home

The Biden Effect

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 03:48:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Looking at the polling in the Dem primary, it's clear that there is a "Biden Effect." What is Biden's impact? Where would his supporters go if he decides not to run? A few polls ask the question.

In the Fox poll, including Biden yields a 44-30-18 result, Clinton-Sanders-Biden. And without Biden?

It's Clinton 56, Sanders 32. Clinton up 12 and Sanders up 2. Obviously no Biden helps Clinton.

More.

In the CBS/NYT poll, the effect is similar. The with Biden result is 47-27-15. Without Biden? It's Clinton 58, Sanders 28. Clinton up 11, Sanders up 1.

In the ABC /WaPo poll, with Biden, it is 42-24-21. Without Biden, it's Clinton 56, Sanders 28. Clinton up 14, Sanders up 4.

In the Q poll with Biden, it's 43-25-18. Without Biden, it's Clinton 53, Sanders 30. So Clinton up 10, Sanders up 5.

The upshot is pretty obvious and not particularly surprising - Biden in takes more from Clinton. Biden out and her margins are very healthy. Sanders continues to be bedeviled by an inability to break through to PoC. This remains the key issue for Sanders.

If I ran his campaign, it's what I would be working on 24/7.

< Thursday Open Thread | Saturday College Football Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Biden Effect | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Biden. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    The safe white male candidate.  Thank goodness ultimately I think Democrats will reject nominating him.

    What occurred to me in the car today... (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    Isn't Kerry a better 'insurance policy' if anything really does go off the rails in Clinton's campaign?

    I think he'd do better than Biden.

    Parent

    Not (none / 0) (#118)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 29, 2015 at 09:21:20 PM EST
    according to this poll.

    Parent
    What these numbers suggest (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 09:28:36 PM EST
    is Clinton wins with Biden or without Biden. It doesn't matter.

    If you plot the rate of change (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 10:34:17 PM EST
    then it looks better for Joe. His support has doubled, while Hillary has nearly halved.

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 06:06:56 AM EST
    guys are hysterical. She had 40 points over Bernie and now she has 20 over Biden and it's "the end of Hillary".

    Her numbers are actually starting to go back up. Heck, all the GOP candidates would kill for her numbers.

    Parent

    Numbers to kill for. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 08:47:52 AM EST
    The latest Quinnipiac poll has her fav/unfav/undecided at 41/55/2. Even worse are her trustworthy numbers at 32/63/5. Add to that she trails a number of repubs in head to head.

    Link.

    Parent

    And yet (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 10:54:20 AM EST
    If you take an aggregation of recent polls she has a higher favorable than any candidate running from either side. Again, any Republican would kill for her numbers.

    I can see why a die-hard Republican such as yourself is desperate to keep her out of the GE though.

    Parent

    I'd love to see her in (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 11:36:56 PM EST
    Although I kinda like Joe.

    Parent
    As usual, the potential candidate polls well (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    As soon as they become a true candidate, the gears shift. Biden shares an enormous responsibility in building the police state type problems we are facing. Who made it possible for law enforcement to rob you roadside? Joe Biden.

    Joe Biden's current political bed sores from the bed he made are giant.

    Parent

    No Offense... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    ...but excuse me while I yawn at Bidden talk, wake me up when he actually announces he is running.

    Hold on, did I notice our hard on criminals poster has the same initials as the hard on criminals VP, and they are both in DC.

    JBindc you got some spailin' to do, either you are running or you aren't.

    I prefer (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    "People should be responsible for their actions and cut the BS excuses."

    And no. I'M certainly not running.  Bleh.

    Parent

    It's a little odd (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    To say people should be responsible for their own actions out of one side of you mouth and that they are not smart, or capable or "like you" enough to be allowed to make the decisions you expect them to be responsible for out of the other side.

    Be responsible for your own actions.

    I will decide which actions you are allowed.

    Nah, not working.

    Parent

    I have no idea what that means (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    More gibberish, I guess.

    Not sure when I said people aren't smart like me.  I often say there are some people here and in the media (oft quoted here) who think they are smarter than everyone else, but their words don't always prove that (every though they like to tell others what they should think) but yeah, as far as smarts, I'll put myself up against a Bill Maher, some bloggers, media people or commenters any day.

    Parent

    Do you or do you not (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 05:36:24 PM EST
    Think people should be allowed to choose for themselves if the wish to use drugs.   Or should you and those like you decide for them?

    Simple question.

    Parent

    Go ahead and choise (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 06:11:41 PM EST
    However, in choosing to do something, they should live with the consequences.  If drugs are illegal, and you choose to use them anyway, and you get caught - oh well. I'm not gonna feel too sorry for you.

    But your question proves my originial point - not all who use drugs are "addicts" who need, nor should be treated as, people with mental health issues and who should be free of whatever consequences come their way.

    If drugs are legal - slowly kill your body as you please, but stay off the roads, or operate anything that may hurt others in your quest to get high.

    Parent

    Anyone who ever suggested everyone who uses (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    Drugs is an addict or "needs help" is an idiot.

    And frankly any who even believes that needs to be said is demonstrating a breathtaking ignorance of the subject and frankly shucks just shut up about it.

    Parent

    "addicts with mental health issues" (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    It is not clear what you mean, here.

    Most of the major treatment centers adhere to the "disease"  model for addiction.

    Free of whatever consequences....who is advocating that.....treatment does not mean being free of consequences.....

     

    Parent

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 09:16:06 AM EST
    Seems this site (and most commenters here) advocate that we treat people, not lock them up. Of course, that assumes that everyone arrested for and prosecuted for drugs is an addict and needs "treatment".

    As I said, it isn't either/or.

    But I knew it would go over most people's heads since they are so entrenched in the former model.

    Parent

    I think the only one doing any (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    assuming is you; I don't think anyone here is making the argument that everyone arrested/prosecuted on drug-related charges is an addict.

    I think what is being advocated is that people who do need treatment get it.  I also think that treatment, per se, isn't the only option for people coming into contact with law enforcement on drug-related charges.  Eliminating the societal reasons people get involved with drugs should also be a higher priority than just locking them up.  Poverty, lack of jobs, poor education, substandard housing and living conditions are all factors in a significant percentage of the arrests and prosecutions we're talking about.  

    I don't see anyone looking at this complex issue in the simple black/white terms with which you seem to be looking at it.  Sometimes I can't figure out why you are so opposed to decriminalization, unless there is an underlying belief that it would somehow allow people to "get away" with something you're opposed to.  Or that you think there will be some sort of tsunami of drug use, or crimes that occur because of the lack of penalties.  

    In those areas where the possession of marijuana has been reduced to misdemeanor level, has that happened?  You might want to check that out.

    Parent

    Anne, the heroin (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    epidemic is hitting kids from higher socio-economic circles.....Many, many wealthy kids are in big trouble.....it is perhaps one of the most under reported trends today.  That is why Hillary was talking about it in New Hampshire the other day--because people have been bringing it up with her.

    Addiction knows no boundaries, I assume you would agree.   The current trend is for many, many white kids from wealthy suburbs to get hooked on heroin.....Heroin years ago was considered low class--the near homeless with needles in their arms.....But no more.....it is a drug of the affluent.

    I think it started with kids taking their parents paid medication.  Vicodin is, however, expensive and not so easy to get.  So, the kids graduated to the less expensive opioid--heroin.....

    If only addiction could be cured as easily as poverty.  It is a vexing part of the human condition.

    Parent

    This is such a multi-faceted problem (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    that no one action is going to solve it.

    I find it kind of interesting that alarm bells are sounding now that the epidemic is moving into higher social and economic circles. For kids in that demographic, it has probably always been easier to obtain treatment in lieu of harsher legal consequences, not least because their parents can afford better legal representation, once it gets that far.

    Here's the thing: there probably isn't a kid alive who hasn't had a school unit on drugs, drug use and the consequences that can follow from it, so clearly, it isn't a matter of ignorance.  I'd be willing to bet that most kids' parents also talk about the dangers, so it isn't necessarily that parents don't care or aren't paying attention.

    So, why do they do it?  For the same reason they drink: because they can, because they're curious, because they think nothing bad will happen to them, because everyone else is doing it.  The same reasons we did stupid things when we were kids, and the reason our parents took chances.

    How do you work around that?  I have no idea.  I used to tell my kids that once they made a decision to do X, Y or Z, what happened next was probably out of their hands, so they'd better be prepared to deal with whatever followed.  We'd have conversations around, "what would you do if..." and threw everything we could think of at them.  We wanted them to have some practice thinking, make them feel like they had a plan for how to act or react.

    I'd remind them that their grandfather had been an alcoholic, and their uncle had been addicted to both drugs and alcohol, so if genetics is a factor, they had the equivalent of two bullets in the gun, and they needed to think long and hard whether they wanted to take the chance the chamber was empty every time the gun was pointed at them.

    Was that what did the trick or did we - and they - just get lucky?  I don't know - probably both, in some measure.

    Like I said, it's so complex, and the simple answer of locking people up isn't solving anything.

    Parent

    Many people think heroin (none / 0) (#80)
    by fishcamp on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    is only used by injecting it with a needle.  Not true.  In the case of the horrible Mexican tar, it is often smoked off tinfoil, and is called chasing the dragon.  With the more pure, and harder to obtain China White heroin, it can be snorted like cocaine.  Naturally both can be injected, but often the kids do not have access to needles.  

    Parent
    The original two articles that (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    CST linked were discussing the epidemic of opioid use and addiction and death of people in this country. This is a real problem and it is affecting young people in all of our neighborhoods. Even our richest school districts are holding community meetings trying to make everyone aware of this ever increasing problem and trying to come up with solutions.

    You decided to take the discussion into the realm of recreational use and away from the original topic of the epidemic of opioid addiction that is occuring in our country.


    Parent

    There is also the IMO (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    Equally serious problem of prescription drug abuse.   I perhaps have stronger feelings about this than some because I live with the pain and destruction that can result every day dealing with family members.
    Well, OK.  In all honesty I deal wth them as little as possible but I have to deal with them

    It sounds like a terrible thing to say but I have seen the terrible health crisis of my sister as having a positive side in that she was so sick for so long that she got off some of the drugs and the new doctors are not giving them to her.  It's like having my sister back with a slightly less functional memory.

    It's it bad to say that's a price I personally was willing to pay.

    Sadly she is not the only prescription drug addict in my family.

    The ironic thing about this the prescription junkies would be the first to bash recreational drug use.   I have a strong feeling that is not unusual.

    Parent

    Addiction is a serious problem (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    no matter what form it takes (drugs or alcohol) and often attacks family members generation after generation. While addiction is not always combined with mental health issues, many people do suffer from and must be treated for the dual diagnosis in order to achieve success.

    Only a fool would believe that the War on Drugs, the lock them up again and again approach, is a successful way to deal with the problem. Many of the substance abuse treatment programs have been shortened and barely have time to touch on AA programs let alone deal with any underlining issues. Some of the so called half way house programs, just farm out their residents to various service industries and keep all or most of the wages to cover room (bed in dorm) and board providing little or nothing in the way of follow up support or treatment. Along with this, mental health access and treatment in this country is a disgrace.

    Those who advocate the pull yourself up by your boot straps approach continue to cut off the boot straps (funding) and then puff themselves by condemning people for their lack of success.


    Parent

    Still not clear (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 11:53:47 AM EST
    what you are saying....

    I would not put anyone in jail over use of drugs.   I would not put anyone in jail for selling drugs except for black marketeers.

    If some one high or drunk commits another crime such as DUI, robbery or assault, then whether they are an addict should not be relevant.....they will be responsible.

    I think most here would agree.

    It seems you want to put people in jail for the "crime"  (note, Howdy, the use of quotation marks here) of getting high--if they are not an addict or mentally ill (and this is where I don't follow the exception you imply.)  But I doubt more than a few conservatives still believe  in putting people in jail for mere use of drugs.....    

    Parent

    Quotation marks (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    Whatever.

    However , if you doubt more than a few concpservatives "believe in putting people in jail for the mere use of drugs"

    You don't know many conservatives.

    Parent

    Howdy, yes, quotation marks (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    I had assumed a certain level of literacy and intelligence, no matter.

    Yes, I think at least here in California that most conservatives would say only the "drug pusher" should go to jail....As you should know, California conservatives on the whole are more libertarian than others.....but maybe not.

    I  suppose "one" could engage in pompous as*holery and dogmatism by questioning others' knowledge base.....(and did you get the use of
    quotation marks, here?).....but this is a serious discussion.....

    Parent

    You are cute when you are angry (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:16:35 PM EST
    Clueless but cute.

    Parent
    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    guys way off topic and getting snippy to boot.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Zorba on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    Yes, they are, FlJoe.
    But that does happen on the Internet, way too often, unfortunately.  


    Parent
    "Some" here (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    really don't understand the "gist" of a comment....because "they" repeat the "offense."

    So, "some" here are just cranky, puffed up as*holes when they disagree.....

    Parent

    I have no idea what that means (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 05:35:30 PM EST
    More gibberish, I guess.

    Not sure when I said people aren't smart like me.  I often say there are some people here and in the media (oft quoted here) who think they are smarter than everyone else, but their words don't always prove that (every though they like to tell others what they should think) but yeah, as far as smarts, I'll put myself up against a Bill Maher, some bloggers, media people or commenters any day.

    I am responsible for my actions.  If I did something illegal and got caught, then I'd own it.  I wouldn't blame my mother, the cops, the system, sexism, etc.  Some people would rather just blame everyone else. YMMV

    Parent

    I Was Not Taking a Shot... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    ...you are harder on crime than most here, as Joe is harder on crime than most democrats.

    It was a joke.

    FWIW, I really like your comments; disagree with some things, but you always have something to add.

    Parent

    I know it was a joke (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    Thanks for your kind words.  You're on of the few that I like reading too.

    Parent
    Hillary has had ... (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    17 Republicans against her.  She has had terrible press coverage for the last two months.

    She still has a 70% approval rating among Democrats. Has never trailed in a national poll with Democrats.

    She only looks potentially weak in one state. And that from a guy from a neighboring state.  And she'll probably still win that state.

    The email scandal is much ado about nothing.

    Biden, even in his best polling, doesn't even slow her up.

    Please ...

    The whole "candidacy in trouble" meme is complete hogwash.

    Wake me where there's any real evidence that she has any chance of losing the nomination.

    Bahahahaha (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    What candidate for President was stronger?

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 02:11:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Oops, sorry..I misread you (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 03:01:52 PM EST


    Parent
    You can read (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 02:58:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Biden is an awful (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by masslib on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    Candidates.  And his positions are way out of step with the party.

    Biden may be running (4.80 / 5) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    as well as he is because he is not running.  If (or when) he enters the primary, he will be looked at differently.  Not just as vice president, but a 40-year record in public life.

     Most of his support seems to be a peeling off from Mrs. Clinton. Some of this support may be out of concern for the constant attacks about how Mrs. Clinton emails.  Not so much that they are true, but out of worry that they may take a toll.

     Biden may be viewed as a back-up insurance policy against Trump and the Trumpettes. As the email brouhaha fades in importance, do to no lack of effort or fault of the Republicans, the Biden peel may be re-grafted onto Mrs. Clinton.

     In any event, it is a sign of strength for Mrs. Clinton that even with Biden on board, she maintains a substantial lead. A lead over the good candidacies of Sanders and Biden.

    Think you got a double post (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    Double post

    Thought that only happened to us.

    I still don't believe (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    Biden will run.

    But no bets.

    I think if he was really going to run (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    He'd have declared by now.

    Hell the other side is already in the "dropping out" phase of the primary.

    Parent

    I suppose I could see the point (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    Last rodeo and all that.  He does love that stuff.  I don't honestly have strong feeling about his running one way or another.  
    I honestly don't think it will make a difference as far as who the nominee will be on way or another.


    Parent
    I was actually thinking the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by pitachips on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    His reluctance to rule it out suggests to me he's made the decision to get in the race. Usually when someone has decided they don't want to run they're more than willing to declare it openly. Should be interesting to see what happens.  

    Parent
    Except that if (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:40:40 PM EST
    He said no everyone would go back to ignoring him

    Parent
    I was (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    thinking the same thing. Once he says no there is going to be no one talking about him.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    once he bows out he will become a lame duck V.P. who is not running for president, irrelevancy personified.

    My thought is that if you are still wrestling with the decision at this late date the answer should be no, but obviously YMMV on that one.

    Parent

    The decision (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    is going to be made for him in about two weeks. If he doesn't declare by the time the first debate rolls by he's going on ignore I would think.

    The press last reported he wasn't going to make a decision until November. I guess if it was left up to Biden it would be the night before the Iowa caucuses and we'd still be talking about whether he was going to jump in or not.

    Parent

    CNN (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 28, 2015 at 09:40:51 AM EST
    Has said that he will be welcome in the debaye if he declares his intent to run up to, and including the day of the debate.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:46:41 AM EST
    CNN as reported below by FL Joe is saying that he is not going to be in the first debate because now he's not going to decide until the end of October.

    He's not running is my opinion because if he was serious he would be at the first debate. At this point it looks like he just likes the attention.

    Parent

    At this point (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    if he jumps in he's going to be way behind the curb in organizing. How long is it going to take him to get a staff together? I predict jumping in this late if he does means it's a repeat of the last two performances and he drops out after Iowa.

    Parent
    Looking (none / 0) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    at these numbers, Bernie and his supporters would be ecstatic if Joe got in the race.

    Probably would be in any case (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    I agree with Dan that Bidens numbers are high because he is not a candidate.

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    Biden gets in I am absolutely certain the media will  
    do everything possible to fluff up his numbers.

    Parent
    No doubt (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:04:16 PM EST
    But numbers are, after all, numbers.

    Parent
    Not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:24:19 PM EST
    when they are manipulated and folded in into the media's self-serving narratives.

    The media dearly want a horse race on the Democratic
    side, they want Biden in and will do anything to make him competitive.

    Parent

    I figure Biden (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    has about 2 weeks or less to decide since the first debate is in about 2 1/2 weeks.

    I've pretty much decided that he's probably not going to run. His wife apparently is against it and I know his son wanted him to but after seeing how emotional he was on Colbert I just don't see how he runs a campaign.

    From the news reports (none / 0) (#23)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 04:08:32 AM EST
    I read, his wife is all in if he decides to run.

    Why is Biden even polling this high, and numbers steadily increasing for the last 2 months?

    Establishment Democrats, and donors are worried, that the other shoe will drop. After watching the drip drip drip of the e mail mess since March, they have no clue when it will end, or how serious it may be. Sanders has a vocal and loyal left wing wing of the party, but many Democrats feel he just may not be electable, or have any down ticket pull.
    Bidens numbers rising to this level indicate that he is being used as an insurance policy, that and many Obama Administration officials are not quite fond of Hillary. They want Biden in the race, just in case the other shoe drops next week or 6 months from now.

    Parent

    Oh good (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 06:04:43 AM EST
    grief. Establishment democrats are backing Hillary by the ton. She's been racking up endorsements.

    And I love how it's the "end of Hillary" when she's got 20 points on Biden. LOL.

    You'll be declaring it's the end of Hillary as she's being sworn in as president.

    Parent

    Who said? (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 08:19:28 AM EST
    It was the end of Hillary.
    Please, stop the drama.
    All I said was that some establishment Democrats and donors are pushing Biden to get in, and the only reason I see is for that of a insurance policy. Why else would Biden go from zero mention in the polls in March to over 20% now? And he is not even in the race. Someone is concerned.
    I do not believe they do not expect Biden to beat Clinton IF the FBI e mail investigation turns up nothing.

    But if something turns up, an insurance policy is nice to have, unless they can get Warren to run.

    http://tinyurl.com/ovgv9m4

    Additionally, Hillary delegated the segregation of her personal e mail from State Dept e mails to Cheryl Mills to oversee. If by chance there were any e mails a loyal Clinton follower thought should not be made available for FOIA requests, for whatever reason, I would think it would have been placed in the "personal" pile of e mails. However, it appears those 30,000 "personal " e mails culled by Clinton staff have been recovered by the FBI. Just another additional 30,000 emails that now will be reviewed by the FBI.
    A Biden insurance policy is not a bad idea.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    the one with all the concern trolling drama not me.

    I understand the GOP is a mess and in order to make things "equal" therefore you have to create drama on the D side.

    We've told you time and again not to use tiny URLs. Please if you want to quote Breitbart then at least put the link up so we can see the source.

    The email thing will live on in infamy with the wingnut welfare crowd I am quite sure. The wingnut welfare crowd will scream if something is not covered. Whatever. Everybody else has moved on. There's nothing in those emails and actually each new "revelation" seems to undercut the last conspiracy theory from the wingnut welfare crowd.

    Parent

    Lol (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 09:09:07 AM EST
    No, I usually link to the right wing websites of the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall St Journal.

    How soon they forget. Just imagine that John Edwards , that working class hero, was running unopposed, and that rag the National Enquirer started running some nothingburger story about the unthinkable and unimaginable story of Edwards cheating on his cancer stricken wife. Hah, what a nothingburger.

    Now, imagine a ongoing FBI investigation dealing with classified documents, over 30 FOIA requests regarding State Dept operations, that were rendered unsearchable by unprecedented actions of the former Sec State.

    Any reasonable prudent person appreciates insurance, and that is the only thing a Biden candidacy is providing, insurance.


    Parent

    You (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 09:31:43 AM EST
    could say the same thing about any candidate. There is always the possibility of finding a skeleton in anybody's closet. The funny thing with the Clintons is that every time the door is opened it turns into Al Capone's Vault

    BTW: The only thing "unprecedented" about Hillary's action is that she is the only SoS who has turned over her e-mails.

    Parent

    They all had (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    Private servers in their house?
    To run official business Not on a State . Gov address?
    Rice only used State.gov, and Powell had 2 systems, for classified info he used the State Department set up.

    Rice never used personal email for State business, an aide said, according to a report Tuesday from The Wall Street Journal. Her successor at Foggy Bottom, Hillary Clinton, exclusively used her personal email account for department correspondence during her time as secretary and ran her own email server from the Clinton family's New York home.

    http://tinyurl.com/q53h6hv

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    keep focusing on the hardware, Hillary followed the protocols regarding the e-mails.

    Colin Powell reportedly did most of his communication on a non-.gov, commercial system, and has turned over nothing.

    Condi Rice reportedly rarely used E-mail at all, she has turned over none of her internal communications so I guess we will have to take her word for it.

    The use of a personally owned private server was not unknown before Hillary, Jeb Bush had one in his residence during his tenure and did
    the same post facto separating of the private from public msgs.(and he did technically violate the regulations by not turning them over in the time frame specified in the law).

    To this day some government employees are allowed, but discouraged form doing, government work from private accounts.

    You are willing to take Colin's, Condi's and Jeb's word and forgive them for the same transgression that become unpardonable transgressions for Hillary.

    BTW: .gov, accounts are not secure and all top State officials have always had secure channels to use for the really secret stuff, the released emails indicated that those channels were used by Hillary when needed.

    Parent

    You know, people here have asked you ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    ... time and again to not use tinyurls, and the host has further requested on many occasions that everyone use the hyperlink icon above the comment box. It's really not that hard to do.

    I really don't get your refusal to do so, unless it's some sort of petty and immature act of defiance on your part, or you're endeavoring to hide the source of your information because you know that people are loathe to click on a tinyurl.

    As far as Mrs. Clinton's use of a private server is concerned, this issue has already been addressed ad nauseum. It was not illegal or against State Dept. rules, and no amount of insinuations to the contrary on the part of you and / or your fellow wingbats is going to render it otherwise.

    And since Condi Rice never turned over her emails to the State Dept. as requested, we really don't know what server was facilitating her e-coorespondence. But we DO know that the Bush White House were using the RNC's servers in an effort to avoid the Hatch Act.

    So, stop trolling this issue and annoying people.

    Parent

    I'm voting for (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Zorba on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    "petty and immature act of defiance."

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 07:34:14 PM EST
    It din't work and I do not intend to try and try again. The other method worked. If you do not like  reading the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall St Journal, Politico or The Hill (for the most part) do not click on the links

    Parent
    Heh! You know, for somebody with such ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 02:31:56 AM EST
    TrevorBolder: "It din;t work and I do not intend to try and try again."

    ... and inflated opinion of his own intelligence, your apparent inability to figure out how to use something so simple as the html hyperlink icon belies whatever claims you make in that regard. Why should we bother listening to you about anything else, then? I'm not going to waste my time with you any more.

    Nobody else should, either.

    Parent

    It's worse than that, Donald. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    The step-by-step method for embedding links in html format has been given to him.

    At a minimum, if he's not going to use the recommended format, the least he could do is indicate in the body of his comment exactly where the link goes, and also blockquote a portion of the article.

    Parent

    Why certainly (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    That was easy enough. Quite honestly though, I would never even think to link to anything other than what I was commenting on, it is not my nature.

    But I swear, I had nothing to do with these poll numbers!!

    http://tinyurl.com/qfrav9j

    NBC/Wall St Journal poll
    And on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has lost ground to Bernie Sanders -- she leads him by just seven points with Joe Biden in the race, and 15 points without the vice president. That's down from Clinton's 34-point lead over Sanders in July and her whopping 60-point lead in June.

    The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Sept. 20-24

    In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton is the first choice of 42 percent of primary voters, Sanders is in second at 35 percent and Joe Biden third at 17 percent. No other Democrat gets more than 1 percent.

    When Biden - who is still mulling a campaign - is removed from the field, Clinton's lead over Sanders grows to 15 points, 53 percent to 38 percent, which suggests that Biden's entry would hurt Clinton more than Sanders.

    Back in July, Clinton held a 34-point lead over Sanders, 59 percent to 25 percent. And in June, it was 60 points, 75 percent to 15 percent.

    Parent

    Protector (2.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 07:32:36 PM EST
    Of the Blog

    Please.

    I tried using the other method, it didn't work.
    So don't click on them. Most of the time they are from the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall St Journal, occasionally Politico or The Hill, for the most part.
    The story has constantly changed, and doesn't back up Hillarys account from March. The only reason Biden has such popularity is people are worried the other shoe may drop
    You sound like someone with rose colored glasses on, deeply afraid that if and when the shoe drops, there will be no one there to carry the ball.
    I really don't get you continue to post on this matter, since you have no facts regarding it.
    Condi Rice used a State.gov address
    Condoleezza Rice reportedly had a State Department email address that she used for official business, an aide for the former secretary of state says.
    Rice never used personal email for State business, an aide said, according to a report Tuesday from The Wall Street Journal. Her successor at Foggy Bottom, Hillary Clinton, exclusively used her personal email account for department correspondence during her time as secretary and ran her own email server from the Clinton family's New York home.
    And pray tell, it makes me laugh out loud when someone says it was approved by the State Department, by whom? Lol, Hillary approved it, she was the head of the State Department.

    PLease stick with the facts if you want any discussion on this matter, you seem ill prepared.

    Parent

    Well, there's a bold statement (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    'Rice never used personal email for State business.' Has anyone subpoenaed her personal email records so we can know for sure?

    Never mind - for the last time, it just does not matter. If you still think a .gov address is more secure than a .earthlink address, I don't know what I can say.

    Parent

    I don't know "facts"? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 03:02:09 AM EST
    That's really rich, coming from you, who readily conflates your own specious opinions with the term -- that is, whenever you're not cherry-picking bits of information out of context in an effort to create a false narrative for whatever your stupid reason.

    You're nothing but a right-wing troll who's been stewing for so long in your own fetid politics that fact and truth are well nigh incoherent to you at this point. The only person you're fooling here with your bullschitt is your own self.

    Adios, payaso.

    Parent

    Yup (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 08:47:06 AM EST
    An insurance policy is a wise choice.

    There is just so much here, or nothing, but it will drag on

    http://tinyurl.com/ozkr22c

    Parent

    IFand IF and IF (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    IF ... an interesting construct, to be sure.  The Land of IF has a "Through the Looking Glass" quality about it.

    "IF wishes were fishes" & all that. While I don't dismiss the possibility of anything at any time and at any level in politics, there is such a thing as having a scintilla of something (evidence?) with which to start.  This rabbit-hole that you seem to dig has a wee bit of V. Foster-quality about it, imo.  Rather, doesn't it make more sense to consider the obvious news media driven story that is likely the genesis of this need to have a close/unknown/tune-in-to-see-the-latest veneer about it?

    We will see soon enough.  In the meantime, it is fine not to have the real issue of 15 (give or take) Repub presidential candidates delivering their daily snipes at each other.  After all, we know the echo of the internal Repub rat-a-tat is real now.  No IFs about it.

    Parent

    Please (2.67 / 3) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 03:34:38 PM EST
    It is not the media driving this,
    It is the constant drip drip
    Nothing Clinton said back in March has been true
    That is what is driving this, all the new disclosures

    http://tinyurl.com/o3epvgo

    http://tinyurl.com/qzmcgud

    As long as there will be new findings ,

    It will add to the declining poll numbers

    Joe Biden is being urged to run, as a insurance policy
    Yes, A Big If
    Which is why most people have insurance, of any type
    For the If's in life.

    Parent

    Friendly suggestion: (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    If you want people to click on your links, please put them in html format instead of tinyurls. I won't click on a tinyurl, and, apparently, hardly anyone else will either.

    Parent
    And if he doesn't run (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    Will you shut up about the rest?

    Parent
    The only dripping is coming from you, Trevor (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    Outside of the usual suspects, that is.  The reality is: You guys are overplaying the hand ... nothing new there. Overplaying tends to inoculate against anything further, unless there is a huge (in the non-Trump definition) subsequent happening.

    Again ... and, in the meantime ... care to elaborate about the Repubs furious 15?  Looks like you could have some inside knowledge there?
    It sure does seem to showcase a veritable torrent of claims, counterclaims, and angry charges against each other? Unity?

    Parent

    They (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    Will soon winnow out the field.

    Trump , Carson , Fiorina,

    Bush, Cruz, Rubio

    Kasich and Christie....eh

    Fiorina outlasts Carson and Trump among the outsiders
    Cruz sticks around, has financial support of the far right
    See Rubio continuing, establishment and donors pass the torch from Bush to Rubio
    Kasich might be the next Huntsman, unless he suddenly catches fire
    Hmmm, A Rubio Fiorina ticket would be formidable (or throw in Nikki Haley or Susanna Martinez for VP)

    Lol, the Hillary stories, I don't make them up, they are constantly updated from news sources.
    Overplaying? How? All I am saying is that is a legitimate reason that some Democrat donors and establishment types are pushing Biden to get in , I think it is purely for insurance. No one has any clue as to what they will find, but ..

    I don't think they will end anytime soon, even the soon to be recovered personal e mails may now be subject to review for FOIA requests, if the Federal judges have their way.

    Parent

    Congratulations (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 07:08:11 AM EST
    you have bought the media's narrative, lock stock and barrel. You want to buy a bridge?

    Parent
    Perhaps he (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by sj on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    would like a bridge that is near by jim's. Then again, mayhap he already has one of his own.

    Parent
    So you're speaking for ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 05:12:38 PM EST
    ... "establishment Democrats", donors and Obama administration officials, now.

    I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 06:15:22 PM EST
    Just parroting on what I have read in the news over the last 2 weeks

    I have no inside sources, lol

    Parent

    The "news" - heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 08:10:04 PM EST
    Funny what people consider to be "news".  Not to mention how they try to paraphrase it.

    Parent
    What is PoC? (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    Maybe I used to know...but I forgot.

    People of color (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 24, 2015 at 07:23:27 PM EST
    :)

    Parent
    Well that is embarrassing... (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 06:39:21 PM EST
    what kind of a political junkie am I?

    In the words of the great Stephen Colbert,
    ""I don't see race.  People tell me I'm white, and I believe them because I look both ways before talking about race."

    Parent

    all of them???? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    Government finds new emails Clinton did not hand over

    The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton did not give to the State Department, the State Department said on Friday, despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as secretary of state.

    The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009....

    News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails over the last six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March.

    As recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided "all of them."...

    The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009.

    This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department.

    The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.

    Clinton's spokesmen, who did not respond to questions, have acknowledged that other work emails from later in her tenure were also missing from the record Clinton handed over. They have declined to say why....
    Those (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    emails were before she started using the Clinton email address in March of 2009.

    Yes, this excites the wingnut welfare brigade as we see but for the rest of us it's another nothingburger.

    Just admit you want to pilfer through her underwear drawers again and crotch sniff. It would at least be honest.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 07:16:47 PM EST
    you left out this
    The exchange of 10 or so emails, the existence of which were first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, largely dealt with personnel issues, according to the State Department.
    (my emp.)

    Given the fact that this chain started before she took office and lasted mere "days" into her tenure suggests to me this was more a welcome aboard/ look forward to working with you kind of exchange then actually conducting government business.

    Parent

    Uhhhh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 09:18:27 PM EST
    "personnel issues" means that it was work related, not personal.  

    Personnel issues are part of conducting government business, especially when it's a 10 email exchange

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#61)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 09:33:52 PM EST
    The New York Times says it best:

    The [Petraeus email] chain, with emails from Jan. 10, 2009, to Feb. 1, 2009, was provided to the State Department by its inspector general and by the Defense Department, according to State Department officials.

    Mrs. Clinton has said publicly and in a court filing under oath that she gave the State Department last year all of the 30,000 work-related emails in her possession.

    It is not clear why she never provided the newly discovered email chain to the State Department or why she said she did not begin using the hdr22@clintonemail.com account until two months after she took office.

    A spokesman for her presidential campaign declined to comment.




    Parent
    Headlines you will never see in the NY Times (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by mm on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    Colin Powell Continues to Stonewall FOIA Requests for His Emails

    8th Investigation Into How He Lied to UN in Support of Iraq War Continues to be Stymied


    Parent
    Note the (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 08:08:59 AM EST
    dates, the chain started on Jan. 10, that's 11 days before she was sworn in as. She was obviously not conducting official SD business, at least during the origin of the chain.

    Even more curiously the chain started before The private domain was even registered  according to the WSJ

    Jan. 13, 2009: Mrs. Clinton registers the Internet domain clintonemail.com, operated from a private server based in New York.
    .

    Parent
    For me, all of that is just a (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    distraction meant to imply - or lead people to infer - something nefarious about something that's essentially meaningless; it could not be more obvious.

    And while I think it all could have been avoided, I also think that if it hadn't been this issue, it would just have been something else.  And chances are, whatever that something else would have been, it would also have been a whole lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    What will be interesting will be how Clinton handles this with the media.  I hope she doesn't offer apologies again - that just seems to feed the beasts.  She needs to talk about what she wants to talk about, but I have no confidence the media will allow her to do that - and if they do, they will put the worst possible spin on her doing so.


    Parent

    Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    Is going to be on MTP tomorrow.  In sure she will answer all of uncle chips and the nytimes questions

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    think she will still play coy, keeping her cards close her chest until she sits down across the table from Gowdy. From her the ABC interview  
    I'm looking forward to testifying before the Congress in public, which is what I demanded to be able to do. I'll answer all their questions for as long as they wish to ask them.


    Parent
    She was just on Face the Nation (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    last week...made no news apparently!

    Parent
    For other than (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    some media types and Republicans, the email matter just causes the eyes to glaze over.  For news, these days, Mrs. Clinton will need to attack someone or something. The more outrageous the better.

     Like Trump does: when booed by a few Value Voters, for saying the truth about Rubio (senate absenteeism and a clown)he moved to his standard stuff (his poll numbers and immigration). And, then made his "news" by saying under a Trump administration, we would have to say "Merry Christmas" and not Happy Holidays. And, the other Republican contenders are trying with various degrees of success to mimic.  

    Mrs. Clinton's news, to date, has been studied policy matters and civil discourse on competing ideas. (Same for Senator Sanders) Perhaps, Mrs. Clinton should attack a Democrat for news-sake.    How about Jimmy Carter and his so-called good works around the world.  

    Parent

    Policy ? (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 26, 2015 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    You expect the media to talk policy?

    Parent
    It was a joke (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    I have no doubt that if Hillary dedicated the rest of her life to non stop "question answering" there would always be another "question"

    Parent
    Yeah - who was it that suggested (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    a few weeks ago that she just 'do like Christie' and let people ask questions until they are done with questions. No one has that much time...in their lifetime, not just a particular newsday.

    Parent
    That said (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    I thought she was very good today.

    I guess I will be forced to check out ChuckieCheeses new show tomorrow to see the rest.

    Parent

    She (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    did all right, same old waffles about the emails, she did seem relaxed. Following her, the straight up lies by Carly, delivered in her take no prisoners style was kind of jarring. I'm sure the media will give Fiorina the win, just because.....

    Parent
    The media may well (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    Bobo Brooks seemed ok with it.  But IMO the voters will not.

    At least not enough.

    IMO Carly is a short story.

    I though her performance spawns stunning.  "So what if every thing I said was a lie.  Abortion is icky so the ends justify the means"
    I don't think that will get her far.

    Parent

    Ben Carson (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    Was n one of the other shows.   I have been recording them all in case there is something I'm interested in.   There usually is not.

    But Carson.  Holy hell.  There is something zombie moonie creepazoid about that guy that really makes my skin crawl.  He gives the impression that he is being controlled from a remote location and sometimes there is a slight delay.

    Which makes me think he coukd be a real threat.  Much more that business woman Carly.  For the primary not the general.  Of course.

    Parent

    Carson (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    does strike as rather weird, not exactly creepy, more like a mediocre college professor who did too much acid in his younger day. It does creep me out that anyone would vote for him though.

    I am pretty sure most of his support comes from the bible thumpers who probably chalk up his space cadet demeanor to his holiness.

    Interestingly, Fiorina appears to be going after the same crowd with her close to delusional quest to destroy PP. Again with this crowd faith trumps fact.

    That being said, Carly's current base is the media themselves, you would have to think that they would tear her to shreds over this, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    Parent

    Fiorina's (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 04:27:29 PM EST
    "winning" line during the CNN Republican debate was that lie about Planned Parenthood and the fetus on the table, heart beating and legs kicking.

     But, the less recalled part of her lie started with " I dare Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to watch....(that doctored/misleading/non-Planned Parenthood video).  Mrs. Clinton should take

    Fiorina up on that dare.  Maybe, Mrs. Clinton could run an ad the doctoring/lie.  Of course, the risk is giving Fiorina coverage and the sure to come, response lie. And, personal attack--Firoina's specialty.   But, I think a clever take-up of that dare might work. And, Mrs. Clinton could use a little feisty coverage herself these days, other than that which the media chooses.

    Parent

    Great idea if should be the nominee (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 04:44:54 PM EST
    I don't think that's going to happen.  She might be the VP.  But I doubt even that.

    I get what you mean about Hillary but I honestly think she is doing exactly what she should be doing.  Is still very early.   Most people are not following this.   I think polls are less than meaningless at this point.  People say the last thing they heard on tv.  Also I was just reading a very interesting thing about the business of polling.   By a well known pollster.  It discussed how the process is becoming harder and harder.  Because of many things starting with cell phones.

    I will see if I can find it.

    Anyway, like today on press the meat the consensus around the table is that Hillary is having problems, she isn't, because she is just not angry enough.  Seriously.  This is what the "voters" want.  This is what Carly is doing so great, she isn't.

    What bullsh!t.  Being loud and angry and confrontational is the last thing in the world she should do.   Not suggesting that's what you mean but just sayin.

    I thought she was great today.  

    Parent

    I think Hillary is probably sticking to (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    her game plan, which seems to have been to come out  a lot more in public after Labor Day, coordinated with other efforts like a Women For Hillary twitter campaign - some of the Emmy winning actresses participated in that last week - anBill doing interviews.  

    It just seems to me like a logical campaign progression, not a panic response. Anger would not serve her well this point, or probably at any point, since it is not really her persona. Passion about issues is not the same as anger.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    on all you say.  Fiorina would be delighted to have the VP spot, but that will not happen.  Her only chance is to get the presidential nomination, and that is even more remote.  

    If Trump or Carson are on the top of the Republican ticket they will be looking for someone/something else.  Trump has the brains to know that the Republicans can't have another nincompoop as a running mate.

     Carson's brains were apparently checked when he retired from his day job. But, still. Did not see Mrs. Clinton on TV, but it is not at all surprising to learn that she did quite well.  She always handles herself well no matter the adversary.

     All the Republicans are angry. Carson included, not to be deceived by his "just got up from a nap and looking for my glasses" demeanor. And, with Boehner gone, the anger index will go through the roof.

     So, I agree, this is the time for calm and steady, the Republican fever will not break any time soon, and may get old.  My point, of course, is to re-constitute the truth squad, and go more on the offensive.  Fiorina is just a symbol of the basis for the Republican race--lies, distortions and misrepresentation.  She, and they, need to be called on it.  The media will not do it.

    Parent

    She's (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    doing the right thing NOT listening to the beltway media. The last person that listened to them was Al Gore and once he did listen to them they doubled down on how badly they reported on him.

    Oh, good lord. Can you imagine what they would say if she was angry?

    I also read where she accused Todd of shopping a conspiracy theory.

    Parent

    Not accused (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2015 at 06:24:29 PM EST
    Although that accusation is not surprising.  More like an lite offhanded "there you go again" kind of thing.   Effective I thought.

    If interested Dan, the rest of the interview, which actually sounded like it might be the most interesting part, is supposed to be on Todds new show on MSNBC tomorrow at 5.

    5 eastern I assume.

    Parent

    CNN (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:30:21 AM EST
    Is reporting Biden will delay his decision until late October missing the first debate. Why the drama Joe?

    The Parlor Game (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    We'll know soon enough about the number of actual Dem candidates.  Meanwhile, we've all been speculating ... and--fascinating isn't it--that we've all been speculating at the behest of the press with its repetitive references to "sources."

    So, let's all say that we have "sources" too.  Those personal "sources" whisper to me that one apparent purpose has definitely been accomplished.  To clarify: Remember when so many used words like "coronation" for the Democratic primary and Hillary Clinton.  On cue, people would almost yawn ... because we just wanted to get on with the general election campaign while the Repubs took verbal shots at each other. Magically or otherwise, the press (via NYT) discovered or invented a potential scandal in the now increasingly-boring email contentions.  One thing we do know from all that is that the repeat of "scandal" by the press together with the conclusion posed as question about Mrs. Clinton's trustworthiness, etc. played into the doo-loop of decreasing her unsustainably high poll numbers. And so it goes.

    Bernie Sanders had entered during this time period after many attempts from a number of interested quarters to find a competitor.  With expectations low, Sanders could speak freely with no constraint of expectations ... and, truth be told, the tacit decision throughout to refrain from the usual laying-a-glove-on  may have allowed a gradual (but, based upon number ceilings to date, limited) rise in the polls for Sanders in the two early states of Iowa & N.H.  Then, writers opined that it was only two states that appeared truly competitive in the Dem primary season ... and so, hand-wring and hand-wring some more.

    What to do to make the race interesting from a media and media money (and all-around fundraising $$$$)aspect. Why, I wonder ... after all the other candidates already declared hadn't been able to raise a collective eyebrow.  Out of the sky should appear ... VP Joe Biden.  According to sources; according to sources all summer; and, according to sources now.  Now, the Vice President has been a good Vice President and a longtime civil servant before and a strong, reliable Democrat in the eyes of many Democrats.  On top of that, he had suffered in late spring a tragedy in his family ... our hearts went out to him, nationally, as he and wife Jill and family buried their eldest son Beau, who was a centerpoint in the VP's life.  Without his having made any statements, without his setting up a campaign infrastructure even now, lo & behold, the press corps presents Mr. Biden to us as the next chief competitor.

    After these recent months, we still know next to nothing about any plans or thoughts of Joe Biden.  Essentially and honestly and openly, he has stated only that he and family need to grieve ... and that any decision about a major move would be a family decision.  Cue more unnamed sources.  So, where are we? Are we looking at the natural hesitation occasioned by deep grief or a kind of personal mixed with political coy response to date or the actions (really inaction) of a kind of placeholder.  IMO, it is the latter. So then, what kind of placeholder? Is it there to be ready to step in should Hillary Clinton actually falter or is it something else?  My vote today is that it is the latter: I think that longtime Democrat and VP Joseph Biden promotes interest in the Democratic campaign so necessary at this stage of the one-time not-a-contest campaign ... and that this situation allows the networks to further that interest, with its attendant sponsor $$$$$, and viewership for what could have been yawner debate drama.

    Among his many roles, Biden is an astute politician. It would be hard to believe that a good politician would seriously enter into a primary fray so near in time to an actual vote without the clearly necessary infrastructure ... this would be especially so when he primarily takes some vote percentage from top candidate Clinton.  It sure has the effect of producing drama; and, that drama is probably no accident. We'll all be on the edge of our seats as we all stay tuned ... and the various fundraisers will roll it up a notch.

    It is still--how shall I say it--intriguing and entertaining.  OTOH, if it goes on too long without getting down to the debate issues and the actual campaign, it could feel very manipulative.

    Parent

    The Biden Effect | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment