wikipedia: *Abortion, stem cell research, cloning
Biden believes that the decision handed down in Roe v. Wade should remain intact. He is quoted as saying, “The best policy for our country on the question of abortion is a policy of Government neutrality. Put another way: I do not believe that the government should be involved in making judgments on whether a woman can, or should have an abortion, or—if she chooses to do so—in paying for that abortion.”[citation needed] In September 2008, Biden was barred by Joseph Francis Martino, the bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, from receiving Holy Communion in the diocese because of his support for abortion rights.[21]
He voted in favor of a 1999 bill to ban in most circumstances partial birth abortion[22] and on 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[23] Biden has defended these votes as recently as April 2007.[24] He has also stated his opposition to federal funding of abortions.[24]
He has joined with Democrats in voting against parental notification and banning abortions on military bases. His abortion record includes a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in four of the last five years, although he received a 36% rating in 2003. Biden pledged that he would appoint Supreme Court justices sharing his beliefs.[24] He has also stated his opposition to the Mexico City policy, and voted in favor of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. Biden supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and voted to expand development and voted against banning human cloning in 1998.*
I agree that some voters focus too much on the specific stances of candidates. All the Ds are in close agreement on most of the broad brushstrokes of policy, and Congress will often have as much say on the details as the Prez will have.
Besides electability, other important criteria are
the diplomatic, charismatic and leadership skills needed to negotiate with foreign leaders and Congress,
high moral integrity,
good judgment and confidence,
ability to communicate with both elite and common people,
humanitarian instincts.
I’m sure I’ve left out some important criteria but specific stances on issues is not among them. Especially since some of the most controversial issues — guns, abortion, etc. — are issues where President’s power is minimal.
To add on to your point, I’d like to see more questions from the media and answers to the candidates as to how will you get your agenda enacted. I think someone with a coherent and realistic answer would probably get my support.
There is also a lack of focus on foreign policy, which the president has a lot more impact on than domestic policies.
I don’t see how any of the other Democratic front-runners can keep up with Bernie’s organic fundraising machine - it’s a sight to behold. Bernie’s got a machine, he’s got name recognition, and he has a movement. What he lacks is credibility with non-white voters, but I think his campaign is rightly making that a focus now before the debates begin.
if you don’t care about Biden’s comments from long ago then I hope you also were not calling for the Virginia governor to quit. You can’t ignore one issue and not the other.
Yes, you can since abortion and racism are different issues. But as it happens, DrDeth wasn’t calling on the governor to quit, afaik. So, that’s a hypothetical hypocrisy fail.
David Leonhardt serves up a reality check for Democrats who seek to nominate an uncompromising lefty as presidential standardbearer:
I was joking on Facebook that this would be my ideal rallying cry:
“What do we want?”
“Incremental progress forward with technocratic fine tuning of the modern secular nation state!”
“When do we want it?”
“Relatively soon!”
My lefty friend said he didn’t think that would exactly inspire people to man the barricades, but that’s kind of the point: I don’t want them to man the barricades.
That way of thinking only makes sense if you have a high regard for your own ability to identify “electable” candidates. But predicting the behavior of the electorate based on past experience has been a fool’s game the last few cycles.
Were you, in spring 2007, supporting the black guy with the Muslim name who hailed from a city widely synonymous with corruption and gang violence?
Did you, in spring 2015, look at the 17 Republican candidates and say “That guy there, he’s the one we need to worry about”? Or, on the other side, did you say “A Jewish socialist who doesn’t accept corporate contributions? That’s gotta be good for 40% of the Democratic primary vote!”?
The vast majority of the time in American political discourse, “electability” is just code for “I’m a straight white man who doesn’t particularly care about any social problems that don’t affect me personally, and I want a candidate just like myself!”
You just had to have heard him speak before to know he was electable.
Interesting thing is that at the time the Democrats who were most skeptical of his electability were commonly Black. Clinton had a bigger share of support among Black Ds than did Obama well into the cycle … until he proved that white Ds would vote for him.
He seems to be focusing heavily on bipartisanship and unity, which strikes me as basically campaigning as the Anti-Trump, but of course also echoes Obama’s first presidential campaign. He’s also clearly trying to reach the blue collar/working class demographic that was so key for Trump. Certainly, there are a LOT of people - not just Democrats - who are disgusted by Trump’s racism and divisiveness who might like this message. Booker’s manner reminds me a lot of Hillary Clinton, actually - a kind of pragmatic technocrat. Without being weighed down by Clinton baggage, could that kind of candidate fly this cycle?
Maybe. Of all the declared candidates, he strikes me as the most naturally talented in terms of charisma, oratory, and communication. But it’s a big field. I wouldn’t bet on any of them as better than ~15-20% chance to get the nomination right now.
Which supports my point; Obama was able to overcome it and win, but he would have won sooner and by more if those voters who actually preferred him hadn’t initially supported his opponent based on “electability” concerns.
(I personally was also supporting Obama in spring 2007, despite the fact that I thought he was highly unlikely to win the nomination)
Well, since Obama first ran, we’ve seen twelve more years of evidence that the other party has absolutely no interest in bipartisanship or unity. I suspect that part of the message will encounter considerable skepticism among Democratic primary voters.
“Purity tests” and “litmus tests” are just rhetoric to try and get people to dismiss a candidate’s shortcomings.
If I think it is important a candidate support policies A, B, C, D & E but they only support A, C and give lip service to the rest then they do not represent what I want in a candidate.
Why poo poo it as a “purity test”? Biden (as an example) is far out of line with liberal ideals. Yes, he holds some of those ideals but misses on others. It is fair and proper to point that out. You may be ok with his positions and that is fine. Your choice. But to demean someone else as applying a purity test really misses the point and I believe intentionally in order to belittle the legitimate criticism.
Because you are complaining that someone said something against a candidate suggesting you don’t want people saying bad things about a candidate you like or you think the whole party should eschew policy discussions and their differences and instead we all hold hands and vote for whoever gives us the best fuzzy feeling inside.
Are you suggesting Clinton and Sanders are indistinguishable as politicians? One was basically a political clone of the other?
Also, post election analysis showed that about 10-12% of Sanders’ supporters did not vote for Clinton and most of that 10-12% were not democrats to begin with. They were crossover voters who would never have voted for Clinton no matter what.
By contrast and for comparison, in 2008, 24% of Clinton voters did not vote for Obama.
