Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Is Joe Biden's campaign over before it starts? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=873262)

Ulfreida 03-31-2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobot (Post 21565777)
You're funny.

I disagree, there is not and cannot be anything funny about unseating the worst human being ever to hold the presidency. Biden isn't my first choice but I can't get real excited about hair fluffing when toxic monstrosity rules the roost.

Exapno Mapcase 03-31-2019 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566471)
Will his being someone who touched lots (women, men, children) when politicking as his style, sometimes with cluelessness as to when it makes others uncomfortable, be disqualifying to Obama-Trump voters? To Romney-Clinton ones? Will Democratic women stay home rather than vote for him when the alternative is Trump? Will younger voters stay home because of this? Will Black voters?

Black voters stayed home in 2016. If they has turned out for Clinton as they did for Obama, Trump would have lost the midwestern states and the presidency.

Quote:

I don't think he loses that much support even if it lowers his favorables slightly.
Wishful thinking, IMO.

And this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamoral (Post 21566454)
And all Joe needs to do is say, "Donald, you have conducted yourself with such unbelievable crudeness and vulgarity not only during your presidency and campaign, but over your entire career, that it doesn't remotely compare. Do you know what 'remotely' means?"

He should say that during a debate.

I don't know if Biden is gonna get the nomination or not. But if he does, he needs to not back down an inch.

I'm sure Trump would have some words to say in response to that statement. And as soon as he does, all Biden needs to do is cut him off, as Trump always does to everyone else - and say...as loudly as he can: "Pussy. Porn stars. Affairs. That's you, Donald."

The way people are discussing this upcoming election, it's like they learned NOTHING from the last time and still think it's 1992. Fuck that. The gloves are off.

is delusional thinking. Trump beat 16 Republicans doing this. Why would it work better this time?

What Exit? 03-31-2019 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulfreida (Post 21566522)
I disagree, there is not and cannot be anything funny about unseating the worst human being ever to hold the presidency. Biden isn't my first choice but I can't get real excited about hair fluffing when toxic monstrosity rules the roost.

Look Trump is awful but he probably isn't worse than Andrew Jackson, who of course Trump publicly admires. Though I desperately don't want to see what he can do with an extra 4 years.

RTFirefly 03-31-2019 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21566457)
just tell me who is next that can beat Trump in Florida and take a few back in the rust belt.

If you think both sides will be as motivated as they were in 2018, I'd say anyone besides Tulsi Gabbard.

It's going to be a referendum on Trump, just like 2018. We won 2018, and I don't think we need Biden to win 2020.

ETA: Consequently, I think we Dems should nominate the candidate we'd most like to be the next President.

Lamoral 03-31-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566528)

And this


is delusional thinking. Trump beat 16 Republicans doing this. Why would it work better this time?

Because nobody else pushed back the last time.

What Exit? 03-31-2019 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566541)
If you think both sides will be as motivated as they were in 2018, I'd say anyone besides Tulsi Gabbard.

It's going to be a referendum on Trump, just like 2018. We won 2018, and I don't think we need Biden to win 2020.

ETA: Consequently, I think we Dems should nominate the candidate we'd most like to be the next President.

Careful, there is a lot of love for Warren by Dems that moderates and independents don't share and she could lose. I do think and hope nearly everyone else has a good chance, but I want to see that increased to great chance to beat Trump.

Bijou Drains 03-31-2019 12:37 PM

Why would a 2016 Trump voter not vote for him in 2020? What did he do or not do that would turn off some of his voters for 2020?

I know what happened in 2018 but it's much easier beating a congress member in the suburbs than beating Trump nationally. Remember all the seats Obama lost in 2010 (63 seats) and then he won in 2012.

DSeid 03-31-2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566528)
Black voters stayed home in 2016. If they has turned out for Clinton as they did for Obama, Trump would have lost the midwestern states and the presidency. ...

Non sequitor.

Blacks turned out for Clinton as well as they did for any other non-Obama nominee.

And the question is specific: would being prone to overly touchy politicking negatively impact that group against Trump or against coming out?

kayT 03-31-2019 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive (Post 21566024)
We've had four years of coasting on Obama's legacy, with incessant lies, corruption and incompetence. The wall is stupid, the deficit is a trillion and the GOP is literally coming for your health care. And a hundred other things.

Trump sucks and can be beaten by lots of candidates IMHO.

Exactly the thinking that has the dems throwing names around instead of getting together to set a platform, choose a candidate, and get organized for a battle. If we don't get serious pretty damned soon we are looking at four more years of trump. Calling him names is not the answer any more than it was last time. Anyone who truly believes Warren or Biden or Sanders could win a national election against the incumbent is seriously kidding themselves. I don't see any hope that the dems are going to wake up any time soon, either.

DSeid 03-31-2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21566559)
Why would a 2016 Trump voter not vote for him in 2020? What did he do or not do that would turn off some of his voters for 2020 ....

Some voted him as a vote for change and were willing to roll the dice.

Now they’ve seen the roll and many still want change.

GIGObuster 03-31-2019 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21566559)
Why would a 2016 Trump voter not vote for him in 2020? What did he do or not do that would turn off some of his voters for 2020?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566588)
Some voted him as a vote for change and were willing to roll the dice.

Now they’ve seen the roll and many still want change.

There is that, and also one should take into consideration that a very significant number of voters expected that Trump was an even bigger liar, and that a lot of the promises that he made were lies too and that he would not really do the wall, go against the ACA, not be a racist prick, etc.

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/20...on-of-the-aca/
Quote:

Many people who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act voted for Donald Trump, even though he promised to get rid of it and has not been crystal clear about what he would put in its place.

Sarah Kliff of Vox traveled to Whitley County in Kentucky to find out why. In that county, the uninsured rate dropped by 60 percent (from 25 percent in 2013 to 10 percent now, according to Enroll America). Yet, 82 percent of them voted for Trump.

It turns out that they felt safe doing that because they didn’t believe Trump actually would take away their Obamacare.

Bijou Drains 03-31-2019 01:17 PM

I agree that he could have lost voters by getting rid of the ACA. So that "loss " for him could end up being a winning thing for him at the ballot box.

GIGObuster 03-31-2019 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21566614)
I agree that he could have lost voters by getting rid of the ACA. So that "loss " for him could end up being a winning thing for him at the ballot box.

Seems that you missed the latest news. He just does not want to be seen a loser.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/182825...it-health-care
Quote:

During his presidential campaign, Trump told 60 Minutes, “I am going to take care of everybody.” On the campaign trail in 2018, he sounded similar. “We will always protect Americans with preexisting conditions,” he said at an event in Philadelphia just before the midterm elections.

But in office, Trump has attempted to implement an agenda that does the opposite. He’s backed legislation, regulations, and lawsuits that would make it harder for sick people to get health insurance, allow insurance companies to discriminate against patients with preexisting conditions, and kick millions of Americans off the Medicaid program.

This week, his Justice Department filed a legal brief arguing that a judge should find Obamacare unconstitutional — a decision that would turn the insurance markets back into the Wild West and eliminate Medicaid coverage for millions of Americans. By at least one estimate, a full repeal could cost 20 million Americans their health care coverage.
Quote:

At the time, the Trump administration wasn’t fully endorsing the challengers’ view. It didn’t agree, for example, that the Medicaid expansion — which covers millions of low-income Americans — would need to fall if the mandate fell. Instead, the Trump administration argued that the parts of Obamacare with the strongest policy connections to the mandate (the ban on preexisting conditions, the requirement to offer coverage to all shoppers) would need to be struck down as well.

What the Trump administration did yesterday goes much further. Now, the government is arguing that the court should find the entirety of Obamacare unconstitutional. This would mean repealing everything from the Medicaid expansion to the provision that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26.
Quote:

Americans are listening to the claims Trump makes about health care. They are hearing him say he wants “insurance for everyone.” They listen when he says he has a plan.

But everything I’ve seen covering the Obamacare repeal debate — from the bills on Capitol Hill to this lawsuit filing— tells me that Trump is not interested in protecting preexisting conditions. There isn’t a plan to create coverage for everybody, and there never will be.
Loser as in him not losing his promise to get rid of the ACA, that many people will end up as losers is not a problem for him.

Try2B Comprehensive 03-31-2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21566585)
Exactly the thinking that has the dems throwing names around instead of getting together to set a platform, choose a candidate, and get organized for a battle. If we don't get serious pretty damned soon we are looking at four more years of trump. Calling him names is not the answer any more than it was last time. Anyone who truly believes Warren or Biden or Sanders could win a national election against the incumbent is seriously kidding themselves. I don't see any hope that the dems are going to wake up any time soon, either.

I think a lot of Dems are not coming to grips with how bad a candidate Hillary was.

I don't know if Biden can win. I worry about Warren, too. She is a good white collar crime hawk and played an advisory role in the Obama administration, making her almost uniquely qualified to take credit for the positive economic conditions lately, but she may not be charismatic enough for this race. Have to wait and see.

Yes, Dems have to take this very seriously. Trump is so flawed that pointing it out can make the entire conversation about him instead of talking about the platform. But his record is not great once you get past conservative judges. I think people will notice that only the 1℅ are better off under Trump, and that the inhumanity of this administration will extend to more than just immigrants going forward, and that it isn't liberals in the crosshairs but the middle class and especially the poor.

I repeat: Trump sucks and I think a lot of candidates can beat him.

Exapno Mapcase 03-31-2019 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566581)
Blacks turned out for Clinton as well as they did for any other non-Obama nominee.

Then the obvious follow-up is that Democrats should not nominate another white candidate.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21565623)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...didate-1244375
....

In the age of #metoo, how much trouble is Joe in? Can he address it head-on with contrition or will this simply add to his woes, which already started with his handling of the Anita Hill hearings?

Pure 100% hit pieces because Joe is the leading Dem. And the Kremlin and Trump thanks you for spreading this "whataboutism"

Anita Hill hearings.....jesusfuckingchrist....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dont worry when Uncle Joe falls off the top off the polls, they will give you plenty of hit pieces on the next candidate.

DSeid 03-31-2019 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21566706)
Then the obvious follow-up is that Democrats should not nominate another white candidate.

Only if you think that the only factor that matters is optimizing Black turnout, and that any candidate who happens to be Black will optimize that turnout as well as Obama did.

I do not accept either premise.

That said my two favorites happen to be candidates of color and I think that such actually could help not only with Black turnout but with some white demographics, especially, but not only, the Obama-Trump voters.

Reason is that most white candidates will have to take very strong positions on issues of importance to many Black voters to earn support in the primaries and to demonstrate that they "get" the issues of systemic racism and its impacts, and those strong positions can turn off some voters who feel that it diminishes the importance of the problems they face. A Black candidate is going to be presumed by many Black voters to "get it" by virtue of lived experience and can spend more time and energy reaching out to other demographics without fear of losing Black support in the process.

Biden will likely do better than Clinton with both working class whites and with Black turnout, and he might win Obama-Trump voters back. But he won't reach Obama level Black turnout. I don't think Booker or Harris would reach that level either for that matter.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriPolar (Post 21565763)
This is really simple, would you rather have Joe Biden become president or stick with disgraced former president Trump? Unless you want Trump re-elected there is nothing worth discussing here about Biden.

Yep, they are spreading hit pieces as Biden is tops in the polls. Odd how this didnt come up when Biden was running for Veep twice.

bobot 03-31-2019 03:43 PM

NM again.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566360)
Oh, bullshit. Touching and kissing strangers in such a manner was recognized as inappropriate 40 years ago, and it's still inappropriate today. The only thing that's changed is the power of women to call men out on it.

They were not strangers. He was at a rally for her. Now sure, they were professional friends, not intimate, and sure it was old school, but he apologized.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566385)
I had to stop after just four or five of those clips. Seriously creepy shit going on there.
....

Those clips were obviously edited. ;)

The GOp is making up shit about Joe, and you are helping them.

DrDeth 03-31-2019 03:49 PM

[QUOTE=MortSahlFan;21566425]...
Personally, I think Bernie Sanders is the only one who has a chance to beat Trump..../[QUOTE]

As long as Biden is #1 in th epolls, and the GOp knows he is the toughest candidate to beat, you will see this sort of cheap attack.

But dont worry, if Bernie gets to #1, you will see him dragged thru the mud also.

Snowboarder Bo 03-31-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21566360)
Oh, bullshit. Touching and kissing strangers in such a manner was recognized as inappropriate 40 years ago, and it's still inappropriate today. The only thing that's changed is the power of women to call men out on it.

“Strangers”? Were she and he “strangers” when this alleged event occurred? :dubious:

DrDeth 03-31-2019 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21566895)
“Strangers”? Were she and he “strangers” when this alleged event occurred? :dubious:

Nope, she even put her arms around him on stage.

DSeid 03-31-2019 04:33 PM

Not every politically motivated attack is going to be GOP or Russian troll dirty pool DrDeth.

While Ms. Flores has not announced support for any candidate at this time she endorsed Sanders in 2016 and has been on the board of the Sanders affiliated political action organization Our Revolution.

I am not doubting that Ms Flores is recollecting an actual experience but the timing is of bringing up a kiss on the back of her head exactly now needs no GOP or Russian influence to explain. (And requires no organization or collusion with any campaign.)

But it is fair game and again, how Biden handles it is a reasonable test for how he might handle other challenges a leader in the polls is bound to have thrown at them.

Sherrerd 03-31-2019 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566913)
Not every politically motivated attack is going to be GOP or Russian troll dirty pool DrDeth.

That's right. To those whose priority is to save the globe from the corrupt clown who holds the nuclear codes, it's an urgent matter to look at the vulnerabilities of every potential candidate.

Biden has some very severe vulnerabilities---which the GOP will be happy to hold fire on until the moment Joe gets the nomination. Then we are going to hear plenty on these themes among others:
  • Biden has made three serious attempts at getting the Democratic nomination so far (in 1984, 1988, and 2008) and has been soundly rejected by Democrats each time.
  • Biden has a very shaky record on matters of import to black voters. He supported segregation on the basis that it promoted "black pride;" he drafted the 1994 crime bill that's resulted in disproportionate imprisonment of people of color;* he made that unfortunate remark about Obama being the first "clean" black candidate;** and that's not all. None of this is helpful toward bringing out the vote.
  • And yes, the 'putting his hands on women who haven't invited it' thing won't help either, nor will Biden's expressions of sadness that he really, really wanted to help Anita Hill but there was NOTHING he could do. He was Chairman of the committee conducting the 1991 hearings. He was in charge. Is his being ineffectual really a good selling point for his candidacy?



Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566913)
... how Biden handles it is a reasonable test for how he might handle other challenges a leader in the polls is bound to have thrown at them.

That's right. And so far Biden is falling short. His statements released so far have a whiff of 'I'm sorry if you were offended' about them, and that is not going to work.




* https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-...ial-bid-2019-2

** http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

Try2B Comprehensive 03-31-2019 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566843)
Yep, they are spreading hit pieces as Biden is tops in the polls. Odd how this didnt come up when Biden was running for Veep twice.

You keep saying this, in multiple threads, but I don't buy it. For example, I have already seen multiple hit pieces against Tulsi Gabbard, and she is currently tied for dead last.

DrDeth, the hit pieces are because there is something to hit. At least, the authors think so. If it is spin or bs, just point out the substance of why. I think dismissing it altogether because "he is tops in the polls" is not helpful.

Heffalump and Roo 03-31-2019 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21566913)
While Ms. Flores has not announced support for any candidate at this time she endorsed Sanders in 2016 and has been on the board of the Sanders affiliated political action organization Our Revolution.

She was also at a Beto O'Rourke event the day before this interview with her, according to Jake Tapper. (at minute 4:20)

asahi 03-31-2019 08:58 PM

If Biden were running for governor or senator in a moderate purpleish state, he would be able to overcome this. But he's running in a nationwide race in a liberal party that is now quite different than the one in which he competed for the nomination 10-11 years ago. I think Joe's going to tank like Hillary for many of the same reasons: he has a long career that people can pick apart, and progressives liked him more when he was Obama's assistant. They'll like him less now that he's running for the presidency, which doesn't mean that they really dislike him; they just aren't as thrilled with his running for president as he and some pundits are.

DSeid 03-31-2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherrerd (Post 21566960)
... And so far Biden is falling short. ...

I'd give his response a B, maybe a B-. Not awful but given that this is one of the obvious attacks he was going to have to respond to (heck his being overly and sometimes uncomfortably familiar with his touch, again just look at that old picture of him with Strom Thurman and the looks on everyone else's faces, have been around for years) the fact that he seems ill-prepared with an A level response is very worrisome for what sort of candidate he'd be. Unless he thought he didn't need to be prepared until he was actually in the race ... which also does not speak well of his quality as a candidate.

If he thinks he can wing it with affability, humor, and authenticity alone, without being prepared ahead of time for that which is easy to predict, then maybe he's not the best choice to go into battle. Or really does not plan to.

So while I don't find his overly familiar touch habit to be disqualifying, his inadequate preparation for that attack is much closer to it. And makes me wonder if he really has to fire in his belly for it.

Who benefits most if Biden doesn't run?

Sanders moves into first based on early polling alone but I'd be betting after a bit Booker would pick up lots of his support. He also evokes nostalgia for Obama's terms and the party loyalists, Black voters, those most concerned about electability, and those who want a more center left candidate who had preferred Biden seem to me to be more likely picked up by him than by Harris or Klobuchar (let alone Sanders, Warren, or O'Rourke).

And pretty sure that Booker has already prepared responses to a wide variety of possible attacks that may come his way.

septimus 04-01-2019 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566835)
... Anita Hill hearings.....jesusfuckingchrist....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think every single Senator knew Anita Hill was telling the truth ... and many of them thought "What's the fuss? I flirted with two of my interns just yesterday!"

Should Chairman Biden have protected Ms. Hill's honor? Maybe, but he'd have come across as partisan.

I was already concerned about Biden's age, and the fact that he's not super-smart. I don't know if these fondling allegations would doom him; they're just the final straw for me. But expect to see some smoke before a real fire — is there any charge likely against Booker? (I'm not happy to give racist morons yet another reason to vote for Trump, but I'm going with Booker by process of elimination.)

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21566585)
Anyone who truly believes Warren or Biden or Sanders could win a national election against the incumbent is seriously kidding themselves.

If they cannot win then who can (in your opinion)?

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567300)
So while I don't find his overly familiar touch habit to be disqualifying, his inadequate preparation for that attack is much closer to it.

In the #MeToo era I do not see how he expects to get past this.

Biden said, “Not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately." But that is the issue isn't it? He literally thinks his inappropriate actions are fine. What's the big deal?

You can see what he (probably) did to Lucy Flores in this picture of Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter during Carter’s swearing-in ceremony in February 2015 (from a recent WaPo article about Biden's overly familiar style).

If you are a woman would you be comfortable with that? If you are a man would you be comfortable with that (either if he did that to you or he did that to your wife)? I doubt you would. I know I wouldn't. That Biden doesn't see it should be disqualifying.

I did not like Biden before this (and I am on record here about that) and am frankly happy if this torpedoes his candidacy.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566851)
They were not strangers. He was at a rally for her. Now sure, they were professional friends, not intimate, and sure it was old school, but he apologized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21566895)
“Strangers”? Were she and he “strangers” when this alleged event occurred? :dubious:

I'm sorry, had they met before that day? If so, I retract what I said.

RTFirefly 04-01-2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21566852)
Those clips were obviously edited. ;)

Please do give details. Saw one that showed the scene from a medium distance, then cut to replay the same scene with a close-up view of Biden and that one little girl. If you call that 'obviously edited,' well, it was obvious, but not in the sense of giving a false impression of anything.

If you've got something more, do tell.
Quote:

The GOp is making up shit about Joe, and you are helping them.
This is getting to be like, "if you do X, the terrorists have already won" from back in the day.

What Exit? 04-01-2019 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567588)
In the #MeToo era I do not see how he expects to get past this.

Biden said, “Not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately." But that is the issue isn't it? He literally thinks his inappropriate actions are fine. What's the big deal?

You can see what he (probably) did to Lucy Flores in this picture of Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter during Carter’s swearing-in ceremony in February 2015 (from a recent WaPo article about Biden's overly familiar style).

If you are a woman would you be comfortable with that? If you are a man would you be comfortable with that (either if he did that to you or he did that to your wife)? I doubt you would. I know I wouldn't. That Biden doesn't see it should be disqualifying.

I did not like Biden before this (and I am on record here about that) and am frankly happy if this torpedoes his candidacy.

Of course, oddly enough, Stephanie Carter disagrees: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...carter-1246007

So maybe slow down on the witch hunt a little.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What Exit? (Post 21567632)
Of course, oddly enough, Stephanie Carter disagrees: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...carter-1246007

So maybe slow down on the witch hunt a little.

Ok.

Then just watch these videos posted earlier in this thread: https://twitter.com/RAMRANTS/status/...387863552?s=19

Maybe they are all ok with it too. Or maybe they know better than to criticize the vice president of the United States who is above their husband/dad in the political hierarchy.

DSeid 04-01-2019 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567588)
...
You can see what he (probably) did to Lucy Flores in this picture of Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter during Carter’s swearing-in ceremony in February 2015 (from a recent WaPo article about Biden's overly familiar style). ...

Funny thing about that oft reposted picture of Biden with Stephanie Carter: she says otherwise and is sick and tired of people speaking for her.
Quote:

Last night, I received a text from a friend letting me know that picture was once again all over Twitter in connection to Lucy Flores’ personal account of a 2014 encounter with Joe Biden. Let me state upfront that I don’t know her, but I absolutely support her right to speak her truth and she should be, like all women, believed. But her story is not mine. The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it — from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts. ...

... By the time then-Vice President Biden had arrived, he could sense I was uncharacteristically nervous- and quickly gave me a hug. After the swearing in, as Ash was giving remarks, he leaned in to tell me “thank you for letting him do this” and kept his hands on my shoulders as a means of offering his support. But a still shot taken from a video — misleadingly extracted from what was a longer moment between close friends — sent out in a snarky tweet — came to be the lasting image of that day. ...
Biden likely has sometimes touched with good intent and misread without being aware of it. He should be own up to the discomfort that, in the context of the power dynamics, has caused. This was one of the more likely more common times that he read it exactly right.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567639)
Funny thing about that oft reposted picture of Biden with Stephanie Carter: she says otherwise and is sick and tired of people speaking for her.

Hypothetical:

Imagine you are standing on a city sidewalk and you see a random guy groping random women as they walk by.

Some women shrug it off and keep going. Other women feel they have been assaulted.

Did the guy only assault the women who were annoyed by the unwanted groping?

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:02 AM

I think Lucy Flores' (and anyone else who cares to speak about their personal experiences with Joe Biden) statements should be considered with regards to Biden's candidacy. Her allegations strike me as credible. Biden's response hits a few good notes (not attacking Flores in any way or implying dishonesty and praising her for coming forward) and fails to hit some other notes it probably should have (Biden should make it clear that he now understands that physical affection is not always welcome, and he will be much more careful to not give hugs or other affection to strangers without clear signs that it would be welcome). I don't know if this will sink his candidacy; I will take this allegation and any others seriously and into account, and his response, when evaluating who to support.

I think random anonymous internet video cuts of Biden hugging or otherwise touching people who have not made any allegations against him, or otherwise provided their consent for images of their bodies to be used in political attack videos, should not be considered or cited as anything beyond random internet trash.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567653)
Hypothetical:

Imagine you are standing on a city sidewalk and you see a random guy groping random women as they walk by.

Some women shrug it off and keep going. Other women feel they have been assaulted.

Did the guy only assault the women who were annoyed by the unwanted groping?

According to Carter, they were close friends. Your hypothetical is not remotely comparable.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:15 AM

More from Flores: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/f...ual-harassment

Quote:

“For the record, I don’t believe that it was a bad intention. I’m not in any way suggesting that I felt sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. I felt invaded. I felt there was a violation of my personal space,” she said. “And it’s been dismissed as if it’s just Biden being Biden. Boys will be boys. No big deal. It is a big deal.”

“When I started to see pictures of him behaving in the same way he did with me and with other women, it was very triggering,” she said. “I felt so much empathy for them. I knew what they were going through. I had been in their shoes.”
I have occasionally felt my personal space was invaded by people who just assume that "friendly" touching is always welcome. This was probably not sexual assault (I'm talking about my experiences; Flores speaks for herself), but it's still a related issue in the sense that some people seem to have a sense of entitlement towards other people's bodies, even if it's not meant in any way sexually. Based on Flores' account, Biden may sometimes have this sense of entitlement to be physically affectionate with those who may not welcome this, and hopefully he will re-evaluate this feeling of entitlement and refrain from touching strangers who have not made it clear that it is welcome (like, say, opening their arms for a hug).

I think this is a reasonable and credible allegation and criticism by Flores.

kayT 04-01-2019 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567653)
Hypothetical:

Imagine you are standing on a city sidewalk and you see a random guy groping random women as they walk by.

Some women shrug it off and keep going. Other women feel they have been assaulted.

Did the guy only assault the women who were annoyed by the unwanted groping?

Isn't it supposed to be up to the woman to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Or are you guys going to decide for us. Again.

DSeid 04-01-2019 08:22 AM

I see ninja'ed but it highlights how easy it is to edit things to give an appearance of something when you have decades of clips to work with and people willing to say what others were thinking instead of actually listening to them.

When the people in those clips tell us how they felt about Biden's touch then we have some n to work with ... and after decades I am sure there is some n ... while it is people who come in with a pre-existing dislike for Biden telling us what the people thought, without asking them and without their consent to speak for them ... then, uh, no.

In this case the offense caused by a power dynamic upon Stephanie Carter was by people like Whack-a-Mole acting as a mob using her image misleadingly to serve their own purposes. Not sure about the others but before you use these people for your own ends maybe you should know?

I see that now Whack-a-Mole is trying to analogize every touch as "groping" ... well such is how it goes.


Hey let me play too!

Let's say that getting out of a crowded subway you occasionally tap people on the shoulder to get their attention when they don't move to let you out after you say excuse me. Most people turn and then move out the way, one feels you have groped them sexually, by touching them without permission.

Have you been groping all those people you tapped on the shoulder?

Also an analogy fail but a less poor fail than yours.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayT (Post 21567683)
Isn't it supposed to be up to the woman to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Or are you guys going to decide for us. Again.

There is a link above of Biden doing his thing repeatedly to other people (including young girls). Let's assume this is what he did to Flores since it seems a common thing for him to do.

Are men to be beholden to whatever women *think* is bad touching or is there some criteria men can use to know, before they touch, what constitutes a bad touch?

Frankly your world of "bad/good touch is whatever a given woman says it is" is a scary world to live in.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567710)
There is a link above of Biden doing his thing repeatedly to other people (including young girls).

As far as I can tell, these women and girls have not consented to having images of their bodies being touched used for political attacks. IMO it's inappropriate for you to continue to advocate that this consent of these women and girls, for the usage of these images, be violated. Flores has spoken out about this and it's entirely reasonable to use her statements to criticize/critique Biden's behavior. It's not reasonable or appropriate to use videos and images of people being touched, who may or may not have been close friends of Biden (or otherwise welcomed his affection), and have not consented to having their image used in this way, for political attacks.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21567722)
As far as I can tell, these women and girls have not consented to having images of their bodies being touched used for political attacks. IMO it's inappropriate for you to continue to advocate that this consent of these women and girls, for the usage of these images, be violated. Flores has spoken out about this and it's entirely reasonable to use her statements to criticize/critique Biden's behavior. It's not reasonable or appropriate to use videos and images of people being touched, who may or may not have been close friends of Biden (or otherwise welcomed his affection), and have not consented to having their image used in this way, for political attacks.

Huh? I assume you are trying to be clever about something here. You are not succeeding.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole (Post 21567725)
Huh? I assume you are trying to be clever about something here. You are not succeeding.

I'm being extremely serious. It's inappropriate to use an image of someone being affectionately touched, to attack someone else, unless that person has consented to their image being used in that way and/or spoken out about it publicly.

I'm saying that you have no idea if the girls and women in that video want their images to be used in this sort of attack (much less whether they are friends of Biden and/or welcomed his affection), and without this knowledge, it's inappropriate to use these images for this sort of attack.

iiandyiiii 04-01-2019 08:42 AM

It really is all about consent. Consent for touching/affection, for getting inside someone's "personal space", and consent for using images of the recipients of such behavior for political attacks. It isn't complicated. Flores has made a reasonable and credible allegation that Biden invaded her personal space. It's reasonable to discuss this allegation. It's not reasonable to use random internet videos of women and girls being touched if they haven't consented to their images being used in this way.

Whack-a-Mole 04-01-2019 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSeid (Post 21567698)
I see that now Whack-a-Mole is trying to analogize every touch as "groping" ... well such is how it goes.

I am not saying or suggesting Biden groped these women. You could tell because, right at the top of my post, I labelled it "Hypothetical". Hypothetical is not the same thing as an analogy. Something I am reasonably sure you know.

I was trying to use an unambiguous example of inappropriate touching to determine where the line is drawn. According to kayT above it is whatever a woman says it is since men cannot tell a woman what is good or bad touching.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.