The Case For Biden

Only if you believe that once someone takes a stance, that is their stance for the rest of their lives. In the 80's and 90's, Biden's positions were fairly typical Democratic positions although we recognize them as awful today. I cringe to remember some of what I believed in the 80's.

You and I might be that forgiving and willing to give the benefit of a doubt that he has changed. But as this stuff is covered and if Biden doesn’t address them directly, I still fear he might be viewed as less viable.

So far, none of it is affecting him too much and he has addressed some of these issues. Some of them are not even brought up too much.

I have repeated this kind of boringly over and over but, I just wish he had not run and let some of the others get ahead in the polls who are younger or women and/or both.

I suspect these issues will come to life (for good or ill) when the other Democrat candidates get into some serious competition. The fundamental contradiction here for Democrats is the evident fact that most of the support for Biden, from both Democrat voters and leadership, arise from their fear that their other candidates (and the policies they advocate) are unelectable.

If you view the ‘crowds’ at his ‘rallies,’ you will see his strength is 100% in faked polls. Attendance at his meetings is like 30 old people who look like they may not outlive the primary.

You’re being misled.

I feel as though I am damning Biden with faint praise just because he’s not the opposition (assuming it’s Trump). All politicians formulate their opinions based upon polls. Having a political backbone is beyond a rarity. Biden is bland mediocrity personified and as inviting as a warm bucket of spit.

Re Trump as an opposing Prez candidate: When you stand next to a skunked dog comparatively a field of fresh manure smells like a bed of roses.

Well said

I think Biden's smart, because he's looking to the general election.

He's not racing the left for the primary, which means he doesn't have to backtrack and race to the center for the general election.

My god, is it that set in formula, to you? Pander to the left for primary, then politic the center for the general? Do strong beliefs in progressive policies and the strength of conviction to stand by them play any part in this election, in your estimation?

And please, I know it’s challenging, but try and attempt to muster a response that doesn’t accuse me of naïveté. I’ve probably seen and voted in about as many presidential elections as anyone here.

It appears to me that Drewdad indicated Biden was not pandering to the left, and therefore would not have to move back to the center in the final election.

Whatever one's opinion may be he, and the Democrat Party, face a difficult dilemma in responding both to the newly ascendant extreme left wing which promises obviously infeasible, and in some cases destructive, policies for a new, very authoritarian government, and the observable central tendencies of the majority of voters.

That’s interesting. Not what you say, but that you presume to offer your opinions about what’s best for democrats and democratic candidates, and what their voters should consider.

Almost as if you see yourself as some kind of objective (or even empathetic) arbiter in these matters. More likely that you believe your thoughts are so valuable that you think it’s some kind of public service.

All due respect George, but I don’t happen to give a flying **** about what you think about what the democrats should do or consider. And I have strong reservations about any Democrat here who is familiar with your posts and still gives credence to your worldly wise, ‘helpful’ musings.

You actually believe those on the left who want free health care, free colleges and higher wages for workers to meet the rising standards of living amounts to an authoritarian government? Do you believe social security, Medicare and pensions and free education for grades K-12 amount to an authoritarian government? Seems to me your ancestors should have stayed off the Mayflower and lived over there where they still had different standards of living for aristocrats, royalty and peasants. Ironically those countries have evolved way past ours now for the ordinary common man or woman.

The various options being advocated by the clownish left wing candidates, ranging from Medicare for all, free college tuition, provisions for "living wages" for all jobs, increased taxes for corporations, to forced abandonment of fossil fuels, and many others will all advance the expansion of a bureaucratic Administrative state empowered to control our education, medical care, lifestyles and freedom of action in many fields of social, cultural and economic life. That sounds like authoritarianism to me.

My ancestors were suffering in a British dominated and oppressed Ireland when the Mayflower arrived here, and my parents immigrated here from there.

Western Europe has increasingly become an administrative State under the EU, and it is suffering both economically and politically as a result. It is increasingly beset with internal frictions largely to do with the economic dominance of Germany and, to a lesser degree, France. In addition, a continuing economic sclerosis, as well well as political and cultural frictions across many regions are causing serious internal frictions. It's future doesn't look very good to me, and it certainly is not a useful model for the United States.

I was responding to a rather obvious error you made in interpreting DrewDad's post.

I also expressed my opinion about a salient issue affecting the Democrat Party for the coming election - one that I doubt any fairly astute observer would deny,

Whether you like or appreciate it or not, is a matter of complete indifference to me. You appear to wish to segregate people into separate groups, restricting their commentary on those of others. Unfortunately you don't adhere to that standard for yourself. More to the point, it is a nonsensical restriction you have no right to impose and one which defies the nature of human dialogue and the purpose of this website.

None of those listed are example of authoritarianism unless you think Social Security and Medicare are examples also.

Perhaps you should go back to your roots.

What I indicated was the authoritarianisn that will immediately result from the implementation of these programs.

Public schools are a good example. They were founded in this country as an expression of local and community desires and control. That created high levels of parental involvement and generally more accountability and better performance. Now, with their increasing politicization by Federal and state administrators and with the union control that unfortunately goes with such government enterprises, they have become self-serving bureaucracies with little regard for the communities they ostensibly serve and whose only response to criticism for their output or performance is a request for more money.

Implementation of Medicare for all will make nearly all of the medical establishment, doctors, nurses, laboratories and hospitals, in effect employees of the government, and, as a result destroy client patient relationships and the constructive feedback it fosters. (He who pays the bills generally makes the rules, and our Federal government certainly behaves that way.) None of the left wing advocates appears to consider the effects of their Program on this medical establishment, and how it will likely react to the changes. One predictable effect is the consolidation of hospitals and medical practices with the attendant reduction in competition and the beneficial incentives it creates. Another is an equally predictable decrease in the supply of services , as the brightest people leave the sector and the bureaucracy fosters consolidation to simplify its work, and the supply of such serviced inevitably decreases as a result. Some of this has already occurred as a result of Obamacare, but Medicare for all will dwarf its destructive side effects.

Similar side effects will also affect the college tuition programs being advanced. No one seems to connect the creation of government subsidized college tuition loans with the 8%-10% annual rises in University tuition that immediately followed it and continues today. This result shouldn't surprise anyone, in that pumping cheap subsidized government capitol into a fixed market can result only in increased prices. The same thing happened in the years approaching the 2007 crash of the real estate market bubble, which was created by excess (some politically forced) lending by government controlled corporations (Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac as they were known). The irony here is that these excesses victimize principally those who the programs were designed to benefit (low income property owners whose mortgages were foreclosed and college graduates emerging to adulthood with enormous debt on their backs.

If all that isn't authoritarianism in your eyes than you need to think harder.

Back at you.

If we did it your way peasants couldn't even go to grade school much less get a higher education to say nothing of minorities and their rights. Private schools would discriminate against all those except the wealthiest thereby keeping the poor down underneath the heal of the rich.

We need to bring unions back and the new deal like Edgar says. I personally agree with the leftist among the democrats, I just don't think we can do it all at once until we are able to elect more (super majorities) democrats in both houses and the President. I reject your whole thesis.

OK by me.

I attended Catholic schools paid for by generally working class parents with zero government support. The bonds, feedback, and mutual support among teachers, parents and students was strong and real standards for student performance were enforced. Graduates generally did far better in universities and work than their public school counterparts, Charter schools today, funded with state education grants, and subject to state standards, generally achieve far more and at lower cost than their public counterparts. Certainly the reaction of minority parents to quickly fill all available seats in them reflects the general estimate of their relative value.

Labor unions were, about a century ago a vital force in reforming industrial practice throughout the nation. However all those reforms are now enforced by law. For the past several decades Union membership has been decreasing fast, especially in states where employees actually have the chance to do so, and therefore have a choice. That should tell you a lot. Industrial investment in this country has chiefly been in Right-to-Work states for similar reasons (and the number of such states has risen by ~ 25% in the last eight years). If you want to "bring them back" you had better hurry- except for politically forced membership in government unions, organized labor is almost a corpse.

Interesting. I've seen data to suggest that this is not true.

Do you have any studies in mind that support this?

There are many. The definitive one was published by a Stanford University Group that monitors them. Easily found online.

I think the relative cost issue is beyond dispute.