sardia wrote:Weren't people actually right about Reagan being too old? Or were the rumors of his mental decline in the 2nd term merely slander?
Yes and no. Sure, age takes a toll, and it seems likely that alzheimers had at least some effect while he was still in office. But, he did finish out his terms in a reasonably successful manner. I suppose it's fair to consider the office of VP a little more critically if you suspect the president may have to step down due to age or health.
But, on the flip side, average lifespan keeps creeping up. So, it's fair to consider somewhat older candidates now than in decades past.
And, I think it's a rather minor point. Maybe something to consider between very similar candidates, but it seems unlikely to be a more important criteria than platform issues. Most folks would rather have "their" oldster than a young fellow supporting the wrong side, whatever that is.
CorruptUser wrote:In order, Pataki, O'Malley, Sanders, Christie. Anyone else doesn't clear the threshhold of awful.
O'Malley is awful, I assure you. He's from MD. MD doesn't want him as a candidate. Not even the democrats(though the republicans have the usual hatred for him as well). He's simply so irrelevant in terms of publicity that this hasn't really mattered yet. There's a bunch of folks that, while technically candidates, simply don't have the polling/airtime/popularity to really be viable.
I look forward to Trump's failure, because it lets a little more air into the room for others, personally. Good, bad, at least we get to hear more about them after we get done with the stupid back and forth bs.
Wait, wait, wait, you guys are actually seeing Chris Christie as a legitimate candidate?
Maybe it's because I've been indoctrinated by Jon Stewart
, but I seem to recall that he's a horrible candidate all around, vetoing a bill against animal abuse to please the people of a completely different state, and utterly bungling the suit against Exxon, getting a mere 3% of what New Jersey could have gotten.
My issue with him is more that he's...well, a typical Jersey politican. I feel fairly confident that he'll cheerfully say/do whatever is advantageous at the moment, regardless of previous promises and so forth. In short, he does not appear reliable or trustworthy as a candidate, even if you like the stances he claims to promote.
For instance, he claims to be pro-gun, but he doesn't actually own a gun, and if memory serves, hasn't really supported the NRA in the past, and has shown a willingness to adopt other positions. And, he hasn't really accomplished a great deal that of legislation, etc that would actually be considered pro-gun. So, what does "pro-gun" actually mean from him? You need to at least portray a fairly convincing image of loyalty to why people are voting you in, whatever that is.
Biden, at least, is a nice fellow. Even if you don't happen to agree with him, he's a hard man to hate. He seems very genuine, and to be earnestly trying to help. That counts for a fair bit, IMO. The dems could do much worse than to grab him.