US Poll....who are you voting for?

[maizefolk]

Sure, here's what I pulled those stats from:
https://www.dw.com/en/five-facts-on-grain-and-the-war-in-ukraine/a-62601467#:~:text=According%20to%20statistics%20by%20the,the%20union's%20member%20states%20together.

DW is usually pretty good about getting the facts and statistics right but in this case it sounds like they didn't properly explain what they meant by excluding 75% of grain production around the world (domestically consumed grain) from "the world's grain".

It's also worth considering issues with food security and the need to ensure that a large food supplier needs to remain friendly as global growing seasons become more volatile. It will be important to have a large food exporter like Ukraine as an ally in years when the US crops struggle. Other large grain growers like India, China and Russia are not countries we should rely on for help if we face a dustbowl in North America.

I am fully in favor of the USA continuing to support and back Ukraine, but this is a bad argument.

First of all, given that you're using grain export numbers rather than grain production numbers to argue Ukraine is 10% of the world's wheat, countries like India and China which grow vast amounts of wheat wouldn't even count as major wheat countries since they frequently export little or no wheat and sometimes need to import it. Which is why excluding domestic consumption is such a misleading approach even if people explain they are doing so.

Second of all, if we faced a dustbowl in North America we have a multi-tier system to stave off famine, starting with our ability to cut demand for corn by 1/3 with a stroke of a pen by shutting off ethanol production (providing a huge buffer against extreme crop failures), extending to our ability to import grains and soy from major agricultural producers (and exporters) like Brazil, Argentina, and Australia, and ending with our ability to become orders of magnitude more calorie efficient by reducing meat consumption in a truly long term and sustained food shortage.

Third of all, even if we could buy the entire Ukrainian corn crop leaving nothing for the Ukrainians or our allies in the EU, that would only be enough to compensate for a 10% drop in US corn yields, which is something we've proven we're able to weather in the past (for example in the drought of 2012) without major societal disruption. Although 2012 was certainly a bad year to be a farmer.

[Mr FrugalNL]

Ukraine is at Volkssturm levels of exhaustion. They are no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel. They broke the barrel apart and are squeezing the boards for dregs.

If we take the Russian MoD's ridiculously overblown claim of 383,000 Ukrainian casualties between 24 February 2022 and 19 December 2023 and Ukraine's 2021 (pre-fullscale invasion) population of 41 million, you get 0.93% casualties. Take a more sensible estimate like 153,000 (24 February 2022 – 14 November 2023) and you get 0.37% casualties. (Bear in mind that casualties includes dead, wounded, missing and PoWs so not nearly all casualties are dead.)

WWII Germany by comparison had a pre-war population of 69,300,000 and is estimated to have suffered between 4,440,000 and 5,318,000 military deaths over the course of World War II. That yields a death rate of between 6.4% and 7.67%.

I'm sure there are all sorts of nits to be picked with this back-of-the-envelope comparison, but to claim that Ukraine is anywhere near late-WWII Germany levels of losses let alone above them is clearly ludicrous. It's not even close.

The grim fact of the matter is that although there is a personal tragedy behind every one of those numbers, Ukraine can sustain this loss of life for the foreseeable future if it wants to. And its resolve does seem to be holding so far. Ukraine is hampered more by a lack of ammunition and equipment than by a lack of manpower.

[dividendman]

The only federal election this year was just held and Democrats flipped a Republican seat.... does this bode well for the Democrats in November? Is it a fluke? Do special elections not matter? I don't know, that's for sure :)

[FINate]

Whatever one thinks of Hur's report, team Biden is in trouble. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL Both Biden and Trump are viewed as too old, but the numbers are worse for Biden. Especially among independents:

Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

The Dem base will always vote for their ticket, and the Rep base theirs. The middle is where presidential elections are decided.

If Biden really is up for another term then his campaign needs to prove it at this point. It has to go on the offensive. Skipping the Super Bowl interview is going in the wrong direction. He needs to do a lot more off-script live interviews with no teleprompter. Push for the release of the Hur transcript.

Or, put together a plan B ASAP.

Pretending this isn't an issue won't make it go away. Biden, as the front-runner is the appeal to the middle, whereas Harris is there to energize the base. If Biden doesn't address this perception among voters the message will be absolutely hammered home that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, especially in swing states. This would essentially hand the election to Trump. And if you thought Trump v1.0 was bad... yikes, it'll be a complete circus.

[Cawl]

Ukraine is at Volkssturm levels of exhaustion. They are no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel. They broke the barrel apart and are squeezing the boards for dregs.

If we take the Russian MoD's ridiculously overblown claim of 383,000 Ukrainian casualties between 24 February 2022 and 19 December 2023 and Ukraine's 2021 (pre-fullscale invasion) population of 41 million, you get 0.93% casualties. Take a more sensible estimate like 153,000 (24 February 2022 – 14 November 2023) and you get 0.37% casualties. (Bear in mind that casualties includes dead, wounded, missing and PoWs so not nearly all casualties are dead.)

WWII Germany by comparison had a pre-war population of 69,300,000 and is estimated to have suffered between 4,440,000 and 5,318,000 military deaths over the course of World War II. That yields a death rate of between 6.4% and 7.67%.

I'm sure there are all sorts of nits to be picked with this back-of-the-envelope comparison, but to claim that Ukraine is anywhere near late-WWII Germany levels of losses let alone above them is clearly ludicrous. It's not even close.

The grim fact of the matter is that although there is a personal tragedy behind every one of those numbers, Ukraine can sustain this loss of life for the foreseeable future if it wants to. And its resolve does seem to be holding so far. Ukraine is hampered more by a lack of ammunition and equipment than by a lack of manpower.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/25981
Quote:
Some Telegram groups critical of the draft law identified some of the more severe forms of disability that still fall under the third category:

blindness in one eye
paralysis of the hand, stump of the upper limb, absence of fingers
thigh or lower leg stump; shortening of the leg by 7 centimeters or more
castration in men
an inoperable defect of the jaw, when a person cannot chew normally and loses weight

That sounds dire.

[Cawl]

Whatever one thinks of Hur's report, team Biden is in trouble. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL Both Biden and Trump are viewed as too old, but the numbers are worse for Biden. Especially among independents:

Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

The Dem base will always vote for their ticket, and the Rep base theirs. The middle is where presidential elections are decided.

If Biden really is up for another term then his campaign needs to prove it at this point. It has to go on the offensive. Skipping the Super Bowl interview is going in the wrong direction. He needs to do a lot more off-script live interviews with no teleprompter. Push for the release of the Hur transcript.

Or, put together a plan B ASAP.

Pretending this isn't an issue won't make it go away. Biden, as the front-runner is the appeal to the middle, whereas Harris is there to energize the base. If Biden doesn't address this perception among voters the message will be absolutely hammered home that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, especially in swing states. This would essentially hand the election to Trump. And if you thought Trump v1.0 was bad... yikes, it'll be a complete circus.

Whatever they've been juicing Biden so he can function with is starting to lose its effectiveness. The last thing they want is putting Biden somewhere he can't have a script.

[PeteD01]

Whatever one thinks of Hur's report, team Biden is in trouble. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL Both Biden and Trump are viewed as too old, but the numbers are worse for Biden. Especially among independents:

Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

The Dem base will always vote for their ticket, and the Rep base theirs. The middle is where presidential elections are decided.

If Biden really is up for another term then his campaign needs to prove it at this point. It has to go on the offensive. Skipping the Super Bowl interview is going in the wrong direction. He needs to do a lot more off-script live interviews with no teleprompter. Push for the release of the Hur transcript.

Or, put together a plan B ASAP.

Pretending this isn't an issue won't make it go away. Biden, as the front-runner is the appeal to the middle, whereas Harris is there to energize the base. If Biden doesn't address this perception among voters the message will be absolutely hammered home that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, especially in swing states. This would essentially hand the election to Trump. And if you thought Trump v1.0 was bad... yikes, it'll be a complete circus.

Whatever they've been juicing Biden so he can function with is starting to lose its effectiveness. The last thing they want is putting Biden somewhere he can't have a script.

Candidate quality is everything

Stuart Stevens, Chief Strategist of Romney's 2012 presidential campaign:

"A party led by a rapist that believes it can fix its problem with women by attacking Taylor Swift, with weird little creeps like Mike Johnson as a public face in Congress, that has no serious policy, that has decided to abandon decades of support for freedom in Europe to back a genocidal dictator, a party that is 85% white in a 59% white country, a party that has decided higher education is a gateway drug to Socialism, that believes public health policy should be set by random freaks on the internet and not doctors, a party that is still fighting cultural wars of gender politics the rest of America ended a decade ago, a party that has replaced American optimism with anger and fear of the future," he stated.

"Is there really any question why this party is losing?"


https://www.rawstory.com/maga-gop-2667281961/

[seattlecyclone]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/25981
Quote:
Some Telegram groups critical of the draft law identified some of the more severe forms of disability that still fall under the third category:

blindness in one eye
paralysis of the hand, stump of the upper limb, absence of fingers
thigh or lower leg stump; shortening of the leg by 7 centimeters or more
castration in men
an inoperable defect of the jaw, when a person cannot chew normally and loses weight

That sounds dire.

I have two good friends from college who are each blind in one eye and also perfectly productive members of the economy with full-time jobs. Perhaps they wouldn't be my first choice for sniper training, but I also see no reason they need be exempt from a draft.

[bacchi]

Whatever they've been juicing Biden so he can function with is starting to lose its effectiveness. The last thing they want is putting Biden somewhere he can't have a script.

What do you think Trump is taking?

[sixwings]

Whatever one thinks of Hur's report, team Biden is in trouble. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL Both Biden and Trump are viewed as too old, but the numbers are worse for Biden. Especially among independents:

Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

The Dem base will always vote for their ticket, and the Rep base theirs. The middle is where presidential elections are decided.

If Biden really is up for another term then his campaign needs to prove it at this point. It has to go on the offensive. Skipping the Super Bowl interview is going in the wrong direction. He needs to do a lot more off-script live interviews with no teleprompter. Push for the release of the Hur transcript.

Or, put together a plan B ASAP.

Pretending this isn't an issue won't make it go away. Biden, as the front-runner is the appeal to the middle, whereas Harris is there to energize the base. If Biden doesn't address this perception among voters the message will be absolutely hammered home that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, especially in swing states. This would essentially hand the election to Trump. And if you thought Trump v1.0 was bad... yikes, it'll be a complete circus.

I do agree with this a lot, Biden and his admin/campaign is terrible at using the bully pullpit. The administration has been incredibly effective and got a lot accomplished but it doesn't feel like there's anyone running the show or with a strong vision for the country. This inability to set the tone and vision allows Trump to do it. I don't think Biden is a strong enough public speaker to do it and Harris is a bad VP choice for that. It's a real problem.

That said, I expect it will get a lot better as we get closer to the election. I expect in the spring we'll start to see Biden and Harris campaigning A LOT more, Biden probably doesn't have the stamina for 9 months of campaigning anymore. I also expect they are trying to save their money for a complete blanket campaign in the spring/summer/fall and a strong GOTV effort, while the republican party is bankrupt and apparently the RNC is going to give all their money to Trump is Lara Trump becomes co-chair.  I guess we'll see if it's too little too late.

I also don't think Trump has got a lot of scrutiny for all the stupid shit he says, no one in the republican primaries was calling him out for stupid things and he refused to debate or put forward any kind of policy platform and no one in the primaries said anything about it or went after him over it. That will also change now.

[Mr FrugalNL]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/25981
Quote:
Some Telegram groups critical of the draft law identified some of the more severe forms of disability that still fall under the third category:

blindness in one eye
paralysis of the hand, stump of the upper limb, absence of fingers
thigh or lower leg stump; shortening of the leg by 7 centimeters or more
castration in men
an inoperable defect of the jaw, when a person cannot chew normally and loses weight

That sounds dire.

I have two good friends from college who are each blind in one eye and also perfectly productive members of the economy with full-time jobs. Perhaps they wouldn't be my first choice for sniper training, but I also see no reason they need be exempt from a draft.

Agreed. There are plenty of duties people with these disabilities could perform, especially once you look beyond combat positions. The article also mentions a proposed lowering of the draft age from 27 to 25. If we're taking draft legislation as a sign of Ukraine's manpower situation then the conclusion to draw here would be that Ukraine is in excellent shape. Able-bodied people in their early 20s are prime recruitment material and it says a lot if they're not being drafted yet. If anything I'm surprised Ukraine hasn't expanded the draft to these younger age cohorts yet but ultimately it's up to the Ukrainian people which citizens should be eligible for the draft.

[nereo]

In the US Military, only about 15% of service members are assigned a combat role. The overwhelming majority of people "in the military" (almost any military) are in support roles... engineers, techs, maintenance, transportation, admin, cooks, medics, etc.

[Log]

Honestly, great compromise position just occurred to me, if Biden's ego could handle it: let the Democratic convention choose a new presidential nominee, keep Biden's staff and keep Biden on for another term as VP. His staff is obviously extremely effective; his experience, wisdom, and connections are obviously of incredible value. Treat him as a trusted close advisor and equal partner, not as a side-show B-team to handle unimportant BS. But put the reins in the hand of the next generation.

It's just a question of if Joe could stomach being demoted like that after already doing his time under Obama.

[FINate]

Whatever one thinks of Hur's report, team Biden is in trouble. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL Both Biden and Trump are viewed as too old, but the numbers are worse for Biden. Especially among independents:

Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

The Dem base will always vote for their ticket, and the Rep base theirs. The middle is where presidential elections are decided.

If Biden really is up for another term then his campaign needs to prove it at this point. It has to go on the offensive. Skipping the Super Bowl interview is going in the wrong direction. He needs to do a lot more off-script live interviews with no teleprompter. Push for the release of the Hur transcript.

Or, put together a plan B ASAP.

Pretending this isn't an issue won't make it go away. Biden, as the front-runner is the appeal to the middle, whereas Harris is there to energize the base. If Biden doesn't address this perception among voters the message will be absolutely hammered home that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, especially in swing states. This would essentially hand the election to Trump. And if you thought Trump v1.0 was bad... yikes, it'll be a complete circus.

I do agree with this a lot, Biden and his admin/campaign is terrible at using the bully pullpit. The administration has been incredibly effective and got a lot accomplished but it doesn't feel like there's anyone running the show or with a strong vision for the country. This inability to set the tone and vision allows Trump to do it. I don't think Biden is a strong enough public speaker to do it and Harris is a bad VP choice for that. It's a real problem.

That said, I expect it will get a lot better as we get closer to the election. I expect in the spring we'll start to see Biden and Harris campaigning A LOT more, Biden probably doesn't have the stamina for 9 months of campaigning anymore. I also expect they are trying to save their money for a complete blanket campaign in the spring/summer/fall and a strong GOTV effort, while the republican party is bankrupt and apparently the RNC is going to give all their money to Trump is Lara Trump becomes co-chair.  I guess we'll see if it's too little too late.

I also don't think Trump has got a lot of scrutiny for all the stupid shit he says, no one in the republican primaries was calling him out for stupid things and he refused to debate or put forward any kind of policy platform and no one in the primaries said anything about it or went after him over it. That will also change now.

Trump is such a flawed candidate that Biden doesn't even need to do anything spectacular. He just needs to demonstrate that he's fit for the job. Something like an interview with multiple journalists/cameras present, and have a wide ranging conversation. Make sure he's well rested and feeling well. Perception matters, think Kennedy-Nixon debate.

If that's not possible, then yeah, the DNC needs to start feeling out alternates sooner rather than later. Don't wait until August.

Please don't bet the farm on "Trump is worse" That didn't work in 2016 despite all the horrible things he said and did.

[Davnasty]

Ukraine is at Volkssturm levels of exhaustion. They are no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel. They broke the barrel apart and are squeezing the boards for dregs.

If we take the Russian MoD's ridiculously overblown claim of 383,000 Ukrainian casualties between 24 February 2022 and 19 December 2023 and Ukraine's 2021 (pre-fullscale invasion) population of 41 million, you get 0.93% casualties. Take a more sensible estimate like 153,000 (24 February 2022 – 14 November 2023) and you get 0.37% casualties. (Bear in mind that casualties includes dead, wounded, missing and PoWs so not nearly all casualties are dead.)

WWII Germany by comparison had a pre-war population of 69,300,000 and is estimated to have suffered between 4,440,000 and 5,318,000 military deaths over the course of World War II. That yields a death rate of between 6.4% and 7.67%.

I'm sure there are all sorts of nits to be picked with this back-of-the-envelope comparison, but to claim that Ukraine is anywhere near late-WWII Germany levels of losses let alone above them is clearly ludicrous. It's not even close.

The grim fact of the matter is that although there is a personal tragedy behind every one of those numbers, Ukraine can sustain this loss of life for the foreseeable future if it wants to. And its resolve does seem to be holding so far. Ukraine is hampered more by a lack of ammunition and equipment than by a lack of manpower.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/25981
Quote:
Some Telegram groups critical of the draft law identified some of the more severe forms of disability that still fall under the third category:

blindness in one eye
paralysis of the hand, stump of the upper limb, absence of fingers
thigh or lower leg stump; shortening of the leg by 7 centimeters or more
castration in men
an inoperable defect of the jaw, when a person cannot chew normally and loses weight

That sounds dire.

Dire, but also irrelevant and a clear attempt at misdirection.

An apples to apples comparison would be 6.4% to 0.18% if we look at population lost, according to UN/US estimates. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)

At this rate, Ukraine will be getting there is another 35 years or so.

[sixwings]

Whatever one thinks of Hur's report, team Biden is in trouble. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL Both Biden and Trump are viewed as too old, but the numbers are worse for Biden. Especially among independents:

Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

The Dem base will always vote for their ticket, and the Rep base theirs. The middle is where presidential elections are decided.

If Biden really is up for another term then his campaign needs to prove it at this point. It has to go on the offensive. Skipping the Super Bowl interview is going in the wrong direction. He needs to do a lot more off-script live interviews with no teleprompter. Push for the release of the Hur transcript.

Or, put together a plan B ASAP.

Pretending this isn't an issue won't make it go away. Biden, as the front-runner is the appeal to the middle, whereas Harris is there to energize the base. If Biden doesn't address this perception among voters the message will be absolutely hammered home that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, especially in swing states. This would essentially hand the election to Trump. And if you thought Trump v1.0 was bad... yikes, it'll be a complete circus.

I do agree with this a lot, Biden and his admin/campaign is terrible at using the bully pullpit. The administration has been incredibly effective and got a lot accomplished but it doesn't feel like there's anyone running the show or with a strong vision for the country. This inability to set the tone and vision allows Trump to do it. I don't think Biden is a strong enough public speaker to do it and Harris is a bad VP choice for that. It's a real problem.

That said, I expect it will get a lot better as we get closer to the election. I expect in the spring we'll start to see Biden and Harris campaigning A LOT more, Biden probably doesn't have the stamina for 9 months of campaigning anymore. I also expect they are trying to save their money for a complete blanket campaign in the spring/summer/fall and a strong GOTV effort, while the republican party is bankrupt and apparently the RNC is going to give all their money to Trump is Lara Trump becomes co-chair.  I guess we'll see if it's too little too late.

I also don't think Trump has got a lot of scrutiny for all the stupid shit he says, no one in the republican primaries was calling him out for stupid things and he refused to debate or put forward any kind of policy platform and no one in the primaries said anything about it or went after him over it. That will also change now.

Trump is such a flawed candidate that Biden doesn't even need to do anything spectacular. He just needs to demonstrate that he's fit for the job. Something like an interview with multiple journalists/cameras present, and have a wide ranging conversation. Make sure he's well rested and feeling well. Perception matters, think Kennedy-Nixon debate.

If that's not possible, then yeah, the DNC needs to start feeling out alternates sooner rather than later. Don't wait until August.

Please don't bet the farm on "Trump is worse" That didn't work in 2016 despite all the horrible things he said and did.

Yeah agreed, the other thing is that the Dem GOTV machine is probably going to be much much better, especially in key states like Michigan where the state GOP party is in complete shambles. Trumps family takeover of the RNC will also probably help with that as Lara Trump is saying all RNC money will go Trump. It seems likely that the republican GOTV is going to be a complete mess. Will probably suck to be a down ballot republican in 2024. They are going to be mostly on their own.

[GuitarStv]

Honestly, great compromise position just occurred to me, if Biden's ego could handle it: let the Democratic convention choose a new presidential nominee, keep Biden's staff and keep Biden on for another term as VP. His staff is obviously extremely effective; his experience, wisdom, and connections are obviously of incredible value. Treat him as a trusted close advisor and equal partner, not as a side-show B-team to handle unimportant BS. But put the reins in the hand of the next generation.

It's just a question of if Joe could stomach being demoted like that after already doing his time under Obama.

I love this solution.

[brandon1827]

Whatever they've been juicing Biden so he can function with is starting to lose its effectiveness. The last thing they want is putting Biden somewhere he can't have a script.

What do you think Trump is taking?

I thought it was common knowledge that Trump was an adderall junkie?

Like someone above said, Trump is such a horrible candidate that Biden won't have to do much. Trump is at the very least as cognitively impaired as Biden, if not more so due to his decades of drug abuse. The man rarely knows which city he's in, when Obama was in office, that Nikki Haley is not Nancy Pelosi, which world leaders are from which countries, which Bush was in office when the Iraq war started, etc. It's laughable that people want to knock Biden for this sort of stuff while refusing to acknowledge that Trump at best is equally as bad. I know one difference is that if either man needed a script, Biden can at least read, interpret, and follow one. I'm 99% certain that Trump cannot.

[maizefolk]

An apples to apples comparison would be 6.4% to 0.18% if we look at population lost, according to UN/US estimates. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)

At this rate, Ukraine will be getting there is another 35 years or so.

Even that, I fear, is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Germany in the 1940s has experienced a lot of rapid population growth and had a high but declining birth rate. That meant lots of young people of military age, very few old folks relative to what we think of as normal today and not-excessive numbers of young children.

The median Ukrainian is 44 and the country's fertility rate has been below two children per woman since the fall of the Soviet Union. So out of every million people, the number of military age young men Ukraine can call upon today many less than the number of military age men Germany of the 1940s could find in each million of its citizens.

Animated ukrainian age demographics gif embedded behind the spoilers tag for those who may find it interesting

Spoiler: show

Source

And to be clear, Russia isn't in any better shape demographically, nor is most of Europe.

[dividendman]

Isn't it ironic that xenophobia will, instead of saving the cultures of countries, result in them not existing at all?

[nereo]

Isn't it ironic that xenophobia will, instead of saving the cultures of countries, result in them not existing at all?

Increased diversity results in more resilient systems, whether you are talking about a coral reef ecosystem, a for profit company or an entire country.

[Cawl]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/25981
Quote:
Some Telegram groups critical of the draft law identified some of the more severe forms of disability that still fall under the third category:

blindness in one eye
paralysis of the hand, stump of the upper limb, absence of fingers
thigh or lower leg stump; shortening of the leg by 7 centimeters or more
castration in men
an inoperable defect of the jaw, when a person cannot chew normally and loses weight

That sounds dire.

I have two good friends from college who are each blind in one eye and also perfectly productive members of the economy with full-time jobs. Perhaps they wouldn't be my first choice for sniper training, but I also see no reason they need be exempt from a draft.

Agreed. There are plenty of duties people with these disabilities could perform, especially once you look beyond combat positions. The article also mentions a proposed lowering of the draft age from 27 to 25. If we're taking draft legislation as a sign of Ukraine's manpower situation then the conclusion to draw here would be that Ukraine is in excellent shape. Able-bodied people in their early 20s are prime recruitment material and it says a lot if they're not being drafted yet. If anything I'm surprised Ukraine hasn't expanded the draft to these younger age cohorts yet but ultimately it's up to the Ukrainian people which citizens should be eligible for the draft.

A common thread in the news is Ukraines lack of manpower.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/08/ukraine-russia-war-draft-dodgers/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/19/europe/ukraine-difficulties-in-military-recruitment-intl/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-cant-use-western-weapons-due-to-soldier-shortage-report-2023-10

And the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is over 40.

I had figured this was common knowledge. My mistake.

[Cawl]

Honestly, great compromise position just occurred to me, if Biden's ego could handle it: let the Democratic convention choose a new presidential nominee, keep Biden's staff and keep Biden on for another term as VP. His staff is obviously extremely effective; his experience, wisdom, and connections are obviously of incredible value. Treat him as a trusted close advisor and equal partner, not as a side-show B-team to handle unimportant BS. But put the reins in the hand of the next generation.

It's just a question of if Joe could stomach being demoted like that after already doing his time under Obama.

They... Already do that? Victoria Nuland was in Bush's White House, then Obama's, left during the Trump years and then became deputy Secretary of State under Biden.

Biden is president because he was the only person all factions of the Democrat Party could agree on.

[Davnasty]

An apples to apples comparison would be 6.4% to 0.18% if we look at population lost, according to UN/US estimates. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)

At this rate, Ukraine will be getting there is another 35 years or so.

Even that, I fear, is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Germany in the 1940s has experienced a lot of rapid population growth and had a high but declining birth rate. That meant lots of young people of military age, very few old folks relative to what we think of as normal today and not-excessive numbers of young children.

The median Ukrainian is 44 and the country's fertility rate has been below two children per woman since the fall of the Soviet Union. So out of every million people, the number of military age young men Ukraine can call upon today many less than the number of military age men Germany of the 1940s could find in each million of its citizens.

Animated ukrainian age demographics gif embedded behind the spoilers tag for those who may find it interesting

Spoiler: show

Source

And to be clear, Russia isn't in any better shape demographically, nor is most of Europe.

Sure, and there's other flaws in my oversimplified analysis as well I'm sure. I was just pointing out that the numbers are so disparate that arguing about how incapacitating wounds can be is beside the point.

[sonofsven]

I really like Biden and I'll be proud to vote for him again. He's had a lifetime to figure out how to get things done and he doesn't have the strong ego that some others do that requires constant praise and recognition. I think he's criminally underrated and will be remembered as one of the most positively impactful Presidents of the post war era.
Yes, he walks and talks like the old man he is. With age sometimes comes wisdom. Not in all cases, as we see with the New Republican party candidate.

[Mr FrugalNL]

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/25981
Quote:
Some Telegram groups critical of the draft law identified some of the more severe forms of disability that still fall under the third category:

blindness in one eye
paralysis of the hand, stump of the upper limb, absence of fingers
thigh or lower leg stump; shortening of the leg by 7 centimeters or more
castration in men
an inoperable defect of the jaw, when a person cannot chew normally and loses weight

That sounds dire.

I have two good friends from college who are each blind in one eye and also perfectly productive members of the economy with full-time jobs. Perhaps they wouldn't be my first choice for sniper training, but I also see no reason they need be exempt from a draft.

Agreed. There are plenty of duties people with these disabilities could perform, especially once you look beyond combat positions. The article also mentions a proposed lowering of the draft age from 27 to 25. If we're taking draft legislation as a sign of Ukraine's manpower situation then the conclusion to draw here would be that Ukraine is in excellent shape. Able-bodied people in their early 20s are prime recruitment material and it says a lot if they're not being drafted yet. If anything I'm surprised Ukraine hasn't expanded the draft to these younger age cohorts yet but ultimately it's up to the Ukrainian people which citizens should be eligible for the draft.

A common thread in the news is Ukraines lack of manpower.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/08/ukraine-russia-war-draft-dodgers/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/19/europe/ukraine-difficulties-in-military-recruitment-intl/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-cant-use-western-weapons-due-to-soldier-shortage-report-2023-10

And the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is over 40.

I had figured this was common knowledge. My mistake.

Your mistake lies not in assuming I was aware of the type of new stories you cite. I was aware of them. It lies in ignoring the above-posted numbers that refute your claim while now trying to found that claim on these news stories that do not support it either.*

The gist of the articles you posted is that Ukraine needs to expand its military and there aren't enough volunteers to do so. Accordingly, conscription is a necessity. There is draft dodging in Ukraine and the government is cracking down on it. Because the current conscription law does not allow for enough of the right candidates to be conscripted, the conscription law will have to be changed. This is generating a political and societal debate about how the burden of conscription should be divided.

You claimed that Ukraine is doing worse for manpower than late WWII Germany. Although the news stories show that Ukraine's current situation is unenviable, it's a far cry from the position Germany found itself in towards the end of WWII. As per the articles, Ukraine's problem is that it doesn't have enough men and women in uniform. It's problem is not that it doesn't have enough men and women period. That would be late WWII Germany. These types of stories are exactly what I'd expect to see coming from a country with a relatively free press that is in the relatively early stages of mobilising for a war. Change the names and the dates and this could have been from Britain in 1940.

*I could not access the Washington Post story but expect it does not materially change the picture. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Samuel]

Honestly, great compromise position just occurred to me, if Biden's ego could handle it: let the Democratic convention choose a new presidential nominee, keep Biden's staff and keep Biden on for another term as VP. His staff is obviously extremely effective; his experience, wisdom, and connections are obviously of incredible value. Treat him as a trusted close advisor and equal partner, not as a side-show B-team to handle unimportant BS. But put the reins in the hand of the next generation.

It's just a question of if Joe could stomach being demoted like that after already doing his time under Obama.

I love this solution.

Seeing how the presidential election will be decided entirely by 6 or 8 battleground states this scheme would probably only work if the Democrats choose someone as moderate as Biden. Or preferably even more moderate than Biden, as I think there is a real path for a super moderate Democrat to pick up disaffected independents and some non-Trumpian conservatives and defeat Trump decisively. I don't want a narrow victory Trump can criticize and re-litigate forever, I want Trump to be smashed in a landslide.

But I could see the Democratic convention delegates going the other way and picking someone the progressive wing would be happier with, which could potentially make a Trump victory more likely.

Assuming health conditions and/or criminal proceedings don't throw a spanner in the works before November anyways.

[Just Joe]

Who would be a good Biden alternative?

[sixwings]

Dems have a few governors that could be good alternatives, Whitmer, Pritzker, Polis, maybe Shapiro/Beshear in 2028 or Roy Cooper, I like Newsom but California hate runs deep, maybe a senator like Booker or Klobuchar or Mark Kelly, but it's really hard to do that without a primary and has a lot of issues associated with it. For the love of all things good in this world Harris is not a good replacement and will get crushed by Trump. An uncharismatic prosecutor that has been a pretty wet-noodle VP is not a good option, Biden should have picked up someone else who could do rallies for him. I think taking Harris for a 2nd term is a MASSIVE mistake.

At the end of the day, unless Biden dies or has a stroke or something, it's Biden all the way and Dems will have to rely on really strong fundamentals like fundraising, charistmatic local candidates and GOTV efforts to carry the day. If they do win they have a strong group for 2028 while Trump will probably cry about election fraud and be the republican nominee again in 2028 where he would be completely obliterated by any of the people above. It's possible that republicans are not competitive until he dies if Dems can win 2024 with Biden. The Dems could have a really good bench for 2028 with a lot of good candidates to like.

[Log]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

[dividendman]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

[FINate]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless. 

[nereo]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless.

It’s so, so hard for me to view California as a”far left state” - particularly when putting it in context of the other G-20 nations. It’s only “far left” when the comparison is ruby red states like Alabama it Wyoming

[Psychstache]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless.

It’s so, so hard for me to view California as a”far left state” - particularly when putting it in context of the other G-20 nations. It’s only “far left” when the comparison is ruby red states like Alabama it Wyoming

When we hold and election for President of the G-20, we could use a different spectrum. When talking about a POTUS election, the bolded above is the only range that matters.

[RetiredAt63]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless.

It’s so, so hard for me to view California as a”far left state” - particularly when putting it in context of the other G-20 nations. It’s only “far left” when the comparison is ruby red states like Alabama it Wyoming

When we hold and election for President of the G-20, we could use a different spectrum. When talking about a POTUS election, the bolded above is the only range that matters.

True.  But does anyone in the US realize just how far right all their politics is? You run the range from moderately right-wing to very right-wing to incredibly right-wing.

[FINate]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless.

It’s so, so hard for me to view California as a”far left state” - particularly when putting it in context of the other G-20 nations. It’s only “far left” when the comparison is ruby red states like Alabama it Wyoming

When we hold and election for President of the G-20, we could use a different spectrum. When talking about a POTUS election, the bolded above is the only range that matters.

True.  But does anyone in the US realize just how far right all their politics is? You run the range from moderately right-wing to very right-wing to incredibly right-wing.

Agreed. But this doesn't matter in the context of this conversation. If Dems want to win then they need a moderate, by US standards, at the top of the ticket. They should really be looking to governors of swing states, which would also give a home field advantage in a key battleground. California is so blue that it will vote Dem no matter what, which makes it largely irrelevant outside fundraising.

[reeshau]

True.  But does anyone in the US realize just how far right all their politics is? You run the range from moderately right-wing to very right-wing to incredibly right-wing.

It's hard to put a finger on right wing.  Religion-driven viewpoint?  "Gun rights"? OK.

Fiscal responsibility / balanced budget?  Strong military / standing up to world threats?  Governing? (Meaning, effective government, rather than grandstanding and constant crisis)?  Not so much.

This isn't many people's right wing.  Only, instead of the strange blend of views making purple, it just makes brown.

[nereo]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless.

It’s so, so hard for me to view California as a”far left state” - particularly when putting it in context of the other G-20 nations. It’s only “far left” when the comparison is ruby red states like Alabama it Wyoming

When we hold and election for President of the G-20, we could use a different spectrum. When talking about a POTUS election, the bolded above is the only range that matters.

True.  But does anyone in the US realize just how far right all their politics is? You run the range from moderately right-wing to very right-wing to incredibly right-wing.

Agreed. But this doesn't matter in the context of this conversation. If Dems want to win then they need a moderate, by US standards, at the top of the ticket. They should really be looking to governors of swing states, which would also give a home field advantage in a key battleground. California is so blue that it will vote Dem no matter what, which makes it largely irrelevant outside fundraising.

Even if you restrict your viewpoint to “only US”, I still disagree with characterizing California as “a far left state” - particularly among the “blue” states.   To me it seems less blue than New York or Mass or Hawaii or Vermont. Roughly in line with most of the mid-Atlantic. I certainly hear the conservative media using California as their punching bag for “liberalism out of control” but in terms of actual ideology and governmental policies I struggle to see where they are more “leftist” than Washington or Maryland.

[FINate]

I think the DNC is much more likely to go with a safe moderate pick now in 2024 than in the heightened unrest period of 2020. Maybe it’s just my media diet, but I feel like the winds are shifting to Dems being less beholden to the populist wing, for various reasons. Bernie losing twice in a row probably demonstrated to some of that wing that their theory of mobilizing some de-activated base of voters was wishful thinking. Lots of progressives have found themselves much happier with Biden’s administration than they would have expected to be. I think a lot of people were very turned off the moral purity testing and witch hunt behavior of 2020 - COVID and BLM mobilization alike.

I think the obvious next choice for Dems staring us in the face is Buttigieg. He projects competence and stability, he’s from the Midwest, can check a diversity box (first openly gay president!), and overall presents himself well in the 21st century media environment. He speaks well and answers contentious questions in non-divisive ways that turn down the temperature on the culture war.

Long odds to vote in a gay man for President. I think even longer than voting in a woman. I don't think either are going to happen in my lifetime. Gavin Newsom is probably a good pick. White male but progressive so he can get votes everywhere. Of course this is all for 2028 since it's Biden/Trump unless they die.

Newsom would be a terrible choice. California is too polarizing, and as a far left state would not be attractive to moderates. The nations highest poverty rate. Record levels of homelessness primarily caused by an acute housing crisis. And he's overseen a state budget that went from a $30B surplus to (depending on who you listen to) a $98B deficit. Half of Americans believe California is in decline. Very little of this is actually Newsom's fault, but that doesn't matter. The campaign ads would be ruthless.

It’s so, so hard for me to view California as a”far left state” - particularly when putting it in context of the other G-20 nations. It’s only “far left” when the comparison is ruby red states like Alabama it Wyoming

When we hold and election for President of the G-20, we could use a different spectrum. When talking about a POTUS election, the bolded above is the only range that matters.

True.  But does anyone in the US realize just how far right all their politics is? You run the range from moderately right-wing to very right-wing to incredibly right-wing.

Agreed. But this doesn't matter in the context of this conversation. If Dems want to win then they need a moderate, by US standards, at the top of the ticket. They should really be looking to governors of swing states, which would also give a home field advantage in a key battleground. California is so blue that it will vote Dem no matter what, which makes it largely irrelevant outside fundraising.

Even if you restrict your viewpoint to “only US”, I still disagree with characterizing California as “a far left state” - particularly among the “blue” states.   To me it seems less blue than New York or Mass or Hawaii or Vermont. Roughly in line with most of the mid-Atlantic. I certainly hear the conservative media using California as their punching bag for “liberalism out of control” but in terms of actual ideology and governmental policies I struggle to see where they are more “leftist” than Washington or Maryland.

It's in the top decile of bluest states: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/

[maizefolk]

California is a big state and a liberal state, which means its most liberal legislative districts are extremely liberal. This gives a lot of fodder to conservative talk radio since they can talk about some candidate in the democratic senate primary proposing a $50/hour minimum wages or whatever, regardless of whether or not it has any chance of becoming law.

California is also synonymous with the SF Bay area in the minds of many people who've never lived there. And places like Berkeley and San Francisco really are far more culturally liberal than almost anywhere else I've spent time in the USA. How many cities have consistently held events like the Folsom Street Fair for the past 40 years?

[FINate]

Should also note that Newsom was mayor of San Francisco from 2004-2011.

[Log]

“Progressive” city governance is a different thing than progressive national politics, and older east coast cities tend to have much more pragmatic, moderate city governance. NYC vs SF city government is night and day difference.

I think Buttigieg is significantly more electable than Newsom bc of how toxic California is to important constituencies, and because being gay is way less of a big deal than it was even a few years ago (especially for a man who doesn’t outwardly present flamboyantly). At this point, lots of Americans have a gay kid somewhere in their orbit—whether their own child, a cousin, a niece or nephew, a friend’s kid, someone in their church…

I honestly think a midwestern, white, ex-military man can pretty easily win the votes of many of the kinds of voters who might hesitate slightly at his being gay. I remember reading an anecdote online during the 2020 primary of some guy’s conservative dad speaking highly of Buttiegieg—the commenter asked his dad if he knew Pete was gay, and the dad was obviously surprised and flustered and then basically said, “well, who cares about that?”

Also think Whitmer, Booker, Beshear, etc., could be great options, but I’ve been most impressed by Pete’s communication.

[NorCal]

“Progressive” city governance is a different thing than progressive national politics, and older east coast cities tend to have much more pragmatic, moderate city governance. NYC vs SF city government is night and day difference.

I think Buttigieg is significantly more electable than Newsom bc of how toxic California is to important constituencies, and because being gay is way less of a big deal than it was even a few years ago (especially for a man who doesn’t outwardly present flamboyantly). At this point, lots of Americans have a gay kid somewhere in their orbit—whether their own child, a cousin, a niece or nephew, a friend’s kid, someone in their church…

I honestly think a midwestern, white, ex-military man can pretty easily win the votes of many of the kinds of voters who might hesitate slightly at his being gay. I remember reading an anecdote online during the 2020 primary of some guy’s conservative dad speaking highly of Buttiegieg—the commenter asked his dad if he knew Pete was gay, and the dad was obviously surprised and flustered and then basically said, “well, who cares about that?”

Also think Whitmer, Booker, Beshear, etc., could be great options, but I’ve been most impressed by Pete’s communication.

Agreed.  I lived in SF when Newsom was mayor and Harris was DA.  They were both pretty embarrassing as city leaders.  I'm kinda surprised how quickly their scandals were forgotten. 

I was pleasantly surprised at how well Newsom has done as governor.  He's done a lot of growing up since his mayor days.  That being said, I don't thing he could bring together a broad enough coalition to win a national election. 

I think Buttiegieg is a solid candidate as well. 

[jrhampt]

I really like Biden and I'll be proud to vote for him again. He's had a lifetime to figure out how to get things done and he doesn't have the strong ego that some others do that requires constant praise and recognition. I think he's criminally underrated and will be remembered as one of the most positively impactful Presidents of the post war era.
Yes, he walks and talks like the old man he is. With age sometimes comes wisdom. Not in all cases, as we see with the New Republican party candidate.

Same.

[dividendman]

I really like Biden and I'll be proud to vote for him again. He's had a lifetime to figure out how to get things done and he doesn't have the strong ego that some others do that requires constant praise and recognition. I think he's criminally underrated and will be remembered as one of the most positively impactful Presidents of the post war era.
Yes, he walks and talks like the old man he is. With age sometimes comes wisdom. Not in all cases, as we see with the New Republican party candidate.

Same.

It's not about liking. It's about the odds. Just like Ginsburg (who I liked), she did a terrible thing by not resigning when Obama had the Presidency and the Senate was Democratic. These old people need to pack it in before events do it for them and the rest of us suffer the consequences.

[GuitarStv]

I really like Biden and I'll be proud to vote for him again. He's had a lifetime to figure out how to get things done and he doesn't have the strong ego that some others do that requires constant praise and recognition. I think he's criminally underrated and will be remembered as one of the most positively impactful Presidents of the post war era.
Yes, he walks and talks like the old man he is. With age sometimes comes wisdom. Not in all cases, as we see with the New Republican party candidate.

Same.

It's not about liking. It's about the odds. Just like Ginsburg (who I liked), she did a terrible thing by not resigning when Obama had the Presidency and the Senate was Democratic. These old people need to pack it in before events do it for them and the rest of us suffer the consequences.

Ginsburg is a great example - awesome and competent supreme court justice, who stayed in her position too long . . . resulting in an extremist like Barrett replacing her.

When a majority of Americans believe that Biden is too old to be president (right or wrong), then he is is hurting the chances of Democrats winning the next presidency.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I really like Biden and I'll be proud to vote for him again. He's had a lifetime to figure out how to get things done and he doesn't have the strong ego that some others do that requires constant praise and recognition. I think he's criminally underrated and will be remembered as one of the most positively impactful Presidents of the post war era.
Yes, he walks and talks like the old man he is. With age sometimes comes wisdom. Not in all cases, as we see with the New Republican party candidate.

Same.

It's not about liking. It's about the odds. Just like Ginsburg (who I liked), she did a terrible thing by not resigning when Obama had the Presidency and the Senate was Democratic. These old people need to pack it in before events do it for them and the rest of us suffer the consequences.

Ginsburg is a great example - awesome and competent supreme court justice, who stayed in her position too long . . . resulting in an extremist like Barrett replacing her.

When a majority of Americans believe that Biden is too old to be president (right or wrong), then he is is hurting the chances of Democrats winning the next presidency.

Whether you like him or not, does anyone feel he would be the most likely person to defeat Trump given his age, ability, and the narrative around him? I honestly don't know, but when I look at them both together, I can't help but asking, is this the best America can do?

[nereo]

I really like Biden and I'll be proud to vote for him again. He's had a lifetime to figure out how to get things done and he doesn't have the strong ego that some others do that requires constant praise and recognition. I think he's criminally underrated and will be remembered as one of the most positively impactful Presidents of the post war era.
Yes, he walks and talks like the old man he is. With age sometimes comes wisdom. Not in all cases, as we see with the New Republican party candidate.

Same.

It's not about liking. It's about the odds. Just like Ginsburg (who I liked), she did a terrible thing by not resigning when Obama had the Presidency and the Senate was Democratic. These old people need to pack it in before events do it for them and the rest of us suffer the consequences.

Ginsburg is a great example - awesome and competent supreme court justice, who stayed in her position too long . . . resulting in an extremist like Barrett replacing her.

When a majority of Americans believe that Biden is too old to be president (right or wrong), then he is is hurting the chances of Democrats winning the next presidency.

Whether you like him or not, does anyone feel he would be the most likely person to defeat Trump given his age, ability, and the narrative around him? I honestly don't know, but when I look at them both together, I can't help but asking, is this the best America can do?

Well let's break this down into the three components you listed:  Age, Ability & Narrative around him

Age: Seems like this is the one area with broad agreement - most Americans, regardless of party, say they want someone much younger. Ironically almost no one argues that an 81 year old (Biden) is too old while a 78 year old (Trump's age on election day) would be just fine.  As a country we also seem very fond of elder leaders - see the US senate (2/3rds are 62+, and 5% are over 80).  The "much younger" House still has 1:6 members elected over the age of 70. So Biden isn't even an outlier.

Ability:  Here's where (IMO) experience counts and the competency of your staff and cabinet matters most. Whether you like or hate his policies, it's evident that Biden has managed to pass some of the biggest bills in the last half century, all with a closely divided legislature.  Trump struggled on most of his issues.  I attribute both towards the people in their respective administrations. Frankly I don't worry too much about Biden's age (above) because of the team he's assembled, who are (broadly speaking) people with decades of experience leading their particular departments.  Unlike Trump, who seemed to appoint a number of people with little or antagonistic experience leading their respective bureaus, and who subsequently struggled.  Some argue that was a feature and not a bug, which seems to me the ultimate in cynicism, basically "instead of changing an organization you don't like, just make it so dysfunctional until it can be scrapped or kneecapped". 

Narrative:  I struggle to see how ANY Dem nominee would not face an intense smear campaign.  First Hilary (Benghazi!  Hysterical! Her Emails!!).  Now Biden (Dementia!  Frail! Puppet!! Hunter!!).  Most of the narratives don't add up to much when examined critically (example:  Either Biden is the sinister mastermind of the 'DeepState', or he's an incompetent old man with Alzheimer's who can't tie his own shoes and is on "mental performance drugs'.  But certainly not both).  Regardless of who becomes the standard-bearer I don't see those kinds of conspiracy theories abating anytime soon.  On the other side, Dems certainly are hyper-critical of Trump and engage in some similar theories about kompromat and similar arguments about cognitive awareness, but seem far more focused on what Trump has actually said and done and said he would definitely do.


So... "are these the best America can do"?  Depends on how you value experience in government over age, I suppose, and whether you fundamentally agree with their aims.  All things being equal I'd love candidates who were a decade or two younger, but not if that means putting a governing neophyte in charge of the entire country just to learn the basics of being the head of an executive branch on the job. And I don't worry much about age when I feel there is a deep and competent team doing their jobs in each of their respective roles. Frankly the less I wake up to read about some shocking thing someone in the EO did, the better I feel about how the country is being run.  I want to be bored to the point where I just don't feel the need to pay much attention until the next election cycle.

[Samuel]

While his age and fitness are certainly legitimate discussions to be having now in the context of winning the election we need to also remember the winner of the next election will presumably still be president 4 years and 11 months from now. And a helluva lot is going to happen in that time frame. With Biden's trajectory being what it is I can't say that comforts me when I consider the increasingly complex geopolitical, economic, and technosocial challenges we're facing. Even if he's doing great for an 82 year old we should all be skeptical about the ability of any octogenarian to fully engage with the nuances of the current moment.

Biden was born closer to the Civil War than he was to the present day, and Trump will hit that milestone in August 2027. Can they even remotely fathom how the issue of AI alone will shape the next decade?

Of course these two are not the best America can do to lead us into an uncertain future. But apparently they're the best our system can manage.

[sixwings]

While his age and fitness are certainly legitimate discussions to be having now in the context of winning the election we need to also remember the winner of the next election will presumably still be president 4 years and 11 months from now. And a helluva lot is going to happen in that time frame. With Biden's trajectory being what it is I can't say that comforts me when I consider the increasingly complex geopolitical, economic, and technosocial challenges we're facing. Even if he's doing great for an 82 year old we should all be skeptical about the ability of any octogenarian to fully engage with the nuances of the current moment.

Biden was born closer to the Civil War than he was to the present day, and Trump will hit that milestone in August 2027. Can they even remotely fathom how the issue of AI alone will shape the next decade?

Of course these two are not the best America can do to lead us into an uncertain future. But apparently they're the best our system can manage.

No president is really going to be an expert on the impacts of AI, instead they will have appoint competent people to figure that out. Biden will do that, Trump will not. I doubt Trump could even spell AI. It's not hard to see who is better aligned to lead the country going forward given most of the leadership falls on appointing competent people in the EO.