[awm]

These sorts of questions assume Republican talking points, such as the current economy being really good or raising taxes being bad no matter what happens to total costs or benefits. They are the political equivalent of “when did you stop beating your wife?”

You don’t just answer questions like these — you have to push back at the false premise of the question. This is what the candidates are doing by pointing out that while the Dow has been doing well, the economy is not great for a lot of people. The right argument isn’t “you should vote for me even though Trump has been great for the economy” — it’s “Trump’s economy may work well for rich folks but I’ll make sure the economy works for people like you.”

[johnu]

 kenberg, on 2019-December-23, 16:52, said:

The JW question was a very good question, it gave JB and others a chance to address a class of voters who might well be the deciding element. They flubbed it. Not good. They needed an answer that would interest the voters that JW was speaking of.. They gave an answer that appealed to you. A missed chance.

It was a loaded question without bothering to look back at recent history.

As far as the stock market goes,

Dow Jones Averages
Yes, the Dow has gone up substantially since President Impeached took office. If you look at historical records, the current average pretty much matches the trajectory of averages since 2009 when Obama was president. So, what has President Impeached done better than Obama who turned the country around from a severe recession? And as others have pointed out, most people either don't own stock or own so little that it doesn't make much difference to their financial health.

As far as unemployment goes,

U.S. National Unemployment Rate

Yes, unemployment rates have gone down since President Impeached took office. Of course, based on the numbers, 95% of the potential workforce was already employed by the time of the 2017 inaugural, and many of the new jobs are either part time, or minimum wage type jobs. Again, looking at the numbers, the Bush recession caused unemployment to spike at 10% in October 2009, and sharply declined throughout the end of the Obama presidency. You can look at the trends and see the pattern that current rates are declining along the same path as declining rates of unemployment during the Obama years. Making a small change to a baseball analogy, President Impeached inherited an economy that was already on 3rd base and rounding for home, and he is now trotting around the bases claiming he hit a home run.

Framing the question as look how great the economy has done under President Impeached is a highly biased question since he has consistently taken credit for claiming an economic turnaround when all he has done is continue the trends of the past 8 years under Obama. I acknowledge that the economy could have tanked in 2017 and it didn't, but the latest trade war has damaged the country's economy and the effects may not be seen for months or years, and there are signs the US economy is already slowing. You can bet your house that President Impeached will be blaming somebody else if the economy becomes a problem in 2020.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2019-December-23, 17:04, said:

These sorts of questions assume Republican talking points, such as the current economy being really good or raising taxes being bad no matter what happens to total costs or benefits. They are the political equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?"

You don't just answer questions like these — you have to push back at the false premise of the question. This is what the candidates are doing by pointing out that while the Dow has been doing well, the economy is not great for a lot of people. The right argument isn't "you should vote for me even though Trump has been great for the economy" — it's "Trump's economy may work well for rich folks but I'll make sure the economy works for people like you."

The question was what would JB say to voters who did not like Trump and did like the economy. This question assumes that there are people who don't like Trump but do like the economy. It assumes nothing else. I believe that there are such people, many such people. I would guess that many of those people don't give a hoot about the Dow. They are not saying "Oh great, the Dow is up", but they might well be happy that things are going well for them with their employment. People of modest means, people who have no investment at all in stocks, but still their life is going decently. It is those people that the question had in mind. Some of them voted for Trump, I can guarantee you that from direct knowledge, and some did not. The question provided an opportunity to address the concerns of such people and to suggest reasons to vote D. Or more specifically for Biden since the question was addressed to him.

Biden chose instead to deny that such people exist or at least he chose to ignore their existence. He spoke instead of people who have seen great economic adversity. Of course many people have seen great adversity. It is fair to speak of people who have seen great adversity but the question was not "What would you say to people who have suffered great adversity?", The question was "What would you say to people who don't much care for Trump but like the economy?". Surely "like the economy" can be understood as "like the way the economy has worked for them in the last few years".

For the people I have in mind, and I think these are the people the question referred to, good economy means they have a job, it pays decently, they expect to have a job next month and next year. It means that they can, if they live with caution, pay their bills. And maybe save a bit. Maybe take the kids to the beach (next summer) for a week or so. The hell with the Dow, it simply is not part of their lives.

The Dems once received large shares of the votes of these folks. If they are at all interested in why that is less true today, they might want to consider the JB answer to the JW question. Or they can decide that such people don't exist or are not worth addressing, and the question was akin to one about wife beating. And then they can lose the election and say how unfair it all is.

[kenberg]

Waking this morning, I decided to ask a question of my own addressed to whomever chooses to respond. Do you think the Dems are doing a good job preparing for next year's presidential election? I don't think that they are, the little matter above is just one instance of this, and I am seriously worried.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2019-December-24, 07:28, said:

Waking this morning, I decided to ask a question of my own addressed to whomever chooses to respond. Do you think the Dems are doing a good job preparing for next year's presidential election? I don't think that they are, the little matter above is just one instance of this, and I am seriously worried.

I think the biggest challenge to the Democrats is the same as it was in 2016 - that Trump gets millions of dollars in free promotion from the media who repeat his every utterance.

Media does not have to quote. It is enough to say, "the president denied this" instead of quoting the "witch hunt, hoax" and giving it an echo chamber.

If there are enough voters willing to put Trump in office for a second term, then nothing the Dems do will matter. There will be nothing worth saving anyway.

NYT:

Quote

By Mike Baker
Dec. 23, 2019

SPOKANE, Wash. — Matt Shea was 34 years old when he ran for the State Legislature in eastern Washington, but he had already established credentials that made him a promising Republican candidate.

A lawyer trained at Gonzaga University who had served a tour in Iraq with Washington’s Army National Guard, Mr. Shea pitched voters in 2008 on a platform of limiting taxes and punishing criminals, opposing same-sex marriage and supporting gun rights. He went on to win with nearly 60 percent of the vote, then moved up the ranks in the Legislature, reaching the powerful position of chair of his party’s caucus in 2017.

But back in his home district, Mr. Shea also began attracting the attention of law enforcement for his growing embrace of fringe ideologies and conspiracy theories. He networked with local militia groups, talked about plans to create a 51st state called Liberty and distributed to his closest followers a “Biblical Basis for War” document that calls for the “surrender” of those who favor abortion rights, same-sex marriage, “idolatry” and communism. “If they do not yield — kill all males,” it said.

Last week, a report commissioned by the State Legislature asserted that Mr. Shea had engaged in domestic terrorism in his support of the armed takeover of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by militant ranchers and their supporters in 2016 — part of a protest over federal ownership of public lands in the West.

As far as I know, there is no equal to these kinds of movements in the Democratic party.
That this was a lawyer who was elected makes it more chilling. We cannot defeat zealots with reasonable arguments - and the zealotry is what has captured the Republican party.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2019-December-24, 08:12, said:

I think the biggest challenge to the Democrats is the same as it was in 2016 - that Trump gets millions of dollars in free promotion from the media who repeat his every utterance.

Media does not have to quote. It is enough to say, "the president denied this" instead of quoting the "witch hunt, hoax" and giving it an echo chamber.

If there are enough voters willing to put Trump in office for a second term, then nothing the Dems do will matter. There will be nothing worth saving anyway.

This is where the problem lies. I could re-phrase tis as "Gee, there is nothing that we can do". II think there are things that can be done, answering Judy Woodruff's question would be one small part, and I think they had better start doing it.

Pete Buttigieg is leading in Iowa. Becky is thinking she might vote or him, so am I.
Think a bit about this. A guy in hos thirties who is the mayor of a small town is a leading candidate. I would hope we could say "You have a real future in politics, maybe in 2032 or so you could be the presidential;candidate."


Many people are still undecided. This means what? It means, roughly, that they are uncomfortable with a thirty-something mayor of a small town being a leading candidate.


What we have is people explaining why Judy Woodruff's queation was just so unfair, really a trap, etc etc. I hope they re-think this. If that question was too tough for them, we have a problem.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2019-December-23, 21:03, said:

The question was what would JB say to voters who did not like Trump and did like the economy. This question assumes that there are people who don't like Trump but do like the economy. It assumes nothing else. I believe that there are such people, many such people. I would guess that many of those people don't give a hoot about the Dow. They are not saying "Oh great, the Dow is up", but they might well be happy that things are going well for them with their employment. People of modest means, people who have no investment at all in stocks, but still their life is going decently. It is those people that the question had in mind. Some of them voted for Trump, I can guarantee you that from direct knowledge, and some did not. The question provided an opportunity to address the concerns of such people and to suggest reasons to vote D. Or more specifically for Biden since the question was addressed to him.

Biden chose instead to deny that such people exist or at least he chose to ignore their existence. He spoke instead of people who have seen great economic adversity. Of course many people have seen great adversity. It is fair to speak of people who have seen great adversity but the question was not "What would you say to people who have suffered great adversity?", The question was "What would you say to people who don't much care for Trump but like the economy?". Surely "like the economy" can be understood as "like the way the economy has worked for them in the last few years".

For the people I have in mind, and I think these are the people the question referred to, good economy means they have a job, it pays decently, they expect to have a job next month and next year. It means that they can, if they live with caution, pay their bills. And maybe save a bit. Maybe take the kids to the beach (next summer) for a week or so. The hell with the Dow, it simply is not part of their lives.

The Dems once received large shares of the votes of these folks. If they are at all interested in why that is less true today, they might want to consider the JB answer to the JW question. Or they can decide that such people don't exist or are not worth addressing, and the question was akin to one about wife beating. And then they can lose the election and say how unfair it all is.

I think the problem is that there's no good way to answer this kind of question.

If you admit that they exist, how do you address them without telling them that they're idiots because they drank the Trump Kool-Aid?

The stock market is booming, but that just goes to the wealthy, it doesn't help them.

They may have a job, but in many cases it's not a good job like their parents had at the same stage in their life. Many middle-class people have to have multiple jobs to make ends meet, or they supplement their regular work with gig work like Uber. If they have part-time work, they probably don't get health insurance from it; even with the Obamacare subsidies, it's probably a big chunk of their meagre income.

Real wages for the middle class have not improved at all in recent decades, in fact they've declined. This was going on before Trump, but he hasn't done anything to fix it. But you won't hear him say that. His supporters hear about the great economy, they don't realize that they're not actually benefiting from it.

So rather than answer the question as asked, they try to reframe it.

We had similar discussions during the election: "Why do people vote against their interests?" Because most don't vote rationally, they don't analyze all the issues. They vote with their guts or emotions ("which candidate would you like to have a beer with?"). Many are single-issue voters -- if they're staunchly pro-life, they vote Republican, regardless of the candidate's other positions.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2019-December-24, 10:36, said:

I think the problem is that there's no good way to answer this kind of question.

If you admit that they exist, how do you address them without telling them that they're idiots because they drank the Trump Kool-Aid?

The stock market is booming, but that just goes to the wealthy, it doesn't help them.

They may have a job, but in many cases it's not a good job like their parents had at the same stage in their life. Many middle-class people have to have multiple jobs to make ends meet, or they supplement their regular work with gig work like Uber. If they have part-time work, they probably don't get health insurance from it; even with the Obamacare subsidies, it's probably a big chunk of their meagre income.

Real wages for the middle class have not improved at all in recent decades, in fact they've declined. This was going on before Trump, but he hasn't done anything to fix it. But you won't hear him say that. His supporters hear about the great economy, they don't realize that they're not actually benefiting from it.

So rather than answer the question as asked, they try to reframe it.

We had similar discussions during the election: "Why do people vote against their interests?" Because most don't vote rationally, they don't analyze all the issues. They vote with their guts or emotions ("which candidate would you like to have a beer with?"). Many are single-issue voters -- if they're staunchly pro-life, they vote Republican, regardless of the candidate's other positions.

I am stunned. You say "If you admit that they exist," Is there some question in your mind as to whether they exist? By "they" I mean people who, if asked about the economy, would say they like the way it has been going, and if asked what they think of trump would say that they don't like him. If you think such people do not exist, your world is very different from mine. I believe they are numerous and the question suggests that how they will eventually vote depends at least some on how their concerns are addressed. And then "how do you address them without telling them that they're idiots ". Well, I guess that's that.

Maybe this approach will work. As you can tell, I am not optimistic.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2019-December-26, 00:12
Reason for edit: fixed quote

[hrothgar]

Regretfully Ken, I need to strongly disagree...

You seem to be operating under the assumption that conservatives are, in some way, rational and that they can be reasoned with.

Look at the dramatic swings in policy positions that we've seen from conservatives over the past 20 years.

Executive power
Free trade
Russia
Whether the president's personal morality matters
Market based economies

Conservatives have no consistent policy positions. What unifies them, is that they're a bunch of idiots who have convinced themselves that they're victims.

And there is a reason for this... The conservative ecosystem is full of grifters whose real goal is selling true believe fake cancer cures, bitcoin / gold bullion, and of course the chance to donate lots of $$$ for GrifterPAC USA... In order for this to work, you need a membership who is deeply and profoundly stupid. It's more valuable / profitable for the conservatives to have a narrow but fanatical base because this isn't about winning elections, its about grifting social security checks.

I, for one, see no reason to engage with these people. I'm more than happy to wait for them to die because that's the only way that you get rid of fanatics...

Rather, what is essential is making sure that they are unable to use voter suppression and gerrymandering to lock in disproportionate voting power.

[kenberg]

Some X are rational, some X are not rational. X can be replaced by almost anything. (Not intended mathematically)

But more to the point, I am not assuming that someone who says "I like the way the economy is going but I don't like Trump" is a conservative.

If you had asked me, say when I was in my early twenties, whether I was a conservative or a liberal I am pretty sure my response would have been "Huh?". I was a graduate student, I was a husband, I was a father, but a liberal or a conservative? I had voted for JFK but I am not so sure he was a liberal. Teddy was. But Jack? Sort of, maybe. Mostly I was busy, very busy.

I voted in elections. but any political discussion had to be short and to the point.

Here is what I am getting at. I am now retired and while not rich I am not worried about finances. So I have some time, some cash on hand to keep me relaxed on that score, some experience to help me cast my vote. That's me, now. I expect that there are a lot of people out there who, politically, more closely resemble my 25 year old self than my 80 year old self. Meaning that they are not up for writing an essay on Edmund Burke, for or against. That does not mean that they will not listen to some political thought if it is kept brief and simple. And it definitely does not mean that they are irrational. They are busy. If someone wants to say a few words about why the should trust their feelings about not liking Trump and be a little cautious about their praise of the economy, they might listen. That is, assuming the lecture can be kept to ten minutes and does not begin by telling them how stupid they are. Politics has always been that way and in fact it really cannot be different. Many many people lack the time, or lack the interest, or both, for any detailed political discussion But they want to do their best, in limited time.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2019-December-24, 14:54, said:

Some X are rational, some X are not rational. X can be replaced by almost anything. (Not intended mathematically)

But more to the point, I am not assuming that someone who says "I like the way the economy is going but I don't like Trump" is a conservative.

If you had asked me, say when I was in my early twenties, whether I was a conservative or a liberal I am pretty sure my response would have been "Huh?". I was a graduate student, I was a husband, I was a father, but a liberal or a conservative? I had voted for JFK but I am not so sure he was a liberal. Teddy was. But Jack? Sort of, maybe. Mostly I was busy, very busy.

I voted in elections. but any political discussion had to be short and to the point.

Here is what I am getting at. I am now retired and while not rich I am not worried about finances. So I have some time, some cash on hand to keep me relaxed on that score, some experience to help me cast my vote. That's me, now. I expect that there are a lot of people out there who, politically, more closely resemble my 25 year old self than my 80 year old self. Meaning that they are not up for writing an essay on Edmund Burke, for or against. That does not mean that they will not listen to some political thought if it is kept brief and simple. And it definitely does not mean that they are irrational. They are busy. If someone wants to say a few words about why the should trust their feelings about not liking Trump and be a little cautious about their praise of the economy, they might listen. That is, assuming the lecture can be kept to ten minutes and does not begin by telling them how stupid they are. Politics has always been that way and in fact it really cannot be different. Many many people lack the time, or lack the interest, or both, for any detailed political discussion But they want to do their best, in limited time.

Once again, the Woodruff question is disingenuous. The economy operates outside the effects of the president - who is in charge of the Fed is more critical than the person in the White House.

The Trump voter is a zealot. No way to address them. If someone is dumb enough to vote for a criminal because they think his criminal enterprise has helped the economy, we cannot stop them.

There isn't a Bobby Kennedy in the Democratic party. The goal should be chosing someone who will beat Trump. That should be just about anybody, but 2016 shows their are at least 63 million idiots who vote in presidential elections.

The really said realization is that the president will probably be determined by Twitter and Facebook. Woodruff is a sideshow and not significant.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2019-December-24, 18:09, said:

Once again, the Woodruff question is disingenuous. The economy operates outside the effects of the president - who is in charge of the Fed is more critical than the person in the White House.

The Trump voter is a zealot. No way to address them. If someone is dumb enough to vote for a criminal because they think his criminal enterprise has helped the economy, we cannot stop them.

There isn't a Bobby Kennedy in the Democratic party. The goal should be chosing someone who will beat Trump. That should be just about anybody, but 2016 shows their are at least 63 million idiots who vote in presidential elections.

The really said realization is that the president will probably be determined by Twitter and Facebook. Woodruff is a sideshow and not significant.

Biden, if he agrees with this view, could have said exactly that in response to the question:

Hypothetical:

JW : What would you say to voters who may not like everything President Trump does but they really like this economy?

JB : I would tell them that the economy operates outside the effects of the president - who is in charge of the Fed is more critical than the person in the White House.


If that is what he believes, he could have said it.


At least this answer would have addressed the question.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2019-December-24, 20:19, said:

Biden, if he agrees with this view, could have said exactly that in response to the question:

Hypothetical:

JW : What would you say to voters who may not like everything President Trump does but they really like this economy?

JB : I would tell them that the economy operates outside the effects of the president - who is in charge of the Fed is more critical than the person in the White House.


If that is what he believes, he could have said it.


At least this answer would have addressed the question.

Ken, how would this have actually mattered?

Do you honestly believe that that Trump voters are going to be moved by anything that Biden says?
Trump's base lives inside the Fox News bubble and what they hear bears no relationship to reality.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2019-December-25, 06:42, said:

Ken, how would this have actually mattered?

Do you honestly believe that that Trump voters are going to be moved by anything that Biden says?
Trump's base lives inside the Fox News bubble and what they hear bears no relationship to reality.

I think my criticism of Biden's answer, and criticism from others of Woodruff's question, has largely run its course. But I will answer this and then go back to a broader statement.

I did not think JW's question referred to Trump voters. I thought the phrasing clearly suggested voters who were thinking "Well, I like this [the economy] and I don't like that [Trump himself]" and were trying to decide which aspect of this they should go with. And yes, even for those who think they know for certain that they will vote for Trump no matter what, or people who know that they will not vote for Trump no matter what, I have at times seen people change their minds. Further, there are people who often don't vote at all. I can imagine people who would not vote for Trump but who find the eventual Dem nominee, whomever it might be, someone that they cannot vote for so they either don't vote or write in Donald Duck. So I think that yes, it matters how a question is answered. If it doesn't matter, that is really a bad place we have arrived at.


The more general comment: I am getting very worried about how the Dem selection process is going. When things are not going well, it is tempting to blame the incompetence of the press or the stupidity of the public or some such. But what can a person change? A person can change what he or she himself does, how they respond. I think the Dems need to get busy on that. If they really want to blame Judy Woodruff I think they are looking in the wrong place. I would place a heavy bet on JW not being a trump supporter and I don't think of her who asks trick questions. But even if I am wrong about that, and I don't think I am wrong, the candidates and the party leaders still need to look to themselves to see how they can do better. This applies to far more than the JW question.


To go back to something I said earlier. I will probably vote for Pete Buttigieg in the primary. But the thought that a 37 year old mayor of a small town is the best candidate they have really bothers me. The Constitution says he has to be at least 35 and he is, but still.


Ok, it's Christmas morning and I feel like The Grinch. But I am uneasy about how this is going.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2019-December-24, 20:19, said:

Biden, if he agrees with this view, could have said exactly that in response to the question:

Hypothetical:

JW : What would you say to voters who may not like everything President Trump does but they really like this economy?

JB : I would tell them that the economy operates outside the effects of the president - who is in charge of the Fed is more critical than the person in the White House.


If that is what he believes, he could have said it.


At least this answer would have addressed the question.

Although I agree with your concerns, I do not think who is running is as critical as you seem to think. If the U.S. doesn't remove this president simply because he has no business being in power then I really don't see much future for this country as a representative republic.

It is Christmas morning, and I have CNN on in the background and it brings up a real concern of mine - the interviewer keeps asking questions that give a leg to right-wing talking points, as if their points were legitimate.

Example: the interviewer asked a Congresswoman - after describing impeachment of sucking all the air out of the House - if they could do their jobs while in the process of impeachment.

This is straight from the Republican playbook on deflection. The House continues to pass bills that now sit in the Senate and McConnell refuses to bring any to the floor. The way the question is framed makes it seem the House is at fault if it can't legislate because of impeachment. The issue is the Senate's refusal to act as a co-equal branch of government rather than a shill for Trump.

Our present media is awful - they present truth and lies as equals in order to appear as fair and serious journalists.

And, yes, Judy Woodruff's question is also an example of thumbing through People magazine to find a "serious" question about the economy.

[y66]

From Zach Montague at NYT:

Quote

WASHINGTON — Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressed unease in an interview broadcast on Tuesday with the Senate majority leader’s vow of “total coordination” with the White House on impeachment proceedings against President Trump, a potentially significant crack in Republican unity.

Ms. Murkowski, a moderate with an independent streak, told Anchorage’s NBC affiliate KTUU she opposed “being hand in glove with the defense” and voiced other concerns as the Senate prepares to hold a trial over the two articles of impeachment that the House approved earlier this month.

Ms. Murkowski’s views could prove important. She rarely speaks publicly against Republican leadership, but when she does, she tends to stick with her positions, as when she opposed the confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and helped torpedo a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. She also tends to bring Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a fellow moderate Republican with her, and only a handful of defections would force the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to switch course on the upcoming impeachment trial.

In the interview, Ms. Murkowski said she was “disturbed” by comments by Mr. McConnell that indicated he intends to work in concert with the White House counsel in planning the impeachment trial.

“In fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed,” Ms. Murkowski said. “To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.”

Ms. Murkowski said she felt that House Democrats had made a mistake in forging ahead with impeachment so quickly without potentially valuable testimony from top White House officials such as the former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, and Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff.

[y66]

 Winstonm, on 2019-December-25, 08:37, said:

Our present media is awful - they present truth and lies as equals in order to appear as fair and serious journalists.

And, yes, Judy Woodruff's question is also an example of thumbing through People magazine to find a "serious" question about the economy.

It was a good question. Dems should have been prepared to answer it more credibly than they were last Thursday.

[johnu]

 y66, on 2019-December-25, 17:07, said:

It was a good question. Dems should have been prepared to answer it more credibly than they were last Thursday.

It was a loaded question without a black and white answer, but I agree that the participants should have had a prepared answer since it is a question that has come up before. The good news is that most of the viewers were probably other Democrats and lean left Independents who are never going to vote for President Impeached, so they have a lot of time to come up with a clear and concise answer that can sway the general electorate.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2019-December-25, 17:07, said:

It was a good question. Dems should have been prepared to answer it more credibly than they were last Thursday.

I can't accept you think this:

Quote

Judy Woodruff: My question to you, Mr. Vice President, is what is your argument to the voter watching this debate tonight who may not like everything President Trump does but they really like this economy and they don't know why they should make a change.

was a good question. Adam pointed out in his comment (#14501) that this question is the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?". I

It is a stupid question because it is framed by a ludicrous position that implies a causation between a president and the economy, thus promoting the present economy as due to Trump and implying that to change is to risk this so-so 2.2% GPP that is equal to what the last years of economy produced under Obama - who had little-to-nothing to do with that growth, either.

It was a lazy question based on GOP talking points - Woodruff may as well have simply asked, "How do you counter this GOP talking point that Trump is responsible for the economy?", because that is all she did with that question. It is disingenuous because once she stole in from the GOP talking points, she did not credit them but rather claimed it as her own question. Nothing is nore important today than rigorous and forthright journalists doing their jobs.

It is disheartening to me to hear journalistic tripe of that sort excused as "good".

And although I'm not a Biden supporter, I do accept that when a reporter asks a crappy question he or she should expect a crappy answer. We, the public, should not accept that level of question, though, unless we simply want to hear a load of crap.

[Zelandakh]

I had intended to remove myself from events here but I am genuinely quite shocked by the answers and that it is worth one more post at least. Do you guys really think this? As Ken pointed out, this was not a question like "The economy is doing great right now, how do you convince voters that thjey will be better off with you as President?" or the like, which would indeed be as described. Instead, this question seems to me to have been absurdly easy not only to answer but also to get positive reactions from.

Instead it highlights some of the major issues in American politics now. This was the "economy" question and therefore Biden gave his prepared economy answer. The fact that it was prepared for a slightly different question was irrelevant to him. It is essentially why JB so often comes across as staid in debates, because he is simply incapable of adapting to the slightest deviation from what he has prepared. Some of the candidates are better at this but none have the presentation skills of Clinton or Blair, nor even Obama. The problem was not the question here.

So what was the easy way of diffusing the question? For Biden I would suggest a simple "I'd tell them to wake up!" opening, then after the applause dies down glide effortlessly into his prepared answer about how the economy is not really working for them. Simple, effective and giving a one-liner that will play well on cable without being too controversial so as to risk his lead. I think if Adam, Barry and Winston actually thought about how they themselves would answer the question rather than reacting to Biden's shortcomings, they might well post differently on the subject.

Anyway, I hope Dems find a good candidate before the election. Personally I am yet to be convinced by any of them. I do suggest Booker as running mate to whoever wins though - he is easy-going, well liked (for a politician) and will help bring out the minority vote, which is going to be critical to any Dem win. The very quality that makes him difficult to elect as President (being bland) is ideal in a VP candidate. Noone better in the field for that position as far as I can see. For a presidential candidate though - someone seriously needs to step up in the next few months and be more than the 2-dimensional image each of them is currently giving out.