It would seem that someone who has been around Washington as long as Joe Biden would know when it was time to leave the stage to applause instead of waiting until the applause turned to boos.
For the record, the following is not at all what I see in Biden…
“…..but rather a doddering old man who walks with tiny steps, stares at the teleprompter through tiny eyes, and, when speaking off the cuff, almost always says the wrong thing.”
I see this…
“…a vibrant and dynamic leader with encyclopedic knowledge of the issues and the ability to successfully cut hard deals with adversaries both foreign and domestic…”
A doddering old man would not have accomplished what he has.
Skeptical Dems need to grow up and get a grip. Ending Trump’s career is an all important mission, and nobody is in a better position to do that than Biden.
I totally agree with you...but unfortunately these issues don't swing on "what should be" but rather "what is." The irony is that Bernie Sanders is older than Biden, but no one utters a peep about his age. It would be wonderful if American voters were thoughtful and objective, but many are not. I have been writing about the underlying risks of Trump's ascension since 2016, that he exposed a significant segment of the electorate that thinks it would be happy to end democratic government and install a system where they could do whatever they wanted and their enemies were powerless. Of course, societies that have made a similar choice came to realize it didn't work out as they planned, but, again, human behavior often leads to self-defeating choices.
I agree that the "what is" is that many Dems are confused about such things. But in the end they will have to choose between Biden and Trump. So let them whine and complain, that's their right, so long as they pull the correct lever in the voting booth.
That's the great thing about Trump, he dramatically simplifies American politics. I no longer have to think or analyze or compare candidates. I just go down the ballot clicking Dem, Dem, Dem, Dem. I belong to the "Anybody But Satan" party. :-)
Haha. Totally correct. The flip side of Trump is that he makes it clear what the stakes are, while equally dangerous characters, such as...many to choose from here...say, Mike Johnson or Josh Hawley, do not.
Post Khrushchev, the Soviets understood this. Instead of a single charismatic leader who would mobilize opposition, they went with a room full of dull gray men whose names were hard to remember.
Right. And Khrushchev was considered a mild Stalin. If you haven't read it, take a look at "The United States and Fascism of Greed," my take on Trump voters.
I wonder if things would be different if Kamala Harris was more popular? As the VP she is the obvious successor, but no one wants her to run. The three you mentioned have zero name recognition (I only know Whitmer because I grew up in Michigan). As a Californian, I can state unequivocally that Gavin Newsom would be a disaster. Have you seen those polls where "generic Democrat" beats Trump? Unfortunately, in the real world, there's no perfect "generic Democrat" out there, just a bunch of nobodies and people with enormous amounts of baggage. Maybe if Fetterman hadn't had a stroke...
If she were more popular, the picture would change drastically. But two things...first, vice-presidents tend to be either unpopular, as Pence and Cheney were, or nondescript, as were Bush, Gore, and...Biden. They just don't get the ink to establish themselves. Second is that Harris has created her own problems by not taking advantage of what opportunities there were to overcome the perception that she is stubborn, self-focused, and cannot manage a staff. If there were to be a new candidate, Newsom would not be in my top five. There are simply better, more electable Democrats out there.
There is still time, but not much if the process is to be orderly. After, say, early January, it remains possible but it will throw more power to state parties, because once the primaries begin, there might not be a viable candidate on the ballot. But a lot of primaries come later, or can be rescheduled. Primaries are not government functions, so the rules can be changed pretty much on the fly. This would not necessarily be bad news. If it happened, the race for the nomination would rival Trump's trials for media focus, so it might actually work out as an advantage. There are some good candidates in the wings--Gretchen Whitmer, Jared Polis, and even Andy Beshear, to name just three.
It definitely is. I would not be at all surprised if some of the people who would run are already quietly doping out staffing and tactics...and soliciting potential contributors. Gavin Newsom, on the other hand, is being pretty obvious about it.
For the record, the following is not at all what I see in Biden…
“…..but rather a doddering old man who walks with tiny steps, stares at the teleprompter through tiny eyes, and, when speaking off the cuff, almost always says the wrong thing.”
I see this…
“…a vibrant and dynamic leader with encyclopedic knowledge of the issues and the ability to successfully cut hard deals with adversaries both foreign and domestic…”
A doddering old man would not have accomplished what he has.
Skeptical Dems need to grow up and get a grip. Ending Trump’s career is an all important mission, and nobody is in a better position to do that than Biden.
I totally agree with you...but unfortunately these issues don't swing on "what should be" but rather "what is." The irony is that Bernie Sanders is older than Biden, but no one utters a peep about his age. It would be wonderful if American voters were thoughtful and objective, but many are not. I have been writing about the underlying risks of Trump's ascension since 2016, that he exposed a significant segment of the electorate that thinks it would be happy to end democratic government and install a system where they could do whatever they wanted and their enemies were powerless. Of course, societies that have made a similar choice came to realize it didn't work out as they planned, but, again, human behavior often leads to self-defeating choices.
I agree that the "what is" is that many Dems are confused about such things. But in the end they will have to choose between Biden and Trump. So let them whine and complain, that's their right, so long as they pull the correct lever in the voting booth.
That's the great thing about Trump, he dramatically simplifies American politics. I no longer have to think or analyze or compare candidates. I just go down the ballot clicking Dem, Dem, Dem, Dem. I belong to the "Anybody But Satan" party. :-)
Haha. Totally correct. The flip side of Trump is that he makes it clear what the stakes are, while equally dangerous characters, such as...many to choose from here...say, Mike Johnson or Josh Hawley, do not.
Good point. Yes, evil charisma comes at a price.
Post Khrushchev, the Soviets understood this. Instead of a single charismatic leader who would mobilize opposition, they went with a room full of dull gray men whose names were hard to remember.
Right. And Khrushchev was considered a mild Stalin. If you haven't read it, take a look at "The United States and Fascism of Greed," my take on Trump voters.
I wonder if things would be different if Kamala Harris was more popular? As the VP she is the obvious successor, but no one wants her to run. The three you mentioned have zero name recognition (I only know Whitmer because I grew up in Michigan). As a Californian, I can state unequivocally that Gavin Newsom would be a disaster. Have you seen those polls where "generic Democrat" beats Trump? Unfortunately, in the real world, there's no perfect "generic Democrat" out there, just a bunch of nobodies and people with enormous amounts of baggage. Maybe if Fetterman hadn't had a stroke...
If she were more popular, the picture would change drastically. But two things...first, vice-presidents tend to be either unpopular, as Pence and Cheney were, or nondescript, as were Bush, Gore, and...Biden. They just don't get the ink to establish themselves. Second is that Harris has created her own problems by not taking advantage of what opportunities there were to overcome the perception that she is stubborn, self-focused, and cannot manage a staff. If there were to be a new candidate, Newsom would not be in my top five. There are simply better, more electable Democrats out there.
When do you think is the cutoff date for that decision? Or have we already passed it?
There is still time, but not much if the process is to be orderly. After, say, early January, it remains possible but it will throw more power to state parties, because once the primaries begin, there might not be a viable candidate on the ballot. But a lot of primaries come later, or can be rescheduled. Primaries are not government functions, so the rules can be changed pretty much on the fly. This would not necessarily be bad news. If it happened, the race for the nomination would rival Trump's trials for media focus, so it might actually work out as an advantage. There are some good candidates in the wings--Gretchen Whitmer, Jared Polis, and even Andy Beshear, to name just three.
Thanks. Seems like it's still possible.
It definitely is. I would not be at all surprised if some of the people who would run are already quietly doping out staffing and tactics...and soliciting potential contributors. Gavin Newsom, on the other hand, is being pretty obvious about it.