Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

Harris doesn’t seem to be gunning for the job, given she has a better one, which leaves Stacy Abrams of the known options.

Do the betting markets have odds for Tammy Duckworth?

I don't think Harris would turn down the offer. I do hope it will be her fwiw

I noted a week or two ago that Dolores Huerta had been on team Harris, so maybe she could wrangler the Latino vote.

By which I mean Huerta could campaign for Biden/Harris.

Fox News poll:

Biden 48
Trump 40

Biden makes inroads with two key groups: independents prefer him by 13 points and voters ages 65+ by 17 points. In 2016, Trump won independents by 4 and seniors by 7.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 21, 2020

Kennedy did worse in '60 than Stevenson did four years earlier, though.

Not in Texas--Eisenhower won Texas in '56 55%-44%--which is Tumulty's point. (I wish I could use "tumulty" in Scrabble, where I'm u-phobic.)

I'm not following you. Am I missing something?

1960 (in TX)

JFK: 50.52%

Nixon: 48.52%

1956 (same)

Ike: 55.3

Stevenson: 44

lol

never mind

I just saw the numbers

Sorry.

From most accounts, LBJ may have helped Kennedy more than by merely being a favourite son--it may have been a little more, uh, hands-on.

polls should factor in a cheating handicap (thrown out ballots; tampered with voter rolls; too few polling stations; miscellaneous republican ratfackery; whatever the hell the kremlin's up to; etc) -- maybe 5%? 10%?

i know we've totally moved on from nathan robinson but i don't want to start a thread for him but i do want to share this excerpt + photo

this man is an ayn rand villlain cruelly gifted with sentience, complete with her fashion sense and level of writing ability pic.twitter.com/Bna3kZekRf

— The Online-Normie Complex (@canderaid) May 21, 2020

I know we shouldn't judge someone by the way they dress but fuck me it's hard not to sometimes.

we're not?

I mean "we shouldn't?"

i don't even know who that is

a m'lady socialist

they say 'clothes make the man', so it would be a fair inference to think clothes can also be a man's undoing

It's genuinely odd to me that so many ppl here keep insisting that anyone who goes out of their way to point out or openly discuss the myriad list of abhorrent things Biden has done/said/voted for/credibly alleged to have done/supports must be equating him with Trump. Like a candidate for the highest office of authority on the face of this Earth shouldn't be subjected to the highest possible scrutiny and shouldn't be held accountable for their past actions and words.

If discussion of Biden's politics and past/present transgressions upsets you so badly that you're hallucinating or gaslighting fictional South Park libertarian talking points to argue at (that don't seem to exist in reality; Can you actually show us some examples of all these "so many ppl" you're referring to?)... maybe you shouldn't be so eager to roll over and vote for such a person at the drop of a hat?

― Sabre of Paradise (trevor phillips), Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:28 AM (yesterday)

what i said was that biden wasn't my candidate and mentioned some of the things i disliked about him, including a past vote i called "abhorrent." but you seem determined to interpret anything anyone says in the most grotesquely unfair light, so i can understand why you decided to pretend that i didn't say that.

for what it's worth, i think that anyone who says that we shouldn't be "eager to roll over and vote" for joe biden in the general election, in which there are only two candidates who could plausibly win the presidency, is effectively equating him with trump. (if you need a clearer example, yesterday someone literally said on this thread that "i'm still not 100% convinced biden is going to be better than trump.")

I am critical of Joe Biden in <these ways> but I'm going to vote for him anyway falls firmly under the ignore everything before the but

Expressing concern about the possibility that he committed sexual assault or helped push us into a criminal war that killed over a million innocent people but you're going to help make him the most powerful human being on the planet - like, just don't say anything or pretend that deal breakers exist.

'I have concerns about Joe Biden' or Chuck Schumer or Pelosi or party leadership is the Democratic voter 'thoughts and prayers.'

from my original post:

"i find biden's vote for the iraq war abhorrent"

in the future maybe read what you're responding to

but you're going to vote for him anyway, and not particularly grudgingly, right. That was the point. His cheerleading (not just a single vote) for the criminal war is not abhorrent enough to actually matter.

also that quote you pulled was specifically in reference to foreign policy - I disagree with it but Biden is a career-long hawk and centrist Democrats love them a good right-wing Central American coup almost as much as Republicans. That's the area where there's arguably the least differentiation between the two parties in this election.

I am critical of Joe Biden in <these ways> but I'm going to vote for him anyway falls firmly under the ignore everything before the but

whaaaa

i am critical of this hot dog in <these ways> but i'm going to eat it anyway falls firmly under the ignore everything before the but

no it doesn't. i'm not ignoring the ways i don't like the hot dog. i'm just hungry, dammit.

to make the metaphor clear for you: i don't like joe biden. i'm not ignoring how he sucks. but he just has to win (meaning I'M JUST HUNGRY) dammit

is that really what you think of people who choose to do something? that they ignore everything that is critical of that decision? i hope not

I'm aghast and deeply offended at industrial meat production and living conditions for animals before slaughter but I'm going to eat ten pounds of industrial chicken breast a week - yeah, the objections don't hit quite as hard, do they?

Out of interest, have the arguments and approaches that have been taken over this moved you closer towards Biden, further away from, or made no real difference?

of course, in one situation, if you don't eat meat you're doing a good thing for the world, and in the other, if you don't vote for biden you're helping the worst fucking person in the entire world. but other than that

xp

but you're going to vote for him anyway, and not particularly grudgingly, right. That was the point. His cheerleading (not just a single vote) for the criminal war is not abhorrent enough to actually matter.

― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, May 22, 2020 6:15 AM (four minutes ago)

we got that "criminal war" because george w. bush was president, something that happened at least in part because a bunch of people decided to cast their votes as if there were no difference between bush and al gore. biden, as bad as his "cheerleading" might have been, did not play a role in the decision to go to war.

i voted against biden in the primary. i'm voting for him in the general, because his opponent is significantly worse in every way, on every single issue. (for the record, it's not true that i don't have any "deal breakers." in an election that didn't involve the re-election of a president as horrific as trump, i would probably have had a hard time bringing myself to vote for bloomberg, williamson, or gabbard.)

If you live in Wyoming (or about 42 more states), not voting for Biden isn't "helping the worst fucking person in the world," but you know that.

But what I was talking about was the back-patting of "I believe Tara Reade BUT" - that's just people wanting moral credit for their brave stance while acting in direct contradiction to it, because whatever their criticism is obviously isn't a dealbreaker. Which, if you live in a meaningful state and feel compelled to vote for the lesser evil, go with god, but making sure everyone hears how problematic you find him is basically public masturbation. If you live in an irrelevant state, it's 100% jerking it in the town square.

making sure everyone hears how problematic you find him [Biden] is basically public masturbation. If you live in an irrelevant state, it's 100% jerking it in the town square.

so

ok

as bad as his "cheerleading" might have been, did not play a role in the decision to go to war.

Biden actively helped build the case for the Iraq War, he was not just a backbencher who voted aye. He was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/5/joe_biden_s_history_of_selling

oh, but all of that is only bad if you vote for him at the same time. sorry, should have included that

nothing in the intercept piece contradicts my point: biden was not in the bush administration, and did not play a significant role in the decision to go to war. the piece also points out that biden opposed the gulf war, contra your argument that he's a "career-long hawk." (biden also opposed obama's surge in afghanistan and, as i mentioned, the intervention in libya. some "hawk.")

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.” ... Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues.

So he was advocating for the same war but... different.

He was not in the Bush Administration, no, that would be difficult since he was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But he was a proponent - and as you quote, active in the lead-up to the war. He did play a role in the decision to go to war - and he helped build the Democratic case for it.

And yes, a career long hawk - he didn't oppose the Afghanistan surge, he had a different idea for it. He was also a vigorous proponent of it before even Obama, as he would have told you during the 2008 primary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/world/14biden.html

(His Libya claims are rather self-serving given that he publicly supported it.)

The existence of George Bush (or Donald Trump) does not deprive Joe Biden or any other Democrat of their agency. He didn't have to talk up removing Saddam or nonexistent WMDs. No one made him (aside from his political ambitions, perhaps).

(His Libya claims are rather self-serving given that he publicly supported it.)

― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, May 22, 2020 7:25 AM (thirty-six minutes ago)

this is just absurd. you think a vice president is going to announce that he doesn't agree with what his boss is doing?

the point of "a narrower authorization, that would only allow bush to attack iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program" would be to give bush less of an excuse for attacking iraq. it's not "the same war but...different."

horse. shit.

"At that first hearing I said, and I quote, "President Bush has stated his determination to
remove Saddam from power. And the view of many in Congress, they share that view,
and I am among them."
I also said as clearly as I could, and I quote, "If removing Saddam is the course we
pursue, it matters profoundly how we do it and what we do after we remove him, for
surely we will if we try."

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf

"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the President of the United States
of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today."

If you can sell yourself on the idea that he was trying to avert war, I admire your powers of self-hypnosis.

But it all just kind of proves my point about ignoring before the but - you say the vote was abhorrent but it wasn't really that bad. He wasn't actually in a position of power. He didn't really want to do it.

yeah, he did say that. surprise, mainstream democrat joe biden doesn't talk like dennis kucinich. responsibility for starting the war still rests with the bush administration, which (as i pointed out before) got into power in part because a lot of liberal/left-wing voters decided to withhold their vote from al gore, for a bunch of righteous-sounding reasons that seem like complete horseshit all these years later.

surprise, mainstream democrat joe biden doesn't talk like dennis kucinich.

Yeah, that’s one of the ways we can tell he sucks. But, uh, it directly contradicts your argument that he was trying to avert an invasion.

One wonders why those people voted for Nader in 2000. Future Iraq hawk and GOP convention speaker Joe Lieberman might have played a role?

no, "uh," it doesn't. what you call "my argument" is actually what the intercept article you cited argues -- that biden was trying (in an admittedly weak way) to stop the war. did you actually read the article before posting the link? if biden had just wanted to invade iraq, why didn't he just support bush, instead of trying to hold him to a stricter standard?

"one wonders why those people voted for nader in 2000." i don't know, maybe because people in every election year decide that it's really fun to pretend that there's no difference between the two candidates. after seeing what bush did to the country and the world, some of us have little patience for that shit.

is actually what the intercept article you cited argues

Biden's preferred war, then would have been... just as damaging and criminal. A real victory for humanity.

i don't know, maybe because people in every election year decide that it's really fun to pretend that there's no difference between the two candidates.

But hey, zero danger in 2020 of pissing on young and progressive voters or ignoring Latino voters.

"Give bush less of an excuse for attacking iraq" is your characterization of a "narrower authorization" - nothing else suggests that. As he himself states, he wasn't trying to avert an invasion. As I said, all that means is a different reason for invading Iraq - 'eliminate WMDs' instead of 'regime change.'
Biden's preferred war, then would have been... just as damaging and criminal. A real victory for humanity.
― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, May 22, 2020 9:33 AM (three minutes ago)

here's the actual history you're ignoring:

Bush sought congressional support for his policies to convey to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and the world, that the United States meant business. On Sept. 26 of that year, the White House submitted a draft resolution that Biden and others in Congress felt offered the president too expansive powers. Biden reached out to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., probably the most respected foreign policy voice in the Senate, and they drafted an alternative resolution. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., soon got on board.

The Biden-Lugar-Hagel bill sought to bind the administration more closely to UN Security Council resolutions and to seek a further determination that the threat from Iraq was “so grave” that the use of force was necessary. ...

Few disputed that Iraq and Saddam were a concern. But Biden and others did not buy the imminence of the Iraqi threat and were concerned about a rush to war, including perhaps in support of a so-called "neoconservative" agenda to bring democracy to the Middle East. Biden’s resolution therefore sought to support a multilateral strategy while raising the bar for congressional approval of the use of force, if deemed necessary.

The political deck was stacked against Biden’s effort. Bush had three of the four congressional leaders on his side: Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo. Only Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., shared Biden’s reservations about the draft White House resolution.

Lott, in his memoir "Herding Cats," said Bush told him to “derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day again.”

... Lott invited Lugar to helped draft the resolution, which he eventually did. But not before Lugar encouraged Biden to try to get a committee vote on Biden-Lugar-Hagel.

Biden, in his memoir "Promises to Keep," describes his frustration in getting that vote. He and Daschle convened a meeting of Democrats, where a group on the far left would not even support voting the bill out of the committee. As he listened to the "principled" opposition of his colleagues, Biden said he was thinking, “Spare me the lectures. … I thought our objective is to do all we can to avoid an unnecessary war.” Biden-Lugar-Hagel died in the Foreign Relations Committee without a vote.

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/03/biden-vote-iraq-war-congress-iran-attack-iraq-sanders.html

Do you think a Biden administration would be better than a Trump II administration? If yes, vote Biden; if no, don't vote/vote Trump. Everything else is irrelevant. It was relevant in the primaries, but not now there's a binary choice.

#NEW Redfield & Wilton Strategies Polls (5/10-14):#Wisconsin:
Biden 48% (+10)
Trump 38%
.#Pennsylvania:
Biden 48% (+9)
Trump 39%
.#Michigan:
Biden 47% (+8)
Trump 39%
.#Arizona:
Biden 45% (+4)
Trump 41%
.#Florida:
Biden 45% (+2)
Trump 43%
.#NC:
Biden 45% (+2)
Trump 43%

— Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) May 22, 2020