OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[Jeff Van Gully]

I'm still not feeling confident Trump will lose in 2020.

Like mentioned before, Biden is getting little to no media coverage. I myself almost forget that he is running for president in the midst of all this chaos.

I also think this race will come down to Pennsylvania which will be a red.

It's going to be a pretty damn close race, but I think Trump wins barely. My predication:

https://www.270towin.com/maps/Axjkm

I see some potentially flawed assumptions with some states in that map, but instead of dissecting it, I'd note that the most recent GOP primaries have had significant signs of protest votes either for other candidates or non-commits.

In NM, Trump was the only one of the ballot, 8.7% voted uncommitted. That's 13,741 Republicans making the time to show their disapproval.

In Indiana, Bill Weld got 8.2% of the vote and 11.8% in Maryland. That is 87,000 Republicans saying they are not down with Trump even though Weld dropped out a long time ago.

In PA, the numbers were Bill Weld got 5.2% from 52,132 voters and Roque De La Fuente got 1.6% from 16,166 GOP primary voters.

There were a few other states, but those are all from June 2 this past week.

Trump's support is eroding. Yes, the law and order thing will work for a small swath of voters on the fence, but the trends are towards defections he can't afford regardless of the response to looting.

I'm very anti-violence as a response and am concerned about it being used against us, but I still see lots of cracks in Trump's support.

The anti-Trump stance by senior military officials this past week was unprecedented. Now Colin Powell is voting for Biden too. This will definitely pick off some more Trump voters. This has never happened and many of these men are esteemed by military and ex-military that may have voted for Trump before.

Professional fence sitters in the GOP Senate known for speaking out both sides of their mouth are now hedging their bets by saying they don't know if they will be able to back Trump in November.

I want Trump to be the GOP nominee, because one of my biggest concerns is they may try to replace him and put a coherent human being in his place and use their delegates to nominate a bastard like Tom Cotton for president.

I think Trump's base amongst civilians and his power base within the establishment are two entirely different things.

Trump will not lose the support of his rabid base in the general population. They're not going anywhere.

But Trump is now in danger of losing his power base in DC and if that crumbles it will likely play out in real time. That collapse in support will manifest in days or a week, not months.

And Trump can't win without the GOP establishment and his army of gun toting fanatics alone.

So the story this Summer is whether or not Trump is pushed out. There is clearly a scenario where Mitch goes to Trump and says resign, otherwise we'll all embarrass you by publicly disavowing you. It's a power move that could blow up in Mitch's face and he knows it, because he also can't afford to alienate Trump's Q Nation.

But Trump will probably flip them all off because he knows indictments are waiting for him as soon as he leaves the safety of the presidency and he probably figures it is better to roll the dice and maybe win. The only way I see him agreeing to a resignation is if the GOP can convince any state attorney generals ready to indict Trump to drop most pending charges against him. And I think that is also a no go.

But there is definitely a weakening of the power base of Trump unfolding in real time now. And he can't win if the GOP fractures and abandons him. There are already too many Republicans rebelling individually and the Q fanatics are not enough for him to win.

trump strike team has taken Ls in recent elections. including the 2019 1st congressional district in SC that went to D joe cunningham over katie arrington, who thought she had it locked.

[Clyde_Style]

I'm still not feeling confident Trump will lose in 2020.

Like mentioned before, Biden is getting little to no media coverage. I myself almost forget that he is running for president in the midst of all this chaos.

I also think this race will come down to Pennsylvania which will be a red.

It's going to be a pretty damn close race, but I think Trump wins barely. My predication:

https://www.270towin.com/maps/Axjkm

Good you should never feel confident. Everyone should treat this like Biden is down. But there are a lot of positive signs for Biden and Trump still has 5 months to continue to **** up his reputation. This election is going to come down to turnout and everyone should do everything in their power to get Biden elected.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

i actually think the 270 default poll is pretty much exactly how it's going to play out. but i am in no way resting my laurels on it.

and i think texas, florida, georgia, and south carolina are going to go dangerously light pink in addition.

He's shedding some of his support among older whites in Florida. He verbally threatened to dismantle social security. They no likey. And the virus is surging like a MF'er in Florida this week. It went from 300 to 600 to now for the last 4 days running 1,200 new infections reported daily. That same demographic is going to shoulder a lot of that damage. We still don't know yet what the toll will be in the Villages which is like Westworld for retirees and fairly Trumpy.

[Jeffrey]

I'd put it at even money between Demings and Harris for the VP pick.

Demings would be the correct choice IMO

Warren is the correct choice, Harris second and Demmings third.

We seriously need an FDR moment here and I'm scared as hell that Biden will lose all of his marbles during this administration.

Warren is MY choice, but I do not believe she is going to be given the shot. I honestly believe that it will be a black woman now, thus my post.

I agree we need a New Deal administration now. Warren would be BRILLIANT for that. You don't have to convince me though. Tell Joe.

And a third distance for Stacey Abrams? I actually would rather have Abrams as the VP choice.

1. Michelle Obama (she won't do it)
2. Stacey Abrams
3. Harris (I'm afraid she might have some skittish prosecutions as AG)
4. Demmings (don't know enough about her)

Do you also think that the implication for having Warren as a VP will let Massachusetts Governor to choose a Republican Senator until 2021 election which would mean the Dems will need to net +4 with VP as the tiebreaker?

[Stannis]

I'm still not feeling confident Trump will lose in 2020.

Like mentioned before, Biden is getting little to no media coverage. I myself almost forget that he is running for president in the midst of all this chaos.

I also think this race will come down to Pennsylvania which will be a red.

It's going to be a pretty damn close race, but I think Trump wins barely. My predication:

https://www.270towin.com/maps/Axjkm

Good you should never feel confident. Everyone should treat this like Biden is down. But there are a lot of positive signs for Biden and Trump still has 5 months to continue to **** up his reputation. This election is going to come down to turnout and everyone should do everything in their power to get Biden elected.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Well I'm not feeling confident mainly because I think democratic voters are getting too confident. I feel these voters are falling for the same trap CNN and MSNBC set in 2016. "No chance Trump wins, we got this" "Oh ok. I won't go vote then". Sounds dumb, but that's really what 2016 came down to, imo.

They need to kill this narrative that Biden has this lead because it's all illusionary. They need to make people believe every vote counts and Biden will need them all if Trump is to be defeated.

[Fury]

I'm still not feeling confident Trump will lose in 2020.

Like mentioned before, Biden is getting little to no media coverage. I myself almost forget that he is running for president in the midst of all this chaos.

I also think this race will come down to Pennsylvania which will be a red.

It's going to be a pretty damn close race, but I think Trump wins barely. My predication:

https://www.270towin.com/maps/Axjkm

Good you should never feel confident. Everyone should treat this like Biden is down. But there are a lot of positive signs for Biden and Trump still has 5 months to continue to **** up his reputation. This election is going to come down to turnout and everyone should do everything in their power to get Biden elected.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Well I'm not feeling confident mainly because I think democratic voters are getting too confident. I feel these voters are falling for the same trap CNN and MSNBC set in 2016. "No chance Trump wins, we got this" "Oh ok. I won't go vote then". Sounds dumb, but that's really what 2016 came down to, imo.

They need to kill this narrative that Biden has this lead because it's all illusionary. They need to make people believe every vote counts and Biden will need them all if Trump is to be defeated.

I think you’re underestimating how much people hated Hillary

[Stannis]

Good you should never feel confident. Everyone should treat this like Biden is down. But there are a lot of positive signs for Biden and Trump still has 5 months to continue to **** up his reputation. This election is going to come down to turnout and everyone should do everything in their power to get Biden elected.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Well I'm not feeling confident mainly because I think democratic voters are getting too confident. I feel these voters are falling for the same trap CNN and MSNBC set in 2016. "No chance Trump wins, we got this" "Oh ok. I won't go vote then". Sounds dumb, but that's really what 2016 came down to, imo.

They need to kill this narrative that Biden has this lead because it's all illusionary. They need to make people believe every vote counts and Biden will need them all if Trump is to be defeated.

I think you’re underestimating how much people hated Hillary

They hated her for sure. But I felt a lot people chose not to vote for her because they thought she'd win comfortably anyways.

I think majority of those people would go back and vote for Hillary if they could.

[Stannis]

I think it's hilarious that Mitt Romney is getting crap from his party for going on a BLM march. His own party is basically asking "why is he doing this, what is he up to?". hmmmm, maybe he's just going out on a march?

Anyways, don't forget that Trump retweeted this back in 2015:





And he's a white supremacist apologist. Don't ever kid yourself:

Spoiler:

[HarthorneWingo]

I was very disappointed to read that Biden was against defunding the police. Fine, I understand the term "defunding" is not politically palatable according to some (just like Obamacare, just like Medicare for All, blasi blasi) so whatever. But he could've just answered the question in the positive way one would when you actually support the policy results you're trying to achieve in your future administration. You just don't use the word "defunding."

Instead, you talk about addressing the needs in today's changing world in which the overall crime rate around the world is dropping. It's not just here because we over-police everything which further encourages idiots to weaponize it like that white woman did in Central Park with the black gentleman (Head of the Audubon Society! I still can't get over that coincidence) who wanted to bird watch. You all know the story. Crime is down all over the world. Therefore, it has nothing to do with increased police presence.

I know I must sound like a broken record but they did a study here on Long Island and found on 50% of all police "incidents" are traffic-related, i.e. rolling through stop signs, failing to signal, running a red light, speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence, and traffic accidents. Actually, police don't respond to running red lights here anymore because of all the intersectional red light cameras. So why do we need to spend all that money on a militarized police department. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be specialized units to respond to violent crimes like burglaries, robberies, sexual assaults but many of those are investigated after the fact by detectives. Maybe if we spent more money on education and community development programs, we wouldn't see as many gangs. Maybe if we spent more money on mental health programs across the country, OMG, we could save so many lives. Instead, we keep on shuffling them through the criminal justice system which just makes everything worse.

[HarthorneWingo]

Watch on YouTube

[Clyde_Style]

I was very disappointed to read that Biden was against defunding the police. Fine, I understand the term "defunding" is not politically palatable according to some (just like Obamacare, just like Medicare for All, blasi blasi) so whatever. But he could've just answered the question in the positive way one would when you actually support the policy results you're trying to achieve in your future administration. You just don't use the word "defunding."

Instead, you talk about addressing the needs in today's changing world in which the overall crime rate around the world is dropping. It's not just here because we over-police everything which further encourages idiots to weaponize it like that white woman did in Central Park with the black gentleman (Head of the Audubon Society! I still can't get over that coincidence) who wanted to bird watch. You all know the story. Crime is down all over the world. Therefore, it has nothing to do with increased police presence.

I know I must sound like a broken record but they did a study here on Long Island and found on 50% of all police "incidents" are traffic-related, i.e. rolling through stop signs, failing to signal, running a red light, speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence, and traffic accidents. Actually, police don't respond to running red lights here anymore because of all the intersectional red light cameras. So why do we need to spend all that money on a militarized police department. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be specialized units to respond to violent crimes like burglaries, robberies, sexual assaults but many of those are investigated after the fact by detectives. Maybe if we spent more money on education and community development programs, we wouldn't see as many gangs. Maybe if we spent more money on mental health programs across the country, OMG, we could save so many lives. Instead, we keep on shuffling them through the criminal justice system which just makes everything worse.

Biden has been very clear he backs aggressive police reform. It would be an epic strategic failure right now if he said yes to that question, because too many people would interpret it to mean abolishing police departments. Not only would that would play directly into the GOP's hands, it is also not a properly constructed question that deserves a yes at this time.

The rhetoric right now is at its emotional peak and has yet to settle into a set of terms most people can agree upon. Some people think being an activist means confronting elected officials with yes or no questions when the solutions are going to be more nuanced than yes or no to any form of law enforcement. Biden wisely did not fall into that trap.

It may have been a long time coming, but the solutions are being cooked up as we speak and in many cases it will mean things like purging the bad apples, re-training peace officers and bringing back community policing. But reducing expenditures on those activities and spending funds on other community initiatives is a blended approach.

Right now to some people defunding means abolition of police and that is not really going to happen in most cases, so it is better for Biden not to step into an ill-defined commitment until there is a national consensus on what those terms really do mean.

[Phish Tank]

I was very disappointed to read that Biden was against defunding the police. Fine, I understand the term "defunding" is not politically palatable according to some (just like Obamacare, just like Medicare for All, blasi blasi) so whatever. But he could've just answered the question in the positive way one would when you actually support the policy results you're trying to achieve in your future administration. You just don't use the word "defunding."

Instead, you talk about addressing the needs in today's changing world in which the overall crime rate around the world is dropping. It's not just here because we over-police everything which further encourages idiots to weaponize it like that white woman did in Central Park with the black gentleman (Head of the Audubon Society! I still can't get over that coincidence) who wanted to bird watch. You all know the story. Crime is down all over the world. Therefore, it has nothing to do with increased police presence.

I know I must sound like a broken record but they did a study here on Long Island and found on 50% of all police "incidents" are traffic-related, i.e. rolling through stop signs, failing to signal, running a red light, speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence, and traffic accidents. Actually, police don't respond to running red lights here anymore because of all the intersectional red light cameras. So why do we need to spend all that money on a militarized police department. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be specialized units to respond to violent crimes like burglaries, robberies, sexual assaults but many of those are investigated after the fact by detectives. Maybe if we spent more money on education and community development programs, we wouldn't see as many gangs. Maybe if we spent more money on mental health programs across the country, OMG, we could save so many lives. Instead, we keep on shuffling them through the criminal justice system which just makes everything worse.

Biden has been very clear he backs aggressive police reform. It would be an epic strategic failure right now if he said yes to that question, because too many people would interpret it to mean abolishing police departments. Not only would that would play directly into the GOP's hands, it is also not a properly constructed question that deserves a yes at this time.

The rhetoric right now is at its emotional peak and has yet to settle into a set of terms most people can agree upon. Some people think being an activist means confronting elected officials with yes or no questions when the solutions are going to be more nuanced than yes or no to any form of law enforcement. Biden wisely did not fall into that trap.

It may have been a long time coming, but the solutions are being cooked up as we speak and in many cases it will mean things like purging the bad apples, re-training peace officers and bringing back community policing. But reducing expenditures on those activities and spending funds on other community initiatives is a blended approach.

Right now to some people defunding means abolition of police and that is not really going to happen in most cases, so it is better for Biden not to step into an ill-defined commitment until there is a national consensus on what those terms really do mean.

I think there's a way to properly word "defunding the police" without actually using those words or "abolish the police" and actually make it sound pretty reasonable. But that also takes proper savvy. I don't think most politicians and their staffers know how to communicate it.

I'm sure Biden will explain his stance later on, but it's political suicide to say he's for "defunding the police" and - tbqh - the CBC & House Democrats came out with their stance before him. Biden's really following what the CBC believe.

[HarthorneWingo]

I was very disappointed to read that Biden was against defunding the police. Fine, I understand the term "defunding" is not politically palatable according to some (just like Obamacare, just like Medicare for All, blasi blasi) so whatever. But he could've just answered the question in the positive way one would when you actually support the policy results you're trying to achieve in your future administration. You just don't use the word "defunding."

Instead, you talk about addressing the needs in today's changing world in which the overall crime rate around the world is dropping. It's not just here because we over-police everything which further encourages idiots to weaponize it like that white woman did in Central Park with the black gentleman (Head of the Audubon Society! I still can't get over that coincidence) who wanted to bird watch. You all know the story. Crime is down all over the world. Therefore, it has nothing to do with increased police presence.

I know I must sound like a broken record but they did a study here on Long Island and found on 50% of all police "incidents" are traffic-related, i.e. rolling through stop signs, failing to signal, running a red light, speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence, and traffic accidents. Actually, police don't respond to running red lights here anymore because of all the intersectional red light cameras. So why do we need to spend all that money on a militarized police department. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be specialized units to respond to violent crimes like burglaries, robberies, sexual assaults but many of those are investigated after the fact by detectives. Maybe if we spent more money on education and community development programs, we wouldn't see as many gangs. Maybe if we spent more money on mental health programs across the country, OMG, we could save so many lives. Instead, we keep on shuffling them through the criminal justice system which just makes everything worse.

Biden has been very clear he backs aggressive police reform. It would be an epic strategic failure right now if he said yes to that question, because too many people would interpret it to mean abolishing police departments. Not only would that would play directly into the GOP's hands, it is also not a properly constructed question that deserves a yes at this time.

The rhetoric right now is at its emotional peak and has yet to settle into a set of terms most people can agree upon. Some people think being an activist means confronting elected officials with yes or no questions when the solutions are going to be more nuanced than yes or no to any form of law enforcement. Biden wisely did not fall into that trap.

It may have been a long time coming, but the solutions are being cooked up as we speak and in many cases it will mean things like purging the bad apples, re-training peace officers and bringing back community policing. But reducing expenditures on those activities and spending funds on other community initiatives is a blended approach.

Right now to some people defunding means abolition of police and that is not really going to happen in most cases, so it is better for Biden not to step into an ill-defined commitment until there is a national consensus on what those terms really do mean.

I think there's a way to properly word "defunding the police" without actually using those words or "abolish the police" and actually make it sound pretty reasonable. But that also takes proper savvy. I don't think most politicians and their staffers know how to communicate it.

I'm sure Biden will explain his stance later on, but it's political suicide to say he's for "defunding the police" and - tbqh - the CBC & House Democrats came out with their stance before him. Biden's really following what the CBC believe.

Why not just say something like “I have plans to modernize our police departments to make them more efficient to meet the needs of today’s communities”? Biden should ask Pete Buttigieg for advice here. He worked for McKinsey. Companies downsize all the time. Things change.

[Phish Tank]

Biden has been very clear he backs aggressive police reform. It would be an epic strategic failure right now if he said yes to that question, because too many people would interpret it to mean abolishing police departments. Not only would that would play directly into the GOP's hands, it is also not a properly constructed question that deserves a yes at this time.

The rhetoric right now is at its emotional peak and has yet to settle into a set of terms most people can agree upon. Some people think being an activist means confronting elected officials with yes or no questions when the solutions are going to be more nuanced than yes or no to any form of law enforcement. Biden wisely did not fall into that trap.

It may have been a long time coming, but the solutions are being cooked up as we speak and in many cases it will mean things like purging the bad apples, re-training peace officers and bringing back community policing. But reducing expenditures on those activities and spending funds on other community initiatives is a blended approach.

Right now to some people defunding means abolition of police and that is not really going to happen in most cases, so it is better for Biden not to step into an ill-defined commitment until there is a national consensus on what those terms really do mean.

I think there's a way to properly word "defunding the police" without actually using those words or "abolish the police" and actually make it sound pretty reasonable. But that also takes proper savvy. I don't think most politicians and their staffers know how to communicate it.

I'm sure Biden will explain his stance later on, but it's political suicide to say he's for "defunding the police" and - tbqh - the CBC & House Democrats came out with their stance before him. Biden's really following what the CBC believe.

Why not just say something like “I have plans to modernize our police departments to make them more efficient to meet the needs of today’s communities”? Biden should ask Pete Buttigieg for advice here. He worked for McKinsey. Companies downsize all the time. Things change.

honestly that would be a pretty damn good statement Wingo

[Clyde_Style]

Bunker Boy is desperate

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Clyde_Style]

MOD REQUEST:

Please let's have a game thread on November 3rd.

[HarthorneWingo]

I think there's a way to properly word "defunding the police" without actually using those words or "abolish the police" and actually make it sound pretty reasonable. But that also takes proper savvy. I don't think most politicians and their staffers know how to communicate it.

I'm sure Biden will explain his stance later on, but it's political suicide to say he's for "defunding the police" and - tbqh - the CBC & House Democrats came out with their stance before him. Biden's really following what the CBC believe.

Why not just say something like “I have plans to modernize our police departments to make them more efficient to meet the needs of today’s communities”? Biden should ask Pete Buttigieg for advice here. He worked for McKinsey. Companies downsize all the time. Things change.

honestly that would be a pretty damn good statement Wingo

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

[Phish Tank]

Why not just say something like “I have plans to modernize our police departments to make them more efficient to meet the needs of today’s communities”? Biden should ask Pete Buttigieg for advice here. He worked for McKinsey. Companies downsize all the time. Things change.

honestly that would be a pretty damn good statement Wingo

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

Wingo, this is a good statement in my opinion from Bernie in his interview with the New Yorker:

Do I think we should not have police departments in America? No, I don’t. There’s no city in the world that does not have police departments. What you need are—I didn’t call for more money for police departments. I called for police departments that have well-educated, well-trained, well-paid professionals. And, too often around this country right now, you have police officers who take the job at very low payment, don’t have much education, don’t have much training—and I want to change that. I also called for the transformation of police departments into—understanding that many police departments and cops deal every day with issues of mental illness, deal with issues of addiction, and all kinds of issues which should be dealt with by mental-health professionals or others, and not just by police officers.

I think we want to redefine what police departments do, give them the support they need to make their jobs better defined. So I do believe that we need well-trained, well-educated, and well-paid professionals in police departments. Anyone who thinks that we should abolish all police departments in America, I don’t agree.

[GONYK]

Why not just say something like “I have plans to modernize our police departments to make them more efficient to meet the needs of today’s communities”? Biden should ask Pete Buttigieg for advice here. He worked for McKinsey. Companies downsize all the time. Things change.

honestly that would be a pretty damn good statement Wingo

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

[HarthorneWingo]

honestly that would be a pretty damn good statement Wingo

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

Ok, but Biden is a Democrat, not a Republican. This is the problem. Democrats acting fearful of attacks from the far right. As soon as Fix News starts criticizing hysterically, Democrats crawl back into their turtle shells. Does Biden really have to lie about this issue now in order to win this election. The entire country is protesting systemic and abusive police tactics that have been going on for decades.

Moreover, Biden won’t change his mind later. In case you haven’t noticed, this is who he is.

[GONYK]

Or, if he didn't want to answer the question he simply give the non-answer answer, "Look folks, we're in the middle of a storm right now. We are going to look hard to see how we can address these problems. I'll be working with community leaders and experts in law enforcement ... etc."

But by saying "No, I'm against it" to "defunding" the police, any attempt to do that in the future (and that time will come) will be met with "But you said you wouldn't." That's the problem with what Biden said.

He can do whatever he needs to after he's elected.

Right now, his statement prevents Trump from using an ill-defined policy against him, and doesn't allow himself to be painted as radical when his whole platform is being moderate.

Ok, but Biden is a Democrat, not a Republican. This is the problem. Democrats acting fearful of attacks from the far right. As soon as Fix News starts criticizing hysterically, Democrats crawl back into their turtle shells. Does Biden really have to lie about this issue now in order to win this election. The entire country is protesting systemic and abusive police tactics that have been going on for decades.

Moreover, Biden won’t change his mind later. In case you haven’t noticed, this is who he is.

Who said Biden is lying? He's just not committing to abolishing or defunding the police on the federal level, which isn't really even something he can do.

Secondly, yes, it's the only way to speak about the issue during the campaign because:

1. Nobody knows what "defund the police" actually looks like, so it makes no sense to commit to doing it as part of your platform

2. Because it is so undefined, it would open up attacks from every direction. The right would say you're a radical inviting lawlessness. The left would say you committed to something, even though nobody knows what it is, and say you aren't going far enough. It would be the definition of an unforced error.

3. There's no data on how much of the population wants to defund/abolish the police vs. just reform it. The possibility hadn't even occurred to most of the American people as something that was possible until a week ago. Why would any rational candidate commit to that when they don't know how the majority feels about it?

Especially when Biden is already dominating in terms of perception on race relations and Trump is self-immolating?