The Joe Biden thread

[seer]

"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

Goodness, I forgot about Leonard Ravenhill! I haven't read him in twenty plus years...

[rogue06]

Biden needs just under 40% of the remaining delegates to get a majority. He'll do just fine under any reasonable scenario.

If more states follow NY's lead and cancel their primaries and especially if they allow the delegates sent to be "non-committed" a brokered convention is definitely in the cards.

[DivineOb]

If more states follow NY's lead and cancel their primaries and especially if they allow the delegates sent to be "non-committed" a brokered convention is definitely in the cards.

There is an essentially 0% chance that the candidate endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and every primary opponent of worth *and* who has a plurality of delegates does not end up the nominee.

[Mountain Man]

One of the biggest mistakes that any politician can make is holding their opponent (and their supporters) in contempt and regarding him as little more than a moron. If nothing else you set the bar for their doing well so low that simply being little more than competent will allow them to do well in a debate. The wise strategy is to build them up in hopes that they don't reach expectations -- and if they don't mock them as grossly overrated.

I remember when Bush debated Kerry. The media played it up that Bush was an idiot, and Kerry was a master of debate, and that it was a foregone conclusion that Kerry would destroy him. Except Bush held his own. It wasn't a spectacular performance, but he didn't get blown away, either, and the general opinion was that Bush won simply because the media had set him up with rock bottom expectations.

[rogue06]

I remember when Bush debated Kerry. The media played it up that Bush was an idiot, and Kerry was a master of debate, and that it was a foregone conclusion that Kerry would destroy him. Except Bush held his own. It wasn't a spectacular performance, but he didn't get blown away, either, and the general opinion was that Bush won simply because the media had set him up with rock bottom expectations.

Yup, treating your opponent like an incompetent boob is a foolish move, especially when they run circles around you like Bush did for much of his first term -- and Trump has also done several times. I mean, if they are such idiots then what does that say about you when they keep beating you?

[rogue06]

There is an essentially 0% chance that the candidate endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and every primary opponent of worth *and* who has a plurality of delegates does not end up the nominee.

Given the nature of those endorsements (sort of like someone swimming out to a ship that already set sail), I doubt either of them will be too upset. And Hillary is especially comfortable in ignoring the will of the rank and file voters what with the rigged primaries and debates during 2016 when she was pre-selected.

[KingsGambit]

I don't actually think this will be fatal. Not intending this as a tu quoque, but given Trump's Access Hollywood comments and the fact that there have been a number of allegations after him (by some counts, as many as 25 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct) , I don't think it will end up being a deal breaker. At the very least, this will give people already disposed to oppose Trump justification for continuing to vote for Biden; anecdotally, I have heard this exact justification offered on a personal level. Does this match up with "believe all women"? No. But I'm more interested in discussing what will actually happen than what would happen if people were perfectly consistent.

Also, note that recent polling suggests that so-called "double haters" are breaking for Biden right now.

[rogue06]

I don't actually think this will be fatal. Not intending this as a tu quoque, but given Trump's Access Hollywood comments and the fact that there have been a number of allegations after him (by some counts, as many as 25 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct) , I don't think it will end up being a deal breaker. At the very least, this will give people already disposed to oppose Trump justification for continuing to vote for Biden; anecdotally, I have heard this exact justification offered on a personal level. Does this match up with "believe all women"? No. But I'm more interested in discussing what will actually happen than what would happen if people were perfectly consistent.

Also, note that recent polling suggests that so-called "double haters" are breaking for Biden right now.

It's hard to believe that it'll be a deal-breaker given the near universal blackout on it that the main players in the MSM have given it. Neither ABC or NBC have said a single word about it during any of their on air newscasts (although ABC did write something about awhile back -- but only to summarily dismiss it as a political attack orchestrated by Trump) and CBS has spent just over a whole minute covering the allegations.

This could change in that the Washington Post has published a story today noting that calls for Biden to address the allegations are growing and that he "has not addressed the accusations and has not been asked about them in any of the several television interviews he has done since Reade’s accusations gained significant public attention." That pressure comes results from recently

two women had corroborated key elements of the accusations against Biden. According to the story, one woman said Reade had told her decades ago that Biden assaulted her, and another woman backed up elements of Reade’s prior statement that Biden had harassed her when she worked for him.

[seanD]

I don't actually think this will be fatal. Not intending this as a tu quoque, but given Trump's Access Hollywood comments and the fact that there have been a number of allegations after him (by some counts, as many as 25 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct) , I don't think it will end up being a deal breaker. At the very least, this will give people already disposed to oppose Trump justification for continuing to vote for Biden; anecdotally, I have heard this exact justification offered on a personal level. Does this match up with "believe all women"? No. But I'm more interested in discussing what will actually happen than what would happen if people were perfectly consistent.

Also, note that recent polling suggests that so-called "double haters" are breaking for Biden right now.

I would totally agree, since the Dem party has zero principles or morals whatsoever (the morals they pretend to uphold and beat everyone else over the head with is a complete and utter facade, very eerily similar to the morals of a fanatical religious cult and its leadership), thus they could care less about it looking hypocritical. But Biden's brain is a marshmallow, and this is the perfect Biden-out for them. Assuming Biden's not faking the severity of it, I can't imagine the DNC wants to be embarrassed on a national stage this way in a general debate.

[Mountain Man]

...(by some counts, as many as 25 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct)...

Yes, but the difference there is that the media desperately dug and dug and dug to corroborate even just one of the accusations and came up empty. Contrast this with the Biden allegations where they have studiously ignored it.

[DivineOb]

Yes, but the difference there is that the media desperately dug and dug and dug to corroborate even just one of the accusations and came up empty. Contrast this with the Biden allegations where they have studiously ignored it.

Obama came up empty when vetting Biden too? And so did Sanders? You really believe that?

[seanD]

Obama came up empty when vetting Biden too? And so did Sanders? You really believe that?

Not missed it, just didn't care about it.

[DivineOb]

Not missed it, just didn't care about it.

You do understand that Obama would have paid a huge price *himself*, possibly costing the election in 2008 and certainly in 2012 if something like this came out in October, right?

He had *no reason* not to go full rectal on Biden before selecting him.

[KingsGambit]

Yes, but the difference there is that the media desperately dug and dug and dug to corroborate even just one of the accusations and came up empty. Contrast this with the Biden allegations where they have studiously ignored it.

Again, I'm talking about what will actually happen, not about the relative strength of the allegations. The current progressive line right now appears to be "they're both rapists, vote for the less worst one".

[seanD]

You do understand that Obama would have paid a huge price *himself*, possibly costing the election in 2008 and certainly in 2012 if something like this came out in October, right?

He had *no reason* not to go full rectal on Biden before selecting him.

It was something that had happened years and years ago. Assuming Obama even cared to be concerned, which I DON'T, Obama had no way of knowing she had told witnesses and that she'd eventually come out of the woodwork years later. Remember, this happened before MeToo and before the Dems set the precedent of "Believe all women." And this is also even assuming he would've actually been able to find any of the records about her complaint or would have known specifically where to look. I also find it extremely hard to believe there weren't other complaints from women that Obama didn't know about, considering how much of a letch Biden is. I mean, if he's willing to be that handsy and creepy with females in public before all to see, imagine how much of a sexual creep he is in private.