Joe Biden Wants To Save Your Soul

Joe Biden has apparently pushed his announcement he's running for president until Thursday. The theme of his campaign is "the battle for the soul of America". Terrible. It's both ghoulish and religious. (A battle for the American Dream would be much better.)[More...]

Joe Biden has been the nation's #1 crime-warrior and police supporter his entire career, authoring or shepherding through Congress almost every bad crime bill of the last 30 years.

If he is elected he will be 77 years old when he takes office and 81 when his term is up, meaning in all probability, he'd be a one term president. This will put the Democrats at greater risk in 2024. Joe Biden is also politically tone-deaf, which is why his prior campaigns never took off.

If I have to support an old white man for President, let it be Bernie Sanders. He's much more progressive on crime and other issues than Biden. He's also much better than Kamala Harris who keeps re-inventing herself as she goes along. Plus, I am not voting for any recent former prosecutor. It's one thing to be a prosecutor when you are starting your career, it's another to make a career of it. I neither support nor share their values.

Unfortunately, as of now, it looks like the candidates I would support the most, John Hickenloper and Julian Castro (both of whom in my opinion would beat Donald Trump) are far behind in the polls and not getting enough attention.

If anyone should understand "three strikes you're out", it's Joe Biden. He should do some charity work (or get a job), spend time with his family and write his memoirs.

< No Joke in the Ukraine | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Battle for the American Dream (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Coral on Tue Apr 23, 2019 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    is pretty good slogan. I like some of the candidates. In a different time, I might feel more moderate, but right now I want a fighter who can really do battle with the encroaching authoritarianism of the Trump administration--and an unrelenting and totally uncompromising GOP.

    Warren seems to understand what is at stake. Not sure any of the others do. Not sure any of them are up to the task. Obama seriously underestimated the sheer viciousness and bad faith of the Republican Party.

    Hard pass (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 23, 2019 at 05:41:01 PM EST
    on both him and Bernie. I hope they take each other out in some sort of death spiral. Just my opinion but about every other candidate out there is better than those two.

    They need someone with teeth who isn't crazy (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 23, 2019 at 07:47:50 PM EST

    Joe Biden is a gaffe gushering buffoon (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by hilts on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 10:23:14 PM EST
    He looks and sounds very tired and I can't wait to see his concession speech after his latest campaign ends in disaster as it should.  

    Biden (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 27, 2019 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    is bringing back my 2016 PTSD. So Warren attacks Biden for his method of fundraising and his vote for the bankruptcy bill. So what does Biden do? Instead of defending his vote and his fundraising, he attacks Warren implying that as a woman she would only be where she is if the men in charge (Obama and Biden) had not allowed her to work. I mean this is misogyny writ large and it is a huge problem for Biden.

    And BTW Warren is pretty down far my on my list of candidates but I am not going to stand for this garbage again no matter which woman is on the receiving end of it.

    Stacy Abrams will NOT (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:22:41 AM EST
    Run for the senate in GA.  Which means she is almost certainly thinking of running herself or being available for VP.  

    I think she would be a very strong candidate on her own and I think a Biden/Abrams ticket would put them in the White House.

    It will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    If she does something like an early Biden endorsement.  That would make it obvious without the need for any kind of official announcement that might make Biden look weak as was said the first time it was discussed.

    In spite of what you may be hearing on cable or twitter Biden right now is polling very well with POC.  

    It could happen.


    I Saw the Polling Numbers... (none / 0) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    ...for black women supporting Biden, 47%.  That blows my mind.

    And while not getting behind Biden, this was pretty good. Truth Over Lies

    Every D needs to repeat in every speech, Trump is a serial liar.


    The whole idea (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    Of going directly at Trump which is something every other candidate has avoided is very smart from a purely political perspective imo

    Biden says (none / 0) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    No alternative but to impeach Trump if he blocks investigations....the constitutional resort.   Good for Joe.

    It Was All Over... (none / 0) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    ...Biden calls Trump a liar.  And of course Trump cannot resist Tweeting:
    I'll never get the support of Dues Crazy union leadership, those people who rip-off their membership with ridiculously high dues, medical and other expenses while being paid a fortune. But the members love Trump. They look at our record economy, tax & reg cuts, military etc. WIN!

    An Biden hit back:

    I'm sick of this President badmouthing unions. Labor built the middle class in this country. Minimum wage, overtime pay, the 40-hour week: they exist for all of us because unions fought for those rights," Biden said. "We need a President who honors them and their work."

    Abrams (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    not running for senate is a good thing. She would likely have a repeat of 2018 and is probably better waiting for 2022 when hopefully things will have changed enough for her to pull off a win.

    As far as her being VP, from what I read on social media anyway it's a no go since Obama to have an African American in the 2nd spot. Much better apparently to have someone like Castro.


    Tell social media (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    The ticket will not be two men.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    really knows that do they?

    As far as I can tell (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    It's not like some other Democrat is winning a statewide race in Georgia either so there's no harm going for it. That said, I think that Abrams is a great VP choice, especially for Bernie or Biden.  I'm not sure if Bernie recognizes that but Biden certainly does.

    I don't think that having a black person at VP is a problem at all, I agree that it would be unwise to put two men on the ticket right now, considering the demographics and mood of the party.  Two women would actually be less of a problem, since the one at the top of the ticket would get all the political backlash anyway, if one could actually make it to the top.


    I don't (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 04:20:57 PM EST
    see where someone who lost the race for governor adds much to the ticket. I mean if Biden needs an African American woman wouldn't Harris be a better bet?

    No (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    I don't think so

    Not an Ageist, but... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 04:19:00 PM EST
    ...Uncle Joe would be 78 at the start of his term, there is better than a slim chance he won't make it to 82.  Getting his VP spot is almost a guarantee of being the candidate in 2022 as well.

    I think any inspiring politician would be a fool to pass on that even if they are asked because of their age/gender/race/other.


    The thing (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    is VPs have a poor history of being elected president. And one of my main concerns about Biden is his age. He is older than Trump and at his age his health can do down fast. If I were Stacey or anyone else why wait for Biden to fall down when you could just spend 4 years getting ready to run for yourself.

    Because he 20 points ahead? (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 04:29:37 PM EST

    She has never run a national campaign.  But she is a star.  And for good reason.

    IMO a Biden/Abrams ticket would be unbeatable.

    She would be great for any of the others but she is definitely the best compliment to a white man.  

    And as far as who know if it will be 2 men, I know.  It will not be 2 men.  

    With all the female organizing and power the last few years it would be idiotic and suicidal to not put one on the ticket.  And with all the qualified women running there is no logical reason not to.

    The ticket will not be 2 men


    I (none / 0) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    totally agree with you about there being a woman on the ticket.

    If Biden wins either Harris or Abrams is fine same with Bernie.


    Bernie (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    Is the wild card.  And the exception to conventional wisdom.

    Who knows what that loopy old fart would do.


    He (none / 0) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    will pick a woman, he's not that loopy.

    Warren is the real wild card, IMO she is Bernie with smarts, wicked smarts. I have watched a good bit of the town halls and she has been impressive. She also has a serious history with Biden and is liable to wipe the floor with the both of if she makes it to the final rounds of debates.

    She has no chance at VP but maybe a punchers chance to actually win the thing.


    That I would agree with. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    Warren already drew blood with Biden. And Biden responds with misogyny. I think Biden would pick a woman if it meant the difference between winning and not winning but his voting base definitely would not be happy about it.

    His "base" (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    Appears to be black women.  47%.  That's the highest of any demo.

    You think they would not like Abrams?  Or Harris for that matter.


    That is not (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    who he is centering his campaign on though. He is centering his campaign on the union hall guys. Those are the ones that would not be happy with Stacey as VP.

    The unions that did not support Hillary (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    In 2016?

    Yeah.  That's a terrible idea.


    Well, you more or less (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    made my point that they would not be happy with Stacey on the ticket if they would not vote for Hillary.

    They have endorsed him (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    The "union guys" you speak of have come out strongly in his support.  They will not give a shi+ who the VP is.

    Especially it they help him win.

    And even if they did it wouldn't matter.


    Looky (none / 0) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:01:21 PM EST
    Warren has jumped into the number two slot with 12%, rising 8 points over last month's numbers.
    I'm sure it's an outlier (esp Bernie's  lowly 11%), but several polls have shown Warren picking up a bit of steam, no thanks to the media.

    I saw that (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:06:19 PM EST
    I like Warren.  I do not want her to be the nominee.  For one reason. They would annihilate her.  

    It would be a Trump landslide.  I'm very sorry.  I believe that.


    VP? (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:12:14 PM EST
    I can totally see her as a scrappy VP.

    That's jus me.


    Not (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:15:57 PM EST
    VP for Biden for sure, she has been in his face before and it will get worse before it gets better

    It will (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:20:07 PM EST
    If (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    this "they" you speak of includes the Media I agree.

    I seriously doubt she will win the nomination, but I think she might play Bernie's role in the populist vs. establishment passion play this time (hopefully minus the Bernie-Bots).


    Maybe (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    For me the good news in that poll was Sanders was third.  I think the thrill is gone.  And about f'ing time.

    Also (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    The media are idiot stenographers

    Trump and the noise machine would be what does it.  They would just dutifully report it.


    Yes (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    women have been organizing like crazy. I'm one of them. We've been promoting women running everywhere in GA. However do not expect that level of support for Biden if he is the nominee. Yes, people will vote for him but they are not going to go to the degree that they would for some of the other candidates. When it comes to women, Biden is stuck in the Mad Men era where women only get where they are because of men not because of their own merits.  

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 02, 2019 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    ...but after seeing the number of white women who voted for Trump, one thing is certain, white women are not voting for their own best interests.

    Believing people who did not vote for their own self interests are going to vote for their own self interest in the future is... wishful thinking.

    If HRC could get their votes what makes you think they are up for grabs ?


    You are (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 03, 2019 at 06:53:48 AM EST
    talking about a different voter than I am. Hillary won white college educated women but Trump won working class white women by like 50 points. My point being Hillary won a group that Romney won by 14 points in 2012. These are voters that loathe Trump and will vote and organize for a woman candidate. The working class white women are going to vote for Trump no matter what. You are not going to see the support for Biden out of this group that you would see for another candidate.

    I Am Talkling About Women that are White (none / 0) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 03, 2019 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    And while I don't know, you last comment suggests this is your demographic.  If there is a more foolish demographic I would like to know about it.  Now you are suggesting they won't vote for Biden, making the ratios even heavier for Trump.  I think you would at the very least agree, of all the demographics, this is the one that is the hardest to understand.  I will not buy that logic is dictating white women votes.

    The 52% statistic appears to be one of those myths. According to a later analysis that experts consider more reliable, a study published in August by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of white women who voted for Trump was actually 47%, compared to 45% for Clinton. That's still a plurality, and still makes white women more Trump-positive than the overall electorate, which supported Clinton by a 48%-46% margin. White women, who will again be a critical demographic group in the 2018 midterms, were considerably more pro-Trump than nonwhite women, who went for Clinton by a huge margin, 82%-16%. But it's essentially a tie, which makes for a very different story than a 9-point margin for Trump.


    I'm not sure you read what I wrote. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 03, 2019 at 06:12:15 PM EST
    I never said they would not vote for Biden. I said they would not organize for a candidate like Biden. Biden will throw women under the bus the first chance he gets if that is what it takes to get a deal. All women know it.

    You are grouping all white women together. What I said was Hillary won college educated women and Trump won working class women. It's the college educated white women who are doing the organizing. The working class women as I said are going to stay with Trump. They will not vote for Biden or any other D candidate.


    OT (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:30:44 PM EST
    but this seems big
    Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller's work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

    They should move the conversation (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:38:53 PM EST
    From to impeachment no Trump to impeaching Barr and Mnuchin and anyone else stonewalling.

    Barr's (none / 0) (#161)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    has a turn in the barrel tomorrow in the Senate and Thursday(maybe)in the house.

    Tomorrow with Klobachar, Harris and Booker all in attendance should be interesting to say the least. I hope they keep the grandstanding down to a minimum.


    I wonder if he will show now (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    Castro is calling for him to resign.  I expect others will by tomorrow.

    He has cancelled the House hearing (probably).  It will be must see tv if he shows up tomorrow.  Although I'm sure he expects Lindsey to be a human shield.

    I think dems should drop the BS about staff questing him and get his fat butt in the seat.  

    Are they not capable of asking questions.  If so we need better house members.

    For gods sake, have the staff send you texts.


    It going to be interesting (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 23, 2019 at 06:51:00 PM EST
    To see how Biden's boomer third way MOR establishment big donor PAC driven BS works in 2019.

    Not that well I hope.  But I'm not convinced

    I get the (none / 0) (#4)
    by NoSides on Tue Apr 23, 2019 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    impression that the Democrats believe that the way to victory is to keep going after Trump - his taxes, Russia, impeachment.

    Personally, I think that is a losing proposition.

    The way I read the midterm election, the Democrats were running on "Medicare for All" - and I don't seem to find any candidate going all out for it.
    Just investigations and impeachment.

    The other cause that draws me is the ending of the wars in which we have been stuck for almost two decades. They are rarely even discussed - or even mentioned.

    If there is a Democratic candidate who would choose to - or dare to - run on a platform of withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq - for starters - I would support and vote for that person. But I have yet to see it. Certainly nothing along those lines from the "leadership" of the Party.

    And then - there is the aggressive action needed to save the planet. The most articulate spokesperson on this issue is the 16 year old Swedish young woman, Greta Thunberg.

    I recommend you look up her name on Youtube and watch her presentations before such bodies as the United Nations, the European Parliament, and many other venues.

    And to the extent this is a post about the imminent Biden announcement, I can only echo Jeralyn's comment above. A disaster for the Party and for the Nation.

    Pastitsio (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:10:28 AM EST
    1 lbs. macaroni
    1 1/2 lbs. ground beef
    1 medium onion
    8 oz tomato sauce
    1 pint milk
    1/4 c. flour
    1 stick butter
    6 eggs
    2-3 cups grated parmesan cheese
    Boil macaroni and drain. Mix into macaroni 2 beaten eggs and 1/2 to 1 cup grated cheese and set aside.

    Brown onions and beef; drain well. Add tomato sauce (can use more if you like the filling saucier) to beef and onions. I will sometimes add a sprinkle of cinnamon or a splash of red wine, as well. Mix together and set aside.

    Melt butter in saucepan; add flour and mix. Add milk to mixture and thicken as for a white sauce. Cool and add 4 beaten eggs.

    In a medium baking pan (e.g. 9 in. × 13 in.) layer half of the macaroni. Cover with half of the remaining cheese. Layer on the meat mixture. Add the remaining macaroni and the cheese. Top with the white sauce, working it in with a spoon.

    Bake at 350° for 1 hr.


    A thoughtful reply to your thoughtful reply (none / 0) (#19)
    by NoSides on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    Sloppy Joe Toppings

        Thinly sliced red onion.
        Dill pickle chips.
        Yellow Pepper rings.
        Crispy bacon slices.
        French-fried onions (like those you put on     green bean casserole)
        Fresh Cole Slaw.
        Sliced Cheese- cheddar, pepper jack, muenster, American.
        Sour Cream.


    I would avoid ground beef for a while (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    Food processing plant employee killed after falling into industrial-size meat grinder
    An employee discovered the woman after hearing strange noises coming from the machine.

    April 24, 2019,

    But that's just me


    Substitute (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    Ground lamb for the ground beef, at least in the pastitsio recipe.
    And I use ground venison in my sloppy joes.

    Yes Howdy...me too. (none / 0) (#43)
    by fishcamp on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    No red meat here for about forty years.  That can't be right.  It is because WTF happened?  I'm old.  My Aspen doctor told me to stop what I was doing.  I stopped red meat.  He said `you know what I meant'.  He, of course, was right, but I'm still here.

    I like this (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 08:05:07 AM EST
    Lawmakers in 18 states across the country, including New York, Illinois and Washington, have introduced bills that would require all presidential candidates and their running mates to release their individual tax returns in order to qualify for the presidential primary ballot, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
    The latest is in Illinois, where state senators approved a bill this month that would require presidential candidates and their running mates to release personal tax returns for at least the five most recent years in exchange for access to the state's 2020 ballot.

    I Thought New Jersey... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    ... passed a similar bill last year, nope it was February and it was only approved by the state Senate
    The state Senate on Thursday approved a bill -- which the Legislature passed once before, in 2017, but which then-Gov. Chris Christie blocked by issuing a scathing veto -- that would prohibit candidates for president and vice president from appearing on the ballot unless they make their tax returns public.

    Similar legislation has been introduced in at least 30 states but never enacted, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, meaning New Jersey would be the first to impose such a disclosure requirement if its measure is also approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat.

    I can't imagine these would hold up in any court.  While it seems like a good idea, in reality, imposing requirements at the state level for a federal election is a really bad idea.  That pendulum swings two ways and we don't need R's coming up with reasons to keep D's off ballots.


    As someone who was raised in NJ (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    I would be very entertained to see a presidential election in which the candidates were on the ballots in every state but NJ.

    What Would Be Really Entertaining... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    ...if neither candidate released their returns and NJ legislated itself right out of an election.  At this point, releasing them is only opening oneself to undo scrutiny.  This should be legislated at the federal level IMO.  

    Even write-ins are disqualified as the electoral college cannot vote for a candidate w/o returns.


    It would (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    More from that CNN link

    The tax return bills, however, would sidestep that fight -- though it isn't clear if the risk of missing the ballot on states likely to give their Electoral College votes to a Democrat in 2020 would sway Trump.
    And it remains an open question whether states requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to get ballot access would be constitutional.
    Dylan Lynch, a policy associate for the National Conference of State Legislators, wrote in a recent blog post that although states have the authority to administer presidential elections, it is the Constitution that clearly outlines the qualifications for the presidency. The criteria include being a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident of the US for the past 14 years.
    "The possible addition of a new criteria established by a state would surely face court battle," Lynch wrote.
    The Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for members of Congress, and some legal experts believe that would likely extend to the President of the United States.
    With a few exceptions, nearly all of the state bills that have been introduced would require candidates to release at least five years of individual tax returns. In Mississippi, Democratic state lawmakers failed to win the release of the candidate's tax returns for only the year prior to the primary, while a bill introduced in North Carolina would require at least 10 years of personal tax returns.

    I just happy (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    To see democrats doing SOMETHING.  Even if it doesn't work.

    Instead of mumbling and bumbling about what they are going to do.


    What Would Be Really Entertaining... (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    What Would Be Really Entertaining... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 08:26:44 AM PST
    ...if neither candidate released their returns and NJ legislated itself right out of an election.
    Ya, that's what I meant.

    The states have a lot (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    Of control over elections.

    I don't know about this, maybe the lawyers do, but we do not in fact have federal elections.  We have 50 state elections.  All have different rules different machines different deadlines to register etc.

    That one of the biggest problems facing any kind of election reform.


    That Sounds Right... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    ...but do you really want states having the right to remove a national candidate off a ballot over non-sense that most voters don't care about ?  I don't especially over Trump's tax returns.  

    Voters have already stated, through the voting process, that tax returns are not a deal breaker.  Yet D's are trying to legislate that they are a deal breaker by removing candidate off the ballot.

    What could possibly go wrong?


    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:45:16 AM EST
    I would think a lot of people now see why it's important to see tax returns.

    I do not at all agree it's unimportant.  There is also legislation in DC to force potential candidates to release their returns.  I think that will eventually pass, thanks to Cheeto, and I absolutely think it should.


    I Didn't Write That It's Not Important... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    ...I wrote that voters don't care about it.  Maybe I should have clarified R voters, but that seems obvious.

    A law effecting national candidates should be enacted by Congress.  

    And let's be honest, had HRC won this wouldn't be on anyone's plate, these are laws directed at a single candidate.


    It wouldnt be on the plate (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    Because Hillary released years of tax returns.  Its aimed at one person because that one person is the only president, and really the only candidate except Bernie as far as I know, who refused to release tax returns.

    Bernie has now.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    I think one possibly positive result (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    Of this crazy Trump nightmare we are living through will be that a lot of thing that up till now have been "customary" like releasing tax returns and other stuff that depend on the good faith of the candidates and office holders will be codified into law.

    The post Trump reforms will dwarf the post Watergate reforms.


    I'd Prefer... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    ... we not forget and get rid of the idiotic voting system that have cost the D's two elections in my lifetime; next time we control both houses get ride of the antiquated Electoral College.

    Like the above, they seem like important todo's right up until we have the power and the important todo's shift and previously important stuff is forgotten.

    The seal has been broken, the notion that we will some how go back to pre-Trump days... I bet in the near future, like GWB, we will look back and wish we were still ruled by Trump and that is fricken depressing.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    think that abolishing the EC requires amending the Constitution, that would be a very heavy lift.

    It's going to get worse (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    Before it gets better.

    I would bet on that.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    like Democracy on life support worse.

    Reality Check Time (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    It would take changing the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College.  Not saying it can't be done; just that it is a tall order and having super majorities in both houses is not likely.

    Article II (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    Section 1

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Sorry, but this needs updating.  I feel like that hurdle wasn't near as tall as it is post-Trump.  


    I think the history of the EC (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    Makes it a bit more up for grabs than it might otherwise be.  It's a vestige of slavery.  Making people understand that could work.

    The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
    "In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time."


    So There was Never a Time... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    ...when the south wasn't gaming elections.  That article was depressing on many levels.

    Sounds NJ was saved by (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    A republican governor.  They don't all have republican governors.

    At Least There is Hope (none / 0) (#56)
    by RickyJim on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 11:01:51 AM EST
    that the EC may be changed so to be more in accordance with democratic principles.  However, there is no way in the foreseeable future to change the ridiculous way the US Senate is constituted, something that screws us much more than what the Electoral College does once every four years.  Article 5 of the Constitution says the amendment process can't change it.
    and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
    Anybody think that in their lifetime the states will be broken up into ones of equal population or a new constitution will be adopted?

    Biden (none / 0) (#21)
    by NoSides on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    is being sold as the alternative to Sanders.

    It feels like the desperate last throws of the establishment part of the Democratic Party.

    Biden has zero chance against Trump.

    I'll look forward to the usual recipe from Zorba with more enthusiasm than the prospect of a Biden candidacy.

    Roast Lamb with Orzo (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    • One pound orzo (rosamarina) pasta
    • One leg of lamb
    • Two or three medium to large onions
    • Several carrots and celery
    • One garlic bulb, peeled and cut into slivers
    • 4 beef and 2 chicken bouillion cubes
    • Olive oil
    • Lemon juice
    • Oregano
    • Pepper

    Preheat oven to 400°F. Chop onions, carrots, and celery (or other vegetables) and put into bottom of large roasting pan, add bouillion cubes and water to about one inch depth.
    Trim the lamb by removing as much fat and skin as you can. Pierce the lamb in many places with a sharp knife and insert the slivers of garlic into the openings (some garlic can be added to the vegetables as well). Rub the lamb with lemon juice and olive oil, sprinkle with pepper and oregano, and place on roasting pan on top of the bed of vegetables. Roast for about two hours or until lamb is tender. About halfway through cooking, check to see if the pan needs more water, or if the lamb needs to be covered in foil to avoid over-browning.
    Meanwhile, boil the orzo in a large amount of salted water until al dente, drain. When the lamb is nearly done, remove and drain the vegetables from the pan, reserving the broth (after skimming of the fat), which can be used to make gravy. Return the vegetables to the pan and mix with the orzo and a small amount of the reserved, defatted broth. Add the lamb back to the pan, cover with foil, and finish cooking (20 or 30 more minutes).

    You crack me up. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 05:35:16 PM EST
    I'm going to have (none / 0) (#45)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    An entire Greek cookbook on this blog eventually.   ;-)

    Spell check (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    Not "throws."

    Look on the bright side (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    You can call them "dims" and think you are terribly funny.

    He looks like a President (none / 0) (#25)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    He knows his way around the White House.  Despite his baggage he comes across as likable.

    It's going to be difficult for some people not to choose him.


    I Disagree About Looking Presidential (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    And I am not alone, I Googled 'last bald president'.  Actually shocking, the last bald president voted into office was pre-TV, 1952 Eisenhower.  Yeah, Trump is probably bald, but he's got an award winning comb-over.

    Biden is probably technically not bald, but he is much closer to bald than balding.  Add in the liver spots and I just don't see Presidential material.  But compared to Bernie, he looks like a Greek god.


    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    The whole idea of "looking presidential" is at least a root of our problems.

    What does that even mean?

    Reagan looked presidential.  Nixon looked presidential.  

    Stephen Hawking or Divine would have made a better president than either.


    And personality (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 06:01:00 PM EST
    politics where you either "like" or "dislike' a candidate. Talk about lazy analysis. They aren't going to be your wife or your husband or your girlfriend or boyfriend. They are more or less are a vehicle to accomplish the things that you want accomplished in government.

    Call it What You Want... (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 09:32:14 AM EST
    ...but you cannot deny that it's reality and if you go with someone people don't like, you ain't going to win.

    Sorry but (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 04:07:13 PM EST
    who decides if someone is "likable"? The media. It's a fabricated media narrative. It gives them a lot of power. It's why they push the whole "likability" thing.

    So in Your Day to Day Life... (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    ...you aren't determining the likeability of folks all without the help of the evil media ?

    I am positive you think Chris Mathews is unlikable and I am pretty sure you have never met him.  Ditto for Trump, do you dislike him because CNBC told you he is unlikable. Stop being obtuse because people didn't like HRC.


    At the very least (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 10:41:47 AM EST
    Likeable is an entirely subjective thing, and one person's likeable can be another person's unlikable,  etc...

    It's not as if there is a universally accepted standard.


    AOC (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    is incredibly unlikable. How do you think she got to be that unlikeable? I'm assuming the vast majority of people that do not like her never met her.

    In real life I don't talk about whether I "like" someone. I mean seriously the whole "like" thing for me was middle school mean girl thing. People would gang up on someone they did not "like" and make sure everyone else would say they didn't "like" them either.

    As far as Chris Matthews goes, I don't think I have ever thought about whether I like him or not. I have issues with his misogyny.


    I'm going back to my previous question (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    From another thread that never got a response.

    Can anyone name a single female employed politician that would be considered "likeable"?  Just one.  Because I can't think of any.

    Michelle Obama and Oprah don't count, they "stay in their lanes".  I'm talking about an active actual politician.

    And if you can't name one, at least consider why that might be the case and what that means.


    Amy Klobuchar (4.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    I have even heard that from MAGA people.  Tho I'm sure if she got the nomination they would like her less.  I totally think she qualifies as likeable.  To most people even.

    For the record I don't find most male politicians very likeable either.  Booker makes me cringe for some reason.  90% of the standard white guys are not worth an eye roll.  Beto grates.  Bernie, well...

    Oddly (hold your fire) if we are not talking about policy but sheer surface likable, I find Biden sort of likable.  The fact he puts his foot in his mouth is going to appeal to some people.  He come across as more or less authentic.

    I think that might be what likable might mean.  Seeming authentic.  Harris does not seem at all authentic to me.   Nor does Warren.  Warren has great ideas but she looks like pure calculation to me. In fact I would say that was Hillary biggest problem.  Any one who ever met her in person would tell you she was a very likable person.  She was funny and real and totally down to earth.

    She NEVER managed to come across that way campaigning

    I do not know why but she didn't.  I think the likable thing is like star quality.  You have it or you don't.

    Also I completely disagree about AOC.  I think she is immensely likable.  It's why she won.


    All I can say is that (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    The polling on Amy and AOC does not support that assessment.    Particularly on AOC.

    Maybe Amy (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Although in that case the media would appear to disagree as she certainly hasn't been presented as such.

    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    Likable to who?  They both won.  AOC shocked the heck out of everyone by coming from no where and beating the next in line for speaker

    Amy won her race massively.  Even winning  Michelle Bachman's district.  

    So maybe we should define our terms.

    Peter your subtle ratings are very confusing.


    I use a 4 when I agree with almost everything (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    you said, but disagree with one or two lesser points, and the parts I agree with I feel are particularly important and insightful. Here, the Klobouchar aspect is what I don't agree with. I like her a lot, but I don't think she's "likable."  In other words, my understanding of the "likable" discussion is that it is an attempt to estimate how the voters at large will react to her (or some other candidate) on subliminal level, not just how I react. I readily acknowledge that my own personal assessment and reaction to things, including my feelings about other people, may be atypical. Here, I personally "like" smart, powerful women who do not hide those characteristics. But I very much doubt that lots of other voters, male or female, react the same way.

    I would say this would underline what CST (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    Just said about the relativity of that term.  

    All I can say is I have personally heard from several people right across the political spectrum that they "like".

    Clearly, defining what they mean by that is a fools errand but there you go.  I personally find her very, um, personable.

    I have heard terms like non threatening, as opposed to for example Harris, and authentic as opposed to several other candidates.


    That is the million dollar question isn't it? (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    I find Warren a heck of a lot more likable than Pete but I suspect I'm not representative of the general public.   Which is one reason why it's such a loaded term.

    I guess my question was more trying to think about media representation and how people are described publicly.


    I don't think I have ever heard (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    Amy portrayed badly in the media.  Course I don't watch FOX.

    And I would say liberal media is completely in love with AOC.

    She is being credited for almost single handedly changing the direction of the party from the Green New Deal on.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    The only thing I know about Amy from the press is that she was mean to her staff. Otherwise they pretty much ignore her.  If it weren't for that I might agree with you there.

    AOC is polarizing at best, people either love her or hate her but I don't know that likeable is the term I'd use to describe any of it.  Her unfavorables are sky high in recent polling, so if the media does find her likable it's not spreading.


    Proposal (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    Forthwith ban the use of the term "likable"

    All in favor....


    Aye aye (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:36:30 PM EST

    Silly... (none / 0) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    Forthwith ban the use of the term "likable"

    Yes, fantastic idea, let's all stick our heads in the sand and pretend likability has no bearing on politics.  I am positive that was tried in 2016 and I am pretty sure the results were not great.

    I like AOC, I have not made any qualms about it.  I used to really like Warren, and it's well documented here, but her Native American non-sense really rubbed me the wrong way.  Uncle Joe gives me the creeps.  Sanders is like the unlikable political version of Dr Brown.  He is definitely not likeable.  I find it hard to believe that a lot of people do not really, really, like Buttigieg.  Beto, he is on some days, some days he's not.  Klobuchar is very Klobuchar.  
    I don't have an opinion on the rest.

    Yeah, likeability is subjective, but the idea that collectively people can't be unlikable or likeable is silly.  There are people we know or work with that everyone loves or everyone hates.  Like today, I find the likability of a couple folks at pretty low levels, but on Monday that will most likely change. But overall I find most people here likeable and I have never meet a single one of them.  And since gender keeps getting tossed in the mix, I would lean female because there are a couple dudes here that are very grating at times.  

    But that isn't the argument here, the argument and what a lot of people seem to want is for likeability not to matter in politics.  OK, great, but it does to a whole lot of people we need to pull the D lever, and pretending it doesn't ends up with us wondering what the F just happened.  Obama was damn likable and while a lot of folks voted for him because of his policies or his oratory skills, let's not pretend a whole lot of votes weren't because he was very likeable person.

    And for the love of god, can we get past the notion that not liking one candidate doesn't mean that we dislike an entire gender of candidates.  It's just so insulting to keep insisting that can't possibly be true because you like HRC and I don't.


    Scott you're missing the forest for the trees (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    No one is saying that YOU don't find women likable.

    Personally I find Pete's schtick to be a bit phony and too polished.  It comes across, to me, as inauthentic. I have no doubt that my response to him says more about me than it does about him, but it's still there.

    Also we're not saying it doesn't matter we're saying it's entirely subjective,  and if you go looking for an objective metric  - like media coverage,  you will find it more sexist than not.


    If likeability (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    is the ultimate arbiter of everything then you're basically advocating that every woman candidate currently running should just give it up and quit running since they are unlikable. AOC should never show up at another hearing because she's unlikable and hurts the party. You just cannot accept that it's a media manufactured narrative.

    You personally liking or disliking someone means nothing in the larger scheme of things if the people you like are unlikeable to the rest of the country.


    One thing tho (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    That whole mean to her staff thing was not just "media"  it was right here in these threads.  I did not agree.  I thought it was a perfect example of something you would never hear about a man.

    But there you go.  Likable is as likable does I guess.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    I forgot

    At the "She (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    the People" meeting at Texas Southern University, that crowd did not seem to be bowled over by Senator Klobuchar after pridefully mentioning her Minnesota win, including in Michelle Bachman's district.  Made all the worse, when she greeted the relative silence with "you are supposed to cheer."  It reminded me, and maybe that audience, of Jeb Bush's plea to his audience's dead air, with "please clap."  

    Don't know if it was a matter of likeability or not, but, at least, that tact may not go over well.  But, I sure agree on the subjectively aspect. I find Elizabeth Warren to be very likeable, but it may be colored, at least in part, by my agreement with her ideas and policies.

    Similarly, I was neutral to nonplussed by Senator Klobuchar, until her effective questioning and responses to the insolent Brett Kavanaugh. I have been fortunate to have met Secretary Clinton and found her to be everything good we ever heard about- including funny and, for sure, likeable.


    Do you think Hillary (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    Was able to come across that way to large audiences on the trail.  I met get too.  When she was First Lady of Arkansas.

    I hardly recognized the person campaigning in 2016


    Cann't speak (none / 0) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:58:23 PM EST
    to the 2016 campaign trail; my exposure was limited to TV appearances.  I did not find Secretary Clinton to be unlikable on TV.  In fact, I think, for example, she did a really good job during all the debates.

    The media does shape such impressions--she was "over prepared", and, too, the what about her emails may have impinged on it all. Trump got such inordinate media coverage that her campaign was smothered by orange.


    The best (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    example that I saw was when you took the media filter away like at the debates her numbers went up.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:09:31 PM EST
    MIsread you.  I thought you said you had.  I actually was in the room with her several times over his multiple terms as governor.  They were quite accessible to party faithful which my sisters family was her husband being an elected democrat for many years.

    She was very different in person.  He was really not.

    They used to stay at party supporters houses in the early day.  They stayed at my sisters house.  I was not there but I've heard the story many times.

    They still get a Christmas card every year.


    Sorry, too. (none / 0) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    To clarify, I met Hillary during her campaigning for the NY senate seat.  Sat with her at a luncheon--table of eight for a couple of hours.  My only observations in 2016 were via TV.

    Ok (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 08:15:57 PM EST
    Did you not find her much more engaging and I don't know charming and funny than she ever was able to come across to large audiences or on tv?

    I love Hillary.  Always have.  Maybe because I met her close up.  Well, and the long history in my state.  I know what she believes.  But she was not ever able to bottle and sell it like her husband.



    yes, (none / 0) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 27, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    My sense of it as well.   All business in large groups. And, I like that, too.  But, most of the electorate is on a search for a beer buddy.  

    I understand why that might be seen (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 27, 2019 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    As a trivial or superficial thing but one thing her husband understood is that you can have all the best intentions and all the great ideas and they don't mean squat if you don't get elected.

    I know for a fact many people who knew Hillary wished she had been able to be that person when she was in the spotlight.


    Yes, beer buddy. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    And that's the problem, isn't it?

    Not with likable or unlikable public servants, but with the electorate.

    Even union workers are willing to vote to screw themselves because they feel more validated by the guy who sounds like a half-in-the-bag blowhard at a tailgate party.


    "Live it or live with it" (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    Firesign theater

    This digression (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jondee on Sat May 04, 2019 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    got me thinking about all the prickly, curmudgeonly, downright "unlikable" personalities of the last hundred-odd years who were also immensely competent, even geniuses at performing their jobs.

    So there's hope for you yet, Captain.


    Flashback... (none / 0) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    Michelle Bachman, I mean seriously OMG.  I haven't read/heard that name in what seems like a decade.

    And thank the (none / 0) (#114)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    Flying Spaghetti Monster for that.  R'Amen.  

    Thank you (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    so much for saying this better than I did.

    According to polling the most "likable" candidate is Harris who nets a big fat goose egg on that question. So no, I do not know of one female candidate that has positive number in that category.

    Also I don't think most people and especially the media realize how pissed off most women are by this garbage.  


    AOC is young (none / 0) (#99)
    by jmacWA on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    ... and has done/said some foolish things.  IMO based on your comments, here and elsewhere, I would expect that you would cut her some slack on this.  Every one has a first term, and many of them have blunders from them.

    Today the only people who have to think AOC 'likable' are those in her district.  If she is going to be a force in the future, she will grow in her understanding of how to play the game, and who knows maybe some day have a 17th term.


    My opinion of AOC has changed markedly ... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    ... over the last year. I'll freely admit that I didn't really care for her in the beginning because she struck me as something of a dilettante. But having watched her and listened to her, I've since changed my mind. That young woman has depth and substance and some serious policy chops, and she's really grown on me. To be sure, she's made a few rookie mistakes, but I think she's incredibly intelligent and she's not likely to repeat those mistakes in the future. If Nancy Pelosi is looking to mentor someone, AOC would be a perfect fit because she reminds me of the Speaker in her younger years. And like Pelosi, AOC could enjoy a long and distinguished congressional career.

    I was (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    using her as an example for the whole exercise in likability. Ultimately yes, her district is what matters but if likability is such an arbiter of everything then she should not be at any public hearings because if you think likability is of the utmost importance she should not be any sort of public face of the party.

    Personally I think the whole likability thing regarding AOC or anybody else should just be slammed in the media's face and say who cares? The media manufactures this whole thing.


    Bingo (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    The media is foisting this whole manufactured metric on us. Then they turn around and manipulate these "feelings" knowingly or unknowingly.

    They did it with Gore, they did it with Hillary, magnifying their personal foibles and with Reagan and Bush Jr turning those foibles into endearments.

    The natural born pols like Bill and Obama, had an immunity of sorts but those of lesser talents are at the mercy of the MSM and IMO the bar is set much higher for women.


    Apparently not so. America elected (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    (albeit just barely) the totally unlikeable Tr*mp in 2016.

    Since an Election... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    ...is dependent on the competition...

    Being slightly more likeable than someone 'totally unlikable' is what exactly, mostly unlikable ?

    So in an election with someone totally unlikable and someone mostly unlikable, there is a good chance someone unlikable is going to win.

    So I stand corrected, you can win with an unlikable candidate so long as the competition is nearly as unlikable.  But I don't think that is good strategy if your strategy is to win.  I think finding a likeable politicians isn't that high of a hurdle to topple.  

    When people are voting for a recovering alcoholic because that is the guy they most want to drink a beer with...



    Divine! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    "Honey, you sing like you look." LINK.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    he is "comfort food" to many of the Obama coalition. I think his elect-ability is as good or better than any of the rest of them.

    That being said I wish he would go away.


    He's the easy option (none / 0) (#44)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    Last time Hillary and Jeb were the easy options. Sometimes it's better to take a chance.

    Looks like a Prez for the 19th or 20th centuries! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Erehwon on Wed Apr 24, 2019 at 07:37:24 PM EST
    B Obama and H Clinton look like 21st century Presidents, and Biden looks like neither of them and so he most definitely doesn't look presidential to me! When somebody claims that a candidate looks presidential, just means they seem to be looking to the past for guidance! Same reason why the Electoral College seems wonderful to them!

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    The candidate's DNA is the most important consideration.

    Not DNA ... but (none / 0) (#60)
    by Erehwon on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    what they accomplished and can accomplish with that DNA!

    Biden (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 05:28:41 AM EST
    just released his announcement video, meh.

    Pretty much tRump is bad and I alone(inferred) can take him down.

    I was surprised (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 07:32:56 AM EST
    That I thought it was pretty good

    Good (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 08:20:38 AM EST
    production values I suppose, but rather one dimensional and oddly hyper specific on the Charlottesville incident.

    I liked that (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 08:28:51 AM EST
    IMO that is one of many things people need to be constantly reminded of.  It was after all, until now, when his poll number hit their lowest point of his presidency.

    I understand there will be 2( ?) more videos as part of the rollout.


    Just watched it again (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 08:18:46 AM EST
    Trying to look at it as objectively as I could, like I was not a person who lives and breaths this stuff, I had an interesting response.  

    I could see that guy going against Trump.  I could see him having the experience to take on that machine and win.  And remember I don't have all of the resentment and fatigue with Biden that I personally actually have.

    Looking at the rest of the field I see many smart qualified people who I fear Trump and the right wing noise machine would annihilate because of their lack of experience in the trenches of national politics.  As a person who casually follows politics and only care about one thing, beating Trump, he looked pretty good.

    I mentioned before part of me (the actual politically obsessive me) would like to see a Trump/Biden debate.

    I think a lot of people will have the same response.  

    Spare me the indignation.  I'm not endorsing him I'm just calling it as I see it.


    Andrea Mitchell has not been this happy (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 10:56:41 AM EST
    Since Alan Greenspan proposed.

    Uncle Joe... (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    ...just got a huge endorsement.
    I am extremely happy that @JoeBiden has decided to enter the race. He offers Dems the very best chance in 2020, especially in key states. He has the fight, intelligence and fortitude to beat Trump and begin to make America, America again. He has my enthusiastic support,

    Hint, I think one has to wire this person money so they will not endorse them.

    The Dem establishment in PA is tripping (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    over each other to endorse Biden today. Sen Casey, former Gov Rendell, Comcast power-player David Cohen, etc. It's sad.

    Maybe He Can Get... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    ... Rod Blagojevich & Rahm Emanuel endorsements as well.

    My favorite headline today.
    Joe Biden says he asked Obama not to endorse him
    Yeah sure.

    I asked President Obama not to endorse, and whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits

    I though the soul of the country was at stake ?

    It is believable (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    that Biden did ask Obama not to endorse him. That way he can honestly get ahead of wondering minds.  

    Pffft. Obama already had said (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 06:30:23 PM EST
    that, as is traditional with former presidents, he would not endorse until after the primaries. Uncle Joe is full of it.

    Actually, norms being out the window with the Republicans, I would like for Obama to ignore this norm and endorse in the Dem primaries.  We don't need twenty candidates.  That will cost a lot of funding that a Dem will need in the general.


    It will cost a lot (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 06:40:49 PM EST
    And it will help high name recognition win.

    Disgusted to read in the paper this morning (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    that at least three of our four newly-elected (relatively) "progressive"  Congresswomen, the beneficiaries of our court-ordered fair redistricting, attended last night's high-dollar power-fest in support of Biden. The photos of him in this morning's local papers, btw, make him look older than I had previously noticed. Or maybe that's my own prejudice affecting my perceptions.

    Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    will be ecstatic.   For those who watch his show, look for the
    pom poms.  

    Do you think (none / 0) (#66)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    That Chris will get a tingle up his leg?

    That "tingle" disappeared ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    ... once his wife got him to start using Depends for Men.



    His wife (none / 0) (#74)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    Kathleen ran for the House of Representatives in the district we live in.  Even though the Washington Post endorsed her, we voted for Jamie Raskin, who won.
    We're quite happy with Jamie.

    If Joe Biden can sell his campaign ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    ... as transitional and transformative, in which a Biden administration would serve as a bridge to a new generation of Democratic leadership, he can succeed in uniting Democrats under his banner. If he can't do that, or is instead perceived as a bridge to the past, he'll likely flame out fairly quickly.

    Speaking for myself only, I'm not necessarily looking to be "inspired" by a candidate. Given what's really at stake here, my only criteria in this particular election is that we field a candidate who can actually kick Trump's a$$ and wipe the floor with the Republicans. And I'll be honest here, while my personal preference is either Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg, I also have doubts about their staying power.

    So, I'm keeping my powder dry, remembering the Rolling Stones' observation that we can't always get what we want, but we just might find we'll get what we need.


    I see Biden flaming out (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    pretty quickly mostly because he is seen as a relic of the past in so many ways. He still has not resolved his issues with Anita Hill and basically gave her the nonapology apology.

    Mayor Pete said something that I totally agree with. This is more than just beating Trump. This election is about ending Trumpism which (my words) is really about ending Reagan/Bush. I do not see Biden being able to do that at all. He may win but it would just be another repeat of Obama.


    Biggest shock for me was (none / 0) (#71)
    by ragebot on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    Biden saying he asked Obama not to endorse him.

    That was (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 05:49:57 PM EST
    just another tone deaf statement from Joe.

    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    How Joe Biden Could Win The 2020 Democratic Primary

    Long.  Packed with data.  Totally worth a read.

    Nate Silver On Biden: (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 25, 2019 at 08:58:21 PM EST
    Biden's gonna get bad press coverage because the mainstream media thinks he's a boring story and the left-leaning media doesn't think he's woke enough. Not entirely unlike Clinton in 2016 although she had other factors that made it worse for her (including her gender).

    I guess we shall see.

    Well, it seems (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    the one man gaffe machine named Biden is running full steam ahead with a total of 3 to 4 unforced errors in the first 24 hours of his campaign.

    I (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    think in the age of tRump Biden's gaffes might engender less blowback. Biden being Biden is less horrific than tRump being tRump.

    tRump can easily be goaded into saying something stupid, Biden less so.

    BTW, Biden just raked in a hefty 6.3 mil in the first 24 hrs, he won't flame out early this time.



    Something else that might (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    Contrast well is if Biden is smart enough to do it might be in dealing with these things like Anita and the crime bill and bussing etc is to admit he may have made mistakes.  Not completely convinced he can do that but it might be a positive contrast to mister "I never made a mistake and I don't even need to ask Jesus to forgive me"

    Also part of that story (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    Biden, who entered the Democratic primary contest on Thursday among its frontrunners, received 107,431 online donations from 96,926 individual donors across 50 states, with an average contribution size of $41, his campaign said.

    Didn't Beto (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    raise that much money in his first outing too? I think the bigger answer is who can go back to the well a bunch of times for money and whose supporters have moved onto other candidates and are not donating anymore. Biden probably has a deep well to draw from but I'm not sure about the others.

    Biden leads in first poll.. (none / 0) (#106)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    Joe Biden leads President Trump by six points, according to the first poll published after the former vice president officially announced his candidacy Thursday.

    The April 25-26 Hill-HarrisX survey of 1,000 registered voters found that 43 percent said they would choose Biden while 37 percent said they would pick Trump. Fifteen percent of respondents said they were unsure and 5 percent said they would vote for another candidate.


    Biden was impressive with (none / 0) (#115)
    by ragebot on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    $US6,400,000 raised in the first 24 hours; and a lot from small donations.

    Problem is that several other candidates were in the same ball park.

    Biggest problem I see for any dem candidate is with the way rules for the primaries are it almost certain there will be a brokered convention.  With CA early Harris will be in for a while.  Both Sanders and Biden will also be in it to the end; but I can't figure out how either of these three will get enough delegates for an out right win.

    Sanders' bros don't always work and play well with others and this could be an issue with a brokered convention.  There is also the wild card of so many candidates who's supporters may act like mini Sanders' bros.

    Even not being able to vote on the first ballot and having some of their power limited the Superdelegates may cast the deciding votes for the eventual candidate.  Truth be told I have no idea who they would support; not to mention how it would affect supporters of the candidates who did not win.

    NPR (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    We're cutting (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 26, 2019 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    Sanders bros loose. You can have them. A lot of these candidates are going to drop out after Iowa and then another bunch after Super Tuesday. We don't have the same delegate set up as the GOP so a brokered convention is less likely. I have heard predictions of a brokered convention for years and yet it never happens. Somebody's fundraising dries up or they get to the point where they do not get any delegates. You have to meet the 15% threshold to get delegates and a lot of people are not going to meet that. So they will come away with no delegates.

    Biden (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 05:38:03 AM EST
    gets quite the bump in CNN poll, up to 38%. Sanders drops to 15, all the rest in single digits.

    Still a weak (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 06:38:31 AM EST
    front runner. If Bernie keeps dropping he's not going to make it to Iowa or he'll keep running as long as the money is coming in.

    Very interesting cross tabs (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:41:55 AM EST
    43% wth black voters

    Oops (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 07:54:07 AM EST
    I thought you were talking about this one where he's at 36

    Morning Consult

    Bernie 14  down everyone in single digits


    The other thing I've been thinking about (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    Is what an awsum cabinet could be made just using current candidates.  Beto Sec of the Interior, Harris AG, Warren Treasury or something etc etc.

    I agree. Biden for (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    Secretary of Labor!

    Sure (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:21:58 PM EST

    I was not intending Biden would be making the picks, just to be clear.

    My point was it's a great field.  Biden would be good at labor.


    Still looking for the best spot (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:22:56 PM EST
    For Pete.  

    Just saw Letitia James on Rachel (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    Looks like another rising star to me