Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Options
1340341343345346694

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,406 ✭✭✭✭everlast75




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    She was, of course, elected senator in California prior to becoming President. And twice elected state Attorney General. You knew that, right? How many votes do you think she got in those election?

    As for generally liked, hmm... is that how politicians get elected? With regard to her election as Vice President, the US did vote for those separately a long, long time ago and realized it doesn't work. But, anyone voting Biden knew they were voting for Harris as VP and Biden won in a landslide.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Look at her approval ratings and the way she appears to have been perceived. She doesn't seem to be popular and she seems to have been kept back from the limelight a surprising amount for somebody that's got say a 1/5 chance of becoming president by default*.

    I am not a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren for example but she would have been a better choice.


    *It would be interesting to see an proper insurance industry style analysis of the odds of Biden finishing out his term.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,969 ✭✭✭Christy42


    This was already called by Trump as to be the most extremist left ticket in history in spite of being a largely center right ticket really. Putting someone actually left wing on the ballot would have caused that accusation to snowball. As for Biden finishing his term I figure Trump managed it and Biden seems to be in far greater shape than Trump was at the start of his term.


    It is also not president by default. She was voted in as essentially the back up President in January. Certainly Biden was the headline but she was part of that election and also got those votes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭maik3n


    It is also not president by default. She was voted in as essentially the back up President in January. Certainly Biden was the headline but she was part of that election and also got those votes.

    +1

    81 million Americans voted for Joe Biden...... plus Kamala Harris so one could certainly argue she was duly elected too.

    It's a m00t point anywho as I don't think there's any real fear of Biden not finishing out his first term. The only slim risk that I can envisage would come from MAGAheads or QANON loopers.

    Also, while certain people have a problem with Kamala, I don't think there is the visceral hatred towards her as compared with AOC, Ilhan Omar etc.

    I would say it's more a feeling of indifference towards Kamala. 😊



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    I don't get why there isn't a real risk of him not seeing out term, I am not saying it's the most likely thing but at his age.

    1-some risk of sudden mortality. Looked at a table there and it's 4.6 percent though maybe misreading that

    2-some risk of serious physical illness- if you've a risk of death above it wouldn't be surprising if it's over 10%

    3- some risk of serious cognitive decline/dementia


    That's why I don't think a 1/5 chance is partisan and may be generous. Keeping in mind that's per year and has 3 more years left.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Those statistics don't take into account that he is the US president. He therefore has access to much better healthcare than the average American etc.

    The average age of death of a US president since the last assassination (Kennedy) is 3 years greater than the current life expectancy of a US citizen (and is 8 years greater if you don't include Johnson), and the life expectancy of the current US president is therefore even larger than that (since life expectancy has increased by almost 10 years since Kennedy and it doesn't take into account that e.g. Carter is still alive).

    Quoting statistics about the average US person is of little significance. If you are truly interested in calculating the risk of death, physical/cognitive impairment etc. for Biden, it might be better to find such statistics only for people who have access to excellent healthcare etc., e.g. wealthy people.

    Edit: In fact, if my quick maths is right, all of the presidents of the past 50 years are either still alive or lived to be older than Biden will be at the end of his four year term.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    On top of that, he's a pretty physically active president. Would suspect health wise, he's fitter than Trump has been for years....



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    I don't think anyone is questioning his physical fitness... The US electorate aren't expecting him to carry in the shopping for them



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,220 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    81 million Americans voted for Joe Biden or the huge majority if them did. Thru should care about who is their running mate but they don't even think about it.

    Kamala Harris is not liked by a lot of people.

    I don't know why you felt the need to respond to that post and put up a token defense of her.

    It's unlikely she'll end up as POTUS during this term so it's just a fantasy thought that the poster had and it's not important. It only becomes an issue if something happens to Biden.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Also physical fitness isn't actually that important in terms of cardiac issues which its normally assumed to be very important.

    I am actually being generous, the US president is one of the most demanding jobs in the world (with the proviso that one is actually in charge: but that's a separate discussion).

    The table I am drawing on is 2019 data for the risk at that point.

    Over the 4 years of Bidens Presidency if he is the same as a normal male American there is 17.5 chance he will leave office in a coffin.

    Say he is roughly half as likely as the average American to die, which is pretty generous. He's got great medical care but also he is old and has already survived the early deaths statistics. So that's 8.7% . Now it's pretty safe to say that if you have a 9% of dying then there is a higher chance of suffering a illness that would prevent one carrying out one of th toughest jobs in the world but let's say it's the same. So back to 17.5%.

    That leaves us 2.5% to make up. If a 78-82 year old over four years only has a 2.5% chance of developing dementia or suffering a mental decline is very generous, figure is going to be way higher.


    Basically saying there is a 1/5 chance of Biden leaving office early due to illness/ cognitive stuff or death is very generous.

    Presuming he steps down when unable to carry out the job, if willing to be ran by others it's a different conversation.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Over the 4 years of Bidens Presidency if he is the same as a normal male American there is 17.5 chance he will leave office in a coffin.

    Where are you getting 17.5% from? Are you using conditional probability correctly?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    On top of this, it can only be fair to make the argument that a solid % of the vote was not for Biden but more a vote for not-Trump.

    Harris has been given a lot of flak in the past for sentencing a lot of black people in her legal days and then leveraging her race as someone who black voters should support.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon



    1-(0.953)^4 is right isn't it? 4.7 being chance of death per year.

    Damn just realized should have used 4.6% but in fairness figure actually is higher each year so 4.7% is still generous.

    https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html


    Anyway as I said it's still most likely he sees out term however Kamela is a problem and even 28% of democrats don't want Biden to run for a second term. So I think a different vice president would have been better.


    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/580857-at-28-percent-approval-say-goodbye-to-kamala-harris-being-plan-b-to-an



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    1-(0.953)^4 is right isn't it? 4.7 being chance of death per year.

    Damn just realized should have used 4.6% but in fairness figure actually is higher each year so 4.7% is still generous.

    https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

    No, that's not how conditional probability works. Use your own logic on the data in your own link for ages 94-97 and then explain how there are hundreds of thousands of people alive over the age of 97 in America.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,847 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Even if you don’t like joe Biden why would you be wondering will he die within the next three years ? US Presidents have tended to live longer in recent years. Jimmy carter is still going strong in his mid nineties, George HW Bush lived until he was in his nineties. Obama will likely live a long life. Bill Clinton(75 atm) has has health issues including recently but I can see him living to a good age. Ronald Reagan even with his Health issues lived until he was 93, as did Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon died at 81 but that was because of a stroke. And trump is the same age as Clinton is. The era is US Presidents dying in office outside of assassination is a thing of the past.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,406 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Ronny Jackson said Trump would outlive us all, so by that metric....



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,847 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Oh well if he’s said that then we can all relax.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Because the population is what 300 million ish and the figure is the there is something like a 75% chance of people dying between those ages.

    I am pretty bad at stats though so could you show the working for where I am going wrong? Or what the figure you would arise at is.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Where are you getting 75%? When I said 94-97, I meant check the years 94, 95, 96 and 97 (not the years in between 94 and 97). If you use your logic of simply adding up those four death probabilities, you'll see that there shouldn't be anyone alive over the age of 97. And yet about 0.1% of the population are above 97, which is not a negligible number at all.

    I am pretty bad at stats though so could you show the working for where I am going wrong? Or what the figure you would arise at is.

    Sure, but you can actually find the answer to your question correctly by using just two numbers in the "number of lives" column instead. Have a think and give it a shot.

    Your answer isn't horribly wrong, but it is wrong.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    I am not adding up the chance of death, I am using this formula.

    I know the answer isn't completely correct as I am not factoring in the increased risk each year.

    What's your working to show that in a 4 year period between 78-82 there isn't a 17.5% (or slightly higher) chance the person will die.

    Basically my point stands, Biden leaving his end of term isn't the most likely event but it's not hugely unlikely either.

    "In all calculations, we will assume independence. That may not be reasonable in the case of forest fires.

    Suppose that the probability of a fire in the course of a month is 0.05

    0.05, that is, 5%

    5%, which is very high for any individual structure.

    Then the probability of no fire in the month is 0.95

    0.95.

    The probability of no fire for 12

    12 months in a row is then (0.95)

    12

    (0.95)12.

    It follows that the probability of at least one fire in a year is 1−(0.95)

    12

    1−(0.95)12.

    This is about 0.45964

    https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/490859/calculating-probabilities-over-longer-period-of-time



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I just left my computer so I can't write proper equations etc. right now, but the example you are using is not applicable here.

    The link you have gives the probability that you will live to 80 given that you have lived to 79, the probability you will live to 81 given that you have lived to 80 etc. and you want to instead find the probability that you will live to 82 given that you have lived to 79 (or ages similar to that). The way to do that is not using the method above.

    Like I said, you are not horribly wrong, and if I remember what I calculated while on my computer, the actual answer is about 16%. Where we differ, however, is in our opinion of how much excellent healthcare versus average healthcare matters.

    If you were to tell me that someone aged 79 is five times less likely to die in the next few years (i.e. about 3%) if they receive the best healthcare in the world compared to the average healthcare of an American, I would believe that. However, I don't believe you are of that opinion, so we will just have to agree to disagree methinks.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 9,133 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    Biden supported trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed by both houses. Somewhat bi-partisan as promised by Biden. 30 Republicans voted in favor.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,220 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    He's been making gaffes for years. That means absolutely nothing. He made a bunch of gaffes in the Democratic debates but then was on point in the Presidential debates.

    He's working long hours and doing a good job which is the important thing. A few gaffes mean nothing at all, tiredness I'm sure plays a big part in them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    Plenty of similar videos of Trump, as you know. Not getting into this again, it's been done to death and you're clearly just trolling.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    You mean presidential debate. The reason you think he's quietly doing his job is because they are purposely keeping him out of the light of the media for obvious reasons. He lashed out at journalists on more than one occasion.

    Trump faced the media on a daily basis and answered questions fairly. You may have not liked the answers but he was properly held to account at the very least.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    That was a phone typo which we've all done. None of you have a chance of finding a video of Trump gaffes at the magnitude of Biden as in the video above. (You should watch the entire thing too, it's hilarious!)



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,969 ✭✭✭Christy42


    "They're rapists.", "Grab them by the pussy." unless you feel he meant them as is which I would agree is more likely.


    It should also be pointed out he claimed covfefe was not a typo.


    Marker on the map to try and claim his gaffe was legitimate.


    Needing to have the basic function of the EU explained to him.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Good video today by Russell Brand on Biden's $650 million arms sales to Saudi Arabia.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭SupplyandDemandZone




Advertisement