Biden wasnt “good friends with a bunch of old-school racists”. Biden is the “go-to guy” on Capital Hill for eulogies. He dug deep, found a couple of half-way decent things the old racist Strom had done in his last days, made them to cornerstone of his eulogy, managed to sneak in that fact that Thurmond had done some bad crap , and did what he was expected to do- and *did what every decent human being would do when asked to give a eulogy. * This isnt a mark against Biden, it shows he is a decent human being. And people who trot that out are so damn desperate to find something, anything to use against him.
And yes, along with nearly every other congressman, he voted in those crime bills, because to NOT do so would have been seen as “weak on crime” . However, Biden has, after seeing how bad those bill were in practice, recanted (from your vox cite) :Biden has backtracked since the ’80s and ’90s. Before he left the Senate to become vice president, he pushed to pull back tougher prison sentences for crack cocaine — an effort that helped lead to a law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010. And he’s recently acknowledged his mistakes.
And the Crime bill did not create mass incarcerations, as over 92% of those behind bars are there for State crimes under state laws, not in Federal prisons. Not to mention the increase in incarceration started in 1973, two decades earlier.
and that bill included the : (wiki)*Violence Against Women Act
Title IV, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), allocated $1.6 billion to help prevent and investigate violence against women. VAWA was renewed in 2000, 2005, and 2013. This includes:
The Safe Streets for Women Act, which increased federal penalties for repeat sex offenders and requires mandatory restitution for the medical and legal costs of sex crimes.
The Safe Homes for Women Act increased federal grants for battered women’s shelters, created a National Domestic Violence Hotline, and required for restraining orders of one state to be enforced by the other states. It also added a rape shield law to the Federal Rules of Evidence*
Yep. Pretty much every Dem voted for it, and a good number of Repubs, only a few voting Nay just because it was a Dem bill. The Black Congressional Caucus didnt rise up and vote against it en masse. Carol Moseley Braun voted yea, as did Cardiss Collins, Harold Ford Sr., and so forth.
The final vote in the senate was YEAs 95
NAYs 4
Not Voting1
So this is a* damn stupid* thing to hold against Biden.
Any one of them who believes that the Republicans can’t be trusted and so no effort should be made to work with them. You pick.
I’m genuinely curious, because I entirely agree that you can propose anything you want but it doesn’t mean squat unless it gets through congress and is signed by the president. I’ve heard a whole lot of great sounding proposals from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, but as yet no plan how any of it could realistically come to pass other than a hope that somehow a giant surge of public support for populist progressive ideals is going to wash over the country causing the Republicans to vanish in a puff of Brimstone.
Very stupid indeed; it was even dumber to hold it against Hillary Clinton who wasn’t even serving in the Senate at that time. Many in the Black communities at the time actually supported getting tougher on repeat violent offenders because they were sick of the gang violence in their neighborhoods. They thought that, in tandem with other things, like gun control, after-school programs, job training, etc that this was part of a wholesale solution to some of the problems in the inner city. Unfortunately, nobody who signed that bill really understood the implications and unintended consequences of minimum mandatory sentencing, which actually started out as a result of 1980s court cases that resulted in federal sentencing guidelines that were intended to be less racist and treat all convicts the same. What we didn’t understand at the time was that there are other elements of our society and the criminal justice system that still ultimately produce disparities in treatment.
JFTR, there’s a big difference between being willing to work with Republicans, and the matter of one’s expectations about what might come of it. I personally would hope that any of the Democratic candidates would be willing to work with Republicans, but expecting Mitch McConnell to change much from the Mitch McConnell of the past dozen or so years is, quite frankly, delusional, and any legislative approach dependent on such a change - well, it’s OK to try it, but it’s not OK to rely on such an approach, because it’s almost certainly doomed to failure.
Biden is giving every indication that he’s planning to rely on such an approach.
So I think he would be a dangerous choice of nominee.
Um, 50 Dems and killing the filibuster (which Biden’s against). Then DC and (if it wants it) PR statehood, so that Dem legislation doesn’t need every last Dem vote.
Now I agree that the odds are against getting to 50, but it’s more like 2-1 against, rather than astronomically against, which are the odds of Mitch having some sort of epiphany, and being transformed into a reasonable leader who is willing to work with Dems on bills that would fulfill Democratic goals.
Also, ditching the filibuster and DC statehood * are choices the Dems can make* if they get to 50. It’s fully within their control. And maybe if some of these Presidential candidates from states where there’s a chance of beating a GOP incumbent in 2020, run for Senate instead of the Presidency, that would make the winning-the-Senate odds a bit shorter. (Progressives on Twitter have been harping on this A LOT.)
So yes, there’s a realistic (if still uphill on the odds) alternative to the Biden pony plan.
Interesting that although Biden has jumped out to a commanding lead in the polls since he announced, he’s not been racking up endorsements. He leads the 538 “endorsement primary”, but almost all his endorsements came right around when he announced. Since then, he’s picked up just two Congressmembers and Tom Daschle.
Nobody ELSE has gotten any significant endorsements lately, either.
It seems like the Democratic establishment is still on the fence about Biden; the voters (well, poll respondents) are giving them an opening to anoint him as the presumptive nominee, and they aren’t, as of yet, jumping on it.
Once again, although I personally dislike Joe Biden, I have to confess that his numbers are impressive. He is the only Democrat running with net positive fav/unfav in this new Quinnipiac poll, even though the same respondents gave Trump only 38% approval. And Biden’s fav/unfav with white non-college voters, although negative, is only -14. By comparison, Beto O’Rourke is -21, Kamala Harris is -24, Bernie Sanders is -30, and Elizabeth Warren is -34.
*Such close odds in deeply Republican Texas vouch for the excitement O’Rourke generated during his campaign against senator Ted Cruz last year. They’re also a sign of Trump’s sagging popularity. Even self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders would give Trump a run for his money in the Lone Star state, based on the poll, which was conducted last month.
If the election were today: % for Democrat % for Trump
Beto O’Rourke 46 47
Joe Biden 46 47
Bernie Sanders 45 47*
Biden is doing very few public appearances and that is his strategy and crowds are not big. He is skipping events that 10 or more candidates are going to.
Iowa and New Hampshire are quite often friendly to upstarts, and they’re hardly indicative of how the rest of the race will go. I won’t say that they’re unimportant because the results can carry into the more important races in February and early March, but they’re not bellwethers.
That being said, the enthusiasm thing is definitely a problem for Biden. And it remains to be seen how he is going to perform on live TV, which is how people are going to really shape their final perceptions of candidates.
He will do so until his poll numbers fall, which they will. The attacks will sharpen, they will be more frequent, and they will all be aimed at the front runner. That’s how this stuff works. Suddenly, a 20-25% point lead gets cut in half just in time for the debates, and then he’ll get smacked around there, probably bringing his poll numbers down even further. Biden can hide for a while, but people subconsciously get sucked into the contest drama.
Ironically, I wonder, too, whether or not the Pelosi strategy of slow-go impeachment, which I think will help Democrats keep the House of Reps, may not work against them a little bit in terms of retaking the White House. I don’t care what the pundits say: There will be pressure in this campaign to be the anti-Trump, and at least one and maybe two of the candidates will make a name for themselves by being a firebrand.
Tell me about the last time a major-party nominee wasn’t either (a) the IA or NH winner, or (in years before the Iowa caucuses were a thing. or when Iowa was bypassed by the field) (b) one of the top 2 finishers in NH.
I’ll save you the trouble. The last time was 1968, when LBJ and Gene McCarthy finished 1-2 in NH, but the nomination went to Humphrey.
They’re not indicative of how the rest of the race will go, in terms of determining which of the surviving two (in cases where there are two rather than one) will win, but narrowing it down to one or two is pretty indicative, if you ask me.
Yes, on the one hand it could be seen as concerning. On the other, he is old. I mean, he’s in better shape than a shit-ton of people in their late 70s, but in his late 70s, he is.
This race is a marathon, not a sprint, and perhaps he, better than anyone, knows this and recognizes his strengths and weaknesses in this marathon. Coming out of the gate with his turbo drive engaged in the first month of his campaign may not be the right strategy for a Joe Biden victory.
No need to completely wreck himself 17 months out from Election Day, especially at a point when he’s enjoying very, very, very solid front-runner status. And 2) Own the front-runner status for now, and let the other candidates put themselves in a position to fuck things up with a verbal gaffe or unforced error. If he’s able to pace himself, and still maintain a strong lead in the polls and maintain solid fundraising, why risk putting your foot in your mouth this early on?
Now if he appears lazy and/or tired later in the year, I’ll start getting worried and re-think my pick.
Oh, don’t worry - he won’t miss an opportunity to do plenty of that later. I just hope it’s harmless stuff, where people can shake their heads and go “Oh, Joe…” and not some sexist/racist comment where everyone goes “Oh! Joe!?!”
Oh I’m fully aware that that’s gonna happen, even the most polished candidates have their “You’re likable enough, Hillary” and “Clinging to God and guns” moments. But Joe probably figures why take unnecessary risks when he’s a solid front-runner. And for that, I applaud him.