• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Wakeforest22890 said:
There is no third option at this point. Biden is the nominee unless he steps down for health reasons. Nobody is going to prevent him from reaching a delegate majority and he isn’t going to decline the nomination.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but he doesn't have 1,990 delegates yet. According to Politico, Biden has 1,215 delegates as of today and the other candidates have 1,085 delegates.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/delegate-count-tracker-democratic-primary/

I'm saying that Obama, if he chose to do so, could still be a force to keep Biden under 1,990 first ballot delegates if he concluded that he did not think Biden could be Trump in November. There are all kinds of tickets that would have a better chance of defeating Trump than one led by Biden. I'll give you just a couple of examples: Brown/Klobuchar. That would be a progressive/moderate, man/woman ticket from two key battleground states with close ties to the other key rust belt battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin. Or, if you thought you needed a ticket led by a person already running, Warren/Brown.

The goal is to defeat Trump, and Joe Biden is simply not the candidate to do it. He has tried to win the presidency for more than 30 years and never got to first base. The only reason he is in the picture now is that Obama picked him for VP....and Obama has refused to even tacitly endorse him.
 
No way Obama is going to openly oppose Biden at this point unless Biden otherwise implodes.
 
deacgolfer said:
Maybe, but he doesn't have 1,990 delegates yet. According to Politico, Biden has 1,215 delegates as of today and the other candidates have 1,085 delegates.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/delegate-count-tracker-democratic-primary/

I'm saying that Obama, if he chose to do so, could still be a force to keep Biden under 1,990 first ballot delegates if he concluded that he did not think Biden could be Trump in November. There are all kinds of tickets that would have a better chance of defeating Trump than one led by Biden. I'll give you just a couple of examples: Brown/Klobuchar. That would be a progressive/moderate, man/woman ticket from two key battleground states with close ties to the other key rust belt battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin. Or, if you thought you needed a ticket led by a person already running, Warren/Brown.

The goal is to defeat Trump, and Joe Biden is simply not the candidate to do it. He has tried to win the presidency for more than 30 years and never got to first base. The only reason he is in the picture now is that Obama picked him for VP....and Obama has refused to even tacitly endorse him.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't formally endorse Hillary until early June in 2016. He has been consistent in each of the past two nominating periods about not pushing for anyone until it's over.
 
ConnorEl said:
No way Obama is going to openly oppose Biden at this point unless Biden otherwise implodes.
Click to expand...

Biden has been imploding during the entire campaign. The only reason he is where he is now is that the only other option was Bernie. If Obama is so sold on Biden as the nominee, why has he never opened his mouth or lifted a finger to help him? I'm sure that Obama's #1 goal is to defeat Trump. That should be everyone's goal here, and Biden should have already given everyone enough evidence to show them that he is not the candidate to do it.
 
Obama being kingmaker would be a disaster when would just further alienate the Progressive Movement.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Obama being kingmaker would be a disaster when would just further alienate the Progressive Movement.
Click to expand...

Progressives would be alienated by having Warren as the candidate rather than Biden? I don't follow that line of reasoning.
 
So you're going to put Warren in who Biden trounced in her own home state? The voters have decided and they want Biden to be the nominee. Unless he has some sort of serious physical or mental issue that comes up between now and then nothing's going to change that.

And Bernie seemed to have support of most of the Progressive Movement and they would not be happy with a Warren who was selected by the party. It would just be right into their rigged conspiracy theory nonsense.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
So you're going to put Warren in who Biden trounced in her own home state? The voters have decided and they want binding to be the nominee. Unless he has some sort of serious physical or mental issue that comes up between now and then nothing's going to change that.
Click to expand...

Biden has had serious mental issues come on an almost regular basis during the campaign. He hasn't known which state he was in, thought he was running for the senate in South Carolina against another guy named Biden, etc.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...59958C9FC7EDC8CFF751599&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
 
ChrisL68 said:
So you're going to put Warren in who Biden trounced in her own home state? The voters have decided and they want binding to be the nominee. Unless he has some sort of serious physical or mental issue that comes up between now and then nothing's going to change that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless Biden has an obvious and serious physical or mental breakdown in public, or decides on his own to step aside (which I don't see happening), then he's going to be the nominee. The idea at this point of Obama or anyone else trying to publicly force him to decline the nomination would be disastrous, imo. And if he did step aside, it would be chaos, because there's no doubt that several Democrats would jump back into the race, and I don't see any consensus developing around any of them. The Dem Convention in Milwaukee in August (assuming they're able to meet) would be a circus. For better or worse Biden is going to be the nominee, barring some major health or mental issue developing.
 
Last edited:
deacgolfer said:
Progressives would be alienated by having Warren as the candidate rather than Biden? I don't follow that line of reasoning.
Click to expand...

Warren isn't going to be the candidate. If it's not Biden, it will be someone who didn't run to avoid alienating either side.
 
Highland Deac said:
Agreed. Unless Biden has an obvious and serious physical or mental breakdown in public, or decides on his own to step aside (which I don't see happening), then he's going to be the nominee. The idea at this point of Obama or anyone else trying to publicly force him to decline the nomination would be disastrous, imo. And if he did step aside, it would be chaos, because there's no doubt that several Democrats would jump back into the race, and I don't see any consensus developing around any of them. The Dem Convention in Milwaukee in August (assuming they're able to meet) would be a circus. For better or worse Biden is going to the nominee, barring some major health or mental issue developing.
Click to expand...


Of course.


To talk about Obama opposing Biden and pushing for some fantasy candidate is...a bad fantasy at this point.
 
This election isn’t really about Trump v Biden. It’s about Trump v anti-Trump. There’s a ton of anti-Trump sentiment that will hopefully carry the day. Biden should just sit back and watch the fuck ups at this point.
 
Strickland33 said:
how did that work for Clinton in 2016?
Click to expand...

Just fine except for some Green Party malcontents in a few states. And she didn’t even run a good campaign.

Obama is working in the background. He will emerge with a full throated endorsement after Biden locks it up or Bernie drops out which could be coming soon.

Obama met with Pete to encourage him to drop out, for example.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/buttigieg-endorsed-biden-after-reportedly-speaking-with-obama/
 
I, for one, definitely trust this guy to lead us out of the incoming Depression:

https://prospect.org/politics/bidens-votes-on-the-bankruptcy-bill-middle-class-joe/ (an oldie, but goodie)

Elizabeth Warren’s new consumer bankruptcy plan (Full disclosure: I consulted with the Warren campaign on the policy) aims squarely at unwinding one of former Vice President Joe Biden’s chief legislative accomplishments, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). The bankruptcy bill was perhaps the most anti–middle class piece of legislation in the past century. It was also Warren’s introduction into the bare-knuckle world of legislative politics. She fought the bill tirelessly and succeeded in blocking it for nearly a decade. Her new plan makes clear that she hasn’t given up the fight.

Biden’s support for BAPCPA is well known, but his numerous roll call votes on amendments to the bill have never been previously examined. Warren’s plan draws sharp attention to these votes by adopting many of the very positions Biden opposed. An examination of Biden’s roll call votes paints a very different picture of Biden’s involvement with the bill than the vice president likes to present. The record makes clear that as a senator, Biden used his clout to push for the law’s passage and to defeat amendments to shield servicemembers, women, and children from its harsh treatment. When votes were taken, “Middle-Class Joe” was no friend to the middle class.
Click to expand...

Not only did the law discourage bankruptcy filings, but it made it harder to wipe out credit card debt and student loans in bankruptcy. The result was greater profits for consumer lending businesses, many of which are based in Biden’s state of Delaware. Not surprisingly, then, by lowering the risk of bad lending decisions, the Biden bankruptcy bill unleashed a glut of aggressive private student lending, which has contributed to the massive rise in student loan debt.

BAPCPA’s passage was one of Biden’s long-sought goals as a senator. Not only did Biden vote for the legislation four times between 1998 and 2005, but he was so singularly committed to its success that he inserted it into a foreign-relations bill in 2000, and later was the sole Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for the bill.

Biden also consistently voted against efforts to soften BAPCPA’s blow on vulnerable populations. He voted against three amendments to ease bankruptcy requirements for consumers whose financial troubles stem from medical expenses. He voted against an amendment that would have helped seniors keep their homes. He voted against exempting servicemembers and widows of servicemembers killed in action from the law’s eligibility restrictions. He voted against an amendment to exempt women whose financial troubles stemmed from deadbeat husbands’ failure to pay child support or alimony. And Biden even voted against an amendment that would have ensured that children of debtors could still be given birthday and Christmas presents. Biden also voted against allowing debtors to pay their union dues during bankruptcy, potentially imperiling their employment and ability to achieve financial rehabilitation.
Click to expand...

It’s not as if Joe Biden was opposed to all amendments to the legislation: He voted to enshrine a “millionaire’s loophole” that allows wealthy, well-counseled debtors to shield their assets from creditors by placing them in asset-protection trusts. Nor did he act to cut off the loophole that shields assets placed by wealthy families in “dynasty trusts,” such as are offered by Delaware.

Biden claims that he worked to ensure that the legislation protected the interests of women and children by making the repayment of alimony and child support obligations the top priority in bankruptcy. This is false. Prior to BAPCPA, domestic support obligations were formally eighth in line for repayment. Functionally, however, they were second in line, right after the administrative costs of the bankruptcy, because the obligations ranked second through seventh priority, such as emergency bailout loans from the Federal Reserve or money owed to grain elevators, do not exist in consumer bankruptcy cases. The Biden bankruptcy bill rewrote the statute to provide that domestic-support obligations are to be paid first—unless there are administrative expenses. In other words, BAPCPA’s protections for women and children were all window dressing. Women and children still stand behind administrative expenses in bankruptcy. The claim that BAPCPA helped women and children is simply dishonest.

If anything, BAPCPA actually hurt women and children, as women’s groups argued at the time. Because BAPCPA made it impossible to wipe out certain credit card and student loan debt in bankruptcy, it meant that banks would be able to compete with child support and alimony claims for deadbeat ex-husbands’ remaining assets after the bankruptcy.

It’s hard to reconcile the Biden bankruptcy bill with Biden’s claims of being “Middle-Class Joe.” When it counted, Joe Biden looked out for millionaires and the banks, not the middle class.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top