Watch knee jerk reaction to what people SUPPOSEDLY said! Can we trust the source of this?

If true, Biden's statement does smack of why she lost. It was because of the likes of ** HIM ***!

There are a lot of misguided insulated misfits running Congress. The voters in the US (AND FRANCE for that matter!) . . . by electing Trump (and Macron - an outsider) . . . in effect said: POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!

If you do not think there is an anti politician mood . . . just look at the popularity of Congress!

Unfortunately, Hillary could not live down . . was not able to shed . . . her "establishment" tint.

The mood in the US was for an "outsider"! As a confirmation, look at the traction Bernie got!

Sheesh. It's HuffPo.

Who is that Mazza guy who wrote it? I know something about him, but can't remember what. Frustrating....

I Googled the Gawker writer he quotes. His opinion of Hillary Clinton is not high. I would want to hear the entire quote in context before I took his word on that.

This sort of talk does nothing to elevate Biden's stature now, IMO. Big mistake.

Christ, this thread.

No need to get shrill. I respect the fact that Biden needed time to mourn, but it doesn't help his cause now to engage in the "what ifs."

Either he's going to run in 2020 or not. Becoming president at 78 and fulfilling a full term taking him to age 82 will make him unpalatable in the eyes of some voters, maybe too many of them.

Last edited Fri May 19, 2017, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

but the fact that Biden keeps harping on this, "if only", doesn't say much for Biden. You can't have it both ways. First say that you don't regret your decision, and then every chance you get to make a statement effectively saying you do regret it.

This may not be nice to say, but Biden is using this for his political ambitions since he talked to Maureen Dowd

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459

No words of caution or introspection that we won't question the motives of?


In case you were wondering, Joe Biden lives in the same post-Trump america you do. He knows the score. We spent 8 years admiring his performance as VP, and NOW he's a conniving politician?

Sell that shit someplace else.

this up. He is throwing Hillary under the bus

You go sell your shit somewhere else, and while you are at it, ask Anita Hill about Joe's grandstanding at her expense

If Biden does run in 2020, and wins the Democratic nomination, I will vote for him without a second thought, but I'll be damned if I am not going to point out his character flaws before that time, since he keeps hitting on Hillary

People should be focusing on 2018, but Joe prefers to focus on couldas and wouldas

It's not a bus.


TRUMP was driving the only bus in question on election night, sadly.

This kind of talk at this stage in the game is fruitless, and it does reflect poorly on him.

And I'm a Biden fan. I wanted him to run.

including that generated by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. All these and other inimical factors snowed the nation with lies about the person the Democrats ran for president (and other candidates!), and in spite of that a large majority of Americans voted for Hillary. I didn't list the electorate college because, like gravity, it just has to be dealt with and she did.

It wasn't the wrong candidate -- Hillary did a very good job and had great plans for America.

It was a corrupted, stolen election.

The reporting on this 'news' story is pretty thin. Some guy who used to work for Gwaker and a Wall Street blog are the sources. It's clickbait until I see the entire speech in context.

throughout the campaign.

And that would have been much more significant than Hillary's email server.

and, like Bernie, would have no trouble winning over folks in PA, WI, MI etc.

Really made a splash when he ran

I think he's let his position as VP, which he was given, go to his head. When he actually had to earn votes he was a total failure.

A noun, a verb, and 9-11

Hillary faced down an 11 hour grilling at the Senate on Benghazi.

Biden, on the other hand, once led an all-male white group of Senators who grilled Anita Hill when she testified against Clarence Thomas. And at the end he failed to call the corroborating witnesses who were sitting in a room, expecting to be called. They had traveled all the way to DC to corroborate Anita's story, and Biden chose not to let them.

For millions of women, it would never have been possible to enthusiastically support Joe Biden.

to drop out.

His own runs never resulted in his being nominated. I agree that we should get proof that he actually said this, though.

of power ?

At least insofar as Hillary Clinton carried a load of unfavorables that was multiple times worse than any other possible candidates by a factor of ten or more. Hubris was thinking this was not a problem. Bernie or Biden runs and Trump is a historical footnote.

The DNC did not raise money or organize volunteers for HRC. They did not scare donors or volunteers away from Bernie.

The DNC does not run the primaries, the states do. The state parties run the caucuses--and Bernie clobbered her in most of those contests.

Bernie got more one-on-one debates with Hillary than she got with Obama. And while he may have wanted more debates, so did Hillary in 2008.

The main reason Bernie lost is because Hillary destroyed him among minority voters.

Bernie did not face a rigged system. He lost fair and square.

I most certainly didn't decide the Democratic Party's legal defense.

2008 had 20 plus debates, 2016 had 6 debates.

I agree that there we more debates in 2008. Different election years work differently.

Who is to say that the impact of fewer debates wasn't to prevent O'Malley from having a chance to take voters away from Sanders? I don't think that is what happened, but my point is that you could easily argue that.

Is it really fair to say a primary is rigged, as people are saying, because you don't like the debate schedule? Did Hillary Clinton have the right to say that in 2008? Obama stopped doing most additional debates once he took the lead. They only had two more in the heat of the primary season, and even those were in states he was trailing in. He refused debates in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

was centrist and anti-insurgent, virtually all of them pro-HRC. And those caucuses had been around for decades. It's not as if the caucus system was invented in 2008 as an anti-HRC conspiracy, and the caucus results weren't illegitimate just because HRC happened to do badly in caucus states both times(she also lost primaries to Bernie in several states and won in the Iowa caucuses). After 2008, HRC's strategists should have learned how to organize in caucus states. It's nobody else's fault that they chose to treat the caucuses as if they didn't matter.

Hillary was nominated. That's fine. She won and almost all Sanders people ended up accepting that. It doesn't mean the Sanders phenomenon wasn't legitimate or real. It's enough to say she came out ahead at Philly.

The point about the caucuses is that they don't match up the results in a primary. I think that HRC lost North Dakota caucus by 50 points in 2008 while winning the South Dakota primary by 10 points--even as the media announced that she was ending her campaign. (She had been up by 20 points in the polls).

I cannot imagine that if Clinton was dominating the caucuses that people supporting Obama and Sanders would not have screamed about how unfair it was.

The other point about the caucuses is that they are the places run by the party, and obviously nobody rigged them.

I'd have primaries in every state, with same-day re-registration in all states and extended voting hours on election day(which I'd also make into a two-day event to accommodate long-lines of people).

There are issues with the caucuses...and in many states there are issues with the primaries and their rules(in New York, for example, re-registration for presidential primaries closes six months before primary day. This is a major problem.

The reason I mention re-registration is that we should WANT new people to gravitate to this party and to see it as a place where they can work for their ideals. The party as an institution can only benefit from that.

The 2008 Clinton campaign had done badly against the Obama campaign in caucus states...doesn't it strike you as a little odd that, in eight years, they did not appear to have done anything to up their caucus game? It's not that difficult to win those things...you just have to bring large enough groups of your supporters to a room for a few hours(and yes, I do agree that people are forced to stay for the repeated fan-outs-if your candidate was viable and is going to the next fan out, you should be able to just leave and have your vote counted in support of your candidate on the later fan-outs). Yet HRC's primary organizers in '16 acted as if having to do that was an unfair burden on them.

It's no harder to organize for a caucus than it is for a primary. In many ways, it's easier, because you aren't having to bring tens or hundreds of thousands of people out to stand in line in the cold to vote.

And HRC did her best to compete in them in 2016, unlike in 2008.

The point is that caucuses are producing results that don't come close to approximating primaries, which are more inclusive. That is not about campaign efforts.

In 2008 Hillary won the white vote, whereas she lost it in 2016. The caucus states tend to be more white. So that is perhaps a factor that kept her numbers about the same, while putting in much more effort.

In any event, it is not unreasonable to assume that she would have won primaries in many caucus states, both in 2008 and in 2016.

I like your ideas for reforming the system. Maybe you could write an op-ed for your local paper.

That was likely the decisive factor in how she did among white voters and voters of color that year.

She then spent the next eight years successfully winning over the African-American leadership.

Going into 2016, HRC knew caucuses were part of the terrain. There was no injustice to her campaign in the fact that caucuses were going to continue to play a major role.

Bernie, who hadn't even been thinking of running until probably some time in early 2015, hadn't had the time to make the kind of connections HRC had made among voters of color. He had an antiracist program, but failed to communicate it in time.

He also alienated a lot of black voters with the way he spoke about Obama(as HRC herself had done in 2008, ironically). Bernie would have spoken in the way he did about ANY Democratic president he saw as insufficiently progressive and too close to corporate power, but it read as an old white man disrespecting the first African-American president simply because that president WAS African-American.

Those were the main reasons HRC had a massive switch in her support base between 2016.

Caucuses have lower turnout, and that IS a problem, and I agree that they should be scrapped, but the whole argument some HRC supporters make on this tends to sound as if they're saying Bernie mainly did better in caucus states, therefore his victories don't really count. If caucuses are to be scrapped, it should be in the spirit of "let the people be heard". not "Bernie had no right to do as well as he did-his movement wasn't anything".

And to my knowledge, neither HRC nor anyone working on her behalf made any efforts, between 2008 and 2016, to ban caucuses or reduce the number of caucuses being held. She probably could have had the nominating process tailored to her exact specifications-why did she not just do that?

We should get rid of caucuses, but NOT as a way to delegitimize anybody's past victories in various stages of the nominating process, nor to get payback on anyone who wasn't a HRC supporter from the moment she declared her candidacy.

Are we on the same wavelength on this?

Bernie does to complain about states that only allow Democrats to vote and not liking the debate schedule (HRC didn't get many debates in 2008 after Obama took the lead, and she also complained about that). None of these things constitute a rigged system (which I realize you have not asserted).

Clinton did make an effort to reform the caucuses back in 2008. And discussions continued after the election.

I completely disagree that she had the ability to tailor the nominating process to her liking, let alone her exact specifications. That is the talking point that developed which badly damaged her ability to win over many Sanders voters.

In reality, Obama controlled the party, not her. And I don't even think Obama could make those arrangements. The states decide whether or not to hold primaries. If they choose not to then the parties put together caucuses. These state leaders wouldn't alter decades of policy based on HRC's say-so, setting aside that most of them had GOP governors.

I think HRC was always going to have a good advantage over Bernie with AA voters, through no fault of his own. She also won by wide margins among Latinos. That was based on her own strengths, built up over the years. If Bernie runs in 2020 he may do better among minorities--we will have to wait and see.

I actually do think we are on the same wavelength. There are many flaws in the system all of which should be addressed. But nobodies victories should be deligitimized--not Obama in 2008, not Hillary in 2016 and not Bernie's historic campaign which absolutely did start a major movement, perhaps even one that will ultimately be a historic movement.

And I definitely don't think we should be looking to pay back anyone. We are one party and we should move forward together.

And that's the thing...she DID get nominated, so how much unfairness can she claim? Would it really have made any difference to her chances in the fall if Bernie had been forced out earlier and the convention had been nothing but bland cheerleading? Or if there hadn't been any significant amount of Sanders proposals in the platform?

If we're blaming Comey and the Russians and vote suppression, it's hard to see how anything that happened in the primaries was to blame.

the Russian part of the story because it overshadows the horror of what the FBI did in this election, from beginning to end.

I think the fact that the Bernie did so well made it possible for some people to believe wild accusations that the race was somehow stolen. But that isn't about placing blame. Obviously, Bernie Sanders, or any Clinton opponent, was always going to do their best get what ever percentage of the vote they ultimately got.

We could also say that the wild stories about HRC being on the brink of indictment led some people to believe that Bernie was ultimately going to be the nominee and feel all the more disappointed when he wasn't.

In the end, this was the FBI's election from beginning to end. Going all the way back to 2015, when Comey decided to investigate her, the FBI was targeting HRC. There was a presidential candidate whose reputation and candidacy were completely obliterated by the FBI. It scares me that people don't understand that this is what happened or how big of a deal it was. In my mind it is bigger than Russia-gate, and that is really saying something.

And I deeply appreciate the tone you've taken in this exchange.

voter-suppressing caucuses, instead of primaries in all 50 states.

In Washington, after the voters chose to end caucuses and have a primary instead, the Democratic party went to court to retain the elitist caucus system. They liked having the power.

So we had the absurd situation where the person who won millions more primary votes didn't get any electoral votes -- they all went to the winner of the caucuses: the same person who's complaining about DNC rules.

Not to mention, looking at the results of the NON BINDING primary in Washington State ignores that in ANY state with both, with the first one binding, the losers' supporters have a stronger reason to show up. If the state had rules like Texas, where both mattered to the allocation of delegates, more Sanders people would have done more to GOTV for the primary. Not to mention, Bernie did not get ALL the regular delegates - he got 74, Clinton got 27. As to WA state's 17 superdelegates, 6 are listed as "none" and 11 declared for Hillary.

It is absurd to say that method of allocating delegates in WA was done to favor Bernie. The rules were known going in and I know in some parts of the state, there were very very few people supporting Clinton at the regional caucuses. My daughter's caucus had a grand total of ONE HRC supporter.

The DNC was not favoring Sanders, the already existing rules supported Sanders. In fact, though primaries favored both Obama and Sanders versus Clinton, John Kerry won all of them except NC, where Edwards won his home state after Kerry was the defacto nominee, in 2004 - over Dean or Edwards. Some of the blame should fall on Clinton's campaigns in both elections. Kerry's results suggest the simplistic answer that somehow populists do better than they should in caucuses.

And all the electoral votes were determined by the caucuses, not any by the primaries. The reason Hillary got votes was because of the caucus people who voted for her.

My caucus was closely divided, but the precincts tended to be less so. My husband was struck by how young, male, and white the Bernie precincts were. College students have a lot more time on their hands to hang around for hours on end at precincts -- and not just for one event -- but to commit for the next stage events. Each precinct had to commit to sending people down to Olympia for a whole day -- far more of a commitment than most ordinary voters would make.

I didn't say that the caucuses were set up to assist anyone. But the effect of the caucus system is to help candidates who appeal to fervent supporters with time on their hands. People with jobs and children were much less likely to be able to afford the time commitment. Having participated in them, and voted against them years ago, I am personally aware of what an onerous bar they are to participation. A classic voter suppression device -- in fact, that is the whole point. And anyone looking around could see who benefited by the Democratic party rules that set up the system. It wasn't the candidate who appealed to a large spectrum of voters in our state.

If you don't think that the voting system mattered, then you'd have to explain why Hillary won almost all the primary states and Bernie took the caucus states. That system clearly worked to his advantage, and he knew it. He openly concentrated in those states. He didn't benefit from other Democratic rules, but the caucuses were good for him.

I agree the DNC lets each state chose and that is also what I said. That choice by both the DNC and all states was made before Sanders entered the race. Therefore it was not done to favor him.

I actually favor all primaries and said so post 2008, when I favored Obama. The one exception I would make is Iowa as the engaged vetting that results is important. The number of delegates awarded does not significantly hurt other candidates.

Not to mention, I know people with jobs and kids who caucused. What is true is that fewer people not passionately for the candidate will come. I would argue that the mix may give a little advantage to the one who really has either more passionate support or a better functioning campsign. It helped Obama win, but was no where near enough to make Sanders win.

...you don't get to act surprised when the party leadership isn't neutral. I think the party did pretty well, but in the future delegates should be barred from declaring before the voters do.

If "the Party" (shouldn't "the Party" be more than "the leadership"?) can accept and promote the Connecticut for Lieberman candidate over a Democratic Party nominee, they shouldn't have had any problems... unless it's a more a restricted access club than a political party. Remember, the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party didn't exist until their candidate lost the Democratic Party primary for his position. Democratic office holders and party members lined up to provide support - to the guy running against the Democratic candidate.


"...supremely-qualified icons..."

There we will have to agree to disagree.

"but in the future delegates should be barred from declaring before the voters do."

Judging by the defense offered in the lawsuit against them, the current Party leadership reserves the right to do what it wants, when it wants, regardless of how the rank and file members (voters!) feel.

Lieberman and Sanders were indeed edge cases, being barely/sorta-still Democrats. Lieberman at least had long-standing party membership, and Sanders had caucused Dem, but these candidates tested the rather vague promise of neutrality and the expected promotion of Democrats. I'm not suprised that there were a lot of complaints about both candidacies. Clinton, in particular, had been a shoo-in twice, and any primary challenge was going to trigger vocal opposition. We want to win, after all.

The lawsuit that will examine the matter is not a criminal one, and it seems unlikely that anything will come of it.

and instead ran as a Green, he would have actually siphoned off votes from Hillary Clinton. As it was, he ended up campaigning for her.

"We want to win, after all."

That's debatable, it seems that our Party wants to win in a predefined centrist way. Just an observation not a third-way attack. Maybe they want the Reagan-Democrats back, maybe they're worried that the gov't will suffer with two parties lead by ideological extremes (although they seem to leave the definition of what extreme is to Republicans)

"The lawsuit that will examine the matter is not a criminal one, and it seems unlikely that anything will come of it."

Yes, civil lawsuits aren't criminal prosecutions. Like the lawsuit against Trump University should give you pause before signing up to fly-by night higher education, the DNC lawsuit might harm participation in Democratic primaries. It gives the appearance that the Party leadership is so out of touch with it's members, that they don't trust them to make good decisions.

*Some restrictions apply as to who "we" is.

While I believe our party's leadership is much more responsive to the rank and file than is the GOP's, it's still a bureaucracy that's going to keep doing most things the way sit has been doing them. Curve balls like Sanders, and even like Obama, put the goal/pledge of neutrality to the test.

The price of a big tent that can win nationally is a party leadership that's always fighting the last war.

Because if he had, we'd probably have President Hillary right now. I remember at the time being very happy that he decided to run as a Dem, because I'd always said that progressives should run in the party to move it to the left. But our political system is just so fucked up that it's clear just how much damage a spoiler candidate can do even within the two party system. If a candidate insists on being a spoiler, at least limit the damage to 3rd party. I would love it if a candidate could come along that I could support that wouldn't turn into a spoiling jackass for once.

Clinton probably would have lost the popular vote too. An independent Sanders run would have split the Democratic vote, possibly even down-ticket and helped boost Trump's electoral and popular vote numbers.

"If a candidate insists on being a spoiler, at least limit the damage to 3rd party. I would love it if a candidate could come along that I could support that wouldn't turn into a spoiling jackass for once."

I don't see how campaigning for Hillary Clinton in the general election is being "a spoiling jackass". What major mea culpa tour would Sanders have had to do to prove he was supporting Clinton? Saying he was a spoiler in the General Election is ludicrous. Nader ran as an independent, and the usual suspects blamed him for Gore's loss as well.

At the beginning of the 2016 campaign I was eager to vote for whichever Democratic candidate won the primary. When the general election came around, for the first time I was happy to be in a solid Red-state. Knowing that if I pulled up in a tractor-trailer full of fake ID's and disguises and voted for Clinton all day long it would have made no difference freed me to vote how I wanted to. That's on the Clinton campaign, not Comey - I didn't care about the email/server issue. Not Putin/Russia, I never bought into pizza-gate. Not the GOP, I knew their Benghazi concerns were best reflected by their refusal to beef up security before the attack. Triangulation had some success in the 90's, that was twenty years ago. The Democratic Party needs to stop chasing Republican votes.

you know he would not have had a snowball's chance in hell to win the general. Biden made a great VP and built up a lot of goodwill but was never effective in a national race on his own- he was never a great speaker and always seemed to put his foot in his mouth at the worst times- which people now seem to forget. If this quote is true, I have lost a ton of respect for Biden. The most qualified candidate in history who won the popular vote by THREE MILLION, and now two old guys who couldn't beat her sit back and say they would have won but they never faced the media/Russians/scrutiny of the general election. It is comments like his that make me wonder if we can ever win a general again because we can't unify behind a highly qualified candidate who doesn't pass their ridiculous purity tests and we attack our own long after the election is over. These blowhards need to just shut up--which is probably what they were condescendingly saying HRC should have done when she finally spoke out.

I liked Biden a lot as Obama's VP but this post VP Biden I don't appreciate at all.

of them win. Putin wanted his puppet, DT.

But we know with absolute certainty that Clinton lost to Trump. She was not the right candidate to beat Trump. i have no idea if anyone else could have won, as I said that is all just speculation. It is also pretty much useless speculation. What we need to do is get control of the house and senate in 2018 and move forward from their to 2020.

Crosscheck, Russian collusion unchecked by the entire GOP leadership, years of gerrymandering and obstructing voter's rights and right wing attacks for 30 years for her to "lose" while still pulling in 3 million more votes than the "winner".

I am so sick of people who let Trump off the hook with this fucking narrative.

Just stop.

I am no longer willing to live in "alternative-facts" world or let people change history or the narrative.

The truth will out.

Politics is a nasty business. We can and should understand why she lost and what we can do to make sure our next presidential candidate does better. I'm fairly certain that whoever that candidate is, he or she will face a nonstop barrage of dirty tricks and malfeasance and will struggle to get their campaigns message out.

Comey intervened to rig the race with 11 days to go.

She ran a good enough campaign to have the race won by a decisive margin. She connected enough on economic issues to have the race won by a decisive margin.

Comey did not turn a narrow win into a narrow loss. He dramatically reshaped the election.

Because you're right. It is just speculation. But you can't then turn it around and claim she wasn't the right candidate based on the fact that she didn't win. That logically doesn't make sense. In other words, the entire discussion of who the right candidate is or isn't in an election that already happened is an utterly worthless discussion and making the claim that she wasn't the right candidate is nothing but a smear at this point. Particularly since the discussion is the 2016 election and she actually had significantly more votes AND the issues surrounding Trump's possible collusion with Russia and a stolen election.

It is entirely possible some other candidate could have beaten Trump. It is Clinton's singular misfortune to be the only candidate we don't need to speculate about, we know she lost.

But this is pointless. Nobody else gets a shot at beating Trump in the 2016 election.

but given the combination of Trump and Putin and our media's complicity, Trump was practically an inevitability. We had been spiraling toward something like this for decades.

the certainty of what happened and speculation about what might have been.

However, in general, both parties have looked at certain failure in the past and decided against giving that candidate another chance.

Personally I think we need new people.

Not who is running in 2020.

forcing James Comey to come charging out of the closet and rig the whole election.

Where did you find it? Please provide a link.

Was it worse than the shit and innuendo they flung at HRC??

Biden may have won. Hillary was great. She won the popular vote. She had a lot of people and entities working to take her down. Bernie had trouble getting loyal dems and people of color.

And I apologize.

mouth and judgement have always got him into trouble.

As for those "unfavorables" that were "multiple times worse than any other possible candidates by a factor of ten or more, that is bullshit.

to Biden's own gaffes and "baggage" and you begin to realise how vacuous these arguments are...

or do they just conveniently ignore it? It never ceases to amaze me.

Biden didn't choose not to run. The voters kept him out.

She was crushing him in the polls. If Biden had been ahead, even, or closely behind he absolutely would have run.

We don't know what his unfavorables would have been if he had been the early front-runner or the ultimate nominee, given the viscious campaign the Republicans would have run against him.

I wonder if "not the right candidate" means woman? Even good men have a hard time changing their thoughts

not help-ing.. NOTHING. Not even yourself.

FORBIDDEN FORBIDDEN DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER

it conveniently left out the complete sentence:


"I never thought she was the correct candidate. I thought I was the correct candidate."

If the complete quote is accurate, then Biden really looks like a petulant, small child, because it seems he can't resist to keep bringing it up every chance he talks to the media.

In one breath he says he doesn't regret his decision, and in the next breath he seems to never miss a chance to spew how it would have been great if he was the candidate.

Of course the media loves this crap, and people like Nolan love this crap, it divides the Democratic party, and only serves as a useless distraction for 2018.

They had a field of more than 15 crazies and when the smoke cleared they ran a candidate with exactly zero history of political engagement. And we ran a candidate with over 30 years of controversy. One of the most damning pieces I have ever read about a politician was this:One analysis performed by Auburn University and published in the Journal of Economics and Finance claimed to find that the odds of a return that large during the period in question were about one in 31 trillion.[15][16][17]

here's the piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_cattle_futures_controversy

is a disputed Wiki entry that bases it's claims on a secondary source that cites a journal article that doesn't appear to exist anywhere other than in right wing fever dreams, you might want to rethink your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Clinton_cattle_futures_controversy

They have been around since the mid 70s. They will be surprised they are just a dream....

the article cited, however, never appeared in it.

A right-wing anti-Clinton Wiki-writing conspiracy theorist found a book that references an obscure commissioned study that seems to support the "corrupt Clinton" narrative. That book erroneously ascribes the "study" to a journal in which it never appeared.

The "study" was resurrected during the 2016 election cycle.

Last edited Fri May 19, 2017, 05:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Dems are in for a rude awakening if they don't wake up.

We're going to be voter-suppressed again in 2018 and on steroids, and Joe Biden isn't helping matters continuing to bash Hillary. He forgot about voter suppression in which millions of Dems were thrown off voting rolls in 3 specific states that Hillary barely lost? He forgot about the sanctions Pres. Obama placed on russia because they interfered into our election? Instead of Biden bashing Hillary, he better get his ass out there and make sure that Dems votes are even counted in 2018 and 2020. We're going to attempt to vote under a tRumputin DOJ, with beauguard as AG, and that ass doesn't CARE if Dems are voter-suppressed into oblivion in 2018 and 2020. Biden didn't mention squat about how compromised and out of date our voting apparatus IS per Clint Watts who said the ruskies are still meddling. STILL. Eventually, we're going to have a ruling where Dems come out on the short end of a voter suppression case.

VP Biden, Google Kris Kobach, okay?

He forgot about what's alleged to have happened in Pennsylvania?


VP Biden:

Crosscheck Removed 450K Voters in MI, 270 K in AZ and 590 K in NC!!

Crosscheck in action:

Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107

Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257

Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008

North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/#more-12923

THE REAL VOTING SCANDAL OF 2016
Jeffrey Toobin

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/the-real-voting-scandal-of-2016


Finally, it's as if Biden forgot that we have a party in the GOP who've show that they don't give a damn about 24 million people who currently have health care, because they've shown that they'd take away their health just so the filthy rich can have billions in tax cuts which they don't need. Joe really thinks that if voter-suppression, cross-checking and voter-purging happens in 2018 beauguard will investigate or CARE if Dems are voter-suppressed? ANY Dem--Joe Biden included--would have lost to putin's puppet with all of the crap that happened during the 2016 GE.

Dems are in a world of trouble if they think like Joe Biden thinks--and it's that Hillary Clinton lost the presidency in a fair and normal way.

UGH, I HATE IT WHEN DEMS ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES.

+ infinity

Trump only won in NC by 3%. Take away voter suppression and the Russian DNS attack of a registration place in a Democratic district and Hillary's the winner.

We did not see a video of the speech, just taking the word of some ex-Gawker writer and a Wall Street blogger.

But women my age remember when he DIDN'T stand up for Anita Hill. He can think that his pathetic performance in that hearing didn't matter ,but it does.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/biden-anita-hill-women-senate-clarence-thomas-213864

If Joe Biden gets into the presidential race, allies and supporters of Hillary Clinton say there are just two words that will make a difference as he seeks support among women and African-Americans: Anita Hill.

Nearly 24 years have passed since the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in which Hill, a respected law professor, was grilled under oath about alleged inappropriate sexual behavior by Thomas, her former boss. The graphic testimony gripped Washington and the country and spurred intense public conversations about sex, harassment and the nominee's charge of being subjected to a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.''


Biden's done a lot over the past 24 years, including authoring the landmark Violence Against Women Act and leading its four reauthorizations. But that hasn't erased the memories of how Biden presided over those hearings as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blamed for doing little to stop the attacks on Hill and opting not to call three other witnesses who would have echoed Hill's charges of sexual harassment. Biden almost apologetically gave Thomas the benefit of the doubt, critics say, and that stance helped put Thomas on the Supreme Court.

Ever since, for many women and blacks, Hill's name conjures an image of a black woman struggling under attack by a dozen powerful white men asking aggressive questions and questioning her character.

SNIP

I dont want Hillary, Biden, OR Bernie up there next time, personally.

Time for our national party to catch a long-overdue clue on the way the wind is blowing, particularly out west, on issues like legal cannabis.

In the meantime, though, since Biden brought it up here, I still want a big bench full of diverse voices, west coast voices, young voices, for 2020.

i dont think we ought to rehash 2016.

And no pre-ordained, inevitable, "marquee" candidates sucking all the air out of the room or otherwise bullying other leaders into staying out of the race. The closest thing to a shoo-in I'd want is maybe Senator Warren, but even then I still think we will benefit from having names like Newsom and Inslee and Booker and Franken and Harris in there too, vigorously debating the direction of our party.

My take? No Hillary. No Bernie. No Biden.

If we absolutely must give someone a "second chance", fuck, lets run Al Gore.

it makes far less sense saying it now, and its kicking Clinton when she's down and when hindsight is 20/20, and after an election in which it shouldn't be brushed over, she took 3 million more votes than the winner.

As to his personal advocacy, I never thought Biden was the correct candidate. Maybe he would have done better as a man, and as somebody who didn't have the last name of Clinton considering what the media has done to the Clinton's over the years, but I'd be interested to know, other than those details, how he would differently distinguish himself from Clinton and her platform. Does he think Sanders wouldn't have run against him? Does he think Sanders would have gotten less interest, or would he have moved left faster to remove the daylight between them?

He was the one leading the Senate hearing, and he could have stood up for Anita Hill when she bravely testified against Clarence Thomas. But instead, he didn't even call the witnesses who had traveled to DC to corroborate her story. They were waiting in another room and he never called them.

So other than throwing the black woman under the white male bus, he was a great guy. Very distinguished. A much stronger candidate than the woman with the email problem.

adds to those negatives

was a white male.

Clarence Thomas wasn't present when they were grilling Anita. And Thomas wasn't the one who decided not to allow Anita's corroborating witnesses to testify -- that's on Joe Biden. He let the women sit outside the room for days, waiting to testify -- and then never called on them.

that if you are going to "Biden sucks because he's a white male" you need to account for him NOT taking that opportunity to go after the black male.

I feel sorry for him.

you can be sure that he would have gotten into the race.

and I don't see the point of Biden bringing this up now.