2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[brian]

It seems way more likely than not Reade is lying

[Steve of phpBB]

It seems way more likely than not Reade is lying

After reading the article, I don't know if I'd characterize it like that. But it does appear that there is plenty of reason to doubt her particular allegation about Biden assaulting her.

[brian]

It seems way more likely than not Reade is lying

After reading the article, I don't know if I'd characterize it like that. But it does appear that there is plenty of reason to doubt her particular allegation about Biden assaulting her.

I could and maybe should have said lying about being sexual assaulted. She very well and probably was sexually harassed. But as we've debated ad nauseum, there's a world of difference between the two.

[Steve of phpBB]

It seems way more likely than not Reade is lying

After reading the article, I don't know if I'd characterize it like that. But it does appear that there is plenty of reason to doubt her particular allegation about Biden assaulting her.

I could and maybe should have said lying about being sexual assaulted. She very well and probably was sexually harassed. But as we've debated ad nauseum, there's a world of difference between the two.

Sure. I just don't think I'm at the "way more likely" stage either way.

[Shirley]

I don't like reading articles trying to dig into the background of accusers, because it just so often feels dirty. But I did finally read this Politico piece https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/1 ... ces-260771 and I will say it was concerning. It didn't get much into the specifics of her allegations, but there's a lot in there about her consistent history of being a very untrustworthy person.

This stuff always bothers me, because one its own, it really says nothing about whether she was actually assaulted or not. In fact, we know that abusers quite often target those with low self-esteem or who are otherwise deemed unreliable for this very reason - they won't be believed if they speak up. But, still, she does come off as someone who'd be willing to make up a story.

An odd aside - I recognized the name of her lawyer and looked him up. Sure enough, he was a fraternity brother of mine at Wash U. One year (two?) ahead of me.

[Joe K]

A lot of the “deceit and manipulation” described in that article just sounds like someone struggling with poverty who had difficulty paying rent. If struggling to pay rent is a sign of bad character than there are tens of millions of people in this country that would fall into that bucket. To me, the strongest pieces of corroborating evidence to her story are her mother’s 1993 call to Larry King and her husband’s 1996 affidavit, both of which clearly show that Reade told people close to her, at the time, that something bad happened to her while working for Biden. And in her husband’s case, it was something he described as causing her continued “trauma” three years later. Thinking about how the language around workplace harassment had shifted over the last few decades, “trauma” was a pretty strong word for him to be using if it was just about Reade being asked to dress differently or to serve drinks.

[mister d]

Also, while the sole focus is on Reade's character, its worth remembering the accused side has a history of very public lying for personal benefit.

[Joe K]

Also, while the sole focus is on Reade's character, its worth remembering the accused side has a history of very public lying for personal benefit.

(AND PUBLICLY SNIFFING, KISSING AND GROPING WOMEN AND GIRLS IN FRONT OF CROWDS OF PEOPLE WITH CAMERAS ROLLING)

[HaulCitgo]

A lot of the “deceit and manipulation” described in that article just sounds like someone struggling with poverty who had difficulty paying rent. If struggling to pay rent is a sign of bad character than there are tens of millions of people in this country that would fall into that bucket. To me, the strongest pieces of corroborating evidence to her story are her mother’s 1993 call to Larry King and her husband’s 1996 affidavit, both of which clearly show that Reade told people close to her, at the time, that something bad happened to her while working for Biden. And in her husband’s case, it was something he described as causing her continued “trauma” three years later. Thinking about how the language around workplace harassment had shifted over the last few decades, “trauma” was a pretty strong word for him to be using if it was just about Reade being asked to dress differently or to serve drinks.

Not compelling. An affidavit? For real? Only federal clerks care about affidavits. The mom didn't even know what happened when she called. So less than hearsay. I've met plenty of people "traumatized" by things normal folk wouldn't even remember. Hardly a week goes by without someone talking to me about emotional distress. I believe the lady was harassed in the workplace. I also believe all of those legitimate facts go out the window when you lie about rape. You have to bring this stuff up when it happens if you want to be heard and you sure as hell can't embellish at all.

[Johnnie]

Man, if only the DNC and Democrats at large didn't overcorrect so hard and deem you're guilty before an investigation takes place this wouldn't be such a dilemma!

[Steve of phpBB]

A lot of the “deceit and manipulation” described in that article just sounds like someone struggling with poverty who had difficulty paying rent. If struggling to pay rent is a sign of bad character than there are tens of millions of people in this country that would fall into that bucket. To me, the strongest pieces of corroborating evidence to her story are her mother’s 1993 call to Larry King and her husband’s 1996 affidavit, both of which clearly show that Reade told people close to her, at the time, that something bad happened to her while working for Biden. And in her husband’s case, it was something he described as causing her continued “trauma” three years later. Thinking about how the language around workplace harassment had shifted over the last few decades, “trauma” was a pretty strong word for him to be using if it was just about Reade being asked to dress differently or to serve drinks.

Not compelling. An affidavit? For real? Only federal clerks care about affidavits. The mom didn't even know what happened when she called. So less than hearsay. I've met plenty of people "traumatized" by things normal folk wouldn't even remember. Hardly a week goes by without someone talking to me about emotional distress. I believe the lady was harassed in the workplace. I also believe all of those legitimate facts go out the window when you lie about rape. You have to bring this stuff up when it happens if you want to be heard and you sure as hell can't embellish at all.

I dunno, I think an affidavit and a call to the radio show *at a time when she'd have no reason to falsely target Biden* are pretty solid evidence that something happened while she was working for Biden that she really did not like. I am less impressed about the use of the word "trauma" in the affidavit, because (i) at the time the husband had an incentive to show that Reade was a mess and that her being a mess wasn't his fault, and (ii) no matter what else, the record seems to indicate that Reade was a drama queen. I've seen affidavits discuss "trauma" that really didn't amount to much.

But the fact that something was mentioned at all has to mean that she perceived that something happened.

My first couple of years as a lawyer, I did workers' compensation defense. This almost invariably involved reading a claimant's medical records. It was easy to tell from their histories and their statements to doctors who were the embellishers and who were the downplayers. She really gives me the impression that she is an embellisher. That, and the fact that she apparently didn't talk about an assault until very late in the game, that she clearly has a political motive now to tank Biden's candidacy, that her judgment and/or credibility are so suspect that she has written glowing statements about Vladimir Putin, and that that there is no record of Biden assaulting women, makes me think she was most likely not assaulted.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter. We aren't hiring a babysitter or someone to tutor a fifteen year old girl. We aren't even deciding whether to vote for "Joe Biden" in some deep moral sense. We are simply choosing between a Biden presidency and a continuation of a Trump presidency.

[HaulCitgo]

An affidavit is nothing more than a lawyers version of what they want their client to say. And you're pretty much that clerk I spoke of.

[Steve of phpBB]

An affidavit is nothing more than a lawyers version of what they want their client to say. And you're pretty much that clerk I spoke of.

Maybe I’m mixed up. Aren’t we talking about an affidavit from 1996 or so?

[HaulCitgo]

No clue. If so that might address doubts as to timeliness. I'm just saying an affidavit is a piece of paper and may not have much to do with truth.

[A_B]

No clue. If so that might address doubts as to timeliness. I'm just saying an affidavit is a piece of paper and may not have much to do with truth.

Wait. I thought you were a lawyer too. Am I mixing up swampers?

[govmentchedda]

I assumed HC did Crim defense

[Steve of phpBB]

No clue. If so that might address doubts as to timeliness. I'm just saying an affidavit is a piece of paper and may not have much to do with truth.

I don’t think truth is the issue. It’s significant that there’s a document from 1996 saying Reade suffered a trauma associated with her Biden work. It helps rebut the argument that Reade is coming up with some story *now* to stop Biden’s candidacy.

I agree there’s not much probative value to an affidavit, especially in a contested domestic case. It’s likely that Reade exaggerated to her husband *and* that her husband exaggerated in the affidavit.

[HaulCitgo]

I'm a finance lawyer for cash but started a legal clinic 13 (wow I'm getting old) years ago so I'm pretty much general practice for 80% of my time.

[tennbengal]

Kos guessing Warren:

[Steve of phpBB]

Kos guessing Warren:

Meh.

I think she's fine, but I don't know if "let's run another old person from the northeast" is really a good move. I'd hope they would run someone younger who could pick up the mantle in four years.

Plus, Warren's greatest strength is her legislative ideas - so the Senate is a perfect place for her. And I'd hate to see the Dems risk losing the seat.

[HaulCitgo]

I like Warren ok. Just she be better in a cabinet post than VP.

[brian]

It's all just speculation, but Warren will arguably be a more effective surrogate on the campaign trail than anyone one else Biden could choose. And it's probably not just a sop to the more progressive wing of the ticket, hopefully she'll have real influence on him as veep which is only a good thing.

[Joe K]

That seems like a serious stretch for Moulitsas to conclude Biden's "all but announced her" based on a Twitter thread that some Biden staffer wrote. I think Biden will make efforts to work with progressives like Warren and Sanders on certain issues during the course of the campaign. But I still think it's far more likely he picks a more conservative Dem as his VP choice (specifically Klobuchar or Harris). While I personally think Warren would be the best VP pick of the three, it would run contrary to Biden's entire legislative career to pick a progressive firebrand rather than a centrist Dem. It would also be quite the reversal for a guy who raised money from Wall Street donors by promising that "nothing will fundamentally change" to pick one of the politicians that Wall Street despises the most as his VP.

[mister d]

Assuming he still has a pretty strong following, its possible this is just a trial balloon.

[Steve of phpBB]

I like Warren ok. Just she be better in a cabinet post than VP.

See, to me that's the worst option. Every Senate seat is critical. If the Dems are going to risk losing Warren's seat, it better be for something more important than Secretary of HHS or something.

[Nonlinear FC]

I'm gonna be shocked if he doesn't pick a woman of color.

[Rush2112]

I like Warren ok. Just she be better in a cabinet post than VP.

See, to me that's the worst option. Every Senate seat is critical. If the Dems are going to risk losing Warren's seat, it better be for something more important than Secretary of HHS or something.

Charlie Baker isn't a Trump guy though. While he could name a Republican to the seat, there legally has to be a special election within 5 months to fill the seat.

[Steve of phpBB]

I like Warren ok. Just she be better in a cabinet post than VP.

See, to me that's the worst option. Every Senate seat is critical. If the Dems are going to risk losing Warren's seat, it better be for something more important than Secretary of HHS or something.

Charlie Baker isn't a Trump guy though. While he could name a Republican to the seat, there legally has to be a special election within 5 months to fill the seat.

Sure, which the Dem could lose. That's what happened in 2010.

Republicans can win statewide elections in Massachusetts. Like Baker. Hell, Baker's really popular right now; he could win the special election.

[The Sybian]

I like Warren ok. Just she be better in a cabinet post than VP.

See, to me that's the worst option. Every Senate seat is critical. If the Dems are going to risk losing Warren's seat, it better be for something more important than Secretary of HHS or something.

Charlie Baker isn't a Trump guy though. While he could name a Republican to the seat, there legally has to be a special election within 5 months to fill the seat.

Sure, which the Dem could lose. That's what happened in 2010.

Republicans can win statewide elections in Massachusetts. Like Baker. Hell, Baker's really popular right now; he could win the special election.

The PodSaves guys had a great discussion about this. Favreau is a Boston guy, and said he is very clued in to the Massachusetts political scene, and he said there is no danger of Baker appointing a Republican. I was deep in the camp of no way the Dems can risk losing Warren's seat, but Favreau was angry about this argument. First, he said Baker is essentially a Dem in beliefs, and is an anti-Trump guy. More important, the Dems hold super majorities both houses in the State Legislature, and they have veto power over any selection Baker makes. He was also saying Baker selecting a interim Senator the Dems don't approve would be political suicide for him, so out of self-preservation, Baker has to pick a Dem.

Looking at the Mass Legislature makeup, the Senate has 34 Dems, 4 Reps and 2 vacant seats, the House has 126 Dems, 31 Reps, 2 vacant and 1 Independent.

[Steve of phpBB]

Looking at the Mass Legislature makeup, the Senate has 34 Dems, 4 Reps and 2 vacant seats, the House has 126 Dems, 31 Reps, 2 vacant and 1 Independent.

And the makeup of the Mass Governor's Office is 100% Republican.

I am not so much worried about the interim appointment. I think the Mass Dems in the legislature can amend the law to require the replacement to be from the party of the Senator whose seat is now empty.

It's the Special Election that is a bigger concern. Last time I looked, Baker had an approval rating of around 70%. So he appoints a Dem to the seat temporarily, and everyone loves his principles, and the special election is several months after the Dems win the 2020 election, and everything still sucks, and Massachusetts voters pride themselves on their not being rubber-stamp partisans. There is no way I would risk a Senate majority on those odds.

Plus, what do you get from taking that risk? We all love Warren, but if Warren were really that "effective" on the campaign trail, she would not have gotten her ass kicked so badly in the Democratic primaries. She didn't even get 10% in New Hampshire.

[govmentchedda]

There was another Tweet thread from someone other than Favreau that said essentially the same thing about not getting too worked up over Warren moving to the VP spot, or a cabinet position.

[The Sybian]

Looking at the Mass Legislature makeup, the Senate has 34 Dems, 4 Reps and 2 vacant seats, the House has 126 Dems, 31 Reps, 2 vacant and 1 Independent.

And the makeup of the Mass Governor's Office is 100% Republican.

I am not so much worried about the interim appointment. I think the Mass Dems in the legislature can amend the law to require the replacement to be from the party of the Senator whose seat is now empty.

It's the Special Election that is a bigger concern. Last time I looked, Baker had an approval rating of around 70%. So he appoints a Dem to the seat temporarily, and everyone loves his principles, and the special election is several months after the Dems win the 2020 election, and everything still sucks, and Massachusetts voters pride themselves on their not being rubber-stamp partisans. There is no way I would risk a Senate majority on those odds.

Plus, what do you get from taking that risk? We all love Warren, but if Warren were really that "effective" on the campaign trail, she would not have gotten her ass kicked so badly in the Democratic primaries. She didn't even get 10% in New Hampshire.

I agree with you, I don't think it's worth losing her Senate seat, but not as dangerous as I thought. And you are right, the election is more of a concern than the interim post.

[tennbengal]

Counterpoint - you all are wrong and she would be an excellent choice for VP and put a savvy progressive straight into Biden’s ear to keep pushing him left. Something I have a hard time seeing Klobuchar or Harris doing...

[Joe K]

Counterpoint - you all are wrong and she would be an excellent choice for VP and put a savvy progressive straight into Biden’s ear to keep pushing him left. Something I have a hard time seeing Klobuchar or Harris doing...

Also, Democrats aren't supposed to say this part out loud, but there's a nonzero chance that Biden won't be able to finish a term. IMO, Warren would make a far better President than Klobuchar or Harris. But the reasons why I think that are also why I'm convinced that Biden won't pick her. It's hard for me to fathom someone who has championed the lending industry, and currently takes advice from Anita Dunn and Larry Summers, putting Warren 2nd in line for the Presidency.

[tennbengal]

Counterpoint - you all are wrong and she would be an excellent choice for VP and put a savvy progressive straight into Biden’s ear to keep pushing him left. Something I have a hard time seeing Klobuchar or Harris doing...

Also, Democrats aren't supposed to say this part out loud, but there's a nonzero chance that Biden won't be able to finish a term. IMO, Warren would make a far better President than Klobuchar or Harris. But the reasons why I think that are also why I'm convinced that Biden won't pick her. It's hard for me to fathom someone who has championed the lending industry, and currently takes advice from Anita Dunn and Larry Summers, putting Warren 2nd in line for the Presidency.

Unless that was the deal that was cut...

[mister d]

I’d also say theres atleast reason to believe that when push comes to ambition, Warren would cave to the party. I think she’s a solid progressive but I wonder if she’d make it hard for the Dems not to follow.

[Johnnie]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if she were the nominee wouldn't the same special election be happening? So what's the difference?

Also, there was a report that Bernie looked into seeing if she could be Veep AND Treasury Secretary simultaneously. The conclusion was yes.

So if Biden plays better with white people nationwide and runs Bernie's playbook, then there ya go. It's a good scenario.

[Steve of phpBB]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if she were the nominee wouldn't the same special election be happening? So what's the difference?

Also, there was a report that Bernie looked into seeing if she could be Veep AND Treasury Secretary simultaneously. The conclusion was yes.

So if Biden plays better with white people nationwide and runs Bernie's playbook, then there ya go. It's a good scenario.

Yes, if she were the nominee and was elected President, there would be a special election. There's no difference in that regard. However, I'm not sure that matters, since she is not the nominee.

I don't know why you'd want to have the same person do both of those jobs. If the point of naming Warren VP is to get the benefit of her ideology and her drive to publicly promote certain policies, I don't think you'd want to saddle her with the full-time job of running the Treasury Department.

[Joe K]

I don't know why you'd want to have the same person do both of those jobs. If the point of naming Warren VP is to get the benefit of her ideology and her drive to publicly promote certain policies, I don't think you'd want to saddle her with the full-time job of running the Treasury Department.

In this case (or if Sanders had been the nominee), the logic is that if you have a president-elect who's already in his late-70s, you want the VP to be someone you're very comfortable with in the top job. VP can be treated as a largely ceremonial job, so there's no reason you couldn't put Warren in the Cabinet position you think she'd do best (whether it's Treasury, HHS or whatever), while simultaneously making her the designated successor if the old guy dies or get incapacitated. I'm sure that was Sanders' thinking when he researched this question. But again, I'd still be very surprised if Biden tabs her as VP. He'd piss off a lot of his big donors if he tabbed Warren over Harris or Klobuchar.

[Joe K]

Color me shocked that Moulitsas was jumping to conclusions and Biden hadn’t actually decided on Warren.