Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[Phenix]

Anyone paying attention to the house oversight committee investigation?   Here's a quick memo https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bank-Records-Memo-3.16.23.pdf

Seems like a lot of money for Starbucks and Papa Johns as a Maryland representative characterized it.

What services did Oneida perform for CEFC/State Energy? One of the Oneida partners was a nuclear engineer. Were they working on a nuclear plant somewhere (Hunter did try to get a Chinese built LNG plant in Louisiana at one point).

Is there a known, provable, quid pro quo between Joe Biden and CEFC? Did VP Joe try to get expedited nuke permits for Oneida?

If not, what do we do about close relatives of powerful government officials? There's no question that they receive some preference due to their connections, although invariably they're well degreed professionals in their own right. Do they stop all their deal making until their parent/in-law is not in office anymore?

100% yes. Any potential financial gain they can gain from their family's position of political power should be neutralized. I think they'll all survive just fine with minimal hardship. I'm not saying they have to give everything up, but even the optics of family members getting wealthy because their husband, wife, mom, dad, etc are in a position of power should be avoided.

[talltexan]

Does Jill Biden's academic work fall under the policy you're proposing? I haven't seen any evidence she's being paid above market rate for that activity.

[rocketpj]

How about Jared Kushner getting $2B from Saudi Arabia for some reason?  Not to engage in whataboutism, but a 'special adviser' to the president getting a couple billion dollars from a foreign government mere weeks after his patron leaves the White House does raise a few questions.

All the flash and sparkle about Hunter Biden somehow never mentions Jared.

[talltexan]

How about a rule that people can only be elected to positions of public trust if they do not have children? It's kind of distracting, actually, perhaps they'd do better in the role.

[bacchi]

How about Jared Kushner getting $2B from Saudi Arabia for some reason?  Not to engage in whataboutism, but a 'special adviser' to the president getting a couple billion dollars from a foreign government mere weeks after his patron leaves the White House does raise a few questions.

All the flash and sparkle about Hunter Biden somehow never mentions Jared.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "parent/in-law." Ivanka was certainly flexing her connection too but this is a Biden thread.

Hunter has a lot of problems but he also has a Yale JD. It no doubt helps when he meets someone, "I'm Hunter and I've been in the industry for 15 years. Oh, and my father is VP/P Joe Biden." That's a far cry from, "And my dad, VP/P Joe Biden, will make the permits move smoothly through the system if you double your investment. <wink>"

[FIPurpose]

How about Jared Kushner getting $2B from Saudi Arabia for some reason?  Not to engage in whataboutism, but a 'special adviser' to the president getting a couple billion dollars from a foreign government mere weeks after his patron leaves the White House does raise a few questions.

All the flash and sparkle about Hunter Biden somehow never mentions Jared.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "parent/in-law." Ivanka was certainly flexing her connection too but this is a Biden thread.

Hunter has a lot of problems but he also has a Yale JD. It no doubt helps when he meets someone, "I'm Hunter and I've been in the industry for 15 years. Oh, and my father is VP/P Joe Biden." That's a far cry from, "And my dad, VP/P Joe Biden, will make the permits move smoothly through the system if you double your investment. <wink>"

Dude could have easily set himself up in a Law Firm making > 500k / year if he had the drive. I'd say Hunter has squandered most of his opportunity to make money on his dad's name.

[ATtiny85]

Maybe Hunter is actually on here and sees no need to earn money he doesn’t need? Thorstach, are you him?

[Michael in ABQ]

How about Jared Kushner getting $2B from Saudi Arabia for some reason?  Not to engage in whataboutism, but a 'special adviser' to the president getting a couple billion dollars from a foreign government mere weeks after his patron leaves the White House does raise a few questions.

All the flash and sparkle about Hunter Biden somehow never mentions Jared.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "parent/in-law." Ivanka was certainly flexing her connection too but this is a Biden thread.

Hunter has a lot of problems but he also has a Yale JD. It no doubt helps when he meets someone, "I'm Hunter and I've been in the industry for 15 years. Oh, and my father is VP/P Joe Biden." That's a far cry from, "And my dad, VP/P Joe Biden, will make the permits move smoothly through the system if you double your investment. <wink>"

"Hi, we know you have zero industry experience, but we'd like to pay you $50k a month to sit on the board of our Ukrainian natural gas company."


Hunter's entire career (and that of his uncle) has been influence peddling. Trump's family certainly got in on the game as soon as he was elected but prior to that at least they could point to some legitimate experience - even if it's obviously family connections that got them there in the first place. Jared Kushner was CEO of a real estate company before he married into the Trump family. Once again, it was a family business so there's obvious nepotism at play.


Everyone in Washington is in on the game so no one will ever do anything about it. Whether it's insider trading, influence peddling (directly or through family members), the revolving door into lobbying/industry after leaving government service, etc. If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's using your government position to enrich yourself and your family/friends.

[bacchi]

How about Jared Kushner getting $2B from Saudi Arabia for some reason?  Not to engage in whataboutism, but a 'special adviser' to the president getting a couple billion dollars from a foreign government mere weeks after his patron leaves the White House does raise a few questions.

All the flash and sparkle about Hunter Biden somehow never mentions Jared.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "parent/in-law." Ivanka was certainly flexing her connection too but this is a Biden thread.

Hunter has a lot of problems but he also has a Yale JD. It no doubt helps when he meets someone, "I'm Hunter and I've been in the industry for 15 years. Oh, and my father is VP/P Joe Biden." That's a far cry from, "And my dad, VP/P Joe Biden, will make the permits move smoothly through the system if you double your investment. <wink>"

"Hi, we know you have zero industry experience, but we'd like to pay you $50k a month to sit on the board of our Ukrainian natural gas company."


Hunter's entire career (and that of his uncle) has been influence peddling. Trump's family certainly got in on the game as soon as he was elected but prior to that at least they could point to some legitimate experience - even if it's obviously family connections that got them there in the first place. Jared Kushner was CEO of a real estate company before he married into the Trump family. Once again, it was a family business so there's obvious nepotism at play.

"Hi, we know you were nepo-promoted to CEO of your own family's real estate company but we'd like to give you $2 billion to invest, with a 1.25% AUM fee that 'seems excessive,' even though our own review panel called out your 'inexperience' and warned that we'd be taking 'the bulk of the investment and risk'."

Sounds totally legit.

Everyone in Washington is in on the game so no one will ever do anything about it. Whether it's insider trading, influence peddling (directly or through family members), the revolving door into lobbying/industry after leaving government service, etc. If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's using your government position to enrich yourself and your family/friends.

True dat.

[PeteD01]

The "sultan of sewers":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m5ULpmkRrg

[talltexan]

How about Jared Kushner getting $2B from Saudi Arabia for some reason?  Not to engage in whataboutism, but a 'special adviser' to the president getting a couple billion dollars from a foreign government mere weeks after his patron leaves the White House does raise a few questions.

All the flash and sparkle about Hunter Biden somehow never mentions Jared.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "parent/in-law." Ivanka was certainly flexing her connection too but this is a Biden thread.

Hunter has a lot of problems but he also has a Yale JD. It no doubt helps when he meets someone, "I'm Hunter and I've been in the industry for 15 years. Oh, and my father is VP/P Joe Biden." That's a far cry from, "And my dad, VP/P Joe Biden, will make the permits move smoothly through the system if you double your investment. <wink>"

"Hi, we know you have zero industry experience, but we'd like to pay you $50k a month to sit on the board of our Ukrainian natural gas company."


Hunter's entire career (and that of his uncle) has been influence peddling. Trump's family certainly got in on the game as soon as he was elected but prior to that at least they could point to some legitimate experience - even if it's obviously family connections that got them there in the first place. Jared Kushner was CEO of a real estate company before he married into the Trump family. Once again, it was a family business so there's obvious nepotism at play.

"Hi, we know you were nepo-promoted to CEO of your own family's real estate company but we'd like to give you $2 billion to invest, with a 1.25% AUM fee that 'seems excessive,' even though our own review panel called out your 'inexperience' and warned that we'd be taking 'the bulk of the investment and risk'."

Sounds totally legit.

Everyone in Washington is in on the game so no one will ever do anything about it. Whether it's insider trading, influence peddling (directly or through family members), the revolving door into lobbying/industry after leaving government service, etc. If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's using your government position to enrich yourself and your family/friends.

True dat.

Every once in a while we need a reminder that there are a class of wealthy, powerful people for whom their kids can "Fall Back" into jobs/titles that would be at the Apex of a long, arduous climb up the corporate ladder for the rest of us.

[simonsez]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

[jrhampt]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

Yes, I am not a fan of this, although I am generally a Biden fan.  This seems outrageous to me.

[sonofsven]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

Did you read the links you provided? The phrasing is important.
If you pay your bill on time and in full, nothing will change. Per the second link, the cc companies "could" charge for cards that are now free (speculation). In that case I would decline to apply for the card.

[jrhampt]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

Did you read the links you provided? The phrasing is important.
If you pay your bill on time and in full, nothing will change. Per the second link, the cc companies "could" charge for cards that are now free (speculation). In that case I would decline to apply for the card.

I'm focused more on the mortgage fees - this will affect people with high credit scores getting a new mortgage or refinancing as of May 1st.  I don't care about the credit card stuff, but the mortgage fees are annoying.  One more reason not to buy, I suppose.

[sonofsven]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

Did you read the links you provided? The phrasing is important.
If you pay your bill on time and in full, nothing will change. Per the second link, the cc companies "could" charge for cards that are now free (speculation). In that case I would decline to apply for the card.

I'm focused more on the mortgage fees - this will affect people with high credit scores getting a new mortgage or refinancing as of May 1st.  I don't care about the credit card stuff, but the mortgage fees are annoying.  One more reason not to buy, I suppose.

https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/markets/mortgage-rates-04212023

I found this to be a good assessment.

[simonsez]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

Did you read the links you provided? The phrasing is important.
If you pay your bill on time and in full, nothing will change. Per the second link, the cc companies "could" charge for cards that are now free (speculation). In that case I would decline to apply for the card.

I'm focused more on the mortgage fees - this will affect people with high credit scores getting a new mortgage or refinancing as of May 1st.  I don't care about the credit card stuff, but the mortgage fees are annoying.  One more reason not to buy, I suppose.

https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/markets/mortgage-rates-04212023

I found this to be a good assessment.

Why is that a good assessment?  The gap has been forcefully narrowed, I get it. 

You think the current mortgage environment is too unfair to those with poor credit and that a correction is needed and that the way to do that is to hit those with credit scores of 680+ and put 20% or less down (looking at the top two color coded tables, seems where the bulk of the penalty will be)?

This just strikes me as irresponsible.  We shouldn't mess with the way lenders assess and price risk in the real estate world.  I wonder what the downstream effects will be.

If you like the policy, cool.  I'm not a fan.  I think housing is very messed up in certain parts and could use fixing - just that this is not the way to go about it.

[iris lily]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/18/joe-biden-hike-payments-good-credit-homebuyers-sub/

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/the-cfpb-moves-to-punish-people-who-pay-their-credit-card-bills-on-time

Hmm, a policy to give more credit access to those with poor credit history at the expense of those with good credit scores via higher fees, what could go wrong?!

Did you read the links you provided? The phrasing is important.
If you pay your bill on time and in full, nothing will change. Per the second link, the cc companies "could" charge for cards that are now free (speculation). In that case I would decline to apply for the card.

I'm focused more on the mortgage fees - this will affect people with high credit scores getting a new mortgage or refinancing as of May 1st.  I don't care about the credit card stuff, but the mortgage fees are annoying.  One more reason not to buy, I suppose.

This is only about FHA loans, right?

I mean, it’s still stupid. It’s still Biden. But I thought it was only government loan so someone tell me if I’m wrong.

[ATtiny85]

Just watched the Biden speech from Maui on NBC. Goodness, he seemed all over the place. Jill looked a little mortified towards the end.

I fully support him making a stop, but I wish he came across (to me) a bit more polished. It felt like all he had was a draft in front of him.

[sixwings]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

[FIPurpose]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

On the age front, I don't think either party is any better than the other. For 75 or older

Senate: 12 D ; 4 R
House : 31 D ; 10 R

50 or under

Senate: 5 D ; 7 R
House: 74 D ; 63 R

1. I think part of the reason there are so many old D's is that this comes in waves. A lot of old R's retired when they saw the writing on the wall in their elections and leave. I think in this hyper-partisan era, incumbancy matters that much more. So parties will give up youth for incumbancy in order to retain power.

2. I think R's are usually set up with a nice "pension" by having a job at the GOP think tanks and overall better lobbying positions. There's a lot more money out there for retired R's than there are D's.

What this basically comes out to is that Gen X will largely be left without ever holding much power at all. We may not even have a Gen X president. It could skip them completely. We went backwards even having 6 Boomer and now 2 Silent Gens terms with potentially yet another term of "Silent Gen". I think the Dem party will hit a breaking point in the next 10 years where it will all flip from a super old party to a super young party where generally millennials and Gen Z end up holding the majority of the power from a more conservative Gen X.

[jinga nation]

Just watched the Biden speech from Maui on NBC. Goodness, he seemed all over the place. Jill looked a little mortified towards the end.

I fully support him making a stop, but I wish he came across (to me) a bit more polished. It felt like all he had was a draft in front of him.

Yeah, but compare that to 45's speech for the hurricane disasters in Puerto Rico. Throwing paper towels. Never forget.
I'll take a stumbling speech right after visiting a disaster site over what TFG did.

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

Yes. A POTUS is a figurehead. The real strength is in building a good team. Dems need to push more messaging about how their policies and decisions are helping ALL of the US. They have been touting some, but need to turn that amp to 11. Drown out the GOP negativity and spurious noise.

[GuitarStv]

Just watched the Biden speech from Maui on NBC. Goodness, he seemed all over the place. Jill looked a little mortified towards the end.

I fully support him making a stop, but I wish he came across (to me) a bit more polished. It felt like all he had was a draft in front of him.

Yeah, but compare that to 45's speech for the hurricane disasters in Puerto Rico. Throwing paper towels. Never forget.
I'll take a stumbling speech right after visiting a disaster site over what TFG did.

Donald Trump is a con man who never should have been allowed anywhere near the white house though, and was pretty clearly the worst president of all time.  Comparisons to him are invalid.  Make comparisons to real presidents.

[Michael in ABQ]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

On the age front, I don't think either party is any better than the other. For 75 or older

Senate: 12 D ; 4 R
House : 31 D ; 10 R

50 or under

Senate: 5 D ; 7 R
House: 74 D ; 63 R

1. I think part of the reason there are so many old D's is that this comes in waves. A lot of old R's retired when they saw the writing on the wall in their elections and leave. I think in this hyper-partisan era, incumbancy matters that much more. So parties will give up youth for incumbancy in order to retain power.

2. I think R's are usually set up with a nice "pension" by having a job at the GOP think tanks and overall better lobbying positions. There's a lot more money out there for retired R's than there are D's.

What this basically comes out to is that Gen X will largely be left without ever holding much power at all. We may not even have a Gen X president. It could skip them completely. We went backwards even having 6 Boomer and now 2 Silent Gens terms with potentially yet another term of "Silent Gen". I think the Dem party will hit a breaking point in the next 10 years where it will all flip from a super old party to a super young party where generally millennials and Gen Z end up holding the majority of the power from a more conservative Gen X.

There are multiple members of Congress that need to retire immediately - Dianne Feinstein being the most prominent example at 89. She is clearly no longer all there and is being wheeled around like the guy from Weekend at Bernie's while her aides control her. It's not like California would ever appoint a Republican to replace her so the partisan shift isn't the issue, it's just a cynical power play between different factions of the California Democrat party about who will replace her.

But these are the 0.000001% most powerful people in the country and the kind of person who can achieve that level of power is loath to relinquish it (as are the whole ecosystem of people around them who have a strong vested interest in hitching their horse to that powerful person).

[jinga nation]

Just watched the Biden speech from Maui on NBC. Goodness, he seemed all over the place. Jill looked a little mortified towards the end.

I fully support him making a stop, but I wish he came across (to me) a bit more polished. It felt like all he had was a draft in front of him.

Yeah, but compare that to 45's speech for the hurricane disasters in Puerto Rico. Throwing paper towels. Never forget.
I'll take a stumbling speech right after visiting a disaster site over what TFG did.

Donald Trump is a con man who never should have been allowed anywhere near the white house though, and was pretty clearly the worst president of all time.  Comparisons to him are invalid.  Make comparisons to real presidents.

Trump was a real president, won a presidential election. He made real fuckups, with real domestic and international implications. I've seen the consequences of this in my DoD workplace. Relationships destroyed with our partner nations. But he wasn't a presidential president, he was an insult and embarrassment to the standards of that office and to the nation.
Compared to Trump, GWB was a fuckin' genius.

[StarBright]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

If you follow the admin's social media there has been a huge effort to highlight Harris in the last 6 months. I'm sure they know Biden shouldn't really run, but he's also the only person competitive with Trump in early polling.  A lot of folks feel like democracy is at stake (myself included) and the most important thing is keeping Trump out of office. But you can bet the Biden admin will be touting Harris' ability to run the show.

Dems are between a rock and a hard place, the next folks "in line" are really Harris and Buttigieg and they can't compete with the republican base. Klobuchar, Whitmer, and Newsome are also right up there. I think Whitmer is where its at, but I dig Harris too. Unfortunately, I think the likelihood of two women on a ticket in the next decade is a no-go.

I think if we see Trump in a free fall and dropping out then there is a possibility that Biden drops out as well.

[jinga nation]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

On the age front, I don't think either party is any better than the other. For 75 or older

Senate: 12 D ; 4 R
House : 31 D ; 10 R

50 or under

Senate: 5 D ; 7 R
House: 74 D ; 63 R

1. I think part of the reason there are so many old D's is that this comes in waves. A lot of old R's retired when they saw the writing on the wall in their elections and leave. I think in this hyper-partisan era, incumbancy matters that much more. So parties will give up youth for incumbancy in order to retain power.

2. I think R's are usually set up with a nice "pension" by having a job at the GOP think tanks and overall better lobbying positions. There's a lot more money out there for retired R's than there are D's.

What this basically comes out to is that Gen X will largely be left without ever holding much power at all. We may not even have a Gen X president. It could skip them completely. We went backwards even having 6 Boomer and now 2 Silent Gens terms with potentially yet another term of "Silent Gen". I think the Dem party will hit a breaking point in the next 10 years where it will all flip from a super old party to a super young party where generally millennials and Gen Z end up holding the majority of the power from a more conservative Gen X.

There are multiple members of Congress that need to retire immediately - Dianne Feinstein being the most prominent example at 89. She is clearly no longer all there and is being wheeled around like the guy from Weekend at Bernie's while her aides control her. It's not like California would ever appoint a Republican to replace her so the partisan shift isn't the issue, it's just a cynical power play between different factions of the California Democrat party about who will replace her.

But these are the 0.000001% most powerful people in the country and the kind of person who can achieve that level of power is loath to relinquish it (as are the whole ecosystem of people around them who have a strong vested interest in hitching their horse to that powerful person).

100%. Grassley too. McConnell is on the decline, if that recent brain-blanking episode is considered. Man literally lost complete situational awareness. Fossil list: https://www.glennbeck.com/staff/complete-list-congress-80-years
And most of these are rich AF compared to working folks, have Cadillac healthcare plans for life, lobbyist connections. Absolute power absolutely corrupts.

[jinga nation]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

If you follow the admin's social media there has been a huge effort to highlight Harris in the last 6 months. I'm sure they know Biden shouldn't really run, but he's also the only person competitive with Trump in early polling.  A lot of folks feel like democracy is at stake (myself included) and the most important thing is keeping Trump out of office. But you can bet the Biden admin will be touting Harris' ability to run the show.

Dems are between a rock and a hard place, the next folks "in line" are really Harris and Buttigieg and they can't compete with the republican base. Klobuchar, Whitmer, and Newsome are also right up there. I think Whitmer is where its at, but I dig Harris too. Unfortunately, I think the likelihood of two women on a ticket in the next decade is a no-go.

I think if we see Trump in a free fall and dropping out then there is a possibility that Biden drops out as well.

Whitmer & Newsome. But both will want to go for main seat, neither wants to be the Veep. Klobuchar would be a good VP to either. Better than Kamala.

[bacchi]

There are multiple members of Congress that need to retire immediately - Dianne Feinstein being the most prominent example at 89. She is clearly no longer all there and is being wheeled around like the guy from Weekend at Bernie's while her aides control her. It's not like California would ever appoint a Republican to replace her so the partisan shift isn't the issue, it's just a cynical power play between different factions of the California Democrat party about who will replace her.

But these are the 0.000001% most powerful people in the country and the kind of person who can achieve that level of power is loath to relinquish it (as are the whole ecosystem of people around them who have a strong vested interest in hitching their horse to that powerful person).

The partisan shift is the issue. The Dems tried to replace her on the Judicial Committee* but the Repubs blocked it. Collins was vocal about it, stating "I will have no part of [a concerted campaign to replace Feinstein]." Grassley, possibly feeling similar pressures to step aside due to his age, stated that she shouldn't be replaced just "because she’s old."

Why is this important? Because Committee assignments are done at the start of Congress or with 60 votes. It's extremely unlikely that there will be 60 votes to replace her, leaving a 10-10 Committee.

Why is that important? Because the Judicial Committee is the only way to get a Supreme Court nomination to proceed. If a SC vacancy happens between now and 2025, Feinstein is critical to avoiding a 7-2 conservative super-majority.

So, yeah, it is definitely partisan.



* Temporarily, because she had shingles.

[simonsez]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

How is that fair?  Your age doesn't matter until it does.  Someone could be mentally fit as a fiddle at 90 or they could be a zombie already at age 50, everyone is different and there is no magic age that no longer works.  We knew what his age was and an idea of cognitive faculties years ago.  We could all add 4 to his age at the time of his last election.  Mick Jagger is the same age and devotes a good chunk of his life to diet and exercise so he can still be a rockstar.  The Rolling Stones would no longer perform if they weren't up for it or especially if Mick couldn't be the frontman in the manner that his standards dictate.  Biden doesn't seem up for it from a physical and mental standpoint but here we are.  In fact, if Biden was a workout junkie, I'd love that!  What a positive message to spread to adults and kids alike that it's important to take care of the body and mind if you want to succeed or at least stay relevant.  Instead we get deer in the headlights mumbling, weak knee and hip-related falls.  I mean, he would've been relegated from giving holiday dinner speeches a long time ago if he were in my family and here he is as POTUS withering on the vine for all to see.

-middle left person who does vote in primaries and will not vote for Biden next year if he is on the ballot

[Dancin'Dog]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

How is that fair?  Your age doesn't matter until it does.  Someone could be mentally fit as a fiddle at 90 or they could be a zombie already at age 50, everyone is different and there is no magic age that no longer works.  We knew what his age was and an idea of cognitive faculties years ago.  We could all add 4 to his age at the time of his last election.  Mick Jagger is the same age and devotes a good chunk of his life to diet and exercise so he can still be a rockstar.  The Rolling Stones would no longer perform if they weren't up for it or especially if Mick couldn't be the frontman in the manner that his standards dictate.  Biden doesn't seem up for it from a physical and mental standpoint but here we are.  In fact, if Biden was a workout junkie, I'd love that!  What a positive message to spread to adults and kids alike that it's important to take care of the body and mind if you want to succeed or at least stay relevant.  Instead we get deer in the headlights mumbling, weak knee and hip-related falls.  I mean, he would've been relegated from giving holiday dinner speeches a long time ago if he were in my family and here he is as POTUS withering on the vine for all to see.

-middle left person who does vote in primaries and will not vote for Biden next year if he is on the ballot

That's the attitude that helped Trump get in.  Burnie fans wouldn't vote for Hillary.

[jrhampt]

I think Biden does exercise, actually.  I've seen photos of him biking, at least.  He also weight lifts and runs.

[simonsez]

TBF he's 80.

I really wish he hadn't run again and let some of the other dem candidates compete for it. His issues aren't just his speech impediment, he's just too old for this.

That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies. But I think the election will be unnecessarily close simply because of his clear cognitive issues. Dems need to get better at recognizing when they need to step back and retire.

How is that fair?  Your age doesn't matter until it does.  Someone could be mentally fit as a fiddle at 90 or they could be a zombie already at age 50, everyone is different and there is no magic age that no longer works.  We knew what his age was and an idea of cognitive faculties years ago.  We could all add 4 to his age at the time of his last election.  Mick Jagger is the same age and devotes a good chunk of his life to diet and exercise so he can still be a rockstar.  The Rolling Stones would no longer perform if they weren't up for it or especially if Mick couldn't be the frontman in the manner that his standards dictate.  Biden doesn't seem up for it from a physical and mental standpoint but here we are.  In fact, if Biden was a workout junkie, I'd love that!  What a positive message to spread to adults and kids alike that it's important to take care of the body and mind if you want to succeed or at least stay relevant.  Instead we get deer in the headlights mumbling, weak knee and hip-related falls.  I mean, he would've been relegated from giving holiday dinner speeches a long time ago if he were in my family and here he is as POTUS withering on the vine for all to see.

-middle left person who does vote in primaries and will not vote for Biden next year if he is on the ballot

That's the attitude that helped Trump get in.  Burnie fans wouldn't vote for Hillary.

That's a bit reductionist and involves the ecological fallacy in addition to other issues.

I'm not a tribal voter.  I am a swing voter even if my voting record is not an even 50/50 R/D split.  I vote on policies and frankly, how much I trust the person and can envision them as the leader of my country or whatever office is being voted on.  No candidate will align perfectly but some candidates are just a no-go from the onset and right now that includes both Biden and Trump in 2024 (for different reasons).  The DNC should appeal more to swing voters (or at least, not disillusion as much) if they want to win elections rather than just blaming the voters when an outcome doesn't go as intended.

[simonsez]

I think Biden does exercise, actually.  I've seen photos of him biking, at least.  He also weight lifts and runs.

So if you were a doctor who was also doing the hiring for an important job, Biden would pass your exams and you would be confident in his abilities to perform the duties of said job?

I'm not saying the man doesn't ever exercise, I'm just saying he appears to not be in great shape on multiple fronts (that are pretty damn important for a figurehead position!) and that surely there could be alternatives that would inspire a little more confidence.  I brought up Mick Jagger just to illustrate that there are 80 year olds still active and crushing whatever public-facing game they're playing at - they're rare but they exist and specifically in Jagger's case, he goes to extraordinary lengths to maintain his appearance and abilities.  I.e. I don't really care what Biden's age is, just on the surface he doesn't seem sharp enough for the position he has no matter if he was 50 or 80 or whatever age.

I don't think this is that rare of an opinion, here is an excerpt from Bob Dole's wiki page:
"Concerns over Dole's age and lagging campaign were exemplified by an incident on September 18, 1996. At a rally in Chico, California, he was reaching down to shake the hand of a supporter, when the railing on the stage gave way and he tumbled four feet. While only slightly injured in the fall, "the televised image of his painful grimace underscored the age difference between him and Clinton" and proved an ominous sign for Republican hopes of retaking the White House."

If it had someone more agile and athletic falling due to some shoddy worksmanship, I don't think the reaction would've been the same.

[PKFFW]

I don't think this is that rare of an opinion, here is an excerpt from Bob Dole's wiki page:
"Concerns over Dole's age and lagging campaign were exemplified by an incident on September 18, 1996. At a rally in Chico, California, he was reaching down to shake the hand of a supporter, when the railing on the stage gave way and he tumbled four feet. While only slightly injured in the fall, "the televised image of his painful grimace underscored the age difference between him and Clinton" and proved an ominous sign for Republican hopes of retaking the White House."

If it had someone more agile and athletic falling due to some shoddy worksmanship, I don't think the reaction would've been the same.

The idea that voters would change their vote for who should lead the most powerful nation in the world because someone grimaced after falling off a stage that broke unexpectedly, gives me very little hope for the future of said world.

[LennStar]

I don't think this is that rare of an opinion, here is an excerpt from Bob Dole's wiki page:
"Concerns over Dole's age and lagging campaign were exemplified by an incident on September 18, 1996. At a rally in Chico, California, he was reaching down to shake the hand of a supporter, when the railing on the stage gave way and he tumbled four feet. While only slightly injured in the fall, "the televised image of his painful grimace underscored the age difference between him and Clinton" and proved an ominous sign for Republican hopes of retaking the White House."

If it had someone more agile and athletic falling due to some shoddy worksmanship, I don't think the reaction would've been the same.

The idea that voters would change their vote for who should lead the most powerful nation in the world because someone grimaced after falling off a stage that broke unexpectedly, gives me very little hope for the future of said world.

Haha! Well put. It's not like leaders today can fall off their horse after months in the field when leading their troops to battle.

[jrhampt]

I think Biden is in above average shape for his age. When I think about the 80+-year-olds I know, there is a very wide range of ability/physical condition especially as you get older.  I have no qualms about voting for him again; I think he is under-appreciated by his own party.  He has greatly exceeded my expectations.

[FIPurpose]

I think Biden is in above average shape for his age. When I think about the 80+-year-olds I know, there is a very wide range of ability/physical condition especially as you get older.  I have no qualms about voting for him again; I think he is under-appreciated by his own party.  He has greatly exceeded my expectations.

I think it's possible to agree that he is an above average 80 year old and also that we could still do better with an average 50 year old.

[nereo]

I think Biden is in above average shape for his age. When I think about the 80+-year-olds I know, there is a very wide range of ability/physical condition especially as you get older.  I have no qualms about voting for him again; I think he is under-appreciated by his own party.  He has greatly exceeded my expectations.

I think it's possible to agree that he is an above average 80 year old and also that we could still do better with an average 50 year old.

I guess it would depend on how one defines “do better”.  For all the bickering and with a divided legislature the Biden administration has passed some substantial bills in the first 3 years. It’s hard to agree on which metrics to judge significant legislation on (total cost? Scope? Impact?) but objectively it’s hard to say that Biden’s first 3 years were (age 78) any less impactful than Obama’s (age 47), Clinton (age 46) or even ‘W’ (age 54).  Biden can claim credit (or blame) for the American Rescue Plan, Build Back Better and the CHIPS act, the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” and some gun regulations. Of the recent presidents I’d say only ‘W’s long-term impact was greater, and its all tied to the systemic changes after 9/11 and the resulting Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plus two big tax cuts.  Obama passed the ACA and Trump had the JOBS act in their first term as their major impacts. You can chalk up judges to Trump as well, but I’m not sure how much credit can really go to him for old people dying and some shrewd senate maneuvering.

In their first two years both Obama and Trump had majorities in both houses, yet each arguably managed just one earth-moving piece of legislation (the ACA and JOBs act, respectively).

One proposed reason for why Biden has been as successful despite closely divided legislature is because he has over three decades of experience and relationships in the Senate. Both Obama and Trump faltered at times because they couldn’t get their own parties to line up and they wound up with unified opposition.



 

[Glenstache]

I think Biden is in above average shape for his age. When I think about the 80+-year-olds I know, there is a very wide range of ability/physical condition especially as you get older.  I have no qualms about voting for him again; I think he is under-appreciated by his own party.  He has greatly exceeded my expectations.

I think it's possible to agree that he is an above average 80 year old and also that we could still do better with an average 50 year old.

I guess it would depend on how one defines “do better”.  For all the bickering and with a divided legislature the Biden administration has passed some substantial bills in the first 3 years. It’s hard to agree on which metrics to judge significant legislation on (total cost? Scope? Impact?) but objectively it’s hard to say that Biden’s first 3 years were (age 78) any less impactful than Obama’s (age 47), Clinton (age 46) or even ‘W’ (age 54).  Biden can claim credit (or blame) for the American Rescue Plan, Build Back Better and the CHIPS act, the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” and some gun regulations. Of the recent presidents I’d say only ‘W’s long-term impact was greater, and its all tied to the systemic changes after 9/11 and the resulting Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plus two big tax cuts.  Obama passed the ACA and Trump had the JOBS act in their first term as their major impacts. You can chalk up judges to Trump as well, but I’m not sure how much credit can really go to him for old people dying and some shrewd senate maneuvering.

In their first two years both Obama and Trump had majorities in both houses, yet each arguably managed just one earth-moving piece of legislation (the ACA and JOBs act, respectively).

One proposed reason for why Biden has been as successful despite closely divided legislature is because he has over three decades of experience and relationships in the Senate. Both Obama and Trump faltered at times because they couldn’t get their own parties to line up and they wound up with unified opposition.

I think Biden's benefits are from his proven track record (discussed well above) and more about his strategy of focusing on getting things done and playing the strategic game rather than the media game and short term points. He also seems to have brought in a number of competent people to work with him. I will happily vote for a second Biden term, and want him to have a good VP as a hedge on his age. I think a side effect of the administration's goal of playing to get things done through process instead of grandstanding has also had the side effect of not seeing Kamala Harris as much. I think she isn't a great retail politician, but is probably someone who could step into the job and be effective if needed.

[partgypsy]

Biden, as at least sharp enough to have assembled a great team around him to deal with the intracacies of all the various programs agendas they have. At the VA alone they have rolled out the PACT act, improved the backlog for disability claims, reduced homeless on various front. (But roll out for new electronic record system, not a success. I also feel like he's been in government long enough he a) actually knows world players on a personal basis, and from experience and actually listening to advisors, good instincts for high level decisions. He's like literally been in the room when historical events happened. So, I would really have to find something superior to that in order to switch my vote. That said I was disappointed klobuchar as well as some gen xers did not get more traction last time around, and would prefer someone younger than 80 be running the country.

[Log]

...That said, he's largely a figurehead to make speeches, his teams are putting in place good policies...

...2. I think R's are usually set up with a nice "pension" by having a job at the GOP think tanks and overall better lobbying positions. There's a lot more money out there for retired R's than there are D's...

There are multiple members of Congress that need to retire immediately - Dianne Feinstein being the most prominent example at 89. She is clearly no longer all there and is being wheeled around like the guy from Weekend at Bernie's while her aides control her. It's not like California would ever appoint a Republican to replace her so the partisan shift isn't the issue, it's just a cynical power play between different factions of the California Democrat party about who will replace her...

1) Yes, the Biden administration is absolutely killing it. He might not be up to inspiring speeches, but he seems to fully competent at choosing personnel and negotiating policy decisions.

2) I just had a thought about this lately - as the parties increasingly polarize over education, with college-educated folks abandoning the Republican party, and young Republicans increasingly rejecting college, these extremely desirable careers in politics/journalism/think-tanks are just WAY less competitive on the right... the pool of candidates for these jobs is just not that large, which in turn means they get less competent candidates, which in turn puts off even more educated people from the intellectual poverty of the political right. There's not a path to a functional or reasonable right wing that doesn't involve ending this educational polarization, but there's no incentive on the right to address it. These people are happy to have cushy work with plenty of job security, they don't want to welcome more competition in.

3) As a California voter, I don't personally mind if Feinstein finishes out her term as a partisan stamp. If she just votes party line and her office maintains her capacity to not muck anything up, then Californians can choose her replacement in 2024. Our other senator was already chosen by appointment when Harris became VP, I think it would be good for voters to have a chance to weigh in. It would leave a sour taste if both senators from California were chosen by appointment, especially knowing that with incumbency advantage, they could be sticking around for a long time.

...

I think it's possible to agree that he is an above average 80 year old and also that we could still do better with an average 50 year old.

I think this vastly over-estimates the competence of the "average" person. Anyone has to be exceptional to even be a decent president. Biden's mental acuity and quickness are certainly not what they used to be, but he's still smart, he's just slower. He may not perform well in public, but his administration would not be proving so effective if he weren't doing the job quite capably.

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

[simonsez]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

It's a plausible sounding sentence that can't really ever be proven or disproven but it comes off as belittling to anyone who doesn't share your views.  In fact, someone else with entirely different opinions could state that sentence verbatim and it still make sense to them (and again, would come off as a little bit belittling), even if the underlying qualities are wildly different.

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

What's not important to you might be important to someone else.  And vice versa.  There's also a multi-dimensional time component to it (age, period, cohort) - voter preferences and attitudes shift over time.  I.e. What could be important to a voter at age 20 vs age 50, or the preferences in 1960 vs. 1990, or simply a group that experienced some social and cultural changes together might change how they view importance of certain characteristics in a president.

People vote based on what information is available to them and what is important to them.  YM absolutely MV and that's okay.  I get sensitive when there is a set "correct" way of thinking or talking about topics that involve many shades of gray and then critics silence voices that are different than their own.  That's not a free society exchanging ideas, that's more like Orwell's 1984.

[PeteD01]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

...

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

...

Log is clearly stating that it is about qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job. and is not making a statement as to the appropriateness of personal preference.

It is a simple statement of fact that people love to vote for president on personal preferences that have nothing to do with the job description at all.
People do this mostly out of ignorance of what the job description of a POTUS actually is, and most do not do this out of wilful ignorance - so there is something to work with.

[JGS1980]

Reminds of the classic question... who would you rather have a beer with? That's who wins presidential elections!!!

Biden -nice fella
Trump -doesn't drink

Obama -interesting, obviously smart dude with a great life story
Romney -a little dry, mormon (doesn't drink)

Obama -ditto
McClain -lots of respect for this dude, this was a tough one as I could have a drink with both

W -heck of a guy, also non-drinker, but as a former heavy drinker, he gets a pass
Kerry -a bit stuck up, eh? More of a Bordeaux kind of guy?

W -ditto
Gore -who?

Dole -boring and old
Clinton -charming dude who loves the ladies. He'd drink you under the table and you'd love it.

Bush Sr -again, lots of respect and he actually stood up for his values and beleifs before the GOP went nuts, but a little dry
Clinton -ditto

[Log]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

...

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

...

Log is clearly stating that it is about qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job. and is not making a statement as to the appropriateness of personal preference.

It is a simple statement of fact that people love to vote for president on personal preferences that have nothing to do with the job description at all.
People do this mostly out of ignorance of what the job description of a POTUS actually is, and most do not do this out of wilful ignorance - so there is something to work with.

Yeah, I really don't think it's particularly controversial to state that people are more likely to vote for people who are charismatic/likable/good at speaking.

The government doesn't really function less well when the president gives less inspiring speeches, or doesn't seem like a guy you'd "want to grab a beer with." The government definitely functions less well when the president lacks institutional knowledge about the inner workings of the executive branch, or doesn't know shit about foreign policy.

The depth and breadth of knowledge that the ideal president would have kind of requires spending a lot of time reading, alone. And a lot of time listening to really knowledgeable bureaucrats give kinda boring presentations. A lot of presidents before the advent of TV and radio were probably much more awkward, eccentric people. Now those kinds of candidates are functionally disqualified, even though playing the part of "president" on the reality TV show that is cable news is only one piece of a job with a lot of other very important parts.

Biden is clearly avoiding/minimizing television appearances because his age is a barrier to him giving an effective performance. And yet his administration is still clearly functioning very well, because his decades of experience and accumulated relationships, and an administration staffed with highly competent people make a huge difference in the day to day management of the truly enormous organization that is the federal executive branch.

[simonsez]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

...

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

...

Log is clearly stating that it is about qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job. and is not making a statement as to the appropriateness of personal preference.

It is a simple statement of fact that people love to vote for president on personal preferences that have nothing to do with the job description at all.
People do this mostly out of ignorance of what the job description of a POTUS actually is, and most do not do this out of wilful ignorance - so there is something to work with.

How is that a simple statement of fact?  I don't follow that at all.  If you deem a quality unrelated to the job description but someone does think that particular quality is related - who is right?

Qualities that are deemed to not be important according to...?

I view overall wellness as important to the POTUS job.  It might not be in the job description but I find it important.  Is it the only factor?  Of course not.  Does everyone view overall wellness as important to the POTUS job?  Of course not - or at least not to the same degree.  Notice I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer whereas your and Log's tone make it seem like "hey, we're just stating facts, here is our correct answer on what you should care about when voting and then there is everyone else who can vote on traits that are stupid and not related to the job at all!". 

So again, who gets to be the arbiter of what are important qualities for the POTUS position and tell everyone else that thinks differently that their preferences are inconsequential to the position?

[simonsez]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

...

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

...

Log is clearly stating that it is about qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job. and is not making a statement as to the appropriateness of personal preference.

It is a simple statement of fact that people love to vote for president on personal preferences that have nothing to do with the job description at all.
People do this mostly out of ignorance of what the job description of a POTUS actually is, and most do not do this out of wilful ignorance - so there is something to work with.

Yeah, I really don't think it's particularly controversial to state that people are more likely to vote for people who are charismatic/likable/good at speaking.

The government doesn't really function less well when the president gives less inspiring speeches, or doesn't seem like a guy you'd "want to grab a beer with." The government definitely functions less well when the president lacks institutional knowledge about the inner workings of the executive branch, or doesn't know shit about foreign policy.

The depth and breadth of knowledge that the ideal president would have kind of requires spending a lot of time reading, alone. And a lot of time listening to really knowledgeable bureaucrats give kinda boring presentations. A lot of presidents before the advent of TV and radio were probably much more awkward, eccentric people. Now those kinds of candidates are functionally disqualified, even though playing the part of "president" on the reality TV show that is cable news is only one piece of a job with a lot of other very important parts.

Biden is clearly avoiding/minimizing television appearances because his age is a barrier to him giving an effective performance. And yet his administration is still clearly functioning very well, because his decades of experience and accumulated relationships, and an administration staffed with highly competent people make a huge difference in the day to day management of the truly enormous organization that is the federal executive branch.

Re: the bolded - that's not what you said.  I highlighted the exact quote right here in this very thread.

FWIW - I agree with what you said and I bolded, but that's not what I responded to initially.  You said certain qualities were not important to that job and I push back on that because what you deem important to a job can be different from what another person thinks.

[Glenstache]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

...

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

...

Log is clearly stating that it is about qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job. and is not making a statement as to the appropriateness of personal preference.

It is a simple statement of fact that people love to vote for president on personal preferences that have nothing to do with the job description at all.
People do this mostly out of ignorance of what the job description of a POTUS actually is, and most do not do this out of wilful ignorance - so there is something to work with.

How is that a simple statement of fact?  I don't follow that at all.  If you deem a quality unrelated to the job description but someone does think that particular quality is related - who is right?

Qualities that are deemed to not be important according to...?

I view overall wellness as important to the POTUS job.  It might not be in the job description but I find it important.  Is it the only factor?  Of course not.  Does everyone view overall wellness as important to the POTUS job?  Of course not - or at least not to the same degree.  Notice I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer whereas your and Log's tone make it seem like "hey, we're just stating facts, here is our correct answer on what you should care about when voting and then there is everyone else who can vote on traits that are stupid and not related to the job at all!". 

So again, who gets to be the arbiter of what are important qualities for the POTUS position and tell everyone else that thinks differently that their preferences are inconsequential to the position?

You seem to be reading in some sort of "elite looking down on other peoples choices" vibe when it just doesn't actually seem to be there. to varying degrees, everyone does it.... based on their personal preferences. This isn't something to argue about unless you really want to argue about agreeing.

[nereo]

People love to vote for president on the basis of qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job.

...

So you're talking subjective qualities of a person, and then subjectively ranking or grading presidents based on your own personal preferences and then proclaiming that what other people value doesn't matter?

...

Log is clearly stating that it is about qualities that are not actually particularly important to the job. and is not making a statement as to the appropriateness of personal preference.

It is a simple statement of fact that people love to vote for president on personal preferences that have nothing to do with the job description at all.
People do this mostly out of ignorance of what the job description of a POTUS actually is, and most do not do this out of wilful ignorance - so there is something to work with.

How does a person determine which qualities are important to the job, though? 

As an example, I’ve heard people talk about how they can relate to a candidate (the “would you have a beer with them” question). Some would say that’sa meaningless characteristic for the job, while others would disagree. I can see both sides - betting able to connect with others matters for representing your constituents, or policies matter and not personality.

I’m sure if asked to name the top five traits for an ideal hypothetical leader, there would be much disagreement even among political scholars.