Biden doesn't need enthusiasm on the internet to win.

I'm only enthusiastic because I view Trump as a horrible president/person. If Mike Pence was president, I'd probably still vote for Biden, but I wouldn't view the election as a deadly serious choice.



This is just basic fact and credibility checking.

Im not on the side of a pale pasty privileged lefty like you. Only anti-Americans would be on your side. CNN says she lied about her academics. Biden got caught lying about his academics and had to withdraw his candidacy for President already

Biden is credibly accused of sexual misconduct against Reade, but you dont care because cnn did an investigation into something else, you woman-hating wannabe thug.

So now you're backing away from your accusation? You accused Tara Reade of misconduct, and when pressed, you are backtracking?

How can anyone trust what you say after this?

But he does need at least someone... anyone to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. I do not believe that a Democrat can win while the predominant feeling about his candidacy among a majority of his own coalition is "meh, he's gonna be ok; and he's definitely better than Trump".

you posted that CNN accused her of lying about her education, i said if that’s what you’re going with that Biden is a fraud too on the same front

What does misrepresentation of education that is confirmed to have been done by Biden (he already had to drop out of a Presidential campaign for doing that), and an accusation by CNN against Reade have to do with the topic? Biden (D) is credibly accused of sexual misconduct against Reade when she was his subordinate.

I dont care if a pale pasty privileged lefty anti-American wannabe thug like you trusts me or not.

Why? Trump won in a Republican primary because voters hated the Republican party and Trump seemed to be outside of that establishment.

Biden won the nomination without serious money. His campaign got revitalized in SC because of black voters/politicians. Democrats almost beat Trump with Hillary on the ticket... it seems to me that Biden on the ticket can get it done.

You're not making any sense little man.

these guys put so much effort into 1 allegation vs biden, why not the 25+ vs trump?

trump is actively suing to keep one investigation from getting his DNA.

I dont have hard data to back this up, but I'm very confident that the GOP establishment was more out of step with its base than the Democratic one. Someone like Hillary had far more of a constituency than someone like Jeb Bush.

Biden won the nomination, but in very weak fashion. He wasnt able to clear the field from all the nobodies and mediocre candidates. He performed atrociously in Iowa and New Hampshire. His weakness was the reason Bloomberg even got into the race in the first place. His weakness is the reason why Bernie was even able to look like the front-runner for a week (after Nevada). It was only after Clyburn internvened on his behalf that he got his first win, in one of his very best states no less. Once his campaign had shown any sign of life in SC, the whole party apparatus immediately got behind him in record time, partly because Obama was pulling the strings behind the scenes.

On Super Tuesday, he racked up wins in large part because of an anti-Bernie backlash. The same voters who comprehensively rejected him in Iowa, New Hampshire and also Nevada suddenly turned out and voted for him in droves (for example upscale, moderate suburban whites). This was not due to any strength on his behalf, this was because they were following the cues from party elites ("get behind Biden, he is our candidate") and because they were freaked out by the prospect of Bernie winning.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 22 2020 01:28pm

Seems like they still don't really know the substance of the claim of whether she graduated or not and why she says she had a special status. They didn't bother to ask the university about what she said until after they published the character assassination story from politico, so due diligence was thrown right out the window in the name of a smear job, but now they have and the school's statement contradicts hers;



So do they have any further elaboration on that contradiction? Seems like the sort of thing they should figure out before weaponizing it to try to discredit someone. Maybe she did fabricate her academic experience, maybe she didn't. And it would go at least somewhat towards her credibility if not being probative towards the fact of her accusation. But Politico clearly published their story in bad faith and a shameless smear job, so its hard to take them any more credibly than her.

the other thing about this: Why would she lie about her undergraduate degree while being honest about her far more significant law degree from Seattle University? They confirmed that degree. So while she says there was an unusual exemption given to her after changing her name and being protected after spousal abuse, why would that really be material to her credentials when she already had a law degree?