2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Frankly, I don't think Harris really wounded him. A mere nick, really. His out-of-touch demeanor was just painful to watch and is what hurt him more, I feel.

From my POV, the media did not give much coverage to Biden's lie about his bussing views. I'm fine with not bringing up someone's views from 40 years ago. We all change over time.

But he lied and that's troubling. He should have said the truth, that he had misconceptions about integrating schools or whatever his reasoning is for a different view then and now. Instead he pretended it was about local control. He got defensive, "I'm not racist." He could have said, 'I didn't intend, I didn't recognize, I made that mistake but did all these other things right'.

Instead he got defensive and lied. The media owes it to the public not to have covered that lie up.

What's going to happen though, is someone is going to ask him about the statements he made that are on the record. Now he has past racism and lying about it when he could have just had a different view then that was wrong.

Politico: How a Young Joe Biden Turned Liberals Against Integration

He had expressed support for integration and—more specifically—busing during his Senate campaign in 1972, but once elected, he discovered just how bitterly his white constituents opposed the method. In 1973 and 1974, Biden began voting for many of the Senate’s anti-busing bills, claiming that he favored school desegregation, but just objected to “forced busing.”

Forced bussing is what the issue was about. If voluntary bussing had worked it wouldn't have needed a federal mandate.

So Biden transformed, too. That year, Joe Biden morphed into a leading anti-busing crusader—all the while continuing to insist that he supported the goal of school desegregation, he only opposed busing as the means to achieve that end.

So far so good, just the usual pandering to his white constituents at the time.

But he went further. (I posted this up thread but it bears repeating given the mainstream media didn't cover it.)

The Nation: When Joe Biden Collaborated With Segregationists

In the interview, which captured an early unfiltered Biden, today’s Democratic front-runner picked through a grab bag of anti-integration canards to make his case against busing—among them, the idea that a school where children of different races or multiple ethnicities sit in class together is doomed to be inferior. “The real problem with busing,” he said, “is that you take [white] people who aren’t racist, people who are good citizens, who believe in equal education and opportunity, and you stunt their children’s intellectual growth by busing them to an inferior school.” For him, it seems, the stunting of black children’s growth in the savagely unequal and deliberately segregated public schools I’ve been describing for years did not elicit the same sense of alarm.
Nor did Biden stop there. With bald disregard for centuries of American history, he said, “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and…in order to even the score, we must now give the black man”—no reference to black women—“a head start or even hold the white man back.… I don’t buy that.”

He concluded, “I oppose busing. It’s an asinine concept, the utility of which has never been proven to me. I’ve gotten to the point where I think our only recourse to eliminate busing may be a constitutional amendment.”

Those comments are not going to stay buried just because they didn't come out in the first debate. Biden could have nipped it in the bud with an apology. Instead he made it worse.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unless there's some really weird context I'm missing, I don't think the first statement is actually racist.

You could have, you know, looked at the sources I cited.

"School where children of different races or multiple ethnicities sit in class together is doomed to be inferior" is pretty racist. Remember this first came up because Biden himself, thought it was a positive he'd worked across the aisle. Turned out that was with segregationists. Biden played that down as not relevant to working together.

But it turned out it was the segregationists Biden sought to support Biden's anti-busing legislation.

That's a whole lot more than, 'I worked with Republicans and I wasn't ever against busing'.

 

[Belz...]

I don't like there being parties at all

Neither do I, but I don't think they're ever going away.

I'm certainly not going to go along with suggestions to increase their power.

You didn't answer my question, though: is Canada less democratic because of the way it operates vis-à-vis this process?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Neither do I, but I don't think they're ever going away.



You didn't answer my question, though: is Canada less democratic because of the way it operates vis-à-vis this process?

I'm not much interested in the question. But yes, I think parliamentary systems are less democratic. That doesn't mean they're necessarily worse, though, as they may compensate sufficiently by not having such a ridiculously strong executive. I might be willing to make that trade.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why not let the best candidate win?

Because primaries and general elections are fundamentally different things so using a primary to determine the "best" candidate to run in the general election without taking that into consideration is flawed.

Primaries (in general) are won by the person who is most appealing to the already established Democrats, people who are already Democrats but are just trying to find the most Democratic Democrat to Democrat in a Democratic Democratically way.

Essentially, primaries are Democratic (and Republican, but topic of thread of is topic of thread) purity tests. Everybody is trying to win by being "more Democrat" then the next.

The general election is almost the exact opposite. Anyone concerned with "The most Democrat Democrat" is already voting Democrat. You've already got those votes within a margin worth worrying about.

The people who's votes you are trying to get in the general election; swing voters, independents, fence sitters, and people on the moderate margins of the other side don't want the Most Democratic Democrat to ever Democrat. They want a moderate Democrat. Or a Democrat who's on their side in their pet issue. Or a Democrat that.. the voices in their head likes, who the hell knows.

So if you treat the primaries as "Well find the candidate that the our tribe likes the most and run them" without taking into consideration that after the primary you have to have a way to sell this person to pretty much the opposite demographic, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Now, what I think what used to happen was back in the pre-social media / 24 hour TV saturation / campaigns literally never end days was... you just the candidate put on two faces. Demmie McDemocrat would stand on the podium at the primaries and talk the talk about how they were the future and the other side was evil and had to be stopped to get the nomination, then swerve and talk about compromise and "reaching out to all Americans" and "ending the partisanship" on the main campaign trail.

But you can't do that anymore. The soundbites and interviews and debates and talking points and criticism don't... go away. They stay, not just available for people who go looking for them but in the public conscious.

Hillary started "birtherism" and "Obama is a scawwwy Muslim" (least on a political level, I'm not saying she came up with the ideas) not the Republicans.

Any genies let loose during the primaries are not going to politically go back in the bottle during the general election.

 

[theprestige]

You could have, you know, looked at the sources I cited.

"School where children of different races or multiple ethnicities sit in class together is doomed to be inferior" is pretty racist. Remember this first came up because Biden himself, thought it was a positive he'd worked across the aisle. Turned out that was with segregationists. Biden played that down as not relevant to working together.

But it turned out it was the segregationists Biden sought to support Biden's anti-busing legislation.

That's a whole lot more than, 'I worked with Republicans and I wasn't ever against busing'.

You're defending the second statement you listed. I was referring to the first statement. Which I still don't think is racist.

 

[theprestige]

I don't like there being parties at all

What don't you like about political parties?

On the one hand, the major parties seem to have gotten their internal matters established as part of the national democratic process. This is kind of obnoxious.

On the other hand, people are getting together, pooling their resources and voices towards a shared political goal, behind a candidate of their collective choosing. This seems right and good to me. It also seems unavoidable in a liberal democracy.

The moment one citizen says to another, "help me get into the government, and I'll make things better for both of us," you've got a political party.

If you don't like that arrangement, what would you prefer in its place?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The thing about Biden's buses in the 1970s is that even if you don't think he was being racist it still reminds you he was in office in the damn 1970s. What he doesn't lose in Race Points he loses in Oldness Points. And then toss in his perennial habit of never apologizing or admitting error, which is not a good look for a politician who wants to appear as a great compromiser... I think this bus thing is damaging to Biden on multiple levels, and I don't think he's capable of fixing it.

 

[theprestige]

The wheels are coming off the bus.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not much interested in the question. But yes, I think parliamentary systems are less democratic. That doesn't mean they're necessarily worse, though, as they may compensate sufficiently by not having such a ridiculously strong executive. I might be willing to make that trade.

Thank you for your answer.

For myself, I don't think parties are obliged to do a plebiscite every time they make an internal decision, such as who they'll have as a candidate for one election or another. If they do, fine, but if they don't, fine as well.

 

[Belz...]

What don't you like about political parties?

Answering for myself: instead of independant representatives who speak for the people of their district, we get a monolithic block that may or may not have anything to do with my needs and values.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If the choice ends up being between Harris and Trump, I would choose Harris. Perhaps you are remembering my dislike of Hilllary, but Harris is not Hilllary.

don't worry.
If nominated, by the time of the election, right-wing pundits will have made her look much worse than HRC.

 

[Aridas]

don't worry.
If nominated, by the time of the election, right-wing pundits will have made her look much worse than HRC.

Tried to do so, at least. Pro-Open borders and crime-loving Democrat who wants to steal all your hard-earned money and use it to murder babies that she is, they've got plenty to work with.

 

[Mumbles]

The thing about Biden's buses in the 1970s is that even if you don't think he was being racist it still reminds you he was in office in the damn 1970s. What he doesn't lose in Race Points he loses in Oldness Points. And then toss in his perennial habit of never apologizing or admitting error, which is not a good look for a politician who wants to appear as a great compromiser... I think this bus thing is damaging to Biden on multiple levels, and I don't think he's capable of fixing it.

The line that caught me was "He called me 'son', he didn't call me 'boy'." To quote a rapper, that struck me like a boxcutter under the jaw.

I'll be honest, I never went to a public school, although I did grow up in the black part of Boston, and my younger cousins were bussed (I rode public transit to private schools, starting at age 9, which...yeah, the Charles Stuart case), so I have no real memory of this. I can see plusses and minuses to both neighborhood schools, home schools, and being bussed. But that one sentence hit hard.

I'll be honest, I was expecting Harris to go after Mayor Pete - and since she's a prosecutor, I figured she'd do well. I was not expecting her to go right for Biden, although looking back, I'm glad she did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because primaries and general elections are fundamentally different things so using a primary to determine the "best" candidate to run in the general election without taking that into consideration is flawed.

Primaries (in general) are won by the person who is most appealing to the already established Democrats, people who are already Democrats but are just trying to find the most Democratic Democrat to Democrat in a Democratic Democratically way.

Essentially, primaries are Democratic (and Republican, but topic of thread of is topic of thread) purity tests. Everybody is trying to win by being "more Democrat" then the next.

The general election is almost the exact opposite. Anyone concerned with "The most Democrat Democrat" is already voting Democrat. You've already got those votes within a margin worth worrying about.

The people who's votes you are trying to get in the general election; swing voters, independents, fence sitters, and people on the moderate margins of the other side don't want the Most Democratic Democrat to ever Democrat. They want a moderate Democrat. Or a Democrat who's on their side in their pet issue. Or a Democrat that.. the voices in their head likes, who the hell knows.

So if you treat the primaries as "Well find the candidate that the our tribe likes the most and run them" without taking into consideration that after the primary you have to have a way to sell this person to pretty much the opposite demographic, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Now, what I think what used to happen was back in the pre-social media / 24 hour TV saturation / campaigns literally never end days was... you just the candidate put on two faces. Demmie McDemocrat would stand on the podium at the primaries and talk the talk about how they were the future and the other side was evil and had to be stopped to get the nomination, then swerve and talk about compromise and "reaching out to all Americans" and "ending the partisanship" on the main campaign trail.

But you can't do that anymore. The soundbites and interviews and debates and talking points and criticism don't... go away. They stay, not just available for people who go looking for them but in the public conscious.

Hillary started "birtherism" and "Obama is a scawwwy Muslim" (least on a political level, I'm not saying she came up with the ideas) not the Republicans.

Any genies let loose during the primaries are not going to politically go back in the bottle during the general election.

You are presuming if the Democratic candidates don't bring things up, the GOP won't find them.

The problem here is not Harris bringing ancient history up. The problem was Biden lied in his response.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're defending the second statement you listed. I was referring to the first statement. Which I still don't think is racist.

Why am I not surprised you don't see racism in suggesting classes are better if they are segregated.

 

[theprestige]

Why am I not surprised you don't see racism in suggesting classes are better if they are segregated.



: rolleyes :

That's not the suggestion I'm referring to. Go back and read your earlier post again. You cited two suggestions. Find the first one you cited. That's the one I'm referring to.

Hint: It's the one before the second suggestion, which you keep harping on for some reason, even though I never brought it up.

 

[The Atheist]

The problem was Biden lied in his response.

I bet the attack ad producers are just salivating at Joe Biden winning the nomination.

Whoever gets the nomination will have to face withering and constant attacks, probably of a really vile nature, if the last election is a guide, and it looks fairly smart to pick a person with the least baggage. Pretty sure that's not Joe.

 

[Trebuchet]

I bet the attack ad producers are just salivating at Joe Biden winning the nomination.

Whoever gets the nomination will have to face withering and constant attacks, probably of a really vile nature, if the last election is a guide, and it looks fairly smart to pick a person with the least baggage. Pretty sure that's not Joe.

I'm not. He's white, old, male, and Christian. Anyone without those four qualifications has baggage whether justified or not. Although his Catholicism may be a problem, but only with people who weren't going to vote for a Dem anyhow.
For the record, I don't favor nominating Joe, Bernie, or anyone else as old as me. The attack ads are going to come out against whoever the D's nominate. And soon.
At the moment, if asked, I'll just say I'm supporting Inslee because I've voted for him before.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not the suggestion I'm referring to. Go back and read your earlier post again. You cited two suggestions. Find the first one you cited. That's the one I'm referring to.

Hint: It's the one before the second suggestion, which you keep harping on for some reason, even though I never brought it up.

Oh for pity's sake, just say what you are referring to. I am not going on a scavenger hunt.