Wise decision, good for him.
Business Insider:
Obama, who has remained active in politics since departing office more than two years ago, has offered Biden more than he has to the rest of the Democratic field, as the 19 other candidates are all vying for attention, support, and anything to boost their campaigns.
I suppose he had to say something in support of his Vice President â and I think what he said was fine. The season is just beginning. There is plenty of time to say more.
And while there are many things I genuinely like and admire about Obama, his personal recommendation means very little to me where I have access to lots of information and can make my own judgement. (I also donât buy cars just because some sports figure or actor recommends them, and that is a far less consequential decision.)
Sports figure : advice about cars :: Obama : advice about politics?
Celebrity for selling any idea that should be sold on its own merits. When those merits exist, those are what you should use. The more celebrity is relied on, the more I am suspicious that the merits are lacking.
One might also wonder if Obama is recommending Biden for Vice President again.
I agree, but surely youâd agree that some people are better placed than others to give advice on a particular topic.
Whereas I would say that political endorsements are only part of the picture. As you noted, nowadays we have access to lots of other information.
They are, but I always want the full substance of that advice to evaluate on my own. If I only get the Barr summary, I am suspicious.
As a computer programmer, I am regularly involved in the discussion of problems and potential solutions. Often, these discussions hinge on appropriately defining the problem in the first place. Over the years, I have worked with many very intelligent people, and I have established a very good track record for being a key problem solver. I cannot tell you how often a discussion has devolved into a comparison of perceived status and not the issue at hand. That is almost always an error.
In particular, I remember several discussions with two self-appointed ârivalsâ that almost always resorted to âyou think you are smarter than me donât you?â My reply was that the question raised was almost always the wrong one. More intelligent people can be wrong, and less intelligent people can be right. I want the best idea, and I donât much care who proposes it. (There can be biases and other issues that are related to the person and his or her own perverse incentives, but that is a different matter.) I want to evaluate the idea proposed, and as much about that idea as I can get. It is either the right decision or the wrong one based on its own merits or demerits. (If we are forced to deal purely with hunches, without any more substantive information, that is a different matter.)
Seems legit. When youâre at the track just place a bet on the horse thatâs in the lead in the final turn. Works more often than not.
Which places you in the minority of voters. Sad. It shouldnât be so.
Snoop Dogg has an excellent explanation of the inverted yield curve on his website.
And explains many of our political woes.
Heck, Iâd be happy with 5-6 of the candidates, Iâd be okay with probably ten more or so and the remainders Iâd vastly prefer to Trump. I have my preferences, but Iâll get behind whoever catches on and can beat Trump.
The opinions of those who are experts in a particular field should be part of that evaluation. President Obama is certainly more expert in the field of politics and knows more about the intricacies of many of the issues that affect our country than you do. You may end up disagreeing with him, but to dismiss his opinions about who or who may not be the best candidate, so out-of-hand (âcelebrity endorsementâ, indeed) , suggests a certain Dunning-Kruger mindset.
Betcha you are not alone in that view. Iâd go so far as to say â Rank all the Dem candidates and any Republican challengers, ahead of donald â and put donald in the very last position for the job. (Except maybe for Penceâ wonder if he would be worse than donald, because Pence lies more smoothly and doesnât appear as idiotic and knows more about goâvt.
Maybe Pence actually would be worse than donald.
Iâd say it more suggests someone who believes that an informed electorate should make their own decisionsâbut they must be an informed electorate to do so. Endorsements hinge on the idea that someone else can make up your mind better than you can. Theyâre great for âhey, give this guy a lookâ, but ultimately, if itâs already an issue Iâm looking at⌠I shouldnât need an influence-peddler to sway my decision.
To depict the political opinions of someone like President Obama as an âinfluence peddlerâ is distinctly bizarre and suggests inherent problems in oneâs claim to be âinformedâ.
What Obama did seems typical of much of his presidency, where he would start with a bold initiative then slow down and veer away from the original goal. Given the obstinacy of his opposition, it would have been difficult to be bold and stay bold. But this endorsement thing is different because he has so much star power among Democrats. His endorsement of anyone of the candidates at this time could result in fractures worse than the Bernie/Hillary conflict⌠There comes a time when the big dogs need to show up, but not this early. June/July 2020. perhaps? (Just some thoughts as I read the interesting comments here.)
Obama doesnât want to get his hands dirty by making an actual endorsement. That would be taking a stand.