Election 2020

[Bernie Brewer]

there IS a middle ground.

lunatics on the right think she made up the story.
lunatics on the left don't care, because she might take down an enemy.

sane people tentatively conclude that she was at a party at that age, that she had a traumatic experience, and at some point she came to believe Kavanaugh was involved.

it's not about whether she was "telling the truth."
it's about whether she was accurate in her independent recall, decades later, about who was involved in an incident she never talked about.

I feel as if I'm on an island: believing that she described the account she recalls as accurate in her mind - without us knowing for sure if she is correct - is not permitted.

either she is the madonna or - well, the other one.

what if she is neither?

she can be respected for her belief in her account, while we also recognize the lack of collaborating evidence and beyond. I have never questioned her personal sincerity. there is no question that the timing of her account was politically motivated by Feinstein - and I don't blame her for that. or anything.

the idea that "she is telling the truth" or "she is lying" is our binary universe.

I'd hate to think that the outrage was only politically selective.

and no one should lump me in with what other posters say. I'm not part of a team.

JJ, this is a very solid post. I agree with almost everything you wrote.

Although, I’m apparently a part of some team in my blinded opinions and prone to the distortion of facts and evidence (of which, as I recall, there was very little, if any, other than very circumstantial), I don’t believe I’ve ever said she wasn’t believable. She was, and I believe she told her truth, as best as she could remember after nearly (maybe “more than”, not sure) 35 years. I think she was a victim of something 35 years ago but I have no idea of what. I KNOW she was a victim of being turned into a political pawn (unwillingly or willingly) in a game that is vile and will continue to manifest itself through the manipulative power bases leading both sides for the foreseeable future.

[revo]

538.com ran an interesting article looking at states where Trump was more, or less, popular than their lean. In looking at that data, if you took all the states where Trump's net approval rating is underwater (which it is in 28 of the 50 states as well as DC) and assumed the Dems would triumph there, the election would be a major blowout, with 358 EC votes going to the Dems. If you throw the lowest two (Florida & NC, where surprisingly he's underwater in both) back to the GOP based on margin of error, it would still be a rout with 314 EC votes.

Still a long ways to go, but surprising that some supposed strongholds have turned against him.

Here's the article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-states-where-trump-is-more-and-less-popular-than-he-should-be/

[onejayhawk]

What Kavanaugh and his friend did to Christine Blasey Ford is something that I would hope is rare even within Washington. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think most men, even men who have been in power, have attempted forcible rape. For example, the stuff that George HW Bush did was certainly wrong and abused his position of power but came nowhere close to what Ford accused Kavanaugh of doing.

Based on the evidence presented, I don't think Kavanaugh is one of those men, at least not with regard to CBF. As JJ says, she is not a credible witness. Unlike JJ I think the outrage is entirely politically selective. Where is the outrage over Broaddrick, Millwee, Jones, etc. Look how long they put up with Weinstein.

What should be worrisome is the things that the Obama administration did to then candidate Donald Trump. That's scary stuff.

J

[Judge Jude]

As JJ says, she is not a credible witness.

I did not say that.

I said that with zero other worthwhile evidence, it would be insane to derail someone's career over a 15-year-old, possibly drunk, youngster's rather incomplete memories. It's quite plausible that she was in a room somewhere with a few boys and she felt threatened. It's much less clear what happened, and whether Kavanaugh was even in the room.

I still hope that someday, people will shake their heads at how little evidence became required to accuse a political foe of all sorts of heinous crimes - and declare that person guilty in the court of public opinion.

And unfortunately within this climate, I fear at least one false claim of sexual assault from decades ago will be lodged at one of the Presidential candidates. remember the standard: a woman with a respectable career/life who steps forward and makes the claim. that's all that is needed. you don't need to have ever told anyone, or even remember where it happened.

that's the problem with opening Pandora's Box.

[gcstomp]

Blasey Ford, the one who was pleading for an FBI investigation, has had her life destroyed. Had to move at least 2 times, has had innumerable death threats against her. And was ultimately dismissed as uncredible by the R majority, as Kavanaugh was put thru. Some 2 dozen witnesses wanted to testify to FBI, but were not given the opportunity. Yes, it appears if you go to great lengths to not investigate, you will not yield any compelling evidence other than one persons testimony vs anothers.

Will there be others with sterling careers and reputations like Ford willing to endure what she has by coming forward, to be destroyed and her claims not failrly investigated, so that a charade hearing can take place? Yeah, not sure there will be a long line of people willing to go thru that.

[onejayhawk]

I did not say that.

I said that with zero other worthwhile evidence, it would be insane to derail someone's career over a 15-year-old, possibly drunk, youngster's rather incomplete memories. It's quite plausible that she was in a room somewhere with a few boys and she felt threatened. It's much less clear what happened, and whether Kavanaugh was even in the room.

I still hope that someday, people will shake their heads at how little evidence became required to accuse a political foe of all sorts of heinous crimes - and declare that person guilty in the court of public opinion.

And unfortunately within this climate, I fear at least one false claim of sexual assault from decades ago will be lodged at one of the Presidential candidates. remember the standard: a woman with a respectable career/life who steps forward and makes the claim. that's all that is needed. you don't need to have ever told anyone, or even remember where it happened.

that's the problem with opening Pandora's Box.

At the time, a prosecutor said that her testimony would not have compelled a search warrant. Against this, you have Juanita Broaderick who filed a complaint the next day and had supporting witnesses. That is what I would call a credible witness.

Blasey Ford, the one who was pleading for an FBI investigation, has had her life destroyed. Had to move at least 2 times, has had innumerable death threats against her. And was ultimately dismissed as uncredible by the R majority, as Kavanaugh was put thru. Some 2 dozen witnesses wanted to testify to FBI, but were not given the opportunity. Yes, it appears if you go to great lengths to not investigate, you will not yield any compelling evidence other than one persons testimony vs anothers.

Will there be others with sterling careers and reputations like Ford willing to endure what she has by coming forward, to be destroyed and her claims not failrly investigated, so that a charade hearing can take place? Yeah, not sure there will be a long line of people willing to go thru that.

So, you had not heard of the book deal? Again, compare to Bill Clinton's victims.

J

[B-Fly]

Paul Waldman of Washington Post was just as surprised as I was by Biden claiming yet again, that the Republican fever will break and they'll come to their senses. Biden is either clueless, or full of shit. I'm not even sure which I believe, but it's not a good sign for a Presidential candidate to be so far out of touch with reality.

"The only problem with that is that there’s no evidence there is much to be gained from being seen as reasonable and moderate. Voters don’t reward you for it. It doesn’t get you any closer to achieving your policy goals. So what’s the point?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.ba8052ac25df

On what basis are you and Paul Waldman concluding that voters don't award candidates who express a desire for and a willingness to seek bipartisanship? I think a great many voters, including a large share of "swingable" voters in "swingable" states do, in fact, want candidates who appear honest in their intention to try to reduce hyper-partisanship.

[Teenwolf]

On what basis are you and Paul Waldman concluding that voters don't award candidates who express a desire for and a willingness to seek bipartisanship? I think a great many voters, including a large share of "swingable" voters in "swingable" states do, in fact, want candidates who appear honest in their intention to try to reduce hyper-partisanship.

I think the question of what Democratic primary voters will reward is open for debate.

I'm contending that this willingness to work with Republicans, his compliments of scumbags like Pence & Cheney, his corporate donor debt list building right now, his stated support of entitlement reform... it's a recipe for either a Trump 2020 win or a 2024 Andrew Dice Clay/Roseanne Barr presidency.

Being middle of the road on climate change is disqualifying on it's own. Let alone his refusal to admit wrongdoing regarding Anita Hill, the 94 crime bill, his anti-segregationist views, his anti LGBTQ views, his anti-choice views for women, his gutting of union pensions, his anti consumer bankruptcy protection giveaway to the credit industry, supporting NAFTA (critical Hillary hit in Midwest).... on and on, he's going to refuse to admit his role in all of this stuff, deny history, and become an even more toxic clone of Hillary with a longer record of corruption, going against corporate media applauding Trump's economy... that's a suicide mission, to not nominate a candidate that can turn out young, disaffected non-voters like Trump did. If you really fear Trump 2nd term, support bold candidates. That's my takeaway. The older voters will support the Dem candidate as loyalists to the party. Stats show younger voters increasingly independent, likely to stay home or vote 3rd party on Biden. Fear them and their numbers, or give them someone to get excited about. Same exact cycle as 2016.

[nots]

I think the question of what Democratic primary voters will reward is open for debate.

I'm contending that this willingness to work with Republicans, his compliments of scumbags like Pence & Cheney, his corporate donor debt list building right now, his stated support of entitlement reform... it's a recipe for either a Trump 2020 win or a 2024 Andrew Dice Clay/Roseanne Barr presidency.

Being middle of the road on climate change is disqualifying on it's own. Let alone his refusal to admit wrongdoing regarding Anita Hill, the 94 crime bill, his anti-segregationist views, his anti LGBTQ views, his anti-choice views for women, his gutting of union pensions, his anti consumer bankruptcy protection giveaway to the credit industry, supporting NAFTA (critical Hillary hit in Midwest).... on and on, he's going to refuse to admit his role in all of this stuff, deny history, and become an even more toxic clone of Hillary with a longer record of corruption, going against corporate media applauding Trump's economy... that's a suicide mission, to not nominate a candidate that can turn out young, disaffected non-voters like Trump did. If you really fear Trump 2nd term, support bold candidates. That's my takeaway. The older voters will support the Dem candidate as loyalists to the party. Stats show younger voters increasingly independent, likely to stay home or vote 3rd party on Biden. Fear them and their numbers, or give them someone to get excited about. Same exact cycle as 2016.

The climate change thing took a bit of a hit in Finland, Australia and Canada over the last few weeks.

[In the Corn]

I think the question of what Democratic primary voters will reward is open for debate.

I'm contending that this willingness to work with Republicans, his compliments of scumbags like Pence & Cheney, his corporate donor debt list building right now, his stated support of entitlement reform... it's a recipe for either a Trump 2020 win or a 2024 Andrew Dice Clay/Roseanne Barr presidency.

Being middle of the road on climate change is disqualifying on it's own. Let alone his refusal to admit wrongdoing regarding Anita Hill, the 94 crime bill, his anti-segregationist views, his anti LGBTQ views, his anti-choice views for women, his gutting of union pensions, his anti consumer bankruptcy protection giveaway to the credit industry, supporting NAFTA (critical Hillary hit in Midwest).... on and on, he's going to refuse to admit his role in all of this stuff, deny history, and become an even more toxic clone of Hillary with a longer record of corruption, going against corporate media applauding Trump's economy... that's a suicide mission, to not nominate a candidate that can turn out young, disaffected non-voters like Trump did. If you really fear Trump 2nd term, support bold candidates. That's my takeaway. The older voters will support the Dem candidate as loyalists to the party. Stats show younger voters increasingly independent, likely to stay home or vote 3rd party on Biden. Fear them and their numbers, or give them someone to get excited about. Same exact cycle as 2016.

I would think you would be willing to claim, "I'll move to Canada if Biden is elected, but you're already there."

[nots]

Both Quinnipiac and Morning Consult are unchanged from their most recent polls. Another good day for Biden and a loss for the rest (except for Warren, who is gaining some momentum)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Judge Jude]

double digits in D or R polls, by age:

Sanders 77
Biden 76
Trump 73
Warren 70

"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'"

(Dylan himself is 78)

[Steve 2.0]

I would think you would be willing to claim, "I'll move to Canada if Biden is elected, but you're already there."

I'm just going to say "I'm going to be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really,really, really, really, really, really, pissed off if that piece of human garbage Trump gets elected again."

[onejayhawk]

Both Quinnipiac and Morning Consult are unchanged from their most recent polls. Another good day for Biden and a loss for the rest (except for Warren, who is gaining some momentum)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

I think this may be it. No one questions Warren's credentials and she does not have Biden's baggage or Bernie's fringe.

J

[Steve 2.0]

I think this may be it. No one questions Warren's credentials and she does not have Biden's baggage or Bernie's fringe.

J

Hopefully, whoever has Biden's baggage and Bernie's fridge will return them.