aurum

That's exactly where you have it backwards. Bernie did not have enough general appeal to even win a primary. That's really the correct interpretation. If you make the election even more general and extend it outside of a primary, he would have done even worse. Really consider how radical of a candidate Bernie was for most people. Think about how polarizing he was, and how strongly people reacted against him. Think about how much genuine change he represented and the threat he was to the established ways of doing things. And not "Trump" change, which is really just about faux appealing to SD Blue values, but actual higher values. Then think about Biden and Hilary, both of whom were more established, mainstream, status quo politicians. Who weren't going to push for as much change and who seem like more safe, traditional politicians. THAT is why they beat Bernie. I didn't say "only". I said they had the most mainstream appeal. Which is true. The reality is that even without a two-party system, only one person can win the presidency. And Bernie would have still lost. In a three-way election between Trump, Hilary and Bernie, Bernie comes in last.

Hilary was more electable than Bernie. Yes that's exactly right. And what is the proof? It's the fact that she beat Bernie. No theoretical polling matters when we have the actual results of actual elections. Again, the fact that primary voters are a small fraction of the voting base works AGAINST Bernie. Because the more voters you include, the more mainstream appeal you need. Hilary and Biden both had more mainstream appeal. So they won. The end.

Just because you win over some independents in polling does not mean you will win a general. Look, I like Bernie a lot. In many ways I like him better than Biden. But you have to be realistic about electibility. If Bernie was the more electable candidate, he would have won. Period. Everything else is cope.

That works against Bernie. Because Bernie was more of a niche, radical politician for people in the US. The more general and more people you include, the less of a shot Bernie had.

And that's a great example of how polling can be misleading. Bernie couldn't even secure the democratic nomination, let alone beat Trump. For all the progressives that were upset about Bernie losing, in retrospect I think we need to consider the fact that Joe Biden actually had the better shot of beating Trump. So if you don't like Trump, you should in a sense be happy about Biden's victory. Because otherwise you'd have another 4 years of Trump.

Actually I'd rather we'd debate this. If you think Biden is going to get blown out, then I have to assume you also think it would be a good idea to replace him. This is a serious discussion that needs to be had. It's not something to just shrug off as a difference of opinion.

Bernie is a SD Green progressive, which is unappealing to most people in the US. If he seems like such an obvious choice to you, that's because you are also likely around SD Green.

Interpret the polling how you want. I don’t think a blowout is going to happen.

This is an exaggeration. That's what we've got to work to prevent. Hence why I'm writing what I'm writing. Some of that is probably inevitable. It's more a matter of whether it's enough to actually make a difference. If you are so sure Trump will win and that Biden can't, then please present your superior, alternative solution. Otherwise there is no point going on about this. Just campaign for Biden the best you can and let it go.

Don't turn this into an attack on democrats. Biden's admin was highly successful for the past four years.

Like who? There is no one more popular.

These debates don't matter much in the end. If he dies in office, then Kamala will be president. That's a far superior outcome than Trump winning. I don't like Biden's age either. But this is where we are at. Whether or not it's insulting is irrelvant. Politics is highly pragmatic. It's like you are stepping onto a battlefield. Gavin Newsom is an interesting alternative but I've not seen any indication he will be running. Nor do I have a sense that doing so would even be feasible given our time constraints. Nor do I believe he would necessarily be more popular. So unless somehow that all changes, calls for Biden to step down are just hot air that divide party unity. Some people are doing just that. Right now things are focused on the debate, but people will move on. Speculation. We don't know that.

It won't. His only chance is if Biden dies before the election or drops out. But neither of those things seem likely. In addition, I'm assuming the Dems would just run someone else. In which case he'd still be out.

And that's exactly what will happen again. Which is why he has a very reasonable chance. If you think Biden is suddenly going to get blown out, that shows you don't really understand how presidential elections work. You can't get sucked into the hysteria of these kind of smaller media events. They come and they go. What is going to happen is that all the blue states will still go to Biden. And all the red states will still go to Trump. Then we have the purple swing states, like Arizona, Ohio etc. It will be very close in these states, with predictions being difficult to make either way. So overall it's tight, with Trump certainly being able to win. But Biden can certainly win as well. Don't forget that Biden is the incumbent who did a good job during his term. Polling is interesting but it misses a lot.

That changes nothing in terms of the point I was making.

Absolutely not. Biden has a perfectly reasonable chance of winning. That was true before this debate, and it's still true now. It's very hard to blow your chances that badly, especially when you are the incumbent. You are also not appreciating what kind of campaign it takes to get someone elected president. There won't just be some "issues". It's a complete fantasy. If you have concerns about Biden, that needed to be addressed months or even years ago. The time for these kind of conversations is over.

You have a lot of concurrent issues, so working with someone with a broad scope / skills would probably be a good idea. What have you tried?

Incorrect. You did not evolve to have over 600, energy-costly muscles in your body just for bone-density purposes. Bone-density is one important reason, yes. But there's more to it than that.

That's a bit misleading. You absolutely can suffer from muscle atrophy, especially after an injury or a period of bed rest. Inadequate protein / caloric intake can also be a contributing factor, along with metabolic issues. Many people are suffering from being "skinny-fat" right now, where they have low muscle mass and high fat, which can contribute to conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular issues. Body composition matters. We can also mention all the various genetic muscular dystrophy conditions, such as FSHD. Then there's age-related sarcopenia, which is one of the top conditions we are concerned about for people getting older. With loss of muscle comes a downward spiral of decrease in bone-density, creating a perfect storm for seniors to take a fall. Losing muscle is very possible and not optimal. And you can use resistance training to improve this. It's well-proven. That I agree with. There certainly is a lot of ego, vanity and general immaturity that goes on in gym culture.

What about Santa Claus?

Good breakdown. We are 5 MONTHS from November. No new candidate is being selected. It’s Biden or Trump at this point, so take your pick.

And what is your alternative solution?

That is a very small percentage of why real victims are not believed. Most of it comes from victim-blaming and societal norms around assault. If you believe what you wrote, then you’d probably benefit from reading some history specifically on this question. It’s not a “girl who cried wolf” situation. Just punch exactly what you said above in ChatGPT and see what it says.

Stay the course people. I agree it didn't look great for Joe. But calls for him to step down are absurd. He is still the best option at this point.

I am attempting to help show you a different way of thinking about this. Which obviously didn't translate. Generalized anxiety about being falsely accused of something is real. I've experienced it before. So I empathize with that perspective. If that happens, something that can be helpful is to realize that you are still in control of your behavior. You can be a person of integrity in your relationships. You can be someone that people trust. You can learn to navigate emotionally charged social situations with greater ease. This empowers a person, rather than making you feel like they could be accused of something at any moment and that there's nothing they can do about it. Also, if someone doesn't want to be accused of something, just don't do that thing. I've never been accused of tax fraud because I've never committed tax fraud. Works very well. In addition, I've already pointed out we have legal ramifications for false accusations (defamation laws, lying under oath, burden of proof etc). And there are also non-legal, informal ramifications for false accusations in the form of social shaming, stigma etc. So it's not as if these things go unchecked. I don't know what the scientific research on this question says, but I've certainly heard many anecdotes of women hesitating to report genuine cases of assault for this very reason. Of course a false accusation is still possible. And that obviously is problematic if it happens. I do not support such behavior. But the fear around this issue needs to be kept in perspective. Ask yourself: what is the bigger danger in society right now? Is it women making false accusations about men? Or is it women not being believed and listened to in cases of genuine assault?