Straight Dope Message Board

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Covfefe

Well, you used the term "political attack" repeatedly earlier so I'm gauging if someone does bring it up politically there isn't middle ground for you where such footage could be used as a source of less weaponized political criticism.

If only minors had been recipients of questionable touching and body language, there might be an unpleasant reality of diminished odds any of them would speak up. Maybe it's an exception to most situations, maybe it's a symptom of a more profound worldview difference, in general I believe society should be actively pressing in the direction of acknowledging rights and respecting boundaries for children. I'm not saying I have any great answers for this ambiguity other than maybe considering it advisable to limit the exposure of children attending certain events - which would only help curb the lowbrow attack side of the ledger, or any psychological problems that may accompany being in the camera eye. Expecting everyone who is reasonable to avoid bringing it up where politics are concerned is overboard unless they went out of their way to see something wrong, which again, can be ambiguous.

A big part of my opinions about the "use" of these videos comes from personal experience (or at least the personal experience of an acquaintance). I knew a kid who had been in a very roughly sort-of similar situation (much smaller scale -- just on the local news and social media and stuff) and was terribly embarassed that this video kept getting replayed that had something happen to him, and I think it's very possible that some of the women and girls on these videos might have similar feelings about these videos being replayed and spread around over and over again without anyone having consulted them about their feelings first. 251

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by asahi

I personally don't think Joe's an actual creep, but I still don't think he really 'gets it' in terms of why he made women uncomfortable in the first place, and I also feel like he missed an opportunity to sound more genuine than how he sounded in his twitter apology.

I don't think he can win. Joe's got a long political history, with lots of video tape that can be edited and a long voting record that can be edited and spliced as well. Joe's political identity for most of his career was blue-dog democrat - something that today's Democratic party doesn't really identify with. He can't change his identity in a way that could be perceived as being authentic. The only reason people are even talking about him is because the pundits have been talking up the electoral math and 'what if's' since November 9, 2016. But that's in the past, and so is Biden.

I think this is the best summation of my feelings about it. He is a good man, but his prime time is past. The last point at which he could have gone for it was derailed by circumstances. The day Obama put that PMF around his neck should have been the signal to ride into the sunset in honored esteem.

In any case, IMO it is better that if anyone's got ANYTHING that can be brought up against them, bad, ugly, dumb, trivial or significant, it be brought up now, early, so candidates can deal with it now and not at the convention or as October surprises. If the candidate overcomes it, it's a plus; if s/he feels it's not worth it, it spares expense and effort later on.

ISTM many people who were looking to Joe for 2020 AND many people who did not want Joe for 2020 were both thinking of him as neutralizing the Dem "new left", being the old mainstream Dem who would not be portrayed as a scary leftist and could go toe-to-toe with Trump for the WWC. 252

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

... The day Obama put that PMF around his neck should have been the signal to ride into the sunset in honored esteem.
...

What do you mean by PMF? 253

[asahi]

I hasten to add that I've always liked Joe Biden in general as a senator and vice president. I don't dole out heaps of praise for any particular name-brand politician that often, but I really do get the sense that Biden is a passionate defender of the working class guy.

I may be naive, but I even get the sense that while younger Joe Biden probably was motivated more by a sense of ego - like all ambitious and aspiring presidential candidates - I get the feeling that older, mature Joe Biden could take it or leave it. I do get the impression that he really regrets not running not because he feel like he personally missed his chance to be president and because he missed out on some lifelong dream, but more so because he's truly appalled at the morons running the white house now and the opposition party that has enabled him. I'm not even totally convinced he wants to run for himself as much as he is constantly reminded every damn day that he probably could even squeaked out a victory over Trump, and chose not to run. I bet that eats away at him, and so now he feels compelled to run because of his own feelings and probably because everyone around him has convinced him he can do it this time.

I won't say that he doesn't have ambition, ego, and designs on power - you don't get to be a multi-term senator and Veep without these traits. But what I'm saying is that I think he can walk away from it if he really wants to and he could live out his life content on a personal level, which is different from how I assess Hillary Clinton's reaction to her loss. My impression is that while she, like Biden, is horrified by Trump's inflicting damage to the country, I also get the feeling that she feels cheated, that she lost out on a lifelong dream, and that she'll never, ever get over it - ever. 254

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

What do you mean by PMF?

Presidential Medal of Freedom, surely. 255

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by asahi

...which is different from how I assess Hillary Clinton's reaction to her loss. My impression is that while she, like Biden, is horrified by Trump's inflicting damage to the country, I also get the feeling that she feels cheated, that she lost out on a lifelong dream, and that she'll never, ever get over it - ever.

She made it fairly clear she felt cheated in 2008. She lined up as many major players in the DNC to ensure a smooth nomination as possible for 2016, she thought she had enough in 2008 but found out she didn't and went all out for 2016.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Presidential Medal of Freedom, surely.

Thank you. 256

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

In a posed group photo, with a VIP, and parent there, when the photographer says "OK now, Mr Vice President, put your hand on her shoulder like you mean support.." inappropriate touching?

OK, you're saying that there's nothing to see here, and iiandyiiii is saying, 'omigod, we need the consent of these people before we look at these salacious pix!'

Right now, I'm just addressing the latter claim. I thank you for your support in assuring iiandyiiii that he's making a big deal out of nothing. 257

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

OK, you're saying that there's nothing to see here, and iiandyiiii is saying, 'omigod, we need the consent of these people before we look at these salacious pix!'

This is not what I'm saying, by the way. 258

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

It has everything to do with it. Remember- unwelcome contact. She put HER arm around him before the incident at a Photo shoot. Didi she say "Mr Vice President, may I put my arm around you?". Touching without permission.

The pose with two pols standing side by side, each with an arm around the other, is so standard that we've all seen it hundreds if not thousands of times. It seems to be part of the deal if you're in politics.

The pix of poses I've seen involving Biden are quite different from that. 259

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

This is not what I'm saying, by the way.

Then I'll be damned if I'm able to figure out what you're saying.

What exactly is special about these photos and videos that their consent to this specific use is necessary, given that they're photos and videos of a public event? If it's not about anything particularly salacious or revealing going on in them, what's the deal?

If it's a matter of just the simple nonconsensuality of the touching, suppose Person A punches Person B in the face at a public event. That's nonconsensual touching, for sure. Should Person B's consent be required before anybody publishes a photo of it?

You're trying to stand on some sort of principle here, but I just don't grok it. 260

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Then I'll be damned if I'm able to figure out what you're saying.

What exactly is special about these photos and videos that their consent to this specific use is necessary, given that they're photos and videos of a public event? If it's not about anything particularly salacious or revealing going on in them, what's the deal?

If it's a matter of just the simple nonconsensuality of the touching, suppose Person A punches Person B in the face at a public event. That's nonconsensual touching, for sure. Should Person B's consent be required before anybody publishes a photo of it?

You're trying to stand on some sort of principle here, but I just don't grok it.

Maybe my position is complicated and has a lot of nuance, but I've tried to explain it as best I can in several recent posts.

But further, why the hell do you need the videos? Multiple women have spoken up, with very credible (and consistent!) allegations of inappropriate touching by Biden. Unless you're the type that just naturally disbelieves women (and I don't think you are, based on past threads on other instances of inappropriate behavior), the videos are entirely unnecessary to your argument. Now I believe the number is 7 -- 7 women have come forward with very similar stories about inappropriate touching by Biden. Why not just use those stories to criticize Biden, just on the off chance that there might be a shred of truth to my argument -- that perhaps one or two of these other women and girls really don't want videos of their bodies being touched used as evidence (and more importantly, spread around and duplicated all over the internet) for an argument they aren't interested in making? 261

[octopus]

iiandyiiii your posts are generally reasonable. However, stating that video or photographs of people in a place where privacy is not to be expected is violating consent is not true and in any case irrelevant. Creepy Uncle Joe wouldn’t have that nickname if he could keep his fondlers and his sniffer in check. 262

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by octopus

iiandyiiii your posts are generally reasonable. However, stating that video or photographs of people in a place where privacy is not to be expected is violating consent is not true and in any case irrelevant..

I agree, and I haven't advocated this. Feel free to read my actual posts in which I try to explain in detail my position. 263

[CarnalK]

Your position isn't all that complicated. We have in this very controversy a woman (Stephanie Carter) decrying her photo with Biden being used as a prop for calling him creepy. There are undoubtedly others in these video compilations that feel the same. 264

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

But further, why the hell do you need the videos? Multiple women have spoken up, with very credible (and consistent!) allegations of inappropriate touching by Biden.

<snip>

Unless you're the type that just naturally disbelieves women (and I don't think you are, based on past threads on other instances of inappropriate behavior), the videos are entirely unnecessary to your argument. Now I believe the number is 7 -- 7 women have come forward with very similar stories about inappropriate touching by Biden.

Well okay then, that makes a difference. Last time I checked, Flores was the only woman I was aware of that had come forward, though I heard there'd been a second one, but didn't know any details about it. And you see what DrDeth said about Flores. So yeah, I felt I needed the pix and videos.

But I agree with you, at this point the stories should more than suffice. I'll cheerfully concede the point. 265

[dalej42]

I haven’t read the whole thread, but, yes, Biden’s time is over. The creepy Uncle Joe will be the 2020 version of the email server. And, it’ll be just like a killer in a horror movie: every time you think the issue is dead, it’ll resurrect itself. Plus, it gives Trump to do the exact same thing that Bush 2004 did and blame your opponent for your worst flaw.

Politics ain’t beanbags as Biden should know. The Dukakis campaign made the plagiarism story come out in 1988. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out the Sanders and/or another campaign is pushing these stories now to head off a Biden announcement.

Let Biden campaign for the nominee in some of the areas where Obama or a Clinton wouldn’t be as effective. 266

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

I think this is the best summation of my feelings about it. He is a good man, but his prime time is past. The last point at which he could have gone for it was derailed by circumstances. ...

Ignoring the several rabbit holes this thread has otherwise travelled down, not quite "yeah" but nearly so.

If nominated I think he would likely win and I don't think his chances of getting the nomination have been dramatically altered by this.

But while he'd be a reasonable candidate, and a likely winning one, and (IMHO) a very good president, we have better choices, and his less than stellar handling of this ... event ... is merely a reminder of why he's lost races for the nomination those several times before.

Part of what attracts people to Biden is that he is not a prepared response kind of candidate. He responds honestly and off the cuff with what he really thinks without microanalyzing his words before they come out of his mouth and without thinking about what he will say much in advance. That is "real" and "authentic" ... and most commonly likable as well.

And it sometimes makes one cringe and is also what has made his campaigns sputter in the past. Remember his calling Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."? No edit function may work for Trump but it doesn't fly as well on the D side.

Voters often like how he wings it, it's lots of what people like about him and it is who he is ... but that same feature has torpedoed him too. 267

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Your position isn't all that complicated. We have in this very controversy a woman (Stephanie Carter) decrying her photo with Biden being used as a prop for calling him creepy. There are undoubtedly others in these video compilations that feel the same.

Thanks. Maybe I'm just doing a poor job explaining it, then. 268

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Thanks. Maybe I'm just doing a poor job explaining it, then.

No it’s just that the rest of us quickly realized that those who didn’t get it wouldn’t.

I try to resist banging my head against walls. 269

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by DSeid

No it’s just that the rest of us quickly realized that those who didn’t get it wouldn’t.

I try to resist banging my head against walls.

I guess I have a particularly hard head. 270

[Velocity]

Even without anything else being a factor, he's 76. The guy's time and prime is past. He is a 1980s/1990s candidate stuck in a soon-to-be-2020s world. The D's want young and hot blood. 271

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I don't know, but Biden hasn't expressed any such feeling that her touch was unwanted.

Did she ask first?

Because she didnt give any indication that his touch was unwanted, except five years later, and obviously politically motivated. 272

[Miller]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Most of this doesn't appear to have anything to do with my actual words. I'm honestly trying to explain my views here. That's all.

I'm sure you're being honest with your views, and I'm sure you don't see anything problematic with what you've written. That doesn't mean that your arguments aren't playing into some particularly sexist attitudes and assumptions.

If you disagree with me, please tell me which specific words and sentences you disagree with, and why. The above post seems to be referring to arguments I never made (and find as abhorrent as you appear to).

Okay. Here's where I think you're making the arguments I alluded to:

"If nobody complained, they must have been okay with it,"

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.

This is exactly the attitude that lets a lot of this sort of misbehavior go unchecked for so long. Obviously, we don't know the feelings of every individual in that video compilation. We do have one example of woman who was entirely okay with it. And we have more than half a dozen, so far, who were not. Maybe if someone had looked at Biden's behavior sooner, and said, "This isn't cool, he needs to knock that shit off" there might have been fewer women in the second group. We can't do that, however, if attempting to look at his public behavior gets treated like this:

"By raising concerns about this situation being sexist, you're showing yourself to be the real sexist."

They are not providing implicit consent for strangers to slobber and obsess over the precise details of how their bodies were touched or handled, or anything else about their bodies, any more than they are providing consent for these images to be used in pornography.

Someone is concerned that a video shows a politically powerful person behaving inappropriately with women. You cast this concern as sexual in nature, as if the person concerned about Biden's behavior is receiving some sort of sexual gratification from the videos. 273

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Miller

I'm sure you're being honest with your views, and I'm sure you don't see anything problematic with what you've written. That doesn't mean that your arguments aren't playing into some particularly sexist attitudes and assumptions.

Okay. Here's where I think you're making the arguments I alluded to:

"If nobody complained, they must have been okay with it,"

This is exactly the attitude that lets a lot of this sort of misbehavior go unchecked for so long. Obviously, we don't know the feelings of every individual in that video compilation. We do have one example of woman who was entirely okay with it. And we have more than half a dozen, so far, who were not. Maybe if someone had looked at Biden's behavior sooner, and said, "This isn't cool, he needs to knock that shit off" there might have been fewer women in the second group. We can't do that, however, if attempting to look at his public behavior gets treated like this:

"By raising concerns about this situation being sexist, you're showing yourself to be the real sexist."

Someone is concerned that a video shows a politically powerful person behaving inappropriately with women. You cast this concern as sexual in nature, as if the person concerned about Biden's behavior is receiving some sort of sexual gratification from the videos.

That's not what I'm saying in either case.

I'll try and put it differently (this is how CarnalK summed up my position) "We have in this very controversy a woman (Stephanie Carter) decrying her photo with Biden being used as a prop for calling him creepy. There are undoubtedly others in these video compilations that feel the same."

Further, the videos are entirely unnecessarily to criticize Biden. Seven women (at least -- maybe more by now) have now credibly accused Biden of inappropriate touching. There's no reason at all to refer to videos and images of women and girls who may or may not be embarassed or shamed by these videos being promulgated of their bodies being touched, when we have at least seven first hand accounts of inappropriate touching by Biden. 274

[SmartAleq]

Also, it's not JUST a question of how each individual woman felt when the pic or video was taken, it's that seeing and watching those pics and videos can (and definitely does) call up empathy and memories in the viewer, putting the viewer into the position of "OMG, if/when someone did that to me it would be/was incredibly uncomfortable and squicky and she looks like she feels just the same way, this is awful." Which puts Biden in the position of creeping out millions of people (sort of a transitive property of squeamishness if you will) rather than only creeping out the specific woman he's currently being too goddamned handsy with.

Younger women especially have some very distinctly negative feelings about the idea that men are entitled to put hands on them without specific consent and are less inculcated in that "don't make a scene" behavior than older women are. If Biden runs he's going to find out that not everyone, and in fact a very huge percentage of the younger voters required to win the election, are not okay with his behavior and will not just stand around smiling uncomfortably and "letting Biden be Biden." It will not be a fun lesson for him as he loses spectacularly for the third time. 275

[FlikTheBlue]

IMHO yes, his campaign is over before it starts. Democrats are fortunate that he hasn't formally announced yet, so we get to avoid the spectacle of his withdrawing due to this issue. He can instead make some kind of announcement about how he isn't going to run to make room for the next generation to take over (and yes, I realize that if he put it that way it could be seen as a parting shot at Bernie). Now that I see how well some of the more unknown and younger candidates seem to be attracting a good following, I think the Democrats will be find if Uncle Joe sits this one out. I see several benefits to him sitting it out, and only one potential drawback.

Here's my list of benefits, by no means exhaustive.

1. There wouldn't be any "it's his turn" party insider candidates running. I think that could only be a good thing this particular cycle. Part of the underlying assumption here is that there are two "lanes" and that in the end it will come down to Bernie vs. whoever emerges from the rest of the pack. If it's not Biden I think Bernie won't have the whole party insider thing to use against whoever emerges from the rest of the pack.

2. The primary season won't turn into one long ongoing story about Biden's hands and who he has and hasn't groped, what evidence there is, is anyone else going to come forward, if Biden can do it then why can't Trump, etc.

3. Biden not being involved means that his supporters are going to have to take a closer look at the other candidates, and whoever does end up emerging will have won over those supporters on her or his own merits, rather than getting those voters because Biden endorsed them (assuming he wasn't going to win anyways).

Drawbacks.

The only one I see is if we actually are at a point where the Democrats have lost Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and that only someone like Biden can win those voters back. I don't believe this to be the case, but I could be wrong. 276

[septimus]

Whoever the Ds select, the campaign will focus on personal attacks against that candidate. This is especially true if Trump is the opponent — the Rs will want to distract from any focus on Trump's failings.

Bannon, Putin, Hannity and the entire GOP are devoted to using propaganda to undermine American democracy, but there's usually some foundation behind their successful lies. Hillary really did mistreat her official e-mail. If Warren is the nominee, the campaign will be all about "Pocahontas" .... but Warren really did over-emphasize her Native ancestry. If Sanders, the campaign will be all about "socialism" and there will be some fire behind that smoke.

Originally Posted by DSeid

... But while he'd be a reasonable candidate, and a likely winning one, and (IMHO) a very good president, we have better choices, and his less than stellar handling of this ... event ... is merely a reminder of why he's lost races for the nomination those several times before.

Part of what attracts people to Biden is that he is not a prepared response kind of candidate. He responds honestly and off the cuff with what he really thinks without microanalyzing his words before they come out of his mouth and without thinking about what he will say much in advance. That is "real" and "authentic" ... and most commonly likable as well.
...
Voters often like how he wings it, it's lots of what people like about him and it is who he is ... but that same feature has torpedoed him too.

Yes. I like Biden, but there are now several good reasons he shouldn't run.

Most Americans are not stupid enough to fall for lies that have no basis whatsoever. We elected Obama despite that the liars called him a Muslim born in Kenya. Obama overcame the lies because he was impeccable. We need another impeccable nominee.

How about Cory Booker? Any skeletons in his closet? (I've heard that some right-wing haters will call him Gay. Will he need testimony from pretty woman (women?) about how hot he is in bed? ) 277

[What Exit?]

Cory Booker is a vegan, will that work against him in the heartland?

His record as Newark Mayor was basically a breath of honesty after decades of pretty much skulduggery but also not very much in the way of results. 278

[Miller]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

That's not what I'm saying in either case.

Here's the thing. It's not that your position is hard to follow, it's that you're not seeing the implications of what you're arguing. For example, this?

I'll try and put it differently (this is how CarnalK summed up my position) "We have in this very controversy a woman (Stephanie Carter) decrying her photo with Biden being used as a prop for calling him creepy. There are undoubtedly others in these video compilations that feel the same."

All of my objections pertain to this formulation of your argument, as well. There's no part of this that changes anything I've said in my criticism of your posts here.

Further, the videos are entirely unnecessarily to criticize Biden. Seven women (at least -- maybe more by now) have now credibly accused Biden of inappropriate touching. There's no reason at all to refer to videos and images of women and girls who may or may not be embarassed or shamed by these videos being promulgated of their bodies being touched, when we have at least seven first hand accounts of inappropriate touching by Biden.

Yeah, its seven as of today. When this thread started, and when you started attacking other posters for being worried about Biden's behavior with women, it was still just Flores. 279

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Miller

Here's the thing. It's not that your position is hard to follow, it's that you're not seeing the implications of what you're arguing. For example, this?







All of my objections pertain to this formulation of your argument, as well. There's no part of this that changes anything I've said in my criticism of your posts here.

I literally can't make heads or tails of how those things that I abhor apply to my actual arguments. You don't even try to explain it in this post. You just assert that it is so.

Yeah, its seven as of today. When this thread started, and when you started attacking other posters for being worried about Biden's behavior with women, it was still just Flores.

I never attacked any posters "for being worried about Biden's behavior with women". I'm worried about Biden's behavior with women. 280

[Miller]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I literally can't make heads or tails of how those things that I abhor apply to my actual arguments. You don't even try to explain it in this post. You just assert that it is so.

I explained it in my previous post. I get that you abhor the implications of your arguments here. That's a good reason to stop making those arguments.

I never attacked any posters "for being worried about Biden's behavior with women". I'm worried about Biden's behavior with women.

I'll quote it again, then:

They are not providing implicit consent for strangers to slobber and obsess over the precise details of how their bodies were touched or handled, or anything else about their bodies, any more than they are providing consent for these images to be used in pornography.

281

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Miller

I explained it in my previous post. I get that you abhor the implications of your arguments here. That's a good reason to stop making those arguments.







I'll quote it again, then:

I guess we're at an impasse, because I'm unable to connect what you're saying to my actual specific words. 282

[Miller]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I guess we're at an impasse, because I'm unable to connect what you're saying to my actual specific words.

Try reading post 273 again - I used your specific words and explained how they were problematic. 283

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Miller

Try reading post 273 again - I used your specific words and explained how they were problematic.

I still see no connection to my actual words. You're reading something into it that's not there at all. 284

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I still see no connection to my actual words. You're reading something into it that's not there at all.

I may regret this, but I was so struck with the last paragraph in Miller's post 273---it really does encapsulate what I think is a reasonable objection to the argument you've been making:

Originally Posted by Miller

... Someone is concerned that a video shows a politically powerful person behaving inappropriately with women. You cast this concern as sexual in nature, as if the person concerned about Biden's behavior is receiving some sort of sexual gratification from the videos.

That's it. I'm sure women everywhere appreciate your attempt to champion them, but in the process of your particular argument here, you've hit on this 'people who have concerns about Biden and look at the videos are deriving sexual gratification from them' claim that is, frankly, not respectable or helpful or reflective of reality.

Again, I will apologize for butting in, but Miller really did put into words what I've been vaguely trying to formulate for several pages, now. 285

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

I may regret this, but I was so struck with the last paragraph in Miller's post 273---it really does encapsulate what I think is a reasonable objection to the argument you've been making:







That's it. I'm sure women everywhere appreciate your attempt to champion them, but in the process of your particular argument here, you've hit on this 'people who have concerns about Biden and look at the videos are deriving sexual gratification from them' claim that is, frankly, not respectable or helpful or reflective of reality.



Again, I will apologize for butting in, but Miller really did put into words what I've been vaguely trying to formulate for several pages, now.

That was not my intention, and if anyone took it that way, I'm happy to apologize. 286

[CarnalK]

Next time, stay away from words like "slobber" maybe. 287

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Next time, stay away from words like "slobber" maybe.

Fair enough. I was thinking of the Breitbart crazies who made and promoted some of these videos that I've seen in the past, not anyone in this thread. Those assholes are gross. 288

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

That was not my intention, and if anyone took it that way, I'm happy to apologize.

Fair enough.

Back to Biden: Democrats in positions of power would be smart to look at the question 'what qualities in Biden are believed to be the key to winning states we're worried about, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?'

Surely it's not his age. And surely it's not that he's made serious runs at getting the nomination several times.

So it must be other traits. What are they? Why are they believed to be important? Are they important? Should we publicly examine the belief that these traits are important? If we think "maleness" is crucial, why do we believe it's crucial? Are we right about that, or are we making unwarranted assumptions? If we think "physically affectionate" is crucial, why? If we think "says whatever he's thinking" is crucial, why?

And so on. This could be a useful exercise, I believe. 289

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Back to Biden: Democrats in positions of power would be smart to look at the question 'what qualities in Biden are believed to be the key to winning states we're worried about, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?'

Surely it's not his age. And surely it's not that he's made serious runs at getting the nomination several times.

So it must be other traits. What are they? Why are they believed to be important? Are they important? Should we publicly examine the belief that these traits are important? If we think "maleness" is crucial, why do we believe it's crucial? Are we right about that, or are we making unwarranted assumptions? If we think "physically affectionate" is crucial, why? If we think "says whatever he's thinking" is crucial, why?

And so on. This could be a useful exercise, I believe.

Sure. Acknowledging that he is not my preferred choice I'll make that case.

You've got to answer first by identifying the key demographics you need to hit on for those states. That's going to be flipping back the Obama-Trump voters, not turning off the Romney-Clinton ones, and getting Black voter turnout up there.

He's long had strong support among that Obama-Trump demographic which includes many working class whites, and it's his lack of polish (without getting to the crude level of Trump), and his authenticity that seem to be the key traits there.

Romney-Clinton ones see as enough in the Beltway as to be a force for stability.

And right now at least he polls very well among Black voters, which might just be based on association with Obama, but could be the same authenticity and relative centrism as well. Here's from 538:

But the Democrat who is really popular with African Americans right now is former Vice President Joe Biden. In the recent Morning Consult polling, Biden was viewed favorably by 77 percent of black Democrats, with just 8 percent viewing him unfavorably. ...

What are the traits that appeal to those key demographics and why? Who else could best appeal to all three?

I might be talking myself into moving Biden up my list some ... 290

[DSeid]

Related question -

Accepting for the sake of discussion that "Northern Path" thesis of those states being the key states to win, and that those are the demographics that matter most to achieving that goal, does the issue of too familiar non-sexual touch, of presumptuous and even "entitled" touch, of touch that has on occasion been unwelcome and uncomfortable, impact those demographics in a race against Trump so much?

It's a very different question than how it impacts the nomination process.

My take is that this issue per se does not at all.

My concern remains though what it portends for how he will handle how the rest of his baggage comes up. There will be major smear campaigns run and he has history, some of which does not even need to be taken out of context, or put in small frames, to look bad. He currently is very popular among Black voters ... will it remain after those attacks hit? (For example.) 291

[Covfefe]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Related question -

Accepting for the sake of discussion that "Northern Path" thesis of those states being the key states to win, and that those are the demographics that matter most to achieving that goal, does the issue of too familiar non-sexual touch, of presumptuous and even "entitled" touch, of touch that has on occasion been unwelcome and uncomfortable, impact those demographics in a race against Trump so much?

It's a very different question than how it impacts the nomination process.

My take is that this issue per se does not at all.

In the context of the primary, the focus would be on what Lucy Flores and others are saying.

In the context of the general election, I think there's this vicious cycle where so many are hung up on perceived hypocrisy in elites who moralize while not caring to practice what they preach, and they (those hung up on this) care more about that than weighing how grievous individual faults are to put it politely. The trolls will call him a pedophile and anything else with no shame. Biden has given some speeches in the last year or two where he has referenced men abusing power in personal and violating ways. I could see him getting flack for this inconsistency in word and action with those who matter, not for the actions unless he fails to change as he has said he will. Whether his background would cause him to be pegged in the vein of a Washington elite is probably a mix, and his communication style mentioned earlier shouldn't hurt him in that regard. I did see some people including a few on the center-left for a variety of reasons get up in arms because he recently talked about white man's culture; unless he is constantly beating that drum I don't know if many will remember or care that much. I guess according to my CNN link some progressives were also critical of the speech because he didn't go far enough. 292

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Presidential Medal of Freedom, surely.

How in tarnation were we supposed to know that? I think if the acronym isn't instantly recognizable, spell the darn thing out. 293

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Covfefe

In the context of the primary, the focus would be on what Lucy Flores and others are saying.

In the context of the general election, I think there's this vicious cycle where so many are hung up on perceived hypocrisy in elites who moralize while not caring to practice what they preach, and they (those hung up on this) care more about that than weighing how grievous individual faults are to put it politely. The trolls will call him a pedophile and anything else with no shame. Biden has given some speeches in the last year or two where he has referenced men abusing power in personal and violating ways. I could see him getting flack for this inconsistency in word and action with those who matter ...

As for the primary voters question ... I'm not so sure. Reasonable analysis here while we wait for post-kerfluffle polling.

Biden has a history of doing and saying cringe-worthy things but, for whatever reason, most Democratic voters aren’t yet cringing.

Flores’ and Lappos’ stories and the clamor they’ve ignited are unlikely to change that. Biden has already faced serious questions about a host of his past positions that look downright conservative by today’s standards, including his mishandling of the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, something he’s expressed regret over but has nonetheless not actually apologized directly for to Hill. And yet he’s been the polling leader for the 2020 nomination pretty much since Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.

While some voters will now rethink things, it’s hard to imagine that those most likely to sour on him were on the Biden train to begin with. Biden’s base is old—much older than the other septuagenarian in the race, as CNN data analyst Henry Enten documented:

The available polling suggests that older voters are less receptive than younger ones to taking these kinds of charges seriously. ...

... And then there’s the backlash to consider, whereby some voters actually rally to Biden’s defense. Consider, for instance, the response from Theda Skocpol, a 71-year-old Harvard political scientist, who made it clear she has no interest in a circular firing squad with Donald Trump in the White House. “Is this the kind of society we want to live in—where right-wingers can do any vicious thing they want to anyone and shrug it off, while people on the center-left are supposed to expel from public life anyone who says a single wrong word or has done something benignly intended in the past that now does not fit changed norms?” she wrote in a letter to the Times. “Not me, that is not the kind of America I want to live in. That is not the kind of Democratic primary I want to participate in.” ...

TL/DNR? This bit will hold the most salience to those who were unlikely to choose Biden already and mean little, or even rally to him, many who are already ranking him their number one choice. (Which the author regrets to be the case.)

But I'm interested in hearing a more detailed discussion from you about "those who matter". Assuming you are agreeing that those are the same three groups I identified, Obama-Trump, Romney-Clinton, and Black voters, which of them do you think are most prone to change support in a race against Trump based on a campaign pegging him as having "inconsistency in word and action"? Is there any particular reason you think that? 294

[filmore]

Unfortunately, there's a lot of overlap between inappropriate touching and inappropriate sexual touching. I don't have the impression that there was a sexual motivation to what Biden was doing. But touching other people is something that most people would be uncomfortable with anyway--sexual or not.

I had a male manager would would touch both male and female employees on the back and shoulder when talking to them. There was nothing sexual about it, but I felt uncomfortable when he did it to me. I don't want to be touched by people with that kind of relationship to me (stranger, acquaintance, etc.)

I view this kind of behavior in the category of insensitive or lacking empathy behavior more than harassment or predatory behavior. Along with touching, it might also include talking endlessly without regard for the other person's interest in the topic, calling at home about non-emergency work topics outside of work hours, excessive micromanaging, and so on. Boorish, lack of awareness of personal space, lack of awareness of others interest, etc. all fall into that category.

I think he's handling it poorly now. Rather than being apologetic for making people feel uncomfortable, he's saying he did nothing wrong. It would be like a person who talks endlessly saying they won't apologize for doing so and will keep talking to someone as long as they feel like, even if that other person is bored to tears and couldn't care less about the topic. But in this political environment, who knows, maybe that's the right attitude to win. Saying he'll do whatever he feels like without concern for anyone else seems to be a winning strategy at the moment. 295

[DSeid]

“Most people”?

I doubt.

I actually think most people respond well to appropriate touch (tautology I know). I don’t think most find non-sexual touch not intended to demonstrate power or control but intended to communicate attention, focus, support, or concern as unwanted or intrusive. But enough don’t like it that great caution is warranted especially if there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the toucher and the touched. That perception can be based on position or gender or a wide variety of factors.

Biden has not exhibited such caution. He says he gets it now. Not sure he does. 296

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by DSeid

... I don’t think most find non-sexual touch not intended to demonstrate power or control but intended to communicate attention, focus, support, or concern as unwanted or intrusive. But enough don’t like it that great caution is warranted especially if there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the toucher and the touched. That perception can be based on position or gender or a wide variety of factors.

Biden has not exhibited such caution. He says he gets it now. Not sure he does.

Today's remarks by Biden seem to indicate that he very much does NOT get it. His people clearly have tried to get through to him; at one point after today's speech to the electrical-workers union, he did utter the requisite 'I know it's not about what I intended but about the discomfort felt by those who've spoken out' line, but soon reverted to "I am not sorry for anything that I have ever done -- I've never been disrespectful, intentionally, to a man or a woman."

The first isn't a actual quotation--it's a paraphrase--because I haven't yet found a full transcript of today's interaction with reporters. But the second is quoted in several stories.

Today Biden seemed not only defensive, but actually, well, angry. Or as angry as he gets. He seemed to defy Those Irrationally-Critical Women by joking about the situation twice during his on-stage time:

During his speech to the electrical workers' union, the former vice president referenced the controversy with a pair of jokes, telling attendees that he had received permission to hug the union leader and put his arm around a child he invited up on stage.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...have-ever-done
TheHill.com

On the 'defensiveness' front, he told reporters that plenty of people welcome his touch:

Biden told reporters Friday he "wouldn't be surprised" if other women come forward with allegations he made them uncomfortable, but he noted that he has had "hundreds and hundreds of people contact me who I don't know and you know, say the exact opposite."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/polit...ons/index.html

So with reference to DSeid's categories of Obama-Trump, Romney-Clinton, and Black voters: My guess is that males among them will shrug, and females will be split between those who will sigh and swallow their disappointment (at being asked, yet again, to simply put up with uninvited touches by those with more power), and those who will reject Biden soundly and decisively. 297

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

So with reference to DSeid's categories of Obama-Trump, Romney-Clinton, and Black voters: My guess is that males among them will shrug, and females will be split between those who will sigh and swallow their disappointment (at being asked, yet again, to simply put up with uninvited touches by those with more power), and those who will reject Biden soundly and decisively.

You know, there's no need to put women on a pedestal here. Many females will merely shrug too. You really think Obama-Trump women were sighing and swallowing their disappointment when they voted for the pussygrabber? 298

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

You know, there's no need to put women on a pedestal here. Many females will merely shrug too. You really think Obama-Trump women were sighing and swallowing their disappointment when they voted for the pussygrabber?

Maybe some fraction of them. Warring within them (possibly) was delight at Trump's implicit promise to Make America White Again, and a disappointed resignation to the pussy-grabbing. 299

[Happy Lendervedder]

According to a Hill poll, a majority of American voters, Democrats, Independents, women, men, and people aged 35+ say this isn't a deal breaker and Biden should still run. And a plurality of voters 18-34 say the same.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...men-should-not

So it seems a lot of people are shrugging right now. 300