2020: The Two Year Long Election

[GreyhoundFan]

I was not happy with last night's debate. So much sniping and nastiness. "Wednesday’s presidential debate turns on character as much as ideology, a foreboding turn for Democrats"

Spoiler

DETROIT — Democrats turned their presidential debate into a spiral of attacks against one another here Wednesday night, spending more than two hours squabbling over policy details and questioning each other’s honesty or character but only sporadically making a strong case for defeating President Trump in 2020.

In one way, the debate was exactly what had been expected, a series of attacks against former vice president Joe Biden, the leader in the polls who had faltered in the first debate in Miami and needed to rebound in Detroit. He accomplished that, but barely so and perhaps by opening himself up to future criticisms.

In another way, the second night of debating was not at all what Democrats had expected or likely wanted. By the end of the evening, the candidates had done as much to make a case against one another as against the president, without offering much in the way of an aspirational message or connecting directly with the voters they will need to win the presidential election.

The reality is that little changed as a result of the debate. The absence of clear winners and the absence of the emergence of a candidate with a hopeful message for a broader audience produced a status quo ending.

Biden was not the only candidate who came under attack. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), who clashed with Biden in Miami in June, found herself a target, and not just from Biden. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) attacked Biden on criminal justice issues and found his record as the mayor of Newark pilloried by the former vice president.

Tuesday’s debate highlighted the ideological fissures within the party, but the candidates generally remained on a higher plane of substantive disagreement. Wednesday’s debate included moments when those same issues — health care or immigration or climate change — were debated, but in ways that probably left viewers confused about whom to believe or what those differences were really about.

By the time it ended, almost no one had escaped the fallout. Biden did better than in Miami, but also emerged battered over his record in the past and his ideas for the future, both of which one or another rival found inadequate. Harris delivered a more uneven performance than in Miami. Booker, by his aggressiveness toward Biden, made his bid to move up in a race where he has struggled.

What took place showed the limitations of a field of more than 20 candidates and a set of qualifications for participation that encourage conflict and the pursuit of viral moments at the expense of more civil and substantive discussion about the problems facing the country.

Biden began the night with an off-mic quip. As Harris walked onstage and greeted him, he joked, “Go easy on me, kid.” But it was Biden who hit first, attacking Harris for her new health-care proposal that would move the country toward Medicare-for-all, but only after a 10-year transition period. Biden found fault with the plan and with Harris’s explanation of it, calling it at one point “double talk” that would never be successful against the incumbent president.

“You’re just simply inaccurate,” Harris responded, and the two set off on a set of exchanges, interrupted occasionally by others, that was both flat in tone and not particularly illuminating to a television audience not familiar with the complexities of what she was offering.

Biden was accused of not being bold enough and in turn attacked his attackers for not being honest with people about the true cost of Medicare-for-all or the size of the tax increase needed to pay for it. He said his plan would not eliminate private insurance but would not require anyone to keep it if they preferred a government plan. He called the criticisms “a bunch of malarkey.”

Booker, having signaled his readiness to confront Biden on criminal justice issues, was good to his word. But the first volley came not over that issue but immigration. Biden was pressed by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to say whether he had pushed President Barack Obama to change the administration’s deportation policies.

Biden deflected the question, praising Obama’s immigration policies and calling it “bizarre” to in any way compare those policies with the Trump administration. When de Blasio pressed him again, he declined to answer.

“I was vice president,” he said. “I am not the president. I keep my recommendation to him in private. Unlike you, I can expect you would go ahead and say whatever was said privately with him. That is not what I do.”

Booker pounced. “Mr. Vice President, you can’t have it both ways,” he said. “You invoke President Obama more than anybody in this campaign. You can’t do it when it’s convenient and then dodge it when it’s not.”

When the discussion turned to criminal justice, Booker attacked Biden for sponsoring crime legislation in the past that had resulted in massive incarcerations, particularly of black men. “This is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws,” he said. “And you can’t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire.”

Biden then attacked Booker for policing problems in Newark when he was the mayor, saying Booker had instituted a stop-and-frisk policy that drew sharp criticism and that he had done little to clean up the problems.

“Mr. Vice President, there’s a saying in my community,” Booker responded, standing next to Biden. “You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor. You need to come to the city of Newark and see the reforms that we put in place.”

And so it went. Gov. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) found Biden’s climate plan lacking urgency. Biden strongly disagreed. Former housing secretary Julián Castro came under fire from Biden for seeking to decriminalize the southern border. “If you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back. It’s a crime,” Biden said.

“Mr. Vice President, it looks like one of us has learned the lessons of the past and one of us hasn’t,” Castro said.

Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), lamented that the Democrats were wasting time litigating the past and ignoring both the urgent problems of today and the threats posed by the Trump administration. His voice went largely unheard by the others on the stage.

By the conclusion Wednesday, it seemed almost as if the Democrats had decided to put their worst face forward. Their disagreements overwhelmed almost everything else. Attacks on Trump were infrequent. And the absence of a message of hope or uplift seemed a big missed opportunity.

The two nights of debating in Detroit neither moved toward resolving the substantive differences nor helped answer which Democrat is best prepared to run against Trump in 2020. More Democrats currently see Biden that way, but the campaign will bring more challenges to him.

Those in the progressive wing of the party left Detroit emboldened by what happened on Tuesday night, when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) fended off attacks from more moderate rivals. Other Democrats privately sounded more worried that the two sessions provided Republicans with ample ammunition for a general election.

What Detroit showed most of all is that the Democrats face a lengthy period in which they will be asked to sort out basic questions of who they are and how they plan to run against an unconventional president who has changed many of the rules of politics and already is in general-election mode.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

On 7/26/2019 at 7:47 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

I hope this paperwork issue knocks this jerk out of his comfy seat: "Missing paperwork could force Va. Republican to run as write-in"

  Reveal hidden contents

Del. Nicholas J. Freitas (R-Culpeper) might have to run for reelection as a write-in candidate because of delays in filing paperwork, a situation that would present a serious setback for Republicans fighting to defend a razor-thin majority in November.

Freitas, who narrowly lost his party’s U.S. Senate nomination last year to Corey Stewart, did not face a Republican primary challenge this year.

But state election officials said his local Republican legislative committee never submitted a required form indicating Freitas was the party’s nominee. The state said another form, which Freitas personally should have filed, was also missing.

Freitas’s largely rural district, which includes Madison, Orange and Culpeper counties, has been reliably red territory, where President Trump beat Hillary Clinton 61 percent to 34 percent in 2016. Running as a write-in would pose a significant hurdle in a pivotal election year.

All 140 seats in the state legislature are on the ballot in November. Republicans have a 51-to-48 edge in the House of Delegates and a 20-to-19 advantage in the Senate, with one vacancy in each chamber.

Two years ago, as Democrats picked up 15 House seats in an anti-Trump wave, Freitas beat Democratic challenger Ben Hixon 62 percent to 38 percent, despite being outspent nearly 2 to 1. Freitas will face a stiffer challenge if he has to rely on voters to write in his name. This year, he faces Democrat Ann Ridgeway, a former teacher and juvenile probation officer.

Freitas first won a seat in the House in 2015. Some Republicans have embraced the former Green Beret with libertarian leanings as a fresh face who could help rebrand a party that has not won a statewide election since 2009.

Freitas began the election year seemingly poised to play an outsized role. Breaking with House protocol, he waded into a nasty nomination battle against a Republican colleague, Del. Chris Peace (R-Hanover), who ultimately lost to GOP challenger Scott Wyatt. Freitas’s wife, Tina Freitas, mounted a primary challenge against Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta). She was soundly defeated.

“Maybe he should have spent less time trying to create a family political business or meddling in his colleagues races,” Peace tweeted this month, as Freitas’s ballot troubles began unfolding.

Freitas referred questions to his campaign manager, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Bruce Kay, chairman of the GOP’s 30th legislative district, said he emailed the nomination form to the state, but sent it to an outdated email address.

“It wasn’t kicked back to me to my knowledge,” Kay said. Kay could not provide evidence that he sent the email, saying he had a problem with his computer that caused two years of email to be lost. As for the form Freitas should have submitted, Kay said the state normally would have sent a reminder to the candidate, but since the first form was not received, that did not happen.

Jessica Bowman, deputy elections commissioner, declined to comment.

The board was scheduled discuss Freitas’s case at a meeting July 19, but Freitas withdrew his candidacy the day before. The move was meant to prevent the board from disqualifying him as a candidate.

Under state law, the legislative district committee may nominate a new candidate after normal filing deadlines have passed if a candidate withdraws or dies, but the replacement cannot be someone the state board has disqualified.

“Nick and an attorney looked at state law and said as long as he hadn’t been disqualified by the state, the committee could replace him. That’s why he withdrew his nomination,” Kay said Friday.

The committee met Wednesday and nominated Freitas as the candidate. Kay said he filled out the requisite form and hand-delivered it to elections officials in Richmond on Thursday.

The board of elections now has to decide whether to allow Freitas to be placed on the ballot as a “replacement candidate” in a race where there had not been a certified GOP candidate in the first place.

“We’re still waiting to hear from the state,” Kay said late Friday afternoon. “Who knows what could happen . . . Our standing is we’ve done everything that is required by the state code and by the Republican Party of Virginia bylaws. [But] you never know.”

 

Quoting myself to post that the state Department of Elections has ruled against Freitas! Of course he's being a jerk about it.

Spoiler

RICHMOND — State elections officials have denied a belated request to put Del. Nicholas J. Freitas on the November ballot, a decision that could force the Culpeper Republican to run as a write-in candidate in a year when the GOP cannot afford to lose any seats.

Freitas blasted the decision by the state Department of Elections, vowing to appeal to the state Board of Elections or, if that fails, to run as a write-in candidate.

“I am not about to allow a Department in Richmond to disenfranchise the voters of the 30th District by denying the same ballot access they have granted to other candidates,” he said in a statement. “If that means mounting a successful write-in campaign in order to give the voters an option, then that is exactly what we will do.”

Freitas, considered one of the party’s rising stars, did not face a Republican primary challenger this year. But the elections department said it did not receive paperwork related to his candidacy on time.

Freitas briefly bowed out of the race in July in a tactical move that paved the way for local Republicans to designate him as a replacement candidate — something that is allowed when a nominee drops out or dies.

But there was some question about whether he could be placed on the ballot as a “replacement” in a race that never had a certified GOP candidate in the first place.

The department answered that question in the negative in a brief letter sent to the nominating committee last Friday. The letter was obtained by The Washington Post this week under a Freedom of Information request.

“All applicable deadlines have passed and the Department is not able to accept the form,” Election Services Manager Dave Nichols wrote.

Freitas said he intended to appeal the decision to the elections board when it meets Tuesday.

“The State Board has an opportunity on August 6th to vote to allow a Republican to be represented on the ballot,” Freitas wrote. “Anything less than that and they call into question years of precedent and open themselves up to the very real charge of putting partisan politics over the people of the 30th District.”

A representative from the elections department did not respond to a request for comment.

If the department’s decision stands, Freitas would have to run as a write-in candidate — something that could pose a significant hurdle in a critical election year.

All 140 seats in the state legislature are on the ballot in November. Republicans have a 51-to-48 edge in the House of Delegates and a 20-to-19 advantage in the Senate, with one vacancy in each chamber.

A former Green Beret with a libertarian bent, Freitas first won a seat in the House in 2015. He has been touted as an up-and-comer who could help rebrand a party that has not won a statewide election since 2009. He narrowly lost his party’s U.S. Senate nomination last year to Corey A. Stewart.

Freitas represents a bright-red, rural district that includes Madison, Orange and Culpeper counties. President Trump beat Hillary Clinton there by 61 to 34 percent in 2016. Two years ago, as Democrats picked up 15 House seats in an anti-Trump wave, Freitas beat Democratic challenger Ben Hixon 62 to 38 percent, despite being outspent nearly 2 to 1.

But Freitas will face more of a challenge this year if he has to rely on voters to write in his name. He would face Democrat Ann Ridgeway, a former teacher and juvenile probation officer.

The elections department said Freitas’s local Republican legislative committee never submitted a required form indicating Freitas was the party’s nominee. And Freitas failed to submit another form, which he personally should have filed as a candidate, the state said.

Bruce Kay, chairman of the GOP’s 30th legislative district, has said he emailed the nomination form to the state, but sent it to an outdated email address. Kay could not provide evidence that he sent the email, saying he had a problem with his computer that caused two years of email to be lost.

As for the form Freitas should have submitted, Kay said the state normally would have sent a reminder to the candidate, but since the first form was not received, that did not happen.

The board was scheduled to discuss Freitas’s case at a meeting July 19, but Freitas withdrew his candidacy the day before. The move was meant to prevent the board from disqualifying him as a candidate.

Under state law, the legislative district committee may nominate a new candidate after normal filing deadlines have passed if a candidate withdraws or dies, but the replacement cannot be someone the state board has disqualified.

The committee met afterward and nominated Freitas as a replacement candidate.

Kay said he filled out the requisite form and hand-delivered it to elections officials in Richmond the next day.

But in the letter sent Friday, the department said it could not accept the paperwork.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting: "Texas Rep. Hurd, lone black Republican in House, won’t seek reelection"

Spoiler

Rep. Will Hurd, the lone black Republican in the House and the rare GOP lawmaker to criticize President Trump at times, will not seek reelection, he told The Washington Post.

Hurd’s retirement is the third by a Texas Republican in the past week and the ninth by a party incumbent, dealing a blow to GOP efforts to regain control of the House in next year’s election.

Hurd barely held the seat last year and Trump lost the congressional district, which covers more than 58,000 square miles between San Antonio and El Paso along the Mexican border, by four percentage points in 2016.

In an interview Thursday with The Post, Hurd criticized Trump’s racist tweets last month in which the president said four Democratic minority congresswomen should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Three of the women are from the United States; a fourth, Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), is a Somali refu­gee who became a U.S. citizen as a teenager.

“When you imply that because someone doesn’t look like you, in telling them to go back to Africa or wherever, you’re implying that they’re not an American and you’re implying that they have less worth than you,” Hurd said.

But Hurd also repeated his earlier pledge to vote for Trump if he’s the Republican nominee in 2020. He said Hispanics, African Americans and other groups would be receptive to conservative themes if they weren’t drowned in racially charged rhetoric.

More recently, Trump targeted House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) and his city of Baltimore, tweeting that “no human being would want to live” in the “disgusting, rat and rodent infested” city. The remarks prompted widespread accusations of racism, which Trump has denied.

“Number one, show up to communities that haven’t seen Republicans show up. And listen,” Hurd said. “And then the message that you take is how we have solved some problems in our communities. When you look at African American unemployment, Latino unemployment, it’s an all-time low.”

Hurd, 41, said he plans to run again for elected office, though he didn’t specify which one. He has made or scheduled trips in recent months to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, with an eye toward the 2024 Republican presidential calendar.

“I think I can help the country in a different way. I’m interested in pursuing my lifelong passions at that intersection of technology and national security,” said the former CIA officer. “And I think I have an opportunity to help make sure the Republican Party looks like America.”

Hurd, who represents a district that includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, more than any other House member, has been a frequent critic of Trump’s border wall proposal, calling it a “third-century solution to a 21st-century problem.” He instead favored increased use of technology and additional Border Patrol staffing.

He opposed Trump’s national emergency declaration to divert funds to border wall construction and was one of only 14 Republicans to vote to override the president’s veto of a bill that sought to block the national emergency.

Hurd called on Trump to abandon his presidential bid in October 2016 after The Post reported on an audio tape in which the GOP nominee boasted of groping women, one of only a handful of Republican elected officials to do so.

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Hurd frequently warned about Russian election interference and was less strident than other Republicans in criticism of investigations of Trump.

But Hurd joined fellow Republicans on the committee in 2017 in saying there was no evidence of conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. In March, he and the other Republicans called on Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) to step down as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, accusing the lawmaker of lying about Trump’s actions after former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report.

The Mueller report did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. The probe did not make a determination as to whether Trump obstructed justice.

Schiff rejected the criticism and the GOP calls.

Hurd was first elected in 2014, defeating incumbent Democrat Pete Gallego by 2,400 votes. He beat Gallego by 3,000 votes in a 2016 rematch, then defeated Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by just over 900 votes last year.

He said he believes he would have won in 2020 if he decided to seek reelection. Ortiz Jones has announced she is again seeking the seat. Hurd’s retirement likely will draw other Democrats and Republicans to the race.

Fellow Texas Republican Reps. Pete Olson and K. Michael Conaway announced that they would retire in recent days. Olson’s Houston-area seat is expected to be a top Democratic target next year, but Conaway’s Midland seat is likely safe for Republicans.

Democrats picked up two additional Texas House seats in the 2018 midterms, and the state has long been seen by the party as one of its top opportunities because of rapid demographic change.

The number of Texas Hispanics has grown by 1.9 million since the 2000 census, accounting for more than half of the state’s population growth. In Hurd’s district, 70 percent of residents are Hispanic.

Republicans have won every statewide race in Texas since 1998, but Hurd said Texas — with its 38 electoral votes — should be viewed as a purple state. He said Democrats have a chance to carry Texas in the 2020 presidential election. A Democratic presidential candidate last won Texas in 1976 when Jimmy Carter captured the state.

“When you look at trends, the two largest growing groups of voters are Latinos and young people. And we know what the broader trends are happening there,” he said.

 

[fraurosena]

12 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Interesting: "Texas Rep. Hurd, lone black Republican in House, won’t seek reelection"

  Hide contents

Rep. Will Hurd, the lone black Republican in the House and the rare GOP lawmaker to criticize President Trump at times, will not seek reelection, he told The Washington Post.

Hurd’s retirement is the third by a Texas Republican in the past week and the ninth by a party incumbent, dealing a blow to GOP efforts to regain control of the House in next year’s election.

Hurd barely held the seat last year and Trump lost the congressional district, which covers more than 58,000 square miles between San Antonio and El Paso along the Mexican border, by four percentage points in 2016.

In an interview Thursday with The Post, Hurd criticized Trump’s racist tweets last month in which the president said four Democratic minority congresswomen should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Three of the women are from the United States; a fourth, Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), is a Somali refu­gee who became a U.S. citizen as a teenager.

“When you imply that because someone doesn’t look like you, in telling them to go back to Africa or wherever, you’re implying that they’re not an American and you’re implying that they have less worth than you,” Hurd said.

But Hurd also repeated his earlier pledge to vote for Trump if he’s the Republican nominee in 2020. He said Hispanics, African Americans and other groups would be receptive to conservative themes if they weren’t drowned in racially charged rhetoric.

More recently, Trump targeted House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) and his city of Baltimore, tweeting that “no human being would want to live” in the “disgusting, rat and rodent infested” city. The remarks prompted widespread accusations of racism, which Trump has denied.

“Number one, show up to communities that haven’t seen Republicans show up. And listen,” Hurd said. “And then the message that you take is how we have solved some problems in our communities. When you look at African American unemployment, Latino unemployment, it’s an all-time low.”

Hurd, 41, said he plans to run again for elected office, though he didn’t specify which one. He has made or scheduled trips in recent months to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, with an eye toward the 2024 Republican presidential calendar.

“I think I can help the country in a different way. I’m interested in pursuing my lifelong passions at that intersection of technology and national security,” said the former CIA officer. “And I think I have an opportunity to help make sure the Republican Party looks like America.”

Hurd, who represents a district that includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, more than any other House member, has been a frequent critic of Trump’s border wall proposal, calling it a “third-century solution to a 21st-century problem.” He instead favored increased use of technology and additional Border Patrol staffing.

He opposed Trump’s national emergency declaration to divert funds to border wall construction and was one of only 14 Republicans to vote to override the president’s veto of a bill that sought to block the national emergency.

Hurd called on Trump to abandon his presidential bid in October 2016 after The Post reported on an audio tape in which the GOP nominee boasted of groping women, one of only a handful of Republican elected officials to do so.

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Hurd frequently warned about Russian election interference and was less strident than other Republicans in criticism of investigations of Trump.

But Hurd joined fellow Republicans on the committee in 2017 in saying there was no evidence of conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. In March, he and the other Republicans called on Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) to step down as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, accusing the lawmaker of lying about Trump’s actions after former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report.

The Mueller report did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. The probe did not make a determination as to whether Trump obstructed justice.

Schiff rejected the criticism and the GOP calls.

Hurd was first elected in 2014, defeating incumbent Democrat Pete Gallego by 2,400 votes. He beat Gallego by 3,000 votes in a 2016 rematch, then defeated Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by just over 900 votes last year.

He said he believes he would have won in 2020 if he decided to seek reelection. Ortiz Jones has announced she is again seeking the seat. Hurd’s retirement likely will draw other Democrats and Republicans to the race.

Fellow Texas Republican Reps. Pete Olson and K. Michael Conaway announced that they would retire in recent days. Olson’s Houston-area seat is expected to be a top Democratic target next year, but Conaway’s Midland seat is likely safe for Republicans.

Democrats picked up two additional Texas House seats in the 2018 midterms, and the state has long been seen by the party as one of its top opportunities because of rapid demographic change.

The number of Texas Hispanics has grown by 1.9 million since the 2000 census, accounting for more than half of the state’s population growth. In Hurd’s district, 70 percent of residents are Hispanic.

Republicans have won every statewide race in Texas since 1998, but Hurd said Texas — with its 38 electoral votes — should be viewed as a purple state. He said Democrats have a chance to carry Texas in the 2020 presidential election. A Democratic presidential candidate last won Texas in 1976 when Jimmy Carter captured the state.

“When you look at trends, the two largest growing groups of voters are Latinos and young people. And we know what the broader trends are happening there,” he said.

 

Ah, yes. The inevitable rats leaving the sinking ship. I'm glad Hurd is leaving, but I'm not praising him either. To date, he hasn't spoken out against Trump or the GOP at all. To me it looks like he's bailing out in an attempt to save his own skin. I would have had so much respect for him if he simply had stated: This GOP isn't the party anymore that I signed up for and I am heartily disgusted by the path they are following. Therefore I have decided to leave politics and pursue another method of contributing to society. But he hasn't said anything of the sort. Instead he's couching his words very carefully in an obvious attempt to not criticize the GOP. 

[fraurosena]

Gag.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Rep. Kenny Marchant calls it quits, becomes 12th House Republican to retire"

Spoiler

Republican Rep. Kenny Marchant said Monday he will not seek reelection to represent his Dallas-area district, leaving open a third Texas House seat heavily targeted by Democrats in 2020.

Marchant’s announcement comes days after Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.) announced he would not seek reelection in a sprawling border district and less than a month after Rep. Pete Olson (R-Tex.) declined to seek reelection in the Houston suburbs.

All three men won reelection in 2018 by five percentage points or less — in Hurd’s case, by only a few hundred votes.

“I am looking forward to finishing out my term and then returning to Texas to start a new chapter,” Marchant said in a statement that thanked his family, staff, colleagues and constituents but did not detail the reasons for his departure.

Marchant’s retirement, first reported by the New York Times, is the latest blow to GOP hopes of retaking the House in 2020. The GOP retirements — which also include lawmakers in solidly Republican districts such as Reps. K. Michael Conaway (Tex.), Rob Bishop (Utah) and Martha Roby (Ala.) — send a signal that incumbents are not optimistic about returning soon to the majority.

Overall, 12 House Republicans who were sworn into the 116th Congress in January will not return in 2021, compared with three House Democrats.

One of the 12, Tom Marino of Pennsylvania, has already resigned and been replaced by another Republican, Fred Keller, in a special election. Two are seeking higher office: Rep. Bradley Byrne (Ala.) is running for Senate, and Rep. Greg Gianforte (Mont.) is running for governor.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, speaking on Fox News on Sunday, cautioned observers not to “misread” the meaning of the retirements, suggesting that many were retiring because they were set to lose their top committee posts because of party rules.

While Conaway and Bishop lead committees, that is not true of the other nine retiring Republicans.

The Republican plan to regain seats rests on the expectation that, with President Trump on the ballot, GOP voters will turn out more heavily relative to Democrats than they did in 2018.

“There’s a very clear plan to win the majority, and it has not changed based upon retirements,” McCarthy said. “And there will be others who retire, and it will not change in that course either . . . When you look at where the map is currently today and where these districts naturally perform, Republicans will gain.”

Democrats had put Marchant on a retirement watch list shortly after the midterm elections, and after Olson, Conaway and Hurd made their retirement announcements, they declared a “Texodus” underway. At least three other incumbent Texas Republicans — Reps. John Carter, Michael McCaul and Chip Roy — are considered by nonpartisan House analysts to be vulnerable to Democratic challengers next year.

Marchant’s district, centered on Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and comprising affluent suburbs between the two cities, is one of several Texas districts that has become steadily more diverse over the past decade. In 2012, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney won the 24th District by 22 points; four year later, Trump won it by only six points.

Last year, Marchant beat his Democratic opponent by three points after winning by 17 points in 2016, and it has been a top Democratic target ever since. A member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Marchant had built a formidable campaign war chest — raising $747,000 this year to build a $2.2 million bank account.

But several motivated Democratic challengers had already emerged — including attorney Crystal Fletcher and retired Air Force colonel Kim Olson, who have both already raised six-figure sums.

Buh-bye!

[GreyhoundFan]

Hey @47of74, did you see this video? I hope he can beat king.

And here is something interesting from the comments:

[fraurosena]

Fingers crossed many, many more counties flip blue.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Joaquin Castro tweeted the names of top Trump donors. Republicans say it will encourage violence."

Spoiler

The 44 names Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) tweeted late Monday have at least two things in common: They’re all constituents in his district, and they all donated the maximum amount to President Trump’s campaign this year.

The congressman and brother of presidential hopeful Julián Castro said the people listed — including retirees, business owners and other individuals whose names are public record — were “fueling a campaign of hate.”

“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of ⁦@BillMillerBarBQ⁩, owner of the ⁦@HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc.,” Castro wrote. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as invaders.”

Castro, who also serves as chairman for his brother’s presidential campaign, spent much of Tuesday deflecting intense criticism from GOP lawmakers and others. They contended that Castro was “targeting” the listed donors by tweeting their names to his thousands of followers, a serious accusation in the aftermath of two weekend mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, that left 31 people dead and many more wounded.

“This is grossly inappropriate, especially in the wake of recent tragic shootings,” replied Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “This win-at-all-costs mentality, publicly targeting an opponent’s supporters, and encouraging retaliation is dangerous and not what Texans have a right to expect from their members of Congress.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex) offered similar sentiments, and the latter accused Castro of doxing his own constituents.

Shortly before the alleged gunman in the El Paso massacre began shooting, authorities say, he posted a manifesto warning of a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” For Castro, the operative word there is “invasion” — a word President Trump has also used repeatedly to describe immigrants who enter through the southern border.

Trump “cannot play the blame game,” Castro tweeted Tuesday. “The El Paso terrorist manifesto included language that is eerily similar to the language the President has used to dehumanize and demonize Hispanic immigrants in this country. That violence just spilled over.”

Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman, said in a Tuesday evening tweet that Castro was “inviting harassment” of the private citizens listed.

“At worst, he’s encouraging violence,” Murtaugh wrote. “This is a target list.”

In a separate statement to The Washington Post, Murtaugh said that “this naming of private citizens and their employers is reckless and irresponsible. He is endangering the safety of people he is supposed to be representing. No one should be targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights or for their political beliefs. He should delete the tweet, apologize, and his brother’s campaign should disavow it.”

Murtaugh also said he reported Castro’s tweet for harassment using Twitter’s reporting feature.

Among other GOP critics: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who in 2017 was shot by a gunman targeting Republicans practicing baseball.

“People should not be personally targeted for their political views. Period,” Scalise said Tuesday evening on Twitter. “This isn’t a game. It’s dangerous, and lives are at stake. I know this firsthand.”

When asked for comment on the Monday night tweet and the accompanying criticism, a spokesman for Castro referred to the congressman’s Twitter feed. In several tweets Tuesday, Castro said the names he posted were publicly accessible and that his tweet was not a “call to action.”

He also referred to recent reports that the Trump campaign had paid for thousands of ads on Facebook that use the word “invasion” in reference to immigration.

“Donald Trump has put a target on the back of millions,” Castro said in one response. “How about I stop mentioning Trump’s public campaign donors and he stops using their money for ads that fuel hate?”

 

[fraurosena]

25 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Joaquin Castro tweeted the names of top Trump donors. Republicans say it will encourage violence."

  Hide contents

The 44 names Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) tweeted late Monday have at least two things in common: They’re all constituents in his district, and they all donated the maximum amount to President Trump’s campaign this year.

The congressman and brother of presidential hopeful Julián Castro said the people listed — including retirees, business owners and other individuals whose names are public record — were “fueling a campaign of hate.”

“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of ⁦@BillMillerBarBQ⁩, owner of the ⁦@HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc.,” Castro wrote. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as invaders.”

Castro, who also serves as chairman for his brother’s presidential campaign, spent much of Tuesday deflecting intense criticism from GOP lawmakers and others. They contended that Castro was “targeting” the listed donors by tweeting their names to his thousands of followers, a serious accusation in the aftermath of two weekend mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, that left 31 people dead and many more wounded.

“This is grossly inappropriate, especially in the wake of recent tragic shootings,” replied Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “This win-at-all-costs mentality, publicly targeting an opponent’s supporters, and encouraging retaliation is dangerous and not what Texans have a right to expect from their members of Congress.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex) offered similar sentiments, and the latter accused Castro of doxing his own constituents.

Shortly before the alleged gunman in the El Paso massacre began shooting, authorities say, he posted a manifesto warning of a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” For Castro, the operative word there is “invasion” — a word President Trump has also used repeatedly to describe immigrants who enter through the southern border.

Trump “cannot play the blame game,” Castro tweeted Tuesday. “The El Paso terrorist manifesto included language that is eerily similar to the language the President has used to dehumanize and demonize Hispanic immigrants in this country. That violence just spilled over.”

Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman, said in a Tuesday evening tweet that Castro was “inviting harassment” of the private citizens listed.

“At worst, he’s encouraging violence,” Murtaugh wrote. “This is a target list.”

In a separate statement to The Washington Post, Murtaugh said that “this naming of private citizens and their employers is reckless and irresponsible. He is endangering the safety of people he is supposed to be representing. No one should be targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights or for their political beliefs. He should delete the tweet, apologize, and his brother’s campaign should disavow it.”

Murtaugh also said he reported Castro’s tweet for harassment using Twitter’s reporting feature.

Among other GOP critics: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who in 2017 was shot by a gunman targeting Republicans practicing baseball.

“People should not be personally targeted for their political views. Period,” Scalise said Tuesday evening on Twitter. “This isn’t a game. It’s dangerous, and lives are at stake. I know this firsthand.”

When asked for comment on the Monday night tweet and the accompanying criticism, a spokesman for Castro referred to the congressman’s Twitter feed. In several tweets Tuesday, Castro said the names he posted were publicly accessible and that his tweet was not a “call to action.”

He also referred to recent reports that the Trump campaign had paid for thousands of ads on Facebook that use the word “invasion” in reference to immigration.

“Donald Trump has put a target on the back of millions,” Castro said in one response. “How about I stop mentioning Trump’s public campaign donors and he stops using their money for ads that fuel hate?”

 

Yeah, tweeting out publicly available information is inciting violence, of course.

No, there won't be any violence, that's for their own followers, the gun-worshipping, racist BT's.

Those donors and their Repug defenders are scared of the real consequences.  When consumers start boycotting those donors, it'll hurt them where it really hurts: their pockets, and the Repugs can forget about those donations. 

I actually think this is one of the best ways to defeat the Repugs. Shame their donors, and their money dries up.

[candygirl200413]

These people( re: republican MOC) are so exhausting

[milkteeth]

9 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Yeah, tweeting out publicly available information is inciting violence, of course.

No, there won't be any violence, that's for their own followers, the gun-worshipping, racist BT's.

Those donors and their Repug defenders are scared of the real consequences.  When consumers start boycotting those donors, it'll hurt them where it really hurts: their pockets, and the Repugs can forget about those donations. 

I actually think this is one of the best ways to defeat the Repugs. Shame their donors, and their money dries up.

Seriously. If donating money is a part of free speech then you don’t get to do it anonymously. If you want to use your “speech” to influence politics in this country, then your fellow citizens should get to know where this “speech” is coming from.

On another note, this list has confirmed what I secretly suspected about my ex’s parents but was never able to fully confirm. ?

[GreyhoundFan]

Amen:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

Yes! This is what I meant some time ago when I was asking why people weren't out in the streets protesting. Good to see it's finally happening. 

 

[CTRLZero]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

This is what I meant some time ago when I was asking why people weren't out in the streets protesting. Good to see it's finally happening. 

I've marked it on my calendar in case there is a solidarity march nearby.  Thanks! 

[formergothardite]

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but what real good will this march do? The women's march didn't do much, the march for science didn't do much, what is going to be different this time? IMO it can't just be a march day, it has to be weeks and weeks of Washington, other big cities fill with protesters and politician offices filled with protesters for there to even begin to have an impact. The GOP and Trump will just shrug this off because they can ignore things for one day. 

Not that I don't think people should go, I might because it is good to see how many people are against Trump, but after all the women's marches where the corrupt government kept on corrupting like nothing happened, I just feel discouraged. 

[fraurosena]

20 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but what real good will this march do? The women's march didn't do much, the march for science didn't do much, what is going to be different this time? IMO it can't just be a march day, it has to be weeks and weeks of Washington, other big cities fill with protesters and politician offices filled with protesters for there to even begin to have an impact. The GOP and Trump will just shrug this off because they can ignore things for one day. 

Not that I don't think people should go, I might because it is good to see how many people are against Trump, but after all the women's marches where the corrupt government kept on corrupting like nothing happened, I just feel discouraged. 

I get it. One day's march isn't going to change anything in politics. But there is a benefit to marching. It's actually something people can do with all their frustrations and anger and emotions about what's happening in America right now. And although that one day may only make people feel better, it can also be a catalyst. One day marching, becomes two, then three.. and all of a sudden a real movement is happening, on that will have economic and political consequences.

Every journey starts with the first step. Every civil protest begins with a single march. 

[fraurosena]

As widely predicted and completely unsurprisingly, the Russians are at it again.

Russia-linked Twitter accounts promoted 'doxxing' over racial tension videos

Quote

In October 2018, a cellphone video of a Brooklyn woman calling 911 to claim a 9-year-old black boy grabbed her rear went viral on social media, becoming one of a series of videos that activists and journalists seized upon as an example of the everyday racism faced by minorities in America.

That woman became known as “Cornerstore Caroline.” Other individuals who became the subjects of similar stories would be known by nicknames such as “Basketball Becky” or “Taco Truck Tammy.”

Now, Clemson University researchers have found those videos received instrumental early social media promotion from inauthentic accounts, some of which have since been removed by Twitter and linked by U.S. intelligence to Russia’s efforts to stoke racial tensions in America.

The tweets by the suspicious accounts drew 50-90 percent of the initial retweets before the stories took off, an indication their content played a leading role in drumming up attention, according to the researchers' pre-publication findings.

Darren Linvill, an associate professor of communications, and Patrick Warren, an associate professor of economics, both at Clemson, identified more than 300 tweets from almost 30 suspicious Twitter accounts that appeared to look for and promote videos of racially tense incidents.

“Fundamentally, what they’re trying to do is put a spotlight and rub salt in the wound of these divisive issues,” Linvill told NBC News, referring to the strategy of using social media to exacerbate racial tensions.

The accounts reposted or tweeted the videos, framed the content as explicit discrimination, used emotionally loaded language, and employed calls to action, including encouraging people to publish the participants’ personal information — a strategy known as “doxxing.”

The October 2018 video was promoted by @BLK_Hermione, an account that has since been suspended for platform manipulation, according to a Twitter spokesperson. The account encouraged others to retweet the video until someone recognized the woman. Nine minutes later, the account tweeted the woman’s phone number, among the first to do so online.

The coordinated activity began in early 2018 and appeared to peak in the run-up to the midterm elections later that year, the researchers found.

“It’s clear in several examples that some of these stories would never have gone viral without the influence of Russian disinformation,” Linvill said.

Three of the accounts the researchers analyzed were taken down by Twitter in 2018 and this year for being part of or having the characteristics of Kremlin-linked disinformation operations. Twitter confirmed it suspended other accounts reported by the researchers for platform manipulation.

Twitter removed three of the accounts analyzed by the researchers for being part of potential foreign influence operations: @JEMISHAAAZZZ, @KANIJJACKSON, and @QuartneyChante.

Disinformation experts told NBC News that the goal of the inauthentic accounts is to highlight and inflame existing tensions to destabilize America, a strategy also used by Russia’s disinformation campaign leading up to the 2016 election.

“The real goal is to get the conflict off Twitter, to get it into the streets,” Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, said.

The researchers said they placed the accounts as probably Russian in origin based on forensic analysis of account information and behavior that they shar­­ed with NBC News.

A Twitter spokesperson said the company is fully committed to “protect conversation around the 2020 elections and beyond.”

These stories that the accounts focused on followed a pattern: a video uploaded online showing a white person calling or threatening to call the authorities on a minority. The objects of the outrage were often given alliterative nicknames, on the lines of “Taco Truck Tammy” or “Basketball Becky.”

As the accounts promoted the videos, online outrage would build, along with calls to expose and promote the phone number, address and other personal information of the person.

Sometimes, all the accounts added was a nudge, merely reposting a video and tweeting, “Twitter, do your thing.”

Some of the accounts tracked by the researchers were among the first group of accounts in conversation, providing a key early boost to a viral moment’s lift, researchers say.

The researchers, however, did not make any judgment on the veracity of the videos.

In the case of “Cornerstore Caroline,” closed-circuit TV footage later showed the boy had accidentally made contact while walking past her. After the video racked up at least 18 million views and heaps of social media outrage, the woman, Teresa Klein, apologized.

In at least one instance, one of the suspended accounts coined a nickname. In April, a Hispanic taco truck worker in Texas recorded and uploaded a video of a white woman threatening to call U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after the truck was parked in front of her house.

One of the suspicious accounts spotted by the researchers was the first to call her “Taco Truck Tammy.”

“Twitter, you know what to do,” the account tweeted as it posted the video, which drew at least 16 million views and regional media coverage. Memes later shared the woman’s full name, date of birth, phone number and home address. The account is now suspended.

According to the Clemson researchers’ analysis, the suspicious accounts drew about half of the retweets of the encounter between the homeowner and the workers in the first two days.

Despite takedowns by Twitter, the activity by the suspicious accounts continues. In July, inauthentic accounts spotted by the researchers helped the story of “Basketball Becky” to trend.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A good analysis: "Joe Biden’s mounting slip-ups and why they matter"

Spoiler

Coverage of political gaffes is often overwrought. Politicians say lots of things with cameras and recorders shoved in their faces, and occasionally they’re going to misspeak. Generally, it’s on inconsequential matters that most regular people don’t actually care about, and it’s just an exercise in, “Look at the dumb thing this otherwise-smart politician just said!”

But former vice president Joe Biden’s performance Thursday in Iowa has got to raise some eyebrows in his party — for a couple of reasons.

For those unaware, Biden at one point said, “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” — then tried to correct himself by saying “wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids.” Earlier in the day, he also referred to former British prime minister Theresa May as her predecessor from four decades ago, Margaret Thatcher — and not for the first time. He also said at one point that Democrats should “choose truth over facts.”

At least one of Biden’s 2020 Democratic opponents is highlighting the “white kids” comment, with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio suggesting that it might betray something more sinister in Biden. “To quickly dismiss @JoeBiden’s words as a mere ‘slip of the tongue’ is as concerning as what he said,” de Blasio tweeted.

Biden’s problem here is twofold: his history and his path to victory in 2020.

The “white kids” comment can’t help but conjure other moments in which Biden said things that were viewed as racially insensitive and stereotypes. The most infamous example was in 2007 when he called Barack Obama “the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” He also joked in 2006 that, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ unless you have a slight Indian accent.” (The Washington Post’s Eugene Scott assembled some other examples here.)

Layer on top of that Biden’s recent comments about his good working relationship with segregationist senators and his recently unearthed past comments about busing, and it’s not difficult for his opponents to craft a narrative. De Blasio more than hinted in that direction Friday; Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) have done so previously, and it will be interesting to see how they handle these latest comments, especially given that Biden continues to succeed in large part thanks to black voters.

Whatever you think of these particular slip-ups, though — and the Thatcher and “choose truth over facts” gaffes would seem relatively innocuous — the fact that they keep happening is a bad sign for Biden. His calling card in the 2020 race, after all, is being the most electable Democrat, the guy with the stature and sure hands to take on President Trump.

And even if you think Biden is a fantastic public servant and that none of these gaffes were particularly bad, what about the next one? What about the ones that take place after he’s the nominee? Biden has shown an almost unmatched ability to connect with audiences, but he’s also shown himself to be rather ill-disciplined when it comes to speaking off-the-cuff. He’s also shown, at a time when Democrats really want to drive home the idea that the resident of the White House is a racist, that he might not be the best messenger to make that case.

This isn’t to say Biden’s comments are anywhere close to as problematic as what Trump has said, but they would seem to muddy the waters, at least a little. And Trump thrives on muddying the waters.

Think back to 2012. During the GOP primary, it was known that Mitt Romney was capable of sticking his foot in his mouth. Generally, his gaffes were more of the awkward variety, and they weren’t enough to cost him the GOP nomination. Then, in the general election, came the “47 percent” video, in which he said that portion of the electorate was so reliant on the government that it would never vote for him and “take responsibility” for themselves.

Would he have won without it? Probably not. But it was certainly the kind of impolitic remark you’d hope your nominee would avoid like the plague — even in settings that are supposed to be private, as Romney’s was.

“We need to have a real conversation about the racism and sexism behind ‘electability,’” de Blasio said. It might also be time to question some long-held assurances Democrats have apparently had about Biden’s superior electability.

 

[fraurosena]

9 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A good analysis: "Joe Biden’s mounting slip-ups and why they matter"

  Hide contents

Coverage of political gaffes is often overwrought. Politicians say lots of things with cameras and recorders shoved in their faces, and occasionally they’re going to misspeak. Generally, it’s on inconsequential matters that most regular people don’t actually care about, and it’s just an exercise in, “Look at the dumb thing this otherwise-smart politician just said!”

But former vice president Joe Biden’s performance Thursday in Iowa has got to raise some eyebrows in his party — for a couple of reasons.

For those unaware, Biden at one point said, “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” — then tried to correct himself by saying “wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids.” Earlier in the day, he also referred to former British prime minister Theresa May as her predecessor from four decades ago, Margaret Thatcher — and not for the first time. He also said at one point that Democrats should “choose truth over facts.”

At least one of Biden’s 2020 Democratic opponents is highlighting the “white kids” comment, with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio suggesting that it might betray something more sinister in Biden. “To quickly dismiss @JoeBiden’s words as a mere ‘slip of the tongue’ is as concerning as what he said,” de Blasio tweeted.

Biden’s problem here is twofold: his history and his path to victory in 2020.

The “white kids” comment can’t help but conjure other moments in which Biden said things that were viewed as racially insensitive and stereotypes. The most infamous example was in 2007 when he called Barack Obama “the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” He also joked in 2006 that, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ unless you have a slight Indian accent.” (The Washington Post’s Eugene Scott assembled some other examples here.)

Layer on top of that Biden’s recent comments about his good working relationship with segregationist senators and his recently unearthed past comments about busing, and it’s not difficult for his opponents to craft a narrative. De Blasio more than hinted in that direction Friday; Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) have done so previously, and it will be interesting to see how they handle these latest comments, especially given that Biden continues to succeed in large part thanks to black voters.

Whatever you think of these particular slip-ups, though — and the Thatcher and “choose truth over facts” gaffes would seem relatively innocuous — the fact that they keep happening is a bad sign for Biden. His calling card in the 2020 race, after all, is being the most electable Democrat, the guy with the stature and sure hands to take on President Trump.

And even if you think Biden is a fantastic public servant and that none of these gaffes were particularly bad, what about the next one? What about the ones that take place after he’s the nominee? Biden has shown an almost unmatched ability to connect with audiences, but he’s also shown himself to be rather ill-disciplined when it comes to speaking off-the-cuff. He’s also shown, at a time when Democrats really want to drive home the idea that the resident of the White House is a racist, that he might not be the best messenger to make that case.

This isn’t to say Biden’s comments are anywhere close to as problematic as what Trump has said, but they would seem to muddy the waters, at least a little. And Trump thrives on muddying the waters.

Think back to 2012. During the GOP primary, it was known that Mitt Romney was capable of sticking his foot in his mouth. Generally, his gaffes were more of the awkward variety, and they weren’t enough to cost him the GOP nomination. Then, in the general election, came the “47 percent” video, in which he said that portion of the electorate was so reliant on the government that it would never vote for him and “take responsibility” for themselves.

Would he have won without it? Probably not. But it was certainly the kind of impolitic remark you’d hope your nominee would avoid like the plague — even in settings that are supposed to be private, as Romney’s was.

“We need to have a real conversation about the racism and sexism behind ‘electability,’” de Blasio said. It might also be time to question some long-held assurances Democrats have apparently had about Biden’s superior electability.

 

It’s not so much the gaffes themselves that bother me as the reason behind them. Biden is older than Trump. And at the risk of being ageist, I believe he is too old to be president for a variety of reasons. Foremost among them is the chances someone his age has of mental decline. I’m not saying they are, but those gaffes could be a sign that his faculties aren’t what they should be. Especially his mixing up May and Thatcher more than once gives that impression.

That said, it could also simply be fatigue from all the rallies and interviews and debates and travelling he’s doing right now. The pace is gruelling, even for someone at their physical prime, and he is certainly not that. At the very least, Biden should have a medical and mental check-up before he even gets the nomination.

Edited August 10, 2019 by fraurosena
autocorrect fails

[SilverBeach]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

It’s not so much the gaffes themselves that bother me as the reason behind them. Biden is older than Trump. And at the risk of being ageist, I believe he is too old to be president for a variety of reasons. Foremost among them is the chances someone his age has of mental decline. I’m not saying they are, but those gaffes could be a sign that his faculties aren’t what they should be. Especially his mixing up May and Thatcher more than once gives that impression.

That said, it could also simply be fatigue from all the rallies and interviews and debates and travelling he’s doing right now. The pace is gruelling, even for someone at their physical prime, and he is certainly not that. At the very least, Biden should have a medical and mental check-up before he even gets the nomination.

Yes, you are being ageist. Older people are individuals. Cognitive decline, especially dementia,is not inevitable. Younger people mx things up too! Criticism of the candidates should be limited to the things they can control, not things they can't like age, sex, or race. I'm sensitive to this now that I'm older myself.  If age is to be a consideration then a cutoff needs to be codified. After the election of the present disaster, it is clear that there are absolutely no standards for the presidency except that a person be breathing. This shoud be remedied, but not in a prejudicial manner.

[fraurosena]

18 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Yes, you are being ageist. Older people are individuals. Cognitive decline, especially dementia,is not inevitable. Younger people mx things up too! Criticism of the candidates should be limited to the things they can control, not things they can't like age, sex, or race. I'm sensitive to this now that I'm older myself.  If age is to be a consideration then a cutoff needs to be codified. After the election of the present disaster, it is clear that there are absolutely no standards for the presidency except that a person be breathing. This shoud be remedied, but not in a prejudicial manner.

Oh, I agree with you there. I'm not saying somebody should be disqualified from taking office just because of their age. But I do think, like you, that certain standards should be set. The best way to do that is to describe as (best as possible) what the mental and physical demands of said office are. Then the candidate for that office should have mental and physical check-ups (regularly!) to see if they can meet those demands without qualms. I also firmly believe that (financial) background checks and intelligence/schooling tests (can they read? can they understand complex problems and offer viable solutions?) should be mandatory for any candidate.

All that said, I do think there should be a lot more diversity in ages on the Hill and in the WH. Not because I don't think septa- and octogenarians can't fulfil their duties properly, but because I believe that those in government should (more or less) reflect the general public they are representing. That not only means a diversity in ages, but also in race, origin, gender and so forth. 

My -- gripe, for want of a better word -- with Biden and Bernie too, stems mostly from the representational viewpoint. But when Biden shows signs that could (emphasis could) point to a possible decline in his mental and/or physical ability to fulfil the office, I really believe it should be addressed. Like I tried to point out in my previous post, Biden's forgetfulness and gaffes could also be due to the gruelling physical demands of running for and eventually being president. If that is so (and I'm not saying it is) then it would in my opinion disqualify him from the office. 

After a four year hiatus in leadership, America needs a strong and capable leader to take the reins and fix the damage.

[SilverBeach]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

After a four year hiatus in leadership, America needs a strong and capable leader to take the reins and fix the damage.

On this we can agree. American politicians will never be truly representative because it is dominated by wealthy people. I normally agree with and appreciate all your posts, but like I said, people must be careful not to write us off because of our age. I encounter that crap so much now, ageism is real.  Despite the fact that with advancements in health care, older folks are in better condition than ever before.  Any effin democrat , regardless of age, race, or sex, would be better than the current dumpster fire.

 

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

qualms.

My DD used this word yesterday. I hadn't seen it in ages before that. Now I see it again the next day. I like this word and must find an opportunity to use it myself.

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by SilverBeach

[mamallama]

Actually, Biden has a long history of making gaffes like this while speaking which have killed several campaigns for president.  I can't recall any off the top of my head but I don't remember them having racist overtones necessarily.