Delaware Dem

Tuesday Open Thread [8.25.15] — All Biden Edition

Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast gives his take on Vice President Biden possibly entering the race:

Game-changer is a hoary expression in this town, so forgive me, but that really would be one. I’d guess Biden would go instantly from his current 13 percent to at least twice that. His ego would have to adjust to having a running mate who is more beloved than he is and who draws crowds about four or five times the size of his. But even something short of an official alliance, a nudge-wink implication that Warren is somehow on team Biden, makes him a much more serious player. […] But what if he just decides the hell with it, I’m running? A Biden v. Clinton primary battle could be—and if Biden manages to win a couple of primaries, most certainly would be—far more acrimonious than the Clinton-Barack Obama fight of 2008

Tomasky’s column reads as one giant wish in some respects. No matter what happens, nothing can top the acrimony of 2008. But if Biden were to announce his candidacy and immediately announce that Elizabeth Warren is his running mate, then yes that would be a game changer. That would immediately destroy Bernie Sander’s campaign. The Bern would be over. And it might immediately destroy Clinton’s. It would be a brilliant move by Biden to co-opt Bernie’s poll numbers and support and adding it to his establishment level of support. If that were to happen, I might just be on board, and Biden-Warren would probably lead Hillary in the polls.

And once that happens, Biden doesn’t have to attack Hillary at all. And any Hillary attack on Biden would backfire spectacularly.

Tomasky says his reason that a Biden-Clinton primary would be nasty is because women (and Hillary) would be angry because they were told to wait in 2008 and now another old white guy is telling them again that there would be no woman president. I think a Biden-Warren ticket lessens that aspect. And without saying it, because you can never say it expressly, it would be implied that Biden would be a one term President and Warren, the real first woman President would run and win in 2020.

Yeah, Biden-Warren would be a game changer. Biden alone not so much.

Continue Reading »

Monday Open Thread [8.24.15]

Yesterday I posted David Atkin’s thoughts about Joe Biden not having anything to lose in running for the Presidency a third time, no matter what happens. Booman responded to that article, and he captures my thoughts on the subject rather well:

[A]ll things being equal, running for president and losing turns you into a sad character. You can easily become somewhat ridiculous and worthy of pity, and this can became your enduring legacy which wipes out all your previous accomplishments and successes. What do people think about when they discuss George McGovern or Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or Mitt Romney? Did their presidential bids do anything positive for Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani or Phil Gramm? Whether you win the nomination like Al Gore or lose it like Bill Bradley, what people remember is that you didn’t become the president.

Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey could be remembered as legendary senators and sitting vice-presidents, but they are instead remembered as complete, devastating failures for the left. […]

So, I don’t think we can say that Joe Biden has nothing to lose by making a run for the presidency. If he slips into retirement, he’ll be remembered with near-universal fondness. While he did suffer two humiliating defeats when he ran for president, that was largely erased when he was elected as vice-president. His Senate career was hugely successful and his popularity in his home state never waned.

If he makes a third run at the presidency and doesn’t win, that will muck up a posterity that’s looking pretty golden right now. It will also, to some degree, amount to a rejection of a third term for Obama, which will tarnish his legacy ever so slightly.

Continue Reading »

From now to 2025.

I missed this hilarious and hopeful piece from Kevin Ohlandt of Exceptional Delaware when he posted it, but I just stumbled upon it and you have to read the whole thing. But I thought I would summarize the political musical chairs he envisions over the next ten years, and if they are possible.

Matt Denn is elected Governor in 2016 and he eliminates crime in all Delaware cities.

Former Governor Markell is indicted on charges of fraud and abuse.

Kimberly Williams is elected Governor in 2020.

Finding jobs for out of work Delawareans was Governor Williams first goal when she won the election of 2020 against William Manning (R) after she devastated former Senator David Sokola in the landslide 542,828-16 vote in the Democrat(ic) primary.

So Matt Denn only serves one term, voluntarily? Did another office open up for him? Hmmm

Wilmington is a thriving city. The problem of education is solved.

Continue Reading »

Sunday Open Thread [8.23.15]

David Atkins doesn’t think Vice President Biden has anything to lose by running:

But from another perspective, it’s not as if Biden has much to lose by running, either. Having served two terms as Vice President after a career in the Senate, taking up a cabinet position like John Kerry has done might be in the cards for him, but Biden seems too simultaneously ambitious and affable for that. He has also seen his share of family grief and tragedy–more than most have in a lifetime. Retirement probably doesn’t seem like an attractive option. Most importantly, there are reports that his son Beau Biden reportedly wanted his father to run for President again, and attempting to fulfill his son’s wish would have to be an impulse too strong to deny absent a very good reason.

And that good reason doesn’t seem to exist. A Biden run wouldn’t necessarily hurt the Democratic Party’s fortunes. If the Clinton campaign is strong enough to withstand the challenge then Biden will have given it his all without regrets; if it isn’t strong enough, then that will be all the proof the Biden camp will have needed that Clinton wasn’t the best general election candidate. The biggest reason for Biden not to run is that the Clinton team might hold it against him afterward should she win office. But then again, so what? Would Joe Biden rather run his own foundation, or serve as a potential Clinton cabinet member in exchange for quashing his dreams? I can’t imagine avoiding punishment from camp Clinton is worth the price of a lifetime of regrets.

Continue Reading »

Does Jill’s Teaching Mean Joe’s Not Running?

This is extreme reading of the tea leaves, but…..

If he were to run for President, Jill Biden would be a central figure in his campaign. However, according to Bloomberg, she just registered to teach a full load of classes this fall at Northern Virginia Community College – and that’s the ballgame.

Why does this rule Joe Biden out as a candidate? If he were running, she would be on the campaign trail with him, helping orchestrate things behind the scenes, as she has in the past. Her decision to go ahead and teach this fall means that he has decided for certain that he won’t be running. Although the election is more than a year away, the Bidens would need to be on the road campaigning full-time this fall in the primary race. The only question now becomes at what point Joe makes the announcement official, and whether he formally throws his support behind his close ally Clinton now or waits until the primary results are official.

This assumes that Jill Biden could never quit the courses or job, or take a sabbatical, and that somehow her teaching schedule is set in stone. That assumes a lot, in my opinion. Indeed, what did she do in the fall of 2007? That was the last time her husband ran for President. I am willing to bet she taught. Plus, it’s not like teaching precludes any campaigning.

But, take it for what it is worth.

Continue Reading »

Thought of the Day

Conservatives have loved to declare, against all facts and logic, that Barack Obama is a dictator, a tyrant, and in a latest turn to conspiracy, is/was going to use a military exercise in the southwest called Jade Helm to take over the country and declare martial law so as to stay in power for life.

Yes, yes.. I know. But it is either what they truly believe, or it is what they say to scare others.

I don’t think these folks have quite pictured how much the military will be in their lives if mass deportations ever become reality. What it will look and feel like to have soldiers surround and sweep through public schools and neighborhoods to screen and detain children as hostages to coerce their parents to turn themselves in as well.

Or worse, how it might play out is if local militias pre-emptively do such deportation sweeps themselves. Because when that happens, it’s not deportation: It’s ethnic cleansing.

It’s been done before.

Continue Reading »

Saturday Open Thread [8.22.15]

“You know, if this were another country, we could maybe call for an expedited election, right? I would love that. Can we do that? I’d like to have the election tomorrow, I don’t want to wait.”

— Donald Trump, quoted by The Hill. OMG. The man’s stupidity is staggering. There is no such thing as calling for an expedieted election in other countries. In some other countries, they have parliamentary systems rather than presidential systems, and elections are sometimes held earlier than scheduled because sometimes the government elected in the prior election loses a vote of no confidence, or for some other reason parliament is dissolved by the head of state (usually a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth II, but also like President Reuven Rivlin of Israel). The point is, an earlier election is provided for by that country’s constitution or charter.

Our Constitution does not provide for earlier elections. It seems the Donald doesn’t care much for our Constitution. Which is odd considering he is being supported by the Constitution-loving Tea Party, which of course tells me what I have always known: the tea party never cared about the Constitution. They only cared about the color of the President’s skin.

Continue Reading »

Friday Open Thread [8.21.15]

At the Plum Line at the Washington Post, Paul Waldman says that the Republicans may have just given away the election with all this birthright citizenship fascist nonsense. I agree.

[T]his week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided….

It’s possible to argue that you’re “pro-immigrant” while simultaneously saying we should build more walls and double the size of the Border Patrol. Indeed, many Republicans do, and while their argument may not be particularly persuasive, it’s not completely crazy. But you can’t say you’re pro-immigrant and advocate ending birthright citizenship. You just can’t.

Thus, in a scenario where it would be very difficult mathematically for a Republican to win the presidency without a pretty big improvement over Mitt Romney’s performance among Latinos, the GOP is doubling down on the self deportation remarks that doomed Romney in the first place. According to Latino Decisions analysis that Waldman cites, Republicans will need 42% of the Latino vote to win even if they maintain their 2014 support levels among white voters and black turnout and Democratic support levels among black voters return to pre-Obama levels and Latino turnout is poor. You ain’t getting 42% of the Latino vote with this rhetoric. You ain’t getting 22%.

Continue Reading »