The Case For Biden

The son of a longtime US senator gets his start as a lawyer with one of the biggest corporate donors to his dad’s campaigns; a friend of his dad’s gets him a job in the Clinton administration, and then as a lobbyist; later, while his father is vice president, he is given a $50,000 per month seat on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm, despite lacking any clear energy expertise. How does this all happen? It happened the same way that Chelsea Clinton became a “special correspondent” for NBC News, and Jenna Bush got a job as a Today show host, and the Trump children got jobs overseeing a real estate empire. It happened the same way, for that matter, that George W Bush – objectively, a flailing dumbass – became the governor of Texas and then the president of the United States.

When you are the son of a famous and powerful politician, you are showered with opportunity, whether you deserve it or not. This is nepotism, but it is also, if we are being direct, a form of corruption. Moral corruption. Not only because these prestigious positions are not earned, and because these celebukids are taking something that rightly should have gone to someone more deserving; but also because, even though there is rarely anything so crude as a direct quid pro quo, this undeserved largesse is always motivated to some extent by a desire by some powerful interest to take advantage of the halo of influence cast by the parents. That influence should properly accrue to the public, who their parents work for. The lavish lives afforded to famous kids are, in effect, stolen from the American people. Each coveted job handed to a president’s kid represents a small quantity of subversion of the spirit of the democratic process.

This particular form of injustice is often waved off as just be the way of the world. Seven-foot-tall people get to be in the NBA, and the children of presidents and vice-presidents get sweet, lucrative gigs whether they’re qualified for them or not. We shouldn’t take this so lightly. We should, in fact, be enraged by it. Politics is not just another way to get rich. It is a public service field, and the more important the position, the more stringent the ethical requirements it should carry.

So you will vote for a village idiot because he is more "likeable" than the strongman in office who has turned our economy around?

... Joe Biden, the former vice president of the United States and the 2020 Democratic front-runner from the day he entered the race officially in the spring, ended September with less than $9 million in the bank after spending more money than he raised in the previous three months.

Biden's total cash on hand is less than all of his main rivals for the Democratic nomination, including even California Sen. Kamala Harris ($10.5 million) who has dropped precipitously in polling over recent months. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ($33.7 million) has more than three times more left to spend than Biden, while Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ($25.7 million) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg ($23.4 million) have well more than double Biden's total.

... Money isn't always determinative. But what fundraising does signal -- especially in a crowded and uncertain field with a few months left before anyone actually votes -- is momentum and organic energy. Think about it: Taking some of your hard-earned money and giving it to a candidate is one of the strongest signs of support you could possibly offer. You are saying, in essence: I believe in this person so much that I am willing to invest in him or her. That's a big deal!

So Biden's total cash haul -- $15.7 million -- isn't great. (He was outraised by Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg.) But his burn rate -- the amount he spent -- is even more concerning. Biden spent more than $17.6 million, meaning $2 million more went out than came in. Which is bad! But could be mitigated somewhat if Biden had previously stocked away a Scrooge McDuck-like set of gold coins (or just plain dollar bills) that he could draw from to fund his efforts in the third fundraising quarter.

Unfortunately for Biden, however, there is no store of gold doubloons. He spent more than he raised and he has half (or less) of the cash on hand than his main rivals for the nomination. That's bad stacked on bad, with bad slathered on top.

On a symbolic level, Biden's fundraising struggles are indicative of his broader issues with energizing broad swaths of the Democratic base beyond the black community. (According to CNN's Fredreka Schouten, small-dollar donations -- typically a sign of grassroots energy -- accounted for less than one-third of Biden's total contributions in the third quarter.)

On a practical level, Biden's cash-poor status will complicate his efforts to a) build and maintain top-level organizations in not only the four early-voting state but also the slew of states slated to vote on March b) run the necessary TV ads in early states to reintroduce himself to voters and c) raise more money to fund all of these efforts because money is driven by momentum.

Yes, Biden remains the best-known candidate in the field. And yes, because of that status, he has less introducing (or reintroducing) of himself to do to voters. So his cash situation isn't a death knell as it might be for some of his rivals.

But make no mistake: Biden's fundraising situation is bad. And there are few signs it's getting better.

Relying on the 2nd Amendment and making it the final word on the topic is like using a map of trails compiled by Daniel Boone to try to navigate the interstate highway system.

hightor wrote:

Relying on the 2nd Amendment and making it the final word on the topic is like using a map of trails compiled by Daniel Boone to try to navigate the interstate highway system.

Funny and true.

We better hope saner heads prevail after the democrat primary no matter who wins. Hopefully, it will be a centrist. I can't make up my own mind, I thought about Sanders, then went all in for Warren. After watching the last debate, I saw a lot of minuses for both Warren and the Medicare for All plan in general.

I am hoping maybe some of the others in the field come up past 3 percent polling. The only one I have trouble, a lot of trouble, voting for would be Tulsi Gabbard. She may as well be Steve Bannon. Not sure I could stomach her much past Trump. And, no, I don't believe she is a Russian agent anymore than I think Trump is one. I can see the reasons why Putin would be glad she would win and put in the bots and trolls to try help that along. I personally don't think those bots and trolls have as much as success as all the trouble they go to do it. People believe what they believe.

As for Biden, he would be fine as President as long as he has a good running mate who can take over if he gets sick or something.

She’s like most Centrists. No real foundation that drives or prioritizes their political decisions.