I have to admit that Biden's age is a big concern for me.  At the same time, tRUMP isn't too far behind him, what? 3 -4 years ?

I like Joe Biden a lot. IMHO, Biden is a solid candidate with quite a bit of experience.  He has some baggage, but doesn't everyone ?  He's also a gaffe machine, no doubt, but he's a decent man and he's down to earth, relating to the "common man" in so many ways.  He spent his career fighting for the "little guy" so he has the bonefides to appeal to middle America.  Thus, he is very likely the best "hope" of unseating tRUMP, who, IMHO, has to go for so many reasons.

I was a Bernie supporter in 2016 and I still like him.  However, IMHO, he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election for POTUS.  He doesn't appeal to a majority of Americans.  He's rigid and unyielding rather than pragmatic.  While I admire his ethics and morals, I also recognize that politics REQUIRES pragmatic compromises.  Not abandonment of principles, but a willingness to compromise to move forward with cooperation by allowing the "other team" to win something too.  He also disillusioned several supporters with his recent tax returns release showing that he was fairly wealthy (due to proceeds from writing his recent book).  I've heard many ask why he "kept it all" ??  (Personally, I've NO problem with him keeping what he earns, but some do)  I've heard supporters suggest that his unyielding principles that defined him were yielded when it came to his OWN profits.  That did damage to him.

I absolutely HATE this new governing strategy of NO COMPROMISE, Zero Sum politics.  Bernie would absolutely embody that philosophy, IMHO.  My thought is that is NOT the way to govern a country of people with diametrically opposed viewpoints on so many issues.  Give and take is the ONLY way forward that seems fair and reasonable to me.  Whomever is in charge, sure, they get enjoy being the majority in getting more of what they want, but denying the minority ANY wins or concessions is BAD POLITICS and it feeds the resentment and divisiveness so abundant in America right now.

I think that Biden IS a reasonable man who understands the need to compromise and be fair to his opposition. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd get revenge on the GOP for their abhorrent behavior of the last decade.  If ANYONE running can help bridge the chasm in American politics, I think that Biden can.  His background is that of a well-seasoned politician, well versed in the art of compromise and negotiation in Congress who could help influence the DEMs to take the high road and NOT do to the GOP what they've done to them.  Someone has to take a stand in stopping the direction American politics has taken in the last decade.  Someone has to become a "lion" again.

As much as I detested the late, bloated whale, Teddy Kennedy, the ONLY thing I admired about him was his incredible ability to bring about an acceptable compromise that both sides could live with and getting things DONE as a result.  His death in 2009 marked the END of congressional compromise.  I despised him beyond belief in every other way and NEVER voted for him, even once.  However, pragmatically, I could live with him as my Senator because he was a good Senator.  He was also the "last lion"**, something I appreciated, in spite of my personal objections to him as a human being.  He fully understood pragmatic compromise in legislature.

***Quote from The Atlantic -  "Kennedy became the Senate’s shrewdest assembler of bipartisan coalitions. He came to share, at a bedrock level, the belief that Lyndon Johnson articulated to biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin: “It is the politician’s task to pass legislation, not to sit around saying principled things.”

Nowadays, there's virtually NO ONE left in Congress or the oval office who seems to understand or remember that simple concept that "ruled" American politics for 2 centuries - PRAGMATIC COMPROMISE.  However,  that's how Joe Biden operated during his decades in Congress and his relationships with several current Senators & Representatives just might allow him to bring that back and begin to change the current direction of ultra partisan, winner take all, zero sum politics.

As for the Bernie supporters, they simply aren't as avid and dedicated to him as they once were.  The anger about the favoritism of Hillary still exists, naturally, but MOST Bernie supporters recognize that his day as a serious POTUS contender are over and now see him more as the elder statesman pushing for progressive changes - and little more. 

Just my viewpoint, of course.  YMMV
 

SES wrote:

I think the Democrats/Liberals are just too segmented to get behind one candidate enough to win the election.

Biden is nowhere near "Left" enough for the hard hard Left wing of the Democrat Party -- the Ocasio Cortez/Green New Deal/Liberal College Student/I-choose-my-own-gender wing.

And he's too old for the young Left wing which wants, say, Beto - or ANYONE under the age of 50.

He might win some over by choosing a female for his running mate. But who? Warren? Harris? I just don't see it.

The Right is much more behind Trump than the Left will be able to get behind one Candidate - imho.

=========================

Maybe in the beginning, but as time moves on, most of them will fall out.  Biden will likely choose a woman VP, more likely Harris than Warren.  Warren is a smart cookie and she's got a serious agenda of legislation available already, BUT, she is unlikeable and comes off as nagging rather than inspiring.

Harris would make an excellent VP.  She's bright, youngish, experienced, well educated, speaks very well, and she's got very little baggage.   If Harris wasn't a viable option, then I suspect that he might go for Buttigieg or somewhat less likely, Beto.  Buttigieg would give him the progressives and the LBGT community as well as more of the youth vote. 

One thing about Biden though, he does have a significant share, while Bernie is the top winner, of the youth vote.  So, I don't think his age will hurt him with younger people.  Even if it did, young voters are the LEAST reliable voters traditionally.   https://www.axios.com/2020-candidates-young-voters-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-8794846a-db1c-4b5c-8372-416f232e67ea.html

Biden also already had 47% of the black female vote even before he announced https://www.essence.com/news/new-poll-says-47-percent-of-black-women-would-vote-for-joe-biden/.  So the Anita Hill issue is clearly NOT very damaging to him amongst black women.  It is unclear at this point what % of the white female vote he might be able to expect without even trying.

Right now, Biden is leading the pack of Democrat contenders with a healthy 38% - 42% depending on the poll.  That was immediately after announcing.  Imagine where he'll be if he tries ??

As a rule, people generally LIKE Biden.  He's a likable guy, the kind of guy they can see themselves having a beer and talking sports with.  He relates to middle America in a way that no other candidate currently does.  If he can keep his affectionate touchiness under control and limit his dumb gaffes to only harmless ones, then he just might find himself on the ballot for POTUS come Nov. 2020.

Keep something else in mind.  Bill Weld, former governor of MA, is running against tRUMP.  He's an extremely good candidate, well liked, honorable, and well spoken.  He will offer a contrast to tRUMP of a decent man with REAL conservative values and the experience necessary for the job.  As MA governor, he worked closely with some of the MOST partisan Democrats imaginable and STILL got things done.  Just like Mittens did.  MA is a true test of a Republican in a Democrat world.  Voters LOVED both guys because they were reasonable, decent guys who could work with the opposition without demonizing.  Contrasting Bill Weld with tRUMP is likely going to make many Republicans wonder WHY they voted for a guy like tRUMP. 

I could see myself voting for EITHER Bill Weld or Joe Biden.  Both are good men and would make good POTUS's.    


 

SES wrote:

I just saw Biden this morning saying that Illegal Immigrants should be given free healthcare.

How the hell does anyone expect to get elected, saying that kind of crap?

I mean, the Democrats have just gone so far Left, that they now appeal to a shrinking minority of voters.

Free college? Free healthcare for illegals? Sanctuary cities? Do nothing about the border? Do nothing about Healthcare? Increase peoples taxes?

They're digging themselves quite a hole.

======================

I didn't see him say that.  I disagree with giving illegals free health care unless it means keeping them healthy and then sending them home.  I wouldn't deny ANYONE necessary health care, but illegals shouldn't be given things that American citizens don't even have.

No Democrats that I know of think NOTHING should be done about healthcare or the borders.  Not many are advocating free college or even sanctuary cities.

It's an argument over WHAT should be done, not about doing nothing vs going overboard. 
 

SES wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQh4sY9IqzU

Where is the Democrats' plan to address the border crisis? All I ever hear them say is that they support "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", but they never say what that means, or actually DO IT.

And every time the President actually tries to DO SOMETHING about the border crisis, they do whatever they can to shoot him down, and then propose NOTHING themselves.

Where is their proposal to address healthcare? All they do is repeat the old tired line that the GOP wants to eliminate pre-existing conditions. What do they propose? ObamaCare was NOT working. So what now?

What have they done, since winning the House, to address the border or healthcare?

Nothing, as far as I can tell. Other than whine and cry and piss and moan about Barr.

 

The border issue is not a crisis, so we really don't have two crises.

We absolutely have a serious Constitutional crisis, and that is Donald Trump. While legislatively Trump has been stopped, he continues to produce unconstitutional executive orders with intent to bypass Congress and end up in court, where he has been busy packing the Federal judiciary with his appointees; people on whom he can count to rule in favor of his executive orders, and that practice extends all the way up to the SCOTUS. One more nomination there, and SCOTUS is his. He corrupted the DOJ with an AG whose most important finding exonerated him, contrary to the authors' intent. 

This is a matter of triage, and the border issue pales before the Constitutional crisis in which we are deeply mired. This president is an authoritarian poised to tip over the democratic republic by removal of the legislative branch authority. 
 

In response to multiple posters:

Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been a hot button issue for DECADES.  There have been multiple bipartisan plans since 1986 put forth that were scuttled by one or another faction.   There's an extensive history of attempts https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/02/11/can-immigration-reform-happen-a-look-back/
DACA is a stumbling block right now that must be hammered out for anything else whatsoever to go forward.


Obamacare CAN BE FIXED and it should be.  Until such time as the GOP has something to actually offer to replace it, FIXING IT should be the goal of congress.  You cannot simply toss millions of people off of health insurance without a major uproar and potentially thousands dying needlessly.


It is documented FACT that when folks don't have health insurance they use the ER, which is many times more expensive than any other form of healthcare.  Illegal immigrants do exactly that because they cannot even GET health insurance.  Like Amadeus said, providing for less costly health care, either in the form of insurance or free clinics, is absolutely necessary, even if one firmly believes that illegals shouldn't get healthcare here. 

WHO, amongst us, is truly willing to let small children die Or mothers die in childbirth ?? Or people die from easily cured diseases & illnesses ??  Or workers lose limbs in accidents ?? and so on.. just because they weren't born here ??  That's inhuman.  Free Clinics can handle that stuff without formally giving illegals health insurance.

Plus, it is a FACT that one of the biggest drivers of escalating health insurance costs was the fact that the uninsured had no other option but using the ER.





 

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

Problem is 'everybody' feels they must, or be entitled to make a profit. Lawyers must have a profit. So do doctors, administrators, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies... and they all pile their increased costs atop one another for their self determined slice of the profit pie. If they don't make N profit, something must be wrong with them. 

Sanders wants to turn clock back when health care and medical costs were affordable out of pocket and insurance wasn't necessary. Even I am old enough to remember that! Doctors made house calls, and a hospital stay was about the same price as a motel. When insurance, courts, lawyers, law suits, and politics became involved, the industry was ruined. 

But the drivers of profit fight this, and their chief weapon at this time is worry of "socialism." Many people use the word with little to no knowledge what that is. They fear it, and are encouraged to fear it. 

=============================

I've seen old hospital and doctor bills in my Mom & Dad's records left behind.  I was shocked that the price of a day's room in the hospital was less than $100 in the 70's !!  My folks only had "major medical" insurance back in the day because everything else was cheap enough to afford out of pocket.  Somehow, everyone then made a profit, so what the hell happened ???

The HMO's, that came in late in that decade and sprung up like mushrooms in the 80's, changed a LOT of things, including paying out of pocket for bills. People began to expect everything to be covered and, because insurance was now paying, doctors & private practices upped their prices and changed their office practices, adding employees and driving up doctor visit bills.  Prescriptions for "miracle drugs" began rising outrageously at the same time that better medicine came to be.

Lawsuits for malpractice for OBGYN's exploded when people figured out that anything less than a perfect baby was someone's fault.  Prices for having babies skyrocketed. 

The laws that changed regarding hospital ERs, making them treat everyone, without exception, cost hospitals so much money that they added the uninsured costs to the bills of the insured, which added to insurance costs, and so on. 

Health care Dominoes fell in turn, causing rising prices for EVERYTHING... and here we are.


 

WOW, that's crazy expensive for 3 shots !! 

China may not have health insurance but they also don't have great medical care.

What's a Mexican hobble?
 

Pikes Peak 14115 wrote:

In the cities, Chinese health care is equal to ours in quality, at a price people can pay out of pocket. 
In the country and villages, the lifestyle is markedly healthier.
This is according to Stu, who investigated it thoroughly. 
He will be in country and villages. No interest in cities. 
Largest city he'll be in is Guilin. SW China. 

A Mexican hobble. You cut an incision in the family jewel bag, and then stretch the hole until the patient's leg can be halfway pushed through it. 

========================

Sounds painful... YIKES !!

Great trip for Stu.  I'm glad for him that he's gotten there.