As to why Biden may have been caught so flatfooted by Harris’s weaponizing her own personal identity and childhood in her attack on him … here’s how 538 described her past approach to identity issues. She had previously avoided going there in favor of emphasizing issues and accomplishments.
If Biden prepped for a punch from her based on her past campaigning the going heavy into her origin mythology (and every politician has one) may have been a big surprise.
Various places set this up in different ways. Open enrollment, either intradistrict or interdistrict, is currently used in some places – I think currently not generally on specifically racial bases.
And I would expect a POTUS candidate to be talking about, and to be asked about, how things should work.
The argument’s a very old one brought against women in general, and the implication is that the woman could never have gotten to the top on any merits other than her sexual abilities. It’s also used against women who had sex with, or even just dated, men who were single at the time.
The rejoinder is that Harris was pretty clearly on her way up whether or not she’d taken up with that particular man. Any influence he brought to bear in her favor may well not have been different from influence he brought to bear in favor of people he wasn’t sleeping with, but had other reasons to think well of.
Accusations having to do specifically with his marriage status run up against the problem that her near-certain opponent was committing adultery while himself married. ETA: and many people consider taking up with somebody who’s separated to not be serious misbehavior, as long as they’re actually separated at the time.
Ah. So he may have been surprised not because of what he didn’t know about her but because of what he did. Thanks for that; I hadn’t considered that interpretation.
Harris apparently nowthinks busing should be considered but not mandated. It seems Biden was on the “right side of history” after all?:dubious:
This is after reversing herself **twice **on whether she wants to abolish private health insurance.
Biden’s campaign to now has felt like an attempt of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Biden: I can beat Trump
Media: Biden can beat Trump
Polls: Biden is beating Trump
That’s where the electable argument comes in. People hear this enough times then they start jumping on the bandwagon not because they think he will, but they think everyone else is thinking he will.
His problem is other candidates, especially Warren, are not making this a coronation. He has to earn it. What they are doing is building support and trying to build a clear coalition.
This is what I propose…This is how x, y and z will work…This is why it us important…And if you like it together we can beat Trump
That’s the difference. There’s plenty of time for Biden to get more deeply involved in wooing the Democratic electorate rather than running a general election campaign for the Independents and some Trump voters before he’s even got the nomination. And he must take advantage as the frontrunner still before he slips behind.
I don’t know if that rejoinder would fly so well. She was 29 when she was dating a 60 yr old powerbroker. My suggestion would be that she’s held elected office for over 15 years, you can’t sleep your way into winning elections.
Eta: I don’t think it’s a great attack on her anyway. Too misogynistic for the Dem primaries and just kind of weak anyways.
It will be some political trick if she can succeed in having Biden come off as having been insufficiently supportive of civil rights because he was against Federally mandated busing while she, wisely, quickly runs away from supporting such a thing herself.
Some politicians have been able to pull such maneuvers off (Trump is a master of acting like he never said things he’s on tape saying, “fake news”, and Sanders even in the recent debate characterized a direct quote of what he had said before as “a mischaracterization” of his past position). How it plays may depend on who calls her out on it and how.
If the Selzer polling in Iowa shows Biden hurting he doesn’t have the option of waiting for others to call her on it. That would only reinforce the image of him as “weak” … he needs to do it respectfully and politely but still aggressively and strongly with the message being clear.
Here is thetranscript of the interaction, for those who want their memories jogged:
She needs to distance herself from that stated position, as she is already trying to do, no question, but she really laid down her marker on it hard.
Biden’s brand is that he is authentic, and I think he really is. Campaign skills he has less of. Harris is definitely not so authentic. She is much more skilled at the game, including faking authenticity, than Hillary Clinton ever was (who managed to come off as inauthentic especially when she was most authentic!) and by far than Biden is.
I admire her skill but once she gets caught in some critical mass of flip-flops after having laid something out as being of personal emotional importance to her, once she fails in faking authenticity … her approval can deflate fast.
The next few weeks will be very interesting to watch!
I agree. This bandwagon effect is dangerous too because it creates a false sense of inevitability that depresses voter turnout. To get people to the polls, you need to make them feel like there’s danger if they don’t vote.
I honestly don’t think Harris is that skilled. On busing she at least gained a surge in the polls though it remains to be seen how long it lasts now that she has backtracked. On health care, reversing herself twice seems like incompetence. She also flip-flopped on felon voting over the course of 24 hours back in April.
The turn in polling against Biden and in favor of Harris has nothing to do with the positions on busing. It has to do with how each candidate handled himself or herself. This race is not about policy. This race is about being quick to appease the shrieking mobs and personal attacks.
Harris knows she is immune to personal attacks because of the color of her skin, so it makes sense for her to engage in attacks like this.
Yeah I know " it’s not what you say about the issues but what the issues say about you". It’s not about the specifics of busing policy. However I think Harris surged because she was portrayed as a strong leader on this issue. If the narrative changes to her as a flip-flopper, she may lose much of those gains.
This is exactly why I’m leaning against Biden. Nominating someone at the crossroads of taking the hardest job on the planet or retiring into the luxurious sunset just doesn’t infuse me with a lot of hope and confidence. I would rather see someone who does stand to lose something if they are defeated, because at least that candidate will fight to win like they really have skin in the game.
Democratic campaign managers scouring the internet for ideas, please be advised that Millenials and younger have Hamilton on their playlists. Many GenXers too (like me). Check out these lyrics to get a sense of what appeals to them:
I am not throwing away my shot
I am not throwing away my shot
Hey yo, I’m just like my country
I’m young, scrappy and hungry
And I’m not throwing away my shot
My Millennial wife played the “Hamilton” soundtrack all the time back in 2016. Funny how he doesn’t sing about inventing the Electoral College. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25699295?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I must admit that going back and looking at this study does make me a little more nervous about Harris (and Booker too, another of my favorites). We need to nominate a white guy the next time if not this time, or voters are going to think that is no longer allowed in the Democratic Party—and that could be ruinous politically. If it’s not this time, but the Democrat does win because we are again set up for virtually any Democrat to win, that will mean a quarter century will go by with no white guys as Democratic presidential nominees.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I have repeatedly (including recently) posted evidence that Trump did indeed lose a bunch of voters who strenuously disliked Hillary and thought he would mellow out in the presidency, but were horrified by the reality. It is far from wishful thinking, but is in fact solidly supported evidence in both polls and electoral results.
Yes, the GOP brand did take a nosedive in Bush’s second term, starting with Harriet Miers and continuing with Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, and the Mark Foley page scandal. But surely you understand that by definition, Kerry was running during Bush’s first term? When his approval rating was still over 50 percent? Whereas by the time Obama ran, those ratings were down in the thirties.
I guess I am one of the “many people”. But is it really just “many” and not virtually everyone? This would surprise me. And it’s not like I am unaware that other beliefs I have are not widely shared (there is no god or afterlife; career success is overrated; it’s OK to do cannabis edibles while volunteering for a second grade field trip; etc.). But it would surprise me if many people (other than the kind of ultraconservative religious people who will never vote for Democrats anyway) think there is anything at all wrong with dating someone who is legally separated from their spouse.
I meant going into Bush’s second term (i.e., at the time of the 2004 election) his approval was low. It was less than 50% (49%), not more. The potential for a challenger to take the win from an increasingly unpopular incumbent was clearly there, but Kerry blew it.
That election is more analogous to the 2020 election than 2008 or 2016, so we should learn from it. People who voted Bush the first time “stayed the course” and re-elected him; there is little indication Kerry snagged significant numbers of disillusioned Bush voters. Which actually isn’t surprising. Incumbents pretty much always can count on their voters sticking by them due to combination of inertia and sunken cost fallacy, among other things.
Yes, because doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is not stupid and not insane.
Nonsense. Obama’s approval rating going into the 2012 election was an identical 49 percent, and he won much more comfortably. Kerry had a near-impossible task before him and almost pulled it off. Instead of getting credit for a magnificent effort, including a dominating performance in the debates and a perfectly targeted battleground state strategy, he is derided as blowing a gimme, by people who cannot comprehend that Bush’s popularity was still just a bit too high as an incumbent for a challenger to overcome. It’s a damn shame.
Not sure of your point here. First of all, the Dems haven’t run a white man for three elections and secondly Dems have quite obviously won with white men in the past. So what is the “same thing” and “different result” you’re talking about?
I’m not getting your point SlackerInc.
For most of his forth year GW Bush was running 48% plus or minus depending on the week. He won with a 2% popular vote margin.
For most of his forth year BH Obama was running 48% plus or minus depending on the week. He won with a 4% popular vote margin.
Trump has been fairly solid at about 41% plus minus depending on the week.
Obama level turnout of Black voters would have won the election for Clinton and Obama level performance with less educated white voters would have. She just happened to succeed in doing neither and lost a few states that should have been gimmees if not taken for granted.
A candidate who can succeed at either better, or better yet both, would win.
What I’m talking about is trying to win against a sitting president by nominating people deemed “safe” just because they are white men.
I see no indication that “playing it safe” is the way to go when challenging an incumbent. The Dems should consider doing something different this time. It’s okay to take some risks.
Yes, that’s my point. Kerry maxxed out his potential as a challenger, given the incumbent’s approval rating. So Kerry’s reputation is really undeserved, a point I have been arguing (without making much headway) for nearly fifteen years now. Did I not make that clear?
ETA:
If the president has an approval rating in the low 40s, that is exactly what you should do.
Because he ran against a lackluster opponent who could not steal away Obama’s voters and amass a big Republican turnout. This is the same issue that Kerry had (except worse), so you’re not challenging my point. Neither he nor Romney could rile up their bases enough to overcome the incumbent advantage.
It’s a damn shame you give all these kudos and praises to Kerry for only almost winning, but you downplay the lesson that Obama’s success (and Trump’s) has provided us. Candidates that represent change and novelty motivate people to vote.