Why the Democrats won’t win the Presidency in 2020

There are many reasons why I despair of the Democrats recapturing the White House in 2020, and this is the latest one of them. Click on the screenshot:

Yes, Biden may be a creepy groper, but we don’t know that yet, nor does Elizabeth Warren. (Biden says he doesn’t recall doing this, and denies acting inappropriately.) Yet Warren has to tear down her competitor by all means possible.  Thus will the Democrats destroy each other.

From the article:

Presidential hopeful Julián Castro, who previously served in the Obama administration, echoed Warren’s comments at the same event Saturday.

“I believe Lucy Flores,” Castro told reporters. “We need to live in a nation where people can share their truth.”

When reporters asked if the alleged kiss should disqualify Biden from running for president, both candidates agreed it would be his decision to make.

Their truth! Yet there is only one truth here: either Biden did it or didn’t. Flores and Biden don’t have different but equal truths.

Sanders also believes Flores and says that it’s Biden’s decision to make. It’s clear what they all mean.

This article might help sort it out. It’s not exculpatory, but didactic.

Yoffe:

“Leading Democrats have demonstrated repeatedly, especially since #MeToo began, that they now hold due process, and the concept that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, to be passé manifestations of “rape culture.” But gutting basic civil rights represents a danger for their party.

. . . As a society, we are in danger of losing a sense of proportion, and a belief in forgiveness. We lack established, fair procedures for evaluating claims of sexual violation outside the criminal-justice system. We need to slow down, be less certain, and think about how to weigh accusations in each case. This means embracing the bedrock principles that both accuser and accused must be treated fairly, and that hearing only one side is insufficient. When people are accused and punished unjustly, a backlash inevitably ensues. When that happens, the crucial and urgent cause of addressing sexual misconduct is undermined.”

187 Comments

  1. yazikus
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Ugh. I don’t doubt that Joe has been handsy- these kind of stories have been around about him for ages. I don’t think that means he shouldn’t be ‘allowed’ to run. I just won’t be voting for him in the primary – not primarily for the ‘handsy’ reason, but because I like other candidates far better.

    • Rita Prangle
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      I agree. The incident as described is trivial, and should not disqualify Joe Biden. But, I do hope he doesn’t run. I would rather see him as Secretary of State, with a younger and more progressive President.

      • Juris Doctor
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        I hate to disagree, but the last thing I want is a younger president. I want an older president with decades of experience (read: pattern recognition); somebody who knows how government & law work. Someone who knows the ins and outs of the Constitutional mechanics, how those mechanics interface with Congress and the Presidency, what government can and cannot do (and how it can go about doing it), someone who knows recent history, etc., etc. What I don’t want is someone who is going to inherit whatever winds up being left to them and think that it’s time to start “experiementing” with “new ideas.” That’s going to make a bad situation worse.

        If David Hume were alive, he would probably agree with me. Experience is more than a slogan, it’s about pattern recognition and fluency. Law and government has evolved to a level of complexity that these new recruits are unable to handle as well as an experienced older person. That comes with grey temples. And I’m sorry, but that’s how the world works.

        • GBJames
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

          Experience is of little use when coupled with decrepitude. I prefer leaders have pattern recognition without being enslaved to the patterns.

          – stated as a member of the Senior Club

          • Juris Doctor
            Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

            Experience is paramount, and a healthy person in their 70s in this day and age is far from decrepit, but nice try at ageism there.

            We could go into the number of young(er) to middle-aged politicians who are enslaved to alcohol and substance abuse. The numbers would shock you, and they unfortunately cut across party lines.

            The Constitution sets forth a very rigid framework for government that has implications for the way things can be accomplished in Washington. Certain things in government just work certain ways, and this is the hardest lesson for idealistic political reformers to learn.

            • GBJames
              Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

              You need to think of Joe as being in his 80s, not his 70’s. If he was elected and served two terms, he would be 86 at the end of his presidency, assuming I’ve done the math right.

              I’m staring down the barrel at my 70’s, so spare me the accusations of ageism.

              • Juris Doctor
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

                There is no necessary connection between someone in their 70s/early 80s and the inability to execute the functions of a president. It’s different for everybody.

                If that’s a disqualifying factor for you, then you’re really missing out. I’ll take a competent person in their 70s/early 80s over any of these middle aged drug and alcohol addled swine we call politicians any day of the week. Substance abuse is high among middle-aged elected officials. That should be disqualifying.

              • GBJames
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

                Give me a break, doc, with the ageist slurs against younger politicians for being drug-addled.

              • Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

                There may not be a necessary connection, but there is certainly a correlation between increased age and declining mental and physical abilities. And it’s not even as if President of the United States is an easy gig.

                It’s beyond me why Bernie Sanders is standing again. If he wins, he’ll be starting his first term at 79. There would be a good chance of him dying in office.

              • Juris Doctor
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

                “There may not be a necessary connection, but there is certainly a correlation between increased age and declining mental and physical abilities. And it’s not even as if President of the United States is an easy gig.”

                Which is predictive of very little, if anything. Cognitive decline is a function of what you start out to begin with. Those with thinner prefrontal cortexes are likely to experience more pronounced cognitive decline, but those with a thicker prefrontal cortex will not experience much, if any decline.

                There are plenty of federal judges (lifetime appointments there). Any marked decline in their performance due to age is the exception rather than the rule.

                At the rate this is going, Trump is going to be re-elected, so you’re going to be stuck with someone in their 70s holding office.

                “It’s beyond me why Bernie Sanders is standing again. If he wins, he’ll be starting his first term at 79. There would be a good chance of him dying in office.”

                And your point is? He’s obviously physically and intellectually capable of running. These grumbles about someone’s age are preposterous.

      • eric
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        I agree. There are plenty of good candidates in the field already. Biden was a decent VP and Senator, but we certainly don’t need him as the Dem candidate for President.

        • Juris Doctor
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

          “I agree. There are plenty of good candidates in the field already. Biden was a decent VP and Senator, but we certainly don’t need him as the Dem candidate for President.”

          Unfortunately, I think you do. The Democratic National Committee is a disorganized clown car right now with more infighting than seen in modern history. Biden is the only one who still has the institutional network that Barack Obama had. Not to mention, he is beloved by voters in those Midwestern states that Clinton lost. The other candidates don’t have that quality going for them and those qualities unfortunately are a prerequisite to winning the election.

    • eric
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

      Evidently, the term “Bidening” is a thing or was a thing in Congress. Referring to being overly touchy-feely. So yeah, it’s almost certainly true.

      Whether you consider the conduct defensible or indefensible, this is IMO a perfectly predictable outcome of considering someone in their 80s for President. They grew up and were adults in a time with different values related to how men and women treat each other. Of course their past conduct reflects the values of the time. What else would one expect? For the same reason, I’d pretty much expect that every single candidate over the age of 50 started off their career not supporting gay marriage, because the mainstream liberal position was not supportive of it prior to the 2010s. (That is – before, ironically, Biden publicly brought it up.)

      • Mark R.
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        Remember Richard Dawson on Family Feud? He’d go down the line of 5? contestants and kiss every woman on the lips. Could you imagine Alex Trebek doing that to the women on Jeopardy? Yikes! Times have certainly changed in this respect; I wonder how many women hated being kissed by Dawson; I’m sure some loved it as well.

  2. Bruce J. Cochrane
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Let’s not over-react to the headline of the moment. The first primary (or rather caucus) is nearly a year away, and candidate debates don’t even begin until June. And with respect to Biden, he has a record of government service going back to the 1970’s, so of course there is a lot to scrutinize (and criticize). Finally, since he’s a front runner in many polls (again at this moment), he will be a target. No, the big question is not so much who ends up getting the nomination, but rather how well the party coalesces around her or him. I’m hopeful that it will (if for no other reason the specter of four more years), but that won’t become clear until the nomination process plays out.

  3. michaelkaz
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Personally, I have no comment on Lucy Flores’ accusations, because I know very little about this specific case.

    However, there are photos and videos of Joe Biden acting in a very disturbing manner to women and girls. Just watching these is enough to make me uncomfortable. This is not new at all.

    I just did a quick search on YouTube and came across this compilation:

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      That will do it. Biden would be toast in the primaries.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      Hey, at least someone, somewhere actually likes Biden. Ted Cruz is so skeevy, he creeps out his own daughter. 🙂

      • DW
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        That’s really not fair!

        Ted Cruz is a lizard, he doesn’t understand our mammalian ways. He’s trying the best he can!

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

          Hey!! What’s wrong with lizards? Lizards are cool!

          Don’t try to blame Cruz’s disgusting (and unfortunately only too mammalian) behaviour on lizards.

          I think he’s a hyena.

          cr

          • Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

            I would like to put in a good word for hyenas, a much maligned animal. As a member of the sub-order feliformia they are more closely related to the cat family than the canines they resemble in appearance. Hyenas are cursorial predators as well as scavengers and are far from cowardly. Any comparison to Ted Cruz is not warranted.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:26 am | Permalink

              I just *knew* that would happen!

              Okay, so what do we liken Mr Cruz to now. (Don’t say rat, some rats are cute).
              Tapeworm?

              cr

              • Filippo
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

                An Ichneumonida selectively numbing higher cognitive ganglia of the public?

            • Robert Ladley
              Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:27 am | Permalink

              I agree.
              Any comparison of animals to any humans (usually derogatory)is in my opinion always not warranted. Humans are animals, just not so well behaved.

              • Filippo
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

                Yes. Especially from my extensive, personal and direct classroom experience, 5th-8th grade juvenile male human primates. Sometimes I think I’d rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then to have to deal with their mouthiness and obstreperous oppositional defiance.

  4. Neil Wolfe
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Franken 2020

    • Posted April 2, 2019 at 12:41 am | Permalink

      Not a chance. He’s been damned permanently, though of course I’d like to see him run.

  5. Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    I don’t think Biden realizes how much he invades a person’s space by his behavior. He probably thinks that he’s being friendly, caring, etc. I had a friend down here that felt the need to hug everyone even when they didn’t know him and didn’t want a hug. He never asked first, he just walked up and hugged them tight and rubbed his face up against theirs. Also, if someone puts their arm around my waistline and scrunches in for a photo, I feel VERY uncomfortable if they’re not a close friend of mine. Biden tends to do this as well and I cringe at that. Some probably wouldn’t think anything of this and would be comfortable with it. But this is why one should ask if it’s ok to hug another, or kiss them, or smell their hair, or put their hands on a person’s waistline. I don’t think that this rates so terrible that he shouldn’t run for president. But he does need to realize that he IS invading someone’s space and that it does creep women out.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      I agree. I have known people like that, including a couple women who made me uncomfortable. But I am sure that women get this more frequently.
      I am willing to see at least some of these types as being just extra gregarious. But not all of them are innocent and oblivious, certainly.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      Very well said.

    • Matt
      Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      Agree. I’m a man and it makes me cringe watching him do it.

      • Filippo
        Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

        IICR, Dubya did his share of that with female heads of state. (Merkel?) Their people should tell their people that that is just not going to happen any more. A woman head of state should do whatever it takes – pushing the presumptuous male away – during welcoming ceremonies on state visits – to get the bloody message across. If that’s what it takes. Take a bloody hint.

  6. Ken Kukec
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Hate to say it, boss, but given your track record for prognostication in 2016, this may be the most encouraging word Democrats have heard so far. 🙂

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      That would count for most everyone. The surprise was widespread. But PCC(E) is pretty good at predicting in other areas. Not happy about that right now, though.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, we were almost all wrong about 2016, but Jerry, bless his heart, was wronger than most. Recall his Chicago-Tribune-Dewey-Defeats-Truman headline?

        Some of us who were dead wrong were still leery, trying to warn right up until the end that Trump had 15-20% chance of pulling it off — about the same odds (and, as it turns out for the country, about the same results) as playing Russian Roulette with a six-shooter.

        • Posted April 2, 2019 at 12:45 am | Permalink

          You have a way of repeatedly dissing me in a curious way: first the praise and then the punch. Example, “Jerry, bless his heart, was wronger than most.”

          Please knock it off, as it’s annoying. Yes, I predicted wrong, and lost $500 in bets, but you seem to delight in that in an an extreme way, and of course praising yourself “some of you” (i.e., you) were still worried and thus more prescient than I.

          I was wrong and admitted it.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted April 2, 2019 at 8:55 am | Permalink

            I was just funnin’ ya a bit, man.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      It can be argued that his prediction in itself was correct, but that the counting in several swing states was fraudulent,.

      • rustybrown
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        That could be argued, but not convincingly.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

          Oh, I agree. But that didn’t stop your boy Donald from arguing the election was rigged if he lost.

          • rustybrown
            Posted April 1, 2019 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, and wasn’t he prescient given how your gal tried to rig the election when she lost?

            https://mobile.twitter.com/mtracey/status/1112112510348550144

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted April 2, 2019 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

              You forgot the part about the 3 to 5 million illegal immigrants whose ballots made Trump lose the popular vote.

            • Filippo
              Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

              I take it that you are thankful/grateful for the Electoral College.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 3, 2019 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

                I wouldn’t say I’m “thankful/grateful”, but I think it’s preferable to pure Democracy.

              • Filippo
                Posted April 3, 2019 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

                Do you say the electoral college is singularly necessary for the POTUS election?

                If it’s such a great thing, perhaps the electoral college mechanism should extend all the way down to county commission and Mr. and Ms. High School elections, eh?

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 3, 2019 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

                Nah. No need for an electoral system at the local level (unless of course the locals want it). But for a country of this size, with a constitutional mandate to the sovereignty of our assembled states, I think the EC works quite well.

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted April 2, 2019 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

          Well, I’d say quite convincingly.
          In three swing states the discrepancy between exit polls and ‘count’, where the ‘count’ changed the outcome, was well outside the margin of error (North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin}. And in one state (Florida) only just within the margin of error. This really shouts fraud, and should have been investigated.
          http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/
          Those three smaller states alone would have sufficed to give the EC to Ms Clinton.
          One should note that the US rejected the Ukrainian elections because of the discrepancy between exit polls and vote count. So yes, it can be argued convincingly.
          [And then I didn’t even mention voter disenfranchisement, the Russian 24/7 smear campaign or Mr Comey]

          • rustybrown
            Posted April 2, 2019 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

            Swapping out one conspiracy theory for another sure isn’t convincing to me. But good luck.

  7. michaelkaz
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Adding a second comment: The use of the phrase “their truth” is alarming. I’m seeing/hearing it more and more – “your truth,” “his truth,” “her truth” – I don’t know if people are doing this consciously or unconsciously, but the implications of it are dangerous.

    It seems the definition of truth is being contorted. Whether it is malice or ignorance, I cannot yet tell.

    • prinzler
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      If truth isn’t THE truth, it’s not truth.

      • Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        Yes, it used to be the Republicans who were at war with science (evolution, climate change, etc.), but in the postmodern age the Left is piling on, asserting tribal/identity-driven truth over and against the idea of universal truths (and rights) attainable through science and reason. It is not a happy day for those of us in Jerry’s corner searching for allies in the public sphere.

        • Deodand
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

          You have to remember, university humanities courses teach that reason, logic, objective truth et al are all ‘White Mans Knowledge’ and so ‘tainted’ with racism and misogyny. Therefore they are actively harmful to the Peoples of Color and non-Cis Males, thus these groups should embrace ‘other ways of knowing’.

          As to trials, in the case of sexual assault the purpose of a trail is to give the survivor/victim Justice and the perpetrator the process they are due.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        Wait, now you’re sampling lyrics from Rudy Giuliani:

      • dvandivere
        Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:22 am | Permalink

        Her truth: his behavior made me feel uncomfortable and was inappropriate.

        His truth: I’m just a friendly guy.

        Both are true statements, but traditionally the woman’s perception of a situation – her truth – has been ignored.

        I don’t think anyone needs to go pearl-clutching at the disintegration of facts, and it’s absolutely a different thing than Kellyann’s alternative facts.

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      I’m alarmed, too, and in the past I’ve stated my objection to declarations that personalize truth.

      Whether or not people are aware of what they’re saying and what it means, I aver that it comes from the deconstructionists, for whom everything is relative. Further, we (the rest of us who hold fast to, dare I say the fact, that there is objective truth) are being coerced into submitting to it.

    • eric
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      Meh. I consider it more of the creation of a new term rather than trying to change the definition. “Truth” can easily remain our word for what actually occurs, while “his truth”, “her truth” can mean “the important part of his/her experience that shaped them into who they are.” This happens all the time. I’m cool but not cold. That’s a wicked problem but not an evil one. Etc.

      • Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

        Then use the word “experience”. Using “truth” to mean something other than the truth is disingenuous imo.

        -Ryan

    • Mike Cracraft
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

      Didn’t Trump’s consigliere say that “the truth is not the truth” ?

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      Yes, I hate that mealy-mouthed distortion. My reaction to Biden being a little too ready to touch people is “So what?” – he’s not exactly groping them, is he? – but anyone who repeatedly says “their truth” is manifestly unfit for office, IMO. It’s equivalent to “alternative facts”, ffs.

      cr

  8. DW
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Regardless of the “Creepy Uncle Joe” stuff, Biden is spouting absolutely nonsensical things like the myth that the “rule of thumb” came from the idea that a man could beat his wife with a stick, as long as the stick wasn’t bigger than his thumb. (This is, of course, absolute nonsense. It’s never been legal for a man to beat his wife.) He declared that this is “white man’s culture” and it had to change.

    The Democrats have gone full racist.

    • GBJames
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Sounds like maybe you’ve fallen for some kind of April’s Fool joke.

      • Davide Spinello
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

        No he hasn’t: see here for example.

        Joe Biden is pathetically trying to be ultrawoke to have a chance in the current Orwellian landscape, but unfortunately for him he is a white old man. He should apologize shut up and listen.

      • DW
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

        I wish it was a joke, because this is insanity:

        Even if he wasn’t peddling a complete lie, he’d still be saying that our culture hasn’t changed over the past 750 years.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

      Although the etymology is probably a myth there appear indeed to be references that the whip or stick by which a wife could be ‘disciplined should be no wider than a thumb..It is ascribed to Judge Buller in the 18th century.
      In other words it is not the origin of the expression (meaning an approximation, a heuristic), but there is definitely jurisprudence about the limit of size for whip or stick. So Mr Biden is only wrong about the origin of the expression.
      What is nonsense is that it has ‘never been,legal for a man to beat his wife’.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      That ‘rule of thumb’ story is not Biden’s invention, it was apparently a very common meme. See here:
      https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-04-17-1998107056-story.html

      “It’s never been legal for a man to beat his wife.”
      It certainly has been, or rather, not illegal. So long as the force used was not considered excessive. See that article I linked – a number of judges are cited as stating that no offence was committed so long as the stick used was under a certain size.

      cr

  9. Randall Schenck
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    I am disappointed that candidates think they need to come out with an opinion on something like this. They should keep there collective mouths shut and let Biden figure it out for himself. This is going to be minor stuff for most people and nothing to get excited about but in today’s climate, everything has to be a big deal. Shame on Warren and Bernie for thinking they need to tell the world their opinion on this.

    My opinion to the world is that Bernie and Biden are too old for this job and there are plenty of younger ones out there. Your time has past and you need to understand that. Biden has the additional burden of Anita Hill and that is probably more of a problem than anything else he may have done.

    The fact of what Biden did to this woman is not particularly good but it is not sexual harassment, there was no power position here and she was not an employee of his. Why exactly she thought she needed to get this out 5 years after the fact, I don’t know. Today, no one keeps anything to themselves, it is first take action and then later, think.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      “I am disappointed that candidates think they need to come out with an opinion on something like this.”

      Ha! Biden is the current frontrunner in an overcrowded field. The long knives are out. Kirsten Gillibrand, whose entire existence rests on propagating radical feminist lies, will not rest until Joe’s head is on a platter.

  10. Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    I admit to feeling despair for similar reasons and wonder if it were best that I just turned things off for a while.

    But what a choice: we have “grab ’em by the p***y vs. “even a slightly sloppy hug is a grope”… Oh joy.

  11. Mark
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    No one should touch anyone without permission or invitation.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

      LBJ knew a thing or two about invading people’s spaces:

      I think back-slapping pols are going the way of the once-famous “smoke-filled rooms.”

      • Jenny Haniver
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

        Don’t forget that Johnson also liked to wave his schlong around and converse with people while on the toilet.

        A clip of Doris Kearns Goodwin talking about speaking with Johnson while he was on the toilet — she went into the room and apparently didn’t avert her eyes (as she says McGeorge Bundy did.

        The clip is aptly titled “Toilet time with LBJ” https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4617681/toilet-time-lbj.

        I assumed that he did this only around men, but he was an equal opportunity kind of guy. What would the “#Me Too” folks say about that?

        Pointing this out is not to exculpate Joe Biden, whose creepy behavior is a pattern (see the video “Michaelkaz” posted above); and I distinctly recall that in the past Biden has been taken to task for such behavior (or is that just “my truth”?)

        If Biden is clueless about his exceedingly offensive and inappropriate behavior, I find his cluelessness as worrisome as his behavior. What if he’s in the presidency and experiences age-related cognitive decline, or develops frontotemporal dementia –there’s no telling what me might do — acting in a sexually inappropriate manner is not that unusual in dementia, especially in frontotemporal dementia.

        • Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:47 am | Permalink

          If Biden is clueless about his exceedingly offensive and inappropriate behavior, I find his cluelessness as worrisome as his behavior.

          Very true. (Though my guess is, he is quite aware. Politicians employ all sorts of interpersonal dominance tactics. Michelle Obama has a reputation as a notorious personal-space invader — actually, she apparently just shoves people.)

    • eric
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      Sure, now. But you can’t retcon past social norms. And 80 year olds have a lot of past conduct that doesn’t necessarily fit with current social norms.

      This is not to defend the guy; it looks like he was beyond normal social touching even for 80s. But norms do change.

  12. JohnE
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    According to the Washington Post: “Ms. Flores endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for president and became a campaign surrogate. She also served on the board of Our Revolution, the Sanders-aligned advocacy group.”

    Several photos have now surfaced of Sanders putting his hands on her shoulders — yet she has so far failed to announce to the public how this caused her to “freeze” as she said she did when Biden did when Biden first felt Biden touch her shoulders.

    (No evidence yet of any hair inhaling or long, slow kisses by Bernie yet, but it’s early.)

    • Dragon
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      There may be a big difference there. I am speculating, but presumably Bernie and Ms Flores talked a bit beforehand. Maybe enough that she may have considered him a friend and informed him that he could place his hand on her shoulder (not necessarily verbally).

      Consent makes all the difference.

  13. JohnE
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    According to the Washington Post: “Ms. Flores endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for president and became a campaign surrogate. She also served on the board of Our Revolution, the Sanders-aligned advocacy group.”

    Ms. Flores claims she “froze” when she first felt Biden put his hands on her shoulders. However, photos have now surfaced of her grinning broadly as Sanders placed his hands on her shoulders — with no suggestion by her that she froze.

    (No reports yet of Bernie inhaling her hair or planting long, slow kisses on her head, but it’s early.)

  14. Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    The Dems will surely lose, so long as their candidates keep pandering to the radical left by endorsing positions that most Americans reject, like slave reparations, late-term abortions, anti-semitism, open borders, etc.

    • rustybrown
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      Apologies Matt, I missed this post of yours. I just repeated your points below.

  15. JohnE
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Sorry for the duplicate post! My first one took quite a while to show up, and I thought it had not gone though.

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Flores isn’t claiming that what happened constitutes sexual harassment, only that Biden “invaded her space.” I think she’s telling the truth and he did, but I don’t think it’s a hanging (or disqualifying) offense. He’s a gregarious guy and needs to be more circumspect, especially around women.

    In any event, I don’t think Biden will be the Democratic nominee anyway. He’s a nice enough fella (from a hail-fellow-well-met, bonhomie standpoint), and I think he could kick Trump’s ass in a head-to-head contest. (For what it’s worth, I also think Ol’ Uncle Joe could probably kick Trump’s flabby ass in a fair fistfight behind the bleachers, the way the two of ’em been threatening to go at, too. 🙂 )

    But in his two previous runs for the Democratic nomination, Biden hasn’t shown himself to be an effective campaigner. He’s well-known to be gaffe-prone, and doesn’t have much of a sense when to shut his yap. Plus, at 76 he isn’t getting any shorter in the tooth. After a first full term in office, dude’d be 82.

    The Dems would do better to put up a one of their other candidates for 2020.

    • rustybrown
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      “I think he could kick Trump’s ass in a head-to-head contest.”

      Disagree with you there, Trump would make mincemeat of Biden. He’s one of the Dems weaker candidates and they’re smart to take him out in the early rounds.

      Not sure about the fistfight though. It wouldn’t be pretty. My guess is they would both lose, knock-down, heart-attack, broken hip, etc.

      • XCellKen
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

        Google Kimbo Slice v Dada 5000 if you wanna see what Trump V Biden would look like

  17. Jon Gallant
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Lucy Flores made this revelation in order to join the “Me Too” parade. As Randall Schenk pointed out above, Biden’s unbidden hug was “not sexual harassment, there was no power position here and she was not an employee of his.” But the fearsome act was “invading” her “space”, an offense that now apparently ranks with microaggression and cultural appropriation, a tick below Islamophobia. Who could have suspected that “Space Invaders”, once an arcade game, would become a national and Me-Too obsession.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      I think the fact that she came out hard to Bernie makes it look – not so good as well. It is particularly bad that Bernie comes out on this claim. Bernie shoots himself in the foot with this one. Everyone looses.

  18. Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, I have to agree on this one. The only way we’re gonna get rid of Trump is for a Republican candidate to beat him in the primary. That’s a very long shot, but not as long as any Democrat coming out on top in the general election given the party’s inability to understand—or to even attempt to understand—why Trump got elected in the first place.

    So, baby steps: first elect a Republican who’s an improvement over Trump (and who, except Ted Cruz, isn’t?) then maybe a Dem somewhere down the line.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      Republicans could never nominate anyone but Trump in 2020, Gary. Trump would bolt the Party and run as an independent, probably taking the hardcore white-nationalist base be brought from the Birther movement with him to form a new Trump Party. Plus, his approval rating with self-identified Republicans is upwards of 90% (even if it’s damn near zero with everyone but), so most of the Party faithful would bolt with him for 2020.

      Trump has no ties or loyalty to establishment Republicans (nor they to him, although they’re petrified to cross him publicly for fear of being “primaried”). Trump wouldn’t hesitate to tear the Republican Party apart out of spite were they to back some other GOP candidate. Hell, I expect he’ll wind up tearing the GOP to pieces one way or another anyway before all is said and done.

      • Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        “. . .so most of the Party faithful would bolt with him for 2020.”

        You’re probably right,Ken; I hadn’t thought of that. So I fear we’re stuck with Trump in 2020 unless some Dem who has a modicum of rapport with Americans who voted for Trump manages to slip by the party’s identity politics and open-borders watch dogs.

  19. Mark R.
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    This isn’t concerning to me, though I agree with Randall above that Warren and Sanders should just shut up about the controversy and let Biden handle it (or not). And Trump may not be alone in the 2020 Republican primaries; this would be far more damaging for Trump than squabbling Dems a year before the primaries.

    Someone will rise to the top, and I’m pretty sure it won’t be Biden or Sanders. I have been very impressed with the resume, candor and thoughtfulness of Buttigieg; the only Millennial who has thus far put their hat in the ring. It’s all about who gets out the vote; a candidate that can rally and receive the majority of the Millennial and Gen Z vote (37% of the electorate) looks really bad for the current Liar in Chief. Both the Boomer and the Silent generations (Trump’s biggest supporters by far) will have a smaller voting bloc than in 2016…indeed, they’ll have the smallest voting bloc ever recorded by 2020. (All this is from Pew.)

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      I agree with your look at Buttigieg but do not think a gay would stand a chance. He just as well be atheist too. He has the brains and abilities many others just do not have.

      • GBJames
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

        Also, we’ll never have a black president.

        • Juris Doctor
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

          Buttigieg’s biggest problem is his small network. He’s not the chosen candidate and he knows it. Guys like him are running for Vice President whether they realize it or not.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      If Trump’s still around and wants it, the Republicans have to hand him the 2020 nomination (although almost all congressional Republicans — in their heart-of-hearts they won’t talk about in public — would rather have someone else at the top of their ticket).

      If the Republicans were so much as to think about running another candidate, Trump (who has no real ties, historical or ideological, to the traditional Republican Party) would just up and take his hardcore white-nationalist base (the dead-enders who followed him over from the Birther movement) and run as a third-party candidate, thereby ensuring a Democratic win. All Trump has to do is threaten the GOP with that poison pill and watch ’em turn to jelly.

      • rustybrown
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

        “Trump (who has no real ties, historical or ideological, to the traditional Republican Party) would just up and take his hardcore white-nationalist base (the dead-enders who followed him over from the Birther movement)…”

        Can’t resist disparaging Trump voters, can you? That’s a losing strategy, as the last presidential election has shown.

        Funny you should use the term “dead-enders” as I recall you were (are?) an enthusiastic booster of the Trump/Russia collusion hoax.

        • Jenny Haniver
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

          The full phrase was “his hardcore white-nationalist base (the dead-enders who followed him over from the Birther movement)…” I certainly didn’t take that remark to apply to all Trump supporters, but a specific section, though it may well be the dominant section.

          Hss “the Trump/Russia collusion” been definitively proved, not only to be incorrect, but also a hoax? I don’t think so on either count, though Trump says it is.

          I don’t take his word for anything, though a broken clock can be correct twice a day. Barr’s summary doesn’t exculpate him, and the full report hasn’t been circulated. Even if “collusion” (no crime) is established, that doesn’t mean that the investigation was conducted to perpetrate a hoax — those are Trump’s assertions. Damned everything he doesn’t like is a hoax and a witch hunt, and those who disagrees with him commit treason.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

          About half of Trump supporters — the ones that Trump brags would stick by him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, the ones who still claim Barack Obama is a Kenyon-born Muslim, the ones who show up at Trump’s rallies to chant “lock her up,” the ones who believe in a “Deep State” and get their information from the likes of Breitbart and Fox and Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi — those Trump supporters well-deserve disparagement. The others are simply innocent marks who’ve fallen prey to another of Donald Trump’s long cons, as were the students at “Trump University,” as were the advance-buyers and partners in his many bust-out condominium projects, as were the banks burnt by his many bankruptcies, as were the people of Atlantic City taken in by his casino scams.

          And you’ve mischaracterized my position. As I’ve stated many times on this site, it is unclear from the public record whether the Trump campaign actively assisted the Russians or whether Donald Trump was merely an avid, welcoming third-party beneficiary of Russia’s 2016 election interference.

          “Collusion” (which has no legal definition) has never been the crucial question; the crucial question that this nation needs answering is why? — Why the Russians wanted to put Donald Trump in the White House. Why Donald Trump copped such pro-Russian attitudes from the get-go. Why Trump is afraid ever to say a single disparaging word about Vladimir Putin in public. Why Trump has taken no meaningful measures to prevent Russia from interfering in our next election. And why Donald Trump lies, constantly, about everything having to do with his relationship with Russia and with the Special Counsel’s investigation into it.

          Let’s see if we get some answers to these questions in Robert Mueller’s actual 300-plus-page report, since we certainly got none in the four-page band-aid Donald Trump’s attorney general slapped atop it.

          • rustybrown
            Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

            You’re still ignoring the large swath of Trump voters who were voting on valid principles that were very important to them. You insist on characterizing all Trumpists as monsters or dupes. You’re simply wrong, and until you realize that you’re likely going to lose.

            Your equivocating on the Russian question is sad. Did Trump “actively assist” or was he “an avid, welcoming third-party beneficiary of Russia’s 2016 election interference”? Tune in next week to find out! Maddow is likely to have the answers you want, Ken.

            But by all means, keep banging the Trump/Russia hoax drum. It will help MAGA in 2020.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

              You’re still ignoring the large swath of Trump voters who were voting on valid principles …

              I don’t doubt for a minute that there was a sizable swath of Trump voters who voted on principle. But choosing a gilded, mendacious conman like Donald Trump as the vessel for their discontent — a man utterly unfit for high office by experience, by intellect, by temperament, and by character — was reckless almost beyond belief.

              And this nation is now paying a terrible price for that recklessness. This man is driving our country toward a constitutional crisis, mark my words, and quite possibly toward a national disaster.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

                Ken, I’ll match your hyperbole, just for giggles: The alternative to Trump was choosing a gilded, mendacious conwoman utterly unfit for high office by experience, by intellect, by temperament, and by character.

                See? I actually believe all of those things about Hillary too! But how does merely stating that advance the dialog? Can’t you see how subjective and ad hominem that all is?

                To use your examples, what “terrible price” are we now paying? What “constitutional crisis” is imminent? What “national disaster”?

                Minority unemployment is at an all-time low. Start there.

              • BJ
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

                Wait, rusty, you actually believe that Clinton didn’t have the experience and intellect to be a President? I had plenty of reasons for sitting out the last election, but those weren’t among them. To claim she isn’t intelligent or experienced is simply absurd. If you want to claim she’s a power-hungry opportunist with often poor judgment, fine. But to claim she lacks experience and intellect is objectively BS.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

                Yes, she has the intellect, as least compared with our sitting president, I’ll give you that!

                Experience? Yes, but I think it largely works against her. Her experience as I see it in a nutshell: second fiddle to her politically brilliant husband (by far the main reason anybody’s talking about her now), mediocre state senator, yes vote for the biggest foreign policy blunder in our time (Iraq war), as secretary of state she championed the disastrous overthrow of Gaddafi and increased US involvement in Syria. Also, while campaigning, endorsed Andrea Merkel’s disastrous open borders policy for Germany. I’ll take the neophyte to that experience.

              • BJ
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

                But you just said she was utterly unfit due to her intellect and experience. And when you speak of her experience in this further comment, you’re not really talking about her experience, but her decisions, which makes sense. But Ken’s point was that Trump has neither the intellect nor experience to understand and properly execute the office of the Presidency, which you said were things you believed to be true of Hillary.

                See, I often agree with you on things because you’re one of the few people here that will call out others when they make unproven, unlikely, or even outright false statements about Trump, Republicans, Republican voters, etc. But we will disagree when it comes to these other things because I think you’re often willing to defend Republican/Trump mistakes and malfeasance in the same way others here do with the Democrats/make spurious claims and arguments against Republicans and Trump. Still, I appreciate your willingness to have conversations about these issues and I enjoy the debate. I also appreciate that you bring what is a minority voice to this comments section. I’m glad you don’t take our disagreement personally, as some people do.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:10 am | Permalink

                Intellect, judgement, experience, track-record, I think we’re largely discussing semantics. Maybe my words weren’t quite as precise as they could have been because I was throwing Ken’s argument back verbatim to show how vapid it was.

                I’m really not aware of any spurious arguments I’ve made for Trump; I try to stick to topics I feel pretty secure about. having said that, I may have gone off the rail a time or two.

                I, too, appreciate your civility. I think we agree on many things. I can tell you’re a thoughtful, independent thinker so it’s only a matter of time before Trump’s golden siren song compels you to vote for him!

              • BJ
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

                LOL, that was a good joke at the end there.

                We end up agreeing on here more often than disagreeing because there are far more people on team Democrat than team Trump in this comments section and, since I believe in defending truth rather than tribes, I often have to defend against spurious claims made against Trump/Republicans/Republican and Trump voters. We end up having common causes at times because of the ideological split in this particular environment. If we were in a comments sections largely dominated by Trump supporters, we would be disagreeing far more often, and I would be arguing with those people about their BS.

                The middle of a firefight is a lonely place to be.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 3, 2019 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

                I like debate. I can’t think of anything more boring than sitting around and agreeing with everybody all the time!

          • max blancke
            Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

            I still don’t get the claim that Trump is acting in Russian interests, except that everyone seems to just repeat it.
            Trump has armed and supported Ukraine.
            He has opposed Russian interference in the middle east, to the point of military strikes against Russian troops in Syria.
            The administration has consistently ratcheted up sanctions against firms and individuals for attempts to interfere with US elections.
            Russia’s main goal in the current era is to expand their share of the global petroleum market. The Trump administration has blocked their efforts to do so through sanctions and negotiating with allies to delay or stop Russian pipelines and Russian attempts to control petroleum delivery to Europe.
            Recently, Trump has stepped up efforts to keep Russia from gaining influence in Venezuela.
            Additionally, the US attaining energy independence is explicitly counter to Russian interests. Increasing our oil exports directly reduces their potential petroleum income. That is a big deal, as petroleum exports make up 70% of current Russian income.

            I am not a fan of Trump either. I did not vote for him, and don’t plan to. But I don’t get the claims about Trump and Russia, especially from left-leaning folks who as a group, have been boosters of Russian policy for almost a century.
            Trump’s manner when hosting people like Putin or Kim Jong-Un are the least concerning of his public persona, when those appearances are viewed as intended for the audiences in that leader’s home country.
            If flattering their leaders in public aids US interests and security, then I have no problem with it.

            And disparaging people who disagree with your politics is unwise, if you hope to compromise with them at some point. The whole “irredeemable deplorable” thing lost the Dems a bunch of votes. Many of us here in flyover country know what “irredeemable” means, and can extrapolate where such characterization can lead.

            • rustybrown
              Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

              Thanks Max, thanks for stating how often Trump has been tough on Russia. Although, by experience, I fear this is a left wing talking point that just won’t die. Tune in to CNN tonight to hear it again.

              I wonder how “the resistance” will look back on this time in ten years. Stoking the fires for a new cold war. Enthusiastically engaging in a new anti-Russian McCarthyism.

              • BJ
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

                The anti-Russia sentiment started during the Obama administration on the Republican side. They claimed he was being too soft on Russia. Now the roles are simply reversed.

                Once again, tribalism reigns supreme. I hope you recognize that.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

                Er, it was Obama who told Romney (paraphrasing) “The 1980’s called, and they want their foreign policy back.” during a debate when Romney was trying to lay out the geopolitical challenge of Russia in the modern age. Obama and the Dems were the ones underplaying the Russian threat in the recent past when it was politically expedient for them to do so.

              • BJ
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

                You just agreed with me. The Republicans were the ones constantly talking about Russia during the Obama administration, saying he was too soft on them. Now the Dems are the party constantly talking about Russia and saying Trump is too soft on them.

                Regarding the other thread where you asked what mistakes I think Trump has made, I think I have laid those out pretty clearly in our numerous other conversations, so I won’t go into detail. But, in broad strokes: embarrassing the US on the world stage and damaging its relationships with other governments; increasing the polarization of the US through rhetoric so divisive it’s heretofore unseen in the modern era; neglecting responsibilities of the Office; trying to push through unconstitutional executive orders and generally expanding the power of the Executive branch; continually publicly promoting conspiracy theories, often regarding the idea of treasonous activities within our own government; threatening to shut down the border with the country’s third largest trade partner, and threatening to deploy the US military within our own borders to do it; constantly flip-flopping on policy, especially foreign policy, and even negating, retracting, or contradicting the decisions of both himself and his own administration and even specific people in it (recently, retracting the sanctions on NK levied by the Treasury the very next day. Huckabee-Sanders’ explanation was “President Trump likes Chairman Kim, and he doesn’t think these sanctions will be necessary.”)…I don’t feel like continuing, but I could, and I could give specifics for each of those things.

                If the man could just stick to a coherent plan for a week I would be much happier, to make no mention of everything else.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

                “You just agreed with me.”

                I suppose so, but I don’t recall any Republican scaremongering about Russia that was in the same universe as the hysterical cold warmongering going on with the left these days. Seems to me that Romney was just making a fairly solid argument that we should be cautious. And of course he was trying to score some political points against Obama in a pretty anodyne way.

                So I don’t agree that the roles are simply reversed. They are fundamentally different in scope and character.

              • BJ
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:24 am | Permalink

                It wasn’t just Romney. The entire Republican Congressional leadership and most Republican reps and senators were banging the drum on Russia too. That suddenly died down with Trump and the Mueller investigation.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

                You’re describing rainbows to the colorblind, Beej.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

                I’m sorry, let’s not be ridiculous. If you did a search comparing how many times “Russia” or “Putin” was mentioned by Republicans in the three years prior to Trump and compared it to Democrat mentions in the past three years my guess is the Dem mentions would outnumber R’s at least ten to one, and the Dem tone would be considerably more hysterical.

                Not to mention that Obama’s inept policy with Russia invited sharp criticism, so whatever Republicans were saying about it at the time was by and large warranted, again, very unlike the Dems craven and destructive fear-mongering of the last three years.

              • BJ
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

                Well, get back to me when you do that search (rather than guessing), and make sure to include all the time not just from the Obama administration, but from the past several decades. The point, again, is that the sides switched, not out of any coherent policy reasons, but out of tribalism.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

                Oh, so now you’re no longer just comparing with the Obama administration (your original claim) but “the past several decades”?! You’re stretching. And I don’t need to do the research, I can remember what the last six years were like. It’s disingenuous for you to say the roles “are simply reversed” for the partys talking about Russia. That implies the quantity and quality of the Russian criticism has been essentially the same from both sides (since the Obama administration), and that’s nuts.

              • BJ
                Posted April 3, 2019 at 9:34 am | Permalink

                “I wonder how “the resistance” will look back on this time in ten years. Stoking the fires for a new cold war. Enthusiastically engaging in a new anti-Russian McCarthyism.”

                That was your original claim. If you’re going to claim that the Republicans were not stoking those fires for the decades leading up to the Trump administration and the sudden possibility that he might have ties to Russia, and that the roles have no simply reversed and its the Dems stoking these fears and the Republicans somehow weren’t in all that time before the last two to three years, you’re arguing in bad faith and I won’t engage further.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 3, 2019 at 11:19 am | Permalink

                First of all, I don’t have to answer for what Republicans may or may not have been up to decades ago. I was a true blue Democrat until 2016 so if there were Republicans trying to revive the cold war or engaging in a new McCarthyism prior to that I would have criticized it as well. So my original question to the Resistance that you cite remains valid and free from any hypocrisy or double standards on my part.

                Second,You’re still comparing apples to oranges in overstating the overall Republican opposition to Russia in the last several years. Every new administration, R and D, in recent times has made overtures to Russia in hopes of increased cooperation (reset-buttons, etc.) This has sometimes been met with mostly pro forma grumbling and skepticism from the other party, but nothing like the anti-Russian madness Dems and the Resistance have been engaging in for the past three years (which, by the way, has been quite xenophobic). We’ve just witnessed three years of the left screaming that Trump is a “Russian asset!”, “working for the Kremlin!”, “in Putin’s pocket!”, “our Democracy is in peril!”, “Trump has aided a Russian attack on the US!” and on and on. Shit, they’re STILL saying that after it all has been exposed as a hoax! That is nothing like the Republicans in the Obama years.

                But there’s an easy way for you to prove your point. Go ahead and provide some examples of the Republican anti-Russian hysteria that you claim was fomented during the Obama years. Just be aware I’ll provide ten examples for your every one, and all of them will be much more unhinged and hysterical in tone, thus proving my point that there is a substantial qualitative and quantitative difference between the two.

  20. Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Creepy, but Flores is making a big deal out of it now for her own political reasons. Meanwhile the groper-in-chief is loving it.

  21. pablo
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Any uninvited touch is considered assault nowadays, and anyone subject to it is expected to be traumatized no matter how innocuous the touch had been. It’s part of the feminist moral panic of our times. I suspect we will be over it in a few years, but in the meantime it will screw us all with conservative rulers.

  22. Historian
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    It is almost a universal rule of American politics that during the primaries the candidates in each party attack unmercifully their competitors. When the winner emerges they unite behind that person. One has only to look at Trump and his competitors in 2016. That will almost certainly happen with the Democrats in 2020. The purists will yelp and being the fools they are, they will provide a list of nonsensical reasons to sit out the election. But, they are a small number and will probably not affect the outcome (or so we hope). Making a lot of noise doesn’t necessarily translate into votes. The Democrats must not be complacent. They must focus their efforts on increasing turnout. This is the key to victory. Resources should not be wasted trying to “turn” the Trump voters. They are too ensconced in their cult.

    There exists a concerted effort by the far left in the Democratic Party to sabotage Joe Biden. They keep on bringing up incidents from years or decades ago. This means to me that they consider him a strong contender for the nomination. In fact, they are doing their best to defeat any Democrat not on the far left of the party. I don’t think they will be successful because they don’t understand what it takes to win elections. Like all ideologues of whatever political ilk, they would be rather pure and tormented. Compromise is a word they abhor. Time will tell if the far leftists screw up America once again as they did with Ralph Nader competing with Al Gore in 2000.

    Saying all this, I hope that Biden does not get in the race or win the Democratic nomination. I have one basic reason for this: he is too old as is Bernie Sanders. It is not ageism to point out that the health of people in their late 70s can decline quickly, often leading to death or dementia. If either of these two people get the nomination, I will vote for him since I couldn’t possibly vote for the current occupant of the White House. But, I will certainly look very closely at who the vice presidential nominee is. The chance of that person ascending to the presidency is not insignificant.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      “… as they did with Ralph Nader competing with Al Gore in 2000.”

      Hadda bring that one up, dincha Historian? Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch …

      Might as well have said “Niagara Falls” to an old Vaudevillian. 🙂

  23. rustybrown
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    This early infighting may leave some marks on the future Democrat nominee but a much greater contributor to their impending loss in 2020 will be their continued lurch to the radical left. Green new deal, reparations for slavery, open borders, white bigotry and yes, the erosion of due process are all losing propositions with the electorate.

    Intersectionality in itself is a very tricky thing to maintain. The left’s endless encouragement of ethno-narcissism almost demands a certain fracturing amidst the diversity.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      Good points, rusty! I couldn’t have put it better myself. 😉

      • rustybrown
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

        Great minds, Matt.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      Ethno-narcissism. I like that.

    • Mark R.
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

      From the Hill (yes, left center biased, but there are polls):

      More than 80 percent of registered voters support the Green New Deal proposal being pushed by progressional Democratic lawmakers, a new poll found.

      The survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans back the Green New Deal plan.

      Whatever your definition of a lurching radical left, the Green New Deal (which you listed first) is not a radical left idea. You know what a radical idea is? More drilling, more coal mining, more pollution and weakening the EPA to achieve this (not to mention leaving the Paris climate accord). Republican politicians who think that climate change is a hoax, or ‘meh’ and who want policies that actually exacerbate the problem will soon go the way of the dinosaur. The demographics that support the “fake science/Chinese hoax conspiracies” or those that wring their hands (it’s impossible, so why try?) will soon be a failed minority. I can’t wait…though it will probably take another decade or so.

      I do agree with some of your other points of dumb left priorities though…and I could counter any of them with dumb right priorities. It’s politics after all.

      • BJ
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        I think polls asking about a bundle of policies like that are worthless. How many of those people do you think actually read that proposal and know what’s in it, and how many just think “Green New Deal” sounds like something good and environmentally conscious that they should support? Hell, most people I know haven’t actually read the Green New Deal document, and they’re significantly more politically informed than the average person.

        • Mark R.
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

          The Green New Deal is a rallying cry. It’s a commercial. It’s a marketing tool. It doesn’t matter who reads it in it’s entirety (or doesn’t). The policy is anti-establishment, that’s the point. The details happen after consensus. As the world changes in unprecedented throws or destruction and species die in front of our eyes (Polar bears I reckon are the big reveal), consensus will follow. People against the blind optimism of the “Green New Deal” simply don’t understand what the intentions of the Deal are- it’s reaching for the sun and landing on the moon. Probably not an outcome that saves much of our ecosystem, but better than nothing. Republicans don’t even think about outcome…just current levels of rapacious commercial extraction- death to the future is their mantra…I would welcome any evidence to the contrary. Where to start? If you’re against the Green New Deal, what are you for? Status quo doesn’t cut it.

          • BJ
            Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

            The New Deal isn’t just a “blind optimism” statement; it contains many concrete proposals with time limits, requirements regarding participation, addresses many other issues beyond the environment that could radically change the economy depending on how they’re implemented, etc. It’s not just a statement, but a real proposal, and a lot of the language and some of the proposals included seriously concern me.

            Of course I’m all for saving the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. But, when a document makes this many proposals with this much detail, to say “the details happen after consensus” isn’t a feature, it’s a bug. I won’t support legislation that lays out tons of goals with concrete proposals for doing so, but no details on how those proposals will be implemented. Furthermore, the complete ignoring of nuclear energy is deeply concerning to me.

            I won’t blindly support something just because it is optimistic and the general principles behind it align with mine. If I’m going to support something, I want the details of how it’s supposed to be implemented, especially when the changes are myriad and as sweeping and some potentially deleterious as the ones proposed in the document are.

            If you haven’t read it in full, you can find it here: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

            • Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:50 am | Permalink

              You’re probably also against the Monorail to Shelbyville, you killbuzz.

              • BJ
                Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

                I was, but that song really made sense!

      • Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:42 am | Permalink

        Yeah, no.

        Respondents were read this:

        Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy.

        They were not told the NGD also contains provisions for a host of whacky ideas like the banning of 99% of cars and planes, or socialist aims not even connected to energy, like free college tuition and generous hand-outs for “those unwilling to work”.

        Nor were they informed that, as Comrade Alexandria* had handled the calculations, the price tag would be several times the current entire federal budget.

        Tellingly, 82% of respondents had heard “nothing at all” about the NGD.

        http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/the-green-new-deal-has-strong-bipartisan-support/

        * The same barmaid who put three cosmos on your tab when you’d only had two Rheingolds.

        • BJ
          Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:29 am | Permalink

          “They were not told the NGD also contains provisions for a host of whacky ideas like the banning of 99% of cars and planes, or socialist aims not even connected to energy, like free college tuition and generous hand-outs for ‘those unwilling to work’.”

          They ended up not putting any of that language into the final document (despite including it in their overview), likely because of the push-back it was getting from those who actually read it. But the document still contains the vague language of those lofty sentiments, and the fact that it was part of their original overview tells us a lot about much of the language in the parts of the GND that aren’t about the environment.

  24. Jon Gallant
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Senile dementia can take many forms. Bernie Sanders’ promiscuous misuse of the word “revolution” strikes me as, at the very least, a sign of second childhood. And here is a quote of Bernie’s from 2017: “what [Jeremy] Corbyn has tried to do with the [British] Labour Party is not dissimilar with what some of us are trying to do with the Democratic Party; and that is make it a party which is much more open and inviting for working people and young people and not have kind of what we call a ‘liberal elite’ making the decisions from the top on down, but making decisions from the bottom on up.”

  25. Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Eating each other alive is likely, now that Democrats have mastered microscopic scanning of everyone and everything to find anything that might call for a Scarlet Letter (i.e., anything that can be spun into a charge of racism, sexism, transphobia, inappropriate sexual suggestiveness, etc.). It seems the most publicity-garnering way to tout your own virtue (as a progressive) is to scarlet letter someone else. Unfortunately, even good people sometimes behave like jerks (or engage in behavior that can be spun that way), so we can expect a lot of apologizing (the 2nd-most popular way to shore up your progressive virtue) during the primaries, followed by triumphant finger-pointing in the general by Republicans quick to keep the media focused on all the stuff the Democratic candidate had apologized for in the primary. I share your despair, Jerry.

  26. jorgensen28ryan
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    I agree with the post, but I’m not sure if I agree with the title. I don’t want to “both sides” this issue, but I hear crazy things coming out of the White House every day. I’m not sure why people jumping to conclusions on Biden (or other similar matters) will sway people who would have voted against Trump otherwise. At the very most, this would convince a few Democrat voters to abstain.

  27. Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    I grew up in Australia. Each party chooses a leader through no doubt grubby backroom dealing and backstabbing, but the public is spared their bickering. then which ever party gains the most seats forms a government and the party leader becomes prime minister.

    And election campaigns run for a few weeks until the election.

    The US media, especially the liberal media, is obsessed with polling about every single event that occurs. But this idiotic practice of asking people what they think and then telling it back to them as ‘news’ is what destroyed American democracy. Now, every stupid or destructive thing that the president says or does is breathlessly followed with “45% of the population approve”. Why follow it up with that irrelevant and misleading information? (No poll EVER bothers to discover how informed their respondents are, because that would demonstrate how un-newsworthy such opinions are.)

    From here in Europe, I now try to avoid hearing about it. I know how it will run. Trump will die in office some time after 2024, by which time the structures of government and civil society will be unrecognisable; surveillance data gathered by the US around the world will be plundered and sold to the highest bidder and used against dissidents everywhere… Etc.

    I do feel some sympathy for my friends in the US, but for the country as a whole, I am simply disgusted.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Time was, US presidential candidates were also selected by backroom brokering at the quadrennial conventions held by the two national political parties. Primary elections, to the extent they were held at all, were essentially a method by which potential candidates would audition for the party bosses by demonstrating their ability to win votes outside their own home regions.

      That began to change long about the 1960s, and even more so in the political reform era the followed the Watergate scandal in the Seventies. Now, the delegate count won in the primaries is everything, and the party conventions have become made-for-tv coronations for the nominees so selected.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

        I wonder if maybe the old back door smoke filled rooms were not better than the circus now. People think they are getting democracy this way when all they get is circus. They have no rules about anything. They don’t even know how to have a real debate. They have made politics the perfect forum for the Donald Trumps of the world. We are all in deep shit. I am right up there with Yakaru, disgusted with all of it.

  28. Curt Nelson
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    On top of this we have Pete B, who I liked until hearing him on the Bill Maher show unwilling to say that everyone deserves a legal defense (about H. Weinstein’s lawyer being bashed for representing him), and unwilling to say anything critical about today’s delicate snowflakes.

  29. Ray Little
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    G*d bless you Emily Yoffe.

    • BJ
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      For real. She is always such a levelheaded voice of reason.

  30. BJ
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    All I know is that (1) the Dems better put up a centrist candidate (like maybe Klobuchar?) if they want to win rather than virtue signal, and (2) if we’re at the point where we automatically believe any woman when she makes any accusation against a man, things have gone too far. On the second point, even nearly every feminist woman I know, young and old, agrees with this. MeToo is a great an important thing, but, like every moral movement, it has overstepped. This happens every time there is a needed social change that occurs and it can’t be helped, but the Dems can’t just go along with it or they’ll be eaten alive and have the public turn against them.

    The Dems and the media with them are speeding toward a cliff and they don’t even see it. They’re hitting the gas pedal when they should be putting their clown car in reverse and backing up as quickly as possible. If they run some far-Left candidate against Trump, I think they’ll get trounced. But, if there’s one thing the Democratic Party is great at, it’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    • rustybrown
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

      I agree with you that Dems should pivot centrist (Gabbard anybody?) but I don’t think that is in the winds.

      “if we’re at the point where we automatically believe any woman when she makes any accusation against a man, things have gone too far.”

      Yes, and thank Obama for advancing that fetid zeitgeist with his Title IX “Dear Colleague” initiative being the flagship. Thankfully, our current administration has corrected course.

      • BJ
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

        Obama’s admin made a stupid reaction to a political issue that was brewing, just like Trump is considering making a far, far worse decision like closing our border with our third largest trading partner.

        Props to Betsy Devos though. This administration did something right.

        • rustybrown
          Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

          Uh, I think the current situation at our southern border is substantially more critical and deserves a stronger response than whatever “political issue” was brewing for Obama on the domestic campus rape scare (probably sparked by the UVA Rape hoax). Can’t compare the two.

          • BJ
            Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

            The point isn’t to compare the two. The point is that every administration makes stupid mistakes. I think the difference between you and me is that I gladly admit any mistake Democrats make, but I’ve never seen you criticize a single decision made by the Trump administration, nor even agree that they’ve made one. I’m happy to be proved wrong. What mistakes has Trump and his administration made so far?

            • BJ
              Posted April 1, 2019 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

              *You and I

              Damn it.

            • rustybrown
              Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

              One mistake he’s made? He said I would be tired of winning.

            • rustybrown
              Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

              Just kidding BJ. Trump’s ban on global abortion funding is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

              • rustybrown
                Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

                What would be his biggest mistake in your opinion?

    • eric
      Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

      if we’re at the point where we automatically believe any woman when she makes any accusation against a man, things have gone too far.

      I fail to see how Biden’s case is an example of this. The guy is admittedly touchy-feely, he’s been known for decades to be this way, and his fellow congresscritters even invented the term “Bidening” to describe excessive touching behavior.

      Now. He’s 76 and thought this was normal for decades, plus nobody’s really accused him of overtly sexual contact, just inappropriate contact. So on a scale of ‘harm’, I can easily see reasonable people disagreeing, with some saying it’s just a 1 or so while others ranking it much higher. If you’re in the 1 crowd, that’s fine, I have nothing really against that. But I don’t think anyone’s really questioning whether he did these things. This is not a case of “he says, she says” like you imply. This is a case of “everyone even Biden says…but how much weight should we give to his innocent intent?”

  31. Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Is there so much difference between Warren believing Flores and someone believing hearsay about Laurence Krauss?

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

      One versus many. And degree of the infraction.
      I know that there are calls of ‘due process’ and all that, but there is the pattern that Biden shows of being far too huggy and touchy. I believe Flores on the preponderance of other evidence.
      I don’t think any of it should de-rail him, but I am afraid it will since the media wags can’t stop themselves from flogging it to get eyeballs on the screen.

  32. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    [quote]
    “Leading Democrats have demonstrated repeatedly, especially since #MeToo began, that they now hold due process, and the concept that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, to be passé manifestations of “rape culture.”
    [/quote]

    I don’t get it, how are accused Biden and Franken alike? Biden is one hearsay accusation of too close general intimacy (with a female), Franken had photographically documented his purposeful degrading sexual behavior (towards a female).

    • Torbjörn Larsson
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      HTML error, but readable if passing the moderation queue.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Franken didn’t touch anyone or invade their personal space. It was a joke. He was a comedian.

      Are you seriously that puritanical, or are you just trying to signal your male feminist ally virtue?

    • qlz09x
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      The photo always seemed to me to be a parody or caricature of harassment rather than harassment itself. The other allegations against Franken were mostly anonymous and matters of interpretation, as i recall; similar to the case with Biden. There were also many female supporters of Franken. Both have a long history of demonstrated respect toward women and support for women’s issues.

  33. Filippo
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    ‘“I believe Lucy Flores,” Castro told reporters. “We need to live in a nation where people can share their truth.”’

    I wonder what is the honorable Mr. Castro’s opinion about the “truth” of Elizabeth Warren and Native American ancestry. I trust that he will “share” his “truth” about the matter.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

      Julian Castro touched me inappropriately. That is my truth so believe me.

      Okay, I’m not so sure — it might have been his brother.

      • XCellKen
        Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        A Thunderf00t and Lacy Green video just popped into my head lol

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

      I think it is ok to say you have some Native American ancestors. You get in trouble if you say you are part Cherokee if you don’t have an ancestor who registered in the tribes official rolls in the late eighteen hundreds or for the eastern Cherokee the early nineteen hundreds. They accept latecomers no matter what your DNA says.

      Note: My ancestors did not register but elected to pass for European so they could be landowner’s in North Georgia.

  34. Posted April 1, 2019 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a form of abuse that Elizabeth Warren approves of and encourages. She went on Rachel Maddow after the first Women’s March and said how happy she was to see a 5 year old child wearing a pink pussy hat and carrying a sign saying “I fight like a girl”.

    Hey dumbass, five year old children should not be used as political tools to stand up to a sexually abusive pervert with nuclear weapons.

    Five year old children don’t understand politics, don’t understand politics and can’t formulate an argument — and nor should they have to. They should be protected from these things. They should not be forced to take on their parents’ opinions and emotions.

    This is poison.

    • Mark R.
      Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

      And I’d counter that instilling religious myths are even worse. But I do have a rhetorical question. What is worse in modern times- religious indoctrination or political? Both are similar, both feed off each other, and both don’t seem to end with positive outcomes. “We’ll see” is almost a cliche at this point…but we’ll see.

  35. Posted April 1, 2019 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Two thoughts about Uncle Joe

    Apparently no one ever sat him down and told him he could not do that

    And he should run for president.

    Although he is the last chance my generation,the silent generation has to have one of us as president.

    Bill Clinton was the first baby boomer and skipped right over my whole generation.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

      As much as I don’t like trial by public opinion, these men do themselves no favors. I never, ever have had a problem in my professional career of being “handsy” with women or anything else that I have seen Biden do.

      Not only have I never had the urge to do this, but even if I did, some rudimentary sense of appropriate behavior would have prevented me from it. That would go double if I was constantly in the public eye.

      Most men are like me, by the way. One wonders about the type of personality that is attracted to high political office.

    • Posted April 1, 2019 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

      Just discovered the typo.

      He should not run for president.

      The content of the next paragraph only makes sense in the context of the word not appearing in the sentence as I intended.

  36. Bruce Cochrane
    Posted April 1, 2019 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Michelle Goldberg ahas a more nuanced view of Biden in tonight’s NYT, one with which I am in overall agreement. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/joe-biden-lucy-flores.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    • Filippo
      Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

      In the NYT hard-copy edition, a pun-predisposed editor has inserted a blurb that Biden is “out of touch.”

      • Filippo
        Posted April 2, 2019 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        Also, I contemplate whether Warren and other female politicians have offered/imposed similar unsolicited physical contact.

        Any male here ever had the experience of receiving an unsolicited hug from a female, yet, when on a later occasion you yourself presumed to similarly return the overture, it was met with some kind of admonishment?

  37. Posted April 2, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Why do you despair of the Democrats winning? Why the hell would you *want* them to? Anymore than you should want the GOP winning it. Both parties are horrible. Go Libertarian.

    • BJ
      Posted April 2, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Maybe if the Libertarians come up with more coherent policy positions and run somebody who is of above average intelligence and knows about the political issues of the day, I would. Until that time comes, they’ll continue to be a third-rate party. They need to get their shit together because they actually have an opening to widen their base and recognition.

      • Posted April 3, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        Aleppo? Is that an Italian sports car or something?

        • BJ
          Posted April 3, 2019 at 9:44 am | Permalink

          Preeeeetty sure it’s a dog food brand. Now, of course, the quality of the dog food and the ingredients to make it imported to this country is an important issue and, if you elect me as your President, I will ensure that Aleppo and all the other brands (like Kandahar ‘n Bits, Palestina, and Brunei Buffalo) are safe for our dogs by shifting the oversight of their manufacturing to the various dog food companies themselves, in accordance with my EPA and FDA privatization and Freedom From Government plans.

  38. Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    The title of this post is accurate, but it could have also been “Why Joe Biden will not win the Democratic Nomination”. These stories have been circulating about Biden for years, so why the attention now?

    It screams of machinations by his opponents within the party to take him out before he gets a chance to take them out in the primaries. It seems like the Democratic leadership and the left-leaning organs of the media are signing of on this.

    From the NYT article on Biden:

    “No one should judge the whole span of Biden’s career by the standards of 2019, but if he’s going to run for president, it’s fair to ask whether he’s the right leader for this moment.”

    Indeed. But those “2019 standards” are really about how “woke” a Democrat has to be now. Joe old, male, white, and centrist, and therefore out of date.

  39. ladyatheist
    Posted April 2, 2019 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    They have to be as opposite to Trump as they can on his reprehensible qualities, and as similar as they can on his appealing qualities. The dissonance here is that Biden represents the good and bad of both. He shoots from the hip, which is bad because it’s too much like Trump, and touches people without their permission, like Trump. But unlike Trump, he represents the good ‘ole days of the Obama administration, respect for the Constitution, and can relate to blue collar workers.

    There are no perfect candidates, but I prefer Buttigieg because he doesn’t have baggage, is the opposite of Trump in all of Trump’s reprehensible ways, would be a “first” in the WH as Obama had been (our first gay president … that we know), and he represents the next generation in the way that Clinton did.

  40. Saul Sorrell-Till
    Posted April 2, 2019 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    I’ve not dived into any of the comments above because I know if I did I wouldn’t emerge for another three or four hours.

    All I’ll say is, given his overwhelming certainty that Clinton would win in the last election, I’m glad to see that PCC’s bestowed his prophetic kiss of death on the GOP this time.

    It’s in the bag guys, woo-hoo!

  41. Posted April 2, 2019 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    I called Trump winning in January 2016 before he was the nominee. I didn’t see him losing by popular vote (had him winning both pop vote and EC).

    I saw his cult followers very early on. I follow Fox News on FB, and random right wing sites just for entertainment and left and right saw the diehard supporters…All from the deep south which was weird.

    Anyways, go to 270towin.com and look how Trump won. He needed to take every swing state (and he just about did). And on top of that he miraculously won MI (16), PA (20), and WI (10). All non-swing states that have voted strongly with the Democratic Party going back to the early 90s…Some (Wisconsin) had not voted a Republican president since 1984.

    Looking at 2016 map which will never happen again. Was total fluke. For example, Trump won MI by 10,700 votes. Michigan usually blows the republcian out of the water by 100s of thousands of votes.

    Michigan in 2004: +165k votes
    Michigan in 2008: +820k votes
    Michigan in 2012: +450k votes

    Which just reminded me of a new trend (sorry for the rambling). Trump is similar to Obama in that he is highly liked, loved, even worshipped by the voters. If you look at what happened when President Obama was elected the 2nd time — he lost millions of votes. I suspect the same will be the case with Trump.

    So, overall 2008 Obama massacred all records and got 69.5 million votes. In 2012 that dropped to 65.9 million votes.

    In Pennsylvania, just to take as an example. Obama in 2008 got 3.27 million votes. It dropped to 2.99 million votes in 2012.

    This is the case and trend every where you look and it will/should happen to Trump.

    Long story short go back to 270towin.com reset the map to “2016 Actual” and take away MI, PA, and WI…3 states I would bet my life he will get annihilated in.

    Just flipping those 3 states gives Democrats the win with 278. That doesn’t take into consideration the 2 huge swing states: Ohio and Florida. Personally, I think Ohio will vote Trump and Florida will vote for the Democratic nominee (my guess is Buttigieg).

    You can see what happened in the governors races in those 3 non-swing states that Trump miraculously won.

    In Michigan, over 400K more votes were cast for Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D)…

    In Pennsylvania, over 855K more votes were cast for Governor Tom Hunt (D)…

    In Wisconsin, over 30K more votes were cast for Governor Tony Evers (D)…smaller there but still.

    I actually saw the writing on the wall (that it would be a total humiliation and massacre in 2020 for Donald Trump) that I actually predicted in November 2016, shortly after his election, that he would announce in the summer of 2019 around his 73rd birthday in June — that he doesn’t want to run for a 2nd term.

    Partly because he doesn’t even want to be President. But mostly because he should know that it is going to be a huge embarassment to lose so badly/bigly. If it was 3 million last time it will be 5 million in 2020. Maybe even Georgia will go blue? Hey, Georgia voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 over Ronald Reagan lol so it could happen.

    But it looks like my prediction that Trump will not re-run isn’t going to happen. So it should be very entertaining to watch Trump lose by 4-6 million votes. Lose MI, PA, WI…probably Florida…possibly Ohio…possibly Georgia.

    And all the Democratic nominee needs to do to win 100% is take MI/PA/WI. Very liberal states.

    • Posted April 2, 2019 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      FYI Clinton only got 65.8 million votes in 2016. It was less than what Obama got in 2012 (65.9 million votes).

      I think Buttigieg will get between Obama 2012 (65.9 million) and Obama 2008 (69.5 million).

      Trump will see massive declines. He “scored” 63 million votes in 2016. That’s going to drop by at least a couple million to somewhere between McCain 2008 (59.9 million) and Romney 2012 (60.9 million votes).

      Just to put in writing 1.5 years in advance:

      Buttigieg: 67 million votes flipping FL, MI, PA, and WI….Puts map at 307 to 231.

      Trump: eh, I’ll be conservative and say he loses 1.5 million votes and pulls 61.5 million (obama saw a drop of 3.5 million).

      So total massacre of about 5.5 million votes.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted April 3, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      For what it was worth back then, which was nothing, I also predicted Trump would win. I actually wrote it in a post right on this very website, under an article Jerry wrote(a few weeks before the election) called ‘Trump has lost, can we move on please?’ or something along those lines.

      I remember being upbraided by a commenter for suggesting that the number of silent Trump voters would be much higher than anyone predicted, partly because there had never before been a candidate who people would have been more reluctant to admit to voting for than Trump.
      There had been the ‘silent Tory’ phenomenon in the British general election the previous year: these were people who didn’t want to admit that they would vote for the Tories, and thus the pollsters underestimated their numbers. And the Tories won.
      Some version of this effect often presents itself in liberal democracies. People don’t like admitting they’re going to vote for the ‘nasty party’, they don’t like admitting they’re going to vote right-wing. The pollsters generally factor this in, but with Trump you multiply that effect enormously, because he’s so unprecedentedly awful.

      So it always seemed like the predicted numbers weren’t factoring in the sheer shamefulness of being a Trump voter. And it just felt like something America had to go through, like a painful bowel movement.

      It gave me no pleasure whatsoever when Trump got elected, and of course part of me hoped I was wrong and that he’d get beaten so badly it would cut off the right-wing-populism renaissance at the knees. But that’s the way it went.

      So my hope is that this time around,

      a. liberals are a LOT less complacent about their opponent, and

      b. the pollsters are able to make better predictions because Trump supporters are much more willing to admit they’ll vote for him this time around, now that they know there are others like them and there is less of a stigma.

      If b. is the case then we can at least know that Trump’s poll numbers don’t hide a ‘silent-Trumpist’ bump that’ll get him re-elected.

      Incidentally, I think the election of Buttigieg, a gay white male and a politically moderate centre-left liberal with a similar level of urbanity and decency to Obama, would be the single most satisfying way of upending four years of Trump. I would love it, as Kevin Keegan once said, just love it.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted April 3, 2019 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      Here’s why Trump will lose in 2020:

      …sorry, I tried to include links to all of the American right’s insanities but my laptop crashed. 😉

      • rustybrown
        Posted April 3, 2019 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

        Sure. Link me to the equivalent of top Republicans proudly quoting communist, cop-killing fugitives and get back to me.

        Also, where is all of the media outrage? Trump didn’t even know David Duke but was asked to disavow his endorsement about 60,000 times. Here, an official Dem presidential event is endorsing a cop-killer and not a peep from the media. Strange.

  42. Posted April 3, 2019 at 3:08 am | Permalink

    “Yes, Biden may be a creepy groper, but we don’t know that yet”
    Yes, yes we do: https://twitter.com/RAMRANTS/status/930065838387863552

    • Posted April 3, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      Reluctantly I tend to agree. I say “reluctantly”, not because I am a huge Biden fan, but because I hate to see people get destroyed by mob-led social media.

      But after forcing myself through these (seemingly endless) clips of Biden fondling women and girls (but never men or boys) in public, I can’t defend his behavior. It IS creepy, and can’t just be explained away as him being some slightly out of touch, avuncular kind of older guy.


%d bloggers like this: