What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[grumbler]

Trying to explain election results is obviously a very difficult, in particular if (like I did) you try to explain it with a single answer.  Obviously there are a lot of different factors going on.

But I think I'm more right than I am wrong.

I'm not convinced about election funding.  In particular we're in an era of mass-funding through small donations.  Trump is able to raise millions through small donations.  That was Bernie's superpower - and Obama as well.

Correlation doens't equal causation, but I do think there's something going on that one generation of Americans has been dominating US politics for 30+ years now, and with few signs of it ending anytime soon.

The myth of the small donors is comforting to some, I suppose, but the facts as presented by NPR show how insignificant they really are.  In that article, it is noted that Biden got donations from 400,000 people, and that "ninety-seven percent of those donations are under $200, with the average at $39."  The total Biden raised was $72 million.  So, 388,000 donors averaged $39 each, for a total of a bit over $15 million of the $72, or 21% of the total.  The 12,000 remaining donors accounted for the other $57 million, at an average of $4750 each. 

The truth is that funding overwhelmingly comes from the few, not the many.

There's no question that the endurance of the boomer generation in political power in the US is unprecedented, but the explanation of "because boomers" actually explains nothing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think a lot of it is the reforms in how we nominate candidates that came out of 1968. It is interesting, because those reforms were driven by younger people who were tired of the party bosses just selecting who they wanted, but the primary system while more democratic, actually IMO entrenches incumbency more than the old "smoke filled room."

This is largely because when a party decides they would prefer a new person in a seat, it really can't force the matter. And since the post-1968 norm is all of congress has their own individual fundraising / organizing base, a lot of those connections will remain behind that candidate even if the party decides they would prefer someone else. This means the party, if it attempts to back a challenger, ends up very likely to fail. The net effect is most of the time the party just isn't willing to challenge incumbency unless something very egregious has gone wrong (ala a George Santos type figure.)

Back before the 1968 era reforms, you almost certainly would not have seen, as an example, someone like Dianne Feinstein win her last nomination--she would have been pushed aside for someone else, and she would not have had any real means to fight back. But in modern times she could have, pretty well, and it would have splintered the California Democratic party and been a big ugly fight--one which, due to the fact she has built her own independent financial base over the last 30 years, the party might end up losing anyway.

Of course, back in the "Party Decides" era, we still had pretty old people in the U.S. Senate and to a lesser degree in the U.S. House, so taking power away from primary voters isn't necessarily guaranteed to make Congress dramatically younger. However, there has been some clear trendlines to older and older congresses.

I think the other big factor is frankly a cultural one. The way we view old age and capacity has just changed a lot. In times past being "physically" aged, was often a broad indicator of unfitness for power, so once you got old enough that you had trouble walking around the Capitol on your own, that was often going to be the end. What has become commonplace--older members being wheeled around in wheelchairs, was exceedingly rare in the past. Not because people in wheelchairs were necessarily less competent in 1940, but because the wide view was if you're physically infirm your place is in retirement and not really part of "active society."

(Of course even then there were exceptions--FDR was a President obviously.)

I think society was just much less accommodating of infirmity in the more distant past, and to some degree a big part of being in Congress was physically being able to move around Washington and go to dinner parties, gatherings etc--most of which in the past were not accommodating to people who were at an age where moving around was hard.

I think greater tolerance of infirmity is a factor of 1) an aging population, more people are in this category so are more supportive of people in this category, when the average U.S. age was 30 old people were a much smaller group and it was easier to dismiss them, 2) we have added "health" to our years, particularly for people with access to good  healthcare, while 80 may not REALLY be the new 70, 80 year olds today are genuinely healthier and fitter than they were in the past, on average, 3) we have promoted more acceptance that being physically infirm doesn't mean mentally infirm (which is a good thing overall), which makes it hard to just say "hey Dianne can't fucking walk, she's old, get her the fuck out of there."

[Syt]

[Solmyr]

GOP: "Now Dictator Joe is having his political opponents shot!"

[Syt]

[HVC]

He fucked around and found out.

[The Brain]

What's Trump's hot take?

[The Minsky Moment]

What's Trump's hot take?

It's a human being that's not him.  Why would he care?

[Valmy]

That last one suggests the FBI had visited him just to establish he wasn't a threat. And instead he decided to threaten them with a gun? He threatened the police with a gun? In the United States? And then post about it publicly for all to see? Look that's not exactly suicide but certainly reckless to an absurd degree.

That makes it hard to do a good investigation against the FBI on this. He is freaking justifying their actions publicly.

Still whenever a citizen gets killed by law enforcement there should be a full investigation. I certainly agree with JWhitebread on that one. What a fucking crazy situation.

Kids, don't let your parents go down the right wing rabbit hole. Their lives may depend on it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Obviously like any shooting it should be investigated.

Yes, this guy appears to have been an obese 300 pound 75 year old man. But he also has a Facebook account littered with pictures of him dressed in tactical gear wielding an assault rifle. If he is well enough to pose standing up wielding a weapon, he almost certainly is healthy enough to have made the poor decision to confront and point such a weapon at the FBI; with predictable results.

If you're in good enough health to aim and fire a gun you can be a lethal threat, it isn't that relevant if you're otherwise physically unhealthy--he didn't battle them with a broadsword where he might need to move around a lot and use physical strength.

[The Brain]

He seems more of a katana guy, yes.

[Josquius]

Obviously like any shooting it should be investigated.

Yes, this guy appears to have been an obese 300 pound 75 year old man. But he also has a Facebook account littered with pictures of him dressed in tactical gear wielding an assault rifle. If he is well enough to pose standing up wielding a weapon, he almost certainly is healthy enough to have made the poor decision to confront and point such a weapon at the FBI; with predictable results.

If you're in good enough health to aim and fire a gun you can be a lethal threat, it isn't that relevant if you're otherwise physically unhealthy--he didn't battle them with a broadsword where he might need to move around a lot and use physical strength.

Ironically I've seen gun nuts make this argument AGAINST gun control.

That last one suggests the FBI had visited him just to establish he wasn't a threat. And instead he decided to threaten them with a gun? He threatened the police with a gun? In the United States? And then post about it publicly for all to see? Look that's not exactly suicide but certainly reckless to an absurd degree.

But...but....he's white. They're not meant to do that to white people.

[mongers]

Biden seems to be losing it, his comments in Mauii seemed out of step with the tragedy.

[Tamas]

Biden seems to be losing it, his comments in Mauii seemed out of step with the tragedy.

On the flip side if his public appearances become insane enough he will win by a landslide.

[mongers]

Biden seems to be losing it, his comments in Mauii seemed out of step with the tragedy.

On the flip side if his public appearances become insane enough he will win by a landslide.

 

I like your thinking.