Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[theprestige]

Because ELECTABLE!!!!!!!!

I'm beginning to think that "electability" is a factor because nobody wants to risk having an actual platform that people can look at and vote up or down on.

The ideal is for candidates to say, "this is my plan, if you like it, vote for me. If you don't, don't."

The reality is that candidates don't want to give voters such a clear choice. If you can manage to pull it off, it's much better to get elected on a platform of "I look pretty good and sound pretty good and I'm probably trustworthy enough that things will work out pretty well if you elect me."

 

[SezMe]

Yes, that's what winning candidates do, but not because they don't want to give voters a clear choice. How many voters a) actually read a candidate's policy positions, and b) vote based on that reading. I'd say zero. For example, how many people actually read Warren's many policy positions? If they had, she would not have faded as she did.

Voting is 99 44/100ths emotional. If you want to be extra generous, you may call the little bit that is left over "rational".

 

[The_Animus]

Which one? I think that I've seen a couple - none of which were credible. I could very easily have missed one, though.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation

Last year, several women came forward publicly to say Joe Biden had kissed or touched them in ways that made them uncomfortable.

One of them was Tara Reade, who said Biden used to “put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck” when she worked in his Senate office in 1993.

Reade now says there was more to her experience with Biden. In an interview with podcast host Katie Halper, which aired Wednesday, Reade says Biden sexually assaulted her, pushing her against a wall and penetrating her with his fingers. When she pulled away, she says, he said he thought she “liked” him.

Reade says she did not speak publicly about her allegation of sexual assault before in part because no one else witnessed the incident, while she says others saw Biden harassing her. She also says she faced online harassment after coming forward last year.

Reade, for her part, said she did not include the assault accusation when she spoke out last year because the harassment was easier to talk about, in part because others had witnessed it.

“I wanted to share the whole thing, but at the same time I was too scared,” she said. “I just wasn’t quite ready.”

Since then, Grim has contacted Reade’s friend and brother, both of whom say she told them about the alleged sexual assault by Biden in 1993.

Sounds reasonable to me and she has multiple people who confirm she told them about it at the time. Seems no different than Kavanaugh.

 

[Segnosaur]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../21195935/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation

Last year, several women came forward publicly to say Joe Biden had kissed or touched them in ways that made them uncomfortable.

One of them was Tara Reade, who said Biden used to “put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck” when she worked in his Senate office in 1993.

Reade now says there was more to her experience with Biden.

Sounds reasonable to me and she has multiple people who confirm she told them about it at the time. Seems no different than Kavanaugh.

Well, no, a little bit different than Kavanaugh.

First of all, as far as I know, Ford never changed her narrative about what exactly happened between her and Kavanaugh. Reade has. (Now, I recognize that she is suggesting it was 'nobody witnessed the incident'... but there are still no witnesses. Nothing has really changed... except her story.)

Secondly, we have several occasions were Reade publicly supported Biden in the years since the supposed incident took place (and years after she was no longer employed by him). Some of us might find it strange that the victim of an assault would post a 'congratulations' for her attacker. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that Ford posted the same sort of encouragement towards Kavanaugh.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, at least we have an idea what percentage of Sanders Supporters are brain damaged morons...

From; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/2936124001/
If former Vice President Joe BIden secures the Democratic presidential nomination, 15% of Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters will vote for President Donald Trump's re-election, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Yup... after seeing what Trump has done for the past 3 years... his racism, his tax cuts for millionaires, and his screw-ups over Covid-19 that will probably result in hundreds of unnecessary deaths, there is still a significant number of BernieBros who would rather pick Stubby McBonespurs instead of a Democrat who does not offer all of Sander's policies, but is sure the heck closer politically than Trump.

(The article does point out that in a similar poll in 2016, the number of Sanders to Trump voters ended up being smaller on election day than the poll selected. But seriously, the number should be 0.)

And please... any BernieBros who will jump in with a "But, but... Clinton supporters".... keep your "what-aboutisms" in your pants.

Telling voters they are wrong, or "brain damaged morons", is not a successful strategy.

Last time I checked, I was not Joe Biden. Nor was I a member of his campaign team, nor a member of the Democratic party. In fact, I'm not even American. As such, I likely have no real influence either way, so I think I can safely point out that people planning on voting for Trump are morons, without changing anyone's voting choices.

In any event, around this time in 2008 28% of Clinton voters said they would vote for McCain over Obama.

First of all, I specifically suggested not mentioning the Clinton->Mccain voters. Its not very convincing, since ultimately comes down to "whataboutism".

And secondly, while I would not have supported McCain, he is a far far better candidate (and human being) than Trump. If McCain were president today instead of Trump, we likely wouldn't be subject to bad decisions over the pandemic. We likely wouldn't be worried that we'd stumble into a nuclear war. We wouldn't be subject to trade wars. And we wouldn't have a president who characterized neo-nazis as "fine people".

Numbers in this range are very common in primaries.

In my origional post I did point out that the number of Sanders->Trump supporters is likely to go down (as it did before the 2016 election), but it will still likely be a significant number.

It doesn't reveal anything about Sanders voters. You may think them stupid, but across all voters there are many who don't think the "rational" way you do. Hell, even if they are idiots, I see no evidence it is more proportionally idiotic than any other campaign.

They plan to vote for Trump... a guy who labeled neo-Nazis as 'fine people' and who's screw-ups off the pandemic response are likely going to cost hundreds or thousands of lives.

And they're not even getting someone who's ideologically consistent with what Sanders actually believes in.

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Notably, the poll didn't ask about the Biden voters who wouldn't vote for Sanders.

Actually there was a poll much earlier in the campaign... From memory, the number of Biden and Warren supporters who would vote Democrat regardless of the nominee was ~90% for both of them. (The poll didn't specifically mention Sanders, but Sanders was considered one of the front runners back then, so its reasonable to assume that they would have considered him as one of the options.)

So comparing that earlier poll to this one, while there might be some potential Biden->Trump switches, it would be a smaller number than the Sanders->trump switches from this poll.

 

[Segnosaur]

Seriously. Bernie's campaign was appealing to people who were not reliable Democratic party voters. Some were probably Trump supporters in 2016. The primary isn't just held among party loyalists. The fact that Bernie could appeal to people who might support Trump was an asset.

I really have to wonder just how much of an asset that would really be.

After all, if a voter is drawing some sort of equivalence between Sanders and Trump, then its obvious that they are not making their decision based on policy. (More likely due to some nihilistic "burn it all down" mentality.) As such, in the middle of a general election could we really count on them sticking with the Democrats, and not saying "Ok, we got Bernie nominated, but we like Trump too... so lets vote for him".

 

[The_Animus]

Well, no, a little bit different than Kavanaugh.

First of all, as far as I know, Ford never changed her narrative about what exactly happened between her and Kavanaugh. Reade has. (Now, I recognize that she is suggesting it was 'nobody witnessed the incident'... but there are still no witnesses. Nothing has really changed... except her story.)

Secondly, we have several occasions were Reade publicly supported Biden in the years since the supposed incident took place (and years after she was no longer employed by him). Some of us might find it strange that the victim of an assault would post a 'congratulations' for her attacker. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that Ford posted the same sort of encouragement towards Kavanaugh.

She told multiple people close to her what happened at the time, which they corroborated. What she chose to reveal initially publicly was limited to the harassment she faced which was witnessed by others and later revealed that it actually went further than that to sexual assault. That doesn't constitute changing the story. It means she just didn't want to tell everyone publicly at the time that it went even further and that she was actually sexually assaulted.

There are also inconsistencies and changes in what Ford said regarding the Kavanaugh events in her testimony and therapy sessions, albeit not regarding the actions of the assault itself. But this sort of nitpicking is commonly used to dismiss the allegations as false.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ies-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/

First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Ford’s retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapist’s notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)

Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that “there were four boys I remember specifically being there,” in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.

As to your second argument, that is the same argument that Weinstein used against his accuser in court, providing texts/emails from the accuser after the event.

https://pagesix.com/2020/01/22/harv...cusers-text-messages-emails-in-trial-defense/

About six months later, in September 2013, Mann sent Weinstein an email that included her saying, “Miss you big guy!”

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, no, a little bit different than Kavanaugh.

First of all, as far as I know, Ford never changed her narrative about what exactly happened between her and Kavanaugh. Reade has. (Now, I recognize that she is suggesting it was 'nobody witnessed the incident'... but there are still no witnesses. Nothing has really changed... except her story.)

She told multiple people close to her what happened at the time, which they corroborated.

Do you have a reference showing that she did indeed give the full sexual assault story to others at the time it happened, and that those people have corroborated her claims?

Anything I have seen has been far less convincing... with claims from Reade saying "I talked to people before" but none of them have followed up with detailed interviews with her supposed confidants.

 

[The_Animus]

Do you have a reference showing that she did indeed give the full sexual assault story to others at the time it happened, and that those people have corroborated her claims?

Anything I have seen has been far less convincing... with claims from Reade saying "I talked to people before" but none of them have followed up with detailed interviews with her supposed confidants.

I quoted it already from the linked Vox article in post 503

Since then, Grim has contacted Reade’s friend and brother, both of whom say she told them about the alleged sexual assault by Biden in 1993.

 

[wareyin]

I quoted it already from the linked Vox article in post 503

It should be noted that other than Reade and Grim, no one knows who the friend is at all. Reade's brother also refuses to speak to anyone other than Grim, so we don't exactly have iron clad sources here.

 

[Segnosaur]

It should be noted that other than Reade and Grim, no one knows who the friend is at all. Reade's brother also refuses to speak to anyone other than Grim, so we don't exactly have iron clad sources here.

That is a little bit suspicious. (I haven't seen anything saying that her brother "definitely" won't talk to other sources, but it seems like when it is mentioned, it is a case of "the brother won't respond".) And lets face it... Salon is a source with a left-wing slant and a decent reputation for factual reporting.

I do think that Grim may be a reliable reporter, but without more openness it will always mean that the allegations will be viewed with some suspicion. (Well, unless you're a Berniebro or a Trumper, who are willing to condemn Biden regardless of the strength of evidence.)

 

[theprestige]

I quoted it already from the linked Vox article in post 503

Yes. However:

"Since [2018], Grim has contacted Reade’s friend and brother, both of whom say she told them about the alleged sexual assault by Biden in 1993."​

Does not even remotely satisfy:

Do you have a reference showing that she did indeed give the full sexual assault story to others at the time it happened​

Anyone can say, today, "yes, I totally heard about this years ago". But without any contemporaneous corroboration, it has no more evidentiary value than the original claim.

If she told them about it years ago, and they recorded the conversation at the time, that would satisfy the request. Your quote from the Vox article does not.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes. However:

"Since [2018], Grim has contacted Reade’s friend and brother, both of whom say she told them about the alleged sexual assault by Biden in 1993."​

Does not even remotely satisfy:

Do you have a reference showing that she did indeed give the full sexual assault story to others at the time it happened​

Anyone can say, today, "yes, I totally heard about this years ago". But without any contemporaneous corroboration, it has no more evidentiary value than the original claim.

If she told them about it years ago, and they recorded the conversation at the time, that would satisfy the request. Your quote from the Vox article does not.

I don't think that those conversations need to be recorded to establish that Reade told her brother/friend about the assault when it actually happened. A statement from a credible witness does have some weight, even without physical evidence such as recordings.

But, the claims by the brother/friend need to be examined for things like consistency, and the integrity of these second-hand witnesses needs to be dealt with in an open manner. Since neither of them seem to be doing interviews (with either law enforcement, or multiple media sources) its hard to say just how credible their claims are.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think that those conversations need to be recorded to establish that Reade told her brother/friend about the assault when it actually happened.

I don't see how you could establish something happened, without a record of it happening.

A statement from a credible witness does have some weight, even without physical evidence such as recordings.

How much weight?

But, the claims by the brother/friend need to be examined for things like consistency, and the integrity of these second-hand witnesses needs to be dealt with in an open manner. Since neither of them seem to be doing interviews (with either law enforcement, or multiple media sources) its hard to say just how credible their claims are.

Agreed. To me, this means it's premature to say they're "credible" witnesses.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't think that those conversations need to be recorded to establish that Reade told her brother/friend about the assault when it actually happened.

I don't see how you could establish something happened, without a record of it happening.

In a legal situation, you look for evidence. And the side that has the most compelling evidence is (hopefully) the side that wins.

Eye-witness testimony is part of that evidence.

Now, the brother/friend weren't necessarily witnesses to the assault (so they couldn't say for sure that the assault actually occured), but they would be witnesses to whether Reade gave a complete accounting around the time it happened (which is significant, given the accusations that she is changing her story over time).

A statement from a credible witness does have some weight, even without physical evidence such as recordings.

How much weight?

Depends on the witness... Do they have a history of making false statements? Is there a reason to believe they might be biased? How do they react under further questioning?

That's the problem with the brother and the mysterious 'unknown' confidant... we don't know enough about them to know if they are credible at all.

 

[theprestige]

In a legal situation, you look for evidence. And the side that has the most compelling evidence is (hopefully) the side that wins.

Eye-witness testimony is part of that evidence.

Neither the brother nor the friend was an eyewitness to the event. Their testimony amounts to relaying claims they received from the claimant, but which they themselves did not witness or corroborate. Wouldn't the court dismiss that as hearsay, rather than accept it as evidence?

 

[wareyin]

Neither the brother nor the friend was an eyewitness to the event. Their testimony amounts to relaying claims they received from the claimant, but which they themselves did not witness or corroborate. Wouldn't the court dismiss that as hearsay, rather than accept it as evidence?

In general, I would think evidence that Reade had been making this claim consistently for decades would count in her favor. It's not going to be conclusive, but it will be more convincing than the wildly inconsistent versions she has been telling lately.

 

[Suddenly]

Neither the brother nor the friend was an eyewitness to the event. Their testimony amounts to relaying claims they received from the claimant, but which they themselves did not witness or corroborate. Wouldn't the court dismiss that as hearsay, rather than accept it as evidence?

(toss aside that this isn't a court of law and having an opinion about whether an act occurred is not something governed by the rules of evidence as generally applied in a US trial)

It is not necessarily hearsay. The hearsay rule only applies when the witness testimony goes to the truth of the matter asserted.

"She told me that he assaulted her" as evidence that he assaulted her is hearsay. It is not hearsay if the issue is instead whether she made that statement at that time.

Such statements can be used to rebut an argument that an accusation was recently fabricated.

 

[theprestige]

In general, I would think evidence that Reade had been making this claim consistently for decades would count in her favor.

I agree. Where we diverge, I think is that people claiming now that they heard about it decades ago is not evidence that they heard about it decades ago, and therefore does not tend to corroborate the claim. It is also therefore not evidence that Reade has been making this claim consistently for decades.

On the other hand, if her brother had made a record of the claim he'd received at the time, in a diary, or a letter, or something else credibly dated to that period, that would tend to be evidence supporting the claim.

I might be willing to consider "retroactive" testimony like this if it came from a neutral third party who is otherwise known for being scrupulous in their testimony, and who has no possible motive to lie for the claimant. Though, without any record of it at the time, I'm not sure I'd trust even their recollection, decades later.

 

[wareyin]

I agree. Where we diverge, I think is that people claiming now that they heard about it decades ago is not evidence that they heard about it decades ago, and therefore does not tend to corroborate the claim. It is also therefore not evidence that Reade has been making this claim consistently for decades.

On the other hand, if her brother had made a record of the claim he'd received at the time, in a diary, or a letter, or something else credibly dated to that period, that would tend to be evidence supporting the claim.

I might be willing to consider "retroactive" testimony like this if it came from a neutral third party who is otherwise known for being scrupulous in their testimony, and who has no possible motive to lie for the claimant. Though, without any record of it at the time, I'm not sure I'd trust even their recollection, decades later.

I think we're in broad agreement. I would argue that people claiming now to have been told something decades ago is evidence that they were, but it's pretty weak evidence.