Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1451  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
; Biden really and truly has an age problem, and that's not going to go away. It never does, obviously.
Well, eventually it turns into a dead problem.
  #1452  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:17 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 24,004
Biden is certainly not racist and never has been. If he is the nominee he will have stronger Black support than HRC did.

Harris played an effective political move that was brilliantly executed. It was not at all "nasty." (One of Trump's go-to words for any strong woman who criticizes him.) Neither was it mean or low. It was very effective prosecution of a "witness" that had not bothered to adequately prep for the deposition. Trump on the stand would be toast in a way that he never was with HRC.
  #1453  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:04 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,147
Has Harris clarified what her policy position on federally enforced busing is? If she believes the federal government should force cities to bus their students that is a big deal and probably a big political risk. If she doesn't , then her position is largely similar to Biden's and it's not clear what the significance of that exchange really was other than a pure debating gimmick.
  #1454  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:10 PM
rocking chair is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: on the porch
Posts: 7,994
Quote:
Jan. 31, 2007

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."


i used this quote just recently in a discussion with a friend. biden has a habit of phrasing things that can leave the door open for multiple interpretations. in the above quote people heard, clean as in hygiene, clean as in no scandal, and clean as in no arrests. things spun around and biden had to constantly explain it.

as for the current field, i liked 5 candidate going into the 2 night debates. warren, harris, booker, klobuchar, and buttigieg. ms maddow had each on her show one on one and they all were very good.

harris is a serious alpha type. i don't see her as a vp, she is always the leader in any group. she is very good at clearly stating her positions on things and is very commanding.

warren is passionate. she has the fire to get to the white house. very good at stating her vision.

booker is hands on. just wades in and gets what needs to get done, done. he is very good at getting past obstacles.

klobuchar is a quiet force. she works well with others and is able to get them to go her way, thinking it was their idea.

buttigieg is very knowledgeable. he has the facts down cold. he doesn't seem to rattle.

after the debates, i have to add in castro to the mix. the first 3 are top of the ticket people. i don't see them going for the second spot. if they don't make president i can see them in the cabinet, but not vp.

the next 3, adding castro, would be good at the top of the ticket, but also as vp. they could work well with any of the first 3.
  #1455  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Has Harris clarified what her policy position on federally enforced busing is? If she believes the federal government should force cities to bus their students that is a big deal and probably a big political risk. If she doesn't , then her position is largely similar to Biden's and it's not clear what the significance of that exchange really was other than a pure debating gimmick.
Weren't they talking about stuff from the 70s?
  #1456  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:24 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,089
After watching both nights of debate I think it is in the best interest of the Democrats to get this field thinned down to 7 or so candidates as soon as possible. Based on nothing more than my take on how each candidate came across I would expect this group to be made up of these people:

Biden and Sanders - Joe was a disappointment for me but maybe it was just a bad night for him. Both he and Sanders do have solid followings so they should be in this group but I'm less comfortable with either of them getting the nomination than I was before.

Harris - I've been skeptical of her but I will admit to being impressed by her performance. I don't know if she would have a better chance of winning in the general than anyone else but it would be a helluva lot of fun watching her take down DJT.

Booker - He did himself no harm and came across pretty much as I expected.

Warren - Again what I expected but she did seem less like she was lecturing the country than what I've noticed in the past so that should help her.

Buttigieg - Pete continues to impress me but I'm not convinced this is his time. An obvious person to end up in the VP spot for several of the other candidates.

Castro - This guy was the big surprise for me. In the past he has come off to me as being a light weight without much charisma. That changed for me on Wednesday. I actually think he moves ahead of Mayor Pete in my mind as someone who would be a strong VP choice for Warren, Booker or Harris.

I like Inslee and thought he did well but I'm not convinced he will get the traction he needs. DeBlasio was better than I expected but I don't see him as a realistic option.

The rest missed their chance to really break out IMHO and it would be better for most, if not all, of them to be gone sooner rather than later.

Of course, this is based on only one debate and it is still very very early so I realize I could well be wrong on all of this. Well, not on this statement - Swallwell, Delaney, Williamson and Bennet are just wasting everyone's time and have no business on future debate stages. And O'Rourke was an embarrassment.
  #1457  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:33 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 703
Buttigeig has been floundering on his city's police force and his record there. The facts on the shooting aren't in and I don't jump on the police unless there is evidence of wrongdoing, but he has had a chance to influence PD hiring- and hasn't.

Harris remains Harris. She can talk, but her record as prosecutor was totally not friendly to black Americans, and those around here remember. Intelligent? That isn't her reputation, either. The last time I saw her trying to do her job was setting up a gotcha for Kavanaugh that sort of petered out. I don't see her as POTUS or VP material (or Senator, so what do I know).

Sanders and Biden are damn old.

Booker (and Harris) appear to want me to vote because of their color and/ or gender. And Booker is promoting positions too out of line for me. And as I said above, I don't trust Harris' walk will match her talk.

I am not sure about the rest. Maybe more exposure will give more information.

Last edited by sps49sd; 06-28-2019 at 01:36 PM.
  #1458  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,502
I agree with most of what DSeid said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Pete is a great guy, no doubt. But I question whether being mayor of a moderate sized city is enough seasoning for a run for the presidency. I'd love to see him run for Senate in IN. And let's be honest- is America ready to elect a gay president? I'd love to think so. Maybe those whom it would bother vote Republican anyway.

Harris is fine. She's as sharp as Warren but doesn't come off as so preachy-screechy. I want to see her numbers in the black community tick up before I get on board, you simply can't get elected president without black turnout.

Harris-Castro? Maybe a winner.

Yeah, TIL Pete is mayor of the 308th largest city in America. That’s even lower ranked than I expected. But he is in a pickle: he is in a red state. Are there even any blue/purple House districts in Indiana that aren’t reserved for the CBC?

He is such a gigantic political talent, it’s a real shame. Maybe a few years in a Cabinet position would season him enough to come back strong in his mid-forties? Plenty of time if he can find something to add to his resume.

Agreed about “preachy-screechy”. And Harris-Castro definitely sounds interesting!


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, eventually it turns into a dead problem.

LOL


Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
Warren doesn't have issues with black voters

Warren has trouble with ALL voters outside a core liberal base. Do I need to repost her eye-poppingly atrocious numbers in MA? She is the embodiment of swing voter repellent.
  #1459  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:42 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Weren't they talking about stuff from the 70s?
So what? If Harris thinks Biden was substantively wrong she could propose bringing back the policies that he opposed in the 70's.

Last edited by Lantern; 06-28-2019 at 01:42 PM.
  #1460  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:46 PM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 4,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
So what? If Harris thinks Biden was substantively wrong she could propose bringing back the policies that he opposed in the 70's.
Yeah, but that's not a slam dunk. The people she needs to reach are in many instances the same people who were against forced busing in the '70s. Not sure this is the hill she should want to stake her flag in.
  #1461  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:46 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I feel like none of these candidates said anything of substance, including Harris. Well, perhaps Hickenlooper did but he doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell.
I agree, and would add: of course not.

They aren't there to say things of substance. They are there to (pretend) to be angry, and forceful, and devoted to a cause, and convincing in the idea that they know how to get things done. They are there to be noticed and remembered, and they all know the way to do this is by "performing". None of that shit means anything as to how well they may do the job of a president. The debates are a sham, and a massive waste of time when it comes to deciding whom to vote for.
  #1462  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...

Kamala Harris most certainly stood out as the winner of last night's debate from the perspective of the hard partisans, but how did she win? She won by insinuating that the party's dominant front-runner may have a racist bone in his body after all. Whether she said those words or meant that doesn't matter -- she made Joe Biden, the party's front runner, look pathetically weak and put him on the defensive just by having to talk about the issue. ...

As much as I hate to say it, the real winner of the debates....was Donald Trump.
Yeah, I was afraid that the Dem race would become a crab bucket, and this confirms it. Harris, by going there, was doing nothing but helping trump get elected. She wasnt helping herself.
  #1463  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,502
I strongly disagree. I was “meh” about her before, but now I am very excited about her candidacy. And no one would confuse me for the denizen of a far left Twitter bubble.

I would add that Mike Murphy and David Axelrod, hosts of the “Hacks on Tap” podcast and two of the sharpest political minds around, were similarly very impressed.
  #1464  
Old 06-28-2019, 02:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
So what? If Harris thinks Biden was substantively wrong she could propose bringing back the policies that he opposed in the 70's.
You're seriously suggesting she take a strong desegregation of schools platform lifted directly from forty years ago? She can defend that policy in its time and place and Biden can defend his opposition similarly without committing to the same strategy now.
  #1465  
Old 06-28-2019, 02:22 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemaster View Post
Yeah, but that's not a slam dunk. The people she needs to reach are in many instances the same people who were against forced busing in the '70s. Not sure this is the hill she should want to stake her flag in.
And that was vastly more true of Biden in the 1970's. If Harris believes in forced busing but doesn't have the courage to propose it in 2019, she has little credibility attacking him
for his positions back then.

In case it's not clear, I think forced busing is a bad policy both substantively and electorally. I am just confused at the rapturous reception this exchange has received, given that no one seems to be proposing to bring back the policies that Biden opposed.I think that Biden was right on this issue then and is right on it now.
  #1466  
Old 06-28-2019, 02:24 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You're seriously suggesting she take a strong desegregation of schools platform lifted directly from forty years ago? She can defend that policy in its time and place and Biden can defend his opposition similarly without committing to the same strategy now.
Is there any reason why forced busing was a good policy in the 70's but a bad policy today?
  #1467  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:23 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I wonder if the biggest loser in the debates wasn't the democratic party itself.

The danger that the Democrats face is increasingly is having to deal with a party that is fractured along the lines of identity politics.

Kamala Harris most certainly stood out as the winner of last night's debate from the perspective of the hard partisans, but how did she win? She won by insinuating that the party's dominant front-runner may have a racist bone in his body after all. Whether she said those words or meant that doesn't matter -- she made Joe Biden, the party's front runner, look pathetically weak and put him on the defensive just by having to talk about the issue. To be sure, Biden probably has other problems than just fending off charges of sympathizing with segregationists but that's not the point. The point is, winning the democratic nomination will likely involve beating each other up over who's the real champion for social justice, and that's not a fight Democrats want to carry into the general election. They will get fucking destroyed if that is their cause.

And here's the thing: it's utterly ridiculous to go there, because Joe Biden served as Barack Obama's sidekick for 8 years without any hint of a racial controversy. Most white centrists, whom the progressives will need to win control of the federal government whether they realize it or not, probably came away with the debates disappointed.

As much as I hate to say it, the real winner of the debates....was Donald Trump.
Assume that Biden became the nominee, and Harris didn't go after him as she did last night. Further, assume that no one going forward does on the question of race, before the convention. What do you think Trump would do at the first opportunity? You and I, and everyone else here, knows exactly what he would do. If Biden can't withstand the rather tame "attack" from Harris last night, there is no way he would survive a Trumpian onslaught. If last night, or the like, is all it takes to bring down Biden, Harris will have done a great, big favor for the Dems. And this is most assuredly not a plus for Trump.
  #1468  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:50 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
...
Harris remains Harris. She can talk, but her record as prosecutor was totally not friendly to black Americans, and those around here remember. ...
Couldn't you say that about pretty much any American prosecutor, though?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
... Intelligent? That isn't her reputation, either. The last time I saw her trying to do her job was setting up a gotcha for Kavanaugh that sort of petered out....
In my opinon she did make mincemeat out of so-called AG Barr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNY8WEuGeII
  #1469  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:56 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,575
Fitting that Harris and Warren ended up fionalists in our own World Cup. Harris-Warren would be the ideal ticket! (Unfortunately, the double-woman ticket would risk rejection by misogyny.)

I see I've issued conflicting instructions to my delegates: [septimus;21642098]...[/QUOTE] [septimus;21381984]...[/QUOTE] [septimus;21325918]...[/QUOTE] [septimus;21331217] ... [/QUOTE] [septimus;21272316].../QUOTE].
All previous orders are rescinded. Please vote Kamala Harris for President!
  #1470  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:05 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 24,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Is there any reason why forced busing was a good policy in the 70's but a bad policy today?
You do realize that the legislation he supported against mandated bussing failed and that the ability of the courts to mandate bussing HAS been the law of the land since then, at least not limited by legislature? It faded as a preferred court tool by the late '80s, partly as the result of a court ruling (Milliken v. Bradley) which limited it to within municipalities, effectively incentivizing flight to suburbia. More court ruling since, see for example Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, have further reduced the ability of the tool to be used.

So yes there are reasons why it is not a tool used by courts today despite the fact that the laws aimed at restricting it never passed. Court rulings have constrained its utility in subsequent decades.

Segregation, even if not as commonly motivated by overt conscious racism, still exists, often perpetuated by structural factors. The problem is not gone even if it has changed.
  #1471  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:45 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I was surprised that Harris didn't attempt to go after Buttigieg more considering how close they are in the polls. I probably wouldn't go right after Harris but use her prosecutorial record against her as a way to counter punch.
Wasn't it Harris that said something like: "...and I made sure their body-cameras were always on"? A possible reference to the police-involved shooting in South Bend where the cop's bodycam was off.
  #1472  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:47 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Couldn't you say that about pretty much any American prosecutor, though?
Pretty much any American prosecutor doesn't run as a progressive. Conservative law-and-orderism is more usual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
In my opinion she did make mincemeat out of so-called AG Barr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNY8WEuGeII
She did better; hopefully she learned from the SC hearings and spent more time preparing. But what was the effect of her mincemeat-making of Barr?
  #1473  
Old 06-28-2019, 05:54 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Has Harris clarified what her policy position on federally enforced busing is? If she believes the federal government should force cities to bus their students that is a big deal and probably a big political risk. If she doesn't , then her position is largely similar to Biden's and it's not clear what the significance of that exchange really was other than a pure debating gimmick.
The message I got from the exchange is that Biden was/is in favor of defaulting to "state's rights" when it comes to addressing difficult problems, whether it be racial discrimination or something else. But history has shown us that states are not to be trusted with difficult problems. That's what the federal government is for.

The significance of the exchange is crystal clear to any serious progressive who is looking to be represented by another serious progressive. To a moderate, it's not that big of a deal. But the candidates aren't trying to appeal to moderates at this stage of the game.
  #1474  
Old 06-28-2019, 06:22 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,502
Let's also bear in mind that there is a lot of middle ground between enthusiastically supporting busing on the one hand, and on the other, working with staunch segregationists to thwart it, then bragging about that in 2019.
  #1475  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:33 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 11,186
If it's not Biden, then either the candidate will be someone who's not straight, white, middle-aged and male; or someone who fits that description is going to come from <1% in the polls.

Neither of those is an encouraging thought for the general.
  #1476  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:36 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Let's also bear in mind that there is a lot of middle ground between enthusiastically supporting busing on the one hand, and on the other, working with staunch segregationists to thwart it, then bragging about that in 2019.
The thing is, everyone knows - Joe himself knows - he has a long and complicated senate record, but it's mostly a good one. In a way, I accept that maybe my criticism of Harris' assault might have some holes. There's really no way anyone could argue that he shouldn't have seen it coming. And that's what flabbergasts me: he just sat there and got fucking owned. I can't remember the last time I watched someone of Biden's stature get so badly clobbered (someone who didn't have a Rick Perry self-destruct moment, that is).

That's what I keep going back to: it's not really Biden's record on race that was his problem last night; it's that he didn't look like the feisty, unadulterated, "I'm a lawyer but could have been a construction worker," Scranton tough guy that we're all used to seeing. He looked like he was walking around trying to find someone to play bridge with.
  #1477  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:41 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
Wasn't it Harris that said something like: "...and I made sure their body-cameras were always on"? A possible reference to the police-involved shooting in South Bend where the cop's bodycam was off.
Right, I forgot about that. Maybe that was a jab at Pete.

I felt Pete got away unscathed last night but the next round could be tough. He needs to figure out a better way to respond. I thought he was honest and manned up, which I appreciate. But he also needs to be ready to give it back, and I suspect he's going to get nailed by some of the former mayors, especially De Blasio and Castro, who will give no quarter.
  #1478  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Assume that Biden became the nominee, and Harris didn't go after him as she did last night. Further, assume that no one going forward does on the question of race, before the convention. What do you think Trump would do at the first opportunity? You and I, and everyone else here, knows exactly what he would do. If Biden can't withstand the rather tame "attack" from Harris last night, there is no way he would survive a Trumpian onslaught. If last night, or the like, is all it takes to bring down Biden, Harris will have done a great, big favor for the Dems. And this is most assuredly not a plus for Trump.
I guess it's hard to disagree with this. If there's one upside to Harris' assault on Biden, it's that we may have gotten the first clue that we need to reevaluate Biden's "electability."

He had such a big lead in the polls that he looked dominant, but his campaign strategy of staying out of the spotlight and trying to go after Trump directly before he's even started the fight for the nomination just seemed very Jeb Bush-esque.

I had forgotten that I had posted this just a few days before:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=135

Quote:
LOL, no.

But to follow up, his recent gaffes with respect to working with segregationists to get legislation done may hurt him a little going into the campaign, but I think he can survive it. What would worry me if I were a Biden adviser is how he responds in the debates when Cory Booker and others confront him about the comments and push him to apologize in front of a national audience. Subconsciously, people are attracted to perceived strength and repulsed by perceived weakness. Making Biden defend himself and putting him on the defensive in front of millions of people might be damaging, even if voters weren't necessarily aware of or offended by his original remarks.

There's no more hiding from the cameras for Biden. He has to bring it.
There's no more hiding from the cameras indeed.

And last night...he did NOT bring it.

Last edited by asahi; 06-28-2019 at 07:52 PM.
  #1479  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:55 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
If it's not Biden, then either the candidate will be someone who's not straight, white, middle-aged and male; or someone who fits that description is going to come from <1% in the polls.

Neither of those is an encouraging thought for the general.
Just to be clear: Obama proved that a non-white guy can win. But he won because he wasn't angry. Straight white males can get away with running an angry campaign; others cannot. I wish it weren't that way but it is.
  #1480  
Old 06-28-2019, 08:59 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocking chair View Post
Quote:
Jan. 31, 2007

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Call me naive, but what is even possibly remotely wrong with this statement?

1) We've got a mainstream black candidate for president

2) he's articulate, bright, and clean (of course that means no scandal; why would it be doubted that a mainstream candidate showers or brushes his teeth?)

3) he's a good looking guy.

Conclusion: How can he not win? It is perfect for the Democratic Party.

What am I missing?
  #1481  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:17 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I see I've issued conflicting instructions to my delegates:
All previous orders are rescinded. Please vote Kamala Harris for President!
You're a smart guy. I knew you'd come around.

Last edited by Johanna; 06-28-2019 at 09:18 PM.
  #1482  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:05 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Call me naive, but what is even possibly remotely wrong with this statement?
I agree that his statement has been taken out of context and being spun as something it's not. But the reason why is because of his words "the first". As if all previous "mainstream African-Americans" were NOT articulate, bright, and clean, until "the first" came along. It's clumsy phrasing but it is certainly a praise of Obama and not intended to be racist. I don't think Biden's racist. I think he's an OK guy.

I am positive, though, that he won't be a competitive nominee. He demonstrated unambiguously during that debate that he is not up to the task.
  #1483  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:55 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,502
You really don’t see how insulting that was to earlier black candidates?
  #1484  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:27 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,445
I DO see, I don't think it was really malicious on Biden's part, but yeah of course I see how it's insulting.
  #1485  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:38 AM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 42,068
I am sick of the Democrats turning on each other. As far as I'm concerned, Biden was good enough for Obama and is the one Chump fears the most, so I'm voting Biden come time for the Hawaii primary.
__________________
"Hell is other people." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
  #1486  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:43 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,694
My God, a simple competition is not "turning on each other."
  #1487  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:02 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siam Sam View Post
I am sick of the Democrats turning on each other. As far as I'm concerned, Biden was good enough for Obama and is the one Chump fears the most, so I'm voting Biden come time for the Hawaii primary.
Agreed Sam, but I would add two things - whether the President knows it or not I think there are a couple others he should fear and I'm not 100% certain Biden will still be in this come time for the Hawaii primary.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 06-29-2019 at 01:02 AM.
  #1488  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:08 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,502
I bet Trump fears Biden a lot less after seeing that weak performance. On the other hand, I do not think he is relishing the idea of facing Harris on the debate stage. I would not put it past him to come up with some excuse about bias by the moderators or whatever to skip the debate altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I DO see, I don't think it was really malicious on Biden's part, but yeah of course I see how it's insulting.

Okay. But does UltraVires see it?
  #1489  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:09 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You do realize that the legislation he supported against mandated bussing failed and that the ability of the courts to mandate bussing HAS been the law of the land since then, at least not limited by legislature? It faded as a preferred court tool by the late '80s, partly as the result of a court ruling (Milliken v. Bradley) which limited it to within municipalities, effectively incentivizing flight to suburbia. More court ruling since, see for example Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, have further reduced the ability of the tool to be used.

So yes there are reasons why it is not a tool used by courts today despite the fact that the laws aimed at restricting it never passed. Court rulings have constrained its utility in subsequent decades.

Segregation, even if not as commonly motivated by overt conscious racism, still exists, often perpetuated by structural factors. The problem is not gone even if it has changed.
Not all forced busing was court-mandated. As per this video-clip of Biden in 1977, he was especially concerned about busing brought about by pressure from the then Department of Health Education and Welfare.

I don't know the details of those court rulings you mention but I am guessing they are focused on court-mandated busing and not initiatives from the Federal Government. Presumably a President Harris could also propose legislation to address this issue.
In the debate Harris said:
Quote:
So I will tell you that, on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among Democrats. We have to take it seriously. We have to act swiftly.
Yet though school segregation remains high, Harris doesn't appear to have any plan on what she wants to do about it. She wanted to hit Biden and get a viral debating moment and she got it but frankly without a clear policy of her own, the whole thing is empty political posturing.
  #1490  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:42 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I bet Trump fears Biden a lot less after seeing that weak performance. On the other hand, I do not think he is relishing the idea of facing Harris on the debate stage. I would not put it past him to come up with some excuse about bias by the moderators or whatever to skip the debate altogether....
You are reading my mind about Trump and the debates. I have already wondered how he may avoid them if he has to go up against someone who would have a good chance to hand him his ass. Harris or Booker would be the two most likely to put fear in his heart in that context. Warren would probably be able to take him down but he isn't likely to realize that in advance. And after Thursday night I expect he is less afraid of facing Biden in a debate than he is afraid of Biden as a formidable opponent at the ballot box.
  #1491  
Old 06-29-2019, 02:02 AM
Win Place Show is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 310
Is there any realistic scenario going that could mean Biden as the VP once again? I adore the guy, but maybe the skills and 'gravitas' are behind him? Any chance he could pump the brakes and settle on a VP nod behind either K-Harris or Warren? Or is he in it for "Oval Office or Nothing"? Maybe I'm not asking the question right, but is a K-Harris / Biden ticket even worth discussing, once everything shakes out?
  #1492  
Old 06-29-2019, 06:05 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 24,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
... She wanted to hit Biden and get a viral debating moment and she got it but frankly without a clear policy of her own, the whole thing is empty political posturing.
Of course it was political posturing! It was as planned and rehearsed as that “I knew Jack Kennedy...” moment. But more effective.

Segregation is not the focus of her campaign. Racial justice even isn’t. This was not a real fight on issues; it was a demonstration of their respective campaign fighting skill sets. This was a play to push her electability perception up and lower his down with all voters while grabbing some Black voter support. But it was played fair and above the belt.

Biden is not down and out but she punctured his most electable shield some and moved herself up as the most likely to take the nom from him.

Real world here. Debates are not really about issues. They are about establishing your image and your perception relative to the competition.

Maybe Biden was more focused on what he thought Sanders would bring? If so he prepped for the wrong fight.
  #1493  
Old 06-29-2019, 06:38 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
A modest proposal to keep candidates from speaking past their time limits, as they did over and over and over again.
Another approach would be for a nimble-fingered moderator to keep time on all candidates. Once they exceed their allotment they must remain silent until closing statement.

HOWEVER: Did you note how candidates were not interrupted when they delivered long pro-Democratic policy spiels, but then were stopped when they segued into the "That's why *I* am the one ..." part ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
However, watching him tonight I do have serious concerns. There was something about his manner and reaction to what was happening that made me feel he is in some sort of decline, whether physical or mental.... tonight was the first time I have seen him come across as seriously old man.
I'm also worried about Biden, though he seemed alert in the debate. Even when young, he was never the brightest bulb on the tree. :-(

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by Win Place Show View Post
Is there any realistic scenario going that could mean Biden as the VP once again?
I was wondering the same thing! But Biden is too silly old for the V.P. slot; perhaps Biden-Harris is the winning ticket instead of Harris-Biden.

In any event I think the D's ticket needs to combine youthful vigor with a wise oldster. Unfortunately, who's the wise oldster? Other than Biden, should we go with Hickenlooper or Inslee??? Maybe Warren if she runs with a man, but the Harris-Warren double-female whammy would be far too much for Archie Bunker to consider a vote.

Last edited by septimus; 06-29-2019 at 06:39 AM.
  #1494  
Old 06-29-2019, 07:01 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Win Place Show View Post
Is there any realistic scenario going that could mean Biden as the VP once again? I adore the guy, but maybe the skills and 'gravitas' are behind him? Any chance he could pump the brakes and settle on a VP nod behind either K-Harris or Warren? Or is he in it for "Oval Office or Nothing"? Maybe I'm not asking the question right, but is a K-Harris / Biden ticket even worth discussing, once everything shakes out?
Sure. But a squid would also make a fine running mate, and be just as helpful. Because nobody votes for the Veep. 😀

But seriously, I think it highly unlikely Biden would want this. He's craved the presidency his whole political life. Nothing else is a substitute.
  #1495  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:17 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Of course it was political posturing! It was as planned and rehearsed as that “I knew Jack Kennedy...” moment. But more effective.

Segregation is not the focus of her campaign. Racial justice even isn’t. This was not a real fight on issues; it was a demonstration of their respective campaign fighting skill sets. This was a play to push her electability perception up and lower his down with all voters while grabbing some Black voter support. But it was played fair and above the belt.

Biden is not down and out but she punctured his most electable shield some and moved herself up as the most likely to take the nom from him.

Real world here. Debates are not really about issues. They are about establishing your image and your perception relative to the competition.

Maybe Biden was more focused on what he thought Sanders would bring? If so he prepped for the wrong fight.

I agree with all of this.

Harris was able to demonstrate two things from that exchange. One, while not racist, Biden is a relic of the bad old days of race relations, when white Dems were more than happy to screw over their black and brown constituents to appease their white ones. And two, Biden is weak. If he can't defend himself with political allies, what is he going to do with Trump? Flash his teeth? No, we need someone who's going to clap back at Trump and clap back so hard that Trump's loserness is revealed to even the most diehard supporter. It has been awhile since Biden clapped back at anyone, while it seems like Harris has been honing her skills since the day she was born.
  #1496  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:23 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I agree that his statement has been taken out of context and being spun as something it's not. But the reason why is because of his words "the first". As if all previous "mainstream African-Americans" were NOT articulate, bright, and clean, until "the first" came along. It's clumsy phrasing but it is certainly a praise of Obama and not intended to be racist. I don't think Biden's racist. I think he's an OK guy.

I am positive, though, that he won't be a competitive nominee. He demonstrated unambiguously during that debate that he is not up to the task.
He meant that Jesse Jackson was not mainstream. I don't see any deeper meaning than that.
  #1497  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:38 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Has Harris clarified what her policy position on federally enforced busing is? If she believes the federal government should force cities to bus their students that is a big deal and probably a big political risk. If she doesn't , then her position is largely similar to Biden's and it's not clear what the significance of that exchange really was other than a pure debating gimmick.
Implicitly, yes. That is, by not mentioning busing EVER in all of her political career, she has made it quite clear: she doesn't give enough of a damn about it to have ever DONE anything regarding it. Or am I wrong? Has she in fact? I can't find any evidence online. Or is it as I suspect, that she sat down with her advisers and dreamed up the most damaging attack they could think of, so that she would have material to "perform" with, and fool the American electorate that because of it, she is more qualified to be president than Biden. It's all a show, folks, and I don't mean to single her out. These debates are a sham.
  #1498  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:43 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,745
Jesse Jackson was quite mainstream in 1988. So if that was his meaning, he was wrong.

Also, Shirly Chisholm was mainstream (having served in Congress), well-spoken, smart, and clean (!) too.
  #1499  
Old 06-29-2019, 08:59 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,779
For those saying Biden was weak: How exactly should he have responded to a black woman who made the busing issue a personal one? I mean, how should he have responded to this without sounding patronizing, man-splaining or as a condescending white man?

The less Biden could say to that, the better. I mean there is no good way to respond to that kind of loaded haymaker.
  #1500  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:48 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,745
Happy Lendervedder, if Biden had never mentioned the "good ole days" with his segregationist buddies a couple of weeks ago, Harris wouldn't have had a chance to throw an uppercut in the debate. The ultimate weakness of Biden isn't just in his lack of defense against Harris on this particular subject. It's that he has a big mouth that is calibrated to a different time--a time when politicians could be very inartful in their expressions because there was no one live Tweeting their every word--making it so that he practically hands his opponents ammunition to use against him.

Biden should have known that Harris was going to be gunning for him wrt race. So he should have been prepared with something besides sputtering and stammering. Even if his defense wasn't as effective as hers, it would have still been something. Hell, even an apology would have been something. "I am sorry, Senator Harris, for being hurtful to you. And I hope you know that I sincerely mean that, because having your respect means a lot to me." Would it have been a show of weakness for him to concede that he had stepped in it with his "segregationists were civil with me!" remark. Sure. But it would have also demonstrated that he understood why the remark was tone-deaf and that he needs to be more careful with how he talks about his past. It would have been more effective than just saying "That is a mischaracterization!", that's for damn sure.

And his follow-up act isn't proving to be any less awkward.. Like, come on, Joe. A kid in a hoodie may just be the next normal, everyday human being. Why does he have to be a poet lauraute to be treated like a human being? Of course Biden knows this, but he needs to stop producing low-hanging fruit like this. Because you can bet his opponents are keeping track of all his verbal gaffs so they can formulate their talking points around them.

That's just how politics are in 2019. Candidates either need to adapt to the times or get off the stage.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017