Neither Biden nor anyone else should promise the impossible to get elected.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2019, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

As Biden himself has said:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/from-30-rock-to-capitol-hill-on-al-franken-giant-of-the-senate/#!

Joe Biden met with Franken in the West Wing and explained the key to his 40 years of success: “Never promise anything you can’t deliver. Never. Promise. Anything. You can’t deliver.”

And yet Biden has promised that if he gets elected, a cure for cancer will be found.

There are many, many different forms of cancer and research takes time. He could honestly say he'd insist that much more money be devoted to cancer research than is currently the case -- but he cannot promise that cancer will be cured.

Why isn't it simply enough to say he'd remove the cancer from the Presidency? That alone would satisfy me.

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-apos-ll-cancer-132454520.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

"A lot of you understand what loss is and when loss occurs, you know that people come up to you and tell you 'I understand' if you lose a husband, a wife, a son, a daughter, a family member," he said. "That's why I've worked so hard in my career to make sure that — I promise you if I'm elected president, you're going to see the single most important thing that changes America, we're gonna cure cancer."

[emulatorloo]

1. I would love it if you would write a few positive threads about the candidates you like

A positive thread would be really useful to DU undecideds.

[treestar]

75. umpteenth anti-Biden thread

Yes, I want to hear why each candidate should win, not why others should not. If that's all a candidate's supporter has, they need to re-think things.

[emulatorloo]

93. Yeah, i'm not interested in seeing articles that feed talking points to the Trump Campaign and Putin

[democratisphere]

2. Can't promise anything until Mitch McConnell and the entire

Freedom Caucus are removed from the Senate.

[pnwmom]

3. No one can ever promise that huge scientific advancements

can be achieved in a specific period of time.

[treestar]

79. Was JFK wrong to promise we would land on the moon in 10 years?

[pnwmom]

81. I don't know the technology involved in that decision. But I do know we're not at the point,

with 100 kinds of cancer with multiple causes, that we can promise to have a cure in 4 years (or even 8 years). The outcome of biological research experiments can't be predetermined.

https://www.livescience.com/65717-biden-cancer-cure.html

There are more than 100 kinds of cancer, according to the National Institutes of Health. Each of those cancers has a different cause, from viruses to radiation. Each demands its own treatment. Developing individual treatments for each variety of cancer — from screening tools to therapies — is a piecemeal process. "It's two steps forward, one step back," Attai said.

So when Biden promises to cure cancer, he's talking about curing not just one, but many diseases. Some of those diseases, we may realistically never be able to cure. After all, cancer is characterized by cells that "take on a life of their own," she added. These cells can mutate, change and evade the drugs scientists develop.

So a single cure for all cancers? That's not going to happen, Attai said.

Even a single, incredibly effective cancer drug takes much more than a presidential term to develop. Before they become available to patients, treatments must go through years of animal testing and clinical trials. The whole process can take years, often longer than a single presidential term, Attai said.

[BootinUp]

4. I think the fact he worked in this area for Obama

I would cut him some slack. I’m sure he was told it was possible.

[pnwmom]

6. No ethical medical researcher would have told him it was possible.

There are more than 100 kinds of cancer with many different causes.

Between the early 70's and 2010, $200 billion had been spent on cancer research without yielding a cure. So strides could be made under a Biden administration, but it isn't honest to promise that a cure could be found in 4 years.

https://www.livescience.com/11041-10-deadliest-cancers-cure.html

While there are many successful treatments today that didn't exist just a couple decades ago, a wholesale "cure for cancer" remains elusive for many reasons. There are more than 100 types of cancer, characterized by abnormal cell growth. There are many different causes, ranging from radiation to chemicals to viruses; an individual has varying degrees of control over exposure to cancer-causing agents.

Cancer cells, and how they grow, remain unpredictable and in some cases mysterious. Even after seemingly effective treatments, crafty cancer cells are able to hide out in some patients and resurface.

About $200 billion has been spent on cancer research since the early 1970s, and the five-year survival rate for all people diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. has risen from about 50 percent in the 1970s to 65 percent today.

[pangaia]

23. A lot of money is made in treating cancer.

[betsuni]

9. I think you're right.

Al Franken's recollection of his first meeting as Senator with Biden:

"'I've been in this town for forty years,' he said. 'And let me tell you how you succeed in this town -- how I got here.' He leaned toward me to bring home the import of what he was about to say.
'Never promise anything you can't deliver. Never. Promise. Anything. You can't deliver.'
I nodded. I understood. I wasn't going to do that. I. Wasn't. Going. To do that."

[pnwmom]

11. And yet he is promising something he can't deliver.

He could deliver on a promise to support a massive new push on cancer research.

But he cannot promise a cure if he's President.

[LibFarmer]

5. I know a lot about cancer and all cancers are one disease

It is a disease of the immune system which stops reacting to the cancer and ceases to kill cancerous cells.

A lot of cancers are already curable with immunotherapy and in 4 years, a lot more would be curable.

So ... stop the Biden bashing. He had a son who died of cancer and his passion is genuine.

Your passion is only to pull Biden down so a candidate of your choice (whom you have hidden under the undecided mark) will win.

Biden has a lot more credibility on this issue than a hundred OPs on DU.

[pnwmom]

7. His passion is real but his promise is not. No one can promise

that cancer -- which has many causes -- can be cured in 4 years.


https://www.livescience.com/11041-10-deadliest-cancers-cure.html

While there are many successful treatments today that didn't exist just a couple decades ago, a wholesale "cure for cancer" remains elusive for many reasons. There are more than 100 types of cancer, characterized by abnormal cell growth. There are many different causes, ranging from radiation to chemicals to viruses; an individual has varying degrees of control over exposure to cancer-causing agents.

Cancer cells, and how they grow, remain unpredictable and in some cases mysterious. Even after seemingly effective treatments, crafty cancer cells are able to hide out in some patients and resurface.

About $200 billion has been spent on cancer research since the early 1970s, and the five-year survival rate for all people diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. has risen from about 50 percent in the 1970s to 65 percent today.

[LibFarmer]

39. Leave it to people who know very little about something

to speak authoritatively about it on DU based upon what they learn on the internet.

Anti-vaxxers do the same thing.

[pnwmom]

40. We spent $200 billion on it from the early 70's to 2010 without finding a cure.

We made progress. We learned there are more than 100 kinds of cancer and they are caused by multiple things. We learned about some genetic mutations that make some people more susceptible.

But we aren't in the position to cure all 100 kinds in four years. It's just offering people false hope.

[LibFarmer]

45. Biden must have top medical experts as advisors

You can ask them.

From 70's to 2000, most of the research was on radiation, chemo and surgery.

Cancer immunology is a different animal and pays big dividends.

An average drug takes $400 million to go from an idea to a commercial product and only one out of 10 make it through Phase III trials

So $200 billion is chump change. Top notch scientists, laboratories and jumping through regulatory requirements is not cheap..

[pnwmom]

65. You'd think if any medical expert thought so, s/he'd be shouting it from the rooftops,

trying to get the funds to complete the cure in four years.

NO MEDICAL RESEARCHER SAYS SO.

If you think otherwise, then please provide a link.

Just a single serious, reputable researcher who believes this would prove me wrong.

[WA-03 Democrat]

82. How do you know?

What makes you an expert? Is this your opinion or a fact? Is the notion of forward progress that hard to embrace?

Biden will beat Trump and Cure Cancer!

Let’s kill two birds with one Biden!

Go Joe Go!

[pnwmom]

83. Prove me wrong. Show me a single cancer expert who thinks they can cure 100+ forms of cancer

in four years and you'll prove me wrong.

But you can't because real researchers don't over-promise.


https://www.livescience.com/65717-biden-cancer-cure.html

There are more than 100 kinds of cancer, according to the National Institutes of Health. Each of those cancers has a different cause, from viruses to radiation. Each demands its own treatment. Developing individual treatments for each variety of cancer — from screening tools to therapies — is a piecemeal process. "It's two steps forward, one step back," Attai said.

So when Biden promises to cure cancer, he's talking about curing not just one, but many diseases. Some of those diseases, we may realistically never be able to cure. After all, cancer is characterized by cells that "take on a life of their own," she added. These cells can mutate, change and evade the drugs scientists develop.

So a single cure for all cancers? That's not going to happen, Attai said.

Even a single, incredibly effective cancer drug takes much more than a presidential term to develop. Before they become available to patients, treatments must go through years of animal testing and clinical trials. The whole process can take years, often longer than a single presidential term, Attai said.

[leftofcool]

14. I have cancer and it will not be cured in 4 years

Cancer is a money making business for doctors, therapists, scientists, and the pharmaceutical industry, not to mention radiologists, nurses, and nuclear physicists. And if you think cancer is a disease of the immune system, I need to know where you got your medical degree. I don't give one shit about Biden or Biden bashing, just don't believe anyone who tells you cancer will be cured in 4 years.

[pangaia]

25. "Cancer is a money making business for doctors,.. "

THAT is the "money quote!"
Sad, but true.

Think of how much profit will go down the tubes with a 'cure' for cancer.

I had large difuse B-cell lymphoma.. so far doing well for... 7 years, so far.

Hope you have the same success....

[treestar]

76. I'm not sure; I think they do make more money on prevention

They could make money on the cure. I don't think they are that cynical.

They have made a ton on fear of cancer, but it is tough to argue they are wrong - if caught early it is more likely to be beat. Thus the mammograms and the pap tests and now the colonoscopies. They make plenty on those as they can convince everyone to do it, not just people suffering from symptoms.

The more people are convinced it is curable, the easier it is to sell them on all these "catch it early" tests.

[pangaia]

84. Perhaps read, "The China Study."

And then follow the leads. One place they will lead to is Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, NY.

[LibFarmer]

36. Here you go

Cyrillic was developed and formalized by early disciples of Cyril and Methodius.

Paul Ehrich postulated in 1907 that cancer was one disease in different organs. It wasn't until the 1970's that cancer immunology took root. At the moment, most of the cancer research is centered on cancer immunotherapies.

I sympathize with your cancer and it may not be cured in 4 years but the research is moving at a very rapid pace. Keep hope alive!

[pnwmom]

41. But why couldn't Biden have just announced a very ambitious program for cancer research?

Anyone who understands science knows you can't force a desired result, much less force it in a limited time.

[LibFarmer]

43. I suggest you send an email to his campaign and ask

instead of maligning him every chance you get.

[ecstatic]

18. Interesting. Thanks for sharing. nt

[emmaverybo]

28. Excellent response. nt

[emmaverybo]

64. If we had early diagnostic tests for all cancers, many would be curable or managed as chronic diseas

with the current grueling treatments we now have. And for some, discovered early enough, the treatment would not have to be as brutal as when found later.
We are getting closer to understanding the underlying mechanism for auto-immune disorders, how the inflammatory reaction works and how that could be mediated.
Yes, the immunological system is a key, and as you say, cancers are being treated with immunotherapy now. Successfully.
With more research, methods could be developed to make more immunotherapy treatments less labor intensive and expensive to develop for use in vast numbers of patients.

[Hoyt]

8. We know he can't totally cure cancer, but I like the attempt.

[pnwmom]

10. Why doesn't he say something ambitious about how much he'd devote to cancer research,

in money or resources? Why not announce a new, heavily funded research program?

[leftofcool]

15. I have cancer and I don't like fucking false promises

How do you think the families feel with children who have cancer when they hear those type of promises.

[Hoyt]

16. Hopeful. Just like my family.

Take care.

[leftofcool]

20. Thank you, love. Working on it

[emmaverybo]

31. In my lifetime I have seen childhood leukemia go from incurable to curable or managed for many, many

And so with Hodgkin lymphoma, long remissions now possible, Ewing’s sarcoma...some very aggressive breast cancers which the young women themselves did not think they would survive or
Were should return, and 40 years later...still here, no return.
May you have hope.

[emmaverybo]

67. My friend's son received a hopeless diagnosis. He had Ewing's sarcoma, inoperable because in his

pelvis. At that time, a very close friend of mine was a pathologist. He told me they didn’t have even five year’s remissions with children with Ewing’s. When they could amputate, the disease came back rapidly, aggressively.
My friend enrolled her son in an experimental program at a major research hospital. A doctor there had developed a combination therapy, a cocktail of very harsh drugs that was ready to be used with larger numbers of patients.
She said at the time that the parents of the Ewing’s kids she had met at the hospital would love to
have had a leukemia diagnosis because that outlook now was so much better.
I thought back to when I first heard my creative writing professor’s daughter had leukemia; diagnosed as a toddler, she was kept alive only through the most cruel experimental treatments. She had died of it as at that time there wasn’t anything thought of as a cure that worked for very many, for very long.
All that, news from only about ten years earlier, had changed.
But not for Ewing’s, not yet.
Through the experimental program though, her son’s cancer was put in remission for some years. It became the launching of a new protocol and though not a cure-all, changed the prognosis from
hopeless to possibly survivable. He died of something else. Edward Kennedy’s son who had an arm amputated is still alive.
If I had a kid with cancer, I’d be voting for Biden for his intense interest in cancer alone. And I would not be quibbling over his way of presenting his enthusiasm and urgency.
There is so much in development now and so much more possible through greater research investment.
If I had a kid with cancer, I’d want Biden by my side and hope? I’d take it. I grew up near a world wide known research hospital. I have seen my parent’s friends experience “miracles.”
It’s a matter of time. Good for Biden to believe the time is now.

[FloridaBlues]

12. That's very true that goes for all candidates with plans

Isn't many of warrens plans wrapped around the ultra rich taxes to pay for her plans? We will actually see if this ever happens. Just being a realist. No offense to candidates

[Celerity]

17. Whilst it will be hella hard, even if we take back the Senate (I think there is going to be a lot

of unhappy people when it comes to getting a lot of the centrists in both the House and the Senate on board with many of the grander plans) a wealth tax or other policy goals are certainly within the realm of possibility.

It just takes enough votes. Curing cancer is NOT something that can be voted upon and thus it happens with 100% or near 100% certainty. We could spend 1 TRILLION USD or more per year, and even whilst that would obviously increase the chances, it still is no guarantee at all.

[FloridaBlues]

19. Agree

[Celerity]

21. +1

[pnwmom]

34. No, it's not the same. Having a plan for legislation to spend X dollars on cancer research

is NOT the same as promising to cure cancer.

[customerserviceguy]

104. Exactly

Any wealth tax would require a constitutional amendment, just like the income tax required the 16th Amendment. I don't think this country could unite long enough to ever pass an amendment with the large supermajorities required by the Constitution.

Curing cancer looks doable by comparison.

[thesquanderer]

13. Yeah, I posted pretty much the same thing...

at https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287149859

and was surprised at the disagreement.

[peggysue2]

22. Sorry, just don't understand the need to take an aspirational message and turn it . . .

into something bad or unworthy of a candidate. You don't like Biden fine. There are plenty of candidates to choose from. But this sort of attack is petty and lame.

We've all been touched by cancer if not directly then indirectly. It's a horrible disease that can go in a hundred different directions. It's part of who we are, stitched into our DNA along with our ability to reproduce and self-heal with minor injuries or infections. Along with the mutations, cancer has no brakes the way other replicating systems have. We've all seen the results in patients. Heartbreaking is an understatement. Joe Biden lost a son to cancer so, of course, he's passionate about the subject. He used the term 'cure' which most doctors are loathe to do. Physicians speak about early diagnosis and treatment to turn cancer into a chronic condition that can be treated over one's life. That would be a major breakthrough and would extend countless lives.

Joe Biden isn't a cancer specialist. He's a grieving father.

My sister-in-law is dealing with stage 4 pancreatic cancer right now. I seriously doubt she would have a problem with a presidential candidate speaking to the issue, promising his dedication to bringing an end to the suffering that cancer patients know all too well. I'm sure she'd cut the man some slack. As I do. If Joe Biden wants to continue his Moon Shot approach to cancer research, I'm all for it. If he wants to talk about a 'cure', that's okay too. Because I know and so do you that this isn't a ploy for votes. It's a father speaking out, a decent man who knows what loss is all about.

This sort of attack is downright ugly. Stop it!

[BootinUp]

24. I guess we should expect more of the same. Nt

[peggysue2]

26. I guess

But frankly, this sort of thing sickens me.

[pnwmom]

37. Imagine how people with cancer feel. n/t

[peggysue2]

48. People with cancer . . .

hang onto hope. Which is natural because as sick as people get they want to live until they simply can't do it anymore. Joe Biden has been there. He watched a beloved son wither away and die way too young. His desire to fight to alleviate that kind of suffering is a good thing, not the exploitive, opportunistic ploy you're attempting to characterize. Anyone who has lost a child or come close to it recognizes that grief. You never get over it. But sometimes you can take that loss and turn it into something constructive, as in helping others. We'd be a whole lot better off if we had more people willing to do that.

[pnwmom]

50. Most of us have been there, including me. But I'm not comforted by empty promises.

I'd rather he explain the research program he will back than make a promise he can't deliver on.

[peggysue2]

54. You can parse his words down to the nitty gritty

The man lost a beloved son to a disease that has no cure and causes unspeakable suffering. He wants to do something good from that loss, dedicate himself in finding a cure, a path, treatments that work. That's admirable, not exploitative.

And if it gives some patients hope? Then I say: Good one on Joe.

[still_one]

53. Isn't that great, going after someone who recently lost his son to cancer, because they cannot

separate political animosity of a candidate from someone's fervent wishes, hopes, and desires

[peggysue2]

55. I don't get it, still one

I really don't.

[still_one]

59. I am so sorry what you are going through with your sister-in-law Peggy. Take care

[peggysue2]

63. Thanks, still one

Rough journey for sure. My sister-in-law's fighting like hell. Hopefully, this new protocol will be successful. We shall see.

[blue neen]

30. Well said.

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

32. He himself said candidates shouldn't promise what they can't deliver.

Joe Biden met with Franken in the West Wing and explained the key to his 40 years of success: “Never promise anything you can’t deliver. Never. Promise. Anything. You can’t deliver.”

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/from-30-rock-to-capitol-hill-on-al-franken-giant-of-the-senate/#!

[yardwork]

72. That was before Trump. Things have changed.

[pnwmom]

73. So Trump has become the standard for Democrats? No way. n/t

[yardwork]

92. No way am I going to just watch while Democrats blow another election.

[emmaverybo]

35. THIS Secular prayers for your sister-in-law and your whole family.

[peggysue2]

51. Thanks, emaaverybo

She's had a rough time of it. Fighting as best she can but the prognosis is pretty grim. Right now, she's enrolled in an experimental program at one of the big cancer centers. So, we shall see and hope for the best.

[emmaverybo]

52. Good. Hope is good. A clinical trial saved a close friend's son and became the protocol.

[hughee99]

38. The difference between an "aspirational message"

And an political promise that can’t be kept depends on whether I like the candidate or not. I don’t understand why people don’t get that.

[peggysue2]

57. I think that's probably true

Applies to polls as well

[Cha]

44. Thank You for that, Peggysue..

I wish the very best for your sister-in-law.. that's a tough one.

[peggysue2]

58. Thanks, Cha

It was something of a shock. We buried my mother-in-law two years ago and now this. You never know what's coming around the corner!

[emulatorloo]

49. Great post. It is an inspirational and aspirational message.

Am Thinking about your sister-in-law. I too have a family member who is struggling with Cancer. Best wishes to her.

[peggysue2]

61. Thank you, emulatorloo

Sadly, cancer is one of those common denominators most families share. Awful disease.

[ucrdem]

60. +1 brazilion

[peggysue2]

66. Thanks, ucrdem

[cpamomfromtexas]

103. Perhaps he has heard of Joe Tippens

www.mycancerstory.rocks

[peggysue2]

107. That is some story!

I'm amazed that reportedly this canine treatment has, in fact, been under the radar all along. Fascinating.

[Doreen]

27. When people accused Obama of breaking his promises

they were wrong. He NEVER promised he would. He DID promise he would TRY. He knew making promises is just unrealistic.

[George II]

29. "Neither Biden nor anyone else should promise the impossible to get elected"....

Why single out Biden first, wouldn't it be more judicious to just say "No one should promise the impossible to get elected"?

[pnwmom]

33. Because I haven't seen anyone else make a promise quite like this.

It's one thing to say "My administration will spend a trillion dollars on cancer research."

It's quite another to say, "We will cure cancer."

[left-of-center2012]

42. Another "hate on Joe" thread

The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da

[emulatorloo]

47. +1. OP is a great poster. I would love to see a positive thread about a candidate she likes

[redstateblues]

56. Another day on MSNBC, another day bashing Joe

[still_one]

46. Let's go Joe!!!

[ucrdem]

62. Hadn't heard this but it's possible he knows something we don't.

Stay tuned.

[pnwmom]

85. I remember when a candidate had a "secret" plan for ending the Vietnam war.

And we know how well that worked out.

Scientists don't keep their work secret. If we were close to the point -- within the next five years or so -- where more than 100 forms of cancer could be cured, we'd know it.

Why can't Biden just promise to push for a major cancer research program, or a doubling of funds for cancer research -- something he could potentially, as a politician, actually deliver on?

[Kentonio]

68. I love the ambition, and also a president setting a huge goal like this.

It inspires people and devotes the required resources. That said I don’t like the way he phrased it, it’s almost certainly not possible in just 4 years and it sounds like an impossible promise rather than the inspirational goal it should be. I’m still glad he’s aiming for it though, and if he wins I hope he gets all the backing possible from Congress.

[Demsrule86]

69. Better address this to Elizabeth Warren and all the rest who continue to promise things that will

not happen...still at it I see.

[pnwmom]

74. She is presenting plans on legislation she supports. She hasn't promised a cancer cure. n/t

[emmaverybo]

87. She has proposed policies that can not be achieved in 2020 period, and which, even if Dems take

the Senate, might never be realized in full, certainly not within eight years. Taxing the rich sounds easy until you consider what it will take just to roll back the huge Republican give away.

I like Warren. I like her big dreams. Right now, they are just that: a chicken in every pot. With Warren, almost every day a new chicken.

[pnwmom]

89. Biden can propose big plans for expanding cancer research. I'd love to hear him do that.

But promising a cure is making an impossible promise.

[emmaverybo]

105. You double down, but did not respond to Warren's proposals--Medicare4All;

universal childcare; free college tuition and fees; erasing college loan debt for 95% of Americans; affordable housing; a $50 billion fund for Black college students; a $100 billion plan for the opioid crisis; debt relief to Puerto Rico; breaking up big AG and Tech; an ultra-millionaire tax and taxing corporate profits.

She will also bring down the maternal mortality rate, protect public lands, get rid of the electoral college, improve military housing and rescue the planet from the ravages of climate change.

I imagine she would present a comprehensive immigration plan, defeat terrorism domestic and international, keep us out of future wars, reform the criminal justice system, restore our alliances abroad...for starters.

Is this all in the first or second term?

I wish she would mention challenges in implementing all these plans, that none are possible with
a Republican Senate majority, how she will deal with political and public resistance, or that there might not be enough hours in the day to accomplish all these ambitions.

I would support her plans, as I am sure you would support finding a cure for cancer. But I think given the number and sheer breadth of her proposals, as well as the astronomical costs, we might find a cure for cancer before Warren’s wonderful but extremely ambitious plans are realized.

I wish she would state that she’d like these proposals to be enacted, but not stake her entire candidacy on them. I wish she would acknowledge that zero of these policy proposals will see the senate floor in the first part, perhaps the whole of her first term. I would also like her to give a better fiscal accounting and one that figures in the possibility that the taxes she depends on for paying for them might never materialize as we first try just to roll back the huge Republican tax giveaway we are currently saddled with.

[pnwmom]

108. Those plans are all dependent on politics, and she's a politician.

It's fine for Biden, another politician, to put out plans dependent on politics.

It's another thing for Biden, the politician, to suggest that biological experiments can be forced into an election timetable.

[emmaverybo]

110. Tripling down. What is your problem with Biden that instead of using your obvious intelligence,

powers of persuasion, and time to support a candidate you prefer, you persist in calling out Biden for things that on a global basis are really not all that worthy of your effort? They seem more quibbles than substantive criticisms.

[pnwmom]

111. I thought that you could distinguish between the fields of biology and politics.

Please forgive my mistake.

[emmaverybo]

113. I stand with what I said. It would be politics and science.

[TCJ70]

70. He also believes Donald Trump is the sole thing wrong with republicans...

...suggesting that once he’s gone there will be an epiphany.

[yardwork]

71. I disagree. Telling the truth is why Hillary lost.

Apparently, most Americans will vote only for candidates who make big, bold, vague promises.

In order to win in 2020 our candidate have to make big, broad, vague promises. They need to be aimed at young people. Erase college debt. Guarantee living wages. Healthcare coverage for all.

[Turbineguy]

77. It works for trump.

[pnwmom]

78. So we're supposed to be Trump now? n/t

[Turbineguy]

80. The reason it works for trump

is that his voters are gullible rubes.

[BlueTsunami2018]

86. Why not? Look at all that Тяцмр promised.

He got a ton of people to vote for him by promising ridiculous things that could never happen. The campaign is where you do that stuff. Say whatever you have to say to win and do what you can after you do.

Why we hold ourselves to these strict standards is beyond me. Republicans never care about any of the things we wring our hands over. They just go for the win.

[pnwmom]

88. Because it leads to even more people losing faith in the system. Right now, the Democrats

still have some integrity, and they still trust SCIENCE. Trump shouldn't become the new standard.

[BlueTsunami2018]

90. But it isn't just him, it's the GOP in general.

They were like this long before he came along. All they care about is winning. It’s worked for them quite well over the past forty years or so. Just win.

[Politicub]

91. Biden's certainty has an aura of magical thinking.

And the idea that he is uniquely suited to take on Trump is mere soothsaying. He has lost his bid for president twice.

Warren or Harris have the grit, tenacity and smarts to tear Trump to pieces. And, they also have innovative ideas and personal stories to get people excited and engaged.

[loyalsister]

94. How about first addressing the disparities

Even with the ACA, not all treatment options, or preventative measures are available to everyone.

I would rather hear assurances that medical care and living with cancer would be more accessible and accepted. More available detection, treatments, interventions AND people who live with cancer and the risk of reoccurrence will be welcome and encouraged to have a quality of life they would like.
There are more practical possibilities for making cancer more tolerable.
Medicare for all, or at least major improvements to the ACA
Full legalization of marijuana.
A trust fund for cancer survivors.
and obviously investments in research.

[pnwmom]

97. Yes those are all good points. n/t

[Blue_true]

95. The country has a history of moonshot policy.

Even in business it is common to set very big goals. The concept is that if one doesn't reach the goal, there is still plenty gained.

[pnwmom]

96. We started the War on Cancer in the early 70's. And since then,

we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and we've learned there are more than 100 different types of cancer without varying causes. And we've made some big strides on some of them.

I applaud anyone who will say they want to greatly increase cancer research. But anyone who says promises a cure for 100 types of cancer in a handful of years is making a promise that won't be kept.

[Blue_true]

112. I see your point. But what politician don't make gigantic promises? nt

[Skid Rogue]

98. Most voters...

will hear this promise as a passionate vow by a grieving father. Most cancer survivors, or folks with people who suffer from cancer in their family, will hear this simply as a commitment to find a cure.

It's a win, win promise.

And maybe, just maybe, it takes that kind of commitment by a president to actually make a difference. My Pop just died of bladder cancer in January, so I hear those words as hopeful, not some ill thought out promise by some politician that doesn't care.

[loyalsister]

99. And I remember a friend who died sooner than necessary

Because she didn't have access to early prevention and treatment. Her only option was experimental treatment because she was not approved for social security and Medicare until after it had metastasized. And after she had spent over a year suffering terribly.
Let's talk first about quality of life for those who are living with and/or dying of cancer.
Not everyone has access to health care, supportive families, employment opportunities after remission, or even housing when they go through the process of dying or live with the potential return.
A focus on a cure erases people from the population of people who live with and die from it.
I would be more impressed with a promise to direct resources to a trust fund that would be automatically available upon diagnosis along with a healthcare plan that would cover any and all available treatments. All would be available without question for the rest of the person's life.

[Skid Rogue]

100. Yes, you're correct...

we fall short in so many ways that could make a real difference in people's lives. However, this post wasn't about health care. It was about outlandish promises.

My only point was, this isn't going to hurt Biden, or cause him to appear to be trading unreasonable campaign promises for votes. Making a commitment to cure cancer will only be seen as a negative to those who already oppose Biden. I mean, honestly, how can any sane person really argue that finding a cure for cancer would be a negative event. Given Biden's personal history, it simply makes him appear human, a passionate father with a universal cause. That's a win, win. And who knows, maybe he'll do some good.

[loyalsister]

102. My point was it's a promise to the priviledged

to the exclusion of millions of people who suffer riding out the real daily life of the experience. I'd prefer to see a candidate promote equity before massive investments in an unrealistic goal.

[Skid Rogue]

106. Oh, I don't know, loyalsister. *sigh*

As an equality loving Democratic I would never argue with your point. I support it, but to be honest, given the history of this nation, I suspect we'll see a cure for cancer before we see true equity in our healthcare system. Isn't that sad?

I can always hope for both.

Anyway, Biden feels as he feels, and in the long run I believe it will help his candidacy. We'll know more in a year from now.

[loyalsister]

109. As an equity seeking Democrat

I'm not talking about winning or losing votes I'm talking about who seems to matter most to him.
With the kind of poverty and economic disparities we have I would like to have a candidate who will prioritize investments in improving daily lives of all citizens with awareness of the needs of many rather than focusing on the few who can afford the newest and best healthcare available.

[RelativelyJones]

101. You are killing your credibility with these threads. NT

[pnwmom]

115. A candidate can kill his credibility with unfulfillable promises. n/t