Odds on ol' Joe.

[Martinjmpr]

The Democratic party's biggest problem is that the old coalition of working-class and ethnic voters (Union members, Italians, Irish, Jewish, etc) has been eclipsed by the hardcore AOC style socialists and what I call the "tribal factions", i.e. racial spoils seekers who don't even pretend to care about anybody OTHER than their own "tribe" to the exclusion of others.

The AOC style socialists scare the big-money donors away (quite rightly I think) and the tribal factions offer absolutely nothing that would encourage anybody outside their tribe to vote for them. And the socialists absolutely HATE large portions of the Democratic caucus.

That puts the Democrats in a real bind. In any election where the margin of victory is less than 5% (which is a lot of them), they can't afford to alienate anybody - despite the fact that large portions of their "base" hate other portions of their base. No matter which way the Dems go, they lose. If they move to the left to appease the AOC socialists and the tribalists, then the middle-of-the-road white, working class Democrats and big $$ donors desert them. If the move to the center to cater to the white working class, they get excoriated by the socialists and tribalists. If they upset either group, that group then threatens to stay home and throw the tight election to the Republicans. Even blacks, who have traditionally been one of the staunchest supporters of Democrats in recent times, stayed home in large numbers in 2016 because they sensed that the Hillary-led Democrats had nothing to offer them.

But "splitting up" isn't really an option either. In our first-past-the-post election system (i.e. the first candidate to get a majority wins) splitting into two parties guarantees that NEITHER party will be able to win.

There are some in the Democratic base who don't really care - to them, remaking THE PARTY is more important than winning elections. So, for those people "purity tests" are more important than actually, you know winning elections. They'd rather have a "politically correct" candidate who has all the "approved" opinions (and who doesn't stand a chance of actually getting elected) than a candidate who cuts deals with the opposition but might actually win.

The Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the same problem because while, for example, "low tax" Republicans and "pro life" Republicans might not necessarily be motivated by the same issues, they generally don't despise each other the way parts of the Democratic base actively despise OTHER parts of the Democratic base.

[Great-Kazoo]

The Democratic party's biggest problem is that the old coalition of working-class and ethnic voters (Union members, Italians, Irish, Jewish, etc) has been eclipsed by the hardcore AOC style socialists and what I call the "tribal factions", i.e. racial spoils seekers who don't even pretend to care about anybody OTHER than their own "tribe" to the exclusion of others.

The AOC style socialists scare the big-money donors away (quite rightly I think) and the tribal factions offer absolutely nothing that would encourage anybody outside their tribe to vote for them. And the socialists absolutely HATE large portions of the Democratic caucus.

That puts the Democrats in a real bind. In any election where the margin of victory is less than 5% (which is a lot of them), they can't afford to alienate anybody - despite the fact that large portions of their "base" hate other portions of their base. No matter which way the Dems go, they lose. If they move to the left to appease the AOC socialists and the tribalists, then the middle-of-the-road white, working class Democrats and big $$ donors desert them. If the move to the center to cater to the white working class, they get excoriated by the socialists and tribalists. If they upset either group, that group then threatens to stay home and throw the tight election to the Republicans. Even blacks, who have traditionally been one of the staunchest supporters of Democrats in recent times, stayed home in large numbers in 2016 because they sensed that the Hillary-led Democrats had nothing to offer them.

But "splitting up" isn't really an option either. In our first-past-the-post election system (i.e. the first candidate to get a majority wins) splitting into two parties guarantees that NEITHER party will be able to win.

There are some in the Democratic base who don't really care - to them, remaking THE PARTY is more important than winning elections. So, for those people "purity tests" are more important than actually, you know winning elections. They'd rather have a "politically correct" candidate who has all the "approved" opinions (and who doesn't stand a chance of actually getting elected) than a candidate who cuts deals with the opposition but might actually win.

The Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the same problem because while, for example, "low tax" Republicans and "pro life" Republicans might not necessarily be motivated by the same issues, they generally don't despise each other the way parts of the Democratic base actively despise OTHER parts of the Democratic base.

You missed the Never Trumpers of the R party. Who do more damage just because, Trump ? As they did in 16, hold Hillarys coat just to get rid of trump. I'm waiting for what ever biden's been coached to do, as things open up. Be curious what the turn out will be for his rally

[Gman]

The Democratic party's biggest problem is that the old coalition of working-class and ethnic voters (Union members, Italians, Irish, Jewish, etc) has been eclipsed by the hardcore AOC style socialists and what I call the "tribal factions", i.e. racial spoils seekers who don't even pretend to care about anybody OTHER than their own "tribe" to the exclusion of others.

The AOC style socialists scare the big-money donors away (quite rightly I think) and the tribal factions offer absolutely nothing that would encourage anybody outside their tribe to vote for them. And the socialists absolutely HATE large portions of the Democratic caucus.

That puts the Democrats in a real bind. In any election where the margin of victory is less than 5% (which is a lot of them), they can't afford to alienate anybody - despite the fact that large portions of their "base" hate other portions of their base. No matter which way the Dems go, they lose. If they move to the left to appease the AOC socialists and the tribalists, then the middle-of-the-road white, working class Democrats and big $$ donors desert them. If the move to the center to cater to the white working class, they get excoriated by the socialists and tribalists. If they upset either group, that group then threatens to stay home and throw the tight election to the Republicans. Even blacks, who have traditionally been one of the staunchest supporters of Democrats in recent times, stayed home in large numbers in 2016 because they sensed that the Hillary-led Democrats had nothing to offer them.

But "splitting up" isn't really an option either. In our first-past-the-post election system (i.e. the first candidate to get a majority wins) splitting into two parties guarantees that NEITHER party will be able to win.

There are some in the Democratic base who don't really care - to them, remaking THE PARTY is more important than winning elections. So, for those people "purity tests" are more important than actually, you know winning elections. They'd rather have a "politically correct" candidate who has all the "approved" opinions (and who doesn't stand a chance of actually getting elected) than a candidate who cuts deals with the opposition but might actually win.

The Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the same problem because while, for example, "low tax" Republicans and "pro life" Republicans might not necessarily be motivated by the same issues, they generally don't despise each other the way parts of the Democratic base actively despise OTHER parts of the Democratic base.

When you refer to "tribes", I see that as identity politics. The problem with that game is when the identities collide.

For example:

We support women's rights and want them to be equals to men.
We support "transgendered" people and want them to be treated equally as well.
Then women get their asses handed to them in sporting competitions by transgender "women". Now what?

We want freebies for illegals!
Working people are thinking, "Wait a minute. We contribute a lot of money to Dem candidates, why aren't they paying attention to our needs?"

[Gman]

Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office

A court document from 1996 shows former Senate staffer Tara Reade told her ex-husband she was sexually harassed while working for Joe Biden in 1993.

The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.

Reade’s then-husband Theodore Dronen wrote the court declaration. Dronen at the time was contesting a restraining order Reade filed against him days after he filed for divorce, Superior Court records show.

In it, he writes Reade told him about “a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.”

[FoxtArt]

It seems most every news source has ran with some variation of the story as to the court documents, indicating there is some likelihood that it is confirmed. Many left-leaning outlets try to soften it as much as possible (e.g. never specifically said "Joe Biden" "sexually assaulted her" (it instead infers sexual harassment in Joe Biden's office and a deal with his manager).

This situation definitely has #metoo's "champions" in a phallic-shaped pickle. There's no way future opposition ads are going to poo-poo this like the press either. At this point, I'd bet very strongly on a resignation after nomination, possibly for "other reasons" like "health problems" for the party to save face.

[FoxtArt]

It really would seem ludicrous at this point to proceed with Biden. Even if they anticipate a loss anyway it would cause significant reputation damage to their platform and largely invalidate an attack vector they often rely on.

[TEAMRICO]

And you think that will stop the Democrats? Ludicrous and insane is their mantra.

[Martinjmpr]

In an election where the margin of victory is razor thin, one of the most effective ways to win is to get a significant portion of the base of the other party to just stay home. It seems to me, that is the real danger for the Democrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gman]

I've heard this interview is really solid and Tara Reade seems very credible. I haven't watched it yet.

[Aloha_Shooter]

At this point, I think the Democratic Party solidified behind Biden 1) as a throwaway candidate (much like McCain for the Republicans in 2008) since the incumbent is likely to win by huge margins and 2) to avoid collateral damage from a Sanders nomination that would affect the downstream candidates. Democrats aren't going to avoid going to the polls even if Biden is a likely loser while some would have just stayed home rather than vote for Sanders.

Whatever Republican ran in 2008 was going to lose, no matter who it was. The media had already tainted that election with the lies about Bush and the Iraq War, much as they swayed the '92 election for Clinton. Might as well give the candidacy to McCain and shut him up forever as "the loser of 2008".

For 2020, until the Wuhan coronavirus sprang up, all the signs indicated a massive sweep for Trump: he had the economy firing on all cylinders, had reversed many of the unpopular Obama policies, and had even moved his approval rating up. May as well throw Joe in the ring because the election was going to be a loser and Sanders was going to drive off Democrats that they needed for the lower races.

The media is still trying to sway the election with their misleading coverage of the pandemic and boosting Cuomo despite his (and Newsom's) horrible record in preparing and reacting to the virus but I think the general public still sees that Trump didn't do anything wrong. Maybe he could have done things faster or better (probably not) but he certainly didn't make any obvious missteps so Joe as the throwaway candidate still makes sense -- until this whole Tara Reade thing popped up and now they have to figure out if they're going to lose more votes due to Creepy Uncle Joe ... oh wait, they can salvage Kamala's "foot-in-mouth" career and counteract #MeToo by placing her as his running mate ...