Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

TW, you mention Biden referring to Obama as "the last/past president" often. While, yes, he may be losing his memory, and that is truly sad, not just for him, but anyoe who is losing their memory, or, and this might be a big or, Biden has an understanding that if he wants to pull moderates and Never Trump Republicans, he needs to distance himself from Obama, just a little bit. It may be great strategies.

Just offering another point of view on that.

I recognize that could be an intentional strategy for Biden, but from his usage of vague titles in the heat of debate, I honestly think its failing mental faculties more so than intentional calculation. When he gets slammed on Medicare for All and starts speaking about "the last president", "the current president", "the senator to my left", and "the senator to my right", that was exactly what I posted he would do in my prediction. Vague terms/titles because he's afraid of messing up, or simply cannot recall the names. I think the pattern is extremely clear, and I posted about the vagueness before the debate happened.

Have you taken any time to analyze his answer about black families needing social workers to show them what to do? Put on the record player, etc? If he weren't completely protected by a biased media, this answer would have ended him.

[The Feral Slasher]

TW, you mention Biden referring to Obama as "the last/past president" often. While, yes, he may be losing his memory, and that is truly sad, not just for him, but anyoe who is losing their memory, or, and this might be a big or, Biden has an understanding that if he wants to pull moderates and Never Trump Republicans, he needs to distance himself from Obama, just a little bit. It may be great strategies.

Just offering another point of view on that.

Wait, I thought his whole strategy to win the Democratic nomination was to tie himself to Obama ? And then in the general election he could pivot back. He shouldn't be campaigning to Republicans at this point

[B-Fly]

Wow, Harris dropped to fifth in a California Democratic Primary Poll, which even more than her steep drop in the national primary polls suggests that she may be flat-lining. Biden, Warren and Sanders are a crystal clear top three, way out ahead of anyone else. Buttigieg and Harris are a lot closer to Yang, Booker and O'Rourke than they are to the top three. Obviously there's still some time for things to change, but I'd put the odds at 85 percent, at least, that the nominee will be one of those top three.

I agree with Teenwolf that the breakdown in support among those three is far more complicated than "Biden - moderate; Sanders and Warren - progressive". I can see various reasons why a supporter of any of those three candidates might slide one way or the other if their favored candidate were to falter/withdraw.

[Sour Masher]

TW, you mention Biden referring to Obama as "the last/past president" often. While, yes, he may be losing his memory, and that is truly sad, not just for him, but anyoe who is losing their memory, or, and this might be a big or, Biden has an understanding that if he wants to pull moderates and Never Trump Republicans, he needs to distance himself from Obama, just a little bit. It may be great strategies.

Just offering another point of view on that.

I think it is clearly a purposeful strategy, because I have seen him start to say Obama and correct himself many times. Oddly, he is not shy at all in evoking Obama era policies or being proud of what they did while in office. It is like just the name is taboo, like Voldamort. It is weird and I don't get it. Obama's name should not be at all toxic to moderates or independents. I know there was a lot of fear mongering about him on the right, but he actually governed like a centrist on most things. He didn't take everyone's guns like was so often touted by gun makers to drum up sales (it worked, gun sales were at all time high under Obama).

[Teenwolf]

I think it is clearly a purposeful strategy, because I have seen him start to say Obama and correct himself many times. Oddly, he is not shy at all in evoking Obama era policies or being proud of what they did while in office. It is like just the name is taboo, like Voldamort. It is weird and I don't get it. Obama's name should not be at all toxic to moderates or independents. I know there was a lot of fear mongering about him on the right, but he actually governed like a centrist on most things. He didn't take everyone's guns like was so often touted by gun makers to drum up sales (it worked, gun sales were at all time high under Obama).

You're right, it makes zero sense to hesitate to say Obama's name at this point. Obama is the main thing he's running on. Why would he hesitate to call Sanders or Warren by their names though? What about "the health and hu-... the health department"? I think these verbal slips are of the same nature. That's why I don't think they're intentional, aside from his content being a rambling pile of nonsense.

[Sour Masher]

You're right, it makes zero sense to hesitate to say Obama's name at this point. Obama is the main thing he's running on. Why would he hesitate to call Sanders or Warren by their names though? What about "the health and hu-... the health department"? I think these verbal slips are of the same nature. That's why I don't think they're intentional, aside from his content being a rambling pile of nonsense.

I think it could be a little from column A and a little from column B. I have seen Biden fumble and forget names, to be sure. That has been well documented at this point. But I think the Obama thing is purposeful. Maybe he fumbled it so much they decided to lean into it. I don't know the reason, but I have definitely seen him stop himself from saying Obama's name, even while touting his presidency and policies.

[Teenwolf]

I think it could be a little from column A and a little from column B. I have seen Biden fumble and forget names, to be sure. That has been well documented at this point. But I think the Obama thing is purposeful. Maybe he fumbled it so much they decided to lean into it. I don't know the reason, but I have definitely seen him stop himself from saying Obama's name, even while touting his presidency and policies.

I agree that I've noticed his intention to avoid saying Obama and other names. It's just that I can't come up with a strategic reason to avoid using any of their names in the primary, as I've said, it makes it hard to follow who or what the hell he's talking about.

The answer regarding the legacy of slavery should have made folks realize how far Biden has fallen, but nobody touches it. Trump would obliterate Biden, being shielded from such mild attacks as Julian Castro's with the narrative "he's too mean"... yeah, we wouldn't want to test someone against meanness, going up against Trump and all...

[Ken]

It's just that I can't come up with a strategic reason to avoid using any of their names in the primary

Seems like he's the biggest "name" in the race - that's the biggest thing he has going for him at this point. The general uninformed public knows Joe Biden, they don't know several of the other candidates. And the majority of the clips coming out of debates will be of Biden/Sanders/Warren. It's to his advantage *not* to use other names as people are watching those clips and listening to those sound bites. Because again, his main advantage right now is name recognition. The more the other names get repeated, the smaller Biden's advantage in that department.

Now, not saying that's the reason, but I certainly see the strategy play there, don't you?

[revo]

Latest Fox News poll has good news for the Dems, TW fave Biden in particular:

General Election: Trump vs. Biden	FOX News	Biden 52, Trump 38	[B]Biden +14[/B]
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders	FOX News	Sanders 48, Trump 40	Sanders +8
General Election: Trump vs. Warren	FOX News	Warren 46, Trump 40	Warren +6
General Election: Trump vs. Harris	FOX News	Harris 42, Trump 40	Harris +2

[Teenwolf]

Seems like he's the biggest "name" in the race - that's the biggest thing he has going for him at this point. The general uninformed public knows Joe Biden, they don't know several of the other candidates. And the majority of the clips coming out of debates will be of Biden/Sanders/Warren. It's to his advantage *not* to use other names as people are watching those clips and listening to those sound bites. Because again, his main advantage right now is name recognition. The more the other names get repeated, the smaller Biden's advantage in that department.

Now, not saying that's the reason, but I certainly see the strategy play there, don't you?

No. Not being able to remember the names of people, places, or things is not in any way an intentional strategy. Twisting yourself into a pretzel to make it make sense is silly.

He's forgotten Obama's name multiple times publicly now. "President... my boss" was really brutal. You think that was intentional? Calling Bernie "the President" in the last debate, how about that? Saying his failing mental faculties is charming and folksy and denying anything is wrong is exactly like Trump. "He tells it like it is" has been used to describe both, despite Biden's blatant and consistent lying about his record.

I respect Revo's opinion, but allow me to be blunt. I think Biden's supporters at this stage are nuts. He's such a clear loser. The argument to support him, that he gets all the old black voters that would show up anyway, is obviously idiotic. You need a candidate to turn folks out, not turn them off. Millenials are the key. Biden won't get them out.

[Sour Masher]

I think both Biden and Sanders' age is concerning. Once you get into the mid 70s, given life expectancy in this country, and mental degradation that often comes late in life, it is a red flag for hiring someone for a minimum 4 year commitment. I've also worried from the start that both are far older than anyone ever elected. Luckily, trump isn't much younger so I doubt he can use the age angle too much, on Sanders at least, since Sanders hasn't shown signs of slipping yet.

[Ken]

No. Not being able to remember the names of people, places, or things is not in any way an intentional strategy. Twisting yourself into a pretzel to make it make sense is silly.

Wait, what? I have no skin in the game, I don't personally prefer Biden over Sanders/Warren, I'm interested in all of them in fact (although mainly whichever can challenge Trump). I'm not "twisting" anything, and suggesting I am is quite silly. You said you didn't understand how *not* saying someone's name was strategic and I provided you with a plausible solution. It sounds like you didn't want to hear that because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Gotta give you credit for the strategy on your part though. Moving goal posts always makes you win arguments.

The original point:

I can't come up with a strategic reason to avoid using any of their names in the primary

The new one:

No. Not being able to remember the names of people, places, or things is not in any way an intentional strategy

Those are two completely different topics you realize. AVOIDING using names and not being able to remember names.

But if you just want to win the argument carry on!

[Teenwolf]

Wait, what? I have no skin in the game, I don't personally prefer Biden over Sanders/Warren, I'm interested in all of them in fact (although mainly whichever can challenge Trump). I'm not "twisting" anything, and suggesting I am is quite silly. You said you didn't understand how *not* saying someone's name was strategic and I provided you with a plausible solution. It sounds like you didn't want to hear that because it doesn't fit your agenda.

I stated all the reasons that its implausible (corroborating evidence of mental decline) and you refuse to address those specific reasons. He's not only omitting or mistaking his opponents, he's mistaking all kinds of people that aren't his opponents, as well as others places, things, and events.

Refusing to acknowledge these omissions are part of a larger trend is why your theory holds no water.

[Teenwolf]

I think both Biden and Sanders' age is concerning. Once you get into the mid 70s, given life expectancy in this country, and mental degradation that often comes late in life, it is a red flag for hiring someone for a minimum 4 year commitment. I've also worried from the start that both are far older than anyone ever elected. Luckily, trump isn't much younger so I doubt he can use the age angle too much, on Sanders at least, since Sanders hasn't shown signs of slipping yet.

Only 1 of the 2 has shown sharp decline. Noam Chomsky is 127 years old and still brilliant enough to break down the inner workings of government with extremely intelligent discourse. I think it should be judged on a case by case basis, and the VP should be named as intended, a replacement, rather than the least offensive ticket-balancer. This would mitigate concerns of failing health impacting the country.

[Ken]

I stated all the reasons that its implausible (corroborating evidence of mental decline) and you refuse to address those specific reasons. He's not only omitting or mistaking his opponents, he's mistaking all kinds of people that aren't his opponents, as well as others places, things, and events.

Refusing to acknowledge these omissions are part of a larger trend is why your theory holds no water.

You're missing it. I'm not refusing to admit anything. I think he certainly could be losing it and I'm not getting 100% behind Biden for that reason. I agree with you that he could be mis-remembering. I don't know who I will support yet, but I have a lot of time left to make that decision.

But that wasn't the topic. You said you couldn't think of a strategic reason that he'd intentionally avoid saying their names. There's an obvious reason that he'd do that, as I stated. Is he doing it intentionally? I don't know, I'd probably side with you that he isn't. But is there a STRATEGIC reason to avoid saying their names. Absolutely there is.