A sober, informative segment, although one wonders what sort of hay is being gleefully made of Reade’s claims in Fox primetime on Earth 2, where the network’s own favorite politician doesn’t face many charges of sexual misconduct himself. Trump is so exposed on this subject that he’s felt compelled in interviews to stick up for Biden (even if his campaign feels no such qualms). Attack dogs like Hannity can’t be too credulous of, or indignant about, what Reade alleges or they’ll end up accidentally brightening the spotlight on the charges against Trump.
Needless to say, Tucker’s right about maintaining healthy skepticism. And most Republicans are doing so, I think. There’s a strong partisan divide on whether to believe Reade, as I pointed out last night, but it’s not the sort of 90/10 vs. 10/90 splits that we’re used to seeing in polls of Democrats and Republicans on cultural issues.
Monmouth asked whether Reade’s allegation is “probably true,” “probably not true,” or “don’t know” in its new poll and got this result:
As many Republicans say it’s probably not true or that they’re reserving judgment about it as say that it’s probably true. Among Democrats, nearly as many are as open to believing it as are skeptical. Note the gender gap too, with men slightly more credulous of Reade’s claim than women are. I think that’s an artifact of women voters skewing Democratic. When forced to choose between believing an alleged victim of sexual assault or putting the party’s interests first, women are almost evenly split. Partisanship’s a hell of a drug.
Speaking of which, a notable data point from Monmouth:
Among voters who say the sexual assault allegation is probably not true, the vast majority (79%) support Biden over Trump (14%) in the presidential contest. Among those who feel it is true, 59% back Trump but 32% still support Biden. Among those who have no opinion on the allegation’s validity, 45% support Trump and 43% support Biden.
A third of the “I believe Tara” group is ready to pull the lever for a man whom they suspect of sexual assault. Yes, Justin Amash, this is what we’ve become:
“Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.”
“Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it.”
“sacrificing Ms. Reade for the good of the many”
Is this what we’ve become? https://t.co/QYZpzEim1Y
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 6, 2020
I don’t even want to know how many Trump voters believe some or all of the allegations against him but are willing to put on the red hat anyway. Too many, says Amanda Carpenter:
While the double standards argument can be helpful in exposing hypocrites, Trump’s operatives aren’t proving the point they think they are. Just try applying any of these attacks to their boss. Do they think Trump’s accusers should be believed? Where are Trump’s tax records and what about all those non-disclosure agreements? It goes on and on.
The problem they are trying to highlight about Democrats refusing to hold Biden to the same unforgiving standard as they did Kavanaugh is totally muted by the fact Trump’s defenders have never been interested in applying any standards to Trump at all. They are like atheists telling everyone else to go to church.
I think it’ll be enough for most righties during the Reade saga to ignore the question of Biden’s (and Trump’s) guilt and focus on the self-immolation of Kavanaugh’s critics instead. It’s grim fun watching the left expose just how much of their #MeToo sermonizing is partisanship disguised as righteousness. They’ve already been tried and convicted. Whether Biden ends up that way is almost beside the point.
The key bit here comes at 3:15 if you don’t want to sit through Carlson rehashing the basics of Reade’s accusation. Exit question: How does this story “advance” at this point, exactly? The hunt for the 1993 complaint that Reade supposedly filed against Biden feels like a wild goose chase since she admits that it doesn’t allege sexual misconduct of any kind. Finding it would strengthen her account by proving that *some* sort of grievance existed, but Democrats would turn around and say that the fact that she didn’t specify an assault suggests that the grievance had to do with something else. What then? Without a second accuser against Biden establishing a pattern of behavior, how is anyone supposed to draw a firm conclusion about what happened between him and Reade?