Split Biden or Trump too old?

[Elixir]

she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever.

I vehemently pick this nit. She WAS the most qualified candidate ever. But if it was arguable to any effect, then it was the very complacency mentioned above that caused them to fail to make the argument
In the end, we were on an Obama-induced high and too many people voted for the phony TV personality, and weren’t too worried about taking a flier on a supposed “outsider”. Too many stayed home because Hillary had been Hillarized by the GOP for three decades. The rest is history.

Yeah, that job the GOP did on Hillary was what I meant by sexism. Their efforts were sexism. And so was the effectiveness of their efforts.

Yup. It started out disgusting in the 90s, and got worse from there. For over thirty years.
It showed some of us who the Republicans really were. I was wrong to think they couldn’t get worse.

 

[Derec]

See, this ‘Hillary’s sense of entitlement’ ie: she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever.

I see that kind of argument a lot from the Hillary [what's a good alliterative word like Bernie's Bros? Harpies maybe?]

She had middling qualifications for a presidential candidate. She was not even the most qualified candidate in either of her races. In 2016, she had two Senate terms and a 4 year stint as SecState (which hasn't led to presidency since James Buchanan in 1856!) Compare that with
Bernie: 8 years mayor of Burlington, 16 years in House, 10 years in Senate, incl. chairman of VA Committee
Littlefinger: 8 years Bawlmer city council, 8 years Bawlmer mayor, 8 years Maryland governor

And that's just the Dems who dared go against Hillary Stormborn, of the House Rodham, the Unburnt, first of her name, Queen of Arkansas, Queen of Yankees and the First Men, Heir to Washington and the District of Columbia, Khaleesi of Tuzla, called Hillary the Sniper Bullet Dodger, Mother of Dragons.

On the Republican side, let me just mention one:
Kasich: 4 years Ohio Senate, 18 years in US House (incl. 6 years as Budget Committee chairman), governor of Ohio for 5 years.

How anybody can think Hillary with her middling resume was most qualified in 2016, let alone "ever" is beyond me.

And would have been seen as such if her balls were between her legs instead of on her chest is exactly the kind of sexism I was referencing.

If she had testicles instead of chesticles, he'd never have been the first lady of Arkansas and the US, and would not have had the springboard to his carpetbagging campaign for NY Senate. He'd probably have stayed a corporate lawyer until he retired.
So your claim of sexism are misguided. And nobody has ever been able to explain to me why they think Hillary was so uniquely qualified. I think they are grading on a curve because she is woman.

 

[Derec]

I was referencing modern times, i.e. post New Deal.

It's pretty arbitrary to say that only post-New Deal is "modern times".
I choose the end of the Civil War because that's when our modern party system was established.
And as I said, both Gore and Hillary could have won if they were more likable, had better strategy and/or did not have spoiler candidates. Two out of three of these and they would have been presidents.

Hillary IS white as is Biden. Hillary had sexism working against her.

I disagree. Being a woman was probably a net benefit for her in both her presidential races.

Obama had to deal with racism.

He did. But even there, his skin color was probably a net benefit. Black voters were very enthusiastic to vote for him, more so even than women were to vote for Hillary.

I also think that there was an issue of Bill’s baggage ( and everybody has some baggage, but especially Bill) becoming Hillary’s baggage.

Clinton was very popular despite his baggage. I think one of Gore's biggest blunders was to largely distance himself from Clinton during his campaign.

 

[Derec]

I vehemently pick this nit. She WAS the most qualified candidate ever.

LMAO. Not even close.
As I said, she was not even the most qualified candidate running in 2008 or 2016. Much less "ever".
What in her middling resume leads you to think she was "the most qualified candidate ever"? Compare her qualifications to some other candidates, even in her own races.

But if it was arguable to any effect, then it was the very complacency mentioned above that caused them to fail to make the argument

There was a lot of complacency in her campaign, even hubris.
The Clinton Campaign's Strategy to Win Big on Election Day

But just because she was more qualified than her general election opponent, does not mean we should make ridiculous and hyperbolic statements like you and Toni are still making.

 

[Politesse]

I think the only thing 'too old' about Biden is the optics. I think his mind is fine and he's always had issues with speech. I can only hope his "looking older" won't sway independent voters.

In a country where the tallest guy usually wins...

We just better hope that "old white guy" is still what voters envision as "presidential looking".

 

[Toni]

I was referencing modern times, i.e. post New Deal.

It's pretty arbitrary to say that only post-New Deal is "modern times".
I choose the end of the Civil War because that's when our modern party system was established.
And as I said, both Gore and Hillary could have won if they were more likable, had better strategy and/or did not have spoiler candidates. Two out of three of these and they would have been presidents.

Hillary IS white as is Biden. Hillary had sexism working against her.

I disagree. Being a woman was probably a net benefit for her in both her presidential races.

Obama had to deal with racism.

He did. But even there, his skin color was probably a net benefit. Black voters were very enthusiastic to vote for him, more so even than women were to vote for Hillary.

I also think that there was an issue of Bill’s baggage ( and everybody has some baggage, but especially Bill) becoming Hillary’s baggage.

Clinton was very popular despite his baggage. I think one of Gore's biggest blunders was to largely distance himself from Clinton during his campaign.

Obama did likely gain support of a larger portion of black voters because he is black and was the first black person to run for POTUS. I’m sure there were some non-black voters who voted for him in order to feel themselves not racist or progressive. There are always people who vote for someone for reasons we don’t like or disagree with. But I know a number of people, many of whom I share a certain genetic closeness or closeness through marriage and I can tell you for certain, the color of his skin was the only excuse some people had for voting for the other guy.

Hillary also lost votes because she is a woman. There are people I love and respect who have had many reasons for not voting for a female candidate. They just find some other reason that isn’t really a reason when the same characteristic/history/pov/experience pertains to a male candidate. They are unconsciously sexist. I’m sure a few people voted for her because she’s a woman, as well. Also sexist.

I voted for her because she is an exceptionally well qualified candidate and because she is not Donald Trump. The woman part was a bonus because it’s about fucking time a woman was POTUS. But not just any woman. McCain took himself out of my consideration as a good candidate when he allowed Palin to be his running mate.

 

[Toni]

See, this ‘Hillary’s sense of entitlement’ ie: she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever.

I see that kind of argument a lot from the Hillary [what's a good alliterative word like Bernie's Bros? Harpies maybe?]

She had middling qualifications for a presidential candidate. She was not even the most qualified candidate in either of her races. In 2016, she had two Senate terms and a 4 year stint as SecState (which hasn't led to presidency since James Buchanan in 1856!) Compare that with
Bernie: 8 years mayor of Burlington, 16 years in House, 10 years in Senate, incl. chairman of VA Committee
Littlefinger: 8 years Bawlmer city council, 8 years Bawlmer mayor, 8 years Maryland governor

And that's just the Dems who dared go against Hillary Stormborn, of the House Rodham, the Unburnt, first of her name, Queen of Arkansas, Queen of Yankees and the First Men, Heir to Washington and the District of Columbia, Khaleesi of Tuzla, called Hillary the Sniper Bullet Dodger, Mother of Dragons.

On the Republican side, let me just mention one:
Kasich: 4 years Ohio Senate, 18 years in US House (incl. 6 years as Budget Committee chairman), governor of Ohio for 5 years.

How anybody can think Hillary with her middling resume was most qualified in 2016, let alone "ever" is beyond me.

And would have been seen as such if her balls were between her legs instead of on her chest is exactly the kind of sexism I was referencing.

If she had testicles instead of chesticles, he'd never have been the first lady of Arkansas and the US, and would not have had the springboard to his carpetbagging campaign for NY Senate. He'd probably have stayed a corporate lawyer until he retired.
So your claim of sexism are misguided. And nobody has ever been able to explain to me why they think Hillary was so uniquely qualified. I think they are grading on a curve because she is woman.

No, Hillary was absolutely the most well qualified candidate for POTUS, ever.

Personally I do not see military service as a qualification for public office. It’s neither a positive nor a negative.

Here is a good discussion of her qualifications: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/1/12316646/hillary-clinton-qualified

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you think dressing to the nines was the harbinger of doom?

I thought I was clear: it was the polarity; haves vs have nots. That impression only intensified over the course of the ensuing debates/ discussions. Basically, Hillary’s sense of self entitlement seemed to embody itself in her caucus members.
The enthusiasm gap was palpable

See, this ‘Hillary’s sense of entitlement’ ie: she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever. And would have been seen as such if her balls were between her legs instead of on her chest is exactly the kind of sexism I was referencing.

Eisenhower, HW Bush were more qualified.

How was Eisenhower more qualified, how was HW Bush more qualified?

Eisenhower helped lead one of the most important military campaigns in the history of this planet... and he wasn't a complete asshole like the guy in the Pacific. Not generally big on Generals, but Eisenhower had the world on his shoulders. Yes, the leaders had to sign off, but the scope of retaking a Continent? We aren't talking Desert Storm and defeating some third world army. Europe was Nazi Red, near complete control of Fascists.

HW Bush, WWII veteran, served in the US House, chairman of the RNC, ambassador to UN, director of the CIA, VP for 8 years. I mean, yes, in the 70s, the guy couldn't hold a job for 2 years, but that is an impressive resume.

 

[Elixir]

Eisenhower was only well qualified after the fact, because he turned out to be a great President.
Bush was pretty well qualified - not so much as Hillary - but sucked as President IMHO.
I do think he tried (with small success) to be a good guy.

 

[Toni]

Why do you think dressing to the nines was the harbinger of doom?

I thought I was clear: it was the polarity; haves vs have nots. That impression only intensified over the course of the ensuing debates/ discussions. Basically, Hillary’s sense of self entitlement seemed to embody itself in her caucus members.
The enthusiasm gap was palpable

See, this ‘Hillary’s sense of entitlement’ ie: she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever. And would have been seen as such if her balls were between her legs instead of on her chest is exactly the kind of sexism I was referencing.

Eisenhower, HW Bush were more qualified.

How was Eisenhower more qualified, how was HW Bush more qualified?

Eisenhower helped lead one of the most important military campaigns in the history of this planet... and he wasn't a complete asshole like the guy in the Pacific. Not generally big on Generals, but Eisenhower had the world on his shoulders. Yes, the leaders had to sign off, but the scope of retaking a Continent? We aren't talking Desert Storm and defeating some third world army. Europe was Nazi Red, near complete control of Fascists.

HW Bush, WWII veteran, served in the US House, chairman of the RNC, ambassador to UN, director of the CIA, VP for 8 years. I mean, yes, in the 70s, the guy couldn't hold a job for 2 years, but that is an impressive resume.

I greatly admire Eisenhower but I am perhaps one of the few people existing who do not consider military service a qualification, however much I respect and am grateful for his leadership and his time in office.

I tend to forget that Bush was VP to Reagan, which says as much about me as it does about his effectiveness in that role. Reagan overshadowed all else in the executive branch, and not in the good way. I will say that I did think Bush was a decent man.

But otherwise, I see his resume as being not superior to Hillary’s. She was a very active First Lady and helped formulate Clinton’s proposals for health care reform. Secretary of State is superior to Director of CIA in terms of ranking and I think a much more important job.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not sure that Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever, but she certainly was well qualified, especially compared to Trump, who was the least qualified person ever to run as president. Too many people simply hated Hillary so they voted for her opponent. It still amazes me that Trump was so easily able to manipulate people and develop a strong cult. Idiocracy is here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you think dressing to the nines was the harbinger of doom?

I thought I was clear: it was the polarity; haves vs have nots. That impression only intensified over the course of the ensuing debates/ discussions. Basically, Hillary’s sense of self entitlement seemed to embody itself in her caucus members.
The enthusiasm gap was palpable

See, this ‘Hillary’s sense of entitlement’ ie: she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever. And would have been seen as such if her balls were between her legs instead of on her chest is exactly the kind of sexism I was referencing.

Eisenhower, HW Bush were more qualified.

How was Eisenhower more qualified, how was HW Bush more qualified?

Eisenhower helped lead one of the most important military campaigns in the history of this planet... and he wasn't a complete asshole like the guy in the Pacific. Not generally big on Generals, but Eisenhower had the world on his shoulders. Yes, the leaders had to sign off, but the scope of retaking a Continent? We aren't talking Desert Storm and defeating some third world army. Europe was Nazi Red, near complete control of Fascists.

HW Bush, WWII veteran, served in the US House, chairman of the RNC, ambassador to UN, director of the CIA, VP for 8 years. I mean, yes, in the 70s, the guy couldn't hold a job for 2 years, but that is an impressive resume.

I greatly admire Eisenhower but I am perhaps one of the few people existing who do not consider military service a qualification, however much I respect and am grateful for his leadership and his time in office.

Well, it is more running the show and winning WWII in the European Theater part of the military service. That implies a grandiose ability to manage assets and solve problems. We aren't talking merely holding a gun, it was managing all the weapons... and having the humility to feel for what was being asked of all of them.

I tend to forget that Bush was VP to Reagan, which says as much about me as it does about his effectiveness in that role. Reagan overshadowed all else in the executive branch, and not in the good way. I will say that I did think Bush was a decent man.

But otherwise, I see his resume as being not superior to Hillary’s. She was a very active First Lady and helped formulate Clinton’s proposals for health care reform. Secretary of State is superior to Director of CIA in terms of ranking and I think a much more important job.

Well, Clinton certainly did it longer, when looking up the info, I was surprised at the job hopping HW Bush had done. I knew he had done the things, just not in quick succession in short increments. HW Bush would end up being the last of a line of professional Republicans to serve in the White House. Looking at who they've had, Reagan, W, and Trump?! Nixon was a crook, but he had intelligence and craft. Reagan could act, W had legacy from his father, and Trump benefited from 30 years of AM radio and cable news angst.

But HW Bush clearly was seen by many as a serious talent. His downfall would be the fledgling alt-right / Limbaugh gorging wing of the party.

So we'll need to agree to disagree.

 

[TomC]

I'm not sure that Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever, but she certainly was well qualified, especially compared to Trump, who was the least qualified person ever to run as president. Too many people simply hated Hillary so they voted for her opponent. It still amazes me that Trump was so easily able to manipulate people and develop a strong cult. Idiocracy is here.

I honestly think Eisenhower was more qualified.
But Hillary is the best of the 21st century.

Part of the reason I was such a staunch supporter of her is because I believe that she could have accomplished more of Sanders' agenda than Sanders could have done.
Tom

 

[TomC]

One of the ironies of MAGA is this.
It's hard to get a Trumpista to say exactly when America was great. I get the impression that they're referring to the couple of decades following WWII.

Ike dominated the era. He was also, by modern standards, a liberal peacenik socialist. His socialist and inclusive tendencies are what Made America Great in the first place. From the Civil Rights Act to massive investments in infrastructure and technology. And he paid for it with taxes from the rich, with top marginal rates nearly 90%.

Here's one of my favorite quotes:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Tom

 

[Gun Nut]

See, this ‘Hillary’s sense of entitlement’ ie: she was arguably the most qualified candidate ever.

I see that kind of argument a lot from the Hillary [what's a good alliterative word like Bernie's Bros? Harpies maybe?]

She had middling qualifications for a presidential candidate. She was not even the most qualified candidate in either of her races. In 2016, she had two Senate terms and a 4 year stint as SecState (which hasn't led to presidency since James Buchanan in 1856!) Compare that with
Bernie: 8 years mayor of Burlington, 16 years in House, 10 years in Senate, incl. chairman of VA Committee
Littlefinger: 8 years Bawlmer city council, 8 years Bawlmer mayor, 8 years Maryland governor

And that's just the Dems who dared go against Hillary Stormborn, of the House Rodham, the Unburnt, first of her name, Queen of Arkansas, Queen of Yankees and the First Men, Heir to Washington and the District of Columbia, Khaleesi of Tuzla, called Hillary the Sniper Bullet Dodger, Mother of Dragons.

On the Republican side, let me just mention one:
Kasich: 4 years Ohio Senate, 18 years in US House (incl. 6 years as Budget Committee chairman), governor of Ohio for 5 years.

How anybody can think Hillary with her middling resume was most qualified in 2016, let alone "ever" is beyond me.

And would have been seen as such if her balls were between her legs instead of on her chest is exactly the kind of sexism I was referencing.

If she had testicles instead of chesticles, he'd never have been the first lady of Arkansas and the US, and would not have had the springboard to his carpetbagging campaign for NY Senate. He'd probably have stayed a corporate lawyer until he retired.
So your claim of sexism are misguided. And nobody has ever been able to explain to me why they think Hillary was so uniquely qualified. I think they are grading on a curve because she is woman.

No, Hillary was absolutely the most well qualified candidate for POTUS, ever.

Personally I do not see military service as a qualification for public office. It’s neither a positive nor a negative.

Here is a good discussion of her qualifications: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/1/12316646/hillary-clinton-qualified

I think a rich, long history of public service should be a requirement for Presidency... I agree it does not need to be military in any way... a proven Community Leader, at least, though.

 

[Toni]

One of the ironies of MAGA is this.
It's hard to get a Trumpista to say exactly when America was great. I get the impression that they're referring to the couple of decades following WWII.

Ike dominated the era. He was also, by modern standards, a liberal peacenik socialist. His socialist and inclusive tendencies are what Made America Great in the first place. From the Civil Rights Act to massive investments in infrastructure and technology. And he paid for it with taxes from the rich, with top marginal rates nearly 90%.

Here's one of my favorite quotes:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Tom

That's one of my favorite quotes as well.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yep. And we went from Obama's facile English and reasoned responses to "let's get to the oranges of this investigation" and "Yo, Semites with its towering trees" and "we served them hamberders."

 

[ZiprHead]

Yep. And we went from Obama's facile English and reasoned responses to "let's get to the oranges of this investigation" and "Yo, Semites with its towering trees" and "we served them hamberders."

Don't forget we rammed the ramparts and stormed the airports in the Revolutionary war.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Oh God I forgot that one. Doesn't it make you envy the historians of the future, to have such a huge, putrefying orange carcass to dissect? If our republic lasts another century, Americans will be looking at the video/audio record of Trump in disbelief. Whatever media stream that exists will be able to present The Covfefe Protocols in depth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh God I forgot that one. Doesn't it make you envy the historians of the future, to have such a huge, putrefying orange carcass to dissect? If our republic lasts another century, Americans will be looking at the video/audio record of Trump in disbelief. Whatever media stream that exists will be able to present The Covfefe Protocols in depth.

Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory.

link

It is like someone put as many dumb things they could into the speech and see if he'd say it. I'm impressed the Brits built ramparts for us to ram. Also, "rockets' red glare" / "Fort McHenry" was from the War of 1812.