Campaign 2020
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I don't think you're entirely right. If NYT can investigate and come up with little credible evidence, then should we still believe her? That was my entire point. When she came forward, she was believed and an investigation was conducted, sure it was the news, but it was the investigative reporting division. They aren't exactly incompetent at that.
That said, I think the problem is you're looking back at the Franken incident perhaps with a bit of blinders because you've convinced yourself that the Dems have betrayed you personally. Sure, the Roger Stone friend was the person who brought allegations to light, but it wasn't until the photo came out that things started getting serious. It was pictorial evidence of inappropriate behavior, whether a joke or not. He issued a full-throated apology even, a short one and then a longer one.
The element of that situation that I don't think you're remembering (and I had to look up the exact numbers here, but I remember the general details) was that it wasn't until seven additional women came forward alleging inappropriate behavior followed later by another two. That's where the two situations ultimately diverge. If it had been the one individual making the accusations, but every other woman he worked with came out and said that he was a prince of a man, then we could accept that he had acknowledge the mistakes he made in the past and strove to do better since then. Yes, he needs to pay a price for the behavior, but atonement can often take a lifetime (see Byrd, Robert) and still not always be enough for some people.
The worst that Joe Biden has been accused of (prior to Reade's altering of her story) was women who said he was a little overly touchy-feely. Not appropriate, but the guy was raised in an entirely different generation, so it can be understood, not accepted. The problem is that since Reade has come forward, there has been silence form other sexual assault accusers. The details she provides don't match the details of anyone else who's made an accusation and Biden has had plenty of colleagues attest to his gentlemanly behavior.
So, I think you're just a little too hung up on a hindsight view of the Franken situation that doesn't entirely mirror the Biden one and thus you're struggling to rationalize that they aren't the same thing. I think if you set everything aside, consider what is known so far about each situation, some of that malaise you're feeling is probably an overreaction. If more people come forward about Biden, I think you'll see the conversation shift very quickly, especially for the women who've defended him to date.
That said, I think the problem is you're looking back at the Franken incident perhaps with a bit of blinders because you've convinced yourself that the Dems have betrayed you personally. Sure, the Roger Stone friend was the person who brought allegations to light, but it wasn't until the photo came out that things started getting serious. It was pictorial evidence of inappropriate behavior, whether a joke or not. He issued a full-throated apology even, a short one and then a longer one.
The element of that situation that I don't think you're remembering (and I had to look up the exact numbers here, but I remember the general details) was that it wasn't until seven additional women came forward alleging inappropriate behavior followed later by another two. That's where the two situations ultimately diverge. If it had been the one individual making the accusations, but every other woman he worked with came out and said that he was a prince of a man, then we could accept that he had acknowledge the mistakes he made in the past and strove to do better since then. Yes, he needs to pay a price for the behavior, but atonement can often take a lifetime (see Byrd, Robert) and still not always be enough for some people.
The worst that Joe Biden has been accused of (prior to Reade's altering of her story) was women who said he was a little overly touchy-feely. Not appropriate, but the guy was raised in an entirely different generation, so it can be understood, not accepted. The problem is that since Reade has come forward, there has been silence form other sexual assault accusers. The details she provides don't match the details of anyone else who's made an accusation and Biden has had plenty of colleagues attest to his gentlemanly behavior.
So, I think you're just a little too hung up on a hindsight view of the Franken situation that doesn't entirely mirror the Biden one and thus you're struggling to rationalize that they aren't the same thing. I think if you set everything aside, consider what is known so far about each situation, some of that malaise you're feeling is probably an overreaction. If more people come forward about Biden, I think you'll see the conversation shift very quickly, especially for the women who've defended him to date.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Campaign 2020
I was going to respond by asking if she was believed as much as [fill in the blank] but then I realized how wrong that is. Because again, if you believe women, then you believe them, right?OscarGuy wrote
Tara Reade was believed and it was investigated and the preponderance of evidence so far suggests that the claim is not true. That doesn't mean people will stop looking or that high profile women believing Biden's side of the story isn't a rebuke of MeToo.
But let's acknowledge the existence of doubt for one second. I'm speaking of doubt from a pre-Me Too context.
These are my thoughts:
I've read the Ryan Grimm report. I've heard the testimony from her friends and neighbors. I've heard her mother call into Larry King. And I've seen Joe Biden's conduct over the years.
Do I believe Tara Reade? have some doubt.
Do I believe Joe Biden? I certainly have some doubt.
Anyone who comes forward and says they have no doubt, that they completely believe Joe Biden... gosh, I don't know what to say?
Why can't people just be honest and say they don't care about Tara Reade? Why don't they just Paula Jones her and admit that to them defeating Trump is just more important? I'll take it one step farther, why don't they just say the dirty words that they're thinking: whatever Joe Biden has done in his past isn't as bad as what Trump did? They're all thinking it.
NOTE:
I'll just say this again in case I'm not being clear: I am not talking about Tara Reade's guilt or Joe Biden's innocence. I am talking about the response. The absurd wagon-circling. CNN dropping the Larry King episode in question from Google Play. The absolute vilification of this woman on Twitter.
It's just all so visible. Let's not backflip about it.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Campaign 2020
I don't know if you're asking what do I think out of context or in conjunction with the Joe Biden incident. But I'm happy to answer them both and both pertain mostly to the public spectacle of it all.Sonic Youth wrote
What about the Al Franken episode?
Out of context:
When the Al Franken incident occurred, I had doubts both about (I'll be honest) the seriousness of the claims against him and whether they warranted resignation. But he was sucking up all of the air in the room and I wanted Doug Jones to win. When he stepped down, I wasn't heartbroken but I thought it wasn't fair. Additionally, I was concerned that the Democrats set themselves a pretty high bar for conduct -- which is not to condone anything he did or might have done.
My personal feelings on the matter is that everyone is entitled to due process especially when there is doubt about the accuser. I had doubt about Leeann Tweeden's character. Al Franken deserved to have an investigation but it wasn't politically expedient for him to get one. I was repeatedly told by people in my life -- and high-ranking Democrats -- that the bar for the party is that all women are to be believed. That is what the party stands for. While I had some private concerns, I reflected on the idea of a party devoting itself to the empowerment of disempowered people and thought it was ultimately something that was impossible to argue against. If that's the bar, let's do it.
In context with Joe Biden:
Excuse me while I take this bar and throw it out the window.
If as a party we are not interested in holding up a bar to the heights that resulted in Al Franken's resignation, that is fine. We can have that conversation. But I have spent the past three years defending the Democratic Party on charges of virtue-signaling. After today, else can you call it in hindsight?
I am seeing more backflips than I ever thought I would see this party do to claim ideological consistency while assuring me of Joe Biden's innocence. Would it kill them to just say "I don't know, maybe he did? Joe Biden is creepy but he says he's growing. In retrospect, I think we overreacted on Al Franken. But the stakes are high on this one so why not give this woman her day in court and see if the charges hold up?"
Leeann Tweeden was friends with Roger Stone and a fucking birther -- and Al Franken had to resign. And I fell in line. Tara Reade... what? Wrote a goofy Medium post? Changed her story about her sexual assault? Is a Russian asset? I've heard doubts that the woman who called into CNN is actually Tara Reade's mother. In one fell swoop, the Democratic Party has gone from "Believe all women" to "We know if it's actually her mother." I'm disgusted.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election but it is disorienting to see my party go from urging to Al Franken to resign to rushing to say they believe Joe Biden before he even speaks because of doubts about the accuser and "because of Joe Biden's character."
Again: what do they take us for? I honestly need a shower thinking of all the hours I've put into defending the Democratic Party of virtue signaling for the past three years. I should invoice them for soap.
"How's the despair?"
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
Gillibrand was one of the leading charges against Franken and it was after numerous credible allegations came out against him.
That is also the situation with Ford and Biden has been consistent in asking for it to be investigated. Unlike Kavanagh, other than a group of women who said he inappropriately touched them, Reade is the only individual to come forward about sexual assault. With Kavanagh, Ford came forward, then others. The same is true of Franken and others who went down.
I see where you're going with your observations, Sabin, and I respect that. I think the similar reactions between Kavanagh and Franken already indicate a lack of bias. While there might be some circle-your-wagon elements to the defense of Biden, the evidence that has been brought forward and the lack of additional claimants suggests that her allegations need additional investigation.
What I think we're missing in this whole thing is that she has been believed. If she weren't, no one would have investigated the matter. Yet, However, there have been investigations conducted, even by the New York Times, and so far there hasn't been a smoking gun found.
What Biden and other women have said is that it should be investigated. It already has to an extend by the New York Times. And the Washington Post even posted a op-ed recommending that he address them directly, which he finally has. His answers, from what I've read have been consistent. He doesn't think her accusations are accurate, but he wants them investigated. He wants to be exonerated as much as anyone.
Here's another thing that suggests there's not as much fire here as there is smoke. Trump has been looking for anything, and I do mean anything, it can tie to Biden (from Burisma to connections to China) and none of it has stuck. This is their golden opportunity, yet they aren't going after it. Is it because Trump doesn't want people looking at his own accusations? I doubt it. Trump lies and his base believes him, so what does that matter? I think it's because he knows that he's not going to be able to make this one stick either.
I don't think #MeToo is dead and I don't think this is going to kill it because even at the height, accusations were levied about plenty of different people and while a lot of them stuck, it was when there was a preponderance of accusations that it brought people down. Weinstein. Spacey. The only person I can think of that wasn't brought down by it was Bryan Singer and while he wasn't exactly brought down, he was damaged a bit by it. If there's anything behind these accusations, I guarantee you that someone will find it. Others will come forward because in cases of sexual assault, it's never just one woman being assaulted. It's many and that just doesn't seem to be the case here, which casts even more doubt on it.
Tara Reade was believed and it was investigated and the preponderance of evidence so far suggests that the claim is not true. That doesn't mean people will stop looking or that high profile women believing Biden's side of the story isn't a rebuke of MeToo.
That is also the situation with Ford and Biden has been consistent in asking for it to be investigated. Unlike Kavanagh, other than a group of women who said he inappropriately touched them, Reade is the only individual to come forward about sexual assault. With Kavanagh, Ford came forward, then others. The same is true of Franken and others who went down.
I see where you're going with your observations, Sabin, and I respect that. I think the similar reactions between Kavanagh and Franken already indicate a lack of bias. While there might be some circle-your-wagon elements to the defense of Biden, the evidence that has been brought forward and the lack of additional claimants suggests that her allegations need additional investigation.
What I think we're missing in this whole thing is that she has been believed. If she weren't, no one would have investigated the matter. Yet, However, there have been investigations conducted, even by the New York Times, and so far there hasn't been a smoking gun found.
What Biden and other women have said is that it should be investigated. It already has to an extend by the New York Times. And the Washington Post even posted a op-ed recommending that he address them directly, which he finally has. His answers, from what I've read have been consistent. He doesn't think her accusations are accurate, but he wants them investigated. He wants to be exonerated as much as anyone.
Here's another thing that suggests there's not as much fire here as there is smoke. Trump has been looking for anything, and I do mean anything, it can tie to Biden (from Burisma to connections to China) and none of it has stuck. This is their golden opportunity, yet they aren't going after it. Is it because Trump doesn't want people looking at his own accusations? I doubt it. Trump lies and his base believes him, so what does that matter? I think it's because he knows that he's not going to be able to make this one stick either.
I don't think #MeToo is dead and I don't think this is going to kill it because even at the height, accusations were levied about plenty of different people and while a lot of them stuck, it was when there was a preponderance of accusations that it brought people down. Weinstein. Spacey. The only person I can think of that wasn't brought down by it was Bryan Singer and while he wasn't exactly brought down, he was damaged a bit by it. If there's anything behind these accusations, I guarantee you that someone will find it. Others will come forward because in cases of sexual assault, it's never just one woman being assaulted. It's many and that just doesn't seem to be the case here, which casts even more doubt on it.
Tara Reade was believed and it was investigated and the preponderance of evidence so far suggests that the claim is not true. That doesn't mean people will stop looking or that high profile women believing Biden's side of the story isn't a rebuke of MeToo.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
- Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Campaign 2020
This is what I wrote at the start of my post:Big Magilla wrote
Sabin, I don't understand what you don't understand.
I'm not talking about the validity of Tara Reade's claim or her character.(NOTE: I am only interested in discussing this through the shattered lens of the Me Too Movement. I am concerned about the long-term effect this will have on women who speak out against sexual assault in the future. I won't be responding to any assertions that the only people who care about Tara Reade are irrational Bernie people or people who want Joe Biden to fail. No serious person can try to make the claim that a sexual assault claim against the presumptive Democratic nominee isn't worth discussing.)
I'm not talking about Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump.
I am only talking about how remarkable it is that these high-ranking Democrats came out to support Joe Biden, to BELIEVE Joe Biden, after four years of saying WOMEN ARE TO BE BELIEVED, before he even spoke to address these concerns.
I will quote Joe Biden again: "[Women] should be heard. And then it should be investigated. It should be investigated. And if there's anything that is consistent with what's being said and she makes case and the case is made, then it should be believed."
If you don't want to engage with my concerns, that's entirely your prerogative. But for anybody who actually supported The Me Too Movement this is a sad day. I consider myself a supporter of the Me Too Movement because every single woman I've dated has been a victim of sexual assault. At this point, I am surprised when a woman I date isn't a victim of sexual assault.
To conclude: it is possible to recognize the importance of this general election while simultaneously looking at the events of the past two weeks and saying "WOW! These Democrats sure backpedaled quickly on this one!"
"How's the despair?"
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19608
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Campaign 2020
Sabin, I don't understand what you don't understand.
Biden may not have spoken in front of the TV cameras until this morning, but he has spoken through his campaign and in private to Gillibrand and others. They are not being hypocritical when they say they believe him.
These allegations have been vetted. No one, including Biden, is saying that his accuser should be silenced. What they're saying is that she came forward, presented her case, it was investigated. The only open question is did she or didn't she file a report in 1993 for sexual harassment, not sexual assault, as she now claims. No one remembers such a filing, but if there was one, it would be in the Senate's archives which is what Biden is saying should be researched.
The argument that his public papers, which do not contain personnel information, should be researched at the University of Delaware (?) and anything that contains her name should be made public, is absurd. There wouldn't be any such thing there. And as Biden, says, "who would research it?", it's not as if all those documents are on a computer and all someone has to do is an electronic word search for her name. Decades of paperwork would have to gone through manually and come up empty at great expense.
Biden is not someone with 26 detailed allegations against him like the current president. It is one woman whose story keeps changing. First he touched her on the shoulder inappropriately, then he did this, then he did that. Is it repressed memory coming out or the imaginings of a seriously disturbed person?
The most ridiculous question I heard Mika B. ask Biden was "if you were to speak with her, what would you ask her?" To that he gave the proper response saying he has no wish to speak with her, he does not want to question her motives. In essence, women should be believed until the evidence proves otherwise.
"Done and answered" as they used to say in all those old courtroom melodramas. Time to move on. Worry about all the people that are going to die between now and the election because of reopening things too soon and red states not allowing no-questions-asked mail-in ballots, let alone on-line voting. If IRS filings and the census can be done on-line, why can't elections, especially national elections, be done the same way?
Biden may not have spoken in front of the TV cameras until this morning, but he has spoken through his campaign and in private to Gillibrand and others. They are not being hypocritical when they say they believe him.
These allegations have been vetted. No one, including Biden, is saying that his accuser should be silenced. What they're saying is that she came forward, presented her case, it was investigated. The only open question is did she or didn't she file a report in 1993 for sexual harassment, not sexual assault, as she now claims. No one remembers such a filing, but if there was one, it would be in the Senate's archives which is what Biden is saying should be researched.
The argument that his public papers, which do not contain personnel information, should be researched at the University of Delaware (?) and anything that contains her name should be made public, is absurd. There wouldn't be any such thing there. And as Biden, says, "who would research it?", it's not as if all those documents are on a computer and all someone has to do is an electronic word search for her name. Decades of paperwork would have to gone through manually and come up empty at great expense.
Biden is not someone with 26 detailed allegations against him like the current president. It is one woman whose story keeps changing. First he touched her on the shoulder inappropriately, then he did this, then he did that. Is it repressed memory coming out or the imaginings of a seriously disturbed person?
The most ridiculous question I heard Mika B. ask Biden was "if you were to speak with her, what would you ask her?" To that he gave the proper response saying he has no wish to speak with her, he does not want to question her motives. In essence, women should be believed until the evidence proves otherwise.
"Done and answered" as they used to say in all those old courtroom melodramas. Time to move on. Worry about all the people that are going to die between now and the election because of reopening things too soon and red states not allowing no-questions-asked mail-in ballots, let alone on-line voting. If IRS filings and the census can be done on-line, why can't elections, especially national elections, be done the same way?
Re: Campaign 2020
I'm a glutton for punishment. I watched five more minutes and turned it off again. I won't watch any more of it.
"But Mr. Vice President, as it pertained to Dr. Ford, high-level Democrats said she should be believed, if someone like Dr. Ford were to come out, the essence of what she is saying has to be believed. Has to be real. Why is this real for Dr. Ford but not Tara Reade?"
"I'm not suggesting she had no right to come forward. And I'm not saying -- any woman, they should come forward. They should be heard. And then it should be investigated. It should be investigated. And if there's anything that is consistent with what's being said and she makes case and the case is made, then it should be believed. But all the truth matters."
Well, hopefully when these women come forward, Joe Biden isn't the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman over the investigation.
Sad day for women.
"But Mr. Vice President, as it pertained to Dr. Ford, high-level Democrats said she should be believed, if someone like Dr. Ford were to come out, the essence of what she is saying has to be believed. Has to be real. Why is this real for Dr. Ford but not Tara Reade?"
"I'm not suggesting she had no right to come forward. And I'm not saying -- any woman, they should come forward. They should be heard. And then it should be investigated. It should be investigated. And if there's anything that is consistent with what's being said and she makes case and the case is made, then it should be believed. But all the truth matters."
Well, hopefully when these women come forward, Joe Biden isn't the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman over the investigation.
Sad day for women.
"How's the despair?"
Re: Campaign 2020
I saw a joking post going around the other day saying: "The MeToo Movement, 2017-2020, Cause of Death: Joe Biden."
(NOTE: I am only interested in discussing this through the shattered lens of the Me Too Movement. I am concerned about the long-term effect this will have on women who speak out against sexual assault in the future. I won't be responding to any assertions that the only people who care about Tara Reade are irrational Bernie people or people who want Joe Biden to fail. No serious person can try to make the claim that a sexual assault claim against the presumptive Democratic nominee isn't worth discussing.)
It is understandable that the number of high-ranking Democrats would circle the wagon to protect Joe Biden as he is the presumptive nominee. It is still astonishing that so many high-ranking Democrats -- women, supporters of the MeToo Movement, FACES of the MeToo Movement -- would state that they believe Joe Biden before he even addresses these allegations. What remarkable hypocrisy! And what remarkable privilege on behalf of Joe Biden. Look at the remarkable shield of Democratic women saying they believe Joe Biden and ask yourself one question: "WHY?" What did Joe Biden say to make them rethink the past four years of party-line dogma? He hadn't spoken yet.
I remember Christopher Hitchens wrote about John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin: "The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: “What does he take me for?”" That is how I feel about my party right now. After four years of being told to "Believe women, always believe women, unquestionably believe women..." Joe Biden't hadn't spoken yet. That's how little this woman was believed. What does Kirsten "The Senator From Me Too" Gillibrand take me for? She went from "Bill Clinton should have resigned" to "I believe Joe Biden before he addresses the allegations."
Why did they have to say "I believe Joe Biden?" Why couldn't they all have just said "He needs to address this" before pledging their support? Couldn't they have thought about what this means for victims of sexual abuse coming forward in the future?
These women raced as fast as they could to circle the wagon and shattered to the credibility of the Me Too Movement.
And don't ask me if I understand the importance of this election. I understand the importance of this election. But unwittingly (and I do believe it is unwittingly as so many systemic), defending this powerful man against charges of sexual assault has become part of the Vice Presidential vetting process like a casting couch. Gross.
I watched Joe Biden's appearance on Morning Joe today until this exchange and turned it off:
"Given the fact that in that past you have said if a woman goes under the lights and talks about something like this, we have to consider that the essence of [her complaint] is real. Is the essence of what she is saying real? Why do you think she is doing this?"
"I'm not going to question her motives. I'm not get into that at all. I don't know why she's saying this. I don't know why after twenty-seven years, all of a sudden this gets raised. I don't understand it. But I'm not going to go in and question her motives. I'm not going to attack her. She has a right to say whatever she wants to say. But I have a right to say look at the facts."
It was so easy for the Tara Reade story to shatter the credibility of the Me Too Movement that I wonder how seriously these women took it in the first place.
(NOTE: I am only interested in discussing this through the shattered lens of the Me Too Movement. I am concerned about the long-term effect this will have on women who speak out against sexual assault in the future. I won't be responding to any assertions that the only people who care about Tara Reade are irrational Bernie people or people who want Joe Biden to fail. No serious person can try to make the claim that a sexual assault claim against the presumptive Democratic nominee isn't worth discussing.)
It is understandable that the number of high-ranking Democrats would circle the wagon to protect Joe Biden as he is the presumptive nominee. It is still astonishing that so many high-ranking Democrats -- women, supporters of the MeToo Movement, FACES of the MeToo Movement -- would state that they believe Joe Biden before he even addresses these allegations. What remarkable hypocrisy! And what remarkable privilege on behalf of Joe Biden. Look at the remarkable shield of Democratic women saying they believe Joe Biden and ask yourself one question: "WHY?" What did Joe Biden say to make them rethink the past four years of party-line dogma? He hadn't spoken yet.
I remember Christopher Hitchens wrote about John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin: "The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: “What does he take me for?”" That is how I feel about my party right now. After four years of being told to "Believe women, always believe women, unquestionably believe women..." Joe Biden't hadn't spoken yet. That's how little this woman was believed. What does Kirsten "The Senator From Me Too" Gillibrand take me for? She went from "Bill Clinton should have resigned" to "I believe Joe Biden before he addresses the allegations."
Why did they have to say "I believe Joe Biden?" Why couldn't they all have just said "He needs to address this" before pledging their support? Couldn't they have thought about what this means for victims of sexual abuse coming forward in the future?
These women raced as fast as they could to circle the wagon and shattered to the credibility of the Me Too Movement.
And don't ask me if I understand the importance of this election. I understand the importance of this election. But unwittingly (and I do believe it is unwittingly as so many systemic), defending this powerful man against charges of sexual assault has become part of the Vice Presidential vetting process like a casting couch. Gross.
I watched Joe Biden's appearance on Morning Joe today until this exchange and turned it off:
"Given the fact that in that past you have said if a woman goes under the lights and talks about something like this, we have to consider that the essence of [her complaint] is real. Is the essence of what she is saying real? Why do you think she is doing this?"
"I'm not going to question her motives. I'm not get into that at all. I don't know why she's saying this. I don't know why after twenty-seven years, all of a sudden this gets raised. I don't understand it. But I'm not going to go in and question her motives. I'm not going to attack her. She has a right to say whatever she wants to say. But I have a right to say look at the facts."
It was so easy for the Tara Reade story to shatter the credibility of the Me Too Movement that I wonder how seriously these women took it in the first place.
Last edited by Sabin on Fri May 01, 2020 2:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"How's the despair?"
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8783
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
I think this might be one of the few elections were being boring and safe might be considered an asset. I don't live in the US, so feel free to correct me, but I have the feeling that many voters are simply tired, weary of all the drama and turmoil of the Trump presidency. They would like nothing more than return to the "dull" Obama period when the president was a stabilizing force and provided a soothing voice.
Biden is uniquely positioned to promote a message of "return to normalcy" due to his connection with Obama and his folksy character, even if he doesn't excite the left-wing of the party or the cynical press corps.
Biden is uniquely positioned to promote a message of "return to normalcy" due to his connection with Obama and his folksy character, even if he doesn't excite the left-wing of the party or the cynical press corps.
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8783
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
It's taken me a week to respond to taki's question. Weird how, in a time when we all demonstrably have nothing to do, things we planned on never seem to get done on time.
Anyway...the short answer to taki's question is, yes, there are serious similarities between Carter's and Trump's situations. In each case, the president: barely squeaked by in the Electoral College -- a swing of 11,000 votes in OH (.27%) and 14,000 in MS (1.88%) would have elected Ford, despite a 2% national vote deficit; scored generally low approvals throughout his presidency because he was running against overall national mood (the country was swinging right in the 70s, and clearly identifies more leftward today); confronted a major crisis in the election year, not necessarily of his own making, but perceived to be exacerbated by his poor management; saw the economy dip into serious recession as a side effect of that crisis, which soured the electorate further on his stewardship.
The differences are somewhat subtle. Carter drew higher ratings than Trump in his just-elected months and his rally-round numbers during the initial stages of his crisis, but Trump's iron-loyal base has kept his numbers from drifting as low as Carter at his nadir.
The bigger difference is likely to be the severity of the economic collapse. Carter was following up Nixon/Ford (mostly Nixon)'s era of stagflation: the first time the nation had seen severe inflation and recession at the same time. The sudden leap in oil prices from the Iran crisis, combined with the Fed's shock therapy to deflate that impact, gave the nation a double-dose of that same thing -- people began to wonder if stagflation was a permanent situation (a new normal, as it were). It turned out it was just a garden-variety recession, technically over by Election Day, but, as always, voter recognition of economic trends is a lagging factor, so people voted thinking of Carter as an economic dunce.
Trump's recession is already viewed as essentially a depression. Including today's unemployment report, the economy has shed all the jobs it gained after the 2008 meltdown; in fact, by one report, we've wiped out all the employment gains of this millennium in six weeks. Things aren't going to get any better in the coming months; the frantic GOP calls to "open the economy" tell you how scared they are. These calls are likely to have little impact on economic activity for the foreseeable future: polling shows broad majorities expect this to last quite a while, and support all measures to stay inside/safe. Significant parts of our consumer/leisure economy are apt to stay shut for the remainder of the year -- people will be reluctant to go out, and who imagines Hollywood studios releasing their big-budget films to 3/4-empty theatres? The perception of calamity will undoubtedly be active through summer, minimum, and all political research says that's when voters form the lasting impression that guides their vote. As bad as things were for Carter, this will be worse: Hoover territory.
The other variable, of course, is the quality of the opposition candidate, and I'm going to suggest that, contrary to common wisdom, the gap there isn't so wide. Reagan is now sanctified by two landslides (the first electoral only, the second overall), but in summer of 1980, he was still viewed as "another Goldwater". Given Carter's dismal situation, you'd have thought any challenger would have been leading him comfortably -- if, say, Howard Baker or George HW Bush had been the nominee, I'd guess the election would have been seen as over months earlier. But Reagan, in fact, at most points ran even with or even behind Carter. Reagan DID eventually win, of course, by the margins you'd expect given the metrics, but it took till Election Day for that to be clear.
Biden is doing generally better than Reagan in polling at this early date, and that's before the grind of constant, unprecedented unemployment reports (next week's rate jump should be a doozy). The offset to this has been the finding, discussed further down in this thread, that his voters are less "enthusiastic." Let me say at the top that, while enthusiasm for an electable candidate is a clear advantage -- it helped Obama and, eventually, Reagan, and was why I advocated for a Kamala/Beto/or Buttigieg over Biden -- it's not a 100% determining factor. I have no available numbers to back this up, but I wouldn't be surprised if Goldwater had higher enthusiasm numbers than LBJ in 1964 -- his people had been waiting decades for someone espousing their views as vociferously as he was, while many Dems viewed LBJ as the disappointing hick-town pol who'd replaced their hero JFK. But negative views of Goldwater drove the Dem vote wildly high despite that. I think the Trump/Biden dynamic is not dissimilar. Rachel Bitecofer said throughout the primaries that Biden was a risky choice masquerading as a safe choice (because of his lack of personal dynamism), but that it may not matter any in the end, because, for many if not most Democrats, the alpha and omega of this election is "make the scary bad man go away," and Biden fulfills that function as well as anyone.
In fact, let me posit that it's possible all of us are underselling Biden's appeal. The assessment of his success has been that it's due to his passing as safe...generic...centrist...closest to an Obama-substitute (the latter the most salient). But there are candidates who, now or in the past, had those same characteristics and weren't able to win at this level. Maybe we're overlooking the simple fact that people seem to genuinely like the guy. It's clear the Obamas do; Jim Clyburn does. It even seems to have played into Sanders' so-much-sooner-than-2016 endorsement -- yeah, there were the numbers, but, by all accounts, Bernie really likes Joe. Just maybe, a lot of voters do, too -- including those who wish he were more (insert your own policy preference). I'm thinking of the difference between the high-calibre lawyer who dazzles legal professionals, and the folksy plain-speaker who does better with juries. The electorate is far more like a jury, and Biden's skills that don't wow those of us who follow politics like religion may be just what works best on them.
And, without getting into it at length (this has already gone well on)...I think the crisis times, and the pressure of the party's desires, could press Biden into being far more progressive and transformative than many imagine. Remember: it was the uninspiring LBJ who had the truly big achievements of the era (and the biggest debacle, but put that aside).
So, that's how I see it, a bit more than six months out from the most significant election of my lifetime. It's going to be an agonizingly long stretch. And the 78 days between Election Day and Inauguration Day will be even more fraught. Buckle up.
Anyway...the short answer to taki's question is, yes, there are serious similarities between Carter's and Trump's situations. In each case, the president: barely squeaked by in the Electoral College -- a swing of 11,000 votes in OH (.27%) and 14,000 in MS (1.88%) would have elected Ford, despite a 2% national vote deficit; scored generally low approvals throughout his presidency because he was running against overall national mood (the country was swinging right in the 70s, and clearly identifies more leftward today); confronted a major crisis in the election year, not necessarily of his own making, but perceived to be exacerbated by his poor management; saw the economy dip into serious recession as a side effect of that crisis, which soured the electorate further on his stewardship.
The differences are somewhat subtle. Carter drew higher ratings than Trump in his just-elected months and his rally-round numbers during the initial stages of his crisis, but Trump's iron-loyal base has kept his numbers from drifting as low as Carter at his nadir.
The bigger difference is likely to be the severity of the economic collapse. Carter was following up Nixon/Ford (mostly Nixon)'s era of stagflation: the first time the nation had seen severe inflation and recession at the same time. The sudden leap in oil prices from the Iran crisis, combined with the Fed's shock therapy to deflate that impact, gave the nation a double-dose of that same thing -- people began to wonder if stagflation was a permanent situation (a new normal, as it were). It turned out it was just a garden-variety recession, technically over by Election Day, but, as always, voter recognition of economic trends is a lagging factor, so people voted thinking of Carter as an economic dunce.
Trump's recession is already viewed as essentially a depression. Including today's unemployment report, the economy has shed all the jobs it gained after the 2008 meltdown; in fact, by one report, we've wiped out all the employment gains of this millennium in six weeks. Things aren't going to get any better in the coming months; the frantic GOP calls to "open the economy" tell you how scared they are. These calls are likely to have little impact on economic activity for the foreseeable future: polling shows broad majorities expect this to last quite a while, and support all measures to stay inside/safe. Significant parts of our consumer/leisure economy are apt to stay shut for the remainder of the year -- people will be reluctant to go out, and who imagines Hollywood studios releasing their big-budget films to 3/4-empty theatres? The perception of calamity will undoubtedly be active through summer, minimum, and all political research says that's when voters form the lasting impression that guides their vote. As bad as things were for Carter, this will be worse: Hoover territory.
The other variable, of course, is the quality of the opposition candidate, and I'm going to suggest that, contrary to common wisdom, the gap there isn't so wide. Reagan is now sanctified by two landslides (the first electoral only, the second overall), but in summer of 1980, he was still viewed as "another Goldwater". Given Carter's dismal situation, you'd have thought any challenger would have been leading him comfortably -- if, say, Howard Baker or George HW Bush had been the nominee, I'd guess the election would have been seen as over months earlier. But Reagan, in fact, at most points ran even with or even behind Carter. Reagan DID eventually win, of course, by the margins you'd expect given the metrics, but it took till Election Day for that to be clear.
Biden is doing generally better than Reagan in polling at this early date, and that's before the grind of constant, unprecedented unemployment reports (next week's rate jump should be a doozy). The offset to this has been the finding, discussed further down in this thread, that his voters are less "enthusiastic." Let me say at the top that, while enthusiasm for an electable candidate is a clear advantage -- it helped Obama and, eventually, Reagan, and was why I advocated for a Kamala/Beto/or Buttigieg over Biden -- it's not a 100% determining factor. I have no available numbers to back this up, but I wouldn't be surprised if Goldwater had higher enthusiasm numbers than LBJ in 1964 -- his people had been waiting decades for someone espousing their views as vociferously as he was, while many Dems viewed LBJ as the disappointing hick-town pol who'd replaced their hero JFK. But negative views of Goldwater drove the Dem vote wildly high despite that. I think the Trump/Biden dynamic is not dissimilar. Rachel Bitecofer said throughout the primaries that Biden was a risky choice masquerading as a safe choice (because of his lack of personal dynamism), but that it may not matter any in the end, because, for many if not most Democrats, the alpha and omega of this election is "make the scary bad man go away," and Biden fulfills that function as well as anyone.
In fact, let me posit that it's possible all of us are underselling Biden's appeal. The assessment of his success has been that it's due to his passing as safe...generic...centrist...closest to an Obama-substitute (the latter the most salient). But there are candidates who, now or in the past, had those same characteristics and weren't able to win at this level. Maybe we're overlooking the simple fact that people seem to genuinely like the guy. It's clear the Obamas do; Jim Clyburn does. It even seems to have played into Sanders' so-much-sooner-than-2016 endorsement -- yeah, there were the numbers, but, by all accounts, Bernie really likes Joe. Just maybe, a lot of voters do, too -- including those who wish he were more (insert your own policy preference). I'm thinking of the difference between the high-calibre lawyer who dazzles legal professionals, and the folksy plain-speaker who does better with juries. The electorate is far more like a jury, and Biden's skills that don't wow those of us who follow politics like religion may be just what works best on them.
And, without getting into it at length (this has already gone well on)...I think the crisis times, and the pressure of the party's desires, could press Biden into being far more progressive and transformative than many imagine. Remember: it was the uninspiring LBJ who had the truly big achievements of the era (and the biggest debacle, but put that aside).
So, that's how I see it, a bit more than six months out from the most significant election of my lifetime. It's going to be an agonizingly long stretch. And the 78 days between Election Day and Inauguration Day will be even more fraught. Buckle up.
Re: Campaign 2020
Tee and Magilla lived through that era and obviously know better, but isn't this year starting to feel more and more like 1980 with Trump standing in for Carter?
Larry Sabato's team thinks so.
Larry Sabato's team thinks so.
Re: Campaign 2020
Kevin Kruse posted something on twitter that intrigued me. He basically linked to a series of charts of votes and where they fell on the political spectrum, and Biden fell dead center. Not center on the left-right continuum. Center of the Democratic Party. As the party moved left, so did he. Now, personally, I'm not convinced that the "Default Democrat" is the one best equipped to take on Trump, but I think that explains, at least in part, his success, despite a fairly poor campaign (relative to Sanders' for example).
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Campaign 2020
Thanks, Taki. I've been trying to point out how far left even the "centrist" Dems are, but a not insignificant number of Sanders supporters (I've seen dozens of my friends who aren't exactly Bernie or Bust voters) seems to have bought the notion that if you aren't Bernie Sanders, you're a right-of-center douche. It's rather frustrating.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin