In an interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, Joe Biden said he had no recollection of Reade, but said she “has a right to be heard but then should be vetted, and the truth ultimately matters. And I give you my word, it never ever happened.”
Then O’Donnell asked what he would say to women who were “eager to vote for Joe Biden but this gives them serious pause because they do believe Tara Reade.”
“Well, I think they should vote their heart,” Biden replied. “If they believe Tara Reade, they probably shouldn’t vote for me. I wouldn’t vote for me if I believe Tara Reade.”
What is that?
Lawyer, author, #MeToo supporter and liberal pundit Linda Hirshman authored a nead-exploding New York Times op-ed in which she said that she believed Tara Reade’s accusations, meaning that she also thought Biden has been lying or that he’s assaulted so many women that he doesn’t recall individual incidents, but will vote for him anyway.
Ah, integrity!
But Biden said this was wrong. Good for Biden…wait…what? I don’t understand.
—-Is this an audacious bluff? If more corroboration of Reade’s claims emerge, and she already has a stronger case that Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasy-Ford (as well as Clarence Thomas accuser Anita Hill), wouldn’t that mean Biden would have to withdraw?
—-Is it a desperate ploy to “prove” his innocence? It reminds me a bit of Gary Hart’s famous challenge to reporters to follow him to show that the rumors of him having extra-marital affairs were false. Everyone thought, “Well, he must be telling the truth. Nobody is that stupid.” Then they did follow Hart, and they caught him.
—-Is he like the aging senile star actress (played by Janet Leigh) who has forgotten that she murdered her husband in a memorable “Columbo” episode?
—Is this admirable integrity on Joe’s part, or the act of a stone cold liar? It doesn’t help that in the same interview, Biden insisted that he wasn’t at all involved with the investigation of Michael Flynn or his “unmasking,” which seems to be pretty clearly a lie.
What’s going on here?
Ethics Alarms 
It got him some attention…
What’s going on, Biden is a liar that’s what’s going on.
Y’know, we regularly see news reports about how chaotic and disorganized the Trump administration is. There’s truth in that, obviously.
But we don’t see anything about how chaotic and disorganized the Biden campaign is. Why is that, I wonder? I have no clue. Maybe someone could enlighten me. 😉
Who remembers when people thought Trump didn’t want to win and was only running for some alternative reason or was only in it for the short term ego or business boost. Unheard of.
Now there is Joe. Is he really in this to win it or for some other purpose? Tell me another candidate for such an office who says don’t vote for me. The old rules are dead and gone even if the old age candidates are re-writing the rules.
Oh, I still think Trump originally didn’t run to win. I always have believed it was a branding exercise. He was surprised at all the free publicity the news media gave him, and shocked that he started winning the primaries. At some point, I think was a little frightened, and may have felt trapped by circumstances. Then, when it got late and he realized that he had a chance, he resolved to do what any American would and should do. Accept the challenge, and the sacrifice. At some point, we’ll get the whole story.
It is called a “Perato Optimal” response from Game Theory, for a guy who is trapped by his party’s “believe all women stance”.
He has 3 options, and his potential voters have 3. Only certain combinations get him elected.
* 1 – He is innocent – and professes it
* 2 – He is guilty – and denies it
* 3 – He is guilty and admits it
– A – Voters Vote For Him Anyways*
– B – Voters Believe Him
– C – Voters Don’t Believe Him
Combinations that get their vote:
1-A, 1-B
2-A, 2-B
3-A, 3-C
Combinations that lose their vote:
1-C
2-C
3-B
Based on these combinations, he has a 2/3 chance of getting the Democratic vote. So, what is his strategy?
To Punt!
He tells them to do exactly what they were going to do anyways. He tells them to not vote for him if they believe Ms. Reade. By extension, he is telling them to vote for him if they believe him. And, importantly, he doesn’t not tell people to vote for him anyways. He gets to look like he has integrity with his cheap statement, banking on most of his voters not having any.
*Lady’s and gentleman, the Democratic Party as of 2020!
This may be one of the most fascinating posts i’ve read here in a long time. I hear about Game Theory a lot, but this gives me wee bit of insight into it. Thanks.
I’ll second that.
Not just game theory, but a Perato Optimal. It’s been ages since I saw one of those in the wild.
Really well explained too. I might just steal this as an example, possibly anonymised as to tokens(names of actors, actions) but with full attribution.
Next to come, Markov chains?
Applause, and Rich in CT is an asset to the site.
Never doubted it for a second!
Sometimes the obvious needs stating, lest we forget.
I think Joe’s playing possum on the Flynn thing will come back to bite him.
If Joe stays in the race over the months into the election, it should be very interesting. He’s clearly a very old school pol. Think Ted Kennedy. He’ll lie to your face fully expecting he’ll get a way with it because… “Do you know who I am?” It will be interesting to see whether such a dinosaur with such a Cro-Magnon Era ethos will survive in the internet age. I doubt it. I think he’ll be torn to shreds.
He is seeking to appear to have integrity by putting the option out there without actually telling them how to vote. He does this because he believes that, Tara or no Tara, most Democrat voters will vote for whoever, or whatever, the party puts on the ballot. The alternative is already known: vote for Donald Trump. Those voters would never, never!, do that. And Joe knows that.
Does he know that an unknown but unquestionably large group of voters are not going to haul themselves to the polls to vote for a weak, too old, babbling, mentally-declining panderer who is a classic sexual harasser whether Reade is accurate or not, and who will be running with a VP picked solely based on gender whom voters have already rejected?
He should.
Well that pretty much sums his candidacy up, doesn’t it. I just hope the prognostication on lack of voter enthusiasm holds up. Joe in the White House is a scary thought but that low wattage harridan Kamala Harris (will Willie Brown as chief of staff) in there is terrifying.
I didn’t say it was smart, I just opined as to what I thought he was trying to do. Actually, it is just another example of his apparent inability to think through things. He is showing an inability to process all the information, such as Dems staying home in November being just the same as their voting for “someone else”.
And the limiting of the VP candidate pool by hue and plumbing is moronic.