Except during a pandemic, closing polling stations (one of their tried and true methods of voter suppression) seems to have a larger impact on their own base.

They'll continue to purge voters and try to find other means of voter suppression, but Trump has put them in a situation where their options are limited.

Yeah, it just gets harder to do enough of that each election. I'm well aware, though, that the GOP is working to create an apartheid state with permanent minority rule.

I see an analogy to the idea that it is actually more work for Trump to try and deflect blame for his poor COVID-19 response than it would have been to just not have a poor COVID-19 response.

I wonder if it is more work for the GOP to have to invest more and more into voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc. to stay in power with an unpopular agenda than it would be to just have a more popular agenda.

I don't think they're willing to give up the power in the short term to create a sustainable long-term platform until they're forced to.

I could see loss of senate forcing an attempt at serious change within the GOP. Outside of that we're likely waiting for the if/when of Texas flipping deep purple or blue.

Could be just a tad more succinct ... but yeah, like that !!

So for those that don't believe Reade or at least don't believe the "penetration" part of the harassment, what is Reade's motivation?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why would anyone believe her to begin with? She tried to come forward with a different story last year and when it didn't get traction she changed it to make it a sexual assault.

I (nor anyone else) really knows. It could be money. It could be Russian influence (her sudden change to worship Putin is a bit suspicious). It is also very possible she is not exactly stable mentally.

My understanding is there is consistency in her accusing Biden of making her uncomfortable. It occurred a while ago, she told people back then about it then etc., and we have other women reporting similar pattern about Biden getting too touchy feely. I can easily believe this happened.

However, I don't think that rises to 'sexual harassment' vs older guy not changing with times. It does become sexual harassment if he's been told to not do it again but continues to do it.

The difference now is she is accusing him of finger penetration which apparently was not part of the original 'accusation'. I've said before this part I find hard to believe without more corroborating evidence.

So to answer your question. Yeah, I can see many people believe the first part of her story and doubting the second, more recent revelations (e.g. me). Just because her more recent revelations are suspect doesn't mean the first part didn't happen. Does it rise to the level where Biden needs to step down? Not yet as far as I'm concerned.

Nevertheless, the question is why do you think Reade is doing this? Is it because of $$, her 15 min of fame/infamy, a woman scorned (e.g. not being believed on the first part) etc. or a combination?

The agonizing story of Tara Reade and her sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden - Vox


First, that's from someone that thoroughly investigated her initial claims a year ago. Her mother's interview makes as hell of a lot more sense when you look at things from this perspective. And, yes it's creepy and wrong, but I'm sure it was also fairly common in politics in '93.

Second, who the hell knows. She's a huge Bernie supporter (why did she come forward with the new story on a bernie podcast?) and hired a Trump donor to represent her. It could be money, it could be for attention, or it could be payback for being forced out of a job.

You would be wrong. The "old guy not changing" excuse is disgustingly played out. Sexual harassment is all about how your actions make someone feel, not your justification for them. Unwanted touching certainly falls into the realm of sexual harassment.

Why not tell the story earlier when Bernie could have won? Or in 2008 when Biden ran as VP. Just seems strange it's only now that Biden is presumptive nominee. I just hope this doesn't become the new "emails" that the media gives equal weight to Trump's 20 accusers.

So you think Biden is guilty of sexual harassment. Under your criteria, he's been guilty many times. I personally don't think its risen to that level and I doubt Reade's recent sexual assault claim without more corroborating evidence.

And you will vote for Biden in Nov ... why if you believe he is a serial sexual harasser?

I think she did try telling her story last year (see above Vox link, it said April 2019). What's strange to me is how she "escalated" the accusation from sexual harassment to sexual assault only recently.

Unless more comes out, I think Biden won't have to worry much about Reade. My guess is Biden is more vulnerable on the Hunter situation and that is where Trump & GOP will focus more on.

Because the other possible winner while I live in a battleground state is a sexual predator who has shown how overwhelmingly bad he is at this job and I want a few years when I don't read or think "What the fuck?" about my President twice daily.

They are already ramping up on both, while completely ignoring the fact that Trump is just as, if not more vulnerable on both fronts. The difference of course being is that Trump will never lose any of his hard core base, while the swing voters leaning Biden could be swayed enough to stay home or go third party, which will likely be the difference in the election.....Again

I never said Biden is guilty.

If he did what she claims, making her uncomfortable by putting his hands on her, then yes, he is guilty of sexual harassment.

You love posting links to literal meanings. Look up sexual harassment. It is very broad.

Simple question but an evasive non-answer. But okay, nvm.

How is it a non answer?

Everything to you is a non answer if it isn't want you want to hear. I very clearly said I don't think he is guilty. Should be easy to extrapolate the rest from there.

Here is a page from your playbook.


https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf

It's not easy to extrapolate (for me at least). Your quote on how you define sexual harassment is below.

Quote:

You would be wrong. The "old guy not changing" excuse is disgustingly played out. Sexual harassment is all about how your actions make someone feel, not your justification for them. Unwanted touching certainly falls into the realm of sexual harassment.

I posted the below link previously. It starts with Reade but mid-way through you'll find the list of other women that Biden made uncomfortable with "unwanted touching".

The sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, explained - Vox

So I'm confused how you can say Biden is not guilty when, seemingly based on your definition, multiple women have said he has done the "unwanted touching"?



Let's me get my wife's thoughts on this.

Nowhere did I say I believe them. My comment about you not understanding what sexual harassment is has zero to do with who I am voting, but again you are trying to deflect to wedge your argument in to work.

I worked in HR. I am well versed in the definition.

Because of how tricky/evasive this conversation is getting ... "nowhere did I say I believed them" could also be "nowhere did I say I did not believe them".

So let's just cut to the chase with 2 direct questions to you.

(1) Is it correct to say that you do not believe the multiple women quoted in the Vox article?

(2) And if Biden did do all that the women (other than Reade) alleges, he would be guilty of sexual harassment?

Edward. I've zero interest in your style of arguing. Have a great night

I call it a discussion but fair enough, its all relative. Same to you.

On PredictIt, shares of Biden to actually be the Democratic nominee are selling at around 80 cents. I mean, I understand why, and I'm part of the problem as I'm holding shares of other candidates. But... 80 cents? On the surface of it, that's crazy, right?

I think so.

From the PBS article:

The article deals more on Reade's sexual assault (finger penetration) allegation vs the sexual harassment (unwanted touching) allegations.

Sexual assault is pretty weak as Reade only made mention of it last year and there has been no accusations from others, so it's an outlier and pretty suspect. "Sexual harassment" with the unwanted touching is not an outlier so let's not ignore that Biden was a serial sexual harasser back then (albeit probably unknowingly as he's an old guy). The article brings up Biden's mea culpa regard changing social norms. It doesn't make it right but I believe it is an acceptable explanation.

IMO, although it fits the definition of sexual harassment, I don't think it rises to the level of sexual harassment where Biden should drop out. The mea culpa apology is good enough assuming there's been nothing since then or more egregious than touching of face, back, hair (vs fondling of butt, breasts etc.).

If Biden did sexually assault Reade (or others) and/or it comes out there is a pattern of sexual harassment that was more egregious, I would have a hard time voting for him and seriously consider a third party.

So you're still on the fence then and waiting for more proof, one way or the other.

How crazy have things gotten when the law is described like this? Staff paid by the government aren't allowed to do fundraising and fundraising is illegal on government property. Now, of course, we're at a place where this is mostly ignored, but the above quote makes it sound like some noble idealism of Biden's rather than simply obeying the law.

No, I've got Biden as my default decision.

However if more information does come out that shows Biden is more than just oblivious sexual harasser (e.g. inappropriately touching face, hair, back etc.) to a sexual predator/assault then I would want to re-evaluate.

It's hard not to feel like Biden's campaign has evolved into simply "lay low". Super compelling stuff.

Trump is so good at sucking the oxygen out of the news cycle to be about him (usually by choice) over the last four years that you almost have to plan of running in such an environment.

It's May. The nomination is locked up. trump is drowning in his own mess. The House is working on your planks for recovery. There's a long time between now and November, and your base is ready to jump when you say jump. Now is not the time to worry about being the lead in the news cycle. You can only maintain that much energy for so long.

When the other guy is tripping over his response to a national crisis, you just let him

SI

During the contested primary, Biden laid low while every other candidate fought for attention.

Then people started voting.

And Biden won easily.

He lost the twitter primary, but won the actual primary.

To be clear, it makes perfect sense as a political strategy against this particular candidate, but it's hard to get excited about that becoming the one and only bar to clear. We alllllmost got a progressive OR younger OR a person of color OR a woman candidate, but instead we get to lean into laying low with an 80 yr old white dude with an invisible platform and a long, long record of practically always making the wrong decision (and we also get to pretend that 'laying low with a nebulous platform' wasn't largely Hillary's strategy in 2016).

Saw my first Anti-Biden commercial today. Its only May.

This may be the first time I've seen someone say Hillary Clinton was "laying low" in 2016. Campaigning in the wrong states, yes. Spending too much time with celebs, yes. But laying low?

And, not that I'll probably be able to convince you of this, but Clinton had more policy white papers than Warren did this year. However, the general election quickly because about personality over policy, so it didn't matter.

I find that Hillary Clinton is an interesting Rorschach test. I had one good friend who called her a "Republican" and said her platform was pro-corporate through the primaries and the general (and held his nose and voted for her in the general). I have another good friend who said she was too far left as was her platform (and he probably voted for the Libertarian candidate). I know some who were pissed she was for Black Lives Matter and brought on the Mothers of the Movement onto the stage at the DNC. And others who thought she was terrible on race issues and didn't go far enough in pushing Black Lives Matter policies.

I remember that people ascribed their best thoughts onto Obama. Moderates felt he was a moderate, progressives felt he was a progressive. It seems Hillary Clinton is the opposite - people ascribe their worst thoughts onto her. Moderates felt she was pretty left, progressives felt she was a Republican.

The good news is that an election with an incumbent is almost always going to be a referendum on the incumbent. As long as the opposition is basically a generic Dem/GOPer, the focus will be on whether to give the incumbent four more years.

Some more good news is that campaigns probably matter a lot less than we think. Most people aren't persuadable and those that are often make decisions entirely unrelated to things the candidates can control.

The bad news is that incumbents almost always win.

I believe though as the race is more prevalent, incumbency advantage decreases. Senate incumbency rates, while high, are less than House incumbency rates.

Supposedly Biden's nickname for Trump is "President Tweety".

Pretty lame IMO.

If Biden gets into a name calling contest with Trump, he loses easily.

Well, I feel like these things are all consistent with my perspective, rather than challenging it. Hillary failed miserably at presenting her platform consistently, to the point that nobody knew what her platform was. That there was actually some substance to the platform is only further indictment of her campaign. Likewise I feel like if, after 20 years of government service, nobody can agree on what your politics are, that is an indictment of the politician, not the people.

I think it's more indicative of the fact that people just projected views onto her rather than actually paying attention. She was very, very, very clear that her policy proposals were a center-left Democrat, dedicated to continuing and deepening the Obama administration achievements. Especially on health care. Every speech she gave focused on policy considerations, with a few jabs at her opponent (as everyone does). In the debates she discussed policy differences. She basically ran as every Vice President who runs after a 2 term President does - but no one said George HW Bush had 'no substance' to his platform even though he ran on continuing the Reagan years a little more 'kinder and gentler'. No one said Al Gore had 'no substance' to his platform, even though he ran on continuing the Clinton years.

And she's always been a center left Democrat, even when right wingers were calling her a socialist for pushing universal health care in the early 1990s. However, the Bernie left now believes that center-left Democrats are "Republicans". They thought it about Clinton, they now think it about Biden, they've re-put the moniker on Bill Clinton, and they've even started to turn on Obama (the same person that liked saying Hillary was a Republican, now says Obama was one too... though he never said in the 8 years Obama was in the White House).

And I think people knew very well what her policy positions were, they just wanted to call those policy positions "Republican" or "far left" for whatever strange reasons. You see it with Biden - or Klobuchar or Buttigieg.

To be fair, I have definitely categorized Bill as a fiscal conservative, criticized Obama for the same through his entire presidency, and consider center-left politics a misnomer.

Two things are always true.

1 A more moderate candidate wins the Dem nomination.

2 The GOP will call any Dem nominee a far-left socialist.

Which is the problem - because then 'center-left' politicians are defined by the left as either having a right leaning platform or "they have no platform", which seems completely at odds to me.

Not to mention compared to the Republican platform, putting moderate Dems on the right is baffling... and then you have "we have two right wing parties in this country" stuff, which ignores that the political spectrum is relative and perhaps the center in this country is a bit further to the right that you may have hoped for.

Though 1 has only been a very recent phenomenon. Mondale was to the left of a decent number of his primary challengers. Dukakis was to the left of Gore but to the right of Jackson. Obama was to the left of Hillary Clinton on somethings but to the right of her on others (the individual mandate for one).

Now the farthest left candidate in a Democratic primary almost never wins, yes. I think McGovern was the last one who did that.

I think Hillary drew an inside straight on negatives:
1. She wasn't nearly as liberal as Bernie - so those voters were disappointed.
2. She had all the Clinton baggage with republicans (you can also factor in being a woman here - it's sad, but I think it played a part with some of them).
3. She kind of took the upper midwest for granted with campaigning. The real strategic error was her not focusing as much on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

On paper, she was the right pick. I was excited to vote for her (and, pre Trump, I was a 50-50 dem voter on president). The result was disappointing, but I don't think future democratic nominees will have these problems (esp 2 and 3).

For those into wonky poll talk (and, if you aren't, have you noticed what thread you are in?), Harry Enten (of CNN, formally of 538) and Nate Cohen (of the NYT) are two guys who are very knowledgeable about this stuff, and they are both on twitter ragging on three polls out today (FL/AZ/VA) that show Biden up big over Trump. They are saying that these pollsters are not weighting by education, and if they did weight by education, the numbers would probably be about 4 points better for Trump (and, more importantly, better reflect how an election would actually go today).

All of which is to say that if/when you see the "Biden up huge in Florida!" headlines today, do not overreact to that.

I will not rest easy until his oversized butt has been kicked to the curb.

Morbidly obese butt, they say

Pelosi is much better at insults than Biden's "President Tweety". Not that we should be okay with her fat shaming ...

I think in this case, fat shaming is more than appropriate. How many times has he belittled women who aren't up to his standard? (The Ivanka standard: "I have to want them as much as I want Ivanka.")

Just noting this for when the Trump supporters are kunckle-draggers and likely racist (of course everything is always racist) if Stacey Abrams gets the vice presidential nomination. It's okay if its Chris Christie or Trump being fat shamed... you know because you know the D/R paradigm.

Fat shaming is never ok.

Body shaming in general is never ok.

That Pelosi went instinctively went there betrays a nasty streak on her part that I dislike.

That really just brings you down to his level.

Yeah. I think the better strategy is for leadership to continue to say they are working and ready to talk tot he President, but he's focused on petty grievances . If there are going to be insults, delegate that to a safe back-bencher.

Fat shaming is often a good thing IMO. I say that as a fat person who absolutely should be shamed for it (and is working on correcting it). There are many types of body shaming that are bad, but obesity is a massive problem literally and figuratively and is primarily caused by myopic, irresponsible behavior. Shaming that is absolutely appropriate and good for society and individuals.

I can not for the life of me figure out why Stacey Abrams is being considered for VP. What experience does she have at all that says she is ready to potentially be president of the US, which is a distinct possibility given that her presidential running mate is 77.

She's clearly working for the job, but I wonder how much she's actually being considered. It seems to me that she's shown a great danger of trying to outshine Biden. I think the more you campaign for the job the less likely you'll actually get it.

I don't think this has anything to do with it. I think she's attractive to the progressive wing, and adds balance to the ticket as someone who is younger and a minority woman. I wouldn't look much further than that.

Isn't there anyone on the progressive wing with some experience though?

Also she's a phenomenal speaker. When she was running for Governor, she gave me Obama vibes. I bought her book as well and it's really well written.

I don't think she should be on the ticket as VP. But the party does need to harness her fantastic speaking skills somehow.

Isn't this where you book her for one of the nights of the convention to launch her onto national prominence (ala Obama in 2004) and help build up the bench a bit for 2024 and beyond?

SI

If fat shaming worked, there’d be no overweight people. Because our culture constantly fat shames.

Yup.

I think that it’s gonna be Harris, and that this is one of the easier VP picks to predict in a while.

Personally, I like Tammy Duckworth, but I don’t think she’s likely.

If fat shaming generally led to people making healthier decisions then I would agree with you. But in real life it's generally done with malicious intent, simply to make a person feel bad. It just causes depression in the shamed person.

If it works for you then fantastic but I think you're an outlier here.



P.S. Is calling someone an outlier considered "statistical shaming"?

Stating that he is obese is not fat shaming, IMO. You're just stating a fact.

Calling him a fat fuck would be fat shaming in my book.

This fat shaming BS is like a lot of other things. Being fat is bad and a serious problem in the US. There are a lot of fat fucks out there, me included. Since there are a lot of us, it is bad to point it out.

One of the many reasons America is so fucked up.

I don't think it does, I think there's far more blowback against fat-shaming than actual fat-shaming. But also, if shaming doesn't work then why is it ok to shame other things? We shame for Trump (and so do I) for being … at least most of the things that he is. We shame racists, sexists, etc. on down the line. Are you really saying none of that does any good?


A certain amount of depression and guilt is appropriate when somebody is engaging in self-destructive or otherwhise negative behavior. I think it's far more unhealthy to not call such things out, pretending the elephants in the room aren't really there, and just go the 'you're not ok but that's ok' route. That's like a parent allowing their kids to go play in traffic and not correct them because it seems too harsh. If the only thing you do is shaming then that's bad also - help, compassion, etc. need to be part of it as well - but none of that makes shaming in and of itself a bad thing.

I like Duckworth a lot, but I'd hate to see what Trump and the alt-right say about her.

Trump certainly deserves it but it doesn't make it right. I will say that I took some childish delight in her comment and his reaction.

I think it almost has to be Harris. The dems bench is so thin right now:

PredictIt

SI

How much of that, though, is due to Biden saying it will be a woman? Add in Castro, Booker, Pete, Inslee, Bennett, etc. and there are a bunch.

Harris seems like the obvious safe choice that checks all the boxes. African American woman, not too old but has enough experience you would feel comfortable if something happened to Biden, can easily replace the Senate seat with a D, is good at debate/attack.

Really like Duckworth too. What a freaking contrast to Trump. Good luck attacking her. Harris seems obvious and logical though. Val Demings would be a dark horse.

My son's (22) assessment of Biden:

"I think he has dementia. But we've already seen that our country can keep running when the president has dementia, so I'm okay voting for him. It can't be worse than it is now."

That's probably a more a acute analysis than anything I've ever seen on cable news.

There were a dozen candidates the party could have gotten behind and they chose the one with dementia. I swear the Democrats love losing.

Maybe they just want to copy the Republicans winning strategy.

Maybe we're going for a "fight fire with fire" theme, but instead it's "fight dementia with dementia".

"When they go low, we go lower!"

Got it.

Well, that's probably not lower. And plenty of Democrats, especially after the 2016 election, did not think Michelle Obama's words there were the right strategy. There are still a lot of Democrats who bemoan not fighting as dirty as the GOP does.

Oh, I'm well aware of that.

Mama repeatedly told me when I was a child that "two wrongs don't make a right." I believed it then, and I believe it all the more as an adult.

I don't think calling him "morbidly obese" is worse or even on par with many of the things he's said about any number of people. He is by definition obese. I grant that the "morbidly" part was a bit over the top and unnecessary, and I honestly wish Pelosi hadn't said it. I don't want it to be a rallying cry like Hillary's "basket of deplorables" became. But I did literally laugh out loud when I heard it the first time. So now I'll hop into the basket too, I guess.

When you have someone with as much "experience" (ie. ancient) as Biden, I think it fine to go with someone younger and can bring more energy to the base. Harris has the drawback of prosecutor history that makes her less attractive to very people you want to energize. I am not saying it has to be Abrams, but some one much younger, preferably of color, that can handle herself on the biggest of stages. She can learn the rest once she is in the White House. She will definitely be surrounded with experienced hands to help her. I have seen people equate picking Abrams with Quayle and Palin, and that just proves they have no idea who she is.

To be fair to Palin, when she was selected she was a very popular Governor of Alaska, and her first speech after being tagged as VP was a barnburner (I was fairly impressed, I remember). She just got too popular too fast and bought into her own hype.

Agreed... but tolerance of "stupid" is not evenly distributed across ideologies.

It also shows they have no idea who Quayle and Palin are.

After electing a reality TV host/failed businessman, it's pretty clear that "experience" is pretty low on the totem pole for importance.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-r...uchar-vetting/

Not that this is a surprise to anyone.

There are a few being reported to have reached the deeper vetting level- Demmings, and Klobuchar so far.

Interesting interview this morning.

Just about every time Biden opens his mouth, "Lay low" sounds like a better strategy. *shurg* #YouAintBlack

such an obvious hamfisted pander, ugh

my PredictIt account's gonna blow up if Val's it... bought at 2-3-4c

I've got some Duckworth at 5c

My theory being that she checks all the boxes. And she's from Illinois. Which means that she's got an Obama connection. And when Biden calls Obama to get his thoughts (which I think he will), Obama will put in a good word for her.

In (probably) related news, I routinely lose money on PredictIt.