I think other folks have covered pretty much anything there is to say about the immediate future, so I'm gonna step outside of stuff for a second with it. It's an impressive thing to me to see...
Exemplary
I think other folks have covered pretty much anything there is to say about the immediate future, so I'm gonna step outside of stuff for a second with it.
It's an impressive thing to me to see someone set aside pride and power. I think he sincerely believed in himself, that he was able and worthy. Whether that was realistic on his part, if it was good timing, etc doesn't really matter now, it's done and now folks have to move so we'll just see what happens from here. To actually make the decision demonstrates a relationship to power I can respect. I'm sure he's well aware, that an unfathomable amount of blame will rest on him if things go south. That's how it was gonna be either way, but a weird part of pride sometimes is deciding it's better for you to take that blame than anyone else, and he didn't go down that path either. Since there's not much to really do right now, to me it's worth taking a second to just think about the person at the center. Dude made a choice that plenty would never consider, that plenty would refuse regardless what's realistic or the expense at which it comes. He made it as one of the most powerful people there is, under intense pressure, during insanely difficult times, and he's an old guy on top. It's worth remembering, I think.
Uh, let's not minimize the accomplishments of modern democracies. We shouldn't take it for granted, but peaceful changes of government are routine in many countries nowadays. (Also, they weren't...
Uh, let's not minimize the accomplishments of modern democracies. We shouldn't take it for granted, but peaceful changes of government are routine in many countries nowadays.
(Also, they weren't rare during the Roman Republic either. Frequent assassinations of emperors came later, because they no longer had the institutions to do it peacefully.)
They're routine because the systems have been set up for them. Trump would absolutely run for five terms of he could. If he wins in 2024 and then leaves the stage, that's not admirable. That's...
They're routine because the systems have been set up for them. Trump would absolutely run for five terms of he could. If he wins in 2024 and then leaves the stage, that's not admirable. That's just the system. It is admirable to end your shot at another term for the good of your nation.
Same for the Romans. They had systems to prevent abuse. The consular elections, the term limit for dictators. It's not particularly remarkable to be the 34th consul to not seek another term. It's remarkable to establish that system. Of course, the empire pushed those systems to their breaking point, but that's another topic.
Not that Cincinnatus was the first, since he wasn't the first dictator to give up power, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the powerful giving up power can create legends. Diocletian is another example.
This is wild speculation, but I wonder to what degree, if any, his current COVID infection has to do with this decision.
It's an impressive thing to me to see someone set aside pride and power. I think he sincerely believed in himself, that he was able and worthy. Whether that was realistic on his part, if it was good timing, etc doesn't really matter now, it's done and now folks have to move so we'll just see what happens from here.
This is wild speculation, but I wonder to what degree, if any, his current COVID infection has to do with this decision.
That’s basically what I’m waiting for. The hero worship on this feels off given we are literally here because he waited either until he could no longer physically do it or thought he absolutely...
That’s basically what I’m waiting for. The hero worship on this feels off given we are literally here because he waited either until he could no longer physically do it or thought he absolutely had no chance of winning.
I mean, if I went out and did something, had a bunch of it go kinda bad, had a bunch of folks say I should stop, and then I got covid, I'd probably be thinking a bit cosmically about it. Even if...
I mean, if I went out and did something, had a bunch of it go kinda bad, had a bunch of folks say I should stop, and then I got covid, I'd probably be thinking a bit cosmically about it. Even if it was really important...Is this just "being tested" or is the universe basically saying "don't make me stop the car"? It would be hard to avoid leaning toward "ok fine I'm done", just off that one thought.
Immediate commentary: UPDATE: Joe Biden has endorsed her as Democratic nominee for president. Over the last few hours, this has been followed by both Clintons, the Congressional Black Caucus, the...
Immediate commentary:
- He did not announce that Kamala (or anyone) will already replace him for president, but he did mention her partnership with him on the note.
UPDATE:Joe Biden has endorsed her as Democratic nominee for president. Over the last few hours, this has been followed by both Clintons, the Congressional Black Caucus, the progressive Caucus and many Democratic senators, congressmembers, speculated Harris veeps and more. Notably, Obama has been inconclusive in his medium statement, saying that he has "extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges."
SECOND UPDATE: Within 24 hours, Harris has received the endorsements of something around 75% of Democratic legislators from both house and Senate according to an endorsement tracker of her online and the delegates of about a quarter of the convention already, and ActBlue registered nearly 100 million dollars donated to what is now her campaign, the party has readily ralllied around her. Outside the party, Romney and Pence have said they "respected his decision to drop out."
I'm surprised Twitter is still so relevant for politicians to post official announcements, despite everything Musk has done to it.
I genuinely hope the chaos the Democratic party was in for the past 3 weeks never repeats itself again.
Yea, I get the pragmatics of just using it because it has such a broad reach, but goddamn if it isn't a cesspool. Am genuinely curious why this was the avenue they chose though. I wonder if COVID...
I'm surprised Twitter is still so relevant for politicians to post official announcements
Yea, I get the pragmatics of just using it because it has such a broad reach, but goddamn if it isn't a cesspool.
Am genuinely curious why this was the avenue they chose though. I wonder if COVID hit him hard enough that they didn't want to put him in front of a camera looking even more tired and old than normal?
I half suspect the Covid was just an excuse to cloister himself so he could plot his move. According to AOC the resistance to leaving was partly because the donor backed centrists trying to push...
I half suspect the Covid was just an excuse to cloister himself so he could plot his move. According to AOC the resistance to leaving was partly because the donor backed centrists trying to push him out had no plan for the day after and were trying to do some contrivance to bypass Harris.
So I think a lot of phone calls had to be made to line the party up behind Harris before he dropped to outmaneuver them. Given Harris’ fundraising haul and the fact that every potential rival has either endorsed her or said they aren’t running there’s no realistic path for anything else but a joke candidate like Manchin or Marianne Williamson. Donors BTFO.
To say I'm ambivalent about the news is an understatement, but I can answer this secularly: The power of network effects is absolutely humongous. The only way a site as big as reddit or Twitter...
I'm surprised Twitter is still so relevant for politicians to post official announcements, despite everything Musk has done to it.
To say I'm ambivalent about the news is an understatement, but I can answer this secularly: The power of network effects is absolutely humongous. The only way a site as big as reddit or Twitter dies is if the company themselves shuts the servers down.
There simply so much apathy or otherwise unawareness of who's running stuff from up top. The populous generally won't care as long as they can message their frieds seemlessly.
I wouldn't read too much into Obama's lack of an explicit endorsement of Vice President Harris. For better or worse, there's a tradition that former Presidents stay away from involving themselves...
I wouldn't read too much into Obama's lack of an explicit endorsement of Vice President Harris. For better or worse, there's a tradition that former Presidents stay away from involving themselves in party politics. Of course, Trump respected no such statesman-like traditions.
Bill Clinton endorsed though. So that basically just leaves Jimmy Carter and Obama of the living Democrats who haven’t. I’m hoping it’s part of a plan to extend her news cycle to wait until the...
Bill Clinton endorsed though. So that basically just leaves Jimmy Carter and Obama of the living Democrats who haven’t. I’m hoping it’s part of a plan to extend her news cycle to wait until the energy starts to dissipate to give it another boost. If he actually is on the “contested convention” train I’m going to be sorely disappointed in him, and it will make it clear why his Presidency was such a downticket disaster. He doesn’t seem very good at helping anyone get elected but himself.
The Clintons endorsing is sort of necessary because of claims that Hillary would/could/should run. Biden was necessary given the circumstances and Carter is 99 and on hospice care and "no longer...
The Clintons endorsing is sort of necessary because of claims that Hillary would/could/should run.
Biden was necessary given the circumstances and Carter is 99 and on hospice care and "no longer awake every day" so I think we can let him rest.
Michelle has never expressed interest despite her name being thrown out. Idk maybe Barack has some sort of grudge or something but he also tends towards trying to do the high-minded "don't get involved in the nitty gritty" thing.
I don't know why people keep putting Michelle's name out there, especially in betting markets. (Which, unrelated to this, makes it hard for me take the betting markets seriously.) It's very well...
I don't know why people keep putting Michelle's name out there, especially in betting markets. (Which, unrelated to this, makes it hard for me take the betting markets seriously.)
It's very well known that Michelle hates politics (but loves and supports Barrack in his endeavors very much). She's said so herself. There's an absolute 0% chance she'll put herself through 4 years in the hottest political seat.
Yeah this personality seems to emerge in the Democratic Party each generation (Adlai Stevenson previously), and they’re always electoral disasters. The nitty gritty is part of the job, and...
but he also tends towards trying to do the high-minded "don't get involved in the nitty gritty" thing.
Yeah this personality seems to emerge in the Democratic Party each generation (Adlai Stevenson previously), and they’re always electoral disasters. The nitty gritty is part of the job, and unwillingness to focus on it significantly hobbled the effectiveness of his Presidency.
Sure I'm not really interested in discussing his presidency, but was more assessing why there are different responses from different past presidents. I think the Clintons had to respond, Obama and...
Sure I'm not really interested in discussing his presidency, but was more assessing why there are different responses from different past presidents. I think the Clintons had to respond, Obama and Carter less so.
I really wouldn't read into it. Pelosi was also a "hold out" yesterday but endorsed her today. I'd be surprised if Obama backs anyone else. I'd bet he's likely waiting for the correct "optics." I...
I really wouldn't read into it. Pelosi was also a "hold out" yesterday but endorsed her today. I'd be surprised if Obama backs anyone else. I'd bet he's likely waiting for the correct "optics." I don't think anything hinges on his voice right now. It will be valuable if it hits at the right moment. Too many institutional leaders endorsing her too quickly will look like a coronation. I appreciate the groundswell and I'm excited for a real campaign.
Listening to some of her recent speeches has improved my opinion of her.
The traffic isn’t that great though. People who B post on Mastodon or BlueSky claim there’s a lot more actual engagement (as in not bots or low value troll posters) on those despite the numbers. I...
The traffic isn’t that great though. People who B post on Mastodon or BlueSky claim there’s a lot more actual engagement (as in not bots or low value troll posters) on those despite the numbers.
I think Twitter has a problem where journalists are all on it so it’s like a mini social network just for them even as it increasingly turns into a full-time Nazi rally all baiting them.
Yesterday @Japeth had already found the perfect words for the situation, in my opinion: Now we get to see how the second scenario really plays out, I guess.
If Biden stays in the race and loses, it'll be the biggest strategic misstep in modern political history. An unforced error that irreparably damages global society. Every single political pundit and commentator will talk about how stupid it was to let Biden stay in the race.
And if Biden steps down and the new Democrat loses, it'll be the biggest strategic misstep in modern political history. An unforced error that irreparably damages global society. Every single political pundit and commentator will talk about how stupid it was to push Biden out of the race.
Now we get to see how the second scenario really plays out, I guess.
We'll see, I guess, for the second scenario. For me, it's been really really difficult to see a path toward victory for Biden these past few weeks, and I don't think hindsight is going to change...
We'll see, I guess, for the second scenario. For me, it's been really really difficult to see a path toward victory for Biden these past few weeks, and I don't think hindsight is going to change that, but I guess it depends how the nomination plays out.
It's really hard to see Kamala Harris as the next president as well. The situation was best summed up by a CBS executive: "Trump will be bad for the country, but good for our ratings."
This really should have been the plan from the start of it was going to happen, and Harris really should have spent the past 4 years in the limelight, proving herself. I hate to be pessimistic, if...
This really should have been the plan from the start of it was going to happen, and Harris really should have spent the past 4 years in the limelight, proving herself. I hate to be pessimistic, if she is the Democratic candidate she will have my vote against Trump, against fascism, and again the capture of the supreme court on election day either way. But this could have and should have been a home run with four years of planning. Instead of an afterthought.
There is a famous saying, that Vice Presidents are "not worth a bucket of warm piss," which is sometimes remembered as "a warm bucket of spit." Kamala was a way for Biden to get more votes.
There is a famous saying, that Vice Presidents are "not worth a bucket of warm piss," which is sometimes remembered as "a warm bucket of spit."
This is so true. She was a rather lukewarm presidential candidate when she was in the pack running against Biden. I'm not a fan of Harris but at least now the Democrats can go on full attack mode...
Kamala was a way for Biden to get more votes.
This is so true. She was a rather lukewarm presidential candidate when she was in the pack running against Biden. I'm not a fan of Harris but at least now the Democrats can go on full attack mode and characterize Trump as old, senile, and unfit to serve. I just hope the Democrats select a reasonable VP and not another dumb choice that checks the boxes for left wing street cred. I'm really hoping Shapiro is the one.
I mean, whoever it ends up being is 100% going to be a checkbox candidate in the same way Kamala was, i.e. a white guy. I'm hoping for Shapiro as well, he's the smart pick imo especially given the...
I mean, whoever it ends up being is 100% going to be a checkbox candidate in the same way Kamala was, i.e. a white guy.
I'm hoping for Shapiro as well, he's the smart pick imo especially given the state of PA polling.
Betting markets are a distillation of the wisdom of crowds. It's generally one of the most accurate forms of prediction on any topic as actual experts could tip them and make a killing if they...
Betting markets are a distillation of the wisdom of crowds. It's generally one of the most accurate forms of prediction on any topic as actual experts could tip them and make a killing if they were wrong.
Betting markets are the wisdom of a very specific subset of crowds. Not very many people place bets on political results, and those that do are not representative of the US population as a whole....
Betting markets are the wisdom of a very specific subset of crowds. Not very many people place bets on political results, and those that do are not representative of the US population as a whole.
Betting markets can in no way predict the outcome of major political contests, regardless of whether or not experts weigh in. There are far too many unknown variables at play.
Some actual polling from earlier in July when the conversation of Biden stepping aside came to a head showed Harris about as likely to beat Trump as Biden.
It's really hard to see Kamala Harris as the next president as well.
The polling has been all over the map on Harris relative to Biden, so I'm not sure singling out an individual poll is useful. Here's an article with a bunch of recent ones listed. Also, regardless...
Also, regardless of what the polls were or were not saying, Harris has been relatively behind the curtain for a VP. She has all the opportunity to make up ground whereas it was hard to see a path forward for Biden.
It's too early for any polls to mean anything at the moment. News of this isn't even a day old. My response was more in comparison to what is essentially a prop bets website being used as a source...
It's too early for any polls to mean anything at the moment. News of this isn't even a day old. My response was more in comparison to what is essentially a prop bets website being used as a source for such info.
The news is shocking, but the timing is even weirder. 12-3pm in the US on a Sunday? At least let me start the workweek with existential dread instead of the tail end of my weekend.
News of this isn't even a day old
The news is shocking, but the timing is even weirder. 12-3pm in the US on a Sunday? At least let me start the workweek with existential dread instead of the tail end of my weekend.
This lends credence to my theory that he’s rigging the game for Harris on the way out to prevent the donor faction from creating an open convention clusterfuck. Drop the news on a weekend when the...
Drop the news on a weekend when the PR flacks and lobbyists are distracted. Hit em right after church when their assistants are all drunk on bottomless mimosas.
Has Biden actually personally been seen on camera since this announcement? I ask because it was almost certain that the Queen didn't die when they announced that she had died.
Has Biden actually personally been seen on camera since this announcement? I ask because it was almost certain that the Queen didn't die when they announced that she had died.
It seems to me "We're picking a new candidate because the previous one who was voted for died" is a more politically sympathetic position than "we're picking a new candidate because the previous...
It seems to me "We're picking a new candidate because the previous one who was voted for died" is a more politically sympathetic position than "we're picking a new candidate because the previous one who was voted for was the wrong choice" so I honestly don't see a reason for the campaign to cover that up.
She was there to take an official photo with then-new PM Liz Truss 2 days prior. Then there was an announcement that she'd been unwell and cancelled visits for a day and also all the family flew...
She was there to take an official photo with then-new PM Liz Truss 2 days prior. Then there was an announcement that she'd been unwell and cancelled visits for a day and also all the family flew home.
So if it did happen, it would have been benign and by a very small window. It doesn't strike me as unbelievable that they'd fudge the time of death by a few hours to let the family fly home and gather without being surrounded by media.
Oh, I misunderstood the original poster to mean they announced she'd died before she actually died, which really confused me. But this makes much more sense.
It doesn't strike me as unbelievable that they'd fudge the time of death by a few hours to let the family fly home and gather without being surrounded by media.
Oh, I misunderstood the original poster to mean they announced she'd died before she actually died, which really confused me. But this makes much more sense.
Yes it's too soon to know anything for sure. Yet the prop bets markets predicted Biden stepping down and Kamala stepping up days ago. As imperfect as it is (it predicted Hillary in a landslide,)...
Yes it's too soon to know anything for sure.
Yet the prop bets markets predicted Biden stepping down and Kamala stepping up days ago.
As imperfect as it is (it predicted Hillary in a landslide,) it is a good place to go to see where the current winds are blowing.
Prop bets don't predict anything. They're just a non-traditional form of gambling. There are prop bet sites for the number of tweets Muskrat will spit out in a week, entire subsections of prop bet...
Prop bets don't predict anything. They're just a non-traditional form of gambling. There are prop bet sites for the number of tweets Muskrat will spit out in a week, entire subsections of prop bet sites just about Taylor Swift.
It's been a topic of conversation for Biden to step aside and the current VP is the obvious endorsement. That's it.
Their actual name is prediction markets... Because they are markets that predict probabilities of real world events. Or to be more precise, the price of a contract typically represents the betting...
Prop bets don't predict anything.
Their actual name is prediction markets...
Because they are markets that predict probabilities of real world events.
Or to be more precise, the price of a contract typically represents the betting crowd’s belief in the likelihood of a particular event occurring.
Now they aren't perfect, but neither are traditional methods like polls or expert analysis or the stock market.
But to say they simply don't predict anything is just... plain wrong, my man.
And kinda irrelevant. Biden himself was reported to state he found it hard seeing Kamala Harris as the next president as well. Which was the original point.
I see them as an imperfect indicator of what the conventional wisdom currently is and when it started changing. They seem somewhat worse on political issues because more people make bets based on...
I see them as an imperfect indicator of what the conventional wisdom currently is and when it started changing. They seem somewhat worse on political issues because more people make bets based on their political biases? You could probably do as well by reading the papers.
Did a bit of digging and you're right. They seem to be able to predict pop culture things like the color of a dress at a movie premiere or box office opening weekend ranges or whether or not Kanye...
But to say they simply don't predict anything is just... plain wrong, my man.
Did a bit of digging and you're right. They seem to be able to predict pop culture things like the color of a dress at a movie premiere or box office opening weekend ranges or whether or not Kanye West will do something stupid during a particular month.
But it seems like every source I'm finding says they don't seem to have any reliable ability to predict political subjects.
The betting markets didn't predict Biden stepping down. The changes were in response to a massively increasing pressure campaign for Biden to step down. There's no "prediction" involved - just...
The betting markets didn't predict Biden stepping down. The changes were in response to a massively increasing pressure campaign for Biden to step down.
There's no "prediction" involved - just people seeing the possibility of Biden stepping down as more likely as more and more pressure was mounted by his own party and gambling that it was going to happen.
Because there’s nothing about the betting markets that is intrinsically linked to the universe at large. It’s simply a mechanism to capture the aggregate of guesses, and nobody pays attention to...
Because there’s nothing about the betting markets that is intrinsically linked to the universe at large. It’s simply a mechanism to capture the aggregate of guesses, and nobody pays attention to the many many guesses that end up incorrect. They’re only ever correct in hindsight.
I think "predict" is being used in two different ways in this conversation. In its most fundamental meaning, it only means "to say beforehand". That is, make a claim about something in the future....
I think "predict" is being used in two different ways in this conversation.
In its most fundamental meaning, it only means "to say beforehand". That is, make a claim about something in the future. It doesn't have to end up being correct to be a prediction. In essence, a guess.
In a perhaps more connotated meaning, it may be used as "to successfully determine events ahead of time" or "to accurately determine events ahead of time".
Consider "You like making predictions about election results", "You like successfully predicting elections", and "You like predicting elections".
The first I would use to mean "You like making claims about the election results ahead of time". The second I would use to mean "You like it when statements you've made about election results ahead of time turn out to be correct". The third is to me without further context ambiguous between these two meanings.
I think it should be uncontroversial to state that betting markets make claims about things ahead of time. How frequently they turn out to be correct, or how accurate they are in assigning likelihood, I have no good information on.
Ok, but then that unfounded nature means that no one should turn to the prediction markets' conclusions as anything resembling a useful prediction of reality.
Ok, but then that unfounded nature means that no one should turn to the prediction markets' conclusions as anything resembling a useful prediction of reality.
Actually Biden wasn't loosing: https://www.270towin.com/ It was just the media pushing to replace him. I believe the owners did not like his promise to raise taxes on everyone making $400,000 or...
It was just the media pushing to replace him. I believe the owners did not like his promise to raise taxes on everyone making $400,000 or more, because he likely would implement it and had nothing to lose from doing that.
That map is NOT good for Biden. You need to look at per-state polling data. Don't make the same mistakes Hillary did in 2016. Just because certain tipping states are uncertain and close to the...
That map is NOT good for Biden. You need to look at per-state polling data. Don't make the same mistakes Hillary did in 2016. Just because certain tipping states are uncertain and close to the margin doesn't guarantee a candidate any of them. IMO this visualisation tells us very very little.
Uh, that map pretty clearly shows Biden as a serious underdog. If you actually do the math state by state, it was bad. Nate Silver's model (formerly 538) calculated his odds at 27% when he dropped...
Uh, that map pretty clearly shows Biden as a serious underdog. If you actually do the math state by state, it was bad. Nate Silver's model (formerly 538) calculated his odds at 27% when he dropped out.
That's still near toss-up range to be fair. Last election, Trump had similar odds in his model and only lost by just over 100k votes combined in the 4 states that ended up deciding the election,...
That's still near toss-up range to be fair. Last election, Trump had similar odds in his model and only lost by just over 100k votes combined in the 4 states that ended up deciding the election, despite losing the popular vote by 7 million.
If he hadn't sabotaged his own voters by deciding you shouldn't protect yourself from covid, he very likely could have won.
Not that it matters anymore, since we're in a completely different ballgame with Harris almost certainly the new nominee.
Thank you, and I didn't realize I had jinxed things when I wrote that. I'm solidly in the blue-no-matter-who camp, but I'm very worried about how things will shake out. There's going to be a lot...
Thank you, and I didn't realize I had jinxed things when I wrote that.
I'm solidly in the blue-no-matter-who camp, but I'm very worried about how things will shake out. There's going to be a lot of drama over who the successor will be. Democrats couldn't even coalesce around a nominee when there was just the one guy, now it's anyone's game.
If everyone steps aside for Harris, there'll be a vocal contingent that says it's the DNC playing favorites again. If there's any kind of contest, the loser's supporters are going to feel jilted. And no matter what, the russian bots will be amplifying the most disruptive narratives they can find.
Unforced because the Dems had 4 years to get an exciting candidate groomed for the next election. Biden's age was a known issue 4 years ago, most expected him to just try to be a one term...
Unforced because the Dems had 4 years to get an exciting candidate groomed for the next election. Biden's age was a known issue 4 years ago, most expected him to just try to be a one term president. Then they sat on their hands instead and now we have this. This is why it was unforced. They created this scenario themselves.
Exactly this. Many said he was too old 4 years ago, and the line was that the Democrats would have plenty of time to build national profiles who could take over and energize the party. Everyone...
Exactly this.
Many said he was too old 4 years ago, and the line was that the Democrats would have plenty of time to build national profiles who could take over and energize the party.
Everyone saw this coming and the folks in the positions just.... didn't do anything?
This is what's so endless frustrating about the diehard democrats, in that they defend this nonsense. There's always some excuse as to why it's ok, or some attack about how dare you criticize...
Everyone saw this coming and the folks in the positions just.... didn't do anything?
This is what's so endless frustrating about the diehard democrats, in that they defend this nonsense. There's always some excuse as to why it's ok, or some attack about how dare you criticize this, or some deflection about how the reps ran false attack ads about them and that's why everyone is upset.
I get it. I have to vote dem. There is 0 sane choice. But at the same time, i'm sure as shit going to point out the outright arrogance the party has shown basically since obama got elected, and is one of the biggest reasons I feel they're in this mess to begin with.
A less obviously problematic level is that, bluntly, they don't know how to play the fucking game?
I suspect this is because you've got dinosaurs at the top and fuckload of nepotism, and the terrible policy of "we won't hire anyone who worked on an opponents campaign" thing from however long ago, but whatever the reason, they constantly look like they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
It's like some washed up pro, especially in a video game where things can DRASTICALLY change, swearing they still know everything and that they lose just because of the excuse of the day. Nothing about the modern democratic party and their strategy resonates as remotely effective. If anything they have managed to literally throw at least 1 election, and then almost claw defeat from the jaws of victory in another, and now might actually succeed.
This is NOT ok. Should the dems win the reaction can't be "ok business as usual". There needs to be a serious house cleaning because at the bare minimum the people who are making the strategic decisions are abhorrently fucking bad at it.
Well, you mention earlier that: Speaking from across the Atlantic, where we've had ancient dinosaurs swimming in nepotism and corruption before.... You guys have two parties that have at its core...
This is NOT ok. Should the dems win the reaction can't be "ok business as usual". There needs to be a serious house cleaning because at the bare minimum the people who are making the strategic decisions are abhorrently fucking bad at it.
Well, you mention earlier that:
I suspect this is because you've got dinosaurs at the top and fuckload of nepotism, and the terrible policy of "we won't hire anyone who worked on an opponents campaign" thing from however long ago, but whatever the reason, they constantly look like they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
Speaking from across the Atlantic, where we've had ancient dinosaurs swimming in nepotism and corruption before.... You guys have two parties that have at its core the same issue. Political stagnation due to hierarchy stalling.
More than anything, you guys need to reform your political system badly. I have a hard time imagining that otherwise there won't be blood spilled en masse. Because a country that can't accept change has no future in a world that's changing rapidly.
"One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection. ... ...
"I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
"This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain
"It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public
Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.
Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in
Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume."
“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitions, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterward the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion”
I think it's worth pointing out here that in many senses, a party in what is functionally a two-party system is forced to adapt more than a party in a multi-party/parliamentarian system. Fringe...
Because a country that can't accept change has no future in a world that's changing rapidly.
I think it's worth pointing out here that in many senses, a party in what is functionally a two-party system is forced to adapt more than a party in a multi-party/parliamentarian system. Fringe elements must be incorporated, instead of just letting them secede into their own micro-parties.
Just look at how the US's republican party has evolved over the last 10 years. That's an absolutely massive change!
Yeah I personally agree that at it's core, looking at the outside, it's the two party system in particular. @Nivak 's quoted text from Washington is very close to what has happened, too. I decided...
Yeah I personally agree that at it's core, looking at the outside, it's the two party system in particular. @Nivak 's quoted text from Washington is very close to what has happened, too.
I decided to refrain from mentioning my opinion in the previous comment because well, I'm not American. So I also feel like it's better to have Americans discuss the solutions.
There are no party bosses to be making these decisions. There used to be, but people got mad about corrupt insiders picking winners and losers in smoke filled rooms and reformed the system to do...
There needs to be a serious house cleaning because at the bare minimum the people who are making the strategic decisions are abhorrently fucking bad at it.
There are no party bosses to be making these decisions. There used to be, but people got mad about corrupt insiders picking winners and losers in smoke filled rooms and reformed the system to do away with them. Now it’s an open process where people who want to run independently line up funding and then run in primaries and caucuses. Thats it. That’s the strategy. There’s nobody to decide who should run or who to groom or whatever. If you want new blood in a seat, you primary them. If you think the speakership should be in someone else’s hands you compete for the seat.
All the DNC and DCCC and DSCC do is basically function as event planners and a Rolodex of donors and seasoned staff and consultants. They have no decision making powers to pick who runs and, whenever they do exercise what little influence they have people get riotously angry with them and accuse them of rigging the contest against their favored candidates.
The only part that isn’t in the open is them having to line up funding and the juice to hire experienced staff who know what they’re doing. Nobody ran this time because it’s basically impossible to defeat an incumbent President in a primary so they saved their resources for a more competitive open race.
My inner conspiracy theorist says they're equally as content with losing as with victory. IIRC, they get more donations when they're out of power and need money to fight fascism than when they're...
This is NOT ok. Should the dems win the reaction can't be "ok business as usual". There needs to be a serious house cleaning because at the bare minimum the people who are making the strategic decisions are abhorrently fucking bad at it.
My inner conspiracy theorist says they're equally as content with losing as with victory. IIRC, they get more donations when they're out of power and need money to fight fascism than when they're in charge.
That's true in a theoretical sense, but if we zoom in a little, it's hard to see how it could have happened sooner: until very recently, Biden's health was an ambiguous issue. It was hard to build...
That's true in a theoretical sense, but if we zoom in a little, it's hard to see how it could have happened sooner: until very recently, Biden's health was an ambiguous issue. It was hard to build a coalition behind making sure that he was a one-term president based on anticipating that he might not be healthy enough, even if the odds weren't in his favor.
A consensus didn't start forming within the party until after the debate, when they had something public and unarguable to build that consensus around. That's not ideal timing, but it could have been worse.
I suppose that in theory, the Democratic party could decide on an age limit for presidential candidates to make sure it doesn't happen again, but it would be tough to make that stick.
No, no it was not. Actuaries and doctors and plenty of other professionals could absolutely tell you that anyone 80+, even in the best of health, is probably one major incident away from being...
until very recently, Biden's health was an ambiguous issue.
No, no it was not. Actuaries and doctors and plenty of other professionals could absolutely tell you that anyone 80+, even in the best of health, is probably one major incident away from being unable to easily function.
And that's before you get into the fact that people have been screaming the Biden doesn't look like himself for months, hell maybe a year now. Again, the most high profile case being Jon Stewart's return show, where he said exactly that and got skewered for it.
It was only "ambiguous" because they tried to keep it under wraps, which in and of itself was admission that it was bad. There is no campaign in the world that would've chosen to just hide their candidate away except for the rare speech, where even then they don't look great.
This has been the epitome of denial, much like RBG, and now it's come home to bite everyone in the ass.
Actuaries tell us probabilities. Probabilities are not certainties; they apply to groups rather than individuals, and there are always exceptions. (That's why we need doctors for individual...
Actuaries tell us probabilities. Probabilities are not certainties; they apply to groups rather than individuals, and there are always exceptions. (That's why we need doctors for individual diagnoses, and sometimes they're still wrong.)
Also, private misgivings aren't the same as public consensus. Maybe they should have become public knowledge, though. Suppose the party insisted on debates during the primary?
This is not how you run a business, campaign, or country. This is how you gamble and lose. There are 0 sane doctors who are going to say that ANY 80 year old on the planet is anything more than...
Actuaries tell us probabilities. Probabilities are not certainties;
This is not how you run a business, campaign, or country. This is how you gamble and lose.
There are 0 sane doctors who are going to say that ANY 80 year old on the planet is anything more than one major, or even minor, health incident away from being not who they once were. Let alone one in an extremely stressful and constant job.
This is sticking your head in the sand levels of denial to start with, and that's before you consider that it was an extremely public figure. Plenty of people correctly observed "uh hey this guy looks good for his age but not good for a person". At what point is this once again political negligence? Do they have to go to feinstein or RBG levels every single time before we start realizing that this is insane?
As for "private" misgivings, there are large parts of the party who have talked literally about nothing else. In public. It's not 'private' at all. It was straight up said by many, and then shot down by leadership because "oh how dare you imply the old man is old". Well turns out, he's old, and now it's everyone's problem.
I agree that probabilities are important. I just think it's harder to build a consensus around predictions. People are talking all the time about what they think the future will bring, but unless...
I agree that probabilities are important. I just think it's harder to build a consensus around predictions.
People are talking all the time about what they think the future will bring, but unless you actually know something, it just sounds like noise.
It doesn't matter what people think the future will bring. It matters what the consequences of that future are and how likely they are to happen. Obama getting hit by a bolt of lightning would've...
It doesn't matter what people think the future will bring.
It matters what the consequences of that future are and how likely they are to happen.
Obama getting hit by a bolt of lightning would've had major consequences but was super unlikely so there's no reason to worry about it.
80 year old man not being able to campaign, just from a physical standpoint, is what most people would assume the default is, so much so that any alternative is an abnormality. Taking such stupid risks is absurd. They may have literally just bet the future of this country on an old man not being an old man, just like they bet the future of abortion on an old woman with cancer not dying.
Decisions are made by people based on what they think the future will bring. You can insist they should have known all you want, but without some consensus-making process, the decision doesn't happen.
Decisions are made by people based on what they think the future will bring.
You can insist they should have known all you want, but without some consensus-making process, the decision doesn't happen.
I just don't buy that. 4 years ago people were already concerned with his age. Even if he is currently of sound mind, by the time he's done with a 2nd term, he would be 86! That is not the age you...
it's hard to see how it could have happened sooner: until very recently, Biden's health was an ambiguous issue.
I just don't buy that. 4 years ago people were already concerned with his age. Even if he is currently of sound mind, by the time he's done with a 2nd term, he would be 86! That is not the age you want for someone leading your country. On top of that, given how obvious things were to anyone who watched the debate, people who are around him constantly could easily have predicted this a while ago. They have been actively trying to downplay it and hide things. There was also hints 4 years ago where Biden was saying he was planning to be a "transition president" to a new generation of younger candidates. Everything was set up for them to line this up properly and get someone exciting. Given how much age was a question 4 years ago, you can't tell me the Dems in charge somehow thought that question would get better after 4 years.
I think an age cap for president would be a fantastic idea. CEO and Commander in Chief really should have physical vigor and stamina as well as rhetorical chops. I also think it would be popular....
I think an age cap for president would be a fantastic idea. CEO and Commander in Chief really should have physical vigor and stamina as well as rhetorical chops.
I also think it would be popular. Millennials and GenZ are large demographics who are chafing at how influential the boomers still are. I'm GenX and nobody thinks about us but I think my generation would go for it also. This election between people who should be retired has been a shit show
The nice thing about it is that we don't need a constitutional amendment. The Democratic party could just change their internal voting procedures for delegates. The trouble is, they could also...
The nice thing about it is that we don't need a constitutional amendment. The Democratic party could just change their internal voting procedures for delegates.
The trouble is, they could also change them back if they felt the need to make an exception. But I think it would have some weight.
A constitutional amendment is a good idea too, and who knows, maybe it has a chance?
We will never see another Constitutional amendment in our lifetimes, unless one party totally dominates the federal government and a majority of state governments.
A constitutional amendment is a good idea too, and who knows, maybe it has a chance?
We will never see another Constitutional amendment in our lifetimes, unless one party totally dominates the federal government and a majority of state governments.
Possibly, setting an age limit would work if it's sufficiently uncontroversial that nobody opposes it. (It wouldn't be hard to set it up so it doesn't affect Trump.)
Possibly, setting an age limit would work if it's sufficiently uncontroversial that nobody opposes it. (It wouldn't be hard to set it up so it doesn't affect Trump.)
With a normal Republican party, yes, I agree. The Republican party is so far off the tracks right now and addicted to Trump that this wouldn't be anything they'd support. They'd entertain...
With a normal Republican party, yes, I agree. The Republican party is so far off the tracks right now and addicted to Trump that this wouldn't be anything they'd support. They'd entertain repealing the two term limit if it allowed them keeping Trump in office into his 90s.
not large enough, given the turnout demographics. Which is sad because I believe the 2020 election had the highest or 2nd highest turnout overall (based on what metric you use to calculate it).
Millennials and GenZ are large demographics who are chafing at how influential the boomers still are.
not large enough, given the turnout demographics. Which is sad because I believe the 2020 election had the highest or 2nd highest turnout overall (based on what metric you use to calculate it).
No caps. If age is an issue for voters then voters should simply not vote for overly old candidates. What’s the point in binding their choices in this way?
No caps. If age is an issue for voters then voters should simply not vote for overly old candidates. What’s the point in binding their choices in this way?
What was the point in requiring someone be at least 35? To do the job well demands intelligence, emotional intelligence and rhetorical skill but also physical stamina to keep up with long hours...
What was the point in requiring someone be at least 35?
To do the job well demands intelligence, emotional intelligence and rhetorical skill but also physical stamina to keep up with long hours and evening diplomatic events.
It requires flexibility to juggle and prioritize competing demands and to learn new information daily.
Supposedly that and the “natural born citizen” bits were specifically there to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being made the first President. He’d have been 32 when the Constitution was signed,...
Supposedly that and the “natural born citizen” bits were specifically there to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being made the first President. He’d have been 32 when the Constitution was signed, and it wasn’t really clear at the time that Washington would have accepted the position if it was offered.
Why wouldn't Hamilton have counted as a citizen for purposes of eligibility at that point? He became a citizen in 1789 like everyone else in the US. Especially given that Lafayette was deemed a...
Why wouldn't Hamilton have counted as a citizen for purposes of eligibility at that point? He became a citizen in 1789 like everyone else in the US. Especially given that Lafayette was deemed a "natural born citizen" there's no indication that his parentage would have any particular impact on it.
Also he wrote a very similar eligibility clause previously.
I'm just not sure I follow the logic I guess!
The lack of epistolary evidence of concerns regarding Hamilton as president, or specifically relating to efforts to render him constitutionally ineligible to the office, are far from conclusive evidence that no such concerns or motivations existed in the minds of Convention delegates. However, this lack of evidence, taken together with the origins of Article II, Section 1, Clause IV, and the apparent lack of effectiveness of that clause in disqualifying Hamilton from the presidency, is persuasive evidence that the language of Presidential eligibility that was included in the Constitution was not intended to prevent Hamilton from running for the office. While such concerns and desires may have existed among Convention delegates, the presidential eligibility clause of Article II was certainly not an attempt to turn these desires into the law of the land, or if it was, it was an entirely ineffective one.
-- WillHamilton - 15 Oct 2010
Sauce: https://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/AmLegalHist/WillHamiltonProject
I looked into it and apparently it was only the age thing. The Natural Born bit still permitted Hamilton based on what you said, and was designed to avoid having some random person from a foreign...
I looked into it and apparently it was only the age thing. The Natural Born bit still permitted Hamilton based on what you said, and was designed to avoid having some random person from a foreign government becoming Commander in Chief of the Army and using it to undermine the Republic. I suppose at the time, when large chartered corporations were doing basically exactly that in the East Indies, that was a more substantive fear.
Our choices are bound either way. Who was the not-old candidate we were supposed to vote for if Biden hadn't dropped out? An age cap is more likely than a disruption of the entire two party system...
Our choices are bound either way. Who was the not-old candidate we were supposed to vote for if Biden hadn't dropped out? An age cap is more likely than a disruption of the entire two party system to make third party candidates viable.
That’s part of a whole system wherein voters evidently didn’t care about candidate’s ages. If they cared more we wouldn’t have a gerontocratic senate and primary contests tilted in favor of people...
That’s part of a whole system wherein voters evidently didn’t care about candidate’s ages. If they cared more we wouldn’t have a gerontocratic senate and primary contests tilted in favor of people who have been around for ages.
The power dynamics of the Senate and Congress incentivize gerontocracy. New members can't deliver for their state or district. There is significant cost to giving up seniority. Up until very...
The power dynamics of the Senate and Congress incentivize gerontocracy. New members can't deliver for their state or district. There is significant cost to giving up seniority.
Up until very recently presidents were much younger
Just worth noting, Biden isn't even a boomer, he's the first and only Silent Generation president. The overall point stands though. Oh and Harris is Gen X
Just worth noting, Biden isn't even a boomer, he's the first and only Silent Generation president.
There are no “Dems” with any authority to be making decisions about who to run or who to groom or whatever else. This all happens in primaries and it’s mostly out in the open.
There are no “Dems” with any authority to be making decisions about who to run or who to groom or whatever else. This all happens in primaries and it’s mostly out in the open.
Been having a "forced joke" since 2016 where Bernie gets screwed over twice. Maybe that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" meme isn't as far off as I thought.
Been having a "forced joke" since 2016 where Bernie gets screwed over twice. Maybe that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" meme isn't as far off as I thought.
I don't think I've ever seen a group of squabbling politicians "fall in line" faster than the 2020 democratic primary. The DNC and Biden campaign clearly pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes...
I don't think I've ever seen a group of squabbling politicians "fall in line" faster than the 2020 democratic primary. The DNC and Biden campaign clearly pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes (including granting Kamala the VP position and Mayor Pete a lofty appointment) because there was no clear Dem standout candidate and the chances of a contested multi-round convention were very high.
Biden was not doing very well until almost all of ths competition fell in line. Not sure how many of us "fell in love" with Biden that cycle.
How and who at the DNC pulled these strings? How did they force voters to choose Biden over, for example, Bernie? I really don't understand the aura and animosity towards the DNC in situations...
How and who at the DNC pulled these strings? How did they force voters to choose Biden over, for example, Bernie? I really don't understand the aura and animosity towards the DNC in situations like this. They're essentially a glorified events planning organization. There's no clear mechanism for them to force a candidate in or out. What happened in 2020 was a group of politicians realizing they were not going to win, and making a calculated decision to drop out and endorse someone who aligned more closely with them than the other main contender (Biden over Bernie). That's not "falling in line" in the sense I understand people to mean it, and it's not pulling strings. It's just how coalitional politics works. You make alliances and deals to further your power and ability to enact policy.
The point of the "unforced error" bit was that if the Democrats lose, with Biden or without, afterwards every pundit and internet commenter will have perfect hindsight and act like they knew all...
The point of the "unforced error" bit was that if the Democrats lose, with Biden or without, afterwards every pundit and internet commenter will have perfect hindsight and act like they knew all along that the Democrats were making a strategic error. Just look at how the 2016 election gets re-litigated to this day.
It's not necessarily an error either way though, we just can't accurately assess which route is more likely to lead to the Dems losing. Whichever route they choose, it's possible the alternative...
It's not necessarily an error either way though, we just can't accurately assess which route is more likely to lead to the Dems losing. Whichever route they choose, it's possible the alternative was way better and they made the unforced error of switching to the worse path.
I see basically 3 possibilities, of which there's probably some mixture: He just decided to for whatever reason, in which case, fucking hell why couldn't you have done that forever ago like...
I see basically 3 possibilities, of which there's probably some mixture:
He just decided to for whatever reason, in which case, fucking hell why couldn't you have done that forever ago like everyone hoped.
Major dems and donors sat him down and said "we will literally not back you if you force us to", which ALSO should've been done months ago if they were going to do this.
COVID has hit him seriously and he must step down because he literally cannot campaign. Which is the risk you run when you have a 80 year old candidate and AGAIN should've been thought about months ago.
Why is it that every single time something happens that the entire world has been worried about, the democrats look like they've been caught completely flatfooted?
"s/months/years" and I completely agree (well, maybe A year ago. I don't know if announcing a 1 term on year 1 would affect his ability to enact policy) Because if we're being frank, Democrats...
"s/months/years" and I completely agree (well, maybe A year ago. I don't know if announcing a 1 term on year 1 would affect his ability to enact policy)
Why is it that every single time something happens that the entire world has been worried about, the democrats look like they've been caught completely flatfooted?
Because if we're being frank, Democrats across the generations haven't been aligned since Obama. it's been clear since even W Bush that the priorities of the millenial/early Gen X (and later, Gen Z) are completely different from later Gen Z/Boomers, and the latter get out and vote. 2008 was just some convinient stars aligning for once.
I will be extremely surprised if the election wasn't just given to the Republicans. The whole idea of the primary system and dates is so that whoever becomes the candidate has an actual chance of...
I will be extremely surprised if the election wasn't just given to the Republicans.
The whole idea of the primary system and dates is so that whoever becomes the candidate has an actual chance of running a campaign. This is just too late.
(Yes, the Democrats didn't run a real primary. That's their fault, but everyone pays.)
I don't have a lot of confidence, but I had almost no confidence with Biden continuing his campaign. The debate was disastrous and his few public appearances after that didn't really do much to...
I don't have a lot of confidence, but I had almost no confidence with Biden continuing his campaign. The debate was disastrous and his few public appearances after that didn't really do much to convince people it was an off night or a fluke. Plus, his covid diagnosis may be limiting his campaign activities now a time when it's really crucial he proves he's fit and capable for another four years.
This is the right decision -- unprecedented and introduces a lot of uncertainty -- but still the correct call.
We just need a candidate who's willing to take the gloves off and position their campaign as being against Project 2025: drag that dirty laundry out into the public in attack ads plastered...
We just need a candidate who's willing to take the gloves off and position their campaign as being against Project 2025: drag that dirty laundry out into the public in attack ads plastered everywhere. Pepper that with cuts of Trump's dementia-addled ramblings.
Show people that 1) they should be very afraid of the Republican Party and 2) if they were uncomfortable with Biden's cognition, Trump's a lot worse.
Also: campaigning to reach women. If the Democrats pull a rabbit out of the hat and manage to make the election about the issues, they'll win. I don't see how they could possibly manage that...
Also: campaigning to reach women.
If the Democrats pull a rabbit out of the hat and manage to make the election about the issues, they'll win. I don't see how they could possibly manage that though
That's how Trump'll show he's completely unfit. He never could discuss policy and his policy is losing. As you say, if he can't ramble, he's entirely lost.
Hillary tried the policy thing. We ended up with Trump. The people who decide the election in general (the undecideds) don’t care about policy. They don’t pay enough attention to really know it to...
Hillary tried the policy thing. We ended up with Trump. The people who decide the election in general (the undecideds) don’t care about policy. They don’t pay enough attention to really know it to care. If they paid attention they wouldn’t be undecided.
It is sadly a popularity contest with them. And also a vote on how well they think things are going. If going well vote for party in charge. If not, vote for other party.
Yeah, entirely too much of our elections are decided on vibes. I'm hesitant to recommend the podcast again, but I think Ezra Klein's coverage of this has been good. He did an episode on this...
Yeah, entirely too much of our elections are decided on policy vibes.
The biggest divide in our politics isn’t between Democrats and Republicans, or even left and right. It’s between people who follow politics closely, and those who pay almost no attention to it. If you’re in the former camp — and if you’re reading this, you probably are — the latter camp can seem inscrutable. These people hardly ever look at political news. They hate discussing politics. But they do care about issues and candidates, and they often vote.
As the 2024 election takes shape, this bloc appears crucial to determining who wins the presidency. An NBC News poll from April found that 15 percent of voters don’t follow political news, and Donald Trump was winning them by 26 points.
Yanna Krupnikov studies exactly this kind of voter. She’s a professor of communication and media at the University of Michigan and an author, with John Barry Ryan, of “The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics.” The book examines how the chasm between the deeply involved and the less involved shapes politics in America. I’ve found it to be a helpful guide for understanding one of the most crucial dynamics emerging in this year’s election: the swing to Trump from President Biden among disengaged voters.
Hillary was also absolutely hated by a proportion of people in a way Harris definitely isn't. My Dad's a former Republican and voted eagerly for Biden/Harris in 2020, but in 2016 he voted...
Hillary was also absolutely hated by a proportion of people in a way Harris definitely isn't. My Dad's a former Republican and voted eagerly for Biden/Harris in 2020, but in 2016 he voted third-party because he couldn't stand either Trump or Clinton. Justified or not, I don't see the same issue coming up for Harris.
Well, I think it depends on what Kamala or the some other nominee runs on. In particular, the person I replied to said: And I think it depends on the issues. If you can't project a strong optimism...
Well, I think it depends on what Kamala or the some other nominee runs on. In particular, the person I replied to said:
If the Democrats pull a rabbit out of the hat and manage to make the election about the issues, they'll win.
And I think it depends on the issues. If you can't project a strong optimism about what they can do to improve the economy, you are going to lose people.
In this situation? Possibly. The own goal was the Democrats ending in this situation, especially after fumbling in very much the same way with Hillary to get Trump elected in the first place. DNC...
In this situation? Possibly.
The own goal was the Democrats ending in this situation, especially after fumbling in very much the same way with Hillary to get Trump elected in the first place.
DNC doing DNC things. Hopefully there are consequences this time around. When you do the same thing twice due to hubris, you have to learn.
I only had a little confidence because an incumbent is very hard to overcome. I had no clue if Biden would even survive another 4 years, but we have systems to replace presidents who die mid-duty...
I don't have a lot of confidence, but I had almost no confidence with Biden continuing his campaign.
I only had a little confidence because an incumbent is very hard to overcome. I had no clue if Biden would even survive another 4 years, but we have systems to replace presidents who die mid-duty for a reason.
I think one thing people forget is that it was a huge miracle Biden beat Trump. Trumps poor (understatement) handling of the pandemic unironcally killed off a lot of his potential voter base, and even then Biden only won because a whole 5 states flipped from 2016. 3 of those states standing firm would have had either a nailbiter or another 4 years of trump. PA and Georgia alone would have closed the lead down to 4 points.
So with that incumbent lead gone, I'm very worried. There's been enough mishaps (especially with abortion under the court Trump appointed in his time) that I haven't completely lost hope, but it's going to be an uphill battle.
Also, may as well not deny it. There are still some racist/sexist but democratic voters out there. If Harris is being appointed we're up an even larger creek, for all the wrong reasons. At least Hilary was a first lady and secretary of state to mitigate this (and we know how it ended).
For sexist people, the fact that Hilary had any experience at all was a negative. Those people would have preferred a young beauty queen. Maybe Harris having been invisible is a plus to folks who...
For sexist people, the fact that Hilary had any experience at all was a negative. Those people would have preferred a young beauty queen. Maybe Harris having been invisible is a plus to folks who inherently think women shouldn't be in leadership
There were situations around the world where last minute campaigns worked because basically there's was not enough time to lose momentum or do significant missteps, so it made the candidate seem...
The whole idea of the primary system and dates is so that whoever becomes the candidate has an actual chance of running a campaign. This is just too late.
There were situations around the world where last minute campaigns worked because basically there's was not enough time to lose momentum or do significant missteps, so it made the candidate seem as if they have a surprising rocket start. I don't doubt that the democrat's political marketers thought about this. I do doubt that Kamala Harris is good enough though.
How do the rest of the democratic nations function with much shorter election cycles than the US? Surely, they can campaign just fine with a shorter season.
The whole idea of the primary system and dates is so that whoever becomes the candidate has an actual chance of running a campaign. This is just too late.
How do the rest of the democratic nations function with much shorter election cycles than the US? Surely, they can campaign just fine with a shorter season.
Yeah I’ve had the same thought. Seeing how long campaigns run in USA, I don’t understand how any actual governing gets done, since it seems like more than 50% of the four year term is various...
Yeah I’ve had the same thought. Seeing how long campaigns run in USA, I don’t understand how any actual governing gets done, since it seems like more than 50% of the four year term is various campaigns.
Contrast with the UK general election where the entire process was just about one month from the candidates being locked in to the vote being actually held. Technically two months (or a bit under) if you consider the first moment that the election was announced.
I had the same thoughts as you originally, but seeing the amount of support and donations for Harris in the last 24 hours genuinely changed my thoughts. I don't see Harris doing any worse than...
I had the same thoughts as you originally, but seeing the amount of support and donations for Harris in the last 24 hours genuinely changed my thoughts.
I don't see Harris doing any worse than Biden would have, and she has more room to grow upwards. How many people who were realistically going to vote for Biden won't vote for Harris? There aren't any valuable polls yet, obviously, but logically that voter would be exceedingly rare.
There's also the fact that age was a serious issue for many with both Trump and Biden. Age won't be an issue for Harris.
Personally, I think Harris has a very solid chance. 4 months is plenty of time in today's world to go on a campaign blitz and build up enough support to win enough swing states
well, better late than never. December 2019: Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term Feb 2024 op-ed from Ezra Klein: Democrats have a better option than Biden (archive link)...
While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.
According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.
“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.”
I posted that article when it came out, and highlighted a passage of Klein's that I found particularly chilling:
I have this nightmare that Trump wins in 2024. And then in 2025 and 2026, out come the campaign tell-all books, and they’re full of emails and WhatsApp messages between Biden staffers and Democratic leaders, where they’re all saying to each other, this is a disaster, he’s not going to win this, I can’t bear to watch this speech, we’re going to lose. But they didn’t say any of it publicly, they didn’t do anything, because it was too dangerous for their careers, or too uncomfortable given their loyalty to Biden.
I was reminded of that after Biden's disastrous debate performance against Trump. the tell-all books from staffers were going to full of terrible anecdotes about this period of the campaign.
at the time, the pushback to Klein's piece was that it was already February, the election was only 9 months away, so obviously it was too late to try to change candidates.
I think this is one of those "the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the 2nd best time is now" things.
it appears that people are coalescing around Kamala as the obvious successor, which seems good. for example, my congresswoman here in Seattle, Pramila Jayapal, has endorsed Kamala, and she leads the Democratic Progressive Caucus.
there had been speculation and fantasizing about holding some sort of "micro-primary" at the DNC convention in order to select a different candidate. I'd seen this referred to dismissively as a "Squid Game primary", which I think is apt. if there was going to be any sort of competition for someone else to be at the top of the ticket, the way to do that was through a real primary process, and that would have needed to happen months ago. the VP has almost no other job in our modern political system other than to exist as "backup President", it would be absurd to try to bypass Kamala and nominate someone else through backroom dealing at the convention. it would also be a huge turn-off to the Democratic party base, especially black women, to see Kamala shunted aside for a different, likely white and/or male, candidate.
a lesson I hope Democrats learn from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Dianne Feinstein, and now Biden, is the importance of handing off the reins of power before death or old age forces your hand. a podcast I listen to about SCOTUS, 5-4, recently brought up the need for Sonia Sotomayor to retire soon-ish, ideally the next time Democrats hold both the Presidency and the Senate. I like her work on the court a lot, but she is 70 years old and has type 1 diabetes. if she dies during a Republican presidency, or even a Democratic presidency where Republicans control the Senate, we could potentially have a sequel to RBG's seat being taken by Amy Coney Barrett, which would give us a ludicrous 7-2 conservative majority on the court.
I've enjoyed Ezra Klein's coverage of this issue. Particularly his episode on Kamala Harris, "Is Kamala Harris Underrated?" (also on YouTube here). Though I don't know if I came away from that...
Though I don't know if I came away from that latter episode terribly convinced that Harris has the charisma to be president. I think she'd make a good AG, but President...? I'm concerned. Though maybe Ezra Klein is right.
ezra klein
This, to me, is the paradox of her — it might ultimately be the tragedy of her — because Harris runs in 2020 at this exact moment when her precise political profile is disastrous for the Democratic Party, right?
elaina plott calabro
Exactly.
ezra klein
It’s post-Ferguson. It’s post-Black Lives Matter. George Floyd is yet to come, but we’re already in this moment where what you want to be is not a smart on crime Democrat. It’s a criminal justice reformer. But when I go back right now — because preparing for the show, I was reading a bunch of older political profiles of Harris, and I was reading this one from The New Yorker in 2019. And they described her then as, quote, “a Black female law and order Democrat.”
And when you imagine the candidate Democrats would want to run this year amidst concern about crime, concern about disorder at the border, running against a convicted criminal in Donald Trump, at the moment that the Supreme Court is saying that the president can functionally do almost anything they want, like a Black female law and order Democrat is the profile that you would grow in a lab.
And it’s not clear to me. Like, can she reinhabit it? Can she find that again? Does she still believe in any of that? But it seems very — rather than Harris, in some ways, seeming ill-suited for the moment, most of her political history seems perfectly suited for the moment.
Nothing about this article is definitive and all of it is based on over-interpreting very minor, offhanded comments that are delivered via hearsay from mostly anonymous sources. With the benefit...
December 2019: Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term
Nothing about this article is definitive and all of it is based on over-interpreting very minor, offhanded comments that are delivered via hearsay from mostly anonymous sources. With the benefit of hindsight I think we should take this as evidence for the political press being gossipy drama queens who don’t actually practice good journalistic standards. They’re just blithely publishing rumors, big chunks of which they’re just making up to string a narrative together.
I’m just glad this drama is behind us and hopefully the party can coalesce around Harris quickly. Major leaders in the party seem to be doing so. This might end up being seen as a rare move of...
I’m just glad this drama is behind us and hopefully the party can coalesce around Harris quickly. Major leaders in the party seem to be doing so. This might end up being seen as a rare move of Democratic strategic acumen but we just have to hope and ensure that they don’t once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive and Moderate Dem coalitions, Warren, Durbin, a large group are backing Harris. That makes me feel a bit more optimistic. Edit a word
The Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive and Moderate Dem coalitions, Warren, Durbin, a large group are backing Harris. That makes me feel a bit more optimistic.
3.5 months in the terms of a political move like this may as well be the Crowdstrike crisis that's not even a few days old. We probably would have been fine if this was the plan in January, but I...
I’m just glad this drama is behind us and hopefully the party can coalesce around Harris quickly
3.5 months in the terms of a political move like this may as well be the Crowdstrike crisis that's not even a few days old. We probably would have been fine if this was the plan in January, but I don't think people will come around quickly enough. Especially if Harris is indeed who the DNC will back.
By the party I mean people who will be endorsing her. I don’t really think there’s that many Biden voters out there who will need convincing to vote for Harris. It’s the same ticket, after all.
By the party I mean people who will be endorsing her. I don’t really think there’s that many Biden voters out there who will need convincing to vote for Harris. It’s the same ticket, after all.
Yeah, I absolutely did not want this, but what’s done is done. The donors and so-called progressive loudmouths got their way. Now they need to shut up and get in line behind Harris.
Yeah, I absolutely did not want this, but what’s done is done. The donors and so-called progressive loudmouths got their way. Now they need to shut up and get in line behind Harris.
It really was not the progressive wing of the party that did this. AOC and Bernie were vocal supporters of Biden staying in. This was mostly the doing of the donor class and Pelosi allies who are...
It really was not the progressive wing of the party that did this. AOC and Bernie were vocal supporters of Biden staying in. This was mostly the doing of the donor class and Pelosi allies who are worried about down ballot races. And of course the large number of voters who rank age as one of the biggest issues for supporting Biden.
Not the party wing. I agree that AOC and Bernie did the right thing when it mattered most. But the contingent of online progressives who are never satisfied just wouldn’t let up about Biden’s...
Not the party wing. I agree that AOC and Bernie did the right thing when it mattered most. But the contingent of online progressives who are never satisfied just wouldn’t let up about Biden’s supposed unfitness.
If AOC and Bernie in the flesh don't matter to the Pelosi class, how on earth do disgruntled online progressives have voices that would even register. No, the online little people are definitely...
If AOC and Bernie in the flesh don't matter to the Pelosi class, how on earth do disgruntled online progressives have voices that would even register. No, the online little people are definitely not what pushed this to happen, even if they are coincidentally calling for it to happen.
Ah, that may be the case, but rest assured online progressives are not the ones that lead to this outcome. Online posting from the rank-and-file is almost always sound a fury signifying nothing at...
Ah, that may be the case, but rest assured online progressives are not the ones that lead to this outcome. Online posting from the rank-and-file is almost always sound a fury signifying nothing at the end of the day. I understand your frustration and also think Biden was the most progressive president of my lifetime, but I think he became so because of the realities of the coalition he built and relied on for support and not because of some internal evolution. That is to say, the political landscape forced him to be progressive, and that is the same landscape Harris will be inheriting. There is hope she will be just as progressive.
In any case I think, personal feelings aside, the only word on any Democrat or progressive’s lips right now should be “Win!”. There will be time after the election to settle scores. We are four months from a potential authoritarian/proto-fascist nightmare scenario. Now is not the time to be venting about insta-party frustration, imo.
Hold the name calling (and assumptions of disingenuousness?) when talking in spaces you know you share with the people you're talking about please. That's exactly the rhetoric we need to get past.
Hold the name calling (and assumptions of disingenuousness?) when talking in spaces you know you share with the people you're talking about please.
I get you man, I've got my own rage, and by sheer coincidence wearing my Bernie 2016 shirt as I type this. I even voted 3rd party in PA at the time, and I stand by my choice, and firmly believe...
I get you man, I've got my own rage, and by sheer coincidence wearing my Bernie 2016 shirt as I type this. I even voted 3rd party in PA at the time, and I stand by my choice, and firmly believe it's part of the reason Biden's presidency is as good as it is today.
The strategic answer in 2024 is voting out Republicans at every level and pass proper voting reforms like ranked choice.
Join the DSA and help forge the future with that rage. Stepping on toes right now and navelgazing is counterproductive.
Frankly, I'd like to see them double-down and put AoC on the ticket. Two women, and make their top running platform re-securing women's rights for the future.
Frankly, I'd like to see them double-down and put AoC on the ticket.
Two women, and make their top running platform re-securing women's rights for the future.
That platform doesn't win. I'm sorry, bit a VP is meant to expand the base. If Harris has the centre locked and needed to shore up her left flank, sure, but that's not where we're at. We need to...
That platform doesn't win. I'm sorry, bit a VP is meant to expand the base. If Harris has the centre locked and needed to shore up her left flank, sure, but that's not where we're at. We need to lock up at least some of the swing states, like PA (Shapiro) or Kelly (AZ). The same white male Biden picked Harris to shore up black and female support, and the support on his left.
See, I just call that sexist, rascist pandering. And yea it's probably neccessary, but doesn't make it less bullshit. Trump had the second most votes for president of any other presidential...
See, I just call that sexist, rascist pandering. And yea it's probably neccessary, but doesn't make it less bullshit.
Trump had the second most votes for president of any other presidential election ever. There is no 'swaying' the Trump voter, with the possible exception of pulling women over, even then I'm doubtful.
And I can promise you Shapiro is a losing choice. He's too new of a governer and hasn't made a mark. Can't speak to Kelly though.
The US is sexist, racist country. It's still in the best interest of women and minorities that Dems win. Shapiro is hugely popular, though. Kelly is more established, but we need to do something...
The US is sexist, racist country. It's still in the best interest of women and minorities that Dems win.
Shapiro is hugely popular, though. Kelly is more established, but we need to do something about those Rust Belt states. We can't lose PA.
I'd love to see it too, but I don't think that the US would vote for AOC as president just the same as a Harris/Whitmer ticket wouldn't fly with the broader population. But who knows. I just hope...
I'd love to see it too, but I don't think that the US would vote for AOC as president just the same as a Harris/Whitmer ticket wouldn't fly with the broader population.
But who knows. I just hope that whoever lands in the white house doesn't skewer Canada at the same time as we're enjoying our own reckoning. Mealy mouthed Laurentian or fire breathing kid brother are our options.
Greatest? Well, I'm glad the youth are getting out to vote. Though, it's not like my choices as a millenial are much better. Clinton, W, Obama, Trump, Biden.
Greatest? Well, I'm glad the youth are getting out to vote.
Though, it's not like my choices as a millenial are much better. Clinton, W, Obama, Trump, Biden.
A frustrated tone isn't a problem, it's implying bad faith or ignorance in a generalized group of a people that you share this platform with, and then telling them to shut up. Take a breath before...
A frustrated tone isn't a problem, it's implying bad faith or ignorance in a generalized group of a people that you share this platform with, and then telling them to shut up.
Take a breath before letting negative impulses out on here even if your feelings are valid. This is Tildes, not Reddit. Apologies don't make us lose an argument on here, they help us remember we're talking to and about real people.
Welp let the legal shit show begin. Edit- to give this some depth There’s going to be a very large mess now. Both the political in fighting of who gets to be the candidate AND “what are the...
Welp let the legal shit show begin.
Edit- to give this some depth
There’s going to be a very large mess now. Both the political in fighting of who gets to be the candidate AND “what are the repercussions of this” from a legal and voting perspective.
The lawyers are I’m sure ready for this and going to cause a shitstorm
I was worried about this, but as long as it's legal for Democratic delegates to vote for whoever they want at the convention, and that person becomes the party nominee, I suspect that legally it's...
I was worried about this, but as long as it's legal for Democratic delegates to vote for whoever they want at the convention, and that person becomes the party nominee, I suspect that legally it's in the clear. That is, it's only custom that Biden's delegates vote for Biden.
And I think it has to work that way, because otherwise, the delegates of a candidate who dropped out couldn't vote for someone else. And that's what's happening in this case! Later than usual.
This is a process that wasn't really used for decades, but I think it's still on the books, because that's how it originally worked? Some states like California have jungle primaries, but not for presidential elections. (If someone actually knows how the laws work, please correct me.)
Another case to consider: imagine if a presidential candidate died just after the November election. What could the electoral college do? It's a situation where electors technically being able to make a different decision than what they promised might be useful as a backup plan.
Having people involved in a decision-making process means there's a risk of shenanigans, but there are times when it's better than relying on a dumb algorithm.
We should prepare ourselves to hear Donald make up some justification for why his opponent is a "criminal" who "stole the nomination" or some bullshit along those lines. And of course for...
We should prepare ourselves to hear Donald make up some justification for why his opponent is a "criminal" who "stole the nomination" or some bullshit along those lines. And of course for uninformed commenters like the GP here to insinuate that the claim has any legal standing whatsoever. As you say exactly: if they get the DNC nomination, there should be zero legal issues whatsoever to get them on ballots and to get their name and policies out there. 100 days is a long time. The UK elected literally all of their elected positions in less time than that!
Yeah, this has a good chance of being a chaotic moment for America's legal systems. The people I follow defend that, since Biden was not officially nominated and no ballots have been printed...
Yeah, this has a good chance of being a chaotic moment for America's legal systems. The people I follow defend that, since Biden was not officially nominated and no ballots have been printed everything will be fine, but Republicans will definitely want to force him back on the ballot, and we don't really expect the Supreme Court to not oblige after the immunity ruling if it comes to it. I personally believe that if they can simply disallow Kamala or whoever from the ballot, then they may as well turn the USA to a one-party state.
Lawyer here. Republicans shouldn't have standing to contest anything done internally by the DNC but we will see how creative they can get and how obliging the judges are .
Lawyer here. Republicans shouldn't have standing to contest anything done internally by the DNC but we will see how creative they can get and how obliging the judges are .
iirc they already changed the rules for the Ohio ballot issue, and it would affect Republicans as well so they're unlikely to fight to use the old rules. I guess I'll find out either way, since I...
iirc they already changed the rules for the Ohio ballot issue, and it would affect Republicans as well so they're unlikely to fight to use the old rules.
I guess I'll find out either way, since I vote in Ohio.
can you ELI5 what legal arguments could potentially come up? The DNC/RNC are things that "should" respect the parties' wishes, but technically they can choose to back whoever they want, regardless...
can you ELI5 what legal arguments could potentially come up? The DNC/RNC are things that "should" respect the parties' wishes, but technically they can choose to back whoever they want, regardless of primaries, right? None of this convention formalities are highlighted in any binding document I'm aware of (and I can be unaware of many other documents, or the subteties of existing ones I do know)
My understanding is that Biden stepping away releases his delegates. Biden has encouraged them to choose Kamala Harris but I don't think that binds them. There have been threats by Republicans to...
My understanding is that Biden stepping away releases his delegates. Biden has encouraged them to choose Kamala Harris but I don't think that binds them.
There have been threats by Republicans to try to keep Biden's replacement off state ballots. That would be a revolutionary move by the Courts if they allow that. However this court has shown itself willing to be radical.
It's going to be interesting and unpredictable but I have hope
I know the GOP has been threatening court challenges, but I really don’t understand on what grounds they intend to do so. My understanding is that ballots have not even been printed yet, and Biden...
I know the GOP has been threatening court challenges, but I really don’t understand on what grounds they intend to do so. My understanding is that ballots have not even been printed yet, and Biden i was never the official nominee. Even with courts as fucked as they are I don’t see how they could force Democrats to have a nominee they never selected and don’t want. Challenges related to campaign war-chest issues might have more opportunity for ratfuckery.
I think the legal concerns are overblown. As others have said, there does not appear to be any legitimate legal theory for disqualifying the future Democratic nominee. Instead people are worried...
I think the legal concerns are overblown.
As others have said, there does not appear to be any legitimate legal theory for disqualifying the future Democratic nominee. Instead people are worried about non-specific, goal-oriented legal threats rather than any particularized wrongdoing by the DNC. The concern basically amounts to: well, what if the Supreme Court decides to go rogue and disqualify the Democratic candidate anyway? Folk, if the Supreme Court were to do something like this, there would be riots in the streets because that would be the death knell to American democracy, not Trump.
Speaking of the Supreme Court: as terrible as the majority has been, they were not willing to entertain Trump's frivolous legal challenges in the 2020 election. In fact, the only meaningful consequences of those lawsuits have been civil and criminal actions against those involved in the conspiracy, including some of the lawyers who filed said frivolous lawsuits.
The optics of attempting to disenfranchise half the electorate will be absolutely awful for Republicans. Democrats are currently campaigning against Republicans on the platform that Trump is a threat to democracy. How will the public take it when Republicans try to disqualify the only other major Presidential candidate?
I'm still really concerned you'll end up with states like Texas not having Harris at the top of the ticket because Paxton would be likely to try that. And that would, regardless of the...
I'm still really concerned you'll end up with states like Texas not having Harris at the top of the ticket because Paxton would be likely to try that.
And that would, regardless of the presidential election, end up with down ticket issues.
But even if Paxton were to succeed -- and again, I don't think he would for the reasons @boxer_dogs_dance describes -- he wouldn't be able to prevent a write-in campaign. And it's perfectly...
But even if Paxton were to succeed -- and again, I don't think he would for the reasons @boxer_dogs_dance describes -- he wouldn't be able to prevent a write-in campaign. And it's perfectly conceivable that the Democrats could actually prevail under such circumstances (Lisa Murkowski, for example, famously won a Senate seat despite not being on the ballot). Indeed, if there's enough public bashlash against such a blatantly undemocratic measure, it might even have the opposite effect, boosting Democratic turnout.
I agree that a hypothetical legal challenge blocking access to the ballot would be morally reprehensible, but I don't think it would necessarily be catastrophic.
It might, but i think the down-ballot effect would still be huge. I'm less concerned than I was a few months ago, and I'm feeling hopeful at the behind the scenes work that has undercut some of...
It might, but i think the down-ballot effect would still be huge. I'm less concerned than I was a few months ago, and I'm feeling hopeful at the behind the scenes work that has undercut some of the wild "what if everyone gets on TV and speed dates their favorite candidate with every delegate, deciding who makes the best "is it cake" before they vote" fast primary ideas (only a slight exaggeration I think),
But the house is huge, and gerrymandered as it is, small shifts can have big effects.
I do agree he wouldn't likely succeed, but the try is going to eat up air from the campaign. I just heard the current chair of the FEC panel that will I guess decide if Harris gets the Biden campaign fund play some of the "well some lawyers have said lots of different things" game. I'm less concerned about the actual 'win' by actors like Paxton, and more worried about the impacts of the games.
Regarding the FEC: the current chair of the FEC is a Trump appointee purposefully distorting the law. He cites 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(3) in an attempt to muddy the waters, but its applicability is...
Regarding the FEC: the current chair of the FEC is a Trump appointee purposefully distorting the law. He cites11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(3) in an attempt to muddy the waters, but its applicability is dubious. At any rate, he doesn't have the final say -- the FEC board is purposefully split 3-3 Republican-Democratic, so the worse-case scenario is that the decision would be split and sent to the courts, where it would remain unsettled until well after election day.
However, the fact that the chairman has to speak so obtusely proves the weakness of the challenge. And at any rate it's irrelevant, as the issue would be resolved too late to matter.
As for your larger point: I don't see frivolous lawsuits as being much of a threat. On the contrary, I think they often have the opposite effect, making the plaintiff look incompetent and petty.
In the interview I was listening to, he didn't even cite anything, he just gave the "many fine lawyers have said" line. But yeah i agree. It's less that I am worried about frivolous lawsuits and...
In the interview I was listening to, he didn't even cite anything, he just gave the "many fine lawyers have said" line. But yeah i agree. It's less that I am worried about frivolous lawsuits and more that they'll turn out to be upheld and eat up media space in a world that apparently only covers scandal.
But it's just frustrating and anxiety inducing. And I am afraid of being optimistic
I think the Supreme Court would be likely to prevent that. Calling balls and strikes between the nation and the states is a fundamental part of their job. If they allowed this they would be...
I think the Supreme Court would be likely to prevent that. Calling balls and strikes between the nation and the states is a fundamental part of their job. If they allowed this they would be throwing out the constitution and it would be a very public signal that something is very wrong
I lack the confidence that SCOTUS would definitely shut it down. But as I noted in another post, it's the totality of it, possibly not being on a ballot, and the down race implications, but then...
I lack the confidence that SCOTUS would definitely shut it down. But as I noted in another post, it's the totality of it, possibly not being on a ballot, and the down race implications, but then also the "scandal" story sucking the air from the election, etc. I'm less anxious than I was previously, but it may just be some internal self-protection from hope.
I am far from certain. The Republicans have been extremely aggressive to the point of being revolutionary. However this is a step that would be impossible to hide or camouflage. Preventing a free...
I am far from certain. The Republicans have been extremely aggressive to the point of being revolutionary.
However this is a step that would be impossible to hide or camouflage. Preventing a free election based on technical rules changes the game irrevocably. Counter actions like expanding the court would be on table at minimum.
I really hope for a day in the future where my gut won’t be in knots before every major election. Shoot, I’ve even done multiple hours of work looking up information about the primary for the...
I really hope for a day in the future where my gut won’t be in knots before every major election.
Shoot, I’ve even done multiple hours of work looking up information about the primary for the local sheriff (which is a good thing, but still, I would love to have more of my head back)
Well this is going to get very interesting, very fast. First impression is that the Pelosi wing still wears the pants in the party, despite any gesture of stepping down or passing the torch to the...
Well this is going to get very interesting, very fast. First impression is that the Pelosi wing still wears the pants in the party, despite any gesture of stepping down or passing the torch to the next generation. Second is that if Harris isn't named as the true successor, that means it's going to the convention.
Pants on Head Wild Prediction
Do you know who's on a first name basis with most of the delegates who would be deciding such a convention, run a presidential campaign all the way to the general before, and has a score to settle with Donald Trump? Her time has come again.
Hilary Clinton is 76. Donald Trump is 78. The possibly winning move is to make Trump look old and out of touch by running a candidate in their fifties or sixties. I don't see a Clinton run...
Hilary Clinton is 76. Donald Trump is 78. The possibly winning move is to make Trump look old and out of touch by running a candidate in their fifties or sixties. I don't see a Clinton run happening but I might be proven wrong
Clinton running again would be the absolutely dumbest play of political nepotism, and would be in my mind a sure sign of a failed state. I would like to end my years with more presidents than not...
Clinton running again would be the absolutely dumbest play of political nepotism, and would be in my mind a sure sign of a failed state.
I would like to end my years with more presidents than not whom were not immediate family of a former president.
While a funny (very loose meaning of the word…) possibility to consider, I can’t imagine it. Despite more people actually voting for her in 2016 over Trump – a margin of nearly 3 million! – a...
While a funny (very loose meaning of the word…) possibility to consider, I can’t imagine it.
Despite more people actually voting for her in 2016 over Trump – a margin of nearly 3 million! – a majority of people looking back now, it feels like, have a sentiment of Clinton being the less favorable option, for whichever reasons. I don’t think her odds would stand too high, in all honesty. Virtually no campaign and a prior “loss” against the same opponent? The DNC would not do itself any favors with that nomination…
Edit: People are commenting Biden has just endorsed Harris, as was expected by observers without pants on their head ;)
85% of voters thought he was too old for another term and 2/3 of Democrats wanted him to step down. Not to mention, every major newspaper editorial board called for him to step down and major...
85% of voters thought he was too old for another term and 2/3 of Democrats wanted him to step down. Not to mention, every major newspaper editorial board called for him to step down and major donors started to freeze their contributions. It was awful for him.
Is there a reason not to announce the new candidate yet? Is there a process for legally making someone eligible that they need to go through first? I would assume Kamala would be it. Why not...
Is there a reason not to announce the new candidate yet? Is there a process for legally making someone eligible that they need to go through first? I would assume Kamala would be it. Why not announce that now so she can start building steam?
I believe he could've endorsed Kamala, and he may still in a speech later this week, but the candidate will be chosen at the convention in August. Right now, the field is open. Edit: Biden just...
I believe he could've endorsed Kamala, and he may still in a speech later this week, but the candidate will be chosen at the convention in August. Right now, the field is open.
Edit: Biden just posted an endorsement of Harris on his twitter account.
My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best
I'm a left-leaning French abstentionist (= I don't support any current french political party, therefore I prefer not to vote). IMHO, the whole "France's left wing banded together against the...
Exemplary
I'm a left-leaning French abstentionist (= I don't support any current french political party, therefore I prefer not to vote). IMHO, the whole "France's left wing banded together against the far-right" has been extremely overblowned by foreign left and left-leaning media.
The French left wing parties (PS, LFI, EELV, PCF, PP and NPA) are extremely divided on a lot of issues. Outside of the NPA, all of them want cabinets. It was already a challenge for them to agree on common policies, before running toghether. Because they didn't want to be divided during the campaign, and because they didn't want to have to answer questions such as “why are you supporting as prime minister Mr Doe from Party XYZ whom you've been criticizing for the last 10 years?”, they didn't decide on a prime minister and left the question open.
Now that they've "won" (the use of this word is arguable), they're incapable on agreeing over a prime minister. For two weeks, they've been fighting over cabinets, and over policies. There are realists, like PS and PP, which are saying "we don't have the absolute majority, only a relative majority, we'll have to make concessions to pass bills", and they're fighting with idealists which are saying "we won!! therefore we should enact everything, even though we don't have the power to do so, we'll impose it with the 49.3" (By the way, the same people have been criticizing Macron's use of the 49.3 for last 3 years)
TL;DR: France's left is mess, and should not be an inspiration.
It's worth to note that the French leftwing alliance is anything but stable, and they can't seem to agree on a PM candidate either. Regardless, with how long the US presidential election lasts,...
It's worth to note that the French leftwing alliance is anything but stable, and they can't seem to agree on a PM candidate either.
Regardless, with how long the US presidential election lasts, difficult to say how things will go.
I'm optimistic about the election. Four months is an eternity in this era of rapid communication. Rallying behind a candidate before the DNC is another challenge. It's going to be a crazy 4 weeks.
I'm optimistic about the election. Four months is an eternity in this era of rapid communication. Rallying behind a candidate before the DNC is another challenge. It's going to be a crazy 4 weeks.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it seems revisionist. Obama won two elections handedly, one in dominating fashion. In both cases he was notable for garnering Rust Belt support...
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it seems revisionist. Obama won two elections handedly, one in dominating fashion. In both cases he was notable for garnering Rust Belt support of working white class men - the so called "Obama-Trump" voters by election statisticians. The problem the democrats have is that Obama can only serve two terms, and that they have no more Obama-like figures.
It seems to be a super common idea that people say, I don't know where it comes from or if it actually has merit, but the premise seems to be that Obama's presidency somehow angered racists and...
It seems to be a super common idea that people say, I don't know where it comes from or if it actually has merit, but the premise seems to be that Obama's presidency somehow angered racists and people with racial biases and that led to the rise of Trump and MAGA supporters because they didn't like that the country elected a black President. It's not exactly a claim that seemingly can be backed by hard evidence but in any case I haven't seen any kind of soft evidence either and so I generally dismiss it as it seems like it's more crafted for narrative purposes.
To give another interpretation of this: it's an argument used by those who disagree or refuse to acknoledge that Hilary was not in fact a, as put above, an "Obama-like figure". It may in fact have...
To give another interpretation of this: it's an argument used by those who disagree or refuse to acknoledge that Hilary was not in fact a, as put above, an "Obama-like figure". It may in fact have been about as far from an obama-like figure as you can get. So if you don't believe Hilary demotivated the left, you believe that Obama galvanized the right. And Trump was more than happy to run with that narrative with the whole "wall" narrative that I don't even think the Right truly believed would have been approved to build in 4 years.
But that's one interpretation. I won't speak for others, but 2016 was still my most painful election by far.
Hillary and Obama were very different candidates, that much I think is difficult to dispute. Obama in many ways was a clean break from not just Bush Jr, but also from his predecessors. Here you...
Hillary and Obama were very different candidates, that much I think is difficult to dispute.
Obama in many ways was a clean break from not just Bush Jr, but also from his predecessors. Here you have this young (for presidential standards at least), mentally sharp, well spoken man who's a fresh face in the political spotlight. He connects with and motivates younger voters to a degree that his opponents could never dream of, largely because he doesn't feel so hopelessly out of touch.
Hillary on the other hand, unfair as it may have been, I believe was received as a something as a "return to regularly scheduled programming", being seen as a representation of the establishment and continuation of the pre-Obama era. I suspect that a great number of the votes she got weren't out of enthusiasm for her as a candidate, but out of her not being Trump, which unfortunately wasn't enough.
I voted for her but she really wasn't what people were wanting.
That misinformation dated back to the first Clinton presidency and Rush Limbaugh. H Clinton was crucified for asking for a formal policy brief on health care during her husband's presidency...
That misinformation dated back to the first Clinton presidency and Rush Limbaugh. H Clinton was crucified for asking for a formal policy brief on health care during her husband's presidency
Meanwhile Rosalyn Carter attended all cabinet meetings but got away with it because there is a long tradition of informal presidential advisors with huge influence and she never asked for a title or a job description.
Most of the people I know who voted for Biden but not Clinton hated her LONG before the Pizzagate shit and probably had relatively low awareness of even the "but her emails" shit. Their hatred of...
Most of the people I know who voted for Biden but not Clinton hated her LONG before the Pizzagate shit and probably had relatively low awareness of even the "but her emails" shit. Their hatred of Clinton ran much older than that and was from shit that happened back in the 90s.
I'm european and I thankfully can follow american politics from far far away. So this is just my shallow perspective on this: wasn't the Tea Party started because of Obamas presidency? I think...
It seems to be a super common idea that people say, I don't know where it comes from or if it actually has merit, but the premise seems to be that Obama's presidency somehow angered racists and people with racial biases and that led to the rise of Trump and MAGA supporters because they didn't like that the country elected a black President.
I'm european and I thankfully can follow american politics from far far away. So this is just my shallow perspective on this: wasn't the Tea Party started because of Obamas presidency?
I think that was the first time I can think of where the standards of american politics took a real nosedive. And I believe with them (?) came a new type of conspiratorial ideas in politics, mainly the whole myth around Obamas origin a.k.a the 'birther movement', and later the ideas about him being something like an agent of islam, and also more hateful stuff about Michelle Obama, etc..
And regarding Trump I am reminded of the White House correspondents dinner where Obama mocked Trump because of his birtherism ideas while he was sitting in the audience. That was years before Trumps direct involvement in politics, I believe.
I always suspected that this was the birth hour of the narcissistic horrorclown MAGA-Trump.
From my perspective these things look like the roots of Trump, MAGA, QAnon, etc.
The Tea Party was sold as a response to Obama's presidency, but the moneyed interests behind it had been working on it long before that. Trump also ran for President in 2000 for the Reform party,...
Thanks for the article! I was vaguely aware that the Tea Party was only 'labelled' as a grassroots movement, but I didn't know the full story behind it. So Obama was just unlucky to be president...
Thanks for the article! I was vaguely aware that the Tea Party was only 'labelled' as a grassroots movement, but I didn't know the full story behind it.
So Obama was just unlucky to be president during these Koch schemes.
But wasn't there also a racist component to the Tea Party movement? Or do you think that didn't really play a role then? Do you think they were a starting point for the MAGA crowd?
It's possible that it was just bad luck, or it's possible that they felt Obama's presidency was the most opportune moment to push forward. It's impossible to say for sure, but I tend to think it's...
It's possible that it was just bad luck, or it's possible that they felt Obama's presidency was the most opportune moment to push forward. It's impossible to say for sure, but I tend to think it's the latter, because there absolutely was a racist component to the Tea Party movement. It was much more "mask on" than the MAGA movement, but it was one of those little Domino masks that doesn't actually obscure anyone's identity if you have any idea of what they look like.
I actually agree that a racist backlash to Obama's presidency was part of what led to Trump getting elected, but I think without the galvanization and financing of oil billionaires, it wouldn't have been. And if it was, I don't think the takeaway is that we shouldn't have black presidents. On the contrary, black presidents need to be so normal that a backlash to it seems silly. At a maximum of one every four years, it'll take decades at best to get there, but that means we should have started earlier, not later.
I disagree that Obama catalyzed this. @stu2b50 has pointed out that Obama has won over working white class men before. I think that we're seeing the country arriving at an advanced stage of a long...
I disagree that Obama catalyzed this. @stu2b50 has pointed out that Obama has won over working white class men before. I think that we're seeing the country arriving at an advanced stage of a long trend toward economic centralization:
Jobs and opportunity moving to hub cities
The nature of work changing in an economy driven by knowledge, technology, and capital; where labor itself is devalued by both automation and globalization
Lower middle-class work with low barriers to entry has evaporated.
Rural America rapidly changing: farms are consolidating. Small farms can't compete against big ag due to economies of scale enabled by automation and mechanization.
Rural and semi-rural communities, long struggling with addiction for years, are now being laid to waste by fentanyl.
When Obama was elected in 2008, annual overdose deaths were just under 40k a year.
It's now around 110k a year. Everyone knows someone who died or a family that was affected.
Regardless, the left has my vote. I just wish they weren’t so… themselves.
I agree. While I think that Harris won't galvanize the right — she barely galvanizes the left — I do wish the left would deprioritize identity politics and focus on connecting with middle America.
I commented before on here that I thought it was hubris that the Biden campaign, pressured by Black Democrats, announced it would limit its search for a running mate to only Black women — which resulted in an tiny selection of candidates and precluded the possibility of selecting someone with more political star potential to groom, which in turn has led us here to having Harris whom most Americans find... merely serviceable but uninspiring.
I'm not saying that the Biden campaign should've picked a white man, but rather they should have simply focused on picking a running mate with the most political potential, whatever race or sex they might be, instead of committing to tokenism. Gretchen Whitmer would've been a fantastic pick as she has broad appeal.
can you be more specific about exactly what policies or messages you consider "identity politics" that the left should de-prioritize? because isn't "middle America"...also an identity? it sounds...
I do wish the left would deprioritize identity politics and focus on connecting with middle America.
can you be more specific about exactly what policies or messages you consider "identity politics" that the left should de-prioritize?
because isn't "middle America"...also an identity?
it sounds like you just want to swap out one kind of "identity politics" for a different kind. and I'm curious which identities you think should be de-emphasized, and which ones should be emphasized instead.
I think he's saying the left should mostly be talking about the economic vandalism of the corporations and less about LBGT, gender identity, ethnicity, etc. You can obviously do both, but focusing...
I think he's saying the left should mostly be talking about the economic vandalism of the corporations and less about LBGT, gender identity, ethnicity, etc. You can obviously do both, but focusing too much on the latter will lose you people you can reach with the former, especially if you make that your rhetorical priority. You can interpret that as identity politics, if you view if through the lens of class. That's not generally what people mean when they say identity politics though. Obviously this would suck if you're gay or trans, as there'll be very little you'll care about more than your own right to exist, but that's the argument; that a focus on non identity politics issues gets you more votes, and more wins.
So in this specific case, picking a VP different from Harris might've maximised our chances of winning. One thing I'll say is that the Harris picked shored up Biden's support on the left and with minority caucuses, which is also important and we can't take a Biden victory as a given without that.
Not the original commenter, but I thought generally identity politics refers to immutable characteristics, whereas being a middle American, while arguably an identity, is mutable.
Not the original commenter, but I thought generally identity politics refers to immutable characteristics, whereas being a middle American, while arguably an identity, is mutable.
I think Raistlin put it more eloquently than I could ever, and I think we're all in agreement. I personally don't consider religion (FWIW I'm atheist) to be covered by identity politics. But I...
I think Raistlin put it more eloquently than I could ever, and I think we're all in agreement. I personally don't consider religion (FWIW I'm atheist) to be covered by identity politics. But I think it's valid to consider that it is. Like you said, it's vibes based.
This is really fucked. I think it’s clear that the money people in the Democratic Party would rather have a MAGA regime than pay somewhat higher taxes.
This is really fucked. I think it’s clear that the money people in the Democratic Party would rather have a MAGA regime than pay somewhat higher taxes.
What people in the Democratic Party are those? Like, are there specific people that you think are simultaneously in the Democratic Party and are also so averse to paying somewhat higher taxes that...
What people in the Democratic Party are those? Like, are there specific people that you think are simultaneously in the Democratic Party and are also so averse to paying somewhat higher taxes that they want Trump to win? I ask, because if they are fiscally conservative, then they're probably extremely socially liberal if they are still in the Democratic Party, which makes it seem unlikely that they are going to ally themselves with the grossly intolerant MAGA movement under any circumstances.
There is the cynical take that a bunch of folks down ballot who are going to keep their jobs one way or another would rather fundraise and drum line against fascism than actually solve the...
There is the cynical take that a bunch of folks down ballot who are going to keep their jobs one way or another would rather fundraise and drum line against fascism than actually solve the problems they're getting a shit ton of money out of.
I am thinking of the wealthy donors who were withholding contributions when Biden was the de facto candidate. These are people who would not be personally inconvenienced at all if Trump won. If...
I am thinking of the wealthy donors who were withholding contributions when Biden was the de facto candidate. These are people who would not be personally inconvenienced at all if Trump won. If their daughter needed an abortion they would just send her to Europe, etc. They aren’t “fiscally conservative”, they’re just greedy.
Look, I agree that donors have outsized influence that they shouldn't. But I think you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions as to their motives. Right now it sure looks like Harris will be...
Look, I agree that donors have outsized influence that they shouldn't. But I think you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions as to their motives.
Right now it sure looks like Harris will be the nominee, having gathered major endorsements from Biden himself, the Black and Hispanic caucuses, a ton of senators and influential representatives as well. Given that, are there any substantive differences in tax policy between Harris and Biden? I think the answer is a solid no. So, isn't it more likely that they actually were scared by Biden's debate performance and that's what drove them to action?
I’m going to wait until it shows up somewhere other than Twitter before believing this. (Could be a hack.) (Edit: it wasn’t showing up on news sites. I think maybe it was a browser cache issue.)
I’m going to wait until it shows up somewhere other than Twitter before believing this. (Could be a hack.)
(Edit: it wasn’t showing up on news sites. I think maybe it was a browser cache issue.)
I think other folks have covered pretty much anything there is to say about the immediate future, so I'm gonna step outside of stuff for a second with it.
It's an impressive thing to me to see someone set aside pride and power. I think he sincerely believed in himself, that he was able and worthy. Whether that was realistic on his part, if it was good timing, etc doesn't really matter now, it's done and now folks have to move so we'll just see what happens from here. To actually make the decision demonstrates a relationship to power I can respect. I'm sure he's well aware, that an unfathomable amount of blame will rest on him if things go south. That's how it was gonna be either way, but a weird part of pride sometimes is deciding it's better for you to take that blame than anyone else, and he didn't go down that path either. Since there's not much to really do right now, to me it's worth taking a second to just think about the person at the center. Dude made a choice that plenty would never consider, that plenty would refuse regardless what's realistic or the expense at which it comes. He made it as one of the most powerful people there is, under intense pressure, during insanely difficult times, and he's an old guy on top. It's worth remembering, I think.
Giving up power is so rare that we make legends about it. The fact that there's a city called Cincinatti shows how admirable it is.
Uh, let's not minimize the accomplishments of modern democracies. We shouldn't take it for granted, but peaceful changes of government are routine in many countries nowadays.
(Also, they weren't rare during the Roman Republic either. Frequent assassinations of emperors came later, because they no longer had the institutions to do it peacefully.)
They're routine because the systems have been set up for them. Trump would absolutely run for five terms of he could. If he wins in 2024 and then leaves the stage, that's not admirable. That's just the system. It is admirable to end your shot at another term for the good of your nation.
Same for the Romans. They had systems to prevent abuse. The consular elections, the term limit for dictators. It's not particularly remarkable to be the 34th consul to not seek another term. It's remarkable to establish that system. Of course, the empire pushed those systems to their breaking point, but that's another topic.
Not that Cincinnatus was the first, since he wasn't the first dictator to give up power, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the powerful giving up power can create legends. Diocletian is another example.
This is wild speculation, but I wonder to what degree, if any, his current COVID infection has to do with this decision.
That’s basically what I’m waiting for. The hero worship on this feels off given we are literally here because he waited either until he could no longer physically do it or thought he absolutely had no chance of winning.
I mean, if I went out and did something, had a bunch of it go kinda bad, had a bunch of folks say I should stop, and then I got covid, I'd probably be thinking a bit cosmically about it. Even if it was really important...Is this just "being tested" or is the universe basically saying "don't make me stop the car"? It would be hard to avoid leaning toward "ok fine I'm done", just off that one thought.
Aptly, "He's the hero [we deserve], not the one we need right now."
Immediate commentary:
- He did not announce that Kamala (or anyone) will already replace him for president, but he did mention her partnership with him on the note.UPDATE: Joe Biden has endorsed her as Democratic nominee for president. Over the last few hours, this has been followed by both Clintons, the Congressional Black Caucus, the progressive Caucus and many Democratic senators, congressmembers, speculated Harris veeps and more. Notably, Obama has been inconclusive in his medium statement, saying that he has "extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges."
SECOND UPDATE: Within 24 hours, Harris has received the endorsements of something around 75% of Democratic legislators from both house and Senate according to an endorsement tracker of her online and the delegates of about a quarter of the convention already, and ActBlue registered nearly 100 million dollars donated to what is now her campaign, the party has readily ralllied around her. Outside the party, Romney and Pence have said they "respected his decision to drop out."
I'm surprised Twitter is still so relevant for politicians to post official announcements, despite everything Musk has done to it.
I genuinely hope the chaos the Democratic party was in for the past 3 weeks never repeats itself again.
Yea, I get the pragmatics of just using it because it has such a broad reach, but goddamn if it isn't a cesspool.
Am genuinely curious why this was the avenue they chose though. I wonder if COVID hit him hard enough that they didn't want to put him in front of a camera looking even more tired and old than normal?
I half suspect the Covid was just an excuse to cloister himself so he could plot his move. According to AOC the resistance to leaving was partly because the donor backed centrists trying to push him out had no plan for the day after and were trying to do some contrivance to bypass Harris.
So I think a lot of phone calls had to be made to line the party up behind Harris before he dropped to outmaneuver them. Given Harris’ fundraising haul and the fact that every potential rival has either endorsed her or said they aren’t running there’s no realistic path for anything else but a joke candidate like Manchin or Marianne Williamson. Donors BTFO.
It was cross-posted pretty quickly to Threads and Instagram, so certainly not the only places Biden is posting.
To say I'm ambivalent about the news is an understatement, but I can answer this secularly: The power of network effects is absolutely humongous. The only way a site as big as reddit or Twitter dies is if the company themselves shuts the servers down.
There simply so much apathy or otherwise unawareness of who's running stuff from up top. The populous generally won't care as long as they can message their frieds seemlessly.
I wouldn't read too much into Obama's lack of an explicit endorsement of Vice President Harris. For better or worse, there's a tradition that former Presidents stay away from involving themselves in party politics. Of course, Trump respected no such statesman-like traditions.
Bill Clinton endorsed though. So that basically just leaves Jimmy Carter and Obama of the living Democrats who haven’t. I’m hoping it’s part of a plan to extend her news cycle to wait until the energy starts to dissipate to give it another boost. If he actually is on the “contested convention” train I’m going to be sorely disappointed in him, and it will make it clear why his Presidency was such a downticket disaster. He doesn’t seem very good at helping anyone get elected but himself.
The Clintons endorsing is sort of necessary because of claims that Hillary would/could/should run.
Biden was necessary given the circumstances and Carter is 99 and on hospice care and "no longer awake every day" so I think we can let him rest.
Michelle has never expressed interest despite her name being thrown out. Idk maybe Barack has some sort of grudge or something but he also tends towards trying to do the high-minded "don't get involved in the nitty gritty" thing.
I don't know why people keep putting Michelle's name out there, especially in betting markets. (Which, unrelated to this, makes it hard for me take the betting markets seriously.)
It's very well known that Michelle hates politics (but loves and supports Barrack in his endeavors very much). She's said so herself. There's an absolute 0% chance she'll put herself through 4 years in the hottest political seat.
Correct.
Someone here said the betting markets don't predict. They don't. But they'll take any sucker's money.
Yeah this personality seems to emerge in the Democratic Party each generation (Adlai Stevenson previously), and they’re always electoral disasters. The nitty gritty is part of the job, and unwillingness to focus on it significantly hobbled the effectiveness of his Presidency.
Sure I'm not really interested in discussing his presidency, but was more assessing why there are different responses from different past presidents. I think the Clintons had to respond, Obama and Carter less so.
And idk if he does have a grudge, maybe he does.
I really wouldn't read into it. Pelosi was also a "hold out" yesterday but endorsed her today. I'd be surprised if Obama backs anyone else. I'd bet he's likely waiting for the correct "optics." I don't think anything hinges on his voice right now. It will be valuable if it hits at the right moment. Too many institutional leaders endorsing her too quickly will look like a coronation. I appreciate the groundswell and I'm excited for a real campaign.
Listening to some of her recent speeches has improved my opinion of her.
Why? Twitter sees about if not the same amount of traffic. The only thing that got worse is the moderation.
The traffic isn’t that great though. People who B post on Mastodon or BlueSky claim there’s a lot more actual engagement (as in not bots or low value troll posters) on those despite the numbers.
I think Twitter has a problem where journalists are all on it so it’s like a mini social network just for them even as it increasingly turns into a full-time Nazi rally all baiting them.
...sadly, every time someone links to xitter, elon drowns a puppy...
I really can't believe this. I wish he'd made this decision months and months ago but hopefully there's enough time to recover.
Yesterday @Japeth had already found the perfect words for the situation, in my opinion:
Now we get to see how the second scenario really plays out, I guess.
We'll see, I guess, for the second scenario. For me, it's been really really difficult to see a path toward victory for Biden these past few weeks, and I don't think hindsight is going to change that, but I guess it depends how the nomination plays out.
It's really hard to see Kamala Harris as the next president as well.
The situation was best summed up by a CBS executive: "Trump will be bad for the country, but good for our ratings."
This really should have been the plan from the start of it was going to happen, and Harris really should have spent the past 4 years in the limelight, proving herself. I hate to be pessimistic, if she is the Democratic candidate she will have my vote against Trump, against fascism, and again the capture of the supreme court on election day either way. But this could have and should have been a home run with four years of planning. Instead of an afterthought.
There is a famous saying, that Vice Presidents are "not worth a bucket of warm piss," which is sometimes remembered as "a warm bucket of spit."
Kamala was a way for Biden to get more votes.
This is so true. She was a rather lukewarm presidential candidate when she was in the pack running against Biden. I'm not a fan of Harris but at least now the Democrats can go on full attack mode and characterize Trump as old, senile, and unfit to serve. I just hope the Democrats select a reasonable VP and not another dumb choice that checks the boxes for left wing street cred. I'm really hoping Shapiro is the one.
I mean, whoever it ends up being is 100% going to be a checkbox candidate in the same way Kamala was, i.e. a white guy.
I'm hoping for Shapiro as well, he's the smart pick imo especially given the state of PA polling.
What do betting markets have to do with the likelihood Harris could win?
Betting markets are a distillation of the wisdom of crowds. It's generally one of the most accurate forms of prediction on any topic as actual experts could tip them and make a killing if they were wrong.
Betting markets are the wisdom of a very specific subset of crowds. Not very many people place bets on political results, and those that do are not representative of the US population as a whole.
Betting markets can in no way predict the outcome of major political contests, regardless of whether or not experts weigh in. There are far too many unknown variables at play.
Some actual polling from earlier in July when the conversation of Biden stepping aside came to a head showed Harris about as likely to beat Trump as Biden.
The polling has been all over the map on Harris relative to Biden, so I'm not sure singling out an individual poll is useful. Here's an article with a bunch of recent ones listed.
Also, regardless of what the polls were or were not saying, Harris has been relatively behind the curtain for a VP. She has all the opportunity to make up ground whereas it was hard to see a path forward for Biden.
It's too early for any polls to mean anything at the moment. News of this isn't even a day old. My response was more in comparison to what is essentially a prop bets website being used as a source for such info.
The news is shocking, but the timing is even weirder. 12-3pm in the US on a Sunday? At least let me start the workweek with existential dread instead of the tail end of my weekend.
This lends credence to my theory that he’s rigging the game for Harris on the way out to prevent the donor faction from creating an open convention clusterfuck.
Drop the news on a weekend when the PR flacks and lobbyists are distracted. Hit em right after church when their assistants are all drunk on bottomless mimosas.
Has Biden actually personally been seen on camera since this announcement? I ask because it was almost certain that the Queen didn't die when they announced that she had died.
It seems to me "We're picking a new candidate because the previous one who was voted for died" is a more politically sympathetic position than "we're picking a new candidate because the previous one who was voted for was the wrong choice" so I honestly don't see a reason for the campaign to cover that up.
It’s also next to impossible to hide.
This is the first I've heard of this. What's it based on?
She was there to take an official photo with then-new PM Liz Truss 2 days prior. Then there was an announcement that she'd been unwell and cancelled visits for a day and also all the family flew home.
So if it did happen, it would have been benign and by a very small window. It doesn't strike me as unbelievable that they'd fudge the time of death by a few hours to let the family fly home and gather without being surrounded by media.
Oh, I misunderstood the original poster to mean they announced she'd died before she actually died, which really confused me. But this makes much more sense.
the had a slight delay to try to get family notified and if possible, at the castle first.
Yes it's too soon to know anything for sure.
Yet the prop bets markets predicted Biden stepping down and Kamala stepping up days ago.
As imperfect as it is (it predicted Hillary in a landslide,) it is a good place to go to see where the current winds are blowing.
Prop bets don't predict anything. They're just a non-traditional form of gambling. There are prop bet sites for the number of tweets Muskrat will spit out in a week, entire subsections of prop bet sites just about Taylor Swift.
It's been a topic of conversation for Biden to step aside and the current VP is the obvious endorsement. That's it.
Their actual name is prediction markets...
Because they are markets that predict probabilities of real world events.
Or to be more precise, the price of a contract typically represents the betting crowd’s belief in the likelihood of a particular event occurring.
Now they aren't perfect, but neither are traditional methods like polls or expert analysis or the stock market.
But to say they simply don't predict anything is just... plain wrong, my man.
And kinda irrelevant. Biden himself was reported to state he found it hard seeing Kamala Harris as the next president as well. Which was the original point.
They only mean that someone is so convinced of a certain outcome that they are willing to part with their money over it.
I see them as an imperfect indicator of what the conventional wisdom currently is and when it started changing. They seem somewhat worse on political issues because more people make bets based on their political biases? You could probably do as well by reading the papers.
Did a bit of digging and you're right. They seem to be able to predict pop culture things like the color of a dress at a movie premiere or box office opening weekend ranges or whether or not Kanye West will do something stupid during a particular month.
But it seems like every source I'm finding says they don't seem to have any reliable ability to predict political subjects.
They definitely blew it in 2016, and almost everyone bet on the belief that Hillary would win by a landslide.
The betting markets didn't predict Biden stepping down. The changes were in response to a massively increasing pressure campaign for Biden to step down.
There's no "prediction" involved - just people seeing the possibility of Biden stepping down as more likely as more and more pressure was mounted by his own party and gambling that it was going to happen.
How does that not count as a prediction?
Because there’s nothing about the betting markets that is intrinsically linked to the universe at large. It’s simply a mechanism to capture the aggregate of guesses, and nobody pays attention to the many many guesses that end up incorrect. They’re only ever correct in hindsight.
I think "predict" is being used in two different ways in this conversation.
In its most fundamental meaning, it only means "to say beforehand". That is, make a claim about something in the future. It doesn't have to end up being correct to be a prediction. In essence, a guess.
In a perhaps more connotated meaning, it may be used as "to successfully determine events ahead of time" or "to accurately determine events ahead of time".
Consider "You like making predictions about election results", "You like successfully predicting elections", and "You like predicting elections".
The first I would use to mean "You like making claims about the election results ahead of time". The second I would use to mean "You like it when statements you've made about election results ahead of time turn out to be correct". The third is to me without further context ambiguous between these two meanings.
I think it should be uncontroversial to state that betting markets make claims about things ahead of time. How frequently they turn out to be correct, or how accurate they are in assigning likelihood, I have no good information on.
That makes it, at worst, an unfounded prediction. That doesn't make it not a prediction.
Ok, but then that unfounded nature means that no one should turn to the prediction markets' conclusions as anything resembling a useful prediction of reality.
Actually Biden wasn't loosing: https://www.270towin.com/
It was just the media pushing to replace him. I believe the owners did not like his promise to raise taxes on everyone making $400,000 or more, because he likely would implement it and had nothing to lose from doing that.
That map is NOT good for Biden. You need to look at per-state polling data. Don't make the same mistakes Hillary did in 2016. Just because certain tipping states are uncertain and close to the margin doesn't guarantee a candidate any of them. IMO this visualisation tells us very very little.
Uh, that map pretty clearly shows Biden as a serious underdog. If you actually do the math state by state, it was bad. Nate Silver's model (formerly 538) calculated his odds at 27% when he dropped out.
That's still near toss-up range to be fair. Last election, Trump had similar odds in his model and only lost by just over 100k votes combined in the 4 states that ended up deciding the election, despite losing the popular vote by 7 million.
If he hadn't sabotaged his own voters by deciding you shouldn't protect yourself from covid, he very likely could have won.
Not that it matters anymore, since we're in a completely different ballgame with Harris almost certainly the new nominee.
Thank you, and I didn't realize I had jinxed things when I wrote that.
I'm solidly in the blue-no-matter-who camp, but I'm very worried about how things will shake out. There's going to be a lot of drama over who the successor will be. Democrats couldn't even coalesce around a nominee when there was just the one guy, now it's anyone's game.
If everyone steps aside for Harris, there'll be a vocal contingent that says it's the DNC playing favorites again. If there's any kind of contest, the loser's supporters are going to feel jilted. And no matter what, the russian bots will be amplifying the most disruptive narratives they can find.
If it's an error either way... Then it's a forced error? Right?
Unforced because the Dems had 4 years to get an exciting candidate groomed for the next election. Biden's age was a known issue 4 years ago, most expected him to just try to be a one term president. Then they sat on their hands instead and now we have this. This is why it was unforced. They created this scenario themselves.
Exactly this.
Many said he was too old 4 years ago, and the line was that the Democrats would have plenty of time to build national profiles who could take over and energize the party.
Everyone saw this coming and the folks in the positions just.... didn't do anything?
This is what's so endless frustrating about the diehard democrats, in that they defend this nonsense. There's always some excuse as to why it's ok, or some attack about how dare you criticize this, or some deflection about how the reps ran false attack ads about them and that's why everyone is upset.
I get it. I have to vote dem. There is 0 sane choice. But at the same time, i'm sure as shit going to point out the outright arrogance the party has shown basically since obama got elected, and is one of the biggest reasons I feel they're in this mess to begin with.
A less obviously problematic level is that, bluntly, they don't know how to play the fucking game?
I suspect this is because you've got dinosaurs at the top and fuckload of nepotism, and the terrible policy of "we won't hire anyone who worked on an opponents campaign" thing from however long ago, but whatever the reason, they constantly look like they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
It's like some washed up pro, especially in a video game where things can DRASTICALLY change, swearing they still know everything and that they lose just because of the excuse of the day. Nothing about the modern democratic party and their strategy resonates as remotely effective. If anything they have managed to literally throw at least 1 election, and then almost claw defeat from the jaws of victory in another, and now might actually succeed.
This is NOT ok. Should the dems win the reaction can't be "ok business as usual". There needs to be a serious house cleaning because at the bare minimum the people who are making the strategic decisions are abhorrently fucking bad at it.
Well, you mention earlier that:
Speaking from across the Atlantic, where we've had ancient dinosaurs swimming in nepotism and corruption before.... You guys have two parties that have at its core the same issue. Political stagnation due to hierarchy stalling.
More than anything, you guys need to reform your political system badly. I have a hard time imagining that otherwise there won't be blood spilled en masse. Because a country that can't accept change has no future in a world that's changing rapidly.
George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796
I think it's worth pointing out here that in many senses, a party in what is functionally a two-party system is forced to adapt more than a party in a multi-party/parliamentarian system. Fringe elements must be incorporated, instead of just letting them secede into their own micro-parties.
Just look at how the US's republican party has evolved over the last 10 years. That's an absolutely massive change!
Yeah I personally agree that at it's core, looking at the outside, it's the two party system in particular. @Nivak 's quoted text from Washington is very close to what has happened, too.
I decided to refrain from mentioning my opinion in the previous comment because well, I'm not American. So I also feel like it's better to have Americans discuss the solutions.
I’d argue it’s even better to discuss it as a non-American because you are less biased.
There are no party bosses to be making these decisions. There used to be, but people got mad about corrupt insiders picking winners and losers in smoke filled rooms and reformed the system to do away with them. Now it’s an open process where people who want to run independently line up funding and then run in primaries and caucuses. Thats it. That’s the strategy. There’s nobody to decide who should run or who to groom or whatever. If you want new blood in a seat, you primary them. If you think the speakership should be in someone else’s hands you compete for the seat.
All the DNC and DCCC and DSCC do is basically function as event planners and a Rolodex of donors and seasoned staff and consultants. They have no decision making powers to pick who runs and, whenever they do exercise what little influence they have people get riotously angry with them and accuse them of rigging the contest against their favored candidates.
The only part that isn’t in the open is them having to line up funding and the juice to hire experienced staff who know what they’re doing. Nobody ran this time because it’s basically impossible to defeat an incumbent President in a primary so they saved their resources for a more competitive open race.
My inner conspiracy theorist says they're equally as content with losing as with victory. IIRC, they get more donations when they're out of power and need money to fight fascism than when they're in charge.
You don't need to suspect anything. Its the reality. That's exactly what super delegates are for.
That's true in a theoretical sense, but if we zoom in a little, it's hard to see how it could have happened sooner: until very recently, Biden's health was an ambiguous issue. It was hard to build a coalition behind making sure that he was a one-term president based on anticipating that he might not be healthy enough, even if the odds weren't in his favor.
A consensus didn't start forming within the party until after the debate, when they had something public and unarguable to build that consensus around. That's not ideal timing, but it could have been worse.
I suppose that in theory, the Democratic party could decide on an age limit for presidential candidates to make sure it doesn't happen again, but it would be tough to make that stick.
No, no it was not. Actuaries and doctors and plenty of other professionals could absolutely tell you that anyone 80+, even in the best of health, is probably one major incident away from being unable to easily function.
And that's before you get into the fact that people have been screaming the Biden doesn't look like himself for months, hell maybe a year now. Again, the most high profile case being Jon Stewart's return show, where he said exactly that and got skewered for it.
It was only "ambiguous" because they tried to keep it under wraps, which in and of itself was admission that it was bad. There is no campaign in the world that would've chosen to just hide their candidate away except for the rare speech, where even then they don't look great.
This has been the epitome of denial, much like RBG, and now it's come home to bite everyone in the ass.
Actuaries tell us probabilities. Probabilities are not certainties; they apply to groups rather than individuals, and there are always exceptions. (That's why we need doctors for individual diagnoses, and sometimes they're still wrong.)
Also, private misgivings aren't the same as public consensus. Maybe they should have become public knowledge, though. Suppose the party insisted on debates during the primary?
For that, you'd need an opposing candidate.
This is not how you run a business, campaign, or country. This is how you gamble and lose.
There are 0 sane doctors who are going to say that ANY 80 year old on the planet is anything more than one major, or even minor, health incident away from being not who they once were. Let alone one in an extremely stressful and constant job.
This is sticking your head in the sand levels of denial to start with, and that's before you consider that it was an extremely public figure. Plenty of people correctly observed "uh hey this guy looks good for his age but not good for a person". At what point is this once again political negligence? Do they have to go to feinstein or RBG levels every single time before we start realizing that this is insane?
As for "private" misgivings, there are large parts of the party who have talked literally about nothing else. In public. It's not 'private' at all. It was straight up said by many, and then shot down by leadership because "oh how dare you imply the old man is old". Well turns out, he's old, and now it's everyone's problem.
I agree that probabilities are important. I just think it's harder to build a consensus around predictions.
People are talking all the time about what they think the future will bring, but unless you actually know something, it just sounds like noise.
It doesn't matter what people think the future will bring.
It matters what the consequences of that future are and how likely they are to happen.
Obama getting hit by a bolt of lightning would've had major consequences but was super unlikely so there's no reason to worry about it.
80 year old man not being able to campaign, just from a physical standpoint, is what most people would assume the default is, so much so that any alternative is an abnormality. Taking such stupid risks is absurd. They may have literally just bet the future of this country on an old man not being an old man, just like they bet the future of abortion on an old woman with cancer not dying.
This isn't noise. This is basic strategy.
Decisions are made by people based on what they think the future will bring.
You can insist they should have known all you want, but without some consensus-making process, the decision doesn't happen.
I just don't buy that. 4 years ago people were already concerned with his age. Even if he is currently of sound mind, by the time he's done with a 2nd term, he would be 86! That is not the age you want for someone leading your country. On top of that, given how obvious things were to anyone who watched the debate, people who are around him constantly could easily have predicted this a while ago. They have been actively trying to downplay it and hide things. There was also hints 4 years ago where Biden was saying he was planning to be a "transition president" to a new generation of younger candidates. Everything was set up for them to line this up properly and get someone exciting. Given how much age was a question 4 years ago, you can't tell me the Dems in charge somehow thought that question would get better after 4 years.
I think an age cap for president would be a fantastic idea. CEO and Commander in Chief really should have physical vigor and stamina as well as rhetorical chops.
I also think it would be popular. Millennials and GenZ are large demographics who are chafing at how influential the boomers still are. I'm GenX and nobody thinks about us but I think my generation would go for it also. This election between people who should be retired has been a shit show
Someone should float a constitutional amendment.
The nice thing about it is that we don't need a constitutional amendment. The Democratic party could just change their internal voting procedures for delegates.
The trouble is, they could also change them back if they felt the need to make an exception. But I think it would have some weight.
A constitutional amendment is a good idea too, and who knows, maybe it has a chance?
True. An amendment would make the change unbreakable without another amendment but there is more than one way to get the job done
We will never see another Constitutional amendment in our lifetimes, unless one party totally dominates the federal government and a majority of state governments.
Possibly, setting an age limit would work if it's sufficiently uncontroversial that nobody opposes it. (It wouldn't be hard to set it up so it doesn't affect Trump.)
I don't think an age cap for the presidency is necessarily a partisan issue
With a normal Republican party, yes, I agree. The Republican party is so far off the tracks right now and addicted to Trump that this wouldn't be anything they'd support. They'd entertain repealing the two term limit if it allowed them keeping Trump in office into his 90s.
not large enough, given the turnout demographics. Which is sad because I believe the 2020 election had the highest or 2nd highest turnout overall (based on what metric you use to calculate it).
No caps. If age is an issue for voters then voters should simply not vote for overly old candidates. What’s the point in binding their choices in this way?
What was the point in requiring someone be at least 35?
To do the job well demands intelligence, emotional intelligence and rhetorical skill but also physical stamina to keep up with long hours and evening diplomatic events.
It requires flexibility to juggle and prioritize competing demands and to learn new information daily.
Supposedly that and the “natural born citizen” bits were specifically there to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being made the first President. He’d have been 32 when the Constitution was signed, and it wasn’t really clear at the time that Washington would have accepted the position if it was offered.
Why wouldn't Hamilton have counted as a citizen for purposes of eligibility at that point? He became a citizen in 1789 like everyone else in the US. Especially given that Lafayette was deemed a "natural born citizen" there's no indication that his parentage would have any particular impact on it.
Also he wrote a very similar eligibility clause previously.
I'm just not sure I follow the logic I guess!
I looked into it and apparently it was only the age thing. The Natural Born bit still permitted Hamilton based on what you said, and was designed to avoid having some random person from a foreign government becoming Commander in Chief of the Army and using it to undermine the Republic. I suppose at the time, when large chartered corporations were doing basically exactly that in the East Indies, that was a more substantive fear.
Gotcha, I think, had Hamilton lived his ambition would likely have pointed him at the presidency. But who knows, given he was obnoxious and disliked.
Our choices are bound either way. Who was the not-old candidate we were supposed to vote for if Biden hadn't dropped out? An age cap is more likely than a disruption of the entire two party system to make third party candidates viable.
That’s part of a whole system wherein voters evidently didn’t care about candidate’s ages. If they cared more we wouldn’t have a gerontocratic senate and primary contests tilted in favor of people who have been around for ages.
The power dynamics of the Senate and Congress incentivize gerontocracy. New members can't deliver for their state or district. There is significant cost to giving up seniority.
Up until very recently presidents were much younger
Just worth noting, Biden isn't even a boomer, he's the first and only Silent Generation president.
The overall point stands though.
Oh and Harris is Gen X
The #1 reason Harris will lose is because everyone else likes to pretend Gen X doesn't exist.
Everyone younger will think she's a boomer anyway, so it should be fine.
There are no “Dems” with any authority to be making decisions about who to run or who to groom or whatever else. This all happens in primaries and it’s mostly out in the open.
That is the joke.
The serious answer, is that the unforced error was ignoring the age issue and not having an open primary.
Been having a "forced joke" since 2016 where Bernie gets screwed over twice. Maybe that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" meme isn't as far off as I thought.
I don't think I've ever seen a group of squabbling politicians "fall in line" faster than the 2020 democratic primary. The DNC and Biden campaign clearly pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes (including granting Kamala the VP position and Mayor Pete a lofty appointment) because there was no clear Dem standout candidate and the chances of a contested multi-round convention were very high.
Biden was not doing very well until almost all of ths competition fell in line. Not sure how many of us "fell in love" with Biden that cycle.
How and who at the DNC pulled these strings? How did they force voters to choose Biden over, for example, Bernie? I really don't understand the aura and animosity towards the DNC in situations like this. They're essentially a glorified events planning organization. There's no clear mechanism for them to force a candidate in or out. What happened in 2020 was a group of politicians realizing they were not going to win, and making a calculated decision to drop out and endorse someone who aligned more closely with them than the other main contender (Biden over Bernie). That's not "falling in line" in the sense I understand people to mean it, and it's not pulling strings. It's just how coalitional politics works. You make alliances and deals to further your power and ability to enact policy.
It's also speaking to, IMO, the fact that the spin will be put on it either way. It's not an honest take. (The media not the poster here)
The point of the "unforced error" bit was that if the Democrats lose, with Biden or without, afterwards every pundit and internet commenter will have perfect hindsight and act like they knew all along that the Democrats were making a strategic error. Just look at how the 2016 election gets re-litigated to this day.
It's not necessarily an error either way though, we just can't accurately assess which route is more likely to lead to the Dems losing. Whichever route they choose, it's possible the alternative was way better and they made the unforced error of switching to the worse path.
I see basically 3 possibilities, of which there's probably some mixture:
He just decided to for whatever reason, in which case, fucking hell why couldn't you have done that forever ago like everyone hoped.
Major dems and donors sat him down and said "we will literally not back you if you force us to", which ALSO should've been done months ago if they were going to do this.
COVID has hit him seriously and he must step down because he literally cannot campaign. Which is the risk you run when you have a 80 year old candidate and AGAIN should've been thought about months ago.
Why is it that every single time something happens that the entire world has been worried about, the democrats look like they've been caught completely flatfooted?
"s/months/years" and I completely agree (well, maybe A year ago. I don't know if announcing a 1 term on year 1 would affect his ability to enact policy)
Because if we're being frank, Democrats across the generations haven't been aligned since Obama. it's been clear since even W Bush that the priorities of the millenial/early Gen X (and later, Gen Z) are completely different from later Gen Z/Boomers, and the latter get out and vote. 2008 was just some convinient stars aligning for once.
I will be extremely surprised if the election wasn't just given to the Republicans.
The whole idea of the primary system and dates is so that whoever becomes the candidate has an actual chance of running a campaign. This is just too late.
(Yes, the Democrats didn't run a real primary. That's their fault, but everyone pays.)
I don't have a lot of confidence, but I had almost no confidence with Biden continuing his campaign. The debate was disastrous and his few public appearances after that didn't really do much to convince people it was an off night or a fluke. Plus, his covid diagnosis may be limiting his campaign activities now a time when it's really crucial he proves he's fit and capable for another four years.
This is the right decision -- unprecedented and introduces a lot of uncertainty -- but still the correct call.
We just need a candidate who's willing to take the gloves off and position their campaign as being against Project 2025: drag that dirty laundry out into the public in attack ads plastered everywhere. Pepper that with cuts of Trump's dementia-addled ramblings.
Show people that 1) they should be very afraid of the Republican Party and 2) if they were uncomfortable with Biden's cognition, Trump's a lot worse.
Also: campaigning to reach women.
If the Democrats pull a rabbit out of the hat and manage to make the election about the issues, they'll win. I don't see how they could possibly manage that though
That's how Trump'll show he's completely unfit. He never could discuss policy and his policy is losing. As you say, if he can't ramble, he's entirely lost.
Agreed on all accounts here. We need someone energetic and charismatic who can do more than just be "not trump"
Hillary tried the policy thing. We ended up with Trump. The people who decide the election in general (the undecideds) don’t care about policy. They don’t pay enough attention to really know it to care. If they paid attention they wouldn’t be undecided.
It is sadly a popularity contest with them. And also a vote on how well they think things are going. If going well vote for party in charge. If not, vote for other party.
Yeah, entirely too much of our elections are decided on
policyvibes.I'm hesitant to recommend the podcast again, but I think Ezra Klein's coverage of this has been good. He did an episode on this pretty recently: ”The Biggest Political Divide Is Not Left vs. Right” (also on YouTube here, among other places).
The top of mind issue for most undecided or swing voters is the economy. Hilary made the topic about other issues and lost the electoral map.
Hillary was also absolutely hated by a proportion of people in a way Harris definitely isn't. My Dad's a former Republican and voted eagerly for Biden/Harris in 2020, but in 2016 he voted third-party because he couldn't stand either Trump or Clinton. Justified or not, I don't see the same issue coming up for Harris.
Well, I think it depends on what Kamala or the some other nominee runs on. In particular, the person I replied to said:
And I think it depends on the issues. If you can't project a strong optimism about what they can do to improve the economy, you are going to lose people.
In this situation? Possibly.
The own goal was the Democrats ending in this situation, especially after fumbling in very much the same way with Hillary to get Trump elected in the first place.
DNC doing DNC things. Hopefully there are consequences this time around. When you do the same thing twice due to hubris, you have to learn.
Yes, I agree. Biden should not have run for a second term in the first place.
I only had a little confidence because an incumbent is very hard to overcome. I had no clue if Biden would even survive another 4 years, but we have systems to replace presidents who die mid-duty for a reason.
I think one thing people forget is that it was a huge miracle Biden beat Trump. Trumps poor (understatement) handling of the pandemic unironcally killed off a lot of his potential voter base, and even then Biden only won because a whole 5 states flipped from 2016. 3 of those states standing firm would have had either a nailbiter or another 4 years of trump. PA and Georgia alone would have closed the lead down to 4 points.
So with that incumbent lead gone, I'm very worried. There's been enough mishaps (especially with abortion under the court Trump appointed in his time) that I haven't completely lost hope, but it's going to be an uphill battle.
Also, may as well not deny it. There are still some racist/sexist but democratic voters out there. If Harris is being appointed we're up an even larger creek, for all the wrong reasons. At least Hilary was a first lady and secretary of state to mitigate this (and we know how it ended).
For sexist people, the fact that Hilary had any experience at all was a negative. Those people would have preferred a young beauty queen. Maybe Harris having been invisible is a plus to folks who inherently think women shouldn't be in leadership
There were situations around the world where last minute campaigns worked because basically there's was not enough time to lose momentum or do significant missteps, so it made the candidate seem as if they have a surprising rocket start. I don't doubt that the democrat's political marketers thought about this. I do doubt that Kamala Harris is good enough though.
How do the rest of the democratic nations function with much shorter election cycles than the US? Surely, they can campaign just fine with a shorter season.
Yeah I’ve had the same thought. Seeing how long campaigns run in USA, I don’t understand how any actual governing gets done, since it seems like more than 50% of the four year term is various campaigns.
Contrast with the UK general election where the entire process was just about one month from the candidates being locked in to the vote being actually held. Technically two months (or a bit under) if you consider the first moment that the election was announced.
It's even worse in the House, with the two-year cycles. One Congress-watcher says that they have the legislating year and the campaigning year.
I had the same thoughts as you originally, but seeing the amount of support and donations for Harris in the last 24 hours genuinely changed my thoughts.
I don't see Harris doing any worse than Biden would have, and she has more room to grow upwards. How many people who were realistically going to vote for Biden won't vote for Harris? There aren't any valuable polls yet, obviously, but logically that voter would be exceedingly rare.
There's also the fact that age was a serious issue for many with both Trump and Biden. Age won't be an issue for Harris.
Personally, I think Harris has a very solid chance. 4 months is plenty of time in today's world to go on a campaign blitz and build up enough support to win enough swing states
well, better late than never.
December 2019: Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term
Feb 2024 op-ed from Ezra Klein: Democrats have a better option than Biden (archive link)
I posted that article when it came out, and highlighted a passage of Klein's that I found particularly chilling:
I was reminded of that after Biden's disastrous debate performance against Trump. the tell-all books from staffers were going to full of terrible anecdotes about this period of the campaign.
at the time, the pushback to Klein's piece was that it was already February, the election was only 9 months away, so obviously it was too late to try to change candidates.
I think this is one of those "the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the 2nd best time is now" things.
it appears that people are coalescing around Kamala as the obvious successor, which seems good. for example, my congresswoman here in Seattle, Pramila Jayapal, has endorsed Kamala, and she leads the Democratic Progressive Caucus.
there had been speculation and fantasizing about holding some sort of "micro-primary" at the DNC convention in order to select a different candidate. I'd seen this referred to dismissively as a "Squid Game primary", which I think is apt. if there was going to be any sort of competition for someone else to be at the top of the ticket, the way to do that was through a real primary process, and that would have needed to happen months ago. the VP has almost no other job in our modern political system other than to exist as "backup President", it would be absurd to try to bypass Kamala and nominate someone else through backroom dealing at the convention. it would also be a huge turn-off to the Democratic party base, especially black women, to see Kamala shunted aside for a different, likely white and/or male, candidate.
a lesson I hope Democrats learn from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Dianne Feinstein, and now Biden, is the importance of handing off the reins of power before death or old age forces your hand. a podcast I listen to about SCOTUS, 5-4, recently brought up the need for Sonia Sotomayor to retire soon-ish, ideally the next time Democrats hold both the Presidency and the Senate. I like her work on the court a lot, but she is 70 years old and has type 1 diabetes. if she dies during a Republican presidency, or even a Democratic presidency where Republicans control the Senate, we could potentially have a sequel to RBG's seat being taken by Amy Coney Barrett, which would give us a ludicrous 7-2 conservative majority on the court.
for a light-hearted palate cleanser:
Wolf Blitzer at 12:47pm Washington DC local time: "Enjoying a Wolf Spritzer at El Presidente restaurant here in DC." (imgur screenshot)
Wolf Blitzer at 3pm Washington DC local time: this face (imgur screenshot)
I've enjoyed Ezra Klein's coverage of this issue. Particularly his episode on Kamala Harris, "Is Kamala Harris Underrated?" (also on YouTube here).
Though I don't know if I came away from that latter episode terribly convinced that Harris has the charisma to be president. I think she'd make a good AG, but President...? I'm concerned. Though maybe Ezra Klein is right.
Nothing about this article is definitive and all of it is based on over-interpreting very minor, offhanded comments that are delivered via hearsay from mostly anonymous sources. With the benefit of hindsight I think we should take this as evidence for the political press being gossipy drama queens who don’t actually practice good journalistic standards. They’re just blithely publishing rumors, big chunks of which they’re just making up to string a narrative together.
I’m just glad this drama is behind us and hopefully the party can coalesce around Harris quickly. Major leaders in the party seem to be doing so. This might end up being seen as a rare move of Democratic strategic acumen but we just have to hope and ensure that they don’t once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive and Moderate Dem coalitions, Warren, Durbin, a large group are backing Harris. That makes me feel a bit more optimistic.
Edit a word
3.5 months in the terms of a political move like this may as well be the Crowdstrike crisis that's not even a few days old. We probably would have been fine if this was the plan in January, but I don't think people will come around quickly enough. Especially if Harris is indeed who the DNC will back.
By the party I mean people who will be endorsing her. I don’t really think there’s that many Biden voters out there who will need convincing to vote for Harris. It’s the same ticket, after all.
Yeah, I absolutely did not want this, but what’s done is done. The donors and so-called progressive loudmouths got their way. Now they need to shut up and get in line behind Harris.
It really was not the progressive wing of the party that did this. AOC and Bernie were vocal supporters of Biden staying in. This was mostly the doing of the donor class and Pelosi allies who are worried about down ballot races. And of course the large number of voters who rank age as one of the biggest issues for supporting Biden.
Not the party wing. I agree that AOC and Bernie did the right thing when it mattered most. But the contingent of online progressives who are never satisfied just wouldn’t let up about Biden’s supposed unfitness.
If AOC and Bernie in the flesh don't matter to the Pelosi class, how on earth do disgruntled online progressives have voices that would even register. No, the online little people are definitely not what pushed this to happen, even if they are coincidentally calling for it to happen.
Ah, that may be the case, but rest assured online progressives are not the ones that lead to this outcome. Online posting from the rank-and-file is almost always sound a fury signifying nothing at the end of the day. I understand your frustration and also think Biden was the most progressive president of my lifetime, but I think he became so because of the realities of the coalition he built and relied on for support and not because of some internal evolution. That is to say, the political landscape forced him to be progressive, and that is the same landscape Harris will be inheriting. There is hope she will be just as progressive.
In any case I think, personal feelings aside, the only word on any Democrat or progressive’s lips right now should be “Win!”. There will be time after the election to settle scores. We are four months from a potential authoritarian/proto-fascist nightmare scenario. Now is not the time to be venting about insta-party frustration, imo.
Hold the name calling (and assumptions of disingenuousness?) when talking in spaces you know you share with the people you're talking about please.
That's exactly the rhetoric we need to get past.
Give me a break. I’m not going to apologize for my tone when the greatest president of my lifetime was stabbed in the back.
I get you man, I've got my own rage, and by sheer coincidence wearing my Bernie 2016 shirt as I type this. I even voted 3rd party in PA at the time, and I stand by my choice, and firmly believe it's part of the reason Biden's presidency is as good as it is today.
The strategic answer in 2024 is voting out Republicans at every level and pass proper voting reforms like ranked choice.
Join the DSA and help forge the future with that rage. Stepping on toes right now and navelgazing is counterproductive.
Bringing Bernie on as Vice would be a move with excellent optics, I'd say.
He's needed in the senate with how tight the election will be. I also don't think this ticket needs to being back the age discussion now.
I mean..... If real life was run by aforementioned disgruntled online progressives, for sure. They'll never do it. But yes, that would be the dream.
Frankly, I'd like to see them double-down and put AoC on the ticket.
Two women, and make their top running platform re-securing women's rights for the future.
That platform doesn't win. I'm sorry, bit a VP is meant to expand the base. If Harris has the centre locked and needed to shore up her left flank, sure, but that's not where we're at. We need to lock up at least some of the swing states, like PA (Shapiro) or Kelly (AZ). The same white male Biden picked Harris to shore up black and female support, and the support on his left.
See, I just call that sexist, rascist pandering. And yea it's probably neccessary, but doesn't make it less bullshit.
Trump had the second most votes for president of any other presidential election ever. There is no 'swaying' the Trump voter, with the possible exception of pulling women over, even then I'm doubtful.
And I can promise you Shapiro is a losing choice. He's too new of a governer and hasn't made a mark. Can't speak to Kelly though.
The US is sexist, racist country. It's still in the best interest of women and minorities that Dems win.
Shapiro is hugely popular, though. Kelly is more established, but we need to do something about those Rust Belt states. We can't lose PA.
I'd love to see it too, but I don't think that the US would vote for AOC as president just the same as a Harris/Whitmer ticket wouldn't fly with the broader population.
But who knows. I just hope that whoever lands in the white house doesn't skewer Canada at the same time as we're enjoying our own reckoning. Mealy mouthed Laurentian or fire breathing kid brother are our options.
Greatest? Well, I'm glad the youth are getting out to vote.
Though, it's not like my choices as a millenial are much better. Clinton, W, Obama, Trump, Biden.
A frustrated tone isn't a problem, it's implying bad faith or ignorance in a generalized group of a people that you share this platform with, and then telling them to shut up.
Take a breath before letting negative impulses out on here even if your feelings are valid. This is Tildes, not Reddit. Apologies don't make us lose an argument on here, they help us remember we're talking to and about real people.
Welp let the legal shit show begin.
Edit- to give this some depth
There’s going to be a very large mess now. Both the political in fighting of who gets to be the candidate AND “what are the repercussions of this” from a legal and voting perspective.
The lawyers are I’m sure ready for this and going to cause a shitstorm
I was worried about this, but as long as it's legal for Democratic delegates to vote for whoever they want at the convention, and that person becomes the party nominee, I suspect that legally it's in the clear. That is, it's only custom that Biden's delegates vote for Biden.
And I think it has to work that way, because otherwise, the delegates of a candidate who dropped out couldn't vote for someone else. And that's what's happening in this case! Later than usual.
This is a process that wasn't really used for decades, but I think it's still on the books, because that's how it originally worked? Some states like California have jungle primaries, but not for presidential elections. (If someone actually knows how the laws work, please correct me.)
Another case to consider: imagine if a presidential candidate died just after the November election. What could the electoral college do? It's a situation where electors technically being able to make a different decision than what they promised might be useful as a backup plan.
Having people involved in a decision-making process means there's a risk of shenanigans, but there are times when it's better than relying on a dumb algorithm.
We should prepare ourselves to hear Donald make up some justification for why his opponent is a "criminal" who "stole the nomination" or some bullshit along those lines. And of course for uninformed commenters like the GP here to insinuate that the claim has any legal standing whatsoever. As you say exactly: if they get the DNC nomination, there should be zero legal issues whatsoever to get them on ballots and to get their name and policies out there. 100 days is a long time. The UK elected literally all of their elected positions in less time than that!
Yeah, this has a good chance of being a chaotic moment for America's legal systems. The people I follow defend that, since Biden was not officially nominated and no ballots have been printed everything will be fine, but Republicans will definitely want to force him back on the ballot, and we don't really expect the Supreme Court to not oblige after the immunity ruling if it comes to it. I personally believe that if they can simply disallow Kamala or whoever from the ballot, then they may as well turn the USA to a one-party state.
Lawyer here. Republicans shouldn't have standing to contest anything done internally by the DNC but we will see how creative they can get and how obliging the judges are .
I’m more worried about the Ohio ballot issue
iirc they already changed the rules for the Ohio ballot issue, and it would affect Republicans as well so they're unlikely to fight to use the old rules.
I guess I'll find out either way, since I vote in Ohio.
Ohio is not a swing state. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a queen to get to checkmate
I just hope the DNC is better at chess than I am.
Wellll….
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/281805-it-s-not-that-the-democrats-are-playing-checkers-and-the
We used to be tho :c
can you ELI5 what legal arguments could potentially come up? The DNC/RNC are things that "should" respect the parties' wishes, but technically they can choose to back whoever they want, regardless of primaries, right? None of this convention formalities are highlighted in any binding document I'm aware of (and I can be unaware of many other documents, or the subteties of existing ones I do know)
My understanding is that Biden stepping away releases his delegates. Biden has encouraged them to choose Kamala Harris but I don't think that binds them.
There have been threats by Republicans to try to keep Biden's replacement off state ballots. That would be a revolutionary move by the Courts if they allow that. However this court has shown itself willing to be radical.
It's going to be interesting and unpredictable but I have hope
I know the GOP has been threatening court challenges, but I really don’t understand on what grounds they intend to do so. My understanding is that ballots have not even been printed yet, and Biden i was never the official nominee. Even with courts as fucked as they are I don’t see how they could force Democrats to have a nominee they never selected and don’t want. Challenges related to campaign war-chest issues might have more opportunity for ratfuckery.
I think the legal concerns are overblown.
I'm still really concerned you'll end up with states like Texas not having Harris at the top of the ticket because Paxton would be likely to try that.
And that would, regardless of the presidential election, end up with down ticket issues.
But even if Paxton were to succeed -- and again, I don't think he would for the reasons @boxer_dogs_dance describes -- he wouldn't be able to prevent a write-in campaign. And it's perfectly conceivable that the Democrats could actually prevail under such circumstances (Lisa Murkowski, for example, famously won a Senate seat despite not being on the ballot). Indeed, if there's enough public bashlash against such a blatantly undemocratic measure, it might even have the opposite effect, boosting Democratic turnout.
I agree that a hypothetical legal challenge blocking access to the ballot would be morally reprehensible, but I don't think it would necessarily be catastrophic.
It might, but i think the down-ballot effect would still be huge. I'm less concerned than I was a few months ago, and I'm feeling hopeful at the behind the scenes work that has undercut some of the wild "what if everyone gets on TV and speed dates their favorite candidate with every delegate, deciding who makes the best "is it cake" before they vote" fast primary ideas (only a slight exaggeration I think),
But the house is huge, and gerrymandered as it is, small shifts can have big effects.
I do agree he wouldn't likely succeed, but the try is going to eat up air from the campaign. I just heard the current chair of the FEC panel that will I guess decide if Harris gets the Biden campaign fund play some of the "well some lawyers have said lots of different things" game. I'm less concerned about the actual 'win' by actors like Paxton, and more worried about the impacts of the games.
Regarding the FEC: the current chair of the FEC is a Trump appointee purposefully distorting the law. He cites 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(3) in an attempt to muddy the waters, but its applicability is dubious. At any rate, he doesn't have the final say -- the FEC board is purposefully split 3-3 Republican-Democratic, so the worse-case scenario is that the decision would be split and sent to the courts, where it would remain unsettled until well after election day.
However, the fact that the chairman has to speak so obtusely proves the weakness of the challenge. And at any rate it's irrelevant, as the issue would be resolved too late to matter.
As for your larger point: I don't see frivolous lawsuits as being much of a threat. On the contrary, I think they often have the opposite effect, making the plaintiff look incompetent and petty.
In the interview I was listening to, he didn't even cite anything, he just gave the "many fine lawyers have said" line. But yeah i agree. It's less that I am worried about frivolous lawsuits and more that they'll turn out to be upheld and eat up media space in a world that apparently only covers scandal.
But it's just frustrating and anxiety inducing. And I am afraid of being optimistic
I think the Supreme Court would be likely to prevent that. Calling balls and strikes between the nation and the states is a fundamental part of their job. If they allowed this they would be throwing out the constitution and it would be a very public signal that something is very wrong
I lack the confidence that SCOTUS would definitely shut it down. But as I noted in another post, it's the totality of it, possibly not being on a ballot, and the down race implications, but then also the "scandal" story sucking the air from the election, etc. I'm less anxious than I was previously, but it may just be some internal self-protection from hope.
I am far from certain. The Republicans have been extremely aggressive to the point of being revolutionary.
However this is a step that would be impossible to hide or camouflage. Preventing a free election based on technical rules changes the game irrevocably. Counter actions like expanding the court would be on table at minimum.
I do agree it would at least be in open air and I'm trying to find moments of optimism rather than just pessimism
Hang in there. We are in this together.
Additional sources
Washington Post
NYT
AP
I really hope for a day in the future where my gut won’t be in knots before every major election.
Shoot, I’ve even done multiple hours of work looking up information about the primary for the local sheriff (which is a good thing, but still, I would love to have more of my head back)
People often underestimate local politics and don't engage with local elections, so good on you for doing research and participating!
Well this is going to get very interesting, very fast. First impression is that the Pelosi wing still wears the pants in the party, despite any gesture of stepping down or passing the torch to the next generation. Second is that if Harris isn't named as the true successor, that means it's going to the convention.
Pants on Head Wild Prediction
Do you know who's on a first name basis with most of the delegates who would be deciding such a convention, run a presidential campaign all the way to the general before, and has a score to settle with Donald Trump? Her time has come again.
Edit: Biden endorses Harris per tweet. https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815087772216303933
Hilary Clinton is 76. Donald Trump is 78. The possibly winning move is to make Trump look old and out of touch by running a candidate in their fifties or sixties. I don't see a Clinton run happening but I might be proven wrong
Clinton running again would be the absolutely dumbest play of political nepotism, and would be in my mind a sure sign of a failed state.
I would like to end my years with more presidents than not whom were not immediate family of a former president.
While a funny (very loose meaning of the word…) possibility to consider, I can’t imagine it.
Despite more people actually voting for her in 2016 over Trump – a margin of nearly 3 million! – a majority of people looking back now, it feels like, have a sentiment of Clinton being the less favorable option, for whichever reasons. I don’t think her odds would stand too high, in all honesty. Virtually no campaign and a prior “loss” against the same opponent? The DNC would not do itself any favors with that nomination…
Edit: People are commenting Biden has just endorsed Harris, as was expected by observers without pants on their head ;)
I didn't expect this to actually happen. Perhaps I'm not online enough these days but I didn't know it was this dire for Joe Biden.
85% of voters thought he was too old for another term and 2/3 of Democrats wanted him to step down. Not to mention, every major newspaper editorial board called for him to step down and major donors started to freeze their contributions. It was awful for him.
Is there a reason not to announce the new candidate yet? Is there a process for legally making someone eligible that they need to go through first? I would assume Kamala would be it. Why not announce that now so she can start building steam?
I believe he could've endorsed Kamala, and he may still in a speech later this week, but the candidate will be chosen at the convention in August. Right now, the field is open.
Edit: Biden just posted an endorsement of Harris on his twitter account.
He just did: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815087772216303933?t=Ne6Opg1km7t_a1KW4TAHOw
He pretty much did in a follow-up message:
If France’s left wing parties can band together to stave off conservative rule, the US left can too.
I'm a left-leaning French abstentionist (= I don't support any current french political party, therefore I prefer not to vote). IMHO, the whole "France's left wing banded together against the far-right" has been extremely overblowned by foreign left and left-leaning media.
TL;DR: France's left is mess, and should not be an inspiration.
Fantastic news, the bar is much lower than initial estimates!
It's worth to note that the French leftwing alliance is anything but stable, and they can't seem to agree on a PM candidate either.
Regardless, with how long the US presidential election lasts, difficult to say how things will go.
I'm optimistic about the election. Four months is an eternity in this era of rapid communication. Rallying behind a candidate before the DNC is another challenge. It's going to be a crazy 4 weeks.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it seems revisionist. Obama won two elections handedly, one in dominating fashion. In both cases he was notable for garnering Rust Belt support of working white class men - the so called "Obama-Trump" voters by election statisticians. The problem the democrats have is that Obama can only serve two terms, and that they have no more Obama-like figures.
It seems to be a super common idea that people say, I don't know where it comes from or if it actually has merit, but the premise seems to be that Obama's presidency somehow angered racists and people with racial biases and that led to the rise of Trump and MAGA supporters because they didn't like that the country elected a black President. It's not exactly a claim that seemingly can be backed by hard evidence but in any case I haven't seen any kind of soft evidence either and so I generally dismiss it as it seems like it's more crafted for narrative purposes.
To give another interpretation of this: it's an argument used by those who disagree or refuse to acknoledge that Hilary was not in fact a, as put above, an "Obama-like figure". It may in fact have been about as far from an obama-like figure as you can get. So if you don't believe Hilary demotivated the left, you believe that Obama galvanized the right. And Trump was more than happy to run with that narrative with the whole "wall" narrative that I don't even think the Right truly believed would have been approved to build in 4 years.
But that's one interpretation. I won't speak for others, but 2016 was still my most painful election by far.
Hillary and Obama were very different candidates, that much I think is difficult to dispute.
Obama in many ways was a clean break from not just Bush Jr, but also from his predecessors. Here you have this young (for presidential standards at least), mentally sharp, well spoken man who's a fresh face in the political spotlight. He connects with and motivates younger voters to a degree that his opponents could never dream of, largely because he doesn't feel so hopelessly out of touch.
Hillary on the other hand, unfair as it may have been, I believe was received as a something as a "return to regularly scheduled programming", being seen as a representation of the establishment and continuation of the pre-Obama era. I suspect that a great number of the votes she got weren't out of enthusiasm for her as a candidate, but out of her not being Trump, which unfortunately wasn't enough.
I voted for her but she really wasn't what people were wanting.
That misinformation dated back to the first Clinton presidency and Rush Limbaugh. H Clinton was crucified for asking for a formal policy brief on health care during her husband's presidency
Meanwhile Rosalyn Carter attended all cabinet meetings but got away with it because there is a long tradition of informal presidential advisors with huge influence and she never asked for a title or a job description.
Most of the people I know who voted for Biden but not Clinton hated her LONG before the Pizzagate shit and probably had relatively low awareness of even the "but her emails" shit. Their hatred of Clinton ran much older than that and was from shit that happened back in the 90s.
I'm european and I thankfully can follow american politics from far far away. So this is just my shallow perspective on this: wasn't the Tea Party started because of Obamas presidency?
I think that was the first time I can think of where the standards of american politics took a real nosedive. And I believe with them (?) came a new type of conspiratorial ideas in politics, mainly the whole myth around Obamas origin a.k.a the 'birther movement', and later the ideas about him being something like an agent of islam, and also more hateful stuff about Michelle Obama, etc..
And regarding Trump I am reminded of the White House correspondents dinner where Obama mocked Trump because of his birtherism ideas while he was sitting in the audience. That was years before Trumps direct involvement in politics, I believe.
I always suspected that this was the birth hour of the narcissistic horrorclown MAGA-Trump.
From my perspective these things look like the roots of Trump, MAGA, QAnon, etc.
The Tea Party was sold as a response to Obama's presidency, but the moneyed interests behind it had been working on it long before that.
Trump also ran for President in 2000 for the Reform party, but I don't think anyone really took that seriously.
Thanks for the article! I was vaguely aware that the Tea Party was only 'labelled' as a grassroots movement, but I didn't know the full story behind it.
So Obama was just unlucky to be president during these Koch schemes.
But wasn't there also a racist component to the Tea Party movement? Or do you think that didn't really play a role then? Do you think they were a starting point for the MAGA crowd?
It's possible that it was just bad luck, or it's possible that they felt Obama's presidency was the most opportune moment to push forward. It's impossible to say for sure, but I tend to think it's the latter, because there absolutely was a racist component to the Tea Party movement. It was much more "mask on" than the MAGA movement, but it was one of those little Domino masks that doesn't actually obscure anyone's identity if you have any idea of what they look like.
I actually agree that a racist backlash to Obama's presidency was part of what led to Trump getting elected, but I think without the galvanization and financing of oil billionaires, it wouldn't have been. And if it was, I don't think the takeaway is that we shouldn't have black presidents. On the contrary, black presidents need to be so normal that a backlash to it seems silly. At a maximum of one every four years, it'll take decades at best to get there, but that means we should have started earlier, not later.
Yeah, I totally agree, that can't be the 'lesson'.
Thanks for the insights!
I disagree that Obama catalyzed this. @stu2b50 has pointed out that Obama has won over working white class men before. I think that we're seeing the country arriving at an advanced stage of a long trend toward economic centralization:
I agree. While I think that Harris won't galvanize the right — she barely galvanizes the left — I do wish the left would deprioritize identity politics and focus on connecting with middle America.
I commented before on here that I thought it was hubris that the Biden campaign, pressured by Black Democrats, announced it would limit its search for a running mate to only Black women — which resulted in an tiny selection of candidates and precluded the possibility of selecting someone with more political star potential to groom, which in turn has led us here to having Harris whom most Americans find... merely serviceable but uninspiring.
I'm not saying that the Biden campaign should've picked a white man, but rather they should have simply focused on picking a running mate with the most political potential, whatever race or sex they might be, instead of committing to tokenism. Gretchen Whitmer would've been a fantastic pick as she has broad appeal.
can you be more specific about exactly what policies or messages you consider "identity politics" that the left should de-prioritize?
because isn't "middle America"...also an identity?
it sounds like you just want to swap out one kind of "identity politics" for a different kind. and I'm curious which identities you think should be de-emphasized, and which ones should be emphasized instead.
I think he's saying the left should mostly be talking about the economic vandalism of the corporations and less about LBGT, gender identity, ethnicity, etc. You can obviously do both, but focusing too much on the latter will lose you people you can reach with the former, especially if you make that your rhetorical priority. You can interpret that as identity politics, if you view if through the lens of class. That's not generally what people mean when they say identity politics though. Obviously this would suck if you're gay or trans, as there'll be very little you'll care about more than your own right to exist, but that's the argument; that a focus on non identity politics issues gets you more votes, and more wins.
So in this specific case, picking a VP different from Harris might've maximised our chances of winning. One thing I'll say is that the Harris picked shored up Biden's support on the left and with minority caucuses, which is also important and we can't take a Biden victory as a given without that.
Not the original commenter, but I thought generally identity politics refers to immutable characteristics, whereas being a middle American, while arguably an identity, is mutable.
Religion is definitely covered by identity politics, and is mutable. Honestly I think the definition is kinda vibes based.
I think Raistlin put it more eloquently than I could ever, and I think we're all in agreement. I personally don't consider religion (FWIW I'm atheist) to be covered by identity politics. But I think it's valid to consider that it is. Like you said, it's vibes based.
I'm not really following here, how did Obama catalyze Biden passing nomination months before the election?
Basically saying he's what have rise to trump and the accepted extremism on the right
Thanks for the work Joe but I had hope you had made this inevitable decision a year ago.
This is really fucked. I think it’s clear that the money people in the Democratic Party would rather have a MAGA regime than pay somewhat higher taxes.
What people in the Democratic Party are those? Like, are there specific people that you think are simultaneously in the Democratic Party and are also so averse to paying somewhat higher taxes that they want Trump to win? I ask, because if they are fiscally conservative, then they're probably extremely socially liberal if they are still in the Democratic Party, which makes it seem unlikely that they are going to ally themselves with the grossly intolerant MAGA movement under any circumstances.
There is the cynical take that a bunch of folks down ballot who are going to keep their jobs one way or another would rather fundraise and drum line against fascism than actually solve the problems they're getting a shit ton of money out of.
I am thinking of the wealthy donors who were withholding contributions when Biden was the de facto candidate. These are people who would not be personally inconvenienced at all if Trump won. If their daughter needed an abortion they would just send her to Europe, etc. They aren’t “fiscally conservative”, they’re just greedy.
Look, I agree that donors have outsized influence that they shouldn't. But I think you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions as to their motives.
Right now it sure looks like Harris will be the nominee, having gathered major endorsements from Biden himself, the Black and Hispanic caucuses, a ton of senators and influential representatives as well. Given that, are there any substantive differences in tax policy between Harris and Biden? I think the answer is a solid no. So, isn't it more likely that they actually were scared by Biden's debate performance and that's what drove them to action?
They should have been more concerned about the convicted felon who literally babbles incoherently at his rallies and who wants to institute fascism.
I’m going to wait until it shows up somewhere other than Twitter before believing this. (Could be a hack.)
(Edit: it wasn’t showing up on news sites. I think maybe it was a browser cache issue.)
Okay, the New York Times has it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/us/politics/biden-drops-out.html
It's not a hack.