I guess he's announcing nearby. I didn't go because I've already seen one presidential candidate announce.
I liked his video, which I think properly assesses the stakes in this election. There is a general consensus among the smart folks that you don't want to make this election about Trump. I think that's overstated, if not outright wrong.
Why are American campaign ads so astoundingly shit?
What with local special elections being fought with national money, it seems like I can't turn on the TV without hearing negative ads.
All you Unfogged liberals are going to be contemptuous of Joe, but among the announced candidates, he might be in my Top 10.
4: What are you comparing them to?
You can't really except them to have the subtlety, nuance, and production values of ads for car insurance or fast food restaurants.
3: The argument is that making the election about Trump didn't work out that well for Hillary. But maybe it could work for someone who isn't quite as widely hated.
I'm only not widely hated because I'm not widely known.
9: Are you running too? You'd be in my top 10.
8:Probably unpopularly, this was my only beef with the Clinton campaign. Trump already makes the campaign about Trump. You're going to demonstrate what a piece of shit he is better than he can? Use your money and voice to articulate the things the other actors won't.
The 2016 election, in the media, pitted Trump's version of Trump against e-mails!. Hillary spent plenty of time talking about issues, but that didn't get any traction with the press, which doesn't give a fuck about that stuff.
At my sister's Seder, I was surprised that her outspoken liberal friend was fine with Biden. Maybe all the time I spend on Left Twitter and Woke Twitter has messed up my understanding of mainstream Liberal America.
12: Yes, but I think that if Sanders or Warren were the nominee there would be more attention paid to their positions on the issues, if only to call it an "extreme left-wing agenda" or some such nonsense.
14: That seems reasonable to me. Really, when I'm tempted to engage in this type of analysis, I probably just need to say to myself, "Who the fuck knows?"
15: Yes, that is what my years of studying the American political process has taught me.
I will never vote in a primary for someone who voted for the Iraq war, so Biden is an easy dead last for me among all major candidates (unless you count Gabbard as a major candidate and then she's last). Even without that his Anita Hill behavior is disqualifying and he'd still be dead last for me.
He's literally a hundred thirty-eight years old. This non-citizen does not endorse Biden for president.
False: Biden is only 107.
18: I think if Biden were here, he would challenge you to a fist fight.
Bah! Biden isn't even the oldest person running in the Democratic primary. (I was about to say that he isn't the oldest Democrat running, but he actually is).
20: Certainly Onion Joe Biden would.
(I was about to say that he isn't the oldest Democrat running, but he actually is).
I don't think so. What about Mike Gravel?
23: I had no idea he was running.
That's probably not a problem for you.
Well, Biden is my favorite candidate over 70. Elizabeth Warren is 69. I checked. Sorry, Sanders had his chance. I'm not saying I'd never vote for him, I'm just saying he's not my favorite these days.
He also might be my favorite non-Hispanic white male candidate. Doing 30 seconds of research, I might prefer Hickenlooper, as silly as he sounds. And including "non-Hispanic" doesn't mean I have a strong preference for Julian Castro, I just haven't thought about it much these days.
Biden's record is very mixed, but at least he has one, and it comes attached to a better resume than most. Most other contenders at the moment are Senators, particularly most other Internet darlings, and I'm getting leery of that. Obama was the first person to go straight from the Senate to the Oval Office in something like 50 years. Considering how other Senators have done, it seems like a fluke. And of course, I basically can't imagine not voting in the general election for whoever wins the Democratic primary, so as far as I'm concerned, the primary race only affects my personal level of enthusiasm and whether I give more money to the candidate, the DNC, or some other PAC.
That's about all I'd want to say at this point. It still feels ridiculously early.
I'm curious to know whether people here think the Democratic primary process needs reform, or is broken like the general electoral process, or what. I don't know to what extent it amplifies bias or fails to select the strongest/most popular candidate for the general election. I remember being somewhat surprised and puzzled when John Kerry got the nomination in 2004, but I was still young and clueless and in a lefty bubble.
The gender politics are all so obvious that it's hard even to talk about them.
I mean, obviously it's designed to amplify bias; but does it amplify stupid biases?
Elizabeth Warren is 69.
She's the nicest candidate.
"The 2016 election, in the media, pitted Trump's version of Trump against e-mails!. Hillary spent plenty of time talking about issues, but that didn't get any traction with the press, which doesn't give a fuck about that stuff.
"
The press didn't cover Clinton's policy proposals, but neither did Clinton's ads or debate time, all of which was about how Trump is a big jerk. Which everyone already knew, and was the reason people who like him, like him. At best, she made the argument that he was conning voters, but noone wants to be told they are being conned.
Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump, and its hard to see how a more policy-focused debate could have pushed some of those votes over the state lines of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And while you're correct about commercials, you remember the debates differently than I do. The media worked to normalize Trump; it would have been a mistake for Hillary to abet that process.
28. Wasn't there recent talk or an actual change that got rid of a bunch more of what they used to call "super-delegates?" (I forget what they call them now.) This could be good or bad depending on how you feel about delegates up for a fun time in the Big City versus king(queen) makers in smoke-filled rooms.
33: I think the superdelegates can no longer vote on the first ballot. They'll have to settle for a fun time in Milwaukee.
They have drinks with sausages in them.
30: Elizabeth Warren is 69.
She's the nicest candidate.
Yeah, in these early days when one can still be starry-eyed about having the bestest candidate (in terms of domestic policy, anyway), I've really warmed to Warren.
It still feels ridiculously early.
It really is. In 2015 Trump didn't even announce until June.
33, 34: Yeah, the DNC has been working diligently to both disempower superdelegates and strongly discourage caucuses. Both of those moves will make winning votes in primaries more crucial to getting the nomination, which with a field this big may well do more harm than good for the general. The field is so huge that it's really hard to predict anything at all, though.
Also, the Democrats already had a primary process where delegate totals are much more proportional to vote counts than the Republicans did (i.e., no winner-take-all primary states), which also makes the process both more small-d democratic and potentially messier with a big field.
37: She's won the coveted Left Twitter primary in a landslide.
41: Not sure what the Left Twitter primary is -- is that an informal thing, I'm guessing? But she for sure won the She the People candidate forum (dedicated to women of color) the other day.
To be clear, 30 was a "nice" joke.
41: She's my current favorite, but I think among DSA types Bernie is still the preference.
Not sure what the Left Twitter primary is
They count up all the votes of everyone who's joined but subsequently "left" twitter.
43.2: I'm really meant she's won the primary of people I follow on Twitter.
I like Bernie but the only dimension I can think of where he is better than Warren is "inspiring loyalty among people who like Bernie."
Those Bernie loyalists are intense, though. And there are a lot of them, certainly more than I would have expected even after 2016.
48: And there's also some seriously intense Bernie haters. I was amazed by the vitriol of some of the responses to Peter Daou's article suggesting that Bernie isn't really that bad.
49: Well, they're all bots, but they vote too!
50/48: yeah, it's clearly transference of some kind, but I don't know exactly what. I think it all goes back to Hillary on some level, maybe all the way back to 1980s Tipper Gore for some.
52: They're still upset about record labels!?
50: Yeah, that too. I assume Yglesias is getting similar reactions to his piece saying the same.
While their voices are definitely amplified vastly online relative to their numbers, both of these groups definitely do exist in real life too. I've met plenty of them.
They're still upset about record labels!?
Not consciously. It's just deep in the lizard brain somewhere. I may not be 100% serious about this.
Let's just call them sexists and antisemites for convenience.
A young colleague of mine wore his Bernie hat to a trump rally in 2016. He had trump fans approaching as closely as possible into his space, to get him to start pushing or swinging. He is ridiculously polite - I should emulate him - so no fights for him.
It is almost a theorem that there is no such thing as a fair election process.
Biden is too old. Bernie is also too old. Warren is borderline too old, but I'll give her, say, five years over her too-old male competitors, since women typically live longer longer than men, and etc.
Buttigieg is too young, and why is he even running? (to increase media awareness for a more serious run at a later date?). Also, I cannot pronounce his surname, but that's on me, of course.
There are too many candidates in the race, but I figure some of them will soon run out of money.
"longer longer" s/b just "longer," of course.
I concur with all of 60. I would not have a great problem with Biden or Sanders otherwise, but it is hard to support someone who has a good chance of being too old to run for reelection.
Buttigieg has little chance of being elected to anything statewide in Indiana---the Democrats just had an incumbent Senator lose there in a good Democratic year. So he's running for President instead. His was the first Democratic candidate bumper sticker I've seen in my neighborhood---but surprisingly featuring his last name (in cursive), moving away from the trend of Joe and Bernie and Amy.
Some of them probably will drop out in a few months---the Republicans had a few reasonably strong candidates (Perry and Walker) drop out in September last time. But any Democrat who is getting much support at all will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, in the hopes of hitting it big in California.
"Stealing the ball" will forever be a euphemism now.
He was 79, also known as "young for the Senate."
If the Democrats get in this round, I think Buttigieg will become HUD secretary or something.
Yes---and if they don't, he might be a good candidate to run next time. Maybe. But then there'd be four more years for an up-and-comer in a higher office to up-and-come.
As someone from a working-class RC background, I think I do understand the appeal of Joe Biden. He's like my drunken uncle singing "Danny Boy" in the kitchen, all kitschy Irish, all hail-fellow-well-met, and he knows how to work the room.
And then something serious happens, somebody dies or something, and he turns serious; and he really is quite eloquent (he's still working that room, but at a higher level), and he really is quite morally serious in his purpose.
He's too old, though. Any uncle of mine (drunk or sober) is just too damn old. Time to step aside for a younger generation...
Proposal: the first debate (we can spare one, right?) be replaced with individual renditions of "Danny Boy"
Given his track record in housing policy, I don't think that would be an uncontroversial choice.
70: Pretty on-brand for Biden, though.
Biden lost my vote last year with his speech at our fundraiser. For now, I'm going with our favorite son, who is going to announce next month.
Biden is too old, Bernie is too old and not actually a Democrat, Gabbard is too wack; otherwise, my mind is relatively open though I am liking a lot of what I see from Warren.
63 was he running too? I guess that thins the field out somewhat.
The "too old" argument seems really weak, to be honest. Gladstone was elected prime minister at the age of 82 and that was in a time when people aged much faster. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is older now than Biden would be at the end of his term; are we saying she should retire?
Biden's physically and mentally healthy, as far as I know; he's a lot healthier than FDR and Kennedy and Wilson were. And people age at different rates even today; who do you think is in better shape? Trump, who's seven years younger, or Biden?
And the line seems to be drawn very finely. Warren is fine (age 69) but Biden is not (age 76); does this mean that the cutoff is 75? Because that could mean that President Warren shouldn't run for re-election in 2024 because she'll be too old.
It means she shouldn't run now because she's too old for a second term.
But, everyone has problems. If still prefer someone under sixty.
From outside, the whole D primary debate seems to be driven by people who can't turn away from things they said in 2016, because that would be backing down, and therefore keep doubling down on more escalation. On the one hand this doesn't promise anything good, on the other, if someone broke from the pack in a way that wasn't reducible to berniebros-vs-hillbotz twitter idiocy, I suspect a lot of people would be secretly delighted to be able to climb down without losing face.
75-76:
1. Ruth should have resigned in Obama's first term because of her age. People said this at the time, and they were right.
2. "Healthier than Wilson" is a pretty low bar, and I'm not persuaded that that Kennedy and FDR were threatened by mental infirmity on their election days.
3. As JPJ points out, Warren is younger than Bernie and Joe, and demographically could expect better health at the same age, and she is not the same age.
4. To elaborate: According to the Social Security Administration, Males at 76 have a life expectancy of less than 11 years. Females at 69 have a life expectancy of more than 17 years. Obviously, not all of those years are likely to be years of high-level mental functioning. (Though of course, one would expect Biden and Warren to both be in better-than-average shape.)
5. As dumb as Trump has always been, it's easy to forget that he was once notably sharper than he is now. For Republicans, the inability to think well is a feature, not a bug. The Democrats, one hopes, have different priorities. If I were a Republican and Joe ran as one, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
6. One of the reasons Biden is too old is that his current age imperils his prospective re-election. See No. 3 regarding Warren, whose risk is likely much less.
7. "Old' is also an abbreviated stand-in for the fact that Biden is a product of a time of failed policy and political choices by Democrats. Biden supported those strategies and hasn't meaningfully recanted.
All that said, if I liked Biden or Bernie more, I wouldn't consider their ages disqualifying. If I had to vote today, I'd go Warren, whose age really is a concern. These choices aren't binary - you can be concerned about Warren's misuse of her heritage, for example, and still think she's the best candidate.
79: On the Internet, pro-Hillary Bernie-hate and pro-Bernie Hillary-hate are way overdone and not representative of the real world, where both are reasonably well-admired among decent people.
I can't believe we have to take a Biden candidacy seriously. He's never been a particularly liberal Democrat; he lost twice, deservedly, and now in the midst of Me Too and resurgent progressivism, we should back a handsy old white guy who represents the credit card companies? Go away, Joe.
I love that Biden's first fundraiser was at the home of a Comcast executive.
Really, could you pick a more corrupt and universally hated company/industry to associate with right out of the gate, Joe? Phillip-Morris was busy?
60 et seq.: Warren is borderline too old
Naw. Have you seen her lately in televised candidate forums and town halls? She's just really remarkably spry and springy; she practically bounds up onto the stage; she's really sharp. There's not an ounce of heaviness or weariness about her. We should all be in such good shape at 69.
This assumes that the "too old" complaint has to do with the ability to meet the physical demands of the job. If it's meant to indicate a too-old mindset somehow (as is obviously the case with Trump), well, Warren is anything but that.
I'm voting for her if she's still in it when the primaries get to NY, and I think she's terrific, but I also think you can't analyze 'too old' by looking at her right now. The question is whether she'll still be in good enough shape to do a good job in 2028. And, for a healthy woman who's had good medical care all her life, 79 (the age she'll turn in 2028) is plausibly an age at which she'll still be able to work hard, but it's not unreasonable to worry about the odds on that.
I'm voting for her, but if there were someone I liked almost as much on the substance, I'd use her age as a tiebreaker against her. And both Bernie and Joe are straightforwardly too old.
Sanders-Biden 2020: Remember to not lose the House of Representatives.
I think Buttigieg will become HUD secretary or something.
I confess I don't get the Mayor Pete love. He reminds me of the teacher's pet in elementary school: the kind of person who, sure, is really smart but is also super fucking obnoxious about it.
if there were someone I liked almost as much on the substance, I'd use her age as a tiebreaker against her
A number of people are pointing to Kamala Harris as that person. It doesn't fly for me.
I confess I don't get the Mayor Pete love.
At one point he was saying some smart things about packing the Supreme Court, and he does seem to be one of the candidates pushing a genuinely transformative view of what the next Democratic presidency could be, as opposed to just Amy Klaubauchering it.
The problem is that his record doesn't really seem particularly congruous with the progressive position that he claims to support, so there is a very high percentage chance that he is entirely full of shit.
he does seem to be one of the candidates pushing a genuinely transformative view of what the next Democratic presidency could be
I guess one should check if he actually has his policy website up yet; last I knew, as of a few days ago, he was repeating that coming forward with actual positions was premature, or pushy even.
Gillibrand is coming through town tomorrow. Maybe I'll get off my ass to go see her.
Castro is also coming. That actually sounds a lot more interesting.
This country could never elect a man with a middle last name like Hussein Castro.
91: Trevor Noah had a nice comparison between Harris, Warren and Buttigieg. Showed clips of Warren and her quantified policy plans; showed Harris citing stats. Showed clip of Mayor Pete saying something convoluted and abstract. Noah said something close to 'ladies show up with their homework done, white male candidate says 'I'll just wing it!'.
95: Yeah. That's about it so far. Hence the "what's with the Mayor Pete love."
I keep thinking that it would be, let's say, older ladies who would say to themselves, "Oh, he's such a nice young man." Yet it doesn't seem to be just older ladies who fancy him. So I don't get it -- other than that he is clearly quite smart, articulate, etc.
95: Yglesias had some annoyingly true tweets saying something like no one has ever gotten elected President on the basis of detailed thought-out policy proposals. I don't know -- maybe it's time to start!
the kind of person who, sure, is really smart but is also super fucking obnoxious about it.
If there's anything to identity politics, Mayor Pete has locked up the Unfogged vote.
I keep thinking that it would be, let's say, older ladies who would say to themselves, "Oh, he's such a nice young man."
OMG, you've met my mom.
Gladstone was elected prime minister at the age of 82 and that was in a time when people aged much faster.
Holy crap! I did not realize he was 82 when elected PM. In 19th-century terms, yeah, that was old (and surely well above the average life expectancy for the time?).
I realize the "too old" argument is problematic, because candidates are specific individuals, while the concern about age is based on aggregate statistical averages. And as PF points out in 80.4, people like Biden and Warren are very likely to be in better-than-average shape.
Nevertheless, I do think it's a valid concern. My thing is, while members of a cushioned elite (and that elite includes Biden and Warren, of course, but also Sanders, for all his posturing about "outsider" status) can generally be expected to beat the odds that define the average, there just are some biological limits to our life here on earth. Healthy living can maybe get you to the age of 75 or so, but after that, it's a bit of a crap shoot.
Why take that chance, when there are younger candidates available?
Also, what ogged said in 82.
98: Children of more scholarly parents?
97: Maybe it isn't. That's what I like about "Medicare for All."
biden will be as old on taking office as reagan was when he left office after serving two terms, ditto bernie, and we don't need a president even half that gaga. gladstone notwithstanding.
JADIS WAS 100 WHEN SHE LEFT OFFICE AND SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD 100 MORE
21.2 is incorrect, as Mike Gravel is like ten years older than either Sanders or Biden.
Biden is a regular visitor on campus (we've recently named stuff after him; I've run into him personally while walking to class; one of my writing partners has taken pics with him at the frou-frou coffee place closest to his house), and despite our affection for the hometown hero/Onion Joe Biden, the response to his announcement from all the faculty I know has been "FFS."
The thing that I don't get, and that I genuinely thought would have kept him out of the race, was how running would put his surviving son's personal problems back into the public spotlight, and make life harder for his granddaughters. Surely, I thought, that would have been enough to help his wife talk him out of this.
how running would put his surviving son's personal problems back into the public spotlight
I am not aware of this, particularly, unless it has to do with the surviving son (Hunter, I believe) being on the board of a major Ukrainian natural gas company, and the elder Biden himself, as U.S. Vice President, then seemingly interfering with Ukrainian legal investigations into corruption in that company. Biden the elder seems ultimately to have effected the ousting of Ukraine's chief prosecutor on that case.
Not a good look for the Bidens. Dunno whether investigation and/or prosecution went forward in Ukraine after that.
108: Hunter was kicked out of the Naval Reserve for doing cocaine, went through a messy divorce with his wife, and had an affair with his late brother's wife. Also, possibly the Ukraine stuff.
But Onion Hunter Biden was running a food bank.
had an affair with his late brother's wife
Oh. Jeez. Well, I'm more concerned about the Ukraine stuff.
Breitbart has been pushing stuff about Biden's family. Written by the same guy (Schweizer) who did Clinton Cash and got the NY Times and WaPo to go along with that.
112.2: So dispiriting to see choads like him get rewarded* again and again for their dishonest bullshit. See also Jerome Corsi of "Swift Boat" book infamy.
*Truly one of the more blatant blackmarks against those two organizations. They didn't just cover it uncritically but paid money for exclusives to get a day or two jump** on other news outlets. Not sure about the Post, but in the NYT's case they had written a decent straight new story on it back in the day the covered it much more factually. Assholes.
**Maggie Haberman tweet*** from a few days before the story came out: "@amychozick got her hands on that "Clinton Cash" book, y'all. " Christ.
***Speaking of her tweets, never really found an occasion to share it but here's part of one from late October 2016: I'm a big Tracey fan. ... MT acknowledges a few replies later: aww thanks MH.
Must flush all 2016 campaign thoughts and rage from my head. Make room for new hatreds.