2020 Democratic presidential primary

Never mind coherent answers to questions; if Biden can just keep his teeth in his mouth for the whole debate, that'll be a step up.

THIS NIGGA DENTURES FELL OUT LMFAOOOOO #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/M8qSP2qQym

— t (xula 23) (@tamitwrit) September 13, 2019

should wear fangs next time

Age will be the weapon that Joe Biden’s opponents will use, because it’s basically all they have, writes @nytegan https://t.co/Kyc2DYgzGs

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) September 13, 2019

lol "ageism"...the reason ppl are making noise abt his age is because unlike Bernie (78!) or Liz (70) he is confused and doddering and his teeth come out mid-sentence

lol enduring appeal wtf

biden can never really screw up if he can count on legacy media defending him every time he's exposed

it's fucking pathetic

The whole opening segment on The View today was an extended How Dare You? @Castro re:ageism against Biden.

and wasn't Castro...right? Am I interpreting Biden's breathless answer incorrectly?

MSM always in the tank for the most Republican Democrat

he said "you automatically can buy into this".

which is confusing.

but the plan he was describing was called 'medicare for choice,' which...ugh, and he kept saying buy-in, so i think what he meant is 'if you have a pre-existing condition and you lose your job, you can buy into medicare'

buy in
opt out

fuckin jargon

Biden will have done "what he needed to do" according to the Post & Times so long as he can show up in a suit and stay awake for the duration

looking forward to trump and biden taking out their dentures and debating like men

it's the old Reagan "he didnt drool" standard for Biden

i have not spoken to one person irl that wants to vote for Biden

Echoes of Pauline Kael's Nixon comment.

wants to is the key difference there

it often seems even when people are arguing positively for biden that his big selling point is the perverted moral rush of doing something you didn't want to

right, and I don't think enough people are going to be willing to make that "sacrifice" in order for him to defeat Trump.

Did you meet anyone who wanted Kerry to be the nominee in '04?

i can't even remember who the other candidates were now

dean, edwards, Wes Clark, bayh??

god that’s grim

was bayh even actually a candidate? gephardt, carol moseley brown...al sharpton?

wow no wonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

damn talk about clown cars

I voted kucinich! It was my first election

how quickly we all forget Joementum

This is a stunningly amoral take that reduces politics to a question of strategy, tone, & performance--rather than a high-stakes process that determines who will live and who will die, who will get healthcare, who will be able to put food on the table. https://t.co/OuH0PQYEwi pic.twitter.com/ij6MfEuYfY

— Sarah Lazare (@sarahlazare) September 13, 2019

I feel like NYT/Wapo is not being very hard on any of the serious candidates at this particular moment so I would take any Biden’s defense with a grain of salt.

what if they're still doing it in February?

(they will, if Joe hasnt fallen apart like Katherine Helmond in Brazil)

glenn kessler (mr. pinnocchios) of wapo definitely has a bee in his bonnet about bernie

I think @fordm is onto something here https://t.co/GcvQYAB158

— 'Weird Alex' Pareene (@pareene) September 13, 2019

why not both?

Sanders prefers a more obscure brute force mechanism than Warren? Color me fascinated

always yr color

I Looked Up Kamala Harris and…#KamalaHarris #DrewComments #PresidentialDebate #hbcu #BlackWomen #prosecutor pic.twitter.com/5711oTQXjn

— Drew Comments (@sjs856) September 13, 2019

An interesting thread.

my hot take on the democratic primary right now is that the divide isn’t actually a one dimensional “left/moderate”. instead, it has two dimensions. “return to normalcy” vs “big change” and “want to elect a woman” vs “can only win if we nominate a man”

— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) September 14, 2019

“can only win if we nominate a man” is completely indefensible and stupid given the 'Democratic coalition' and actual 2016 results.

(Weirdly, the only people I've heard say it in real life were avid Hillary supporters in the primary.)

But it's a real way that many people seem to think

yes

only people I've heard say it in real life were avid Hillary supporters in the primary

Her defeat by Trump hurt her supporters very deeply and many of them concluded the Achilles heel of her campaign was the misogyny she attracted just by virtue of being a woman. With reason.

Indeed, and it would be a mistake for any female candidate to not have a plan to address this misogyny as part of her overall strategy.

From an ardent Hillary supporter a few months ago:

Joe Biden isn’t Hillary Clinton. He can draw moderates on the right who wouldn’t have voted for her. He also doesn’t have the same baggage she had. But even beyond that, no one else CAN beat Trump. He will wipe up the floor with any woman, you can be sure of that. There is ZERO chance Warren can beat him. Right now the ship can’t be yanked to the hard left from all the way over on the hard right. It has to go back to the middle and then pull farther left. Don’t make the same mistakes democrats made in 1972.

https://medium.com/@sashastone/joe-biden-isnt-hillary-clinton-c656e0602b72

lol at mcgovern comparisonsssssss dems

How is every sentence of that untrue except the first one

If every single person who voted for Hil votes for the Dem nominee again, that person will (probably) win

Incidentally, a coworker of mine in his 60s mentioned the McGovern Mistake as a reason he was so opposed to Bernie getting the nomination. I had to remind him that a substantial percentage of Bernie's support comes from independents and people turned off by conventional politics, and that many voters simply don't think in purely ideological terms. Whether he can assemble a winning coalition is up for debate, but his seems a more likely formula to succeed than most of the other candidates in the race.