My father has Alzheimers, so I definitely can relate to the experience you’re describing, but as part of caring for him I’ve been reading a book called The 36 Hour Day. It claims that mental decline as one ages isn’t always inevitable- 50 to 70 percent of people who live into very old age don’t experience significant memory loss or any kind of dementia. There are many older people who live productive, cognitively clear lives right to the end. The book doesn’t cite a source, so take that with a grain of salt, naturally, but don’t take it for granted that advanced age always equals incompetence, either.
That said, I’m not sure how I feel about Bernie running- he might be in the 30-50 percent who have cognitive problems, and he’s no longer the only truly progressive candidate out there. It seems like it might be better for him to be satisfied with having paved the way for others and throw his support behind someone promising rather than spreading things ever thinner.
But he is only 5 years older than Trump
I think that’s a good point, that stadium-goers are just a small fraction of the electorate. If stadiums were any real measure of broad support, there would have been a President Ross Perot, or Ron Paul as the Republican nominee.
Look, I never thought Bernie was all that bad, but he was never my first choice. I like people who are up to the job, not those who pass some ideological purity test. And right now, Bernie is more name recognition than actual competence. Of course he’s going to draw the donors, but I want to see how he fares against Harris and Warren in actual debates.
Right now, Bernie is an A- in a crop of straight A’s, so I am not all that excited about him. He is a good choice, but I feel like this time he’s my third or fourth choice.
Just because it annoys the hell out of him, can we all just take a moment to reflect that Trump’s track record shows that he is less good at enriching himself than a petty three-year with bootlicking enablers.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/391459-dnc-panel-adopts-rule-requiring-candidates-to-run-serve-as-a-democrat
"A source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News, however, that the rule wasn't targeted at Sanders." Dishonest.
Slightly less dishonest: “A source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News that the rule that affected Sanders wasn’t targeted at Sanders.”
Even less dishonest: “A source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News that the rule wasn’t targeted at just Sanders.”
Honest: “A source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News that the rule was targeted at Sanders.”
(However, I’m not sure how this materially affects the Sanders campaign. Why can’t he just join the Democratic Party? Again. It’s not like the DNC can refuse his registration. Or that they would ever want to do so: the backlash would be something terrible. The only thing this rule does is make it awkward for Sanders to leave the party after he loses in the primaries, as he did last time. Or, in the unlikely event that he wins, he doesnt get to diss the DNC by re-declaring himself as “Independent.”)
Also - if he wins and leaves - what exactly would the penalty be?
Whatever the penalty is for someone who starts to smoke right after they ask if it’s OK to smoke and you say “No”.
But again I say: the people who make it to 87 in good enough physical and mental shape to take on a highly demanding full-time job are most definitely the exceptions rather than the rule.
Most of us don’t even live to our late 80s, and the existence of programs like Medicare and Social Security are more or less a public concession that elderly people are less likely to be able to work and more likely to have considerable medical issues.
He benefited by… losing in the primary? Okay?
It doesn’t- the point was that if he follows those rules - which are minimal- he’s a possible valid nominee.
The only other standard is winning the votes.
Also- if he wins and leaves - what exactly would the penalty be?
Yes, and yet last time the Democrats managed to find come up with a candidate that couldn’t even beat Trump.
“Astonishing”…? Nah. “Shameful” and/or “blatant”, I can work with.
There were a few other factors at play, not the least of which was Democratic complacency. The “too hip to vote” crowd and the “stay home and let everyone else take care of it” crowd have, one hopes, had their gourds shaken hard enough over the last two years to show up this time. Not to mention the spotlight that’s been cast on foreign actors’ massive disinformation campaigns, which swayed the uncritical-minded into false perceptions.
We’ve been through two years of Trump breaking down basic decency and literally throwing social safeguards out the window, making a fool of the nation on the world stage, and stoking the flames of racist attitudes and toxic masculinity. It has been worse–so much worse–than anyone imagined before the 2016 election.
The last time America failed half this hard, it re-elected George W. Bush. And by the time those 8 years were over, we elected our first black president, a Democrat. Given that reaction, and how infinitely more dangerous and deranged Trump is compared to Dubya, I suspect his half-life in office was last January. We won’t see a full eight years of this mess, not without the GOP aiding and abetting a full overthrow of the government. And I don’t think they’re that ballsy or far-thinking.
Whatever one’s take is on who should be in the WH, having Sanders make the rounds on podiums would be a benefit insofar that would more likely than not force Dem candidates to go on the record re those talking points.
Now for reasons I would get behind Bernie:
He really does always have a staff I admire.
I supported Bernie in 2016, until I couldn’t. Your point that Bernie has an “old man” problem seems to be based on an assumption that we all age the same way. As a Vermonter, I can tell you that many "old folks: here over the age of 80 and 90 are active, not using walkers, live in their own homes, play tennis, ski, ect. So, if the only reason you do not support Bernie s his age, perhaps you might consider that you have an ageism issue and re-evaluate?
Tired of hearing this claim. Hillary not only got more votes than Trump, she got more votes than any Presidential candidate in history other than Obama. She may not have been my favorite primary candidate but a historically weak nominee she was not.
Average life expectancy in Vermont is 77.6 years. Pointing out that, statistically speaking, Bernie is unlikely to remain mentally and physically healthy enough to serve in one of the most demanding jobs in the world at age 87 isn’t “ageist” so much as “pragmatic.”
Eighty-Seven? I have to assume that you believe that he would be elected for for two terms? I hate to be arch…but our hamburger and fries eating president doesn’t seem to be negatively affected, health wise, by his role as POTUS. My google search yielded an average life span for Vermonters as 80.5 years…sixth highest life expectancy in the US. But this is all theoretical - and often dismisses just how individualized our health and life expectancies vary. Life expectancies for middle aged white men are in decline based on the vagaries of living life and expectation lessened and/or fewer opportunities which is a reflection of increased drug use nationwide.
My point? There are so many other reasons to not vote for someone. If our constitution did not have an age mandate, 35 years old, one must assume that even a thirty-five year old could keel over in the office based solely on the stress of the job!
a
