SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, Governor Newsom has pointedly declined to endorse Biden and appears to be sucking up to Trump:

https://politico.com/states/california/ ... en-1277317

OAKLAND — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday sidestepped an opportunity to join a growing mass of Democrats who have endorsed their presumptive presidential standard-bearer, Joe Biden.

Like most elected officials in California, Newsom endorsed Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) before she dropped out of the running. While many of those officials have since thrown their support to Biden, paralleling a broader consolidation behind the likely nominee after Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) departure from the race, Newsom has not.

Newsom has praised President Donald Trump on an almost daily basis during the coronavirus crisis, an unpredictable turn after the Democratic governor feuded for more than a year with the Republican president over topics ranging from homelessness to auto emissions.

Asked Thursday if he planned to back Biden, Newsom demurred and said he was focused on leading his state through the pandemic.

"You've just reminded me of politics," Newsom said. "Candidly, I've been so focused on Covid-19, I haven't been asked."

"I appreciate that question and I certainly look forward to—" Newsom added, moving on to a question about President Donald Trump's phone call Thursday with governors. It was not clear what Newsom was looking forward to.

Trump this week included a video clip of Newsom offering plaudits during an unusual promotional video the president played at a press briefing. California has received various forms of federal assistance in the last two months, from landing the USNS Mercy hospital ship to treat patients in Los Angeles to the surprisingly swift approval of a managed care organization tax that will generate more than $1 billion annually for the state.

I get wanting to ensure that the supply of Federal aid to your state is uninterrupted during a pandemic, but it does not bode well if Trump is able to successfully coerce or buy off Blue State governors with these tactics.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wall Street is funneling money to a conservative primary challenge of Ocasio Cortez, who was a Republican until a few years ago and supports the abolition of Medicare and Social Security:

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/15/aoc ... ll-street/

WALL STREET TITANS are financing a direct challenge to firebrand progressive lawmaker Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the New York primary on June 23.

Disclosures show that over four dozen finance industry professionals, including several prominent private equity executives and investment bankers, made early donations to Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC contributor who is challenging Ocasio-Cortez. Caruso-Cabrera was a registered Republican until a few years ago and authored a 2010 book advocating for several conservative positions, including an end to Medicare and Social Security, which she called “pyramid schemes.”

The donors include Glenn Hutchins, the billionaire co-founder of Silver Lake Partners; James Passin of Firebird Capital; Bruce Schnitzer of Wand Partners; Jeffrey Rosen of Lazard; and Bradley Seaman, managing partner of Parallel49 Equity. The chief executives of Goldman Sachs, PNC Bank, and Virtu Financial, are also among the Caruso-Cabera donors.

“I met Michelle when she was a business reporter and she is bright and understands the financial markets well,” said Doug Cifu, the chief executive of Virtu Financial, one of the donors who gave $2,800 to Caruso-Cabrera. “Her opponent,” Cifu added, “does not in my view.”

The Caruso-Cabrera campaign announced last week that it had collected nearly $1 million in fundraising over the first quarter of this year. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is funded by anonymous corporate donations and has spent tens of millions of dollars electing congressional Republicans, also said recently that it would mobilize business interests in support of Caruso-Cabrera.

In her first year in office, Ocasio-Cortez has used her perch in Congress to eviscerate leading figures on Wall Street. During congressional hearings last April, she pushed JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon over whether bankers should have been criminally prosecuted over the 2008 financial crisis.

“I wasn’t sent here to safeguard and protect profit, I was sent here to safeguard and protect people,” said Ocasio-Cortez in November during a hearing over the conduct of the private equity industry and its role in downsizing companies.

Ocasio-Cortez has served as a lightning rod in the Democratic Party, attracting criticism from more business-friendly elements of the establishment over her outspoken support for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign and her advocacy for policies such as Medicare for All.

The lurch towards that left has provoked some traditionally Republican interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to use the New York primary this summer as an opportunity to push back on the ideological shift represented by Ocasio-Cortez.

Kenneth Langone, a billionaire investor and major donor to GOP causes, donated the legal maximum to Caurso-Cabrera.

Steve Holzman, the head of the hedge fund Vantis Capital and a previous donor to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, donated to Caruso-Cabrera. Lobbyist Ron Christie, a former aide to Dick Cheney, also gave to the challenger’s campaign.

Other donors include Facundo Bacardi, an heir to the Bacardi fortune; Thaddeus Arroyo, a leading executive at AT&T; and Jeff Kwatinetz, an entertainment industry promoter who has represented Korn and Limp Bizkit in the past.

Ocasio-Cortez released her fundraising numbers, showing that she has brought in over $8 million this election cycle, with $3.5 million in cash on hand.

Caruso-Cabrera does not have a policy page outlining her beliefs or positions on her campaign website. In recent radio interviews, she has positioned herself as a stalwart of the moderate faction of the Democratic Party, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden. “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-same sex marriage, I’m very pro-immigrant, I am centrist for sure,” Caruso-Cabrera said on New York’s AM 970.

But the candidate’s beliefs are explained in detail in a book she authored in 2010 titled, “You Know I’m Right: More Prosperity, Less Government,” which included a forward by Larry Kudlow, who now serves as President Donald Trump’s director of the National Economic Council.

In the book, Caruso-Cabrera calls Medicare and Social Security “the country’s biggest pyramid schemes,” and wrote that she would end both programs in favor of a privatized voucher system. Medicare, Caruso-Cabrera wrote, “is another pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme” that should be replaced with a health savings account that gives “seniors $1,000 or $2,000 a year to start.” Social Security, she notes, should be replaced with a private account system, in which Americans are incentivized to invest in the stock market.

Caruso-Cabrera devotes an entire chapter to the many policy successes of the Reagan administration, and writes that she favors tax cuts and deregulation, including eliminating entire federal agencies such as the Labor Department.

Some of the most strident language in the book is reserved for the Obama administration’s attempts to crack down on wealthy individuals who had taken advantage of offshore tax havens. The push to force Switzerland to hand over the names of U.S. nationals using secret bank accounts to dodge taxes, she wrote, put America on a “dangerous path” that would enable foreign dictatorships to similarly seize wealth kept abroad.

“Freedom and democracy are best secured when banking secrecy and tax havens exist,” Caruso-Cabrera wrote.

Update: April 15, 2020, 8:50 p.m.
The Caruso-Cabrera campaign sent a statement following publication. “MCC has said from the very beginning she got into this race to bring jobs and opportunity back to the working people of the Bronx and Queens. When she’s elected, her office will be ‘open for business.’ Now, more than ever we need jobs,” said spokesperson Katy Delgado.

Update: April 16, 2020
This story has been updated to reflect new financial disclosures by the Caruso-Cabrera and Ocasio-Cortez campaigns.

Good news is that opposition to AOC is heavily divided, with no less than five Democrats (or "Democrats" bidding to unseat her), which might lead to her opponents splitting the vote. As long as she wins the primary she's probably safe, as it is deep blue district.

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/fe ... s-election

Democratic leftist superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has risen to national – and even global – fame from an unlikely position as a young first-time congresswoman from New York.

But now she faces 13 different challengers, including from within her own party as well as Republicans, as she prepares for her first congressional re-election campaign. News of the multiple bids to unseat AOC, however, came as a surprise to many voters on the streets of her district in the Bronx last week.

Some voters still had not heard of the progressive superstar. Others said they would weigh the merits of her rivals as the contests heat up over the summer. But most voiced support, arguing that almost two years since Ocasio-Cortez threw a grenade at the Democratic establishment by ousting incumbent Joe Crowley, her progressive agenda – touting universal healthcare and a Green New Deal – was only now taking hold in the nation’s political capital.

“Give her a chance! We knew who she was when we sent her, that she’d make a noise, and making a noise was why we sent her,” said local businessman Abdul Abbas.

“She’s done good things for the Bronx,” concurred Carol Heraldo. “I like how she presents herself as woman, that she’s firm, that she took what she believed and made it real. We don’t see a lot of young people accomplish a lot because they’re afraid – and she’s not afraid.”

We knew who she was when we sent her, that she’d make a noise, and making a noise was why we sent her
Abdul Abbas
That’s not how all see it. The first-term congresswoman is facing eight Republican and five Democratic candidates aiming to unseat her. Some appear symbolic, with little fundraising potential or appetite for collecting the necessary 4,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

At her first campaign rally on Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez said she hoped to multiply turnout by four, reaching 60,000 votes in the primary election. She declined to be drawn on the challengers that have lined up to contest her seat.

“I think everyone has a right [to run]. I of course won my seat with a primary,” she told the New York Post. “I would never begrudge anyone trying to run in a primary.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s Republican challengers certainly seem to have their work cut out for them. In 2018 she steamedrolled the Republican candidate by a margin of 78%.

With about $3.4m in her campaigns re-election coffers in a solidly Democratic district, Ocasio-Cortez’s Republican challengers probably plan on merely damaging her or securing a bigger national media profile by taking on such a famed opponent.

John Cummings, a former police officer, raised $425,000 in 10 weeks after announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination on Fox & Friends. Jamaican immigrant Scherie Murray gave her first interview to Fox News’s Sean Hannity and raised a similar amount.

But having led a campaign to prevent Amazon from establishing a headquarters in neighboring Long Island City, and established herself as a leading member of “the Squad”, the self-described group of progressive congresswomen that includes Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ocasio-Cortez is a political target.

In a district that hasn’t voted Republican in half a century, the Republican candidates are tackling a candidate who has become a lightning rod for rightwing anger nationally.

“Anything that indicates AOC is vulnerable would be godsend to people who don’t like her or are upset about the Amazon loss of 27,000 jobs in New York,” said veteran Democratic party strategist Hank Sheinkopf, warning: “Politics are unstable across the nation. Things are happening that we haven’t seen or thought about before.”

Strategically speaking, a challenge to one of the most influential voices on the American left also could affect candidates in other, more marginal races. Within New York City, more than three dozen candidates promoting progressive, generational change are taking on congressional incumbents.

In her own district, enthusiasm among supporters for Ocasio-Cortez is unwavering. The Working Families party “knows Ocasio-Cortez will beat any challengers who might arise because she’s fighting tirelessly for her district and her agenda speaks to the people of Queens and the Bronx”, the group said in a statement to the Guardian.

But the Ocasio-Cortez campaign also knows that opposition to her remains deep within the Democratic party establishment. Open warfare broke out in July when the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, took aim at her and her close colleagues in the Squad.

“All these people have is their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

In a tweeted response, Ocasio-Cortez said: “That public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment. And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.”

The progressive-moderate split could be clearly discerned, too, in the battle last year over the election of a new Queens district attorney when Tiffany Cabán, an Ocasio-Cortez-backed candidate running on a platform to reduce record levels of incarceration, initially declared victory with a margin of 1,100 votes.

But establishment-backed candidate Melinda Katz demanded a recount and ultimately pulled ahead by 55 votes after a series of court challenges over voter eligibility.

Ocasio-Cortez’s most coherent Democratic challenger to date is former longtime CNBC correspondent and anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. Caruso-Cabrera, who published a book in 2011 called You Know I’m Right: More Prosperity, Less Government, is a skeptic of big government and a proponent of free markets.

Caruso-Cabrera is a relatively recent Democratic party member who registered her candidacy last week, appear to be preparing a more serious challenge as she seeks to take on Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic primary.

“Caruso-Cabrero is as wild a card as AOC was two years ago,” said Sheinkopf. “Caruso-Cabrero is likely to lead a spirited challenge and could be very competitive.”

She certainly fancies her chances.

“I am the daughter and granddaughter of working-class Italian and Cuban immigrants,” Caruso-Cabrera said in a statement. “I am so lucky to have had such a wonderful career and I want everybody to have the opportunity that I’ve had. That’s why I’m running.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign declined to comment on the challenge. But people close to the campaign said Caruso-Cabrera could be AOC’s most potent opponent at least from the Democratic side, even though she represents a radically different vision of the party.

“It’ll be interesting if she decides to hide her libertarian-conservative ideology,” one source said. “Certain conservatives are upset that AOC beat Crowley and over Amazon so there maybe certain Koch-type figures who have had some role in recruiting her. I don’t think [Caruso-Cabrera] is going to get young Democrats from around the country to work for her, but you could see young conservative activists in the district because they all spend so much time condemning her politics or lusting after her.”

However, candidates on both sides will be looking to raise money from outside the relatively poor, racially diverse district. Ocasio-Cortez’s fame has long transcended the borders of her hardscrabble patch of the Bronx.

“AOC can raise an awful lot of money throughout the country from all sorts of people, but within the district there’s not an awful lot of money to raise,” said Sheinkopf.

Edit: Taking Caruso-Cabrero's statements at face value (which is probably giving her more credit than she deserves)... she's not a moderate. She's a libertarian. Socially liberal but wants deregulation of the economy and refers to Social Security and Medicare as "pyramid schemes".

[Knife]

More demographics. Old versus new, as well as who funds the Dems now. Biden is plugged in and Sanders is definitely not. That said, I would not mind one bit, though some of the Dem party really wants a woman so Biden/Sanders will alienate them. The Dems painted themselves into a corner with this.

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting over half the nation's population represented on the ticket, especially when a lot of women are still justifiably deeply frustrated over the fact that the first viable female candidate for the Presidency lost to a man who bragged about grabbing them by the pussy. Not to mention Joe Biden's own issues with women, to put it mildly. And the fact that female voters switching from R to D helped power the Blue Wave two years ago.

The Democrats didn't "paint themselves into a corner"- unless you think that picking a woman for VP and picking a good VP are mutually exclusive. I trust that's not your intent.

As to Sanders, and I say this as a supporter, he would have been a poor choice regardless of whether Biden picks a woman. He needs someone younger, and from a different region of the country.

No, I have no problem with a female President, but it also depends on who that female is, just like any other candidate. The Dems have painted themselves into a corner because there are 3 major factions in their party that are NOT compatible. The Black vote (mostly black women), the college educated suburbs (mostly women), and progressives. You can mix and match any two but not all 3. You should be able to, but the last 5 years have shown you cannot. Each of the 3 represent approximately 20-30% of the voters that vote Dem. While you can win a nomination with 2, it's pretty fucking hard to do a general election with missing 20-30% of your base. When the Dems crack this puzzle, elections will be way easier for them.

[The Romulan Republic]

More demographics. Old versus new, as well as who funds the Dems now. Biden is plugged in and Sanders is definitely not. That said, I would not mind one bit, though some of the Dem party really wants a woman so Biden/Sanders will alienate them. The Dems painted themselves into a corner with this.

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting over half the nation's population represented on the ticket, especially when a lot of women are still justifiably deeply frustrated over the fact that the first viable female candidate for the Presidency lost to a man who bragged about grabbing them by the pussy. Not to mention Joe Biden's own issues with women, to put it mildly. And the fact that female voters switching from R to D helped power the Blue Wave two years ago.

The Democrats didn't "paint themselves into a corner"- unless you think that picking a woman for VP and picking a good VP are mutually exclusive. I trust that's not your intent.

As to Sanders, and I say this as a supporter, he would have been a poor choice regardless of whether Biden picks a woman. He needs someone younger, and from a different region of the country.

No, I have no problem with a female President, but it also depends on who that female is, just like any other candidate. The Dems have painted themselves into a corner because there are 3 major factions in their party that are NOT compatible. The Black vote (mostly black women), the college educated suburbs (mostly women), and progressives. You can mix and match any two but not all 3. You should be able to, but the last 5 years have shown you cannot. Each of the 3 represent approximately 20-30% of the voters that vote Dem. While you can win a nomination with 2, it's pretty fucking hard to do a general election with missing 20-30% of your base. When the Dems crack this puzzle, elections will be way easier for them.

Obama managed to turn out a winning coalition. I do not see why it is impossible for Biden to do the same, or what data you have to that effect. Nor are any of those groups entirely homogenous. But I certainly don't see any compelling reason why picking a woman will automatically alienate one of those demographics, at least any more than picking a man would. No real progressive will object to a woman as long as they say the right things on policy (not counting the Bernie or Busters, who will never be satisfied- half of them would probably just say Sanders was a sell-out if he took the VP post, or else start plotting to assassinate Biden to make Bernie president). The suburban woman vote certainly won't, by and large. I'm not sure why a predominantly female black vote would object to a female nominee, though I have no data either way.

I think you also missed a fourth part of the Democratic coalition, which is the Latino vote. Its a comparably large demographic to African Americans now, and has been moving Left steadily for a while, thanks to Republicans' increasingly overt racism.

[Soontir C'boath]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I present to you Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who can speak for himself on being fit for President.


Or not.

[The Romulan Republic]

And? The alternative is four more years (or, given his ambitions and behaviours, President for Life) Donald Trump. If you think there's a third option, you're kidding yourself.

Biden could literally be in a coma and he'd be the better option.

No, I don't think Biden will be a very able President. Which means we're essentially voting for a figurehead, and his cabinet/advisors will be the ones doing most of the governing. So who he picks and who he's surrounded by is very important.

[Soontir C'boath]

Biden could literally be in a coma and he'd be the better option.

This is why Democrats lose. Always ready to eat shit on a moment's notice.

Other people unfortunately are going to see a senile man getting ripped apart by Trump and will vote accordingly.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden could literally be in a coma and he'd be the better option.

This is why Democrats lose. Always ready to eat shit on a moment's notice.

Ah, yes, I suppose you think we should refuse to support the nominee, make a protest vote, and... then what? Protest voting and helping the Republicans win in 2016 didn't get the Bernie or Busters victory in 2020. And if Trump gets his way, there won't be a free election again.

You could just as easily argue that Republicans win because they always fall in line behind their nominee, no matter how contentious the primary.

Other people unfortunately are going to see a senile man getting ripped apart by Trump and will vote accordingly.

Or they'll remember the last four years and vote accordingly.

We'll see in November.

[Soontir C'boath]

You don't get it. I am not stating how to vote. I am stating that Biden will lose to Trump. That is what should worry you, but you'll take anything to the point that you lose sight of what will happen. Take a candidate who can be in a coma? I mean really? Other people aren't going to see things that way.

You can scream at everyone to vote for Biden on this forum, and believe people think similarly to you, but as in 2016 it is simply not the case.

Y'all swallowed a turd. I just hope y'all take ownership of it instead of blaming everybody else.

[The Romulan Republic]

You don't get it. I am not stating how to vote. I am stating that Biden will lose to Trump. That is what should worry you, but you'll take anything to the point that you lose sight of what will happen. Take a candidate who can be in a coma? I mean really? Other people aren't going to see things that way.

You can scream at everyone to vote for Biden on this forum, and believe people think similarly to you, but as in 2016 it is simply not the case.

Y'all swallowed a turd. I just hope y'all take ownership of it instead of blaming everybody else.

There is no possible way to know what the result of the election will be. Anyone who can claim to predict that now is a fool, or they're lying.

There are reasons to be deeply concerned about Biden's chances (ie the usual incumbent advantage, internal party divisions, Biden's fumbling manner of speaking, the sex abuse allegations, COVID-19 suppressing campaigning and turnout, Republican rigging). There are also considerable reasons to be optimistic (Biden's relatively high polling in key swing states, faster party unification than in 2016, Trump's shit approval rating (IIRC, negative approval ratings have been a 100% accurate predictor of a Presidential incumbent's defeat since they started measuring these things), continued high Democratic turnout and voter motivation, the three-year streak of Democratic wins in previously Republican areas, and the fact that Trump's trump card, the "strong economy" is now increasingly crumbling).

Biden will win if enough people vote for him. He won't if they don't. Whether they will depends on many factors, not least of which who he picks for VP, how much he offers progressives, how effectively the Democrats focus their get out the vote efforts on key swing states, how bad the COVID-19 situation and recession get, and whether any nasty "October surprise" comes along for either candidate. Remember that if the Anthony Weiner investigation hadn't ended up unexpectedly reopening the Clinton email investigation in October, Hillary would probably be President today.

Remember that Hillary's defeat was not a forgone conclusion. She came really, really close (a few tens of thousands of votes in three states), won the popular vote handily, and that was with a much more drawn out and divisive primary, and after the email investigation was reopened at the worst possible time for her. So frankly, arguments that Clinton's defeat was always inevitable, much less that Biden's situation is synonymous and his defeat is also likewise inevitable, strike me as at best ill-overly-simplistic, and at worst disingenuous attempts to undermine Biden and justify not voting for him by claiming that his defeat is already inevitable.

Frankly, COVID-19 alone is enough of an unprecedented wild card to throw any usual election calculations into doubt.

[Knife]

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting over half the nation's population represented on the ticket, especially when a lot of women are still justifiably deeply frustrated over the fact that the first viable female candidate for the Presidency lost to a man who bragged about grabbing them by the pussy. Not to mention Joe Biden's own issues with women, to put it mildly. And the fact that female voters switching from R to D helped power the Blue Wave two years ago.

The Democrats didn't "paint themselves into a corner"- unless you think that picking a woman for VP and picking a good VP are mutually exclusive. I trust that's not your intent.

As to Sanders, and I say this as a supporter, he would have been a poor choice regardless of whether Biden picks a woman. He needs someone younger, and from a different region of the country.

No, I have no problem with a female President, but it also depends on who that female is, just like any other candidate. The Dems have painted themselves into a corner because there are 3 major factions in their party that are NOT compatible. The Black vote (mostly black women), the college educated suburbs (mostly women), and progressives. You can mix and match any two but not all 3. You should be able to, but the last 5 years have shown you cannot. Each of the 3 represent approximately 20-30% of the voters that vote Dem. While you can win a nomination with 2, it's pretty fucking hard to do a general election with missing 20-30% of your base. When the Dems crack this puzzle, elections will be way easier for them.

Obama managed to turn out a winning coalition. I do not see why it is impossible for Biden to do the same, or what data you have to that effect. Nor are any of those groups entirely homogenous. But I certainly don't see any compelling reason why picking a woman will automatically alienate one of those demographics, at least any more than picking a man would. No real progressive will object to a woman as long as they say the right things on policy (not counting the Bernie or Busters, who will never be satisfied- half of them would probably just say Sanders was a sell-out if he took the VP post, or else start plotting to assassinate Biden to make Bernie president). The suburban woman vote certainly won't, by and large. I'm not sure why a predominantly female black vote would object to a female nominee, though I have no data either way.

I think you also missed a fourth part of the Democratic coalition, which is the Latino vote. Its a comparably large demographic to African Americans now, and has been moving Left steadily for a while, thanks to Republicans' increasingly overt racism.

You've glued yourself to the 'women' bit and lost everything else. I could care less if one of the candidates are female. 20-30% do so a Biden/Sander's ticket is a failure. Again, they've painted themselves into a corner.

[Knife]

You don't get it. I am not stating how to vote. I am stating that Biden will lose to Trump. That is what should worry you, but you'll take anything to the point that you lose sight of what will happen. Take a candidate who can be in a coma? I mean really? Other people aren't going to see things that way.

You can scream at everyone to vote for Biden on this forum, and believe people think similarly to you, but as in 2016 it is simply not the case.

Y'all swallowed a turd. I just hope y'all take ownership of it instead of blaming everybody else.

There is no possible way to know what the result of the election will be. Anyone who can claim to predict that now is a fool, or they're lying.

There are reasons to be deeply concerned about Biden's chances (ie the usual incumbent advantage, internal party divisions, Biden's fumbling manner of speaking, the sex abuse allegations, COVID-19 suppressing campaigning and turnout, Republican rigging). There are also considerable reasons to be optimistic (Biden's relatively high polling in key swing states, faster party unification than in 2016, Trump's shit approval rating (IIRC, negative approval ratings have been a 100% accurate predictor of a Presidential incumbent's defeat since they started measuring these things), continued high Democratic turnout and voter motivation, the three-year streak of Democratic wins in previously Republican areas, and the fact that Trump's trump card, the "strong economy" is now increasingly crumbling).

Biden will win if enough people vote for him. He won't if they don't. Whether they will depends on many factors, not least of which who he picks for VP, how much he offers progressives, how effectively the Democrats focus their get out the vote efforts on key swing states, how bad the COVID-19 situation and recession get, and whether any nasty "October surprise" comes along for either candidate. Remember that if the Anthony Weiner investigation hadn't ended up unexpectedly reopening the Clinton email investigation in October, Hillary would probably be President today.

Remember that Hillary's defeat was not a forgone conclusion. She came really, really close (a few tens of thousands of votes in three states), won the popular vote handily, and that was with a much more drawn out and divisive primary, and after the email investigation was reopened at the worst possible time for her. So frankly, arguments that Clinton's defeat was always inevitable, much less that Biden's situation is synonymous and his defeat is also likewise inevitable, strike me as at best ill-overly-simplistic, and at worst disingenuous attempts to undermine Biden and justify not voting for him by claiming that his defeat is already inevitable.

Frankly, COVID-19 alone is enough of an unprecedented wild card to throw any usual election calculations into doubt.

You're still not grasping it. A lot of people, who will suck it up and vote Biden, are saying they can see why a lot of people will stay home/vote 3rd party. If that person votes Biden but others stay home/vote 3rd party, they're not responsible but could see the problem. They're not to blame, they sucked it up, but did see THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

[Ralin]

Clinton barely lost, yeah. And Biden is Clinton without all the good qualities. A near loss for Biden is very likely, at which point everyone who voted for him will have drunk the rape culture Kool-aid and done a great deal to destroy any credibility they collectively had to condemn the next important person who is outed as a sex pest.

This is a non-negligible concern. Remember how big of a deal it was that not every Democrat voted against Kavanaugh? We're not talking about a choice between holding our nose for Biden or Trump. We're talking about a choice between Trump and holding our nose for Biden and probably getting Trump anyway.

Or, you know. The Democratic Party could do the right thing and nominate someone else.

[The Romulan Republic]

Clinton barely lost, yeah. And Biden is Clinton without all the good qualities. A near loss for Biden is very likely, at which point everyone who voted for him will have drunk the rape culture Kool-aid and done a great deal to destroy any credibility they collectively had to condemn the next important person who is outed as a sex pest.

This is a non-negligible concern. Remember how big of a deal it was that not every Democrat voted against Kavanaugh? We're not talking about a choice between holding our nose for Biden or Trump. We're talking about a choice between Trump and holding our nose for Biden and probably getting Trump anyway.

Or, you know. The Democratic Party could do the right thing and nominate someone else.

They should, but assuming that the world doesn't turn upside down by the convention:

A) As to your repeated insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you supports rape culture (and therefore, implicitly, supports rape), I would argue that the best course of action is to support the candidate who's policies are objectively better for women and sexual assault survivors. This is a point that, to my recollection, you have never addressed. A Trump Presidency will objectively do more harm, policy-wise, to sexual assault survivors and to women in general than will a Biden Presidency.

And if Biden's the nominee, which to all appearances he will be, there is no third choice. Not a real one. It'll be him or Trump. We need to be honest about that, if we're going to talk about this at all.

B) I just put up a lengthy post explaining all the ways Biden has a real shot at winning. Which you ignored, to repeat that he can't win, as an excuse for doing everything you can to make sure he doesn't. And to me, it seems pretty disingenuous to use "he can't win" as a justification for helping to ensure that he doesn't.

This has been the Bernie or Busters' new favorite line for a while: "Biden's defeat is inevitable! That means there's no point in voting for him!" And, implicitly, no consequences for not doing so. If you're going to help Trump get a second term (or Presidency for Life, the way things have been going), then have the guts to fucking own that that's what you're doing. Don't try to pretend that the actions you espouse have no consequences by saying "its inevitable."

You're still not grasping it. A lot of people, who will suck it up and vote Biden, are saying they can see why a lot of people will stay home/vote 3rd party. If that person votes Biden but others stay home/vote 3rd party, they're not responsible but could see the problem. They're not to blame, they sucked it up, but did see THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

No, I do get that. I've said it myself, when I argued for him to adopt more progressive policies to win over more support (which, to his credit, he is doing).

The problem is that you're framing it as a choice between "pick a woman" and "pick a good VP", as though the two things are mutually incompatible and the one must come at the expense of the other.

You've glued yourself to the 'women' bit and lost everything else. I could care less if one of the candidates are female. 20-30% do so a Biden/Sander's ticket is a failure. Again, they've painted themselves into a corner.

So you don't care if its a woman- you just think that 30% of possible Biden voters are misogynist and that Biden should cater to them.

Maybe you think progressives will accept no one but Bernie? I disagree, but if so we're fucked, and in any case it has nothing to do with Biden's promise to pick a woman. You act as though this commitment to pick a woman is the sole impediment to picking Bernie as VP. It isn't. As I and others have described above, there are several excellent reasons why picking Bernie would never have been seriously on the table, not least of which the fact that it would mean forfeiting a Senate seat in a year when the Senate could easily be decided by one seat.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden does seem to be sincerely treating Sanders and his supporters with respect. Under a strict interpretation of DNC rules, Bernie would be required to forfeit a third of his delegates upon leaving the race. However, the Biden campaign is negotiating to let Bernie keep some or all of those delegates at the convention:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... usual-move

Biden campaign seeks to let Sanders keep his delegates in unusual move
© Bonnie Cash and Greg Nash
Joe Biden is allowing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to keep the delegates his presidential campaign has won thus far as the former vice president works to avoid dividing the Democratic Party’s base.

Sanders, who suspended his presidential campaign last week, would normally be forced to forfeit a third of the delegates he’s garnered to Biden under a strict interpretation of Democratic Party rules.

However, behind-the-scenes negotiations have been ongoing between the Biden and Sanders campaigns to allow the Vermont lawmaker to keep his delegates as a gesture of goodwill, though it is still not settled how many Sanders would be able to keep.

“We feel strongly that it is in the best interest of the party to ensure that the Sanders campaign receives statewide delegates to reflect the work that they have done to contribute to the movement that will beat Donald Trump this fall,” a Biden official told The Hill. “We are in discussion with them now on how to best accomplish that.”

The news was first reported by The Associated Press.

The number of delegates each candidate has is ultimately inconsequential for the nomination, as Biden has essentially locked up his spot atop the Democratic 2020 ticket. However, Sanders has said he will remain on upcoming primary ballots to garner more delegates who can ultimately sway the party’s platform during the summer’s convention.

Biden is also eager to try to unite the Democratic Party base around his White House bid and try to avoid the vicious divides that plagued Hillary Clinton in 2016. Sanders delegates infamously booed some speakers during mentions of Clinton at that year’s convention, an embarrassing optic the former vice president is hopeful he can avoid.

Biden will technically need to garner 1,991 delegates to clinch the nomination, and leads Sanders by more than 300 delegates.

Candidates' total delegate hauls are split between those allocated by congressional district and those based on statewide results. To keep the statewide delegates, candidates must still be running for president when the people who will represent them at the convention are selected by states.

Most states have yet to select the people who will attend the convention as delegates.

Under the rules, Biden would normally get 346 of the delegates won by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Sanders’s delegate count would drop to 628, according to an AP analysis.

Credit where credit is due: whatever his other faults, Biden does seem to be sincere about reaching out to progressives and giving us a voice in the party post-primary.

[The Romulan Republic]

The assault allegations seem to be getting more mainstream press. CNN has done a fairly fair piece on the allegations (if not as comprehensive in detailing the allegations, corroboration and weaknesses in the case as it could have been):

https://cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/joe ... index.html

(CNN)Top Democratic leaders and allies of Joe Biden are being asked to respond to an allegation of sexual assault leveled against the former vice president by Tara Reade, at a moment when many in the Democratic Party are eager to consolidate support for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Some of Biden's highest-profile surrogates -- including Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, as well as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ended his own 2020 campaign last week before endorsing Biden on Monday -- have confronted questions in recent days about the serious accusation brought forth by Reade, a woman who worked in Biden's Senate office in the early 1990s. The Biden campaign has denied the allegation.

Whitmer, a national co-chair of Biden's campaign and on his shortlist of vice presidential picks, was asked on NPR whether the allegation gives her any pause about supporting Biden. Whitmer has publicly discussed having been sexually assaulted while in college.

"Well, I think women should be able to tell their stories. I think that it is important that these allegations are vetted, from the media to beyond. And I think that, you know, it is something that no one takes lightly," Whitmer said. "But it is also something that is, you know, personal. And so it's hard to give you greater insight than that, not knowing more about the situation."

Klobuchar, also widely speculated about as a possible Biden running mate, similarly told NPR that "all women in these cases have the right to be heard and have their claims thoroughly reviewed." She pointed to the dozens of people who worked with Biden at the time of the alleged assault who had been interviewed by media outlets, and went on to say that she sees Biden as a "leader" on the issue of domestic abuse.

In an interview on CBS' "This Morning" this week, Sanders was asked if he believes it is legitimate and relevant to talk about Reade's allegation. "I think it's relevant to talk about anything. And I think any woman who feels that she was assaulted has every right in the world to stand up and make her claims," he responded.

Asked if Reade's claims should weigh significantly, the Vermont senator added: "I think that she has the right to make her claims and get a public hearing, and the public will make their own conclusions about it. I just don't know enough about it to comment further."

For some of Biden's supporters and surrogates, questions related to Reade's allegation have presented a challenging balancing act -- of expressing support for Biden's candidacy and character while not dismissing a sexual assault allegation. Democrats in particular have vocally championed the #MeToo movement in recent years, advocating for all accusers to be fully heard and recognized, including the more than a dozen women who have publicly leveled allegations against President Donald Trump, ranging from unwelcome advances to sexual harassment and assault. Trump has denied those allegations.

The 1993 allegation
Multiple media outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post and the Associated Press, have interviewed Reade and published details surrounding her allegation in recent days.

CNN reached out to Reade this week, but she has not agreed to be interviewed.

Reade had publicly accused Biden last year of touching her shoulders and neck and making her feel uncomfortable. Now, according to the Times, she alleges that in 1993, Biden had "pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers."

The publication also spoke with a friend of Reade's, who said Reade had told her about the alleged assault at the time; a second friend said Reade told her in 2008 that Biden had touched her inappropriately. The Times said it also had spoken with nearly two dozen people who worked with Biden in the early 1990s, and none corroborated Reade's allegation.

The Washington Post interviewed Reade's brother, who told the paper that she had told him in 1993 that Biden had "behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders" but not about the alleged sexual assault. Several days after that interview with Reade's brother, the Post said, "he said in a text message that he recalled her telling him that Biden had put his hand 'under her clothes.' "

Reade also told the Times that she had filed a complaint about Biden with the Senate in 1993 but that she did not have a copy of it; the Times said it could not locate it.

Reade filed a police report in Washington about the alleged assault last week. CNN obtained the incident report from DC police -- it states that "Subject-1 disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993."

Reade told the Times that she filed the report to "give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats." She also said that she did not go public with the allegation of sexual assault last year because when she had initially shared the complaint of Biden touching her neck and shoulders, she received death threats and felt afraid.

Biden campaign's denial
In a statement provided to CNN, Biden's deputy campaign manager and communications director, Kate Bedingfield, denied Reade's allegation, calling it "untrue."

"Vice President Biden has dedicated his public life to changing the culture and the laws around violence against women. He authored and fought for the passage and reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. He firmly believes that women have a right to be heard - and heard respectfully," Bedingfield said. "Such claims should also be diligently reviewed by an independent press. What is clear about this claim: it is untrue. This absolutely did not happen."

The campaign also shared a statement from Marianne Baker, who was Biden's executive assistant in the 1980s and 1990s when he was a senator. Reade told the Times that she had complained to Baker and two other aides about harassment by Biden, but not about the alleged assault.

"In all my years working for Senator Biden, I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period -- not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone. I have absolutely no knowledge or memory of Ms. Reade's accounting of events, which would have left a searing impression on me as a woman professional, and as a manager," Baker said. "These clearly false allegations are in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades."

Baker also said that dozens of employees had reported to her over the years, and that Biden himself had fostered "a professional workplace" environment in his Senate office.

Last year, multiple women publicly came forward to say that Biden had made them feel uncomfortable in the way that he physically interacted with them. None of them accused him of sexual assault.

Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman, described an encounter with Biden in 2014 where she said he had made her feel "uneasy, gross and confused" by coming up from behind her and kissing the back of her head

At the time, Biden said that in all of his years as a public figure, "not once -- never -- did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention."

Pelosi has weighed in as well:

https://msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/pelosi-ad ... 2237509702

In an interview with MSNBC’s Ari Melber, Speaker Pelosi addressed an allegation of misconduct against Joe Biden, saying “I am satisfied with his answer,” adding she is “very much involved in this issue” and “always wants to give the opportunity that women deserve to be heard.”

Yeah, its tricky to say you believe women should be heard but also that you're satisfied with Biden's response. But at least the "She's a Russian agent!" and "She's a Bernie supporter!" attacks seem to be dying down, and it isn't getting ignored.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden offers more insight into what his administration is likely to look like, floats new Cabinet posts and announcing some cabinet picks prior to the election:

https://washingtonpost.com/politics/his ... story.html

By
Sean Sullivan
April 17, 2020 at 4:43 p.m. PDT
Joe Biden has committed to choosing a woman as his running mate. He’s vowed to nominate an African American woman to the Supreme Court. And now, he’s toying with the idea of creating new Cabinet posts and possibly even naming potential agency secretaries before the election.

The presumptive Democratic nominee is sketching out an increasingly detailed portrait of the kinds of people he would surround himself with if he became president. At a moment when the coronavirus pandemic has shaken the country’s faith in government and frequently rendered Biden’s candidacy a lonely pursuit, his campaign is emphasizing what would happen after the election — were he to win — more so than what he will do in the nearly seven months of campaigning before the November vote.

He is also making his pitch as much about his allies as about him, presenting himself as the conductor of an orchestra whose individual players might appeal to the disparate elements of a party Biden is seeking to unify.

AD
His moves reflect a campaign trying to project know-how and preparedness, qualities it hopes will contrast in the minds of many voters with President Trump, whom Biden is casting as chaotic and woefully unreliable in moments of crisis.

Voters “need reassurance delivered in specific information,” said Henry Muñoz, a former Democratic National Committee finance chairman and an informal Biden adviser. “The best form of leadership is a person who is willing to surround themselves with diverse, strong voices.”

The strategy is also driven by the practical problem of mounting a campaign in the era of the coronavirus. When the former vice president hits the trail these days, it means beaming into people’s living rooms from his makeshift basement TV studio, piping into their headphones with his new podcast and schmoozing with donors on Zoom, all from a safe social distance that has isolated him from the country he wants to lead.

AD
Some Democrats worry about Biden being eclipsed by Trump, whose White House pandemic briefings are carried live and whose hourly battles with political rivals have been splashed across newspaper front pages.

Biden’s slow rollout of a growing army of high-wattage surrogates offers the potential, at least, of breaking through the din.

“It’s difficult because he’s not a public official now, and he’s in this period of time when he’s a candidate when we’re in the middle of a worldwide pandemic,” said Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), a close Biden ally who said the “physical limitations” of campaigning from home also present a challenge.

Biden, speaking at a virtual fundraiser, said Thursday that he has started constructing a presidential transition team, a process he said has been underway for several weeks.

Discussions are in progress about the prospect of elevating some White House offices to Cabinet-level positions, Biden said. Among those under consideration: the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the global health security pandemic office and a separate climate change operation that “goes beyond the EPA,” he said.

Biden said he “would consider announcing some Cabinet members before the election,” a move that would be highly unusual, but he clarified that he hasn’t “made that commitment” yet. Still, he signaled that he has a good idea of who would fill the positions.

“If the Lord Almighty said: ‘Joe, I tell you what. You have to decide in three hours what your Cabinet is or you’re going to be bounced out of the race,’ I could write down who could be in the Cabinet,” he said. “There are at least two or three people qualified for every one of those positions.”

In contrast with the vision of firm leadership that the former vice president is seeking to put forward, Trump and his allies are casting Biden as shaky and unprepared, and calling attention to his verbal stumbles. “No more late night television Sleepy Joe!” the Trump campaign tweeted this week, with a clip of Biden appearing to look down at his notes during a long-winded comment on CNN.

Many Democrats recognize that Biden’s status as a 77-year-old white man at the head of a diverse party has made the question of whom he will pick for his administration more significant, and his running mate choice more consequential. Some say they want to see evidence that Biden would put together a government that reflects the country.

Biden has been offering hints about who would serve in his government for months. At the final debate of the primary race in mid-March, he said he would choose a woman as his running mate, setting off a spirited discussion in the party over whom he ought to select.

The declaration focused media attention on several women seen as potential picks, including Democratic Sens. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.); Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; and former Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams, among others.

Even that discussion, however, has received little public attention. Some Democrats from competitive swing areas have said Biden needs to find a fresh way to stand out against Trump in the weeks ahead.

“The president is on TV every day. He’s coming to us into our TV screens every day from his press conference,” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said in an interview last week. “So it’s going to be important for the [former] vice president to be visible and to use this time in key states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, to really rethink creatively what a campaign looks like in an era of social distancing.”

Biden speaks during a virtual event Monday. During the live stream, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed Biden, saying Americans of all political affiliations should back the former vice president.
Biden speaks during a virtual event Monday. During the live stream, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed Biden, saying Americans of all political affiliations should back the former vice president. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News)
Trump had a head start in his outreach, although his pitches have been aimed more at reminding supporters of their affection than at seeking out new acolytes. Every time the president tweets — such as on Friday, when he used misleading information to call President Barack Obama and Biden “a disaster” in their 2009 response to the H1N1 influenza — his message goes to more than 77 million Twitter followers. Biden has just under 5 million followers.

Over the past several days, Biden has made this most of his circumstances. He won the endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Monday, joining his former rival in a live-streamed discussion that conveyed a warmer relationship between the two men than Sanders ever had with Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The next day, Obama bestowed his support on Biden, and the day after that Warren endorsed him. The campaign rounded out the week with endorsements from leading Muslim and Jewish organizations, highlighting the diversity in his coalition.

The new alliances are expected to pay off in multiple ways: On May 1, a network of influential Obama alumni is planning to participate in a virtual fundraiser for Biden, according to a person with knowledge of the event. Ticket prices will range from $250 to $2,800.

But the credibility transfer from his endorsers to Biden has limits. That is why the candidate, seen in some quarters of the party as unappealing to younger voters and facing challenges with Latino voters, also has been willing to make pronouncements that have gone beyond what past nominees have guaranteed.

“I’m looking forward to making sure there is a black woman on the Supreme Court,” Biden said at a February debate, drawing loud applause.

The creation of his Cabinet — and more broadly his view of himself as a transitional figure who can help build the next generation of Democrats — has been on Biden’s mind for a while. During an April 3 virtual fundraiser, he said he was committed to selecting diverse personnel.

“Men, women, gay, straight, center, across the board. Black, white, Asian. It really matters that you look like the country, because everyone brings a slightly different perspective,” said Biden.

Presidents-elect typically tap experienced government hands to help them evolve from candidate to officeholder. Cabinet nominations — such as secretary of state and attorney general — are normally announced beginning in the two-month period between the election and the inauguration.

Biden would not say who is heading his transition team, but he vowed that those who will take part will be “first rate.” He also argued that there is no shortage of qualified people who could serve.

“I have had literally several hundred serious, serious players who have held positions in every department in the federal government who have said, including some Republicans, who have said: ‘If you win, I want to come back. I’m ready to serve,’ ” he said.

The words sought to offer a measure of clarity at a time when there is little certainty about the future of the country’s economy, its health and its mind-set. By Biden’s own estimation, the election itself is not even set in stone.

Biden said at the Thursday fundraiser that the recent Wisconsin primary led him to question how efficiently states can hold elections during the coronavirus crisis, particularly as Trump and other Republicans have fought a transition to mail-in ballots. When asked whether he believes the public can trust that the November election will be held as expected, Biden replied, “Right now they can’t trust that.”

Matt Viser contributed to this report.

I have to say, I think that Biden (or whoever his handlers are) are making all the right moves here to unify the party and start the general election campaign off on a strong note. I don't know what changed, because he fumbled a lot during the primary, but thank God it did. This is a way slicker and smarter campaign so far than I recall Hillary running, even.

I'm guessing Obama's hand is behind a lot of this. Obama may have been a mediocre President, but he was always an excellent campaigner, and it sounds like he's been a lot more involved in negotiating behind the scenes to bring the party together than most people realized.

[Ralin]

A) As to your repeated insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you supports rape culture (and therefore, implicitly, supports rape), I would argue that the best course of action is to support the candidate who's policies are objectively better for women and sexual assault survivors. This is a point that, to my recollection, you have never addressed. A Trump Presidency will objectively do more harm, policy-wise, to sexual assault survivors and to women in general than will a Biden Presidency.

Electing any rapist serves to normalize rape and sexual assault. That's what the concept means. Saying that one rapist will be better for sexual assault victims than another inherently normalizes rapist politicians getting away with it and continuing to win high offices.

If there's enough evidence to show that Biden didn't do it then fine, that changes things. But I'm going to be damned skeptical given what's already publicly known about him.

And if Biden's the nominee, which to all appearances he will be, there is no third choice. Not a real one. It'll be him or Trump. We need to be honest about that, if we're going to talk about this at all.

False dilemma. There's no law of nature forcing the Democratic Party to nominate Biden. The third choice is to toss him out as a candidate and pick someone who is not a walking, talking declaration that the #MeToo movement can go straight to hell the moment they go after someone who's part of the team. And the only 'real' chance of that happening at this point is enough people saying loudly that they won't vote Democrat if it doesn't.

B) I just put up a lengthy post explaining all the ways Biden has a real shot at winning. Which you ignored, to repeat that he can't win, as an excuse for doing everything you can to make sure he doesn't. And to me, it seems pretty disingenuous to use "he can't win" as a justification for helping to ensure that he doesn't.

Can’t win? No. He shouldn’t win, and I don’t think it’s terribly likely that he will. And then...what? Trump stays president, and on top of that we've all declared that Bill Clinton wasn't a fluke and that we'll rally around a rapist if that's the only choice the Democratic Party gives us?

B then have the guts to fucking own that that's what you're doing. Don't try to pretend that the actions you espouse have no consequences by saying "its inevitable."

Reade had publicly accused Biden last year of touching her shoulders and neck and making her feel uncomfortable. Now, according to the Times, she alleges that in 1993, Biden had "pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers."

[The Romulan Republic]

Electing any rapist serves to normalize rape and sexual assault. That's what the concept means. Saying that one rapist will be better for sexual assault victims than another inherently normalizes rapist politicians getting away with it and continuing to win high offices.

In that case, we have two choices: elect a likely rapist, or elect his opponent who is also a rapist. Either of those actions will have the effect you describe. In that case, and presuming that these are the only choices, we must make a decision based on which will inflict the greater harm in other ways.

This is the point you keep dodging: THERE IS NO OPTION HERE THAT AVOIDS THE HARM YOU DESCRIBE. You are pretending that "let Trump win" is somehow a statement of support for survivors of rape, to the point that anyone disagreeing with you is a supporter of rape culture. But doing that has the exact effect you describe, PLUS A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER AWFUL SHIT.

If there was a third option, I'd take it. There isn't.

Okay, that's not technically true. There is a third option: say "fuck the election", attempt to overthrow the government of the United States and put a different person in the office. Is that what you are advocating?

If there's enough evidence to show that Biden didn't do it then fine, that changes things. But I'm going to be damned skeptical given what's already publicly known about him.

On this, at least, we agree.

False dilemma. There's no law of nature forcing the Democratic Party to nominate Biden. The third choice is to toss him out as a candidate and pick someone who is not a walking, talking declaration that the #MeToo movement can go straight to hell the moment they go after someone who's part of the team. And the only 'real' chance of that happening at this point is enough people saying loudly that they won't vote Democrat if it doesn't.

Of course the Democrats don't have to pick Biden, but we are talking about a scenario where Biden is the nominee, running against Trump, which is by far the likeliest outcome at this point in time.

In the extremely unlikely event that something comes out that forces Biden to step down and a stronger nominee takes his place as a consequence, I assure you I'll be applauding that outcome.

Can’t win? No. He shouldn’t win, and I don’t think it’s terribly likely that he will. And then...what? Trump stays president, and on top of that we've all declared that Bill Clinton wasn't a fluke and that we'll rally around a rapist if that's the only choice the Democratic Party gives us?

Again, WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?

You keep saying "They don't have to pick Biden". But assuming they do, THEN WHAT? If BOTH candidates have credible rape allegations against them, but one of them supports policies which will help women and survivors of sexual abuse, and the other supports policies that will inflict further harm on them, AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS, then what?

Its an absolutely awful situation, fuck the Centrists forever for giving us this choice, and I'll be switching to independent as soon as this election is over. But don't pretend that "let Trump win" is somehow a better or more moral choice when it comes to the subject of rape.

But you know, maybe its not for either of us to say what the right choice is here. Maybe that's a judgement to be made by women and survivors of sexual abuse. We can both stand up here and say what we think is the right choice, but at the end of the day, we're not the ones most affected by this decision.

If women and survivors of sexual abuse choose to vote for Biden (as many will), will you respect their determination of what is in their best interests?

then have the guts to fucking own that that's what you're doing. Don't try to pretend that the actions you espouse have no consequences by saying "its inevitable."

Reade had publicly accused Biden last year of touching her shoulders and neck and making her feel uncomfortable. Now, according to the Times, she alleges that in 1993, Biden had "pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers."

Cute.

I admit what I'm doing. I am voting for a man who is probably a rapist, and has at minimum behaved inappropriately toward women, and I am urging others to do so, because the alternative is worse- worse for America, worse for the planet, and, at least in my view, worse for women and survivors of sexual abuse too.

You are advocating protest votes against Biden, which in a two-party system will help reelect Trump. You have not accepted that you are doing so, preferring instead to spin fantasies about third options that are speculative and unlikely to ever come to pass, and to attack the character of anyone who disagrees with you.

[Omega18]

If there's enough evidence to show that Biden didn't do it then fine, that changes things. But I'm going to be damned skeptical given what's already publicly known about him.

Again there clearly is by reasonable standards if you look at what I posted in this thread already.

Now yes it remains theoretically possible that even though Reade has publicly changed her story about multiple majors things in ways that would not be considered in any way typical or normal for a rape victim, (plus problems with her brother altering his testimony about what he was told among additional details) but by that standard there are relatively few rape accusations where it would be possible to ever show sufficient evidence that the accused didn't do it. Just about the only exceptions would be cases where there is DNA evidence, the accuser eventually outright admits they are lying, or there is an incredibly glaring factual problem with the claim which can't be explained by a flawed memory.

The reality of the matter is what is known about Biden very much does not support the accusation. There is in fact a very big difference between the other "hands on" things he has been accused of (and now admitted is an area where he needs to change his behavior) and something remotely like non-consensual digital penetration, and in fact plenty of especially older people would be responsible for the first but not the second.

Again what is striking is in 48 years of being in national politics, we have yet to hear anyone else with an accusation actually similar to Reade's come out. This is in spite of the issue that if Reade's accusation on the nature of Biden's behavior were true you would have expected a huge number of additional woman to have specifically experienced something similar to what Reade did by now. Nothing about Reade's description comes off as a scenario where Biden completely was unable to control himself once in his life due to the nature of his relationship with Reade or unique circumstances, but actually behavior which would very strongly indicate Biden was a serial offender if true.

The issue is while I could see on or two additional victims deciding they did not want to deal with the headache of coming forward in any way, I can't see the explanation on why non of a much larger number of victims would have been unwilling to do so by now and it certainly should have been more like a Weinstein situation with lots of victims now speaking out. (With Weinstein actually having less time where he really was in position to engage in such acts when you consider what the hypothetical total count of such victims ought to be.) Basically I would have hypothetically expected a flood of similar accusations to Reade to have come out when the the touching accusations came out last year. It also is worth noting that anyone who hypothetically had previously hesitated about going forward with an accusation similar to Reade's last year but was debating whether to do so would have been exact the sort of person most likely to become quickly aware of The Intercept's report in March involving Reade through googling or other checking of twitter or the like and have decided that this was the time to come forward with their own story as well, yet strikingly this still has not happen. In other words, there is a striking lack of evidence at this point from anyone else of Biden actually doing something truly similar to what he allegedly did to Reade, which very much gives me another reason to be highly skeptical of her story at this point.

The underlying problem is if you take a position that there has to somehow be absolutely positively definitive evidence against a rape accusation for you not to consider the situation absolutely disqualifying for that politician, this means especially for high profile political races it is going to be very easy for someone or a group with an agenda to alter your voting behavior with a deliberately concocted false rape accusation.

[Omega18]

I admit what I'm doing. I am voting for a man who is probably a rapist

I simply don't view this as a remotely reasonable position to take at this point. You simply were not even able to remotely explain some of the issues I bought up over Reade's behavior and statements over the years pointing against this among other things.

For example on top of all the other problems, again even if you assume Reade was so pragmatic that all she cared about was politically supporting the potential Democratic Presidential candidate best able to win election as late as 2017 before changing her mind later, why on earth would she think it would be Biden?!!

If she had actually experienced something like she has now claimed she did, even purely looking at it pragmatically speaking without bringing personal emotions into it, Biden would obviously be a terrible potential candidate because as an apparent serial offender based on his behavior there would be way too much risk of other people who are less pragmatic victims eventually coming forward while he was a candidate. In other words, on top of the other issues with Reade's inconsistent story, you have to assume she was so utterly clueless (in spite of her historic involvement with politics) that she absolutely never thought of this. If she had, logically you would have expected her to actually certainly be making statements against Biden being a good candidate for President (even if not talking about her true primary reason for believing this) by actually 2015 if not earlier when it appeared Biden might run, or at least certainly refraining from any praise instead of what she actually did.

I realize you are ultimately going to have the views you are going to have, but I really think you should reconsider your position on this least somewhat given the available evidence at this point.

[Knife]

So you don't care if its a woman- you just think that 30% of possible Biden voters are misogynist and that Biden should cater to them.

Maybe you think progressives will accept no one but Bernie? I disagree, but if so we're fucked, and in any case it has nothing to do with Biden's promise to pick a woman. You act as though this commitment to pick a woman is the sole impediment to picking Bernie as VP. It isn't. As I and others have described above, there are several excellent reasons why picking Bernie would never have been seriously on the table, not least of which the fact that it would mean forfeiting a Senate seat in a year when the Senate could easily be decided by one seat.

Nope, you're still stuck in your ideology and are not listening. 20-30% WANT a woman and will not accept anything else. That is why a Biden/Sanders ticket would lose. Well, that and the donor class would spaz.

[The Romulan Republic]

I admit what I'm doing. I am voting for a man who is probably a rapist

I simply don't view this as a remotely reasonable position to take at this point. You simply were not even able to remotely explain some of the issues I bought up over Reade's behavior and statements over the years pointing against this among other things.

I mean, I did, but perhaps it would help if you elaborated on what you feel I did not address?

For example on top of all the other problems, again even if you assume Reade was so pragmatic that all she cared about was politically supporting the potential Democratic Presidential candidate best able to win election as late as 2017 before changing her mind later, why on earth would she think it would be Biden?!!

So now you're arguing "She supported a candidate I think is weak, therefore she must be lying?"

People who have experienced sexual abuse often take time to reveal everything that happened, don't reveal everything at once, or give contradictory testimony. Sometimes they continue to associate with their abuser. None of those things are proof that they are lying when they do decide to come forward. Yes, its possible an accuser could be lying, in the absence of further evidence, but real allegations that are disbelieved are a lot more common than fraudulent allegations.

The fact also remains that Tara Reade gave highly detailed and specific accounts which at least some others have corroborated she told them years ago, which immediately defeats the claim that this is something she made up now for attention, personal gain, or political purposes. Unless you think she was a deep cover agent laying the ground work for her fraud years in advance, while simultaneously doing other things that would undermine her future credibility? Or maybe the people who corroborated her are also bought?

And, of course, that there are complaints regarding Biden's behaviour from many other women, if not of the same severity.

If she had actually experienced something like she has now claimed she did, even purely looking at it pragmatically speaking without bringing personal emotions into it, Biden would obviously be a terrible potential candidate because as an apparent serial offender based on his behavior there would be way too much risk of other people who are less pragmatic victims eventually coming forward while he was a candidate. In other words, on top of the other issues with Reade's inconsistent story, you have to assume she was so utterly clueless (in spite of her historic involvement with politics) that she absolutely never thought of this. If she had, logically you would have expected her to actually certainly be making statements against Biden being a good candidate for President by actually 2015 if not earlier when it appeared Biden might run, or at least certainly refraining from any praise instead of what she actually did.

I love how you keep vaguely alluding to "issues" and "inconsistencies", which I supposedly haven't addressed, without saying what the are.

I realize you are ultimately going to have the views you are going to have, but I really think you should reconsider your position on this least somewhat given the available evidence at this point.

Can I prove that Biden is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No. But this isn't a court room. Is there enough evidence to take the allegations seriously, or for a reasonable person to believe that he is more likely guilty than innocent? Yes.

[The Romulan Republic]

So you don't care if its a woman- you just think that 30% of possible Biden voters are misogynist and that Biden should cater to them.

Maybe you think progressives will accept no one but Bernie? I disagree, but if so we're fucked, and in any case it has nothing to do with Biden's promise to pick a woman. You act as though this commitment to pick a woman is the sole impediment to picking Bernie as VP. It isn't. As I and others have described above, there are several excellent reasons why picking Bernie would never have been seriously on the table, not least of which the fact that it would mean forfeiting a Senate seat in a year when the Senate could easily be decided by one seat.

Nope, you're still stuck in your ideology and are not listening. 20-30% WANT a woman and will not accept anything else. That is why a Biden/Sanders ticket would lose. Well, that and the donor class would spaz.

So your point is "it is impossible to assemble a winning Democratic coalition no matter what"? Hmm, Obama managed it. Twice. Hell, Hillary came a hairsbreadth from it, and almost certainly would have if not for Anthony Wiener sexting a minor.

I very much doubt 30% of Democratic voters will defect in any scenario. You are greatly overestimating these divisions to paint

[Omega18]

I mean, I did, but perhaps it would help if you elaborated on what you feel I did not address?

How about indisputably everything on my post on the bottom of page 54 other than one passing comment I made on the motives for your views out of frustration? You said you would save a response for later at the time, but obviously never did so. I could obviously repost the entire extended post again while leaving out that one part, but that would seem to unnecessarily lengthen this thread.

So now you're arguing "She supported a candidate I think is weak, therefore she must be lying?"

Obviously not. What I am saying is why would she support a candidate that she rationally clearly should have thought was weak given the inside information she knew at the time? It might be possible to support a candidate you personally secretly hate for pragmatic political reasons before changing your mind later, but why the support the candidate if you are aware of reasons why the clearly are not remotely a good candidate given the apparent highly likely additional massive skeletons in his closet when there are clearly a bunch bunch of other potential options available? This is the disparity with Reade's posting behavior and public statements up through 2017 I see even disregarding the issue of how she specifically highlighted praise for Biden for how he handled sexual assault situations I brought up in the page 54 post.

The fact also remains that Tara Reade gave highly detailed and specific accounts which at least some others have corroborated she told them years ago, which immediately defeats the claim that this is something she made up now for attention, personal gain, or political purposes. Unless you think she was a deep cover agent laying the ground work for her fraud years in advance, while simultaneously doing other things that would undermine her future credibility? Or maybe the people who corroborated her are also bought?

Besides the fact some details are not there such as exactly when the assault occurred have not been provided at all, which I admit is not that much of an issue on its own... The reality is she only has a grand total of 2 other living witnesses who collaborate anything like a rape situation, with others only giving testimony potentially really supporting her original March 2019 accusation.

One of these two witnesses is anonymous which is not ideal for establishing her level or credibility especially with that person so far refusing to speak to at least allot of mainstream journalists at all, while there is the following issue with her brother which upon reflection I may not have specifically covered on this forum.

In another recent interview, Reade’s brother, Collin Moulton, said she told him in 1993 that Biden had behaved inappropriately by touching her neck and shoulders...

Several days after that interview, he said in a text message that he recalled her telling him that Biden had put his hand “under her clothes.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

The problem here is what he initially claimed was consistent with Reade's old claim, but really not the new one. It also obviously seems strange if she described something along the lines of his followup, her own brother would have not remembered this in the first place (or at least something closer to the new alleged act).

Now I suppose you could choose to explain this away by her brother being a flake who tend to be incredibly unclear about major details in interviews or absolutely terrible at remembering absolutely anything regardless of how important. On the other hand, it would be highly consistent with a scenario where after communicating with her brother 3 days later, she realized he provided a description of what he told which did not match with her new story, so she told him to text the person he had been interviewed and try to fix the potentially damaging inconsistency with his account. (With the reason for this being she had never told him any of this in the first place or at least certainly not the new story when her brother supposedly was supposed to have heard it in the past.)

I may have not specifically explicitly brought this possibility up either, but one scenario here is that her original April of 2019 accusation was accurate, but by March of this year when it was looking like those earlier issues were not going to sink his primary campaign, she decided to considerably embellish it to see if this would work, which is why other people she had talked to in the past only truly back the original account. In other words what Biden is actually guilty of is the same things we already knew about last April. Reade may be sticking with her story at this point either because of the problems and humiliation of actually admitting she lied at this point, or simply because she is still hoping somehow Biden ends up not being the nominee at the convention. (You don't have the go to more exotic motives to explain her behavoir although by the same token I can't absolutely rule a couple of them out.)

In other words you are certainly talking about vastly less convincing available collaborating witnesses compared to say the Ford accusation with respect to Reade's rape accusation against Biden, with the details of what specifically her brother said to the press and how to told it actually being another reason to be suspicious of the rape accusation.

Can I prove that Biden is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? No. But this isn't a court room. Is there enough evidence to take the allegations seriously, or for a reasonable person to believe that he is more likely guilty than innocent? Yes.

Again only if you ignore the inconsistencies I specifically spelled out in the past along with what I went into here. I can certainly go on, but it seems like you outright forgot about one of most of my posts which went into detail into allot of the further issues.