mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
2016
Is There a Biden Coalition?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • fastrackn1

    “Is There a Biden Coalition?”

    I hope not…..
    …however, it would be fun to see Biden run against Trump…especially in the debates….
    …okay lefties, bring on Biden…{chuckles}….

  • FriendlyGoat

    Biden needs to be teamed with somebody now, either Sanders or Warren. Running Joe for months of mystery as to the full identity of the team won’t work.

    • Anthony

      ” Whenever Americans have confronted the reshuffling of status and influence we succumb to anti-democratic politics of absolutism, of a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil….” FG, something of interest where you’ve already expressed outlines at another posting. See: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated

      • FriendlyGoat

        Thanks. That’s quite a piece on Mr. Trump. I suspect there is nothing standing in the way of his nomination and the other 16 undoubtedly are completely dumbfounded at what is happening to THEIR candidacies. I also believe Mr Trump can be defeated in the general—–but it’s going to take both of two Dems on a ticket—-pounding on issues now, not after the VP choice is some “surprise” a year from now.

        • Anthony

          You’re welcome. There is quite a hurdle to the GOP nomination and Trump will probably not pick up many second choice support once GOP field consolidates (as it must sooner or later). Also, polling support (early) doesn’t necessarily translate to more informed voter nor Delegate Accumulation. Still a lot of primary votes and caucuses to tally FG before GOP nominee.

          • FriendlyGoat

            True. Ed Rollins, a former GOP (and Perot) campaign operative had a recent piece detailing the real hurdles Mr. Trump must navigate to get the requisite delegates to be nominated. Donald, of course. believes he is a steamroller, and from this point I’ll be surprised if he isn’t. Jeb and Marco and Scott are just going to look dull.

          • Anthony

            Let’s enjoy the run.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Indeed we have few other choices.

        • dawnsblood

          Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) has an interesting theory on why Trump is doing as well as he is. It is related to hypnosis and negotiation: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. The reason that many of the Dilbert cartoons have struck us as insightful through the years is because Scott Adams is smarter than most of the rest of us. He is seeing something familiar. Trump is smart too (whether we like him and his presidential temperament or not).

        • fastrackn1

          “I also believe Mr Trump can be defeated in the general”

          By who, FG?
          Hillary will probably be in jail (where she belongs) by then…and I don’t think she is liked enough on a personal level by voters anyway, so that leaves Biden.
          I don’t think Biden has the charisma to defeat Trump. Charisma goes a long way in swaying voters.
          The only 2 other possibilities are that someone comes out of nowhere for the Dems (as Obama did) and has what it takes to defeat Trump, or Trump gets taken down with behind the scenes actions by one or both the parties because he poses a threat to their entrenched methods of existence (I’m actually betting this will happen if Trump stays strong for an extended period).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, you are assuming the race is between human candidates only.
            Despite there being SOME truth to that, I am still idealistic enough to believe that presidential elections are also about policy and national philosophy.

            Donald Trump has PLENTY of time left to say things which scare people away from imagining him actually in The White House. We really are not sure yet who the Dems will run. Whomever it is, he, she, or they (Pres. and Vice Pres.) had better do a good job talking to people about taxes and spending, Supreme Court implications, de-regulation implications, realism on immigration, the future of health care, the future of education, the future of America’s war risks, and the degree of bluster and bombast we wish to put on our face to the world. The general election is far from a done deal.

          • fastrackn1

            Yes, all the things you listed, and more, should, and will, get talked about.
            But the average voter doesn’t process it all, so it still comes down to who has the best people running their campaign, and who can sell themselves the best, especially to the fence sitters.
            That has proven it self over and over again throughout history….

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, we may have to settle for living in a stupid or shallow electorate, but I don’t celebrate it. There is nothing for Dems to do but raise the real issues to as high a level of serious discussion as possible to “trump” the surface marketing of Trump. We really don’t want to settle everything on whether we like Donald’s hair (or hat) more than we like Hillary’s pantsuit.

          • fastrackn1

            Agreed!
            …and even Hillary’s pantsuits look better than Trump’s comb-over.

            Too bad most our electorate is more concerned with those insanely-paid 250 pound Ubangee’s who beat each other up over some kind of ball…those electorate could learn so much more if they would just spend ‘that’ free time on places like TAI….

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, and with us keyboard tappers in the comment section who keep trying to make sense of the incomprehensible!

      • fastrackn1

        There’s nothing like the rant of a Liberal rag like The New Yorker to give an honest assessment of what someone like Trump is all about, and why he has so much momentum…I could have got a more accurate assessment from the Huffington Post.

        The Liberal elite must be getting pretty nervous about him (and that is a great thing), to devote such a lengthy article about his popularity.

        It will be interesting to see how the political machines on the left and on the right try to bring this guy down if he becomes a real threat to them down the road….I wonder if women will start crawling out from under rocks claiming that he groped them or something….

        • Anthony

          And?

          • fastrackn1

            “And?”
            ?

            “(see dawnsblood additional link to FG as information is impartial)”

            Trump is a clown, Trump owns Fox, etc…yeah, real “impartial”.

            An article by a cartoon writer…umm…thanks….

          • Anthony

            Trump is in Dubuque Iowa as I write, view him on any major cable station addressing voters. Anything else find…

  • Kevin

    I think Biden is really a stalking horse for another (as yet unknown) Democratic nominee. If he enters in a month or two and Hillary implodes, that doesn’t mean Biden is the nominee, it means that every other Dem. who she scared away (and stole all the big donors’ money from) looks in the mirror and says “I could beat Biden”. I think you’d see three or four other mid to upper tier Dems (Senators or Governors of large states for example, maybe someone like Castro from a House/Cabinet background or maybe even a tech magnate) at least test the waters this fall and winter. Biden simply isn’t formidable enough to clear the field by scaring off competitors and the Dem bigwigs and big-money guys will be panicking about him in a general election. Obama could probably clear the way for Biden – but that’s huge reputation all risk for Obama – if he dies this and Biden gets crushed in the general it tarnishes his legacy – as well as giving Biden an albatross to carry into the general election. (I suspect Obama’s active endorsement can’t really increase black and liberal turnout much beyond what it otherwise would be for Biden but could really undercut Biden’s attempt to reach out to lower-middle class and blue collar white voters.)

    Interesting Times!

    • FriendlyGoat

      It would suit me fine if Jon Stewart was running. Sure, I know he has no background EXCEPT for having studied issues and events enough for 16 years to spoof on them without being an idiot and routinely interview real leaders. And the fact that he was already smarter than most people with a serious side as well as “funny man”.

      I mean Donald Trump is successful in real estate, deal-making and most recently, TV entertainment. What on earth makes him more qualified than Stewart?

      Recently there has been a petition movement to get Stewart to moderate one of the debates. My wife and I both looked at each other and simultaneously concluded they should step up the movement to a much higher level.

      • Kevin

        I would suggest the The Donald ought not be our standard for minimum qualifications to be deemed worthy of being President – for either party.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Well, I’d agree. But he is winning and there is presently no reason to believe Jeb, Marco or Scott is going to overtake him. They’re dull by comparison.

          • Kevin

            I disagree. I am not at all convinced he can get > 35% of the GOP primary vote. His negatives among GOP voters are very high. I think he will have a very tough time winning GOP primaries once the field narrows down and voters and caucus goers start paying attention. It’s one thing to be leading with 20-25% of the vote in a 16 way race, another in a 3-4 way race. That’s not to say he can’t win, just that his current poll numbers do not point to him winning.

            OTOH, I think he will have a profound impact on the race by driving GOP candidates to appropriate some of the issue-positions he is running on. For example, over the longer run the elite driven consensus on immigration, for example, is very vulnerable to being challenged by a candidate who takes a more populist position. I think we are already seeing this to some extent in both parties (look at Sanders for a tentative example of this on the Democratic side).

          • FriendlyGoat

            We have not really seen much of Donald Trump’s advertising which presumably will ramp way up when the real primaries are near. I have a feeling he will continue to be a surprise in that arena too. If he’s not a marketing man, what else is he?

            As this all unfolds, it’s hard to imagine that the other 16 could have seen coming what seems to have arrived. Mitt Romney, for instance, must be saying to Anne, “thank goodness we skipped THIS.”

        • fastrackn1

          What were Obama’s qualifications?
          A community organizer and a year and a half in the Senate…so he had no qualifications “worthy of being president”, but it didn’t matter…he was a great orator who told people what they wanted to hear (hope and change), and ran a good campaign….

          A president is no more “worthy” of anything than a garbage collector…at least a garbage collector is likely an honest man….

      • fastrackn1

        “What on earth makes him more qualified than Stewart?”

        Hmmm…let’s see, FG….
        One is a comedian/TV talk show host……..and the other is also a TV show host (just for kicks, doesn’t need to be), but is also a multi-billionaire who has created, built, and run, multi-billion dollar businesses that have created and provided jobs for thousands, or tens of thousands of people…gee, that’s a hard one to decide….

        If you think Stewart is qualified, how about Jerry Springer or Howard Stern?…they’re just as qualified as Stewart in the same capacity as Stewart is to Trump.
        Or maybe Rosie O’Donnell?…she is also a comedian/TV talk show host.
        Trump vs. O’Donnell, now that would be an interesting race….

        • FriendlyGoat

          The real estate part has nothing at all to do with actually being president.

          • fastrackn1

            That’s not the point. The point is that his achievements and skills make him many times more qualified than a comedian and TV talk show host.
            Trump is certainly much more qualified than the clown in office now…who’s accomplishments were being a Community Organizer and spending a year and a half in the Senate basically doing nothing…what does that have to do with “actually being president”?…apparently not enough, given where we are now 7 years later.

            But if it would be okay to have a TV talk show host be president, then I’ll take Bill O’reilly. At least he would get things done…and deals with reality, not jokes….
            I can imagine Stewart doing stand up routines for his addressing of the nation speeches….

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, you can have O’Reilly on the right if you want him. I was thinking of a smart candidate on the left who might actually match the marketing shtick and TV-familiarity of Donald Trump (which are the main reasons he is leading).

            As for Obama, except for the mild exception of too much golfing—-which has stoked an unfortunate and unnecessary image problem—–there has never been a day I was not proud of him, going all the way back to the announcement of his candidacy in early 2007.

          • fastrackn1

            No, actually I wouldn’t want a TV talk show host for president, but if I had to choose, it would be O’Reilly…who has done and accomplished much more than Stewart ever will, but that is another argument for another day.

            The original point of this discussion is ‘qualifications’, and I would take Trump’s past achievements and personal experience over that of a comedian and TV talk show host, and I am sure that almost all would (like the Reagan/Carter race), if they ran against one another.

            I know you are proud of Obama…you are a died-in-the-wool Democrat so you are clouded by your affinity to your party. I am not attached to any party so I can say anything about any president. Obama is a lousy president, both Bush’s were lousy (except Bush 2 did a pretty good job handling the aftermath of 911), Clinton was good (except for Monica), Reagan was great, Carter was a joke, Ford was useless, Nixon was okay, Kennedy was great, etc.

            “Too much golfing”…I don’t care at all…being president is stressful as hell I imagine (look at the change in the color of Obama’s hair since 2008), so he needs a little stress relief…who cares…it sounds more like fodder for the 24 hour news media when they have days with only 23 hours of news….

          • FriendlyGoat

            Trust me, I don’t begrudge Obama or any president some “down time”. The golf thing, though, is always so public as to give his critics fodder for criticism to paint him as aloof, or uncaring, or inattentive to more important things—-etc. That’s unfortunate, because I don’t think he is any of that. But a golf image looks bad, and especially when the security usually requires that the courses even be cleared out for the presence of the president.

            You are entitled to your opinions about all the presidents. Me too.
            As for partisanship—-yep, I’m liberal, so I like the more-liberal platforms and presidential actions, which generally come from Democrats.

            Trump is winning because he is already a known TV character and because people think he can “make decisions”. I am concerned that if he was president, he would indeed make WRONG decisions. Jon Stewart is a pipe dream on my part. He is not running, but I sort of wish he was. He would be getting the same kind of traction as Trump. He would be firing up the left like Bernie Sanders, but with the advantage of good looks and a fan base.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service