2020 Presidential Election

[Dave_LF]

V: Sanders isn't showing signs of cognitive decline the way Biden and Trump are, though. At least not that I'm aware of.

yov: and the same is true for Trump, of course.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

yov, I don't disagree with you. I think Warren is at the top edge at what should be considered.

Dave, I do disagree with you. I don't see Biden acting significantly differently than he ever has. He has always been extremely gaffe-prone; in fact, he has been less so than he was in the past. I also don't see Bernie acting significantly differently than he ever has, which is a why I am concerned about him being the nominee. I don't want another obnoxious, stubborn, quintessential New Yorker as my president. No thank you.

[RoseMorninStar]

It may be morbid and cold to say but Biden and Bernie are both old enough that we have to realistically consider the strong possibility that neither of them will be alive in 5 years, and I'm sorry but that is too damn old.

I hate to admit it too, but I agree. Additionally Bloomberg is between Sanders & Biden. There is a certain amount of advantage/wisdom/experience that comes with age, but there are drawbacks that should be considered too.

[elengil]

I don't have the energy to go into why exactly, but I think it is counter-productive to focus on their ages. Maybe we'll only get two good years out of a president and then they die - but it happens. People die at 30, too. People die suddenly, people die of all sorts of unexpected things. Yes, that's different than being 85 or whatever, but it's not like you're guaranteed to die in your 80s anymore than you are guaranteed to live through your teens.

It just makes their choice of vice president much more relevant to the discussion, but it isn't a deal breaker. If we only get 2 good years out of the next president, that's 2 more good years than we've gotten out of this one.

[RoseMorninStar]

elengil, I've pondered that too and had some of the same thoughts, and although one can certainly die at any age, the odds increase with age. Age would not be my deciding factor, but I do find it concerning.

[Frelga]

My concern is not so much sudden death. It is the almost-inevitable cognitive decline that I observed, almost invariably, in a previously astute and vibrant person as they approach 80. Sure, an individual might beat the odds, but do we really want to bet nuclear codes on that?

[RoseMorninStar]

My concern is not so much sudden death. It is the almost-inevitable cognitive decline that I observed, almost invariably, in a previously astute and vibrant person as they approach 80. Sure, an individual might beat the odds, but do we really want to bet nuclear codes on that?

This is what I meant as well, not the possibility (only) of death.

[elengil]

My concern is not so much sudden death. It is the almost-inevitable cognitive decline that I observed, almost invariably, in a previously astute and vibrant person as they approach 80. Sure, an individual might beat the odds, but do we really want to bet nuclear codes on that?

I'd put my money on Burnie any day over what we have. For not the least reason that he'd have a cabinet that would do it's job and consider him unfit if he really became unfit.

[yovargas]

I'd put my money on Burnie any day over what we have. For not the least reason that he'd have a cabinet that would do it's job and consider him unfit if he really became unfit.

Nobody here supports Trump so I'm sure everyone would agree that they would rather have any of the democratic candidates then what we currently have. But that's not the question. The issue is, why, when we had the Democratic primary had the largest field of candidates to choose from in history, are two of the four remaining real choices men so old they may not be able to complete a full term? It's absurd to me, and I strongly suspect it will come back to bite the Democrats.

[Frelga]

Unfortunately, my experience with the elderly is that they become less willing to accept guidance as their decline progresses. Which, I suspect, explains at least some of "what we have now."

[elengil]

The issue is, why, when we had the Democratic primary had the largest field of candidates to choose from in history, are two of the four remaining real choices men so old they may not be able to complete a full term? It's absurd to me, and I strongly suspect it will come back to bite the Democrats.

Because that is who the people have supported. Right or wrong, stupid or wise, reasonable or self-defeating... they are the ones who had the support to still be in the running. And since this is reality, trying to argue from a distance of why can't we have different candidates ignores that these simply are the potential candidates we have.

In which case, I won't support any narrative that says a completely unhinged, unstable, madman is better because his opponent is 'too old'. I'll take older but better suited, because as I said, even if he becomes unfit at some point in the future, I trust the cabinet he has assembled to be the kind of cabinet that will declare him unfit rather than keep him going against all sanity.

[yovargas]

But while we do still have a choice, I will have no problem in saying, can we please pick one of the non-ultra elderly candidates please?

[Cerin]

McConnell is 78, Pelosi is 79, Bader Ginsburg is 86. Do we see signs of mental decline in them? I don't think it's accurate to say that mental decline is inevitable or universal. However, the notion of such an old President is unsettling to me, too, though I think my unease is more about physical capability/energy than about mental capacity. I think Sanders seems decades younger than Biden in terms of energy and passion.

Why isn't one of the non-elderly candidates leading? Because politics is more about issues and familiarity than it is about age. The Democratic activist base is issue-oriented and hopeful of change, and the party establishment is corporatist and hopeful of returning to the pre-Trump status quo. That equates to Sanders/Warren/Biden. I wonder what it would take for Biden supporters to switch from such a well-known quantity to Buttigieg. Earlier in the race it was the elusive specter of 'electability' that was Biden's advantage; I don't know how Buttigieg is viewed in terms of electability.

[Frelga]

The Democratic activist base is issue-oriented and hopeful of change, and the party establishment is corporatist and hopeful of returning to the pre-Trump status quo.

This.

[Túrin Turambar]

And the field gets a bit whiter.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/politics ... index.html

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

Castro probably did a bit better than expected, so I don't think he should be too unhappy with his campaign. He didn't out-perform in quite the way Buttigieg and Yang have, but a pretty good effort for a junior Representative.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure if you are mixing him up with his twin brother Joaquin, who is a congressman from Texas. Julian Castro was a cabinet member in the Obama administration (as well as mayor of San Antonio, a much bigger city that Buttigieg's South Bend), so I wouldn't exactly call him a "junior Representative".

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm not sure if you are mixing him up with his twin brother Joaquin, who is a congressman from Texas. Julian Castro was a cabinet member in the Obama administration (as well as mayor of San Antonio, a much bigger city that Buttigieg's South Bend), so I wouldn't exactly call him a "junior Representative".

That would probably be it - I thought he was a member of the HoR

[Sunsilver]

McConnell is 78, Pelosi is 79, Bader Ginsburg is 86. Do we see signs of mental decline in them? I don't think it's accurate to say that mental decline is inevitable or universal. However, the notion of such an old President is unsettling to me, too, though I think my unease is more about physical capability/energy than about mental capacity. I think Sanders seems decades younger than Biden in terms of energy and passion.

Exactly! Last night I watched the documentary that was done for the Queen's 90th birthday. It was mainly old home movies taken by the royal family, and she, Charles and other family members made comments as they view them. The Queen is obviously still as sharp as a tack. Some of the movies show her as a toddler or small child, and she was still able to name the locations and everyone who appears in the films. Ditto with the ones showing more recent events. She even remembers small details, such as one of her corgis being left behind in her room at the Palace during her wedding ceremony, and she had to take the dog with her in the carriage as they left the Palace after the wedding.

Agree re. physical energy being an issue as one gets older, and the Presidency can be quite demanding in that respect, especially during times of crisis.

Churchill was in his 70's during WWII, but age definitely caught up with him during his tenure as P.M from 1951 to '55. If you've watched the Crown you will know he suffered a stroke while in office.

[Frelga]

I don't get the sense of youthful energy from Sanders. Quite the opposite.

[Cerin]

A new poll has Bloomberg now tied with Warren in third place (having spent around $150 million on ads).

newsweek