I don't know why they let him do an interview with Charlemagne. He actually puts politicians on the spot and asks direct questions. Could have seen this coming a mile away if anyone in the campaign had seen his interviews.

It gives everyone something to talk about, but an interview in May is going to make no difference. With what we've seen of Trump's polling since the last election, I'm not sure anything matters.

This was the candidate largely chosen by African-Americans. *Shrug*

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Joe gonna fuck this up? I mean you can't right? Trump was looking teflon in February but pandemic and the economy got him on the ropes. Just read off the index card and get your naps in Joe. Jeez.

— Ryan (@datboywolf) May 22, 2020

Thanks South Carolina

Nobody's going to remember this interview in a week, or maybe even a day when Trump says something crazier at his news conference. One thing we learned from 2016 is that It's just not going to matter.

?

South Carolina gave Biden the win he needed to remain viable and he ran the table after that.

Ah

SC was also the first major black Democratic primary state. Even after Iowa and NH, Biden's numbers among black voters remained high. SC just got the first bite at the apple.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Biden needs a really good PR company to help him. That is his only hope.

The PR firm of Shut, The, and Fuckup would be aces

Michelle is probably the only choice that makes any kind of sense. Especially after today’s debacle. Let her do the campaigning.

Agreed a nothing burger news day. This is zero news in three days. Breaking news Trump wants to start detonating nukes again!

My wife and I completed our PA mail in ballot.

I LOL'd

SI

Based on what I can see on my social media, Biden's gaff seems to be resonating with Trump-friendly conservatives who were never going to vote for Biden anyway. They are VERY offended on behalf of black democrats.

And I'm sure /none/ of them have said much worse when in "safe" company. It's definitely /not/ concern trolling

SI

The issue on the gaffe isn't Biden vs Trump, it is Biden vs staying home. Biden needs Obama level turnout to win.

While he is doing well with older voters, he is doing poorly with young voters. Going to be hard to turn that around.

He also needs to come up with a better answer to his crime bill. Getting angry and claiming you're not black seems like a poor long term strategy to a question he is going to be asked relentlessly over the next few months.

IF you can't decide whether you're for Trump or Biden than you aren't the least bit able to have any sort of keystone/benchmark for the moral high ground on basically anything at all including the highest office in the land.

Where is good ol' Gary Johnson when you need him? Probably in the mountains smoking a blunt.

Well, okay, except that these are very potentially the exact set of people who will get to make the call on said office.

Looks like you'll have to make do with Jo Jorgensen, who won the Libertarian nomination and is probably the leading contender for my vote right now (assuming I can vote).

So how did she get the nomination when she had half the votes of Hornberger and about the same as Vermin Supreme?

SI

This article explains a little bit of the process

Jo Jorgensen Wins Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination – Reason.com

Shit, I've got tenure, so I guess I'm more than qualified to run for president.

just curious how one takes any political party serious when Vermin Supreme gets 20 percent of the vote?

I don't know how anyone takes a political party seriously when Donald Trump WINS the nomination.

Fair point.

The Libertarian Party could be good if it was principled small government Republicans for the most part. Issue seems to be that the loudest voices in that party are people who have views way outside the political sphere. I remember that video where they had candidates on stage asking if a drivers license should be required. Everyone said no and then they booed the crap out of Johnson because he said he didn't have a problem with it.

Let's be fair. You just want to be a contrarian.

They unfortunately didn't have a libertarian primary in Idaho this year, but 29 votes would have won you the New Hampshire primary. I figure 20 votes would have gotten it done in Idaho. I have enough drinking aquaintences to have pulled that off and been a part of Wikipedia history. I will prepare for 2024.

As expected and fair point, which is why I don't take them seriously either and it is getting close to the same for the Dems.

With friends likes these:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilh...inst-joe-biden

Who needs enemies?

I really don't get her, constantly shooting herself in the foot with words/actions that are clearly reactionary. Plus she is not quite a model of virtue. To say you believe or refute a claim solely on one persons word is asinine, especially with them both clearly wishing Bernie had won.

Her statement should perhaps have been. "I take this seriously and believe the victims claim should be given due consideration, and I will withhold a final statement/judgement pending this resolution"

Common fucking sense 101 instead of just believing or dismissing her sight unseen. That is how people lives get ruined and/or justice not served.

Maybe she is being consistent on believing claims from women instead of deciding that claims should be decided by what political party the accused is in.

David Menschel on Twitter: "Back when she was chief prosecutor Amy Klobuchar declined to bring charges against more than two dozen officers who had killed citizens while on duty – INCLUDING THE COP THAT KILLED GEORGE FLOYD. https://t.co/9AHb6OQY60"

Rightly or wrongly, that has to kill Klobuchar’s chances at VP.

You missed the whole point of my post. You don't accept as fact the guilt or innocence of the accused until the fact are investigated. You forget the Duke Lacrosse team already?

Accept the accusations as serious and investigate them. Saying she believes Reade is pretty much co-signing Biden's guilty. Men commit despicable acts, just like women make it up and there are plenty of examples of both.

Any allegation should be taken seriously but not immediately accepted as truth.

Well said.

But I would add that you can draw some conclusions if there's a pattern (e.g. smoke). There is no doubt Biden has a pattern of making some women uncomfortable with his touching (sexual harassment). I've not read a pattern of him "finger/digit penetration" (sexual assault).

I think what is happening in Minnesota might be the end of Klobuchar for VP.

It's only solidified Harris imo. This can't be that hard to screw up is it?

I wouldn't sleep on Demings.

Demings has a law enforcement background as chief of police of Orlando. I really doubt that's going to fly given the current circumstances. It will take one questionable decision from her tenure on handling police brutality and she's a lost cause.

Harris prosecutorial career is problematic too. We'll see though...

I don't see either one of them being VP for those reasons. It's just too poisonous to the people Democrats need to vote.

And you can rabbit hole that forever with Harris' time as a district attorney. The perfect candidate doesn't exist anymore and looking for perfection against Trump is an act of folly.

Florida plus any 1 swing state wins the election for Biden. If they feel Demings gets them Florida she's the right call. Harris is a solid and safe pick. I'm just not sure how much she helps in the states Biden should be targeting.

To Demings credit she is trying to get out in front of this with an op-Ed in WaPo today. Still, like I said, one questionable case she failed to discipline an officer on and it's really really bad. Florida or not. I think Warren, Abrams and Michelle Lujan Grisham are buoyed by this all.

I don't think those things should be an obstacle, I'm just saying they absolutely are. I'm 98% certain Biden is looking for the safest candidate he can find. That's not Demings or Harris.

I will say I can see the argument being made that if Demings is picked and police reform becomes a major part of the platform, it could be turned into a positive. It requires her record to be squeaky clean, and I feel like that's almost impossible as a chief of police, but maybe it could work.

My girl Duckworth up to 7c on PredictIt. Y'all join this bandwagon before it gets too crowded.

Klobuchar is still, somehow, at 8c. I guess people hate selling at a loss.

I like Duckworth a lot.

I think it hurts Harris too. Whitmer, Duckworth and Abrams seem to be the beneficiaries.

I think Harris threads the needle on this.

Clearly skin color plays a part as unfortunate as that is but it'll help capture enough of the minority vote and buttress Biden's criminal justice concerns.

Then the fact that she was a prosecutor saves the middle American white women's vote.

I think this is a marketable advantage for Harris in the race.

I posted the Bottoms vid in the other thread. On that speech alone does she leapfrog Harris and Abrams? That's the kind of rhetoric and message that I'd expect would resonate with suburban white women who were already lukewarm on Trump. I tend to think Georgia is possibly flippable, and I wonder if Bottoms gives him the best shot at that...

Interesting. I will say I was hearing praise for Bottoms even before this from people you would not expect to hear praise from. She is pretty well unknown outside of Georgia right now (maybe this will raise her profile?). I am afraid of the possible skeletons that might pop-up even from her short time in Atlanta. No one comes in or out of Atlanta city government clean it seems.

Fair point. I guess it wouldn't be shocking if she doesn't survive the vetting.

Thanks for not quoting the typo.

Also Bottoms is on her third year as Mayor and before that a City Council member. Not exactly a ton of experience, and I think Biden wants to contrast experience. Not to mention, Kasim Reed was a part of her camp and he was a crook (now KLB has been much better, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were skeletons somewhere).

Harris may be the best choice. Threads the needle well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Biden has a difficult task because whoever is chosen may be the Presidential favorite as early as 2024. A lot of people want that, and he'll have to be careful so that he doesn't piss off too many others. That's a big advantage with Warren, who may also not want to run in 2024, but I think it's risky not to have a person of color on the ticket.

He so needs Warren really. But she's kind of all over the place lately. Granted so are many others

You can't do Warren because the Dems can't lose a Senate seat

SI

I don't think that's a big issue. The Dem legislature has changed the law before and can do it again.

I highly doubt they would lose her seat. There is a Senate race this year and the Republicans likely candidate is some complete nut conspiracy theorist.

I think a Warren selection loses the white suburban vote who is afraid of extreme taxation.

Although not as important as the white suburban vote, it would also kill any chance of pulling in the Sanders supporters.

I really like Warren. I think she'd be an outstanding VP. I don't think she's the right pick here.

I read that the governor (currently Charlie Baker, a Centrist Rupublican) would get to appoint the replacement, with a special election to follow within 120 days (not positive about time, but not too long if she were to resign immediately after the presidential election in early November and inauguration in Jan). The Democratic legislature would also likely pass a law, like other states have, where they give Baker three nominees to choose from.

It currently looks like Massachusetts’ other senator, Ed Markey is going to lose his primary to Rep Joe Kennedy III (grandson of Bobby Kennedy), despite having pretty good approval numbers. It would make sense for the loser of the primary to get the nod. Markey, in particular, would retain seniority and committee assignments.

I bought PredictIt shares of Val Demings weeks ago, just on spec...sold most of them this morning at 17 cents. Nice win. I still think she is an interesting play, but it sounds like they don't plan to announce for another 8-9 weeks, and it seems like a ton could happen through that time. I'm still invested enough to watch it, but not enough to pace over it.

Absolutely the opposite. Sure, Sanders voters were pissed at Warren for a lot of reasons, but she still represents the most progressive voice of the options, and it if anything, it would be an olive branch to Sanders' wing of the party. Most rationale Sanders voters will see that.

Source: Me. Sanders supporter. Did not love her campaign and some of her antics, but would love Warren as VP.

That may very well be the case, I just see a ton of Sanders supporters that still blame her for Biden getting the nomination. There seems to be a lot of bad blood there.

As I said, she'd be my number 1 choice. However, my goal is to get Trump out of office and I'm not sure she's the right VP to help make that happen.

Name the candidate that gets the most Sanders supporters into the fold?

SI

Sanders

I don't think it's that simple. I think you need to look at who motivates the most voters. Sanders' voters are one block, but driving up African-American turnout and Hispanic turnout are also important goals.

I really don't see any other way for it NOT to be Harris. I mean, I'm being a bit myopic with it, but she's had the favorite status imo, ever since she dropped out of the pres race. If the summer proceeds down the path it's heading right now, she is absolutely the right person. Hell, if she were still in the race right now, I'd have preferred her above Biden.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that he isn't getting the nomination.

SI

I could see Biden not wanting to nominate someone who was a prosecutor, especially with her record.

Is the plan to try to dribble out the clock and hold onto an apparent "lead" here?

Is the plan to actively woo and contest suburban white women in the midwest?

Is the plan to supercharge voter enthusiasm and gather greater turnout from pockets of potential voters who should be predisposed to support the D?

...the answer to these, including some mismash of all of the above, has a lot to do with who is the "best" running mate for purposes of winning.

(FWIW, I deliberately omitted the "best at governing" because I simply don't see how that translates here... competence isn't sexy, and anyone who cares enough about competence to let ti drive their vote is already fully locked in for the most viable anti-Trump candidate, I think)

And, by the way, we already know the playbook...

Right now the Biden running mate is "Generic Dem Woman." Tough to beat her.


Once she has a name, we will see it fire up. Oh, she one time made this decision on a thing, isn't that awful fifteen years later? Oh, she has an "associate" who said something that seems naughty out of context, for shame! Oh, she might have gone on a date before being formally betrothed, we family values types will surely reject her and vote for...checks notes...Trump. Whatever... sprinkle in liberal amounts of sexism and/or racism as need be to get the seasoning just right. The base will eat it up, count on it.

+1

"As bad as Trump has been, it is equally true that at some point in the last 20 years some Democrat or someone in the media also did a bad thing. So, even though I am #NeverTrump, I am still voting for him."

But we shouldn't overestimate how much any particular candidate might help. The VP choice doesn't make a big difference.

That's just not true. While the VP doesn't make a huge difference within an administration, a VP does make a big difference in an election.

You'll have to show me the evidence of that. They really have any impact in terms of their home state.


You can read a more recent interview here:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-m...-mates-matter/

They found little impact of direct effects, but some of indirect, for example picking someone unqualified could slightly alter people's thoughts on the Presidential candidate, but little to no effects for directly targeting groups of voters with the VP selection.

If there's data showing the opposite, I would truly like to see it.

And I could see Evangelicals not wanting to nominate...well..you know how that ended.

I think they, with the rest of the right, just wanted someone who could "own" libs.

They found Clinton even more unacceptable than Trump and weren't willing to consider anyone else. The polling data from '16 is pretty clear on that being the reason for the late switch from undecided to Trump. Which is why all Biden has to do is not be absolutely horrible. He'd can be bad, bordering on terrible and that'll still be enough.

So you're willing to discount the convictions of a highly 'ethically' bound voting bloc as a group that despised the 'libs' even more in order to vote someone in that they should, by all rights, have abhorred. Yet, you think that it doesn't go the other way too? I mean sure Harris has some baggage she brings, but if she brings the goods to the ticket, you don't think that the other side can't set it aside so they can 'own' the Con-Don crew?

I think what a lot of people are still missing is that they did abhor Trump ... and voted for him anyway. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.

To me at least, that means that the opposition can find support from those who hate trump more (among independents, former trump voters and other kingmaker groups) than Biden/whomever and still find votes cast their way with minimal regard for the skeletons of their own.

You're right on at least some voters.

My mom is a single issue Pro-Life person that held her nose to vote for Trump but did so because he was Pro-Life and the Democrats are Pro-Choice

Really I think this is a softball.

Harris - Black Woman gets minority vote
Harris - Law enforcement/prosecutorial background gets middle Amer. white woman vote

Done and done and Biden runs away with it at the box although it'll tighten up according to the news.

I think that the way they're handling the Federal response to the looting and riots etc, escalation, is losing the middle white suburban women's vote in spades. The other base votes just hardened but the middle is a lost cause as of now and I'm not sure how they get it back.

The church photo op and the immediate slap down of the Arch-Dioceses of DC (a women) about it. Is devastating. The only hope is that this is so far away from Nov that people have moved on by the time they vote.

Presumably they are deeply vetting Vel Demings with this same triangulation in mind, and possibly a way to avoid the higher profile issues with Harris. I have no clue what comes up in Demings's background as a police chief, but if they're content that she's at least okay there, I think she makes a stronger play, actually.

And those voters, who definitely do exist, should just be written off as lost causes by the Dems for the next generation. Tactically, that is just ceded ground, like it or not. If you campaign so well that you dig into that cache of solid R votes, then you're well past what you need to win anyway.

It's either boost blue-leaning turnout by inspiration, persuade the persuadable likely voters to vote blue, or microtarget specific swing states...and most likely an actual combination of the above.

So overall, the GOP line on policy is more status quo + tax breaks. And the Dems are more progressive. Is that fair?

If so, then why don't the Dems come up with a cohesive plan showing their desired goals in terms of tax policy, health care, criminal reform, student loans / college costs, infrastructure, etc. It would make it easier for people to understand the entire scope of what they want to change and how it would impact each individual and perhaps give them the chance to sweep into office with a plan to hit the ground on day 1.

In theory they will when Joe becomes the official nominee and the official party platform gets written.

I know, but those never seem to be very details (possible I'm just not seeing the detailed version). Most of the blurbs that candidates have put out just state that they will raise taxes on the rich.

Plans | Elizabeth Warren

I don't want to try and speak for every candidate, but Elizabeth Warren, for instance, had a detailed plan for practically everything. I mean, they were there in black and white with bullet points and concrete action plans, not just "hey, I want to make more jobs". But it's had to convey complex plans in soundbites and it's one of the things her campaign struggled with.

SI

I think this is why Warren scared Republican-leaning people more than Bernie.

Bernie had the rhetoric. But Warren had the plans.

She was better than most for sure but still nothing that told me what tax rates would need to be in order to pay for all this, etc. "Make the rich pay their fair share" is a pretty open ended statement.

She put out her tax plan. One of the main aspects was taxing assets over $50 million. Was not popular among Dem leadership and their rich donors.

Fair enough - I guess I missed that.

It would be nice if this all upheaval served to make justice & police reform a/the primary issue for Biden and his campaign. They're practically begging for a popular platform (or any platform), and it's personally a primary issue for me, so it would actually give me a substantive reason to get behind Biden, rather than feeling like I'm holding my nose.