Close
Results 1 to 10 of 137

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crays View Post
    Something to consider:
    What if this is merely a ploy for the DNC to be able to hand-pick their candidate? Support crazy ol' JB until he becomes a liability and/or non-candidate (preferably last minute) and when he steps aside/drops out, slide in your preferred, pre-selected, uncontested candidate? None of the ugly press and bad optics from the previous election's obvious candidate-engineering/rigging by the DNC, yet same end goal.

    Too conspiratorial? Not possible due to procedure/rules? I'm open to opposing opinions on this theory (thin as it is), but I wouldn't put anything past the DNC.


    I will ETA that many, and possibly even the DNC may have initially believed him viable in the beginning. But he is practically the right's best asset at this point.
    I've kind of wondered similar things. It seems unlikely it was planned from step one - from a perspective of "why" as it would seem to cause more damage than good than pursing the desired candidate from the inset (only scenario might be if they wanted to bypass vetting) - that said, Biden has never been their "ideal" guy in a voting contest with Trump. So I do think this opportunity is presented as a get-outta-Biden card that many in their party want to play - and slide in some yet-unnamed woman cheating the process again. (probably not Hillary).

    I don't understand enough of the process to even begin to guess what happens next though. If he drops... do they just "default" all the votes to the presumptive VP? There's seems to be real risk of a last-minute shake up, but I don't have an earthly idea what to anticipate actually happening. The NBC interview was fairly light, and he didn't screw it up "as-bad" as Andrew, but I don't think it went well for him. If they find any evidence of a complaint of any type being made in paper, he's a cooked goose. And they might want to ditch him early in the process instead of having that liability show up now in October.

    One thing I note is that he is VERY careful trying to avoid saying anything negative about Tara - I'm wondering if that isn't for sake of a risk of a defamation suit... which could open up the university files to discovery. There is public evidence the campaign staff went through those files right after these allegations first emerged, which doesn't help their argument for clamping them down now.
    Last edited by FoxtArt; 05-01-2020 at 12:44.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •