Super Tuesday voters. On that day, you still had a choice of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, and Tulsi Gabbard. You might not have liked any of them, but I don't think the party powers and the money were that happy with how it shook out, either. I mean, Barack Obama himself avoided endorsing Joe Biden until he was the last man standing. 

 

I think the Party would have preferred Kamala Harris build off her fast start and power through. I think the money would have preferred Michael Bloomberg. The Republicans had already learned that if you criticize Trump, you get holy hell from your own voters.

 

You and I might have done things differently, but it's still us.