Biden may be edging closer to dropping out of presidential race
July 18, 2024 5:01 PM Subscribe
Behind the Curtain: Top Dems now believe Biden will exit
* Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats make a fresh push for Biden to reconsider 2024 race
* People Close to Biden Say He Appears to Accept He May Have to Leave the Race
* Pelosi, Long Fixated on Winning, Is in No Mood to Lose With Biden
* Obama tells allies Biden’s path to winning reelection has greatly diminished
* Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats make a fresh push for Biden to reconsider 2024 race
* People Close to Biden Say He Appears to Accept He May Have to Leave the Race
* Pelosi, Long Fixated on Winning, Is in No Mood to Lose With Biden
* Obama tells allies Biden’s path to winning reelection has greatly diminished
Does he announce it ten minutes before Trump goes on stage?
posted by TwoWordReview at 5:07 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
posted by TwoWordReview at 5:07 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
So which is it, young feller?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9OLZKSC5k
posted by thecincinnatikid at 5:13 PM on July 18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9OLZKSC5k
posted by thecincinnatikid at 5:13 PM on July 18
Biden gave an interview with BET saying that he would only drop out if he got info from a doctor that led him to change his mind, but then maybe less than a hour after that, the news dropped that Biden tested positive for COVID. It feels like the writing is on the wall at this point.
posted by jonp72 at 5:14 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
posted by jonp72 at 5:14 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
I’m not sure if anything in my life has made me loathe the Democrats, the NYT, the New Yorker, and the rest of the commentariat as this moment. Whether he stays or goes, whether the Dems win or lose, it’s all gonna be impossible to prove counterfactuals about how it could have gone a different way. What a fuckin’ depressing crab bucket of a party and an intelligentsia.
Anyway, time to start that audiobook about the underlying political conditions of the Weimar Republic.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on July 18 [60 favorites]
Anyway, time to start that audiobook about the underlying political conditions of the Weimar Republic.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on July 18 [60 favorites]
I've already moved onto who the new Veep will be. That is going to be yet another nailbiter.
posted by nanook at 5:16 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
posted by nanook at 5:16 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
I would like to remember Biden as a very good, better than expected, effective one term president who got shit done and knew when it was time to hand over the keys.
I would also like to see Trump get absolutely destroyed (at the election booth, natch) in November.
In one of these many possible universes in this rich and beautiful multiverse both of these things must be possible.
posted by vverse23 at 5:18 PM on July 18 [72 favorites]
I would also like to see Trump get absolutely destroyed (at the election booth, natch) in November.
In one of these many possible universes in this rich and beautiful multiverse both of these things must be possible.
posted by vverse23 at 5:18 PM on July 18 [72 favorites]
So Nancy Pelosi (age 84) is telling Joe Biden (age 81) that he's too old? I mean, I'm not saying she's wrong, but ...
posted by Slothrup at 5:21 PM on July 18 [24 favorites]
posted by Slothrup at 5:21 PM on July 18 [24 favorites]
I think changing candidates opens a WHOLE can of worms that those pushing for it haven't prepared for.
I intensely mistrust the pundits-and-donors arm of the operation.
If Biden were to step aside, I intensely mistrust anyone who tries to construct some kind of plan where they get to skip over Harris.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:22 PM on July 18 [54 favorites]
I intensely mistrust the pundits-and-donors arm of the operation.
If Biden were to step aside, I intensely mistrust anyone who tries to construct some kind of plan where they get to skip over Harris.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:22 PM on July 18 [54 favorites]
I hate all this, honestly. Would I have preferred a different candidate? Sure. (Warren, actually) But we're not really voting for a single guy so much as we're voting for an entire administration ... and whatever Biden's flaws I would prefer his administration over the other guy.
I deeply wish that we all could focus more on the policy than the single person, but whatever. Here we are, I guess. Shitty way to treat a guy who devoted his life to public service and the Dems.
The Dems right now are a team that have convinced themselves they're gonna lose, and I'm not sure changing candidates is going to change that. We need to stop yapping at other left-leaning folks for not being left enough and team up and talk about achievements and vision and all that -- but no. Instead its this.
Honestly, the thing that needs to change is not the candidate, so much as the party and campaign leadership. The Rs are selling rotten meat and doing so with a smile. What will win this election is for the political marking folks on the left to stop with the doomsaying and start selling the product of good, solid, progressive, left-leaning leadership.
Until that changes, it doesn't matter who the candidate is.
posted by anastasiav at 5:22 PM on July 18 [73 favorites]
I deeply wish that we all could focus more on the policy than the single person, but whatever. Here we are, I guess. Shitty way to treat a guy who devoted his life to public service and the Dems.
The Dems right now are a team that have convinced themselves they're gonna lose, and I'm not sure changing candidates is going to change that. We need to stop yapping at other left-leaning folks for not being left enough and team up and talk about achievements and vision and all that -- but no. Instead its this.
Honestly, the thing that needs to change is not the candidate, so much as the party and campaign leadership. The Rs are selling rotten meat and doing so with a smile. What will win this election is for the political marking folks on the left to stop with the doomsaying and start selling the product of good, solid, progressive, left-leaning leadership.
Until that changes, it doesn't matter who the candidate is.
posted by anastasiav at 5:22 PM on July 18 [73 favorites]
it’s all gonna be impossible to prove counterfactuals about how it could have gone a different way
isn't that true of ........(checks notes)......... every event in human history?
posted by lalochezia at 5:23 PM on July 18 [16 favorites]
isn't that true of ........(checks notes)......... every event in human history?
posted by lalochezia at 5:23 PM on July 18 [16 favorites]
[riding bomb down, waving cowboy hat dot gif]
posted by McBearclaw at 5:24 PM on July 18 [21 favorites]
posted by McBearclaw at 5:24 PM on July 18 [21 favorites]
I mean, I sure as fuck don’t feel like giving a dime to a party that pulls any of this kind of shit. Like, why would I? Y’all can’t even own your accomplishments right now. You think donations are bad now - you think they’re gonna get better when we flail ourselves into Hubert Humphrey?
I’ll add that I’ve never felt more politically disempowered than at this moment, or that this is a party of elites making calls. Like, at this point in the process one is always disempowered, but the art is making us not care about that disempowerment. And boy, do I care.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:24 PM on July 18 [15 favorites]
I’ll add that I’ve never felt more politically disempowered than at this moment, or that this is a party of elites making calls. Like, at this point in the process one is always disempowered, but the art is making us not care about that disempowerment. And boy, do I care.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:24 PM on July 18 [15 favorites]
I wonder if it'll actually be someone new or some other name I already had to live through in the past.
posted by GoblinHoney at 5:25 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 5:25 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
I love it, let's do it. I think the only thing that makes sense would be for Biden to resign; some weirdass thing where he doesn't run but endorses her wouldn't fly. She has to stand toe to toe with Trump. If that hurts Joe's feelings, oh well. It can't be VP Harris vs. President Trump.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:25 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:25 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
I guess I don't really understand the down side of Biden staying in, given that the heir apparent, and to my understanding the most popular choice at this point as the person to step up, is Kamala Harris.
If Biden is great (and he seems to be darned good, if dead wrong on some things), and the only concern is his age and that he might fall ill, well, if he becomes incapacitated, it's Harris anyway.
Whereas the shmozzle around Biden dropping out and replacements and the rumblings that every Red state would use that as an excuse to kick his successor off the ballot and the drama and the hey and the ho and the schmengle -- isn't an older Biden and a popular successor as VP the best of all worlds? Eating cake and having it too?
Maybe I'm just not a savvy politico, but I just don't get it.
posted by Shepherd at 5:25 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
If Biden is great (and he seems to be darned good, if dead wrong on some things), and the only concern is his age and that he might fall ill, well, if he becomes incapacitated, it's Harris anyway.
Whereas the shmozzle around Biden dropping out and replacements and the rumblings that every Red state would use that as an excuse to kick his successor off the ballot and the drama and the hey and the ho and the schmengle -- isn't an older Biden and a popular successor as VP the best of all worlds? Eating cake and having it too?
Maybe I'm just not a savvy politico, but I just don't get it.
posted by Shepherd at 5:25 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
So Nancy Pelosi (age 84) is telling Joe Biden (age 81) that he's too old? I mean, I'm not saying she's wrong, but ...
I'd love for Pelosi to step down. I'd have loved for her to have encouraged Feinstein to step down and let someone to her left take her seat a long time ago.
But Pelosi isn't running nationwide. She isn't running a risk of pulling down the ticket nationwide, and we don't get a fascist president if she somehow loses her seat.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:29 PM on July 18 [24 favorites]
I'd love for Pelosi to step down. I'd have loved for her to have encouraged Feinstein to step down and let someone to her left take her seat a long time ago.
But Pelosi isn't running nationwide. She isn't running a risk of pulling down the ticket nationwide, and we don't get a fascist president if she somehow loses her seat.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:29 PM on July 18 [24 favorites]
If Biden were to step aside, I intensely mistrust anyone who tries to construct some kind of plan where they get to skip over Harris.
Yep, I think that's why this letter is circulating: 1400 Black Women and Their Allies Have Indicated Their Support for Biden and Harris.
'“The suggestion that any candidate who won their primary should simply step aside because victory appears difficult at the moment is disrespectful to the voters, unjust and undemocratic,” the women wrote. '
My feeling is that if all these people who are concerned that Biden can't govern were fine with Harris taking over (as a vice president is elected to do), they wouldn't be so hell bent on getting him to resign right now.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:33 PM on July 18 [32 favorites]
Yep, I think that's why this letter is circulating: 1400 Black Women and Their Allies Have Indicated Their Support for Biden and Harris.
'“The suggestion that any candidate who won their primary should simply step aside because victory appears difficult at the moment is disrespectful to the voters, unjust and undemocratic,” the women wrote. '
My feeling is that if all these people who are concerned that Biden can't govern were fine with Harris taking over (as a vice president is elected to do), they wouldn't be so hell bent on getting him to resign right now.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:33 PM on July 18 [32 favorites]
Pelosi, if reporting is accurate, is also still capable of working around the clock calling/meeting with members of her party, counting votes - I don't gather she is only reliably sharp between the hours of 10am-4pm. I have my complaints about her, but the woman is a political machine (though yes, it's good she stepped down and passed the torch to Jeffries).
posted by coffeecat at 5:35 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 5:35 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
Is there a single directly attributed quote in any of this yet?
posted by Artw at 5:37 PM on July 18 [15 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:37 PM on July 18 [15 favorites]
I mean, I sure as fuck don’t feel like giving a dime to a party that pulls any of this kind of shit.
Take that, face! No nose for you!
I think the only thing that makes sense would be for Biden to resign; some weirdass thing where he doesn't run but endorses her wouldn't fly.
That would be ideal (IF Biden dropped out, which I'm not saying I want) but then we won't have a vice-president until the Senate and House confirm one. In which case, Republican Mike Johnson becomes president if anything happens to Kamala Harris before January; and in which case, there is no vice president to oversee the whole electoral college vote counting thing.
posted by mistersix at 5:38 PM on July 18 [21 favorites]
Take that, face! No nose for you!
I think the only thing that makes sense would be for Biden to resign; some weirdass thing where he doesn't run but endorses her wouldn't fly.
That would be ideal (IF Biden dropped out, which I'm not saying I want) but then we won't have a vice-president until the Senate and House confirm one. In which case, Republican Mike Johnson becomes president if anything happens to Kamala Harris before January; and in which case, there is no vice president to oversee the whole electoral college vote counting thing.
posted by mistersix at 5:38 PM on July 18 [21 favorites]
we won't have a vice-president until the Senate and House confirm one
By which I mean unless a few more Republicans resign, I don't think the House will confirm a Democratic vice-president.
posted by mistersix at 5:39 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
By which I mean unless a few more Republicans resign, I don't think the House will confirm a Democratic vice-president.
posted by mistersix at 5:39 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
For a vaccinated person who's had Covid before, it's manageable.
posted by theora55 at 5:41 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 5:41 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
:(
As a libertarian, the best I can realistically hope for is a President whom I don't need to think about too much, and Biden has been great at that.
I'd much rather have 4 more years of little fixes to make existing programs work better (e.g., the Biden administration fixed the ACA family glitch) than some fired-up youngster out to enact grand sweeping changes to secure her/his legacy.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:41 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
As a libertarian, the best I can realistically hope for is a President whom I don't need to think about too much, and Biden has been great at that.
I'd much rather have 4 more years of little fixes to make existing programs work better (e.g., the Biden administration fixed the ACA family glitch) than some fired-up youngster out to enact grand sweeping changes to secure her/his legacy.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:41 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
Yoooo let’s gooo I’m so excited about this - I saw a headline somewhere saying sharks are circling Biden - and it’s me, I’m sharks and I just want fresh blooooooood
Anyway I think this is exactly what the party needs. I hope there’s a competitive process to find the new candidate - I liked Clyburn’s idea of a mini primary - and I also think Harris stands a good shot at winning this mini primary; I think her speaking skills have gotten better since the last round. But please let us see a debate or two before the convention!
A shorter election season seems like a good idea anyway - European governments seem like they’re always calling snap elections, why do we have to drag ours out for so long here in the US??
posted by catcafe at 5:43 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Anyway I think this is exactly what the party needs. I hope there’s a competitive process to find the new candidate - I liked Clyburn’s idea of a mini primary - and I also think Harris stands a good shot at winning this mini primary; I think her speaking skills have gotten better since the last round. But please let us see a debate or two before the convention!
A shorter election season seems like a good idea anyway - European governments seem like they’re always calling snap elections, why do we have to drag ours out for so long here in the US??
posted by catcafe at 5:43 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Instead of focusing on Trump falling asleep at the RNC during his son's speech (GOPers said he was praying, ffs) and his gibberish, the awfulness of Vance, we're squandering every bit of press on Biden's presence in the race. Dems are just determined to shoot themselves in the feet. The most important question isn't if Biden should stay in the race, it's who's gonna run, and Dems have convinced me they can't organize their way out of a picnic, so will anybody be able to choose a candidate without chaos and carnage?
posted by theora55 at 5:45 PM on July 18 [21 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 5:45 PM on July 18 [21 favorites]
I mean, I sure as fuck don’t feel like giving a dime to a party that pulls any of this kind of shit. Like, why would I?
Because President Harris is way, way better than President Trump.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:50 PM on July 18 [62 favorites]
Because President Harris is way, way better than President Trump.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:50 PM on July 18 [62 favorites]
I will believe it when I see it. Pelosi has been quoted as saying the press is just making stuff up.
I can't see, logistically, how this could actually happen, in terms of the legalities of candidates being on the ballot in all 50 states.
Two counterpoints:
Black Voters Matter Releases Statement Following Calls to Replace Biden-Harris Ticket
I 100% support the current ticket that we chose in the primaries: Biden for President, Harris for Vice-President.
I think any other option will make it much harder to win in November, which we absolutely must do.
posted by kristi at 5:50 PM on July 18 [42 favorites]
I can't see, logistically, how this could actually happen, in terms of the legalities of candidates being on the ballot in all 50 states.
Two counterpoints:
Black Voters Matter Releases Statement Following Calls to Replace Biden-Harris Ticket
We demand that the party and its donors respect the process that was put in place, a process which for the first time ever was led by South Carolina and which resulted in over 14 million votes—many by Black voters—for the Biden-Harris ticket.Rebecca Solnit: It’s the Pundits Who Have Turned on Biden, Not the Party
it was not the party itself but the punditocracy that had turned on Biden. Many of them insisted Biden had to prove his competence and energy after the debate, but have had little to say about his many campaign appearances, commanding NATO address Tuesday, praise from world leaders at the NATO summit, long press conference on foreign policy Thursday and energetic campaign rally in Detroit on Friday. It’s worth noting that the calls for Biden to go are coming in particular from powerful, high-status white men.
I 100% support the current ticket that we chose in the primaries: Biden for President, Harris for Vice-President.
I think any other option will make it much harder to win in November, which we absolutely must do.
posted by kristi at 5:50 PM on July 18 [42 favorites]
I don't think Biden should run but I also don't think Harris can even remotely beat Trump. She's mostly been invisible for 4 years and she couldn't have beat him in 2016. I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.
To my mind, the only person who could trounce Trump would be Gavin Newsom. I know lots of people hate him but not as many as hate Harris. He is unquestionably the best debater the Democrats have and would mop the floor with Trump in that arena. He's got the facts of the Democrats' accomplishments and the fortitude to shove Trump's lies back down his throat.
posted by dobbs at 5:52 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
To my mind, the only person who could trounce Trump would be Gavin Newsom. I know lots of people hate him but not as many as hate Harris. He is unquestionably the best debater the Democrats have and would mop the floor with Trump in that arena. He's got the facts of the Democrats' accomplishments and the fortitude to shove Trump's lies back down his throat.
posted by dobbs at 5:52 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
Promises to be the first actually non ultra dull boring democratic convention in, well, like ever. Which may actually be a good thing, if it catches peoples attention (ask the guy on the street, going to vote? What election?) But I really do not see Harris firing up the emotions of the electorate.
A Kelly/Whitmer ticket might work.
posted by sammyo at 5:52 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
A Kelly/Whitmer ticket might work.
posted by sammyo at 5:52 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
(Oh, and I'm not saying Newsom should be the candidate, so I guess I"m saying I don't think the Democrats can win. Again, would love to be proven wrong.)
posted by dobbs at 5:54 PM on July 18
posted by dobbs at 5:54 PM on July 18
Does he announce it ten minutes before Trump goes on stage?
God, I hope not. Please don't give Trump the biggest spotlight of his campaign and a chance to crow about Sleepy Joe dropping out because he knew he couldn't win. It would be the worse possible timing. Wait until the convention is over and then announce, if it's going to happen.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:58 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
God, I hope not. Please don't give Trump the biggest spotlight of his campaign and a chance to crow about Sleepy Joe dropping out because he knew he couldn't win. It would be the worse possible timing. Wait until the convention is over and then announce, if it's going to happen.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:58 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
Anyway, I have a hard time believing it won't be Harris - the time to do a mini-primary is closed - would have been different if he had stepped down shortly after the debate, but we're now three weeks into this, and there has been enough chaos - I think most people would rather just unite around someone and get to work building a case for them - Harris is the most elegant/least controversial pick. There is a tweet going somewhat viral from a journalist claiming that they've "heard" that there will be an open-convention, but a lot of people are failing basic Internet literacy - if you look that journalist up, he's from NEWSMAX.
I’ll add that I’ve never felt more politically disempowered than at this moment, or that this is a party of elites making calls.
I don't share this as way of argument (honestly, I like Metafilter as a source for observing how people interpret the same events differently), but I have rarely felt more politically empowered than in this moment (it comes 2nd only to when it looked like Bernie might actually pull it off after his Nevada primary win), and more open to the idea that the Democrat Party actually might, for once, show itself capable of listening to the hot polloi. The peak moment of feeling disempowered for me was when Biden announced that he was planning on running again, and it became clear that the DNC was doing all it could to rig the primaries to ensure that they remained uncompetitive, for a candidate that had been avoiding doing press conferences and interviews, and was alienated various parts of the base. Voters had been telling pollsters for well over a year that they felt Biden was too old for another term, even voters who liked the guy, and the DNC pretty much said "Yeah, we don't care what you think." I see this moment not as the elites making decisions, but the elites catching up with where most of us have been for awhile now. And it feels fucking good.
I dunno, maybe it's because I already considered the Democratic Party to be fundamentally broken, but I'm genuinely excited to see that the party is maybe showing that it's capable of actually listening to its grassroots. And I know social media is an imperfect measure of the country, but I am seeing people from a wide range of political leanings, from moderate to leftist, get genuinely excited about the prospect of a change. Don't underestimate how many people felt dead inside by the prospect of a Biden-Trump rematch! If Biden drops out and Harris takes over, I think a lot of people are going to feel excited and ready to advocate for her in way that they wouldn't feel capable of for Biden.
posted by coffeecat at 5:58 PM on July 18 [38 favorites]
I’ll add that I’ve never felt more politically disempowered than at this moment, or that this is a party of elites making calls.
I don't share this as way of argument (honestly, I like Metafilter as a source for observing how people interpret the same events differently), but I have rarely felt more politically empowered than in this moment (it comes 2nd only to when it looked like Bernie might actually pull it off after his Nevada primary win), and more open to the idea that the Democrat Party actually might, for once, show itself capable of listening to the hot polloi. The peak moment of feeling disempowered for me was when Biden announced that he was planning on running again, and it became clear that the DNC was doing all it could to rig the primaries to ensure that they remained uncompetitive, for a candidate that had been avoiding doing press conferences and interviews, and was alienated various parts of the base. Voters had been telling pollsters for well over a year that they felt Biden was too old for another term, even voters who liked the guy, and the DNC pretty much said "Yeah, we don't care what you think." I see this moment not as the elites making decisions, but the elites catching up with where most of us have been for awhile now. And it feels fucking good.
I dunno, maybe it's because I already considered the Democratic Party to be fundamentally broken, but I'm genuinely excited to see that the party is maybe showing that it's capable of actually listening to its grassroots. And I know social media is an imperfect measure of the country, but I am seeing people from a wide range of political leanings, from moderate to leftist, get genuinely excited about the prospect of a change. Don't underestimate how many people felt dead inside by the prospect of a Biden-Trump rematch! If Biden drops out and Harris takes over, I think a lot of people are going to feel excited and ready to advocate for her in way that they wouldn't feel capable of for Biden.
posted by coffeecat at 5:58 PM on July 18 [38 favorites]
Five reasons Kamala Harris is probably in if Biden drops out
So Nancy Pelosi (age 84) is telling Joe Biden (age 81) that he's too old? I mean, I'm not saying she's wrong, but ...
Pelosi stepped down as party leader in 2022, establishing the I'm-getting-too-old-for-this-shit precedent.
We chose Harris to take over for Biden if something happened to him. Age caught up with him. She should be the nominee.
But we're not really voting for a single guy so much as we're voting for an entire administration ... and whatever Biden's flaws I would prefer his administration over the other guy.
Harris would most likely carry over a lot of his administration. Also, Black women are a huge part of the Democratic base, and passing over a Black woman that was explicitly picked to succeed Biden would probably be a distaster.
posted by Michelle Hasenpfeiffer at 5:59 PM on July 18 [44 favorites]
So Nancy Pelosi (age 84) is telling Joe Biden (age 81) that he's too old? I mean, I'm not saying she's wrong, but ...
Pelosi stepped down as party leader in 2022, establishing the I'm-getting-too-old-for-this-shit precedent.
"With great confidence in our caucus, I will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress. For me the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect," Pelosi said in a speech on the House floor. "I'm grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility."I 100% support the current ticket that we chose in the primaries: Biden for President, Harris for Vice-President.
We chose Harris to take over for Biden if something happened to him. Age caught up with him. She should be the nominee.
But we're not really voting for a single guy so much as we're voting for an entire administration ... and whatever Biden's flaws I would prefer his administration over the other guy.
Harris would most likely carry over a lot of his administration. Also, Black women are a huge part of the Democratic base, and passing over a Black woman that was explicitly picked to succeed Biden would probably be a distaster.
posted by Michelle Hasenpfeiffer at 5:59 PM on July 18 [44 favorites]
Yep, I think that's why this letter is circulating: 1400 Black Women and Their Allies
(totally not attacking the poster or the women) but can 1400 of any demographic swing A DISTRICT let alone a state or enough swing states to make a difference? Same with Newsom winning a debate, no one cares. (ok a thousand people care) What needs to happen is someone that can grab the imagination of the electorate and stir things up so people show up and actually vote.
posted by sammyo at 6:01 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
(totally not attacking the poster or the women) but can 1400 of any demographic swing A DISTRICT let alone a state or enough swing states to make a difference? Same with Newsom winning a debate, no one cares. (ok a thousand people care) What needs to happen is someone that can grab the imagination of the electorate and stir things up so people show up and actually vote.
posted by sammyo at 6:01 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
In another year, I might object more to overriding the primary result this way, but this year it wasn't a competitive primary at all, precisely because the party elites had already decided it was going to be Biden again.
Personally I think Harris has a shot. Most voters don't want Biden or Trump, and she's relatable a way that Biden and Trump aren't and Obama and Bill Clinton were. She seems like a person you would meet in real life, like she could be your boss, or your neighbor, or your friend's mom, which isn't necessarily the best criteria for "Leader of the Free World" but I think will make a difference when people want a return to something resembling stability.
posted by smelendez at 6:01 PM on July 18 [29 favorites]
Personally I think Harris has a shot. Most voters don't want Biden or Trump, and she's relatable a way that Biden and Trump aren't and Obama and Bill Clinton were. She seems like a person you would meet in real life, like she could be your boss, or your neighbor, or your friend's mom, which isn't necessarily the best criteria for "Leader of the Free World" but I think will make a difference when people want a return to something resembling stability.
posted by smelendez at 6:01 PM on July 18 [29 favorites]
If Biden drops out, the candidate is 100% going to be Harris, if only because she's the only one who can use the campaign money that's been contributed to Biden. It's a massive tactical advantage over anyone else, and the Dems can't afford to let that money go to waste.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:02 PM on July 18 [35 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:02 PM on July 18 [35 favorites]
I think any other option will make it much harder to win in November, which we absolutely must do.
that's just it, this is a we thing.
It's our we's vs their we's. At the end of the day we've got to leave it to the collective wisdom of the electorates in the ~7 battleground states in play this year.
Anybody having any firm opinion on how this is going to go probably doesn't have enough information to reach that certainty.
posted by torokunai at 6:02 PM on July 18
that's just it, this is a we thing.
It's our we's vs their we's. At the end of the day we've got to leave it to the collective wisdom of the electorates in the ~7 battleground states in play this year.
Anybody having any firm opinion on how this is going to go probably doesn't have enough information to reach that certainty.
posted by torokunai at 6:02 PM on July 18
On March 31, 1968, LBJ announced, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." He served out his term.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:03 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 6:03 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
She seems like a person you would meet in real life
I have actually met her in real life. I was waiting for a bus after work when she was running for city attorney in San Francisco and she asked me for my vote. (Tiny, but I was a lineman in football.)
posted by kirkaracha at 6:05 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
I have actually met her in real life. I was waiting for a bus after work when she was running for city attorney in San Francisco and she asked me for my vote. (Tiny, but I was a lineman in football.)
posted by kirkaracha at 6:05 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
Least of our worries given how much this business has driven up the chances of a trump win, but this is essentially a donors coup, and to the extent the donors are expecting their chosen candidate to win (likely not an overriding concern) that candidate is going to be beholden to those donors and they are going to want things that are bad. Biden’s politics are generally trash, I would expect any replacement’s to be worse.
posted by Artw at 6:09 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:09 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
I don't think Biden should run but I also don't think Harris can even remotely beat Trump. She's mostly been invisible for 4 years and she couldn't have beat him in 2016. I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.
FairVote ran a ranked choice poll among the leading non-Biden Democrats (including 6 candidates + Someone else + Undecided as options) & Kamala Harris easily won the poll. When compared to the rest of the Democratic bench, Harris is the strongest choice & she appears to be doing better among crucial demographics (women, independents, youth) that the Democratic coalition will need to win.
posted by jonp72 at 6:10 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
FairVote ran a ranked choice poll among the leading non-Biden Democrats (including 6 candidates + Someone else + Undecided as options) & Kamala Harris easily won the poll. When compared to the rest of the Democratic bench, Harris is the strongest choice & she appears to be doing better among crucial demographics (women, independents, youth) that the Democratic coalition will need to win.
posted by jonp72 at 6:10 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
The Hill is reporting that "Well-connected Democratic Party insiders say they expect President Biden to make a major announcement about his future soon after the Republican National Convention concludes in Milwaukee and that congressional leaders expect that Vice President Harris will become their nominee for president if Biden drops his reelection bid." And the short-list for VP "has boiled down to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper."
posted by coffeecat at 6:15 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 6:15 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
What worries me a lot is even if Biden stays in and wins, he's already lost the faith of much of the world. Which in foreign policy is a bad bad thing. Especially with Ukraine and Gaza going on. Our allies need to be able to trust us. They certainly don't trust Trump. But now they're questioning Biden. Talking to people I know outside the US the most common thing I hear is they "don't know who's running the US right now".
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:16 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:16 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
This right here is evidence why Republicans win more elections and get their way more often: Running a donor coup is the dumbest way to choose your leader, they are wasting all the political capital they had, and Republicans are just standing back either laughing or joining in with 'concerns', and able to tie those 'concerns' back to the election 4 years ago. Embarrassing.
And would you want to be Harris in all this? She is basically being required to backstab her boss, and if she loses, everyone is going to blame Trump policies on her loss.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:16 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
And would you want to be Harris in all this? She is basically being required to backstab her boss, and if she loses, everyone is going to blame Trump policies on her loss.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:16 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
kremlinology jfc
posted by lalochezia at 6:17 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 6:17 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
Democrats have outperformed polling in almost every election since the Supreme Court took away women's constitutional right to abortion. Joe Biden has campaigned on restoring Roe v. Wade, but as a Catholic man, fighting for abortion rights doesn't come naturally to him. Donald Trump took credit for ending Roe v. Wade, and Kamala Harris can address that much more directly because it affected her personally. This election is the first chance people have to punish Trump directly.
Also, as a former prosecutor she can take Mr. 34 Felony Convictions to the woodshed.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:17 PM on July 18 [35 favorites]
Also, as a former prosecutor she can take Mr. 34 Felony Convictions to the woodshed.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:17 PM on July 18 [35 favorites]
Pelosi stepped down as party leader in 2022, establishing the I'm-getting-too-old-for-this-shit precedent.
If the Democratic Party is capable of learning anything, and if there’s a world left for them to learn anything in after this, I hope to high heaven they finally, finally realize that dealing with their gerontocracy problem is life or death and they actually have to clear the way to let people though from time to time.
posted by Artw at 6:17 PM on July 18 [43 favorites]
If the Democratic Party is capable of learning anything, and if there’s a world left for them to learn anything in after this, I hope to high heaven they finally, finally realize that dealing with their gerontocracy problem is life or death and they actually have to clear the way to let people though from time to time.
posted by Artw at 6:17 PM on July 18 [43 favorites]
So we’re just letting the NYT run presidents off now because they won’t give interviews? Is only one candidate too old?
How is this even supposed to work? Are we supposed to believe that a brokered convention would name someone to Biden’s left to pick up younger voters who are disenchanted with him? Are we supposed to believe that this won’t alienate people who voted for him in the primary? Are we supposed to believe it won’t alienate young voters the party desperately needs to turn out, if they think the party is just going to name somebody else who won’t care what they think? Are we supposed to believe that the Democratic Party that has done such a bad job with messaging so far will suddenly be better at it with a different candidate they chose at the last minute?
Are we supposed to believe conservative media and the Trump campaign won’t make an incredible amount of hay out of the fact nobody voted for the named candidate?
In short, are we supposed to believe this won’t suppress voter turnout even more than its already precipitous levels?
posted by fedward at 6:17 PM on July 18 [30 favorites]
How is this even supposed to work? Are we supposed to believe that a brokered convention would name someone to Biden’s left to pick up younger voters who are disenchanted with him? Are we supposed to believe that this won’t alienate people who voted for him in the primary? Are we supposed to believe it won’t alienate young voters the party desperately needs to turn out, if they think the party is just going to name somebody else who won’t care what they think? Are we supposed to believe that the Democratic Party that has done such a bad job with messaging so far will suddenly be better at it with a different candidate they chose at the last minute?
Are we supposed to believe conservative media and the Trump campaign won’t make an incredible amount of hay out of the fact nobody voted for the named candidate?
In short, are we supposed to believe this won’t suppress voter turnout even more than its already precipitous levels?
posted by fedward at 6:17 PM on July 18 [30 favorites]
I'm not going to get into the main argument; I do have an opinion there (would rather not change the nominee at this point), but others have made that case much better than I could.
And the short-list for VP "has boiled down to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper."
These would all be awesome picks, but I'd be worried about who'd succeed any one of them in their home states, especially Beshear.
posted by May Kasahara at 6:18 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
And the short-list for VP "has boiled down to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper."
These would all be awesome picks, but I'd be worried about who'd succeed any one of them in their home states, especially Beshear.
posted by May Kasahara at 6:18 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
And would you want to be Harris in all this? She is basically being required to backstab her boss
She's not backstabbing her boss. She's the backup quarterback whose job is it to go into the game if the starter can't continue.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:19 PM on July 18 [60 favorites]
She's not backstabbing her boss. She's the backup quarterback whose job is it to go into the game if the starter can't continue.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:19 PM on July 18 [60 favorites]
These would all be awesome picks, but I'd be worried about who'd succeed any one of them in their home states, especially Beshear.
Arizona law requires the governor to replace a senatorial vacancy with someone from the same party.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:20 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
Arizona law requires the governor to replace a senatorial vacancy with someone from the same party.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:20 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
In that case Mark Kelly would be an outstanding choice!
posted by TwoWordReview at 6:20 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
posted by TwoWordReview at 6:20 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
For a vaccinated person who's had Covid before, it's manageable.
This is not to say that Biden should or shouldn't step aside, but this isn't anywhere close to a universally true statement, in fact all evidence points to repeated exposures INCREASING the odds of major health problems from Covid.
Having COVID once should make you MORE careful not less.
posted by Gygesringtone at 6:20 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
This is not to say that Biden should or shouldn't step aside, but this isn't anywhere close to a universally true statement, in fact all evidence points to repeated exposures INCREASING the odds of major health problems from Covid.
Having COVID once should make you MORE careful not less.
posted by Gygesringtone at 6:20 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
She's not backstabbing her boss. She's the backup quarterback whose job is it to go into the game if the starter can't continue.
There's only 109 days until the election. She's got to be ready to go on Day 1, when technically she can still be replaced by Biden if he wanted a different VP. Back up quarterback in sports is not a popular position, except to those angry in the cheap seats.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:22 PM on July 18
There's only 109 days until the election. She's got to be ready to go on Day 1, when technically she can still be replaced by Biden if he wanted a different VP. Back up quarterback in sports is not a popular position, except to those angry in the cheap seats.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:22 PM on July 18
Talking to people I know outside the US the most common thing I hear is they "don't know who's running the US right now".
They're echoing US media and many US viewers, for better or for worse.
Regardless of Biden's actual abilities currently and ability to see things through evenly for another 4 years, his campaign did nothing adequate to head off or counter these concerns. Biden already tends toward a way of speaking and engaging with creeping fascism that is probably generational but reads to many others as if he's afraid to take the gloves off. If he was capable and had shown that by mounting a sustained, intensely public frontal attack on the insane Republican platform/candidates he wouldn't be in this mess.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:23 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
They're echoing US media and many US viewers, for better or for worse.
Regardless of Biden's actual abilities currently and ability to see things through evenly for another 4 years, his campaign did nothing adequate to head off or counter these concerns. Biden already tends toward a way of speaking and engaging with creeping fascism that is probably generational but reads to many others as if he's afraid to take the gloves off. If he was capable and had shown that by mounting a sustained, intensely public frontal attack on the insane Republican platform/candidates he wouldn't be in this mess.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:23 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
Careful, Sinema was a Democrat before she, well, wasn’t.
posted by nat at 6:23 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
posted by nat at 6:23 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
There’s a certain irony to pulling out “COVID? That’s a serious medical issue!” for a man who has done more than maybe only one other individual to spread the idea that it’s fine and you should just head back to work.
posted by Artw at 6:24 PM on July 18 [33 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:24 PM on July 18 [33 favorites]
Are we supposed to believe conservative media and the Trump campaign won’t make an incredible amount of hay out of the fact nobody voted for the named candidate?
Who cares? They’ll make the same hay with truth for once but it’s the same hay. They’ll quickly move on to how Harris slept her way to the top only to backstab the men because she’s so angry (wink) but also she’s not black enough. Who gives a shit.
As a devoted leftist who’s had to suck it up and vote for war criminals and horrible people my entire fucking life if you don’t like the process by which the Democratic Party chooses their candidates, suck it up and vote for them anyway.
posted by Uncle at 6:24 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
Who cares? They’ll make the same hay with truth for once but it’s the same hay. They’ll quickly move on to how Harris slept her way to the top only to backstab the men because she’s so angry (wink) but also she’s not black enough. Who gives a shit.
As a devoted leftist who’s had to suck it up and vote for war criminals and horrible people my entire fucking life if you don’t like the process by which the Democratic Party chooses their candidates, suck it up and vote for them anyway.
posted by Uncle at 6:24 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
She's not backstabbing her boss. She's the backup quarterback whose job is it to go into the game if the starter can't continue
If she’s been dumb enough to do anything to encourage this mess you can count on it coming out the instant she’s the candidate, from many of the same people who have been pushing her.
posted by Artw at 6:26 PM on July 18
If she’s been dumb enough to do anything to encourage this mess you can count on it coming out the instant she’s the candidate, from many of the same people who have been pushing her.
posted by Artw at 6:26 PM on July 18
(Current AZ Gov is a D anyhow, btw, but I really don’t know who she would pick to replace Kelly, and not all AZ dems are people I’d want).
posted by nat at 6:28 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
posted by nat at 6:28 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
Someone on Bluesky pointed out how remarkable it is that no leaks at all seem to have come from Harris's office, and no news org's been able to use her as a wedge-driver in the way they have other senior Dems. Her statements have been well worded, her interviews to the point and nowhere else.
That is a professional at work.
posted by Pallas Athena at 6:31 PM on July 18 [40 favorites]
That is a professional at work.
posted by Pallas Athena at 6:31 PM on July 18 [40 favorites]
suck it up and vote for them anyway.
Sure, that’s a great way to reach out to alienated voters. I’m sure it will work just as well with not-Biden as it’s working with Biden now.
posted by fedward at 6:32 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
Sure, that’s a great way to reach out to alienated voters. I’m sure it will work just as well with not-Biden as it’s working with Biden now.
posted by fedward at 6:32 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
She's mostly been invisible for 4 years and she couldn't have beat him in 2016. I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.
As someone from Oakland, I think it's going to be very hard for certain people* to vote for a Black/Desi woman from California. I also think it's going to be very hard for certain people to vote for someone they consider a cop. You basically alienate lots of young, super lefty young progressives and every dumbass centrist who can only vote for white men from not-California parts of the country. Maybe it's not a problem if you can somehow mobilize everyone else, but mobilization is the same issue for Biden, no?
I'm not anti- Kamala Harris. I'm just not convinced that once she's in the sights- with the exact same record to run on as Biden- that her negatives, perceived and real, are not going to be overcome. I don't think anyone else should be considered though- she was voted in to be the replacement. Frankly I'm pretty mad at the democrats right now for indulging in a freakout and running around flapping their hands instead of being unified.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:34 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
As someone from Oakland, I think it's going to be very hard for certain people* to vote for a Black/Desi woman from California. I also think it's going to be very hard for certain people to vote for someone they consider a cop. You basically alienate lots of young, super lefty young progressives and every dumbass centrist who can only vote for white men from not-California parts of the country. Maybe it's not a problem if you can somehow mobilize everyone else, but mobilization is the same issue for Biden, no?
I'm not anti- Kamala Harris. I'm just not convinced that once she's in the sights- with the exact same record to run on as Biden- that her negatives, perceived and real, are not going to be overcome. I don't think anyone else should be considered though- she was voted in to be the replacement. Frankly I'm pretty mad at the democrats right now for indulging in a freakout and running around flapping their hands instead of being unified.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:34 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
Is that you, fedward? Because I expect Uncle is speaking to those present and not every voter everywhere.
posted by CPAnarchist at 6:34 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
posted by CPAnarchist at 6:34 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
That is a professional at work.
Or, fully with my cynics hat on, orchestration to protect an asset until it’s time to burn her.
posted by Artw at 6:35 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
Or, fully with my cynics hat on, orchestration to protect an asset until it’s time to burn her.
posted by Artw at 6:35 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
My only thought is that, if Biden chooses to leave the race, then I support his decision. These last four years have been hard on him. He's given a lot to this nation. If he decides to set this burden down, then he can be proud of his service to this country.
posted by SPrintF at 6:37 PM on July 18 [32 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 6:37 PM on July 18 [32 favorites]
For the life of me I cannot figure out why he's the Only One That Can Do It for some people. Like you cannot simultaneously believe that beating Trump is the single most important thing in politics right now and that Biden cannot step down under any circumstances. Do you just hate Kamala that much? I mean, I do, but I'm one of the insane people. Why are all the rational people with a grown up understanding of how things really work so convinced that the media and the Democratic party and the pollsters and the Bernie bros and Russia and Mark Zuckerberg and Jimmy Hoffa are in a conspiracy to throw the election to Trump because they would dare question our oldest president ever?
posted by jy4m at 6:41 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 6:41 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
Bernie bros
Sanders and most of the Squad have put out statements strongly supportive of Biden in recent days: another thing that makes me mistrust the push to oust him.
posted by Pallas Athena at 6:44 PM on July 18 [26 favorites]
Sanders and most of the Squad have put out statements strongly supportive of Biden in recent days: another thing that makes me mistrust the push to oust him.
posted by Pallas Athena at 6:44 PM on July 18 [26 favorites]
Harris 4 prez and Newsom as VP, let’s see it !
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:44 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:44 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
A day after he had covid (which we've all agreed is nothing, right? That's why we keep passing it around gleefully, right? ) the press is on him to drop out.
If that isn't proof positive about the bias of the media, nothing can make it clearer.
The GOP cannot wait to unleash the lawyers to make sure the Dem candidate does not appear on at least 3 states' ballots.
The country just can't wait to sink its teeth into a brown woman.
It's almost like they're projecting the latent hatred of someone else.
Great. Just, great. Can't wait.
posted by Dashy at 6:44 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
If that isn't proof positive about the bias of the media, nothing can make it clearer.
The GOP cannot wait to unleash the lawyers to make sure the Dem candidate does not appear on at least 3 states' ballots.
The country just can't wait to sink its teeth into a brown woman.
It's almost like they're projecting the latent hatred of someone else.
Great. Just, great. Can't wait.
posted by Dashy at 6:44 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
Harris 4 prez and Newsom as VP, let’s see it !
Aside from Newsom being an absolute ghoul who should be nowhere near the reins of national power, this is unconstitutional.
posted by Gadarene at 6:46 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
So we’re just letting the NYT run presidents off now because they won’t give interviews? Is only one candidate too old?
Despite Biden's claims, this is not the creation of the media in general or the NYT in particular. This was a concern that was raised in 2020. Biden's debate performance was something everyone saw. He has struggled public since then on multiple occasions. And a majority of Democrats want him gone. The media have reported on this because it is major news people are concerned about.
Sure, that’s a great way to reach out to alienated voters. I’m sure it will work just as well with not-Biden as it’s working with Biden now.
It is a really weird sensation, watching Biden supporters suggest that they won't bother to support the Democrats or feel disrespected by being told to vote against Trump even if they don't like the candidate. Especially because the candidate most likely to replace Biden is Harris. Kamala Harris wouldn't have been my pick for who to run in 2024, but she is the vice president. She is also very close to Biden on most issues and was part of the ticket Biden voters have been supporting.
Biden isn't being pressured to leave because the donors want a specific someone else, or because they have policy disagreements with him. He is being pressured out because all indications are that he will lose to Trump. I think that is a very justifiable motivation.
The country just can't wait to sink its teeth into a brown woman.
I don't know what this means, but it seems weird.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:47 PM on July 18 [31 favorites]
Despite Biden's claims, this is not the creation of the media in general or the NYT in particular. This was a concern that was raised in 2020. Biden's debate performance was something everyone saw. He has struggled public since then on multiple occasions. And a majority of Democrats want him gone. The media have reported on this because it is major news people are concerned about.
Sure, that’s a great way to reach out to alienated voters. I’m sure it will work just as well with not-Biden as it’s working with Biden now.
It is a really weird sensation, watching Biden supporters suggest that they won't bother to support the Democrats or feel disrespected by being told to vote against Trump even if they don't like the candidate. Especially because the candidate most likely to replace Biden is Harris. Kamala Harris wouldn't have been my pick for who to run in 2024, but she is the vice president. She is also very close to Biden on most issues and was part of the ticket Biden voters have been supporting.
Biden isn't being pressured to leave because the donors want a specific someone else, or because they have policy disagreements with him. He is being pressured out because all indications are that he will lose to Trump. I think that is a very justifiable motivation.
The country just can't wait to sink its teeth into a brown woman.
I don't know what this means, but it seems weird.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:47 PM on July 18 [31 favorites]
For the life of me I cannot figure out why he's the Only One That Can Do It for some people
Mostly people just don’t think switching candidate is a magic fix and have skepticism as to the mechanics of it working out, coupled with a cynicism towards the donors and media pushing the process.
posted by Artw at 6:48 PM on July 18 [23 favorites]
Mostly people just don’t think switching candidate is a magic fix and have skepticism as to the mechanics of it working out, coupled with a cynicism towards the donors and media pushing the process.
posted by Artw at 6:48 PM on July 18 [23 favorites]
"And would you want to be Harris in all this? She is basically being required to backstab her boss"
what? it's literally HER JOB to replace him if necessary
like... that's what the Vice Presidency exists for
yeah, replacing him as the nominee while he finishes out his term is a little weird, but it's been her job this whole time to be prepared to become President herself if needed
while I'd prefer to stick with Biden because I like the way his administration has prioritized fixing problems in existing programs over starting new ones, I'm fine with her too since hopefully there would be enough continuity from the Biden administration that she keeps whoever has been doing the things I like
posted by Jacqueline at 6:49 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
what? it's literally HER JOB to replace him if necessary
like... that's what the Vice Presidency exists for
yeah, replacing him as the nominee while he finishes out his term is a little weird, but it's been her job this whole time to be prepared to become President herself if needed
while I'd prefer to stick with Biden because I like the way his administration has prioritized fixing problems in existing programs over starting new ones, I'm fine with her too since hopefully there would be enough continuity from the Biden administration that she keeps whoever has been doing the things I like
posted by Jacqueline at 6:49 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
Biden isn't being pressured to leave because the donors want a specific someone else, or because they have policy disagreements with him. He is being pressured out because all indications are that he will lose to Trump. I think that is a very justifiable motivation.
And when Harris pulls poorly do they replace her too then?
posted by beaning at 6:51 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
And when Harris pulls poorly do they replace her too then?
posted by beaning at 6:51 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
If [Harris has] been dumb enough to do anything to encourage this mess...
I doubt it. She's being put in a very tough spot here. None of the other potential contenders (Newsom, Whitmer, etc.) have been planting stories in the press promoting themselves for the gig, because it's such a bad situation. I'm sure she'd vastly prefer that Biden stay in and step down in a year to this scenario.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:52 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
I doubt it. She's being put in a very tough spot here. None of the other potential contenders (Newsom, Whitmer, etc.) have been planting stories in the press promoting themselves for the gig, because it's such a bad situation. I'm sure she'd vastly prefer that Biden stay in and step down in a year to this scenario.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:52 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
Aside from Newsom being an absolute ghoul who should be nowhere near the reins of national power, this is unconstitutional.
With the Supreme Court moving recently to criminalize homelessness at least Newsom is in touch with the zeitgeist (this is a joke, he's absolutely a ghoul).
posted by an octopus IRL at 6:53 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
With the Supreme Court moving recently to criminalize homelessness at least Newsom is in touch with the zeitgeist (this is a joke, he's absolutely a ghoul).
posted by an octopus IRL at 6:53 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
I'm not anti- Kamala Harris. I'm just not convinced that once she's in the sights- with the exact same record to run on as Biden- that her negatives, perceived and real, are not going to be overcome.
I want my fellow readers to consider, for a moment, why Biden is behind in the polls.
People who are all-in for Trump are voting Trump. People who recognize the danger of Trump are voting D even if Triumph the Insult Comic Dog is the ticket leader. Those are not the people anyone has to convince.
No, the people who need to be convinced are the people who don't see the danger of a Trump administration, who are not moved by Trumpoids' open admissions of what's to come to vote against it, and will be looking at whoever would replace Biden and asking "Why should I vote for you?"
"I'm not Donald Trump" is not sufficient, or this would all be moot because Biden is not Donald Trump. "I will carry on the Biden/Harris legacy" is not sufficient, as lots of people aren't terribly enthused by the Biden/Harris legacy as is, and if Harris is a natural successor, all people would have to do is wait and she'll be in the top spot soon enough. "I will keep things going as they are going now" is not a winner when so many of those people believe the R propaganda and aren't happy.
Will Harris promise to handle Israel/Gaza any differently, and thread the needle somehow between bringing back some lost over Biden's enablement of Bibi and not losing angry Jews in response? Will Harris have the time and opportunity to voice any policy ideas that those swing voters would appreciate? Will the campaign be smart enough to focus on motivating women to come and vote to save themselves rather than continuing to aim the circle of howitzers inward? Are they capable of overcoming the reluctance of some of those not-so-informed, not-so-loyal, not-so-swift voters to vote for a black woman, or for an 11th hour 59th minute second choice, or for someone who was RIGHT THERE next to the 'obviously senile' guy and said nothing for 3.5 years?
This is not Harris-bashing either. No matter who gets the top spot, they will face an insurmountable wall of opposition. This is bashing the relentless drive by some to change the candidate, rather than the messaging, by any means necessary.
posted by delfin at 6:54 PM on July 18 [16 favorites]
I want my fellow readers to consider, for a moment, why Biden is behind in the polls.
People who are all-in for Trump are voting Trump. People who recognize the danger of Trump are voting D even if Triumph the Insult Comic Dog is the ticket leader. Those are not the people anyone has to convince.
No, the people who need to be convinced are the people who don't see the danger of a Trump administration, who are not moved by Trumpoids' open admissions of what's to come to vote against it, and will be looking at whoever would replace Biden and asking "Why should I vote for you?"
"I'm not Donald Trump" is not sufficient, or this would all be moot because Biden is not Donald Trump. "I will carry on the Biden/Harris legacy" is not sufficient, as lots of people aren't terribly enthused by the Biden/Harris legacy as is, and if Harris is a natural successor, all people would have to do is wait and she'll be in the top spot soon enough. "I will keep things going as they are going now" is not a winner when so many of those people believe the R propaganda and aren't happy.
Will Harris promise to handle Israel/Gaza any differently, and thread the needle somehow between bringing back some lost over Biden's enablement of Bibi and not losing angry Jews in response? Will Harris have the time and opportunity to voice any policy ideas that those swing voters would appreciate? Will the campaign be smart enough to focus on motivating women to come and vote to save themselves rather than continuing to aim the circle of howitzers inward? Are they capable of overcoming the reluctance of some of those not-so-informed, not-so-loyal, not-so-swift voters to vote for a black woman, or for an 11th hour 59th minute second choice, or for someone who was RIGHT THERE next to the 'obviously senile' guy and said nothing for 3.5 years?
This is not Harris-bashing either. No matter who gets the top spot, they will face an insurmountable wall of opposition. This is bashing the relentless drive by some to change the candidate, rather than the messaging, by any means necessary.
posted by delfin at 6:54 PM on July 18 [16 favorites]
so much doomerism here
I think probably history will say Hillary was a bad candidate and Biden was a good candidate until he wasn't a good candidate anymore, and Trump was actually nothing special, just lucked out once in the face of a bad campaign season for the Dems. Most of what he touches turns to shit, electorally. He's shameless enough to make the judicial system really work for him, as it's designed to, which gives him an air of invincibility, but he's a bad candidate and lots of people in the Dem party could beat him. That said, I'm glad Gavin is unlikely to get anywhere near this 2024 ticket .
posted by kensington314 at 6:54 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
I think probably history will say Hillary was a bad candidate and Biden was a good candidate until he wasn't a good candidate anymore, and Trump was actually nothing special, just lucked out once in the face of a bad campaign season for the Dems. Most of what he touches turns to shit, electorally. He's shameless enough to make the judicial system really work for him, as it's designed to, which gives him an air of invincibility, but he's a bad candidate and lots of people in the Dem party could beat him. That said, I'm glad Gavin is unlikely to get anywhere near this 2024 ticket .
posted by kensington314 at 6:54 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
The GOP cannot wait to unleash the lawyers to make sure the Dem candidate does not appear on at least 3 states' ballots.
Can someone holding this view provide some sort of citation that justifies this fear? It would be helpful. My understanding is the Dems have not nominated anyone yet and no state's ballots are yet fixed. Is that incorrect?
posted by kensington314 at 6:57 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
Can someone holding this view provide some sort of citation that justifies this fear? It would be helpful. My understanding is the Dems have not nominated anyone yet and no state's ballots are yet fixed. Is that incorrect?
posted by kensington314 at 6:57 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
Mostly people just don’t think switching candidate is a magic fix and have skepticism as to the mechanics of it working out, coupled with a cynicism towards the donors and media pushing the process.
The way I see it, we were losing. Biden wasn't going to improve. The only hope was that the polls were wrong and most of the country is going to vote against Trump, however they feel about the Democratic candidate. If that is true, it will still be true if we switch candidates.
If it isn't true, then we lose nothing by trying changing candidates. Even if the new candidate loses, that was the most likely outcome anyway. But there are a lot of reasons to think someone without Biden's health issues, without the shadow of Gaza hanging over them, and without the Republican propaganda machine gearing up for them for the last four years might actually do better.
Basically, it isn't much of a gamble if you already don't have anything to lose. And we don't with Biden.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:57 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
The way I see it, we were losing. Biden wasn't going to improve. The only hope was that the polls were wrong and most of the country is going to vote against Trump, however they feel about the Democratic candidate. If that is true, it will still be true if we switch candidates.
If it isn't true, then we lose nothing by trying changing candidates. Even if the new candidate loses, that was the most likely outcome anyway. But there are a lot of reasons to think someone without Biden's health issues, without the shadow of Gaza hanging over them, and without the Republican propaganda machine gearing up for them for the last four years might actually do better.
Basically, it isn't much of a gamble if you already don't have anything to lose. And we don't with Biden.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:57 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
Jello Biafra had a great idea. Biden just releases his delegates, have an open convention.
He can either stay in it, withdraw and endorse Harris, lots of options.
posted by butterstick at 7:00 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
He can either stay in it, withdraw and endorse Harris, lots of options.
posted by butterstick at 7:00 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
Basically, it isn't much of a gamble if you already don't have anything to lose. And we don't with Biden.
Or we go from mildly disastrous to massively disastrous.
It’s a huge fucking gamble.
posted by Artw at 7:00 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
Or we go from mildly disastrous to massively disastrous.
It’s a huge fucking gamble.
posted by Artw at 7:00 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
We need to stop yapping at other left-leaning folks for not being left enough
The actual leftists I know have issues with any of the likely potential replacements as much as with Biden. The leftists within the Democratic Party (AOC, Sanders, etc.) are all supporting Biden remaining in the race. The NYT and big donors wanting him to drop out rather makes me reevaluate how effective his administration’s policies have been for working people - maybe they were more success at that than I had thought (though, it really doesn’t take much to get the rich folks all upset and out of sorts).
Me, I didn’t want Biden as the candidate in the first place, and yes I’m worried about the election, but I don’t see how changing the candidate up at this point is going to be an improvement and not just make things worse. And yeah, the only feasible replacement would be Harris… so why not just run the election with Biden, he gets sidelined for health reasons in late January, and Harris is president? Like, I also think it seems maybe a bit unlikely that Biden would be able to complete a second term - same for Trump, of course, since he’s also old and in quite likely even worse shape. But if a Dem does get elected, whether that is Harris directly or whether it is Biden and then Harris has to take over the presidency afterwards, it’s the same final outcome. Minus a bunch of unhelpful churn that seems more likely to me to lose the election than Biden being old would, provided the party actually stood behind him as the candidate who won the primaries rather than undermining him at every step. Seriously - for those who think Biden should step down and Harris is the only feasible or the best alternate candidate, why isn’t “stick the election out with the ticket we have, expect the transition we want will soon follow” an option? (Actual question, not rhetorical. Why isn’t that a good campaign message, and get Harris out campaigning more in addition to Biden? Focus on the team, like the Republicans did when Bush II got elected/selected?)
posted by eviemath at 7:01 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
The actual leftists I know have issues with any of the likely potential replacements as much as with Biden. The leftists within the Democratic Party (AOC, Sanders, etc.) are all supporting Biden remaining in the race. The NYT and big donors wanting him to drop out rather makes me reevaluate how effective his administration’s policies have been for working people - maybe they were more success at that than I had thought (though, it really doesn’t take much to get the rich folks all upset and out of sorts).
Me, I didn’t want Biden as the candidate in the first place, and yes I’m worried about the election, but I don’t see how changing the candidate up at this point is going to be an improvement and not just make things worse. And yeah, the only feasible replacement would be Harris… so why not just run the election with Biden, he gets sidelined for health reasons in late January, and Harris is president? Like, I also think it seems maybe a bit unlikely that Biden would be able to complete a second term - same for Trump, of course, since he’s also old and in quite likely even worse shape. But if a Dem does get elected, whether that is Harris directly or whether it is Biden and then Harris has to take over the presidency afterwards, it’s the same final outcome. Minus a bunch of unhelpful churn that seems more likely to me to lose the election than Biden being old would, provided the party actually stood behind him as the candidate who won the primaries rather than undermining him at every step. Seriously - for those who think Biden should step down and Harris is the only feasible or the best alternate candidate, why isn’t “stick the election out with the ticket we have, expect the transition we want will soon follow” an option? (Actual question, not rhetorical. Why isn’t that a good campaign message, and get Harris out campaigning more in addition to Biden? Focus on the team, like the Republicans did when Bush II got elected/selected?)
posted by eviemath at 7:01 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
Like, why is the pressure “step down”, with resultant upheaval and chaos and maybe not having the eventual Dem candidate on the ballot in some key battleground states because of Republican state legislatures taking the opportunity to weight the scales further to their side, and not “change your campaign strategy in these ways that polls indicate would help”?
posted by eviemath at 7:04 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:04 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
The media have reported on this because it is major news people are concerned about.
It is a thing people are concerned about, but how many people are concerned about it because of the endless reporting of Debategate? How many people are concerned about it because Axios posts 45 stories a day about the endless line of senior House Democrats "confiding" in anybody who will listen that Biden needs to go because it gets his (and it's mostly hims) name on the national stage by piling on?
The mainstream media's role in this is that of self-fulfilling prophecy, not journalism from the sidelines. This is the Howard Dean scream times, like, a million (and that was broadcast 633 times in four days). Whether you personally think he should drop out of the race or not, and regardless of how long you've thought that, there are many, many people who only think he should because they've been getting that message force-fed from every angle all day long everywhere they look/listen for the last three weeks.
posted by tubedogg at 7:05 PM on July 18 [33 favorites]
It is a thing people are concerned about, but how many people are concerned about it because of the endless reporting of Debategate? How many people are concerned about it because Axios posts 45 stories a day about the endless line of senior House Democrats "confiding" in anybody who will listen that Biden needs to go because it gets his (and it's mostly hims) name on the national stage by piling on?
The mainstream media's role in this is that of self-fulfilling prophecy, not journalism from the sidelines. This is the Howard Dean scream times, like, a million (and that was broadcast 633 times in four days). Whether you personally think he should drop out of the race or not, and regardless of how long you've thought that, there are many, many people who only think he should because they've been getting that message force-fed from every angle all day long everywhere they look/listen for the last three weeks.
posted by tubedogg at 7:05 PM on July 18 [33 favorites]
I feel like this thread might have been premature. We're mostly (re)arguing in circles and hypotheticals about something that might or might not happen. I'm certainly guilty of this, but it just feels like restirring an already mucky stew.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 7:06 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
posted by UltraMorgnus at 7:06 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
Reading the Biden threads around here, and I really feel like I’m going insane, because the man isn’t the Biden of 2020. He’s not even the Biden of 2023. He seems tired and out-of-it. The Biden mock befuddlement “come on man” stuff he’s done for 50 years is now coming across as elderly confusion. Yeah, it sucks. Yeah, it’s not fair. But it is what it is, and if we want to stop Trump, we gotta have someone who can debate him. We gotta have someone who can do 18-hour days on the campaign trail.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:06 PM on July 18 [28 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 7:06 PM on July 18 [28 favorites]
Seriously - for those who think Biden should step down and Harris is the only feasible or the best alternate candidate, why isn’t “stick the election out with the ticket we have, expect the transition we want will soon follow” an option?
Because all available evidence indicates that keeping Biden at the top of the ticket is likely to result in a crushing loss with potentially devastating down-ballot consequences. This is why Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Obama, reams of Congressional and Senate Democrats, etc have been pressing--whether publicly or privately--for Biden to get out of the race. They're not doing it for fun.
posted by Gadarene at 7:07 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
Because all available evidence indicates that keeping Biden at the top of the ticket is likely to result in a crushing loss with potentially devastating down-ballot consequences. This is why Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Obama, reams of Congressional and Senate Democrats, etc have been pressing--whether publicly or privately--for Biden to get out of the race. They're not doing it for fun.
posted by Gadarene at 7:07 PM on July 18 [17 favorites]
Ilhan Omar on X:
"I can’t tell you all how shameful it feels to hear all these leaks about what Democratic leaders are staying and not to have a single one of them out here confirming or denying it. It’s a lack of leadership and it’s making all Democrats look bad. Whatever this mess leads to will not undo the damage that has already been inflicted. May God help us all."
posted by soundguy99 at 7:07 PM on July 18 [42 favorites]
"I can’t tell you all how shameful it feels to hear all these leaks about what Democratic leaders are staying and not to have a single one of them out here confirming or denying it. It’s a lack of leadership and it’s making all Democrats look bad. Whatever this mess leads to will not undo the damage that has already been inflicted. May God help us all."
posted by soundguy99 at 7:07 PM on July 18 [42 favorites]
We gotta have someone who can do 18-hour days on the campaign trail.
Why though? Trump doesn’t. He has boosters.
posted by eviemath at 7:10 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
Why though? Trump doesn’t. He has boosters.
posted by eviemath at 7:10 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
Like, why is the pressure “step down”, with resultant upheaval and chaos and maybe not having the eventual Dem candidate on the ballot in some key battleground states because of Republican state legislatures taking the opportunity to weight the scales further to their side, and not “change your campaign strategy in these ways that polls indicate would help”?
What states, specifically, would Harris be in danger of not appearing on the ballot were she the nominee? And what is Biden's path to 270? How does he change his campaign strategy in an effective manner if he simply doesn't have the vigor to campaign effectively?
posted by Gadarene at 7:10 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
What states, specifically, would Harris be in danger of not appearing on the ballot were she the nominee? And what is Biden's path to 270? How does he change his campaign strategy in an effective manner if he simply doesn't have the vigor to campaign effectively?
posted by Gadarene at 7:10 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
Or we go from mildly disastrous to massively disastrous.
A Trump presidency is a disaster either way. Democrats controlling part of congress might slow him down a little, but there will still be fatal harm done.
It is hard for me to imagine Joe Biden is bringing a lot of people out to vote down ballot. But even if he were, an option that stands a chance of actually avoiding a Trump presidency is preferable to one that all but guarantees a close loss.
Like, why is the pressure “step down”, with resultant upheaval and chaos and maybe not having the eventual Dem candidate on the ballot in some key battleground states because of Republican state legislatures taking the opportunity to weight the scales further to their side, and not “change your campaign strategy in these ways that polls indicate would help”?
As long as people are being asked to vote for Biden, Biden's performance is going to be central to the campaign. Nobody wants to campaign for Biden on the grounds he'll be dead or incapacitated soon. And a vigorous campaign requires a candidate capable of campaigning. Biden was looking worse and worse. Slurring his speech, losing track of his words. And now that he has a covid infection, he is going to be even less available to try to govern and campaign at the same time.
Rationally it makes sense that if you think Harris is a good enough candidate, you should be okay with voting for Biden. But I don't think that is how it really works. After all, rationally no one but devoted fascists and neoliberal ghouls should be voting on any grounds but defeating Trump.
It is a thing people are concerned about, but how many people are concerned about it because of the endless reporting of Debategate?
I can't say exactly how it would look in a counterfactual world where the media just ignored the issue. But I can tell you that people I know were talking about Biden stepping down during the debate. I don't think that was a moment Biden could possibly have come back from. It did permanent damage to him as a candidate.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:13 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
A Trump presidency is a disaster either way. Democrats controlling part of congress might slow him down a little, but there will still be fatal harm done.
It is hard for me to imagine Joe Biden is bringing a lot of people out to vote down ballot. But even if he were, an option that stands a chance of actually avoiding a Trump presidency is preferable to one that all but guarantees a close loss.
Like, why is the pressure “step down”, with resultant upheaval and chaos and maybe not having the eventual Dem candidate on the ballot in some key battleground states because of Republican state legislatures taking the opportunity to weight the scales further to their side, and not “change your campaign strategy in these ways that polls indicate would help”?
As long as people are being asked to vote for Biden, Biden's performance is going to be central to the campaign. Nobody wants to campaign for Biden on the grounds he'll be dead or incapacitated soon. And a vigorous campaign requires a candidate capable of campaigning. Biden was looking worse and worse. Slurring his speech, losing track of his words. And now that he has a covid infection, he is going to be even less available to try to govern and campaign at the same time.
Rationally it makes sense that if you think Harris is a good enough candidate, you should be okay with voting for Biden. But I don't think that is how it really works. After all, rationally no one but devoted fascists and neoliberal ghouls should be voting on any grounds but defeating Trump.
It is a thing people are concerned about, but how many people are concerned about it because of the endless reporting of Debategate?
I can't say exactly how it would look in a counterfactual world where the media just ignored the issue. But I can tell you that people I know were talking about Biden stepping down during the debate. I don't think that was a moment Biden could possibly have come back from. It did permanent damage to him as a candidate.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:13 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
Look, to believe that sticking with Biden is a better option than taking a swing with Kamala is to dispute the validity of all of the current polling in all of the battleground states, up to and including the latest polls where if you replace Biden with "Younger Democrat," Trump loses badly in Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.
All paths have risk. Staying the course if the car is hurtling off a cliff is the riskiest of all. Sure, maybe we'll land on a giant eagle who will carry us to safety. But wouldn't it be better to try, like, turning the wheel instead?
posted by Gadarene at 7:14 PM on July 18 [18 favorites]
All paths have risk. Staying the course if the car is hurtling off a cliff is the riskiest of all. Sure, maybe we'll land on a giant eagle who will carry us to safety. But wouldn't it be better to try, like, turning the wheel instead?
posted by Gadarene at 7:14 PM on July 18 [18 favorites]
why isn’t “stick the election out with the ticket we have, expect the transition we want will soon follow” an option?
Because that's impossible to be excited for, and we live or die by voter turnout? "We promise he'll leave" is not the message you want to hear about a candidate
posted by knuckle tattoos at 7:16 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
Because that's impossible to be excited for, and we live or die by voter turnout? "We promise he'll leave" is not the message you want to hear about a candidate
posted by knuckle tattoos at 7:16 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
Why though? Trump doesn’t. He has boosters.
Trump is the leader of a cult of personality, that’s why.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:17 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
Trump is the leader of a cult of personality, that’s why.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:17 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
Trump ended his days the entire time he was in office some time in the mid afternoon, as I recall from reporting on his daily schedule. He definitely has less energy later in the day. He definitely can’t do 18 hours days, and has not been able to since the beginning of his term as president eight years ago. How many campaign appearances does Trump make in a week? Why are we only talking about Biden’s vigor?
I mean, I agree that Biden should not have run in the first place! But all of the criticisms being levelled at him also apply to Trump. It’s the one-sidedness of the reporting and focus that makes me and from what I’ve read some others as well quite suspicious of the push to oust Biden at this particular moment in the campaign.
Meanwhile, focusing on the candidate rather than the team or other messaging (as delfin described), does require a certain type of candidate, yeah. So if that’s not the candidate you have, run the campaign differently. Why is running the campaign differently out of the question? Isn’t polling also showing that voters are more concerned with issues this election?
posted by eviemath at 7:20 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
I mean, I agree that Biden should not have run in the first place! But all of the criticisms being levelled at him also apply to Trump. It’s the one-sidedness of the reporting and focus that makes me and from what I’ve read some others as well quite suspicious of the push to oust Biden at this particular moment in the campaign.
Meanwhile, focusing on the candidate rather than the team or other messaging (as delfin described), does require a certain type of candidate, yeah. So if that’s not the candidate you have, run the campaign differently. Why is running the campaign differently out of the question? Isn’t polling also showing that voters are more concerned with issues this election?
posted by eviemath at 7:20 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
There’s a certain irony to pulling out “COVID? That’s a serious medical issue!” for a man who has done more than maybe only one other individual to spread the idea that it’s fine and you should just head back to work.
I mean, if COVID is a serious medical issue, then it's a serious medical issue for people regardless of who they are. Stating that getting COVID multiple times increases the likelihood of serious medical consequences isn't pulling it out for anyone. I explicitly wasn't saying boo about if Biden should or shouldn't drop out, just that the idea that COVID is more manageable for repeat infections may be true for some people, but not for everyone.
Maybe it's the fact that the combination of my Long COVID and the terrible air quality is so bad I'm having trouble working up the energy to get up to walk across the room to go watch TV, but I'm done with folks thinking this shit is a tool to use to score rhetorical points. I just don't have it in me to care about irony.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:21 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
I mean, if COVID is a serious medical issue, then it's a serious medical issue for people regardless of who they are. Stating that getting COVID multiple times increases the likelihood of serious medical consequences isn't pulling it out for anyone. I explicitly wasn't saying boo about if Biden should or shouldn't drop out, just that the idea that COVID is more manageable for repeat infections may be true for some people, but not for everyone.
Maybe it's the fact that the combination of my Long COVID and the terrible air quality is so bad I'm having trouble working up the energy to get up to walk across the room to go watch TV, but I'm done with folks thinking this shit is a tool to use to score rhetorical points. I just don't have it in me to care about irony.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:21 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
US Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) calls on Biden to drop out of presidential race - link
posted by davidmsc at 7:24 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
posted by davidmsc at 7:24 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
Keep in mind that Axios is a neoliberal tool like NPR.
posted by 3.2.3 at 7:24 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
posted by 3.2.3 at 7:24 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
"We need to stop yapping at other left-leaning folks for not being left enough"
There's also all the people like me who aren't on the left but are highly motivated to defeat Trump because we recognize that he's an existential threat to our institutions, and we know that the damage that he and his cult will do could take decades to repair.
Y'all could get a lot of help from libertarians and actual conservatives (as in what "conservative" used to mean, e.g., George Will types) if you would just get your shit together. Many of us are already on board with "defeat Trump now, bicker about tax policy later" but have received zero contact from the Democrats attempting to mobilize us to help. Hell, I just spent 30 minutes trying to mobilize myself but hit a bunch of dead ends.
As an outsider, it seems all the Dems want is money and any attempt to help in other ways is locked behind multiple levels of gatekeeping.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:26 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
There's also all the people like me who aren't on the left but are highly motivated to defeat Trump because we recognize that he's an existential threat to our institutions, and we know that the damage that he and his cult will do could take decades to repair.
Y'all could get a lot of help from libertarians and actual conservatives (as in what "conservative" used to mean, e.g., George Will types) if you would just get your shit together. Many of us are already on board with "defeat Trump now, bicker about tax policy later" but have received zero contact from the Democrats attempting to mobilize us to help. Hell, I just spent 30 minutes trying to mobilize myself but hit a bunch of dead ends.
As an outsider, it seems all the Dems want is money and any attempt to help in other ways is locked behind multiple levels of gatekeeping.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:26 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
eviemath, wishing reality were not the way it was is not a winning strategy. Is the Biden reporting, at least in part, coming from a place of bias? Absolutely! But it’s also true that Biden seems weak and out-of-it. Trump… doesn’t. No one is talking about Trump’s “vigor” because there’s nothing to talk about. Yeah, I’m sure that his bombast is all a Potemkin performance and he’s taking midday naps, sitting around watching television, and going to bed at 9pm, but I don’t see any of that and neither does any voter.
There’s this weird undercurrent where we all wish the world were fairer, that voters were perfectly rational actors carefully weighing policy records, but we don’t live in that world, and we probably never will.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:26 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
There’s this weird undercurrent where we all wish the world were fairer, that voters were perfectly rational actors carefully weighing policy records, but we don’t live in that world, and we probably never will.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:26 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
US Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) calls on Biden to drop out of presidential race - link
That one is a direct statement from Jon Tester and not a “sources say” like most of these, FWIW.
posted by Artw at 7:26 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
That one is a direct statement from Jon Tester and not a “sources say” like most of these, FWIW.
posted by Artw at 7:26 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
>"We promise he'll leave" is not the message you want to hear about a candidate
"We realize the election is in a few weeks, and we'll get back to you as soon as we figure out who our candidate is" is not good messaging either. It is in fact disastrously bad.
>to believe that sticking with Biden is a better option than taking a swing with Kamala is to dispute the validity of all of the current polling
"With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote."
Do you believe you live in an America where more people want a young, (arguably) progressive woman of color to be President than want Donald Trump? I don't. I wish I did. I hope I'm wrong.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 7:27 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
"We realize the election is in a few weeks, and we'll get back to you as soon as we figure out who our candidate is" is not good messaging either. It is in fact disastrously bad.
>to believe that sticking with Biden is a better option than taking a swing with Kamala is to dispute the validity of all of the current polling
"With few exceptions, the final round of public polling showed Clinton with a lead of 1 to 7 percentage points in the national popular vote."
Do you believe you live in an America where more people want a young, (arguably) progressive woman of color to be President than want Donald Trump? I don't. I wish I did. I hope I'm wrong.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 7:27 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
People keep bringing up the left wing of the Democratic Party sticking with Biden and I think it’s simple politics. They’ll get punched at if Biden looses no mater what. This gives them an opportunity to stick with the party while poking at their leadership in congress. Them coming out swinging at Biden gives him a target to punch left at and accomplishes nothing.
posted by Uncle at 7:28 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
posted by Uncle at 7:28 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
Y'all could get a lot of help from libertarians and actual conservatives (as in what conservative used to mean, e.g., George Will types) if you would just get your shit together.
If you were any use you’d be doing it already and not putting in weird conditionals.
posted by Artw at 7:29 PM on July 18 [16 favorites]
If you were any use you’d be doing it already and not putting in weird conditionals.
posted by Artw at 7:29 PM on July 18 [16 favorites]
Why are we only talking about Biden’s vigor?
Because we are trying to decide who is the best candidate to oppose Trump. Supporting Trump is not under consideration. We just had a large thread where people argued over whether it was okay or not to openly support Trump's assassination. He is not somehow escaping condemnation. Trump is lazy, senile, venial, vindictive, probably the owner of several cluster b personality disorders, a racist, and a landlord. Nobody thinks Trump is more qualified. A sack of moldy onions is a better candidate than Trump. But that doesn't matter to his cult of personality. So we need a candidate able to get out the votes to beat him.
Y'all could get a lot of help from libertarians and actual conservatives (as in what conservative used to mean, e.g., George Will types) if you would just get your shit together.
No we couldn't. That is always the claim, that if we just made the correct overtures, the right would come in and support reason and good government. And inevitably the libertarians and "classic liberals" lineup behind the fascists. If you want to beat Trump, the obvious answer is to support the Democrats. If anarchists and SocDems can hold their noses and vote for Clinton and Biden, anybody who is really moved to stop Trump can do so, too.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:30 PM on July 18 [33 favorites]
Because we are trying to decide who is the best candidate to oppose Trump. Supporting Trump is not under consideration. We just had a large thread where people argued over whether it was okay or not to openly support Trump's assassination. He is not somehow escaping condemnation. Trump is lazy, senile, venial, vindictive, probably the owner of several cluster b personality disorders, a racist, and a landlord. Nobody thinks Trump is more qualified. A sack of moldy onions is a better candidate than Trump. But that doesn't matter to his cult of personality. So we need a candidate able to get out the votes to beat him.
Y'all could get a lot of help from libertarians and actual conservatives (as in what conservative used to mean, e.g., George Will types) if you would just get your shit together.
No we couldn't. That is always the claim, that if we just made the correct overtures, the right would come in and support reason and good government. And inevitably the libertarians and "classic liberals" lineup behind the fascists. If you want to beat Trump, the obvious answer is to support the Democrats. If anarchists and SocDems can hold their noses and vote for Clinton and Biden, anybody who is really moved to stop Trump can do so, too.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:30 PM on July 18 [33 favorites]
"Biden seems weak and out-of-it. Trump… doesn’t. No one is talking about Trump’s “vigor” because there’s nothing to talk about."
I feel like I'm reading comments made from an alternate universe. Trump keeps literally falling asleep in public. And many people have reported that lately he smells like he's been pissing and shitting himself. Meanwhile, his speeches have always been incoherent dementia babbling.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:32 PM on July 18 [26 favorites]
I feel like I'm reading comments made from an alternate universe. Trump keeps literally falling asleep in public. And many people have reported that lately he smells like he's been pissing and shitting himself. Meanwhile, his speeches have always been incoherent dementia babbling.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:32 PM on July 18 [26 favorites]
"We realize the election is in a few weeks, and we'll get back to you as soon as we figure out who our candidate is" is not good messaging either. It is in fact disastrously bad.
The election is in three and a half months, and wait until I tell you how long other countries take to do their elections
It'll blow your mind
posted by Gadarene at 7:33 PM on July 18 [31 favorites]
The election is in three and a half months, and wait until I tell you how long other countries take to do their elections
It'll blow your mind
posted by Gadarene at 7:33 PM on July 18 [31 favorites]
Trump is the leader of a cult of personality, that’s why.
I mean, yes, but that happened because he had boosters - powerful and influential ones who owned media empires, Cambridge Analytica, and a highly sophisticated post-Cold War empire level mis- and dis-information network, albeit - not because he had the energy and wherewithal to campaign vigorously.
No one is taking about Trump’s lack of vigor because that hasn’t been a major story created and pushed by the NYT and it’s also not the Biden campaign strategy. Meanwhile painting Biden as old and infirm has been part of the Trump campaign strategy. I think the major problem (which is why I didn’t want Biden in the first place) is that the Dems are relying on an outdated strategy that lost against Trump two elections ago, and only didn’t lose against Trump last election because people were more immediately scared due to Trump currently being in power at the time. I think that what is needed is a change in strategy. It doesn’t seem to me that changing the candidate will do anything more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (to borrow a phrase from Utah Phillips) in the absence of a change in strategy. Expecting a different candidate who can do the same things just more vigorously to somehow be more successful against Trump is the thing that seems to me to be the unrealistic wishful thinking.
posted by eviemath at 7:33 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
I mean, yes, but that happened because he had boosters - powerful and influential ones who owned media empires, Cambridge Analytica, and a highly sophisticated post-Cold War empire level mis- and dis-information network, albeit - not because he had the energy and wherewithal to campaign vigorously.
No one is taking about Trump’s lack of vigor because that hasn’t been a major story created and pushed by the NYT and it’s also not the Biden campaign strategy. Meanwhile painting Biden as old and infirm has been part of the Trump campaign strategy. I think the major problem (which is why I didn’t want Biden in the first place) is that the Dems are relying on an outdated strategy that lost against Trump two elections ago, and only didn’t lose against Trump last election because people were more immediately scared due to Trump currently being in power at the time. I think that what is needed is a change in strategy. It doesn’t seem to me that changing the candidate will do anything more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (to borrow a phrase from Utah Phillips) in the absence of a change in strategy. Expecting a different candidate who can do the same things just more vigorously to somehow be more successful against Trump is the thing that seems to me to be the unrealistic wishful thinking.
posted by eviemath at 7:33 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
where if you replace Biden with "Younger Democrat," Trump loses badly in Wisconsin, Michigan, etc
Sure, lots of people are willing to take a swing on a hypothetical. But once this "younger democrat" is the nominee the same media and pundits saying Biden needs to give up the seat are not going to treat any new candidate with kid gloves because their wish came true. Their job is eyeballs on their page, not making sure we don't have a fascist regime installed.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:34 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Sure, lots of people are willing to take a swing on a hypothetical. But once this "younger democrat" is the nominee the same media and pundits saying Biden needs to give up the seat are not going to treat any new candidate with kid gloves because their wish came true. Their job is eyeballs on their page, not making sure we don't have a fascist regime installed.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:34 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
I wasn't joking about the "Younger Democrat" thing, by the way. It's pretty remarkable.
posted by Gadarene at 7:35 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
posted by Gadarene at 7:35 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
Sure, lots of people are willing to take a swing on a hypothetical. But once this "younger democrat" is the nominee the same media and pundits saying Biden needs to give up the seat are not going to treat any new candidate with kid gloves because their wish came true. Their job is eyeballs on their page, not making sure we don't have a fascist regime installed.
Guess we should just give up, then!
posted by Gadarene at 7:35 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Guess we should just give up, then!
posted by Gadarene at 7:35 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Anyway, probably a much more useful thing to do, rather than all of us arguing fruitlessly about something that is apparently going to be decided for us undemocratically by party elites (yay for saving democracy?), is to be damn sure that we have fully Democrat controlled House and Senate, so that, if Trump does gain power, he can be impeached and removed as soon as he abuses that power, and so that Vance can subsequently be impeached and removed as soon as he, in turn, abuses the presidential power. That is our last institutional line of defense.
posted by eviemath at 7:37 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:37 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
> his bombast is all a Potemkin performance
i don’t actually have a response to this statement i’m just replying because i like the phrase
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:37 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
i don’t actually have a response to this statement i’m just replying because i like the phrase
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:37 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
What is Younger Democrat’s stance on genocide in Gaza?
posted by Artw at 7:38 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:38 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
I wasn't joking about the "Younger Democrat" thing, by the way. It's pretty remarkable.
Support for any given specific “Younger Democrat” can be very different from support for the general idea, unfortunately. Otherwise I would be totally on board with you, sure.
posted by eviemath at 7:38 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
Support for any given specific “Younger Democrat” can be very different from support for the general idea, unfortunately. Otherwise I would be totally on board with you, sure.
posted by eviemath at 7:38 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]
That is our last institutional line of defense.
Your institutions will not save you.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 7:39 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
Your institutions will not save you.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 7:39 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
What is Younger Democrat’s stance on genocide in Gaza?
Could it possibly be worse than Trump or Biden's?
posted by pattern juggler at 7:39 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
Could it possibly be worse than Trump or Biden's?
posted by pattern juggler at 7:39 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
What is Younger Democrat’s stance on genocide in Gaza?
Probably the same stance as whomever was being polled. Hence the problem, yeah.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 7:39 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
Probably the same stance as whomever was being polled. Hence the problem, yeah.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 7:39 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
Could it possibly be worse than Trump or Biden's?
Predicting right now it will be exactly the same.
posted by Artw at 7:39 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
Predicting right now it will be exactly the same.
posted by Artw at 7:39 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
The more abstract the poll, the less applicable it is to real life . . .
posted by pt68 at 7:40 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
posted by pt68 at 7:40 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
For all the needle enjoyers out there: isitjoever.com
posted by Rhaomi at 7:41 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 7:41 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
The point is, who knows why dumbass motherfuckers vote for Trump, really. He's been endorsed by Amber Rose, Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan, three of the most useless human beings ever to appear on Earth. And those are his superstar endorsements! Voting Trump is the political equivalent of eating Tide Pods. Why do people do it? I don't know, but for our purposes it doesn't matter, because we aren't talking about Trump voters.
Democratic voters are a whole other thing. The democratic party has long gambled that any asshole they ran would beat Trump just by not being Trump. So far, this has proven to be true exactly half the time. Those are weak odds. And republican devotion to Trump has only gotten stronger, as support for Biden has gotten weaker. No democratic voter will ever vote for Trump; that's not the problem. The problem is a democratic voter too disgusted to vote.
I've been hearing "Vote Blue No Matter Who" for a lot of years. If the people who said it meant it, they'll vote for Kamala Harris. If they didn't mean it, they shouldn't've said it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:41 PM on July 18 [31 favorites]
Democratic voters are a whole other thing. The democratic party has long gambled that any asshole they ran would beat Trump just by not being Trump. So far, this has proven to be true exactly half the time. Those are weak odds. And republican devotion to Trump has only gotten stronger, as support for Biden has gotten weaker. No democratic voter will ever vote for Trump; that's not the problem. The problem is a democratic voter too disgusted to vote.
I've been hearing "Vote Blue No Matter Who" for a lot of years. If the people who said it meant it, they'll vote for Kamala Harris. If they didn't mean it, they shouldn't've said it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:41 PM on July 18 [31 favorites]
Certainly a "younger unicorn" or "younger magic leprechaun" would be as instructive of a thing to poll, since we cannot actually install as president the concept of a younger Democrat so much as an actual specific person.
posted by axiom at 7:43 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
posted by axiom at 7:43 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
Could it possibly be worse than Trump or Biden's?
Yep, sure could. There are unfortunately Democrats, some of them younger than 80 even, who seem to believe everything that Netanyahu says and are much more in favor of suppressing campus protests or criminalizing the BDS movement in the US. :/
posted by eviemath at 7:44 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
Yep, sure could. There are unfortunately Democrats, some of them younger than 80 even, who seem to believe everything that Netanyahu says and are much more in favor of suppressing campus protests or criminalizing the BDS movement in the US. :/
posted by eviemath at 7:44 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
Yep, sure could. There are unfortunately Democrats, some of them younger than 80 even, who seem to believe everything that Netanyahu says and are much more in favor of suppressing campus protests or criminalizing the BDS movement in the US. :/
Is that meaningfully different from Trump's position?
posted by pattern juggler at 7:50 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
Is that meaningfully different from Trump's position?
posted by pattern juggler at 7:50 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
I am very much a "look I didn't vote for him but Biden won the primary so he's our candidate" person and it really REALLY bothers me that my party is letting the press pull a Claudine Gay "look we're just reporting the facts, it's just EVERYONE is asking these questions off the record!!!" on my party's nominee, but honestly I just want this press cycle of "the Democrats are so incompetent and afraid of power they can't get it together to nominate someone who isn't on death's doorstep" to be over. I will literally vote for anyone who has a chance of beating Trump. I'll vote for Biden. I'll vote for Harris. I'll vote for a golden retriever with a (D) by his name. Just everyone get the fuck behind someone and let's move on.
It seems pretty clear to me that every single person with a net worth over about $10m in this country has decided Trump is their guy for what I guess are tax reasons and they're just trying to ratfuck anyone who stands against him. So it's just going to be some other fake fucking scandal about the next nominee but at least hopefully everyone else in the party will be too embarrassed to try and replace the next person.
I'm just deeply disgusted with the Democrats. I'll still vote for them because look at the alternative but holy shit. Do better. Dude was old in primary season too and that was the time to ask these questions. The party has got to clean house.
posted by potrzebie at 7:50 PM on July 18 [30 favorites]
It seems pretty clear to me that every single person with a net worth over about $10m in this country has decided Trump is their guy for what I guess are tax reasons and they're just trying to ratfuck anyone who stands against him. So it's just going to be some other fake fucking scandal about the next nominee but at least hopefully everyone else in the party will be too embarrassed to try and replace the next person.
I'm just deeply disgusted with the Democrats. I'll still vote for them because look at the alternative but holy shit. Do better. Dude was old in primary season too and that was the time to ask these questions. The party has got to clean house.
posted by potrzebie at 7:50 PM on July 18 [30 favorites]
"That is always the claim, that if we just made the correct overtures, the right would come in and support reason and good government. And inevitably the libertarians and "classic liberals" lineup behind the fascists. If you want to beat Trump, the obvious answer is to support the Democrats. If anarchists and SocDems can hold their noses and vote for Clinton and Biden, anybody who is really moved to stop Trump can do so, too."
~90% of my Facebook friends list is libertarians and most of us ARE voting Biden. There's been a mass exodus from the Libertarian Party since the Mises Caucus takeover in 2022, and most of that exodus is on board with prioritizing defeating Trump now and worrying about our differences with the Dems later.
When I say "get your shit together," I'm not asking you to change your party's ideology, platform, or messaging, I'm just asking you to streamline your volunteer intake process better. Because right now all I can find is paid campaign positions (I know y'all are not going to hire anyone who isn't one of the party faithful for those) or redirects to donation pages.
I could click buttons on Hustle all day FOR FREE to send your scripted messages to swing-state voters, but y'all seemed determined to make it impossible for anyone not already deeply involved in the party to do anything to help except give money. Which is dumb, because an effective supporter identification and get out of the vote campaign requires a tremendous amount of volunteer labor to pull off. And it seems all y'all are too busy fighting amongst yourselves to spend much time volunteering, so perhaps it's time to bring in outsiders who don't have a dog in your internal party fights and just want to get shit done.
Obama had an incredibly well-organized streamlined volunteer intake process for their GOTV campaign in 2008 but y'all seem to have forgotten those skills since then.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:51 PM on July 18 [26 favorites]
~90% of my Facebook friends list is libertarians and most of us ARE voting Biden. There's been a mass exodus from the Libertarian Party since the Mises Caucus takeover in 2022, and most of that exodus is on board with prioritizing defeating Trump now and worrying about our differences with the Dems later.
When I say "get your shit together," I'm not asking you to change your party's ideology, platform, or messaging, I'm just asking you to streamline your volunteer intake process better. Because right now all I can find is paid campaign positions (I know y'all are not going to hire anyone who isn't one of the party faithful for those) or redirects to donation pages.
I could click buttons on Hustle all day FOR FREE to send your scripted messages to swing-state voters, but y'all seemed determined to make it impossible for anyone not already deeply involved in the party to do anything to help except give money. Which is dumb, because an effective supporter identification and get out of the vote campaign requires a tremendous amount of volunteer labor to pull off. And it seems all y'all are too busy fighting amongst yourselves to spend much time volunteering, so perhaps it's time to bring in outsiders who don't have a dog in your internal party fights and just want to get shit done.
Obama had an incredibly well-organized streamlined volunteer intake process for their GOTV campaign in 2008 but y'all seem to have forgotten those skills since then.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:51 PM on July 18 [26 favorites]
Harris has NOT been invisible: she and her staff have regularly posted her activities as VP on her social media since she took office.
posted by brujita at 7:51 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
posted by brujita at 7:51 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
The democratic party has long gambled that any asshole they ran would beat Trump just by not being Trump. So far, this has proven to be true exactly half the time. Those are weak odds. And republican devotion to Trump has only gotten stronger, as support for Biden has gotten weaker. No democratic voter will ever vote for Trump; that's not the problem. The problem is a democratic voter too disgusted to vote.
Oh, for sure. I just don’t see that problem changing with Harris. Well, maybe you would sub out some “too disgusted” for some other “too racist or sexist even though they don’t want to admit that or be called out on it”. But hey, I’ll stop getting my pessimism all over your rosy optimism that switching out a person within the same campaign strategy and messaging and policy proposals will make the deciding difference. We all need some little bits of hope right now, I suppose.
(You know what would likely give Biden a boost, regardless of his energy levels? A negotiated end to the Palestinian genocide or at least a longer cease fire. That was about when his numbers dropped, if I recall correctly.)
posted by eviemath at 7:52 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
Oh, for sure. I just don’t see that problem changing with Harris. Well, maybe you would sub out some “too disgusted” for some other “too racist or sexist even though they don’t want to admit that or be called out on it”. But hey, I’ll stop getting my pessimism all over your rosy optimism that switching out a person within the same campaign strategy and messaging and policy proposals will make the deciding difference. We all need some little bits of hope right now, I suppose.
(You know what would likely give Biden a boost, regardless of his energy levels? A negotiated end to the Palestinian genocide or at least a longer cease fire. That was about when his numbers dropped, if I recall correctly.)
posted by eviemath at 7:52 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
Harris has NOT been invisible: she and her staff have regularly posted her activities as VP on her social media since she took office.
But I’m told it only counts if you’re out in the streets campaigning 18 hours a day?
/s
posted by eviemath at 7:53 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
But I’m told it only counts if you’re out in the streets campaigning 18 hours a day?
/s
posted by eviemath at 7:53 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
When I say "get your shit together," I'm not asking you to change your party's ideology, platform, or messaging, I'm just asking you to streamline your volunteer intake process better.
Oh yeah, the Dem's suck at that. I tried to volunteer for HRC's campaign and was told the only opportunity involved a 200 mile one way commute. When I explained that wasn't possible they asked for a donation instead.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:54 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
Oh yeah, the Dem's suck at that. I tried to volunteer for HRC's campaign and was told the only opportunity involved a 200 mile one way commute. When I explained that wasn't possible they asked for a donation instead.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:54 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
> Instead of focusing on Trump falling asleep at the RNC
Yeah, with all the gibberish and nonsense Trump has certainly been spewing at his rallies, and things like this little nappy-poo incident, the press could easily be having the exact same conversation about Trump that it is currently having about Biden.
Yet it isn't. Why not?
In addition, the press could be having the conversation about how Trump is absolutely fucking nutso at least 20 times a day.
Yet it isn't. Why not?
In other news, when Obama was elected, the entire population* of Missouri went absolutely berzerk. I can only imagine how it will go when Harris is elected. It will be like berzerk to the 50th power.
Makes me kind of hope for that outcome, just to see it.
(*"entire population" - true to a first approximation only. I'm sure there were some people out there who weren't absolute racist nutters - probably a whole lot of them in fact. But it surely brought an amazing contingent of racist nutters out of the woodwork.)
posted by flug at 7:57 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
Yeah, with all the gibberish and nonsense Trump has certainly been spewing at his rallies, and things like this little nappy-poo incident, the press could easily be having the exact same conversation about Trump that it is currently having about Biden.
Yet it isn't. Why not?
In addition, the press could be having the conversation about how Trump is absolutely fucking nutso at least 20 times a day.
Yet it isn't. Why not?
In other news, when Obama was elected, the entire population* of Missouri went absolutely berzerk. I can only imagine how it will go when Harris is elected. It will be like berzerk to the 50th power.
Makes me kind of hope for that outcome, just to see it.
(*"entire population" - true to a first approximation only. I'm sure there were some people out there who weren't absolute racist nutters - probably a whole lot of them in fact. But it surely brought an amazing contingent of racist nutters out of the woodwork.)
posted by flug at 7:57 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
Oh, yeah.
All these donors who are supposedly holding back their money until Biden drops out: I suppose that as soon as he drops out and we have a replacement, they're all going to drop their billions right back into the race. Immediately.
Right?
I'll be right here waiting for that . . .
posted by flug at 8:00 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
All these donors who are supposedly holding back their money until Biden drops out: I suppose that as soon as he drops out and we have a replacement, they're all going to drop their billions right back into the race. Immediately.
Right?
I'll be right here waiting for that . . .
posted by flug at 8:00 PM on July 18 [5 favorites]
My mother (who, unlike me, lives in the US still) has been doing a lot of on the ground volunteering, but just through individual campaigns, not through any official Democratic Party organization. That, and third party get out the vote groups, seems to be where the effective work is going to happen that will pull off a Dem win if possible.
That also has the side benefit of helping the House and Senate (and state and local level) races that will be absolutely crucial to win regardless of who becomes president, if we want to deal with the broken Supreme Court or anything else.
posted by eviemath at 8:00 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
That also has the side benefit of helping the House and Senate (and state and local level) races that will be absolutely crucial to win regardless of who becomes president, if we want to deal with the broken Supreme Court or anything else.
posted by eviemath at 8:00 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
Racism didn't hurt Obama. I'm not even going to go there and question whether sexism hurt Hillary Clinton; I'm sure it did, but I'm not convinced it's why she lost. Do I think a Black woman can win the presidency? I absolutely do, but I will admit that if that Black woman happens to be Kamala Harris, it might be for the best that she'd be running from within the honeymoon period of her presidency. There are definitely issues that leftist voters will have with her, and they could expand into serious problems over the course of her first elected term in office. We can cross that bridge after we defeat Trump.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:01 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:01 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
It is not lost on me that this new wave of “Biden must go!” started after he announced a plan for national rent control.
What galls me is that when I read these off-the-record “Biden must go!” things, they are often joined with an “and Harris too!” So who the hell do they want as a nominee then? No answer. It’s gonna be Marc Cuban, isn’t it.
posted by rednikki at 8:02 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
What galls me is that when I read these off-the-record “Biden must go!” things, they are often joined with an “and Harris too!” So who the hell do they want as a nominee then? No answer. It’s gonna be Marc Cuban, isn’t it.
posted by rednikki at 8:02 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
To me, the "Younger Democrat" thing indicates that, were a younger Democrat than Biden in fact to become the Democratic nominee, their electoral ceiling would be higher than whatever they're currently polling, and certainly higher than Biden himself, to a Democratic electorate that has repeatedly and increasingly signaled concerns about Biden's advanced age.
But, sure, unicorn.
posted by Gadarene at 8:04 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
But, sure, unicorn.
posted by Gadarene at 8:04 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
What galls me is that when I read these off-the-record “Biden must go!” things, they are often joined with an “and Harris too!”
I'm going to have to ask for a cite for that, because that doesn't match my recollection of any of the reported off-the-record concerns by elected Democrats, whether Pelosi or Schumer or Obama or Jamie Raskin or the forty-some Democratic senators that didn't raise their hand when Fetterman asked them if they supported Biden as the nominee going forward or anyone else.
Who is out there supposedly saying that Biden must go and Harris too?
posted by Gadarene at 8:06 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
I'm going to have to ask for a cite for that, because that doesn't match my recollection of any of the reported off-the-record concerns by elected Democrats, whether Pelosi or Schumer or Obama or Jamie Raskin or the forty-some Democratic senators that didn't raise their hand when Fetterman asked them if they supported Biden as the nominee going forward or anyone else.
Who is out there supposedly saying that Biden must go and Harris too?
posted by Gadarene at 8:06 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
Sure, lots of people are willing to take a swing on a hypothetical. But once this "younger democrat" is the nominee the same media and pundits saying Biden needs to give up the seat are not going to treat any new candidate with kid gloves because their wish came true. Their job is eyeballs on their page, not making sure we don't have a fascist regime installed.
Guess we should just give up, then!
Good thing I didn't say that, did I?
posted by oneirodynia at 8:08 PM on July 18
Guess we should just give up, then!
Good thing I didn't say that, did I?
posted by oneirodynia at 8:08 PM on July 18
Damn I need a Younger Democrat 2024 sticker for my car
posted by catcafe at 8:15 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
posted by catcafe at 8:15 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
"Oh yeah, the Dem's suck at that. I tried to volunteer for HRC's campaign and was told the only opportunity involved a 200 mile one way commute. When I explained that wasn't possible they asked for a donation instead."
Oh my god this is so frustrating. How is it that the Libertarian Party is better at volunteer recruitment and mobilization than the Democrats with all your resources???
If someone wanted to volunteer and I didn't have anything for them to do then I WOULD MAKE UP SOMETHING FOR THEM TO DO. I wouldn't tell them there was nothing within 200 miles. People volunteer because they have a chunk of free time in their life they want to fill, and if you don't fill it for them then they go fill it with something else and will no longer be available when you need them.
The Republicans know this and keep their supporters doing shit year-round. That's how they're always able to turn out large crowds of crazies to scream at school board meetings etc. They have multiple organizations, e.g. the Leadership Institute, Americans for Prosperity, etc. to keep people busy with either training or low-stakes makework activism in between elections because they know that the personal relationships people build are what keep them committed and motivated during campaign season. They even have people whose entire job is to take two people who don't know each other out to coffee and introduce them and then set them up to do stuff together. They consider matchmaking new friends to be a critical part of volunteer management.
And I know all this insider stuff about how they operate because the Republican-affiliated organizations make their activist training available for cheap or even free, whereas the Democrat-affiliated trainings always cost way too much for me to attend. (Libertarians couldn't afford to put on much in the way of our own training so we usually just crashed other parties' things, which they were generally fine with because having occasional outsiders in the classes helped them justify their tax status as nonpartisan educational organizations.)
Looking at the dysfunction of the Democratic Party from the perspective of 20+ years of Libertarian Party activism is infuriating. The things I could have done with your resources and with the majority of the population already on your side. Why can't all y'all just get your shit together?????
posted by Jacqueline at 8:22 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
Oh my god this is so frustrating. How is it that the Libertarian Party is better at volunteer recruitment and mobilization than the Democrats with all your resources???
If someone wanted to volunteer and I didn't have anything for them to do then I WOULD MAKE UP SOMETHING FOR THEM TO DO. I wouldn't tell them there was nothing within 200 miles. People volunteer because they have a chunk of free time in their life they want to fill, and if you don't fill it for them then they go fill it with something else and will no longer be available when you need them.
The Republicans know this and keep their supporters doing shit year-round. That's how they're always able to turn out large crowds of crazies to scream at school board meetings etc. They have multiple organizations, e.g. the Leadership Institute, Americans for Prosperity, etc. to keep people busy with either training or low-stakes makework activism in between elections because they know that the personal relationships people build are what keep them committed and motivated during campaign season. They even have people whose entire job is to take two people who don't know each other out to coffee and introduce them and then set them up to do stuff together. They consider matchmaking new friends to be a critical part of volunteer management.
And I know all this insider stuff about how they operate because the Republican-affiliated organizations make their activist training available for cheap or even free, whereas the Democrat-affiliated trainings always cost way too much for me to attend. (Libertarians couldn't afford to put on much in the way of our own training so we usually just crashed other parties' things, which they were generally fine with because having occasional outsiders in the classes helped them justify their tax status as nonpartisan educational organizations.)
Looking at the dysfunction of the Democratic Party from the perspective of 20+ years of Libertarian Party activism is infuriating. The things I could have done with your resources and with the majority of the population already on your side. Why can't all y'all just get your shit together?????
posted by Jacqueline at 8:22 PM on July 18 [22 favorites]
Looking at the dysfunction of the Democratic Party from the perspective of 20+ years of Libertarian Party activism is infuriating. The things I could have done with your resources and with the majority of the population already on your side. Why can't all y'all just get your shit together?????
Sometimes I think the Democratic leadership looks at that Will Rogers quote as something to be proud of.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 8:30 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
Sometimes I think the Democratic leadership looks at that Will Rogers quote as something to be proud of.
posted by UltraMorgnus at 8:30 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
So, I consider myself to be pretty cynical, and I wouldn't say I have a high opinion of America....but man, this thread is making my views of this country look rosy in comparison!
It’s the one-sidedness of the reporting and focus that makes me and from what I’ve read some others as well quite suspicious of the push to oust Biden at this particular moment in the campaign.
This is a broad point that keeps coming up in recent political threads (and elsewhere) - the media on the whole leans Democrat. Many left-leaning members of the media have been concerned about Biden for over a year, and Biden's team has effectively gaslit them, assuring them Biden in 2024 is no different than Biden in 2020. Post-debate the media was genuinely angry, and I agree, that is influencing their reporting in terms of its fervor, but there is nothing "suspicious" about this - people don't like being lied to! Especially when democracy is on the line, as the Biden admin likes to say. Although as I've written in other threads, had Democratic politicians all united around Biden without any leaks, I don't think we'd still be talking about this - the story has long moved on from his debate performance. The story now is the general lack of faith his co-workers have in his abilities.
Do you believe you live in an America where more people want a young, (arguably) progressive woman of color to be President than want Donald Trump? I don't.
So, I'm not an idiot, and I'm not going to tell you that racism and sexism doesn't exist in the US. Obviously they do. But the US also elected Obama in 2008 and then in 2012, and he still remains a popular politician. The two biggest popstars in the US are both women, and one of them is Black. Oprah is universal loved, so much so she doesn't even need her last name. Hell, Hillary won the popular vote handily - and perhaps if her campaign strategy hadn't completely ignored the suburbs/rural areas (unlike Obama), she might have won the electoral college too. Again, yes, there is racism and sexism in this country, but I am starting to think that the horror of the Trump presidency + the trauma of COVID has made some people a bit overly pessimistic about their fellow Americans. I think a Harris vs. Trump matchup will be close, and I don't think she's guaranteed to win, but I think she will fare far better than a candidate that often struggles to read off a teleprompter, and is often incoherent or appears confused when he has to go off-script - white male privilege will only take you so far.
It seems pretty clear to me that every single person with a net worth over about $10m in this country has decided Trump is their guy for what I guess are tax reasons and they're just trying to ratfuck anyone who stands against him. So it's just going to be some other fake fucking scandal about the next nominee
Putting aside that Biden's current condition is not fake (as countless interviews have proven, again and again), you know that most people in the rank and file of the media are not wealthy, yeah? Sure, some people in the media are quite rich, but the average journalists is middle class - including many who are calling for Biden to step down. They aren't going to destroy Harris, if only because they don't want Trump to win.
Dude was old in primary season too and that was the time to ask these questions.
Here I think most people agree! But voters were asking these questions even before the primary season, the press was also reporting on it and asking such questions - the problem was the DNC elites refused to listen. If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the DNC for not listening sooner.
posted by coffeecat at 8:47 PM on July 18 [20 favorites]
It’s the one-sidedness of the reporting and focus that makes me and from what I’ve read some others as well quite suspicious of the push to oust Biden at this particular moment in the campaign.
This is a broad point that keeps coming up in recent political threads (and elsewhere) - the media on the whole leans Democrat. Many left-leaning members of the media have been concerned about Biden for over a year, and Biden's team has effectively gaslit them, assuring them Biden in 2024 is no different than Biden in 2020. Post-debate the media was genuinely angry, and I agree, that is influencing their reporting in terms of its fervor, but there is nothing "suspicious" about this - people don't like being lied to! Especially when democracy is on the line, as the Biden admin likes to say. Although as I've written in other threads, had Democratic politicians all united around Biden without any leaks, I don't think we'd still be talking about this - the story has long moved on from his debate performance. The story now is the general lack of faith his co-workers have in his abilities.
Do you believe you live in an America where more people want a young, (arguably) progressive woman of color to be President than want Donald Trump? I don't.
So, I'm not an idiot, and I'm not going to tell you that racism and sexism doesn't exist in the US. Obviously they do. But the US also elected Obama in 2008 and then in 2012, and he still remains a popular politician. The two biggest popstars in the US are both women, and one of them is Black. Oprah is universal loved, so much so she doesn't even need her last name. Hell, Hillary won the popular vote handily - and perhaps if her campaign strategy hadn't completely ignored the suburbs/rural areas (unlike Obama), she might have won the electoral college too. Again, yes, there is racism and sexism in this country, but I am starting to think that the horror of the Trump presidency + the trauma of COVID has made some people a bit overly pessimistic about their fellow Americans. I think a Harris vs. Trump matchup will be close, and I don't think she's guaranteed to win, but I think she will fare far better than a candidate that often struggles to read off a teleprompter, and is often incoherent or appears confused when he has to go off-script - white male privilege will only take you so far.
It seems pretty clear to me that every single person with a net worth over about $10m in this country has decided Trump is their guy for what I guess are tax reasons and they're just trying to ratfuck anyone who stands against him. So it's just going to be some other fake fucking scandal about the next nominee
Putting aside that Biden's current condition is not fake (as countless interviews have proven, again and again), you know that most people in the rank and file of the media are not wealthy, yeah? Sure, some people in the media are quite rich, but the average journalists is middle class - including many who are calling for Biden to step down. They aren't going to destroy Harris, if only because they don't want Trump to win.
Dude was old in primary season too and that was the time to ask these questions.
Here I think most people agree! But voters were asking these questions even before the primary season, the press was also reporting on it and asking such questions - the problem was the DNC elites refused to listen. If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the DNC for not listening sooner.
posted by coffeecat at 8:47 PM on July 18 [20 favorites]
I don't think there was a legitimate chance for Democrats to weigh in on a candidate this year. Because of the incumbency, the primaries were pro forma. If they weren't truly contested, "overturning" them isn't really a thing.
I'd be a little happier with a younger, more dynamic, less genocidal candidate. But I will work my ass off for whoever gets the nod. I'm old enough not to expect the best person to be the candidate. We've had some real stinkers. I don't care. It's madness to even consider voting for any Republican ever. That leaves us in a terrible position as a country, but it's the position we're in, and I'm truly afraid the cure would be worse than the disease (permanent authoritarian theocracy).
Whoever said they'd be happy to vote for a paint bucket with "Democrat" written on it was right on.
posted by rikschell at 8:54 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
I'd be a little happier with a younger, more dynamic, less genocidal candidate. But I will work my ass off for whoever gets the nod. I'm old enough not to expect the best person to be the candidate. We've had some real stinkers. I don't care. It's madness to even consider voting for any Republican ever. That leaves us in a terrible position as a country, but it's the position we're in, and I'm truly afraid the cure would be worse than the disease (permanent authoritarian theocracy).
Whoever said they'd be happy to vote for a paint bucket with "Democrat" written on it was right on.
posted by rikschell at 8:54 PM on July 18 [12 favorites]
The problems was the vivid, visceral demonstration Biden gave in the debate. No one saw that in the primaries.
I believe Joe Biden is experiencing a rapid onset of dementia in one form or another, and I do not think he should be continuing in his job, let alone campaigning for four (!) more years.
Anything else about ratfucking or media fairness, the incompetence of the DNC or the unbearable tedious and seemingly endless left/center family warfare — none of it matters a stitch if I’m right (big if! I know). The man has a medical condition that makes him unable to do the job and this condition will only get worse.
I refuse to pretend the truth is not the truth. We tell the truth, then go from there.
posted by argybarg at 8:55 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
I believe Joe Biden is experiencing a rapid onset of dementia in one form or another, and I do not think he should be continuing in his job, let alone campaigning for four (!) more years.
Anything else about ratfucking or media fairness, the incompetence of the DNC or the unbearable tedious and seemingly endless left/center family warfare — none of it matters a stitch if I’m right (big if! I know). The man has a medical condition that makes him unable to do the job and this condition will only get worse.
I refuse to pretend the truth is not the truth. We tell the truth, then go from there.
posted by argybarg at 8:55 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
Predicting right now it will be exactly the same.
For those who are one-issue voters, and this is their one issue, then vote for Trump. They are all the same, right? They should just pull that lever, if that's really what they want and they're not just making noise.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:56 PM on July 18
For those who are one-issue voters, and this is their one issue, then vote for Trump. They are all the same, right? They should just pull that lever, if that's really what they want and they're not just making noise.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:56 PM on July 18
the media on the whole leans Democrat.
Why on earth would you think that?
posted by Artw at 8:57 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
Why on earth would you think that?
posted by Artw at 8:57 PM on July 18 [27 favorites]
I wasn't joking about the "Younger Democrat" thing, by the way. It's pretty remarkable.
That poll was paid for by Democrats for the Next Generation, which is basically an anti-Biden group funded with money from Bill Harris.
"Bill Harris, a former chief executive of Intuit and PayPal, said he is leading a small group of Democratic donors who have pledged $2 million to help fund presidential debates among potential nominees if President Biden decides to step aside.
The group of donors is pressing for an open competition for the Democratic nomination that would draw public attention if Biden drops out. The group is looking for robust debates rather than merely coalescing around Vice President Harris or another nominee, according to Bill Harris, who declined to name the other donors."
Fintech people are generally not fond of pro-union, progressive candidates. I suspect a candidate who is not only younger, but more conservative is what this group is working on.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:58 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
That poll was paid for by Democrats for the Next Generation, which is basically an anti-Biden group funded with money from Bill Harris.
"Bill Harris, a former chief executive of Intuit and PayPal, said he is leading a small group of Democratic donors who have pledged $2 million to help fund presidential debates among potential nominees if President Biden decides to step aside.
The group of donors is pressing for an open competition for the Democratic nomination that would draw public attention if Biden drops out. The group is looking for robust debates rather than merely coalescing around Vice President Harris or another nominee, according to Bill Harris, who declined to name the other donors."
Fintech people are generally not fond of pro-union, progressive candidates. I suspect a candidate who is not only younger, but more conservative is what this group is working on.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:58 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
Look, this isn't hard. Biden already can not do unscripted live events (debates, questions from reporters) and will continue to decline. You can lose to Trump with Biden or you can maybe lose or maybe win with Harris + a new VP.
Biden took away the "Win with Biden" option during the debate and his NATO press conference word-association game.
Sorry, i don't like it either.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 9:03 PM on July 18 [19 favorites]
Biden took away the "Win with Biden" option during the debate and his NATO press conference word-association game.
Sorry, i don't like it either.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 9:03 PM on July 18 [19 favorites]
>The GOP cannot wait to unleash the lawyers to make sure the Dem candidate does not appear on at least 3 states' ballots.
Can someone holding this view provide some sort of citation that justifies this fear? It would be helpful. My understanding is the Dems have not nominated anyone yet and no state's ballots are yet fixed. Is that incorrect?
DNC says virtual roll call to nominate Biden will happen in August
I don't know about "at least 3 states" but I think there is some risk in Ohio.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:08 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
Can someone holding this view provide some sort of citation that justifies this fear? It would be helpful. My understanding is the Dems have not nominated anyone yet and no state's ballots are yet fixed. Is that incorrect?
DNC says virtual roll call to nominate Biden will happen in August
I don't know about "at least 3 states" but I think there is some risk in Ohio.
The Democratic National Committee has determined that a virtual roll call vote to formally nominate President Biden as the party's nominee will happen in August, according to a letter sent Wednesday by the heads of the convention rules committee.August 5 is what, 18 days away? So I think if they were going to replace Biden and get the replacements name on Ohio's ballot for sure, it has to happen by then. I can't imagine it could be anyone but Harris in that time. There will be no contested convention.
...
they have confirmed with the DNC and the Democratic National Convention that "no voting will begin before August 1." They add that the vote is set to happen before the in-person Democratic National Convention that starts Aug. 19.
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison posted Tuesday that they want the vote to happen by Aug. 5, to comply with an Aug. 7 deadline for candidate certification in Ohio. In late May, the DNC announced a move to a virtual roll call because of that deadline.
...
In June, Ohio passed a bill to move its deadline from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1. But because that law technically does not take effect until Sept. 1, the DNC said they are keeping their timeline of a pre-convention virtual roll call in place due to concern of litigation. Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose suggested earlier this month that Sept. 1 deadline to certify a candidate would stand.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:08 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
I think it's worthwhile going back and watching the debate.
It's really really bad.
posted by constraint at 9:08 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
It's really really bad.
posted by constraint at 9:08 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
Why on earth would you think that?
I dunno, maybe because all of the media I consume (including fairly mainstream stuff, like NYTimes, WSJ, New Yorker, NPR, etc.) is pretty explicit in its distaste and fear of Trump. Why on earth would you not think that?
posted by coffeecat at 9:10 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
I dunno, maybe because all of the media I consume (including fairly mainstream stuff, like NYTimes, WSJ, New Yorker, NPR, etc.) is pretty explicit in its distaste and fear of Trump. Why on earth would you not think that?
posted by coffeecat at 9:10 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
I thought all the cool kids were volunteering through Vote Save America.
posted by Marticus at 9:18 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
posted by Marticus at 9:18 PM on July 18 [4 favorites]
Even prior to the debate a lot of people in my social circles were saying things like "I can't believe these are our choices". Personally I would have gladly voted for 2020 Biden again, and won't hesitate to vote for him this November if he is still on the ballot. But as rikschell pointed out above, as the incumbent, Biden wasn't going to be seriously challenged. Now, whoever winds up becoming the new Democratic nominee, the Democrats can say "we recognized the problem and we made a change", and I think there are a lot of people who are open to that message. There are a lot of people who would have held their noses and voted for Biden prior to the debate disaster but would have had serious qualms afterwards. I think these people would be much more enthusiastic about a candidate who just demonstrates simple, baseline competency to vote for this November. I think and hope that Harris can play that role.
posted by Reverend John at 9:20 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 9:20 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
> Why on earth would you not think that?
Because the American right has a press apparatus of a similar size and sophistication.
I'm guessing you don't engage with those new sources, but a huge fraction of the populace does.
posted by constraint at 9:31 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
Because the American right has a press apparatus of a similar size and sophistication.
I'm guessing you don't engage with those new sources, but a huge fraction of the populace does.
posted by constraint at 9:31 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
It is not lost on me that this new wave of “Biden must go!” started after he announced a plan for national rent control.
I can’t bring myself to get excited for all the great things Biden could have been doing for three years and is now doing as a desperation move.
posted by corb at 9:46 PM on July 18 [14 favorites]
I mean: I haven't seen Mean Girls, but is this where I say "Stop trying to make fetch happen"?
posted by kristi at 9:51 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
posted by kristi at 9:51 PM on July 18 [2 favorites]
>I dunno, maybe because all of the media I consume (including fairly mainstream stuff, like NYTimes, WSJ, New Yorker, NPR, etc.) is pretty explicit in its distaste and fear of Trump. Why on earth would you not think that?
I'm sorry, why would I not think that distaste and fear of Trump must be an indication of a liberal media bias? Is that the serious question? Because we're talking about a rapist who partied with Jeffrey Epstein becoming president and making himself immune to laws. Distaste and fear are objectively appropriate reactions, and in fact the distaste and fear we see in the major news outlets are not nearly proportionate to the threat. The news stories I see are going well out of their way to tippytoe around anything that might be embarrassing to Trump--like the whole raping kids thing, for instance--preferring instead to go with 'Biden Still Old' as the top story. If you're watching the way this election is being reported and your takeaway is 'gosh, that slanted liberal media,' I really don't know what to say to you.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 9:55 PM on July 18 [19 favorites]
I'm sorry, why would I not think that distaste and fear of Trump must be an indication of a liberal media bias? Is that the serious question? Because we're talking about a rapist who partied with Jeffrey Epstein becoming president and making himself immune to laws. Distaste and fear are objectively appropriate reactions, and in fact the distaste and fear we see in the major news outlets are not nearly proportionate to the threat. The news stories I see are going well out of their way to tippytoe around anything that might be embarrassing to Trump--like the whole raping kids thing, for instance--preferring instead to go with 'Biden Still Old' as the top story. If you're watching the way this election is being reported and your takeaway is 'gosh, that slanted liberal media,' I really don't know what to say to you.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 9:55 PM on July 18 [19 favorites]
"Biden seems weak and out-of-it. Trump… doesn’t. No one is talking about Trump’s “vigor” because there’s nothing to talk about."
I feel like I'm reading comments made from an alternate universe. Trump keeps literally falling asleep in public.
he... he fell asleep in the middle of the day, multiple days running, at his own criminal trial.
it made the news. multiple times. "Trump asleep in court again." the Big Three talk show hosts did jokes about it in their monologues. Jimmy Kimmel called him "Rip One Van Winkle" and "Teddy Dozevelt" and "Donny Nappleseed."
some claim there was farting but I have no way to verify
posted by taquito sunrise at 9:56 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
I feel like I'm reading comments made from an alternate universe. Trump keeps literally falling asleep in public.
he... he fell asleep in the middle of the day, multiple days running, at his own criminal trial.
it made the news. multiple times. "Trump asleep in court again." the Big Three talk show hosts did jokes about it in their monologues. Jimmy Kimmel called him "Rip One Van Winkle" and "Teddy Dozevelt" and "Donny Nappleseed."
some claim there was farting but I have no way to verify
posted by taquito sunrise at 9:56 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
"I thought all the cool kids were volunteering through Vote Save America."
And here's a prime example of how the Democrats' volunteer recruitment, on boarding, and mobilization is a gatekeeping shitshow.
How is someone who isn't already part of progressive or left-wing circles supposed to know to go volunteer for some other organization instead of the campaign or the party?
Thank you for the information, by the way. I will try there. But the fact that I -- who used to run a political textbank as my full-time job and thus knows what to search for and where to look -- can't simply find and sign up for the Biden textbank without outside help is ridiculous.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:59 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
And here's a prime example of how the Democrats' volunteer recruitment, on boarding, and mobilization is a gatekeeping shitshow.
How is someone who isn't already part of progressive or left-wing circles supposed to know to go volunteer for some other organization instead of the campaign or the party?
Thank you for the information, by the way. I will try there. But the fact that I -- who used to run a political textbank as my full-time job and thus knows what to search for and where to look -- can't simply find and sign up for the Biden textbank without outside help is ridiculous.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:59 PM on July 18 [7 favorites]
I can’t bring myself to get excited for all the great things Biden could have been doing for three years and is now doing as a desperation move.
As I posted over in the Registered Apprenticeship thread:
There are over 1000 pages at the White House Briefing Room, with 10 items per page. If you very conservatively estimate that half of those are actual things that make things better for actual people, that's 5000 things - Conference on Hunger. Assistance to Ukraine. Tenant Protections and Rental Affordability (November 2022). Roundtable Affirming Transgender Kids (April 2023). Day 1 to today, every single day, he has been delivering on the things that everyone at MetaFilter seems to value.
I'm truly sorry that the press doesn't bother reporting most of this stuff, but still - we are very online. We are very politically knowledgeable, compared to most Americans. We should know this stuff.
Biden has been a phenomenal president. I would like for him to continue to be a phenomenal president for the next four years.
posted by kristi at 10:01 PM on July 18 [39 favorites]
As I posted over in the Registered Apprenticeship thread:
my impression is that the Biden administration has been non-stop doing things to make life better for all kinds of Americans from the day he took office. ...Covid. American Rescue Plan. Actual infrastructure bills. Absolutely extraordinary investment in renewable energy. Paris Climate Agreement. A massive focus on equity. Appointing people to the courts and to his cabinet that represent all of America, not just rich white Ivy Leaguers.
I would bet you 5 bucks I could find a couple dozen major positive actions in every month he's been in office. Maybe every week.
There are over 1000 pages at the White House Briefing Room, with 10 items per page. If you very conservatively estimate that half of those are actual things that make things better for actual people, that's 5000 things - Conference on Hunger. Assistance to Ukraine. Tenant Protections and Rental Affordability (November 2022). Roundtable Affirming Transgender Kids (April 2023). Day 1 to today, every single day, he has been delivering on the things that everyone at MetaFilter seems to value.
I'm truly sorry that the press doesn't bother reporting most of this stuff, but still - we are very online. We are very politically knowledgeable, compared to most Americans. We should know this stuff.
Biden has been a phenomenal president. I would like for him to continue to be a phenomenal president for the next four years.
posted by kristi at 10:01 PM on July 18 [39 favorites]
I'm a fucking libertarian and even I know about all the good stuff Biden has been doing because the only time I remember he exists is when I see a news story about how something that economists have been screaming about for years is finally getting fixed thanks to the Biden administration being full of politically savvy people who figured out what they could get done via the executive branch only.
So if you're a Democrat and haven't heard about any of the good his administration has done, I advise you to reconsider your news sources.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:06 PM on July 18 [29 favorites]
So if you're a Democrat and haven't heard about any of the good his administration has done, I advise you to reconsider your news sources.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:06 PM on July 18 [29 favorites]
Just a couple of minor poli sci points:
Someone upthread said it would be unconstitutional for Newsom to be Harris’s VP. That’s not quite true. There’s nothing preventing a Harris/Newsom ticket, but electors from California wouldn’t be able to vote for both of them. There are possible ways around that, but no one is going to risk anything, especially with the current SCOTUS, and California has too many electors to make it worthwhile to try this particular scenario. But you certainly could have an all-California ticket, it just presents the possibility that your presidential candidate wins the electoral college but your VP loses.
Someone else mentioned that we need a Democratic House and Senate so that we can impeach Trump and remove him if he wins the presidency. That would be nice, but it would require 67 senators to vote to remove Trump, and that will never happen. It’s virtually impossible for the Democrats to get 67 senators. In fact, it is definitely impossible for a 2024. If every Republican senator lost their re-election campaign, you’d still have almost 40 Republicans in the Senate.
I really don’t see how a United States president could ever be removed unless there is a radical change to either our constitution or our political culture. I don’t expect a change on that scale to happen in my lifetime.
/pedantry
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:20 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Someone upthread said it would be unconstitutional for Newsom to be Harris’s VP. That’s not quite true. There’s nothing preventing a Harris/Newsom ticket, but electors from California wouldn’t be able to vote for both of them. There are possible ways around that, but no one is going to risk anything, especially with the current SCOTUS, and California has too many electors to make it worthwhile to try this particular scenario. But you certainly could have an all-California ticket, it just presents the possibility that your presidential candidate wins the electoral college but your VP loses.
Someone else mentioned that we need a Democratic House and Senate so that we can impeach Trump and remove him if he wins the presidency. That would be nice, but it would require 67 senators to vote to remove Trump, and that will never happen. It’s virtually impossible for the Democrats to get 67 senators. In fact, it is definitely impossible for a 2024. If every Republican senator lost their re-election campaign, you’d still have almost 40 Republicans in the Senate.
I really don’t see how a United States president could ever be removed unless there is a radical change to either our constitution or our political culture. I don’t expect a change on that scale to happen in my lifetime.
/pedantry
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:20 PM on July 18 [9 favorites]
Harris has NOT been invisible: she and her staff have regularly posted her activities as VP on her social media since she took office.
That's not the definition of politically visible. Media coverage is. One of annoyances of Biden's term was that he didn't keep Harris in the spotlight, giving her projects to highlight her so she'd be more of a public figure and help ensure a transition keeping the GOP out of power.
My problem is that if she's just anointed by the donor class as the designated younger Democrat, it's an anti-democratic (small d) process. The voice of the voters is missing. Not a good look if you're trying to distinguish yourself from the other parties anti-democratic policies.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:38 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
That's not the definition of politically visible. Media coverage is. One of annoyances of Biden's term was that he didn't keep Harris in the spotlight, giving her projects to highlight her so she'd be more of a public figure and help ensure a transition keeping the GOP out of power.
My problem is that if she's just anointed by the donor class as the designated younger Democrat, it's an anti-democratic (small d) process. The voice of the voters is missing. Not a good look if you're trying to distinguish yourself from the other parties anti-democratic policies.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:38 PM on July 18 [3 favorites]
During an IG Live session tonight, @AOC passionately argued that the "elites" pushing for @POTUS @JoeBiden to drop out have a hidden agenda to remove Kamala Harris from the ballot next.
She claimed that this plan, which she believes involves many influential figures, would lead to chaos and destabilization, and thus, insisted that Biden must remain the nominee.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:45 PM on July 18 [20 favorites]
She claimed that this plan, which she believes involves many influential figures, would lead to chaos and destabilization, and thus, insisted that Biden must remain the nominee.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:45 PM on July 18 [20 favorites]
I guess I don't really understand the down side of Biden staying in, given that the heir apparent, and to my understanding the most popular choice at this point as the person to step up, is Kamala Harris.
The downside is that he’s struggling with campaign stuff, with communicating a case for himself in public, in a race in which he’s narrowly down in the polls. Whether Harris, on short notice (or somebody else on extremely short notice and amidst chaos) would do better I can’t say but that’s the idea.
It is a thing people are concerned about, but how many people are concerned about it because of the endless reporting of Debategate?
The democratic primary voters I know - and I mean, you know, my mother, not just lefty young people who never particularly liked him - have been pretty candid since before the primary about their doubts about this doddery 81-year-old man running again, but resigned to him as the safest choice since it’s also been far from certain that there’s anyone up to finishing this thing coming off the bench. The last few weeks have made that concern more acute and made Biden look less safe. One can still make an electability argument against him stepping aside, of course, but the idea that this is something that was just recently stirred up by the media is not at all consistent with my experience talking politics with people in real life.
posted by atoxyl at 10:52 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
The downside is that he’s struggling with campaign stuff, with communicating a case for himself in public, in a race in which he’s narrowly down in the polls. Whether Harris, on short notice (or somebody else on extremely short notice and amidst chaos) would do better I can’t say but that’s the idea.
It is a thing people are concerned about, but how many people are concerned about it because of the endless reporting of Debategate?
The democratic primary voters I know - and I mean, you know, my mother, not just lefty young people who never particularly liked him - have been pretty candid since before the primary about their doubts about this doddery 81-year-old man running again, but resigned to him as the safest choice since it’s also been far from certain that there’s anyone up to finishing this thing coming off the bench. The last few weeks have made that concern more acute and made Biden look less safe. One can still make an electability argument against him stepping aside, of course, but the idea that this is something that was just recently stirred up by the media is not at all consistent with my experience talking politics with people in real life.
posted by atoxyl at 10:52 PM on July 18 [10 favorites]
Harris is the one person about whom you could not say that she was "just annointed." She's been part of the ticket for four years. Voters who chose Biden in this year's primary and 2020's general did so knowing that Harris was his choice to step in and replace him if he could not serve. She was part of the team that they voted for.
She is the only candidate other than Biden about whom that can be said. And money was raised in her name as well as Biden's, so she's the only other person who can spend it.
I wonder if Biden has been telling people behind the scenes that they need to get behind Harris if they expect him to get out of the way. I could see that. And I could imagine that resistance to that is why he's held out so far. The infighting that would arise from trying to pick (annoint) anyone else could just destroy the party, and I don't think Biden would want to let that happen.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:56 PM on July 18 [19 favorites]
She is the only candidate other than Biden about whom that can be said. And money was raised in her name as well as Biden's, so she's the only other person who can spend it.
I wonder if Biden has been telling people behind the scenes that they need to get behind Harris if they expect him to get out of the way. I could see that. And I could imagine that resistance to that is why he's held out so far. The infighting that would arise from trying to pick (annoint) anyone else could just destroy the party, and I don't think Biden would want to let that happen.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:56 PM on July 18 [19 favorites]
One of annoyances of Biden's term was that he didn't keep Harris in the spotlight, giving her projects to highlight her so she'd be more of a public figure and help ensure a transition keeping the GOP out of power.
Yea, it was a real failure of this administration not to spotlight Harris — and a lot of other officials. They always refer to the Biden-Harris administration but we never see Harris. It seems like they took an approach of having Biden himself be the main figurehead or spokesperson for everything, then pulled back entirely as he became less capable. I suspect this came from having a chief of staff and so forth who were too personally loyal to Biden.
Janet Yellen at Treasury could have been a celebrity the way Alan Greenspan was at the Fed, and having a sweet, brilliant elder woman as the face of the fight to save jobs and cut inflation could have helped a lot. And I haven’t seen any major profiles or iconic media appearances of any other cabinet members, except for Pete Buttigieg after some transportation mishaps. It’s bizarre that the massively unpopular Dick Cheney got so much more spotlight in his day than Harris, though honestly the George W. Bush administration partly overcame the challenges of a president not great at public speaking by giving a lot of other people in the administration a place on the stage.
posted by smelendez at 11:02 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
Yea, it was a real failure of this administration not to spotlight Harris — and a lot of other officials. They always refer to the Biden-Harris administration but we never see Harris. It seems like they took an approach of having Biden himself be the main figurehead or spokesperson for everything, then pulled back entirely as he became less capable. I suspect this came from having a chief of staff and so forth who were too personally loyal to Biden.
Janet Yellen at Treasury could have been a celebrity the way Alan Greenspan was at the Fed, and having a sweet, brilliant elder woman as the face of the fight to save jobs and cut inflation could have helped a lot. And I haven’t seen any major profiles or iconic media appearances of any other cabinet members, except for Pete Buttigieg after some transportation mishaps. It’s bizarre that the massively unpopular Dick Cheney got so much more spotlight in his day than Harris, though honestly the George W. Bush administration partly overcame the challenges of a president not great at public speaking by giving a lot of other people in the administration a place on the stage.
posted by smelendez at 11:02 PM on July 18 [6 favorites]
I would bet you 5 bucks I could find a couple dozen major positive actions in every month he's been in office. Maybe every week.
Covid.
You mean declaring the pandemic over while we continue to have massive waves that keep infecting people while killing some of them and leaving others with long-term disability? Not really something I'd count as a positive. (Honestly kind of disgusted seeing his covid-positive ass get on AF1 unmasked and very probably infecting everyone he comes into contact with.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:22 PM on July 18 [11 favorites]
Tired of hearing about Biden and Covid when it was TFG who killed 500k+ Americans. Some of them left to die because they "lived in urban areas" that would vote Democratic. That's ignoring the semis hauling refrigeration trailers to act as makeshift morgues, and nurses wearing fucking garbage bags as PPE because Trumps were literally confiscating it and reselling it to the highest bidders. Don't ever fucking talk to me about Biden and Covid. Fucking ever.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:29 PM on July 18 [36 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:29 PM on July 18 [36 favorites]
All I know is we better get this fucking right because Trump in office does actually equal DOOM. He has threatened retaliation towards his political enemies. I know he says bombastic things, but he's set up the courts against everyone but himself. They have a playbook this time in the form of Project 2025 instead of, "I dunno: just wing it". This is crazy stuff. (and I know you all know this). And like all of you, I am so, so sick of just having Trump front and center in my life again.
posted by alex_skazat at 11:36 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
posted by alex_skazat at 11:36 PM on July 18 [8 favorites]
Tired of hearing about Biden and Covid
Trump being worse doesn't mean Biden has actually been good. (Going around unmasked after a positive covid test is a very Trumpian thing to do, also, honestly.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:47 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
Trump being worse doesn't mean Biden has actually been good. (Going around unmasked after a positive covid test is a very Trumpian thing to do, also, honestly.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:47 PM on July 18 [13 favorites]
I've been a Biden-head for ages and until recently was arguing in favor of him staying in the race. But when I contemplate a Harris-Cooper ticket (or really any Harris-Younger Democrat ticket) I feel so enthusiastic, sincerely, like I want to jump up and down with excitement about how good this could be.
Just me, a middle-class middle-aged whatever person in the middle of nowhere. Fuckin amped at this prospect. Some of my extended family (who are generally politically apathetic) seem to feel the same. The group chat has been very active lately.
The average mid-information voter doesn't think of Kamala as a cop, barely associates her with the state of California, and views her as essentially a blank slate who seems like a nice-enough sort who isn't a raging fascist dickbag. I'm sure there's plenty of opposition research and smear content ready to go in ads against her. But from here, it seems like it really could be an amazing jolt of energy to have her at the top of the ticket.
posted by knotty knots at 11:48 PM on July 18 [20 favorites]
Just me, a middle-class middle-aged whatever person in the middle of nowhere. Fuckin amped at this prospect. Some of my extended family (who are generally politically apathetic) seem to feel the same. The group chat has been very active lately.
The average mid-information voter doesn't think of Kamala as a cop, barely associates her with the state of California, and views her as essentially a blank slate who seems like a nice-enough sort who isn't a raging fascist dickbag. I'm sure there's plenty of opposition research and smear content ready to go in ads against her. But from here, it seems like it really could be an amazing jolt of energy to have her at the top of the ticket.
posted by knotty knots at 11:48 PM on July 18 [20 favorites]
Someone upthread said it would be unconstitutional for Newsom to be Harris’s VP. That’s not quite true. There’s nothing preventing a Harris/Newsom ticket, but electors from California wouldn’t be able to vote for both of them.
I appreciate the correction about this!
posted by Gadarene at 12:03 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
I appreciate the correction about this!
posted by Gadarene at 12:03 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Just going to leave this here for now, and hope the simple solution of “Get Biden to withdraw and find someone else” doesn’t become another application example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
posted by darkstar at 12:41 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by darkstar at 12:41 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
I wonder if Biden has been telling people behind the scenes that they need to get behind Harris if they expect him to get out of the way. I could see that. And I could imagine that resistance to that is why he's held out so far. The infighting that would arise from trying to pick (annoint) anyone else could just destroy the party, and I don't think Biden would want to let that happen.
This is the best read on the situation so far. I don't believe that Biden is an egomaniac -- I trust that he has enough experience to know his chances and Harris's, and he would step aside if that is best. If there was certainty that Democratic voters and electeds would ALL get behind Harris, I believe Biden would pass the torch.
I think passing the torch hasn's happened because some people in the party are not on board with Harris.
posted by ichomp at 1:02 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
This is the best read on the situation so far. I don't believe that Biden is an egomaniac -- I trust that he has enough experience to know his chances and Harris's, and he would step aside if that is best. If there was certainty that Democratic voters and electeds would ALL get behind Harris, I believe Biden would pass the torch.
I think passing the torch hasn's happened because some people in the party are not on board with Harris.
posted by ichomp at 1:02 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Just me, a middle-class middle-aged whatever person in the middle of nowhere. Fuckin amped at this prospect. Some of my extended family (who are generally politically apathetic) seem to feel the same. The group chat has been very active lately.
I am equally excited by the prospect of a new ticket, and I also am excited to rally behind Biden-Harris one more time.
posted by ichomp at 1:04 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I am equally excited by the prospect of a new ticket, and I also am excited to rally behind Biden-Harris one more time.
posted by ichomp at 1:04 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Just going to leave this here for now, and hope the simple solution of “Get Biden to withdraw and find someone else” doesn’t become another application example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Biden cannot win. He is polling well behind Trump in key swing states, his approval rating has been below 44% since October of 2021, and at this point 65% of self-described Democrats in recent polls think he should withdraw from the race, and a plurality are not confident in his mental capacity to execute the office of president.
If this were not the case, and if a majority of voters didn't think he shouldn't be running and didn't have serious questions about his capacity for the job and ability to serve another four year term following his disastrous debate performance, we would not be having this conversation now. And I'll take my chances with unintended consequences over blithely sailing into an iceberg and hoping the watertight compartments hold.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:19 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
If Biden quits, who replaces him? Harris is the only with anything like a record at that level and she's not nearly popular enough, having kept her head down the past four years.
We are a goddamn circular firing squadsometimes most of the time.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 1:51 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
We are a goddamn circular firing squad
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 1:51 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
So Nancy Pelosi (age 84) is telling Joe Biden (age 81) that he's too old? I mean, I'm not saying she's wrong, but ...
It's a bit like Dean Martin staging an intervention for someone.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:45 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
It's a bit like Dean Martin staging an intervention for someone.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:45 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
The Dems are so fucking bad at politics that running against a rapist found liable for nine figures worth of fraud, who was convicted of 34 felonies, who mishandled classified documents, and who tried to overturn a presidential election result their guy is gonna get booted as unfit to serve.
Jesus fucking Christ.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:49 AM on July 19 [15 favorites]
Jesus fucking Christ.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:49 AM on July 19 [15 favorites]
The economy feels awful enough to normal humans that Trump being the opponent is the only reason this race is remotely close. If GOPer primary voters had picked any of the normal people on offer, we'd be looking at something closer to a 2008 curb stomp.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:04 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:04 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
MetaFilter: We need to stop yapping at other left-leaning folks for not being left enough and team up and talk about achievements and vision and all that -- but no. Instead its this.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:27 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:27 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Rather fucking transparently, the way to replace Biden was to tell him two years ago that he would be too old to back a second time. Then a normal primary could have been held to find his replacement. Letting him be the presumptive nominee almost to the convention and then trying to push him out least minute feels like the party shooting itself in the genitals, to be honest.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:32 AM on July 19 [10 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:32 AM on July 19 [10 favorites]
Biden can win. Candidates have been further behind in the polls before. Biden's essentially polling a few points the proposed alternatives, which doesn't mean much. But... the country will not get around to taking a hard look at Trump if all they can talk about is Biden's age.
Harris can win too, but there are also risks. Biden does have accomplishments and I'm not sure how transferable they are. Harris has weaknesses Republicans and the press have yet to stress test her with.
Maybe another candidate could win, but they would have to be tailor made for the swing states and I don't see many of those. It's very unusual for the party in power to win if they aren't running an incumbent.
MAGA is popular and I don't see anyone winning who does not take MAGA policy seriously. Whatever candidate runs needs to explain to Joe Public like they are five why these proposals don't make sense form a common sense, practical perspective. Attacking Trump for his moral failings is not working.
posted by xammerboy at 3:36 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Harris can win too, but there are also risks. Biden does have accomplishments and I'm not sure how transferable they are. Harris has weaknesses Republicans and the press have yet to stress test her with.
Maybe another candidate could win, but they would have to be tailor made for the swing states and I don't see many of those. It's very unusual for the party in power to win if they aren't running an incumbent.
MAGA is popular and I don't see anyone winning who does not take MAGA policy seriously. Whatever candidate runs needs to explain to Joe Public like they are five why these proposals don't make sense form a common sense, practical perspective. Attacking Trump for his moral failings is not working.
posted by xammerboy at 3:36 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
People told him FOUR years ago that he would be too old to run a second time, and he announced that he was running to be a single term president. And then other people said "what are you, crazy? If you're the incumbent, you can't waste that advantage."
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:38 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:38 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
If Biden does step aside, any asshole who tries to then push Harris out is trying to speed run 1968.
Why would anyone *do* that? That’s not a convention to repeat.
Backroom wonks drink on their own power are going to doom us all. Harris/Bucket of Paint 2024.
posted by nat at 3:51 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Why would anyone *do* that? That’s not a convention to repeat.
Backroom wonks drink on their own power are going to doom us all. Harris/Bucket of Paint 2024.
posted by nat at 3:51 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
America, you're giving me an ulcer.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 3:55 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by mrjohnmuller at 3:55 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
I’ve said regularly that Harris is underappreciated by some, but nobody’s going to stage 1968 style uprisings for her. A serious political party has hundreds, if not thousands, of members qualified to be President. It’s strength, not weakness, to be able to retire Biden and not just anoint Harris.
posted by MattD at 4:01 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by MattD at 4:01 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Biden can win. Candidates have been further behind in the polls before. Biden's essentially polling a few points the proposed alternatives, which doesn't mean much
A few points here and there, 6-8 points behind democratic senate candidates in the same state, drying up funding, most of the party pushing for him to leave, and clearly deteriorating health.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
A few points here and there, 6-8 points behind democratic senate candidates in the same state, drying up funding, most of the party pushing for him to leave, and clearly deteriorating health.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:04 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Chaos doesn’t need to take the form of actual riots to result in a dramatic D loss. It is Biden, Harris, or chaos, at this point.
I actually think it’s Biden or chaos, unless whatever assholes AOC is talking about (the big funded? The press?) immediately grow the fuck up a coalesce around Harris. She’s the only one who has been voted for in any sense.
posted by nat at 4:07 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
I actually think it’s Biden or chaos, unless whatever assholes AOC is talking about (the big funded? The press?) immediately grow the fuck up a coalesce around Harris. She’s the only one who has been voted for in any sense.
posted by nat at 4:07 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Ooh, or maybe if every single person who has been mentioned in any article about replacement candidates comes out in a joint speech, right after Biden steps down, vigorously endorsing the new Harris ticket. Then maybe chaos can be avoided.
(including Newsom) (I know I’m dreaming here but any other path besides chaos is already closed)
posted by nat at 4:11 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
(including Newsom) (I know I’m dreaming here but any other path besides chaos is already closed)
posted by nat at 4:11 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
200 comments in and nobody has mentioned Dean Phillips?
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:53 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:53 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I'm a big fan of Biden. I like the guy, he was my favorite of the candidates in 2020 we could coalesce around to keep Saint Bernie off the ballot, and I think he's done an A+ or maybe even S-tier job as President, once you factor into account his absolute lack of a Congressional majority. Very few people actually give a shit about Gaza, and they're about evenly divided between both unspeakable sides, so, that's a wash. It seems like a tremendously risky and stupid idea to change candidates at this point, and Harris is not only going to have to battle against racism AND sexism, but is also not very charismatic to begin with. I also think the NYT and CNN are engaging in wholesale fraud and not journalism.
But if Biden were capable of winning this election, he'd be out there every day, maybe not for very long, cracking jokes, dissing Trump, forcefully defending abortion rights. And he's... not. Proof's in the pudding: if he were 2020 Joe, he'd be slagging the NYT for calling him old. But we don't see him but for a few minutes and he looks frankly bad. And yes, this should have been done nine months ago. But I don't do "should have".
If I could wave a magic wand, we give Harris some kind of colossal bribe to stay VP and we put Pritzker, Kelly, Cooper, Beshear, or even Whitmer in Biden's place. Pay Harris a billion dollars to say "I enjoy being VP and I'm here for continuity". This seems pretty unlikely to actually happen, but these are weird times indeed.
The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has a very hard ceiling. People fucking hate him, and for compelling reasons. He tops out at about 43% of the vote and can get no higher. His cultists love him, but if you've been paying attention, there are fewer and fewer of those: his rallies are real small, now. Yes, he's got all the billionaires' money, but that doesn't really translate into votes. People are really, really willing to vote against him, for nearly anyone, and once the campaign gets into full swing, it's going to be Vote Blue or You Get Extrashitty Gilead And Here's a Bunch of Examples, so ANY candidate who isn't visibly sundowning will do fine. People will vote AnimeGirlPillow if that pillow seems coherent. It's just that Biden doesn't have it anymore, and even a fan like me can recognize this.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 4:53 AM on July 19 [14 favorites]
But if Biden were capable of winning this election, he'd be out there every day, maybe not for very long, cracking jokes, dissing Trump, forcefully defending abortion rights. And he's... not. Proof's in the pudding: if he were 2020 Joe, he'd be slagging the NYT for calling him old. But we don't see him but for a few minutes and he looks frankly bad. And yes, this should have been done nine months ago. But I don't do "should have".
If I could wave a magic wand, we give Harris some kind of colossal bribe to stay VP and we put Pritzker, Kelly, Cooper, Beshear, or even Whitmer in Biden's place. Pay Harris a billion dollars to say "I enjoy being VP and I'm here for continuity". This seems pretty unlikely to actually happen, but these are weird times indeed.
The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump has a very hard ceiling. People fucking hate him, and for compelling reasons. He tops out at about 43% of the vote and can get no higher. His cultists love him, but if you've been paying attention, there are fewer and fewer of those: his rallies are real small, now. Yes, he's got all the billionaires' money, but that doesn't really translate into votes. People are really, really willing to vote against him, for nearly anyone, and once the campaign gets into full swing, it's going to be Vote Blue or You Get Extrashitty Gilead And Here's a Bunch of Examples, so ANY candidate who isn't visibly sundowning will do fine. People will vote AnimeGirlPillow if that pillow seems coherent. It's just that Biden doesn't have it anymore, and even a fan like me can recognize this.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 4:53 AM on July 19 [14 favorites]
Very few people actually give a shit about Gaza, and they're about evenly divided between both unspeakable sides, so, that's a wash.
Some people support the genocide, others don’t. The truth is in the middle!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:00 AM on July 19 [17 favorites]
Some people support the genocide, others don’t. The truth is in the middle!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:00 AM on July 19 [17 favorites]
This AOC Instagram reel is almost an hour long, so I don't blame anyone for skipping it, but if you want to hear an actual elected left-wing politician talking about the state of play, including accounts of the behind-the-scenes jockeying of some of her colleagues, I'd encourage you to give it a look.
Alternately, I've captured the transcript of her words here for anyone who would like to skim it. Here's an AI-assisted summary of her key points:
posted by tonycpsu at 5:21 AM on July 19 [37 favorites]
Alternately, I've captured the transcript of her words here for anyone who would like to skim it. Here's an AI-assisted summary of her key points:
- Debate Performance: The speaker critiques the recent debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, noting that it was poorly received by the public. Both candidates performed inadequately, reflecting the general dissatisfaction with the current political options.
- Polling Concerns: There is significant concern about Biden's performance in recent polls, particularly in swing states. However, the speaker expresses skepticism about making decisions based solely on polling data, emphasizing that polling can be misleading and has been inaccurate in the past.
- Challenges of Changing Nominees: The speaker outlines the logistical and legal challenges of replacing Biden as the nominee, including issues with ballot access in states like Ohio and the potential for legal challenges from Republicans. The tight timeline leading up to the Democratic Convention adds to the complexity.
- Union and Donor Support: Biden has strong support from unions, which may not automatically transfer to another candidate. The speaker criticizes the influence of big donors on political decisions, suggesting that donor interests often overshadow those of the general public.
- Lack of Transparency: The speaker is frustrated with anonymous quotes from Democratic officials in the media, calling for more transparency and public accountability. They argue that elected officials should voice their opinions openly rather than through anonymous statements.
- Risks of an Open Convention: The speaker argues against an open convention, citing the complexity, the potential for prolonged decision-making, and the risk of increased legal challenges. An open convention could lead to further uncertainty and undermine the election process.
- Experience and Skepticism: Drawing on personal experience in elections, the speaker expresses skepticism about the accuracy of polling and emphasizes the need for a well-thought-out plan before making major changes. They recount their own election victories despite unfavorable polling.
- Call for Realistic Decision-Making: The speaker urges for decisions to be made with a clear understanding of the stakes and challenges, rather than wishful thinking or groupthink. They stress the importance of considering the practical implications and legal ramifications of changing the nominee.
- Commitment to Winning: Despite disagreements on the best path forward, the speaker emphasizes a shared goal of preventing a Trump presidency and the importance of unity in achieving that goal. They call for a focus on winning the election and addressing the real needs of the community, particularly those most vulnerable.
- Critique of Party Dynamics: The speaker critiques the dynamics within the Democratic Party, highlighting a disconnect between party elites, donors, and everyday voters. They argue for a more grassroots-focused approach and greater consideration of the working class's needs and perspectives.
- Emphasis on Integrity and Accountability: The speaker emphasizes the importance of operating with integrity and accountability, both in political decision-making and in public discourse. They call for honest and open discussions about the future of the party and the election.
- Complexity of the Election Landscape: The speaker highlights the complexity of the current election landscape, including the legal, logistical, and political challenges that must be navigated. They stress the importance of a comprehensive and realistic approach to addressing these challenges.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:21 AM on July 19 [37 favorites]
Was his health and ability to work crazy hours not visible 6-12 months ago to these people? Because it looks like they've waited until the primaries are closed up and voters will have the absolute minimum input on who the candidate will be. And whether or not that's true, it will disgust a number of people. And given that Biden won by less than 60,000 votes spread across three states when the opposition had a six figure body count and a cratered economy you cannot lose any people anywhere.
Rather than replace Biden, perhaps Pelosi and Co can run another kente cloth photo op in the early morning hours and then do absolutely nothing. A course of action that is both well practiced and would not further poison the party more than Gaza and the COVID response has. This would leave the guy who (aside from the aforementioned) has actually been pretty good in place to maybe try and win it.
And I am someone who is livid about Gaza and would like Biden to suffer actual consequences for what's been happening under the guard of our carrier groups over there.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:29 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Rather than replace Biden, perhaps Pelosi and Co can run another kente cloth photo op in the early morning hours and then do absolutely nothing. A course of action that is both well practiced and would not further poison the party more than Gaza and the COVID response has. This would leave the guy who (aside from the aforementioned) has actually been pretty good in place to maybe try and win it.
And I am someone who is livid about Gaza and would like Biden to suffer actual consequences for what's been happening under the guard of our carrier groups over there.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:29 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Everything AOC says is moot if Biden is actually in the sorry shape he seems to be. For what it’s worth Josh Marshall says Biden’s decline has been rapid and recent.
If Joe Biden had had a stroke and was mentally incapacitated, what would we do? Whatever that answer is, that’s what we need to do.
posted by argybarg at 5:30 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
If Joe Biden had had a stroke and was mentally incapacitated, what would we do? Whatever that answer is, that’s what we need to do.
posted by argybarg at 5:30 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
Some people support the genocide, others don’t. The truth is in the middle!
Some people view it as "genocide", some people view it as yet another phase in an intractable, decades-long conflict between two violent, racist theocracies who hold only minority support among their own peoples. Both arguments have some validity, and it's not "support for genocide" to not make it the most pressing issue in a US election.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:33 AM on July 19 [12 favorites]
Some people view it as "genocide", some people view it as yet another phase in an intractable, decades-long conflict between two violent, racist theocracies who hold only minority support among their own peoples. Both arguments have some validity, and it's not "support for genocide" to not make it the most pressing issue in a US election.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:33 AM on July 19 [12 favorites]
AOC's comments, as posted on twitter by Peter Sterne.
Excerpt:
AOC: "I have stood up in rooms with all of these people and I have said, 'game out your actual plan for me.' What are the risks of this going to the Supreme Court? And no one had an answer for me...I'm talking about the lawyers. I'm talking about the legislators."
AOC: While I understand the case some folks may be making from a theoretical perspective or a polling perspective, I'm here as a person who is responsible for executing decisions and not just opining on them, I have not seen the plan.
AOC: When a convention is in 4ish weeks, when Michigan has to finalize their ballot 2 days after the convention concludes...the legal problems start to mount, I am concerned about the lack of thought I have seen from the individuals who would be responsible for executing on this.
AOC: There is no safe option...I have not seen an alternative scenario that I feel does not set us up for enormous peril based on what I'm noticing privately and what I see publicly.
AOC: I have not seen what I need to see to substantiate an alternative (to Biden). What I will say is what upsets me is people saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don't care what name is on there. We are losing. My community does not have the option to lose.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:39 AM on July 19 [28 favorites]
Excerpt:
AOC: "I have stood up in rooms with all of these people and I have said, 'game out your actual plan for me.' What are the risks of this going to the Supreme Court? And no one had an answer for me...I'm talking about the lawyers. I'm talking about the legislators."
AOC: While I understand the case some folks may be making from a theoretical perspective or a polling perspective, I'm here as a person who is responsible for executing decisions and not just opining on them, I have not seen the plan.
AOC: When a convention is in 4ish weeks, when Michigan has to finalize their ballot 2 days after the convention concludes...the legal problems start to mount, I am concerned about the lack of thought I have seen from the individuals who would be responsible for executing on this.
AOC: There is no safe option...I have not seen an alternative scenario that I feel does not set us up for enormous peril based on what I'm noticing privately and what I see publicly.
AOC: I have not seen what I need to see to substantiate an alternative (to Biden). What I will say is what upsets me is people saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don't care what name is on there. We are losing. My community does not have the option to lose.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:39 AM on July 19 [28 favorites]
Some people view it as "genocide", some people view it as yet another phase in an intractable, decades-long conflict between two violent, racist theocracies who hold only minority support among their own peoples. Both arguments have some validity, and it's not "support for genocide" to not make it the most pressing issue in a US election.
I don't want to derail this thread, but I feel this is important to reapond to. Both views are not valid. Genocide is ocurring in Gaza. We can disagree over how much we care about that, but the genocide itself is beyond any informed, good faith denial.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:46 AM on July 19 [26 favorites]
I don't want to derail this thread, but I feel this is important to reapond to. Both views are not valid. Genocide is ocurring in Gaza. We can disagree over how much we care about that, but the genocide itself is beyond any informed, good faith denial.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:46 AM on July 19 [26 favorites]
> If Joe Biden had had a stroke and was mentally incapacitated, what would we do? Whatever that answer is, that’s what we need to do.
If things were different, they'd be different, and require a different response. If Biden had a stroke and could not perform his duties, then Harris would obviously take over his duties and become the nominee. That has not happened.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:47 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
If things were different, they'd be different, and require a different response. If Biden had a stroke and could not perform his duties, then Harris would obviously take over his duties and become the nominee. That has not happened.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:47 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
I’m getting to a point where it’s hard not to take the “but what about the racists/misogynists that won’t vote for Harris?” folks as simply tattling on themselves.
I'll crawl over broken glass to vote for her, but there are a fair number of conservative people who don't want to vote for Trump but who are also going to be swayed by racist/sexist propaganda into reluctantly voting for him or (more likely) staying home, and they happen to be exceptionally well-distributed with respect to the accursed Electoral College.
Genocide is ocurring in Gaza. We can disagree over how much we care about that, but the genocide itself is beyond any informed, good faith denial.
Oh look, an opinion stated as if it were fact.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:52 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
I'll crawl over broken glass to vote for her, but there are a fair number of conservative people who don't want to vote for Trump but who are also going to be swayed by racist/sexist propaganda into reluctantly voting for him or (more likely) staying home, and they happen to be exceptionally well-distributed with respect to the accursed Electoral College.
Genocide is ocurring in Gaza. We can disagree over how much we care about that, but the genocide itself is beyond any informed, good faith denial.
Oh look, an opinion stated as if it were fact.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:52 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Something stark and upsetting has happened to Biden and he cannot express himself or maintain a line of thought for a full response to a question. I believe he has been at least partly incapacitated. I don’t think it’s clear-cut; part of the worst-of-all-worlds nature of this situation is that there is no clear answer. But suggesting, as above, that Biden is still a workhorse and this is just shenanigans is really not helpful.
posted by argybarg at 5:54 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 5:54 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
The Gaza argument is becoming a derail.
posted by NotLost at 5:55 AM on July 19 [24 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 5:55 AM on July 19 [24 favorites]
The best scenario I can see is Biden making a speech about the dangers of egotism and personality cults in the presidency, and passing the torch to Harris. Then we can talk about how Trump can't stay awake. Biden has been excellent as U.S. presidents go, but I don't see this conversation changing while Biden is still in the race.
For what it's worth, which is not much, I will be irked if Harris gets passed over. I do not like that this is a crisis, I think it's ridiculous and irresponsible that the administration and the national party did not plan ahead, and to me a free-for-all of ambitious white men sounds like more ridiculousness and not a solution.
posted by mersen at 5:57 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
For what it's worth, which is not much, I will be irked if Harris gets passed over. I do not like that this is a crisis, I think it's ridiculous and irresponsible that the administration and the national party did not plan ahead, and to me a free-for-all of ambitious white men sounds like more ridiculousness and not a solution.
posted by mersen at 5:57 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
> But suggesting, as above, that Biden is still a workhorse and this is just shenanigans is really not helpful.
Who's saying he's a workhorse? He's clearly declined from 4 years ago and even from a couple of months ago. The decline will continue. At the point where he's unable to do the job or campaign for re-election, he will need to be replaced.
I claim no ability to predict where he will be on Election Day, but many folks have already decided that the move must be made now without considering the downside risks that AOC and others have outlined. "We must do something, this is something" rarely works the way you think it will.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:17 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Who's saying he's a workhorse? He's clearly declined from 4 years ago and even from a couple of months ago. The decline will continue. At the point where he's unable to do the job or campaign for re-election, he will need to be replaced.
I claim no ability to predict where he will be on Election Day, but many folks have already decided that the move must be made now without considering the downside risks that AOC and others have outlined. "We must do something, this is something" rarely works the way you think it will.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:17 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
"Biden cannot win."
When Clinton was the favorite throughout the summer of 2016, these assertions grow very tiresome.
Forward
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:21 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
When Clinton was the favorite throughout the summer of 2016, these assertions grow very tiresome.
Forward
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:21 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Slackermagee, above:
Was his health and ability to work crazy hours not visible 6-12 months ago to these people?
To be fair, perhaps this is a typo for “inability.”
Still, I think some of the discussion here is being conducted as if this is about polling numbers, or strategy. It’s not. The candidate is having a health crisis, and worrying about where he will be by September or October is entirely reasonable. As are AOC’s concerns.
posted by argybarg at 6:23 AM on July 19
Was his health and ability to work crazy hours not visible 6-12 months ago to these people?
To be fair, perhaps this is a typo for “inability.”
Still, I think some of the discussion here is being conducted as if this is about polling numbers, or strategy. It’s not. The candidate is having a health crisis, and worrying about where he will be by September or October is entirely reasonable. As are AOC’s concerns.
posted by argybarg at 6:23 AM on July 19
Also:
At the point where he's unable to do the job or campaign for re-election, he will need to be replaced.
I think we’re there.
posted by argybarg at 6:24 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
At the point where he's unable to do the job or campaign for re-election, he will need to be replaced.
I think we’re there.
posted by argybarg at 6:24 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Anywho, even if Biden continues, I think that he has already taken so much damage as a result of this extremely public loss of trust in him from within the party that he can't possibly win now. It's one thing that we all saw the debate with our own eyes; one of the magical things about politics is that a savvy party MiGHT have been able to convince us we had not. Instead they have effectively said, "Hey, yeah, the emperor is indeed naked as fuck," and you can't come back from something like that, I think.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:26 AM on July 19 [7 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:26 AM on July 19 [7 favorites]
The ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing being willfully carried out by Netanyahu, Galant, and the IDF with enthusiastic support from Biden is enough to make him nonviable. Another candidate wouldn't even need to change policy to get some air between them and Biden choosing to send 500lb bombs.
(What do you call destroying every hospital and school, willfully blocking food aid to a million people, and bombing civilian safe zones with 100:1 casualty ratios? 100k civilian casualties in response to 1.2k is not acceptable.)
posted by constraint at 6:26 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
(What do you call destroying every hospital and school, willfully blocking food aid to a million people, and bombing civilian safe zones with 100:1 casualty ratios? 100k civilian casualties in response to 1.2k is not acceptable.)
posted by constraint at 6:26 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
And what will happen when he's replaced? We'll go from a one-time decent public speaker who's declined to be rather poor at it to... Kamala Harris, who has always been a poor public speaker. No matter how much you (and I) trust her to be able to do the job, she has to actually win the job. The same theater critics who are attacking Biden for campaigning too little will be attacking Harris for campaigning too much. Everyone loves the backup quarterback when they're holding a clipboard.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:31 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:31 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
I'm so frustrated with how LONG this process is taking. If Biden is the nominee, then get everyone in the party on board and present a united front. If he's not, then get him off the ticket ASAP and present Harris as the pick. Dragging it out like this feels like such a waste of precious time.
posted by leftover_scrabble_rack at 6:31 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
posted by leftover_scrabble_rack at 6:31 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
At the point where he's unable to do the job or campaign for re-election, he will need to be replaced.
That's been the case for literally years at this point, but because the media serves power instead of truth that's been aggressively covered up/deflected. And then they had the fucking audacity to pretend they'd been lied to for years.
The ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing being willfully carried out by Netanyahu, Galant, and the IDF with enthusiastic support from Biden is enough to make him nonviable. Another candidate wouldn't even need to change policy to get some air between them and Biden choosing to send 500lb bombs.
Lucky for us whatever DNC pick we get will toe the same line. Doesn't matter who they put in, the choices will still be:
- Trump: 5% worse on Israel/Gaza extermination, 10% better on avoiding WW3
- Whatever DNC pick: 5% better on Israel/Gaza extermination, 10% worse on WW3
posted by so fucking future at 6:33 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
That's been the case for literally years at this point, but because the media serves power instead of truth that's been aggressively covered up/deflected. And then they had the fucking audacity to pretend they'd been lied to for years.
The ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing being willfully carried out by Netanyahu, Galant, and the IDF with enthusiastic support from Biden is enough to make him nonviable. Another candidate wouldn't even need to change policy to get some air between them and Biden choosing to send 500lb bombs.
Lucky for us whatever DNC pick we get will toe the same line. Doesn't matter who they put in, the choices will still be:
- Trump: 5% worse on Israel/Gaza extermination, 10% better on avoiding WW3
- Whatever DNC pick: 5% better on Israel/Gaza extermination, 10% worse on WW3
posted by so fucking future at 6:33 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
What will the legal challenge be? Completely made up nonsense, that’s what. Utter bullshit. “The primary has been ignored and RFK was in the primary so putting someone else on the ballot without consulting him is unfair” level garbage claptrap, only more stupid than that.
It will be called “constitutional oriiginalism” and hugely successful in the current court climate and if it does get to the Supreke Court they’ll probably make Trump emperor.
posted by Artw at 6:34 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
It will be called “constitutional oriiginalism” and hugely successful in the current court climate and if it does get to the Supreke Court they’ll probably make Trump emperor.
posted by Artw at 6:34 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
On the topic of media bias, if Biden had given a speech as rambling, incoherent, and generally all around old man suffering from age related neurological degredation as Trump did last night the headlines would be wall to wall shouting about his obvious mental unfitness for office.
You will note that none of the major news outlets, except MSNBC, has anything in thier main headlines about how awful and clearly unfit he was.
My point?
We're playing a game where the refs are against us, so we can't afford to be weak at all and we can't give them free chances to use their bias to hurt us. Every time Biden opens his mouth he gives them a chance to scream about his mental incompetence.
He has to go. If Trump having visible bats flying out of his ears isn't enough to shift the media needle away from Biden being old, then nothing will and you can say it's unfair all you want, and it is, but it's also the reality we have to deal with.
Biden can't win because the media is against him. He has to be dumped. Remember the lesson of Clinton.
posted by sotonohito at 6:34 AM on July 19 [12 favorites]
You will note that none of the major news outlets, except MSNBC, has anything in thier main headlines about how awful and clearly unfit he was.
My point?
We're playing a game where the refs are against us, so we can't afford to be weak at all and we can't give them free chances to use their bias to hurt us. Every time Biden opens his mouth he gives them a chance to scream about his mental incompetence.
He has to go. If Trump having visible bats flying out of his ears isn't enough to shift the media needle away from Biden being old, then nothing will and you can say it's unfair all you want, and it is, but it's also the reality we have to deal with.
Biden can't win because the media is against him. He has to be dumped. Remember the lesson of Clinton.
posted by sotonohito at 6:34 AM on July 19 [12 favorites]
> That's been the case for literally years at this point, but because the media serves power instead of truth that's been aggressively covered up/deflected. And then they had the fucking audacity to pretend they'd been lied to for years.
Yes, it makes total sense that the media would pass for multiple years on the story that the current President cannot function well enough to do the job. Now tell me about jet fuel and steel beams.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:36 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Yes, it makes total sense that the media would pass for multiple years on the story that the current President cannot function well enough to do the job. Now tell me about jet fuel and steel beams.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:36 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Again, I think Biden’s decline has been recent and rapid. I don’t think there has been a conspiracy to hide it.
posted by argybarg at 6:39 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 6:39 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
This AOC Instagram reel is almost an hour long, so I don't blame anyone for skipping it, but if you want to hear an actual elected left-wing politician talking about the state of play, including accounts of the behind-the-scenes jockeying of some of her colleagues, I'd encourage you to give it a look.
Thank you tonycpsu for posting this, it's cleared up a lot of things for me.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:42 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Thank you tonycpsu for posting this, it's cleared up a lot of things for me.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:42 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Yes, it makes total sense that the media would pass for multiple years on the story that the current President cannot function well enough to do the job. Now tell me about jet fuel and steel beams.
It has been reported on. Biden's age was an issue in 2020. The rumors he has been declining have been reported on. But they were runors and most of the evidence could be wrotten off as gaffe proneness or was purely negative, like the absence of public events. It was largely silenced by Biden's strong SORU performance.
After the debate it wasn't rumor or speculation. It couldn't (believably) be written off as partisan lies or media bias, or leftist Biden-hate. Of course the media started taking it more seriously once it became a part of public awareness.
To bring it back around to jet fuel and steel beams, one argument from 9/11 truthers was that Al Qaeda just seemed to appear overnight. Of course, if you were paying attention there were lots of reports about Khobar Towers and the USS Cole, and the Afghan Civil War. But they didn't have the focus or the narrative tying them together for the general public until 2001.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:51 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
It has been reported on. Biden's age was an issue in 2020. The rumors he has been declining have been reported on. But they were runors and most of the evidence could be wrotten off as gaffe proneness or was purely negative, like the absence of public events. It was largely silenced by Biden's strong SORU performance.
After the debate it wasn't rumor or speculation. It couldn't (believably) be written off as partisan lies or media bias, or leftist Biden-hate. Of course the media started taking it more seriously once it became a part of public awareness.
To bring it back around to jet fuel and steel beams, one argument from 9/11 truthers was that Al Qaeda just seemed to appear overnight. Of course, if you were paying attention there were lots of reports about Khobar Towers and the USS Cole, and the Afghan Civil War. But they didn't have the focus or the narrative tying them together for the general public until 2001.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:51 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Trying to square “the media is left wing” and all the adoring Trump speech coverage this morning.
posted by Artw at 6:53 AM on July 19 [24 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:53 AM on July 19 [24 favorites]
Who's Biden?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 6:59 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 6:59 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
The Dems are so fucking bad at politics that running against a rapist found liable for nine figures worth of fraud, who was convicted of 34 felonies, who mishandled classified documents, and who tried to overturn a presidential election result their guy is gonna get booted as unfit to serve.
Let's be clear -- thact a rapist felon is a viable candidate is an indictment of America, not Joe Biden.
I know I am not adding anything constructive, but the fact that we are even sweating it is because Trump appeals to a large number of Americans. That is damning and it says more about Americans than the viability of any candidate.
posted by ichomp at 7:00 AM on July 19 [20 favorites]
Let's be clear -- thact a rapist felon is a viable candidate is an indictment of America, not Joe Biden.
I know I am not adding anything constructive, but the fact that we are even sweating it is because Trump appeals to a large number of Americans. That is damning and it says more about Americans than the viability of any candidate.
posted by ichomp at 7:00 AM on July 19 [20 favorites]
America was built on slavery, subjugation of women, genocidal land theft, and white supremacy. There has obviously been a huge amount of improvement in the culture since the 19th century, but thay core has never gone anywhere. It isn't the aberration from American history. Progress is.
Taking the highe ground always means an uphill fight.
Who's Biden?
A miserable pile of secrets.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:07 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Taking the highe ground always means an uphill fight.
Who's Biden?
A miserable pile of secrets.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:07 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Also - I agree with AOC on the point that any senior Democrat who is resigned to a second Trump administration should bow out and let everyone else get to work.
That is part of what pissed me off about Biden's response to the debate - man, I don't want to hear that you'll be glad you did your best, I want to hear you're ready to fight on the beaches.
(Resignation is a protective mental strategy and anyone who loses a presidential campaign should take a break and go hiking or something. But this is not the rhetoric I want from the Democrats right now.)
posted by mersen at 7:09 AM on July 19 [15 favorites]
That is part of what pissed me off about Biden's response to the debate - man, I don't want to hear that you'll be glad you did your best, I want to hear you're ready to fight on the beaches.
(Resignation is a protective mental strategy and anyone who loses a presidential campaign should take a break and go hiking or something. But this is not the rhetoric I want from the Democrats right now.)
posted by mersen at 7:09 AM on July 19 [15 favorites]
If this had happened at a more appropriate/convenient time before publicly apparent signs of decline, wouldn't there have been ageism related pushback like there has been until very recently?
posted by Selena777 at 7:16 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 7:16 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Kamala Harris, who has always been a poor public speaker
Huh? I have never felt this. Opinions may vary more than you think.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:18 AM on July 19 [15 favorites]
Huh? I have never felt this. Opinions may vary more than you think.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:18 AM on July 19 [15 favorites]
Look, nobody, including myself, called the media "left-wing" so can we all try to do less nitpicking of what other users say, and a better job of actually responding to what they have said? Exaggerating or misconstruing what other users say leads to derails and makes it hard to have a conversation. I said the media, on the aggregate, "leans Democrat." To put it another way, to be crystal clear, the media on the whole would be the light blue shade they use for lean D states.
I'm sorry, why would I not think that distaste and fear of Trump must be an indication of a liberal media bias?
That's also a pretty gross mischaracterization of what I said - I never said the media's distaste and fear of Trump was because they were biased. I originally brought up their distaste of Trump in response to some of the conspiratorial thinking that has arisen in this thread (and in previous threads) that the media is secretly pro-Trump, and therefore it's pointless for Biden to step down because they will just go after the next person equally hard. And I just see zero evidence for this. Do I think the media is perfect? No, of course not. But conspiracy theories of them hoping for a Trump second term seem wildly off-base. That is what I was responding to in the first place.
And such conspiratorial thinking keeps emerging in this thread:
The same theater critics who are attacking Biden for campaigning too little will be attacking Harris for campaigning too much.
When as the media ever attacked a presidential candidate for campaigning too much? This is pure doomerism.
because the media serves power instead of truth that's been aggressively covered up/deflected. And then they had the fucking audacity to pretend they'd been lied to for years.
This has been sorta covered already in this thread and others so I'll be brief - the media has been reporting on how Biden's team has largely hidden him from public view in the last six months, causing concerns about his ability to campaign. And Biden's team kept telling them "don't' worry, you'll see him when the campaign starts, he's fine." We're not talking about years, but they've definitely have been lied to for at least the past six months.
On the topic of media bias, if Biden had given a speech as rambling, incoherent, and generally all around old man suffering from age related neurological degredation as Trump did last night the headlines would be wall to wall shouting about his obvious mental unfitness for office.
You will note that none of the major news outlets, except MSNBC, has anything in thier main headlines about how awful and clearly unfit he was.
NYTimes: Trump Struggles to Turn the Page on ‘American Carnage’: On the last night of the G.O.P. convention on Thursday, Donald J. Trump promised to bridge political divides, and then returned to delighting in deepening them.
NYTimes: ‘One of the Truly Awful and Self-Indulgent Performances of Our Time’: The Best and Worst Moments From Night 4 of the Convention
I could go on, but the various coverage I saw was all pretty bad, journalists on Twitter noting that lot of people in the crowd looked bored and/or left early, etc.
Kamala Harris, who has always been a poor public speaker.
Have you seen clips of her lately? She's killing her stump speeches.
posted by coffeecat at 7:26 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
I'm sorry, why would I not think that distaste and fear of Trump must be an indication of a liberal media bias?
That's also a pretty gross mischaracterization of what I said - I never said the media's distaste and fear of Trump was because they were biased. I originally brought up their distaste of Trump in response to some of the conspiratorial thinking that has arisen in this thread (and in previous threads) that the media is secretly pro-Trump, and therefore it's pointless for Biden to step down because they will just go after the next person equally hard. And I just see zero evidence for this. Do I think the media is perfect? No, of course not. But conspiracy theories of them hoping for a Trump second term seem wildly off-base. That is what I was responding to in the first place.
And such conspiratorial thinking keeps emerging in this thread:
The same theater critics who are attacking Biden for campaigning too little will be attacking Harris for campaigning too much.
When as the media ever attacked a presidential candidate for campaigning too much? This is pure doomerism.
because the media serves power instead of truth that's been aggressively covered up/deflected. And then they had the fucking audacity to pretend they'd been lied to for years.
This has been sorta covered already in this thread and others so I'll be brief - the media has been reporting on how Biden's team has largely hidden him from public view in the last six months, causing concerns about his ability to campaign. And Biden's team kept telling them "don't' worry, you'll see him when the campaign starts, he's fine." We're not talking about years, but they've definitely have been lied to for at least the past six months.
On the topic of media bias, if Biden had given a speech as rambling, incoherent, and generally all around old man suffering from age related neurological degredation as Trump did last night the headlines would be wall to wall shouting about his obvious mental unfitness for office.
You will note that none of the major news outlets, except MSNBC, has anything in thier main headlines about how awful and clearly unfit he was.
NYTimes: Trump Struggles to Turn the Page on ‘American Carnage’: On the last night of the G.O.P. convention on Thursday, Donald J. Trump promised to bridge political divides, and then returned to delighting in deepening them.
NYTimes: ‘One of the Truly Awful and Self-Indulgent Performances of Our Time’: The Best and Worst Moments From Night 4 of the Convention
I could go on, but the various coverage I saw was all pretty bad, journalists on Twitter noting that lot of people in the crowd looked bored and/or left early, etc.
Kamala Harris, who has always been a poor public speaker.
Have you seen clips of her lately? She's killing her stump speeches.
posted by coffeecat at 7:26 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
A selection of newspaper front pages re the speech.
posted by Artw at 7:35 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:35 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
To put it another way, to be crystal clear, the media on the whole would be the light blue shade they use for lean D states.
I strongly disagree with this. Many individual journalists, probably the majority of them, lean strongly blue, but the media companies controlled by capitalists are ruby red, and the people who get to become senior or important journalists got there because they were willing to do the bidding of the oligarchy.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:35 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
I strongly disagree with this. Many individual journalists, probably the majority of them, lean strongly blue, but the media companies controlled by capitalists are ruby red, and the people who get to become senior or important journalists got there because they were willing to do the bidding of the oligarchy.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:35 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
My fear is this. I subscribe to the theory that in 2016 the most qualified woman lost to the least qualified man.
I believe that in America, misogyny runs deeper than racism. (I'm not dismissing racism here.) People will find reasons to not vote for Kamala based on misogyny but characterized differently.
I am worried that if Harris is the nominee, the rapist will win.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:37 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
I believe that in America, misogyny runs deeper than racism. (I'm not dismissing racism here.) People will find reasons to not vote for Kamala based on misogyny but characterized differently.
I am worried that if Harris is the nominee, the rapist will win.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:37 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
>AOC is grossly unserious, as befits a 34 year old who has never signed the front of a paycheck.
Wow, this is some real garbage. The fascist state we are sleepwalking our way into has been largely engineered by serious people who sign the fronts of paychecks. They've made absolutely certain that they're okay and we're all fucked, and a great many of them deserve little better than a French-revolution-style reckoning at this point.
AOC is on a short list of trustworthy people in government. As someone whose job is to actually enact shit and not just have opinions, she is asking serious questions about changing ballots late in the day and legal challenges that could arise from it.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 7:38 AM on July 19 [58 favorites]
Wow, this is some real garbage. The fascist state we are sleepwalking our way into has been largely engineered by serious people who sign the fronts of paychecks. They've made absolutely certain that they're okay and we're all fucked, and a great many of them deserve little better than a French-revolution-style reckoning at this point.
AOC is on a short list of trustworthy people in government. As someone whose job is to actually enact shit and not just have opinions, she is asking serious questions about changing ballots late in the day and legal challenges that could arise from it.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 7:38 AM on July 19 [58 favorites]
AOC, notably, has had an actual real job.
posted by Artw at 7:40 AM on July 19 [59 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:40 AM on July 19 [59 favorites]
For the record, I think there is no viable option for Biden leaving other than him choosing to. Replacing him forcibly on the ticket would destroy the party and lose the election. If I had to guess what will happen: He will stay in, give increasingly labored and incoherent performances (including several notable train wrecks) until the election, which he will lose. But I think this is the timeline we’re in.
posted by argybarg at 7:40 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 7:40 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
> Huh? I have never felt this. Opinions may vary more than you think.
Her campaign was a disaster, and she was widely panned for her inability to speak clearly. She hasn't gotten any better during her time as VP, either. The Daily Show had some fun with it recently, and I can promise you they weren't cherry-picking.
I am certain she'd be a good to great President, but her lack of skill as an orator is not something that just materialized out of the ether.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:42 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Her campaign was a disaster, and she was widely panned for her inability to speak clearly. She hasn't gotten any better during her time as VP, either. The Daily Show had some fun with it recently, and I can promise you they weren't cherry-picking.
I am certain she'd be a good to great President, but her lack of skill as an orator is not something that just materialized out of the ether.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:42 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
If the Gaza issue makes Michigan unwinnable for Biden but winnable for another Democrat, it's not a derail.
posted by rikschell at 7:45 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 7:45 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
I've seen Kamala speak passionately. Her campaign lost as did many others. In fact, only one campaign succeeded and we're proposing he shouldn't be on the ticket.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:46 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:46 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
MattD, are the questions that she's asking legitimate quandaries, or the type of questions that someone without a legal background would ask, but are actually settled?
posted by Selena777 at 7:52 AM on July 19
posted by Selena777 at 7:52 AM on July 19
Was his health and ability to work crazy hours not visible 6-12 months ago to these people?
If Biden is suffering from some form of dementia a seemingly sudden awareness by the people closest to him is pretty typical. As the condition progresses they go from more good days than bad to more bad days than good and suddenly people notice. IE the decline is steady and possibly even slow but the perception of the people closest to them changes like flipping a switch.
posted by Mitheral at 7:52 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
If Biden is suffering from some form of dementia a seemingly sudden awareness by the people closest to him is pretty typical. As the condition progresses they go from more good days than bad to more bad days than good and suddenly people notice. IE the decline is steady and possibly even slow but the perception of the people closest to them changes like flipping a switch.
posted by Mitheral at 7:52 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
the Biden campaign now expects it will raise only 25% of the big donor money it had originally projected to raise in July
The 2nd time for Bernie had that leaked to the press bit about how Bloomberg and seemingly other big donors about how they stated 'If Bernie is chosen we'll give money like we normally do but it'll be to Trump'. If there is the funding drop the pressure is there to remove an old man in dotage.
The Powell memo lays out how to take your pile of money to make a bigger pile by the force of the government. Force like cutting the cash flow.
Neither of the either or choices should be the choices. But the elected officials don't want to change the system as they've made it work for 'em and a chance could lead to 'em being voted out. Thusly we are practically stuck with either/or.
So good luck to you with your process as directed by Potemkin. People who might actually use the bully pulpit to force votes and changes like I think Jon Stewart could do don't want the job and wouldn't make it through the process to become the either or choice.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:55 AM on July 19
The 2nd time for Bernie had that leaked to the press bit about how Bloomberg and seemingly other big donors about how they stated 'If Bernie is chosen we'll give money like we normally do but it'll be to Trump'. If there is the funding drop the pressure is there to remove an old man in dotage.
The Powell memo lays out how to take your pile of money to make a bigger pile by the force of the government. Force like cutting the cash flow.
Neither of the either or choices should be the choices. But the elected officials don't want to change the system as they've made it work for 'em and a chance could lead to 'em being voted out. Thusly we are practically stuck with either/or.
So good luck to you with your process as directed by Potemkin. People who might actually use the bully pulpit to force votes and changes like I think Jon Stewart could do don't want the job and wouldn't make it through the process to become the either or choice.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:55 AM on July 19
AOC is grossly unserious, as befits a 34 year old who has never signed the front of a paycheck
That is a really classist sentiment. I would take the opinion of a worker who produces actual value over someone who makes their living off other people's sweat.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:57 AM on July 19 [60 favorites]
That is a really classist sentiment. I would take the opinion of a worker who produces actual value over someone who makes their living off other people's sweat.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:57 AM on July 19 [60 favorites]
Her campaign was a disaster, and she was widely panned for her inability to speak clearly.
I have never, ever heard this, ever. Or felt it. Like I said, opinions may vary more than certain voices here proclaim.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:58 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
I have never, ever heard this, ever. Or felt it. Like I said, opinions may vary more than certain voices here proclaim.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:58 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
tonycpsu, watch clips from her recent campaign events and see what you think. Speaking from a teleprompter and making it not sound overly scripted is a niche skill, and I agree she wasn't great at it in 2020 - but you can hear her genuinely connecting with the crowd during her events in the last couple of weeks. I have no doubt she'll continue to improve with practice and as she gains confidence - whereas with Biden, I fear his skills will only continue to decline.
posted by coffeecat at 7:59 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 7:59 AM on July 19 [9 favorites]
I am worried that if Harris is the nominee, the rapist will win.
Of course, that's a wholly valid position. In the same spirit, many of us are concerned that if Biden is the nominee, the rapist will win. That a different set of people will come up with reasons not to vote for him.
None of us have any knowledge of the future, so we're all deploying whatever statistics and polling results and historical performance and zeitgeist vibe-checks we have at hand to support our arguments. It's not ideal but it's understandable. We're all petrified. We can't affect the choice in any way, but we're petrified. The slope of the discussion, though, aside from the ~3 day discontinuity when somebody took a shot at Trump, leads me to believe we'll have a definitive answer very soon. In fact I'd bet on "later this afternoon." Then we'll have a whole new set of issues to pick at each other about.
posted by penduluum at 8:01 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
Of course, that's a wholly valid position. In the same spirit, many of us are concerned that if Biden is the nominee, the rapist will win. That a different set of people will come up with reasons not to vote for him.
None of us have any knowledge of the future, so we're all deploying whatever statistics and polling results and historical performance and zeitgeist vibe-checks we have at hand to support our arguments. It's not ideal but it's understandable. We're all petrified. We can't affect the choice in any way, but we're petrified. The slope of the discussion, though, aside from the ~3 day discontinuity when somebody took a shot at Trump, leads me to believe we'll have a definitive answer very soon. In fact I'd bet on "later this afternoon." Then we'll have a whole new set of issues to pick at each other about.
posted by penduluum at 8:01 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
AOC is grossly unserious, as befits a 34 year old who has never signed the front of a paycheck.
Only job creators should be elected gov't officials, is what I'm reading.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:05 AM on July 19 [16 favorites]
Only job creators should be elected gov't officials, is what I'm reading.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:05 AM on July 19 [16 favorites]
Lol people chalking all of this up to a battle of who has better "public speaking skills" is extremely funny. Harris can form cohesive sentences and act like a Living Human Being, which already makes her 10x more viable in my view.
posted by windbox at 8:05 AM on July 19 [14 favorites]
posted by windbox at 8:05 AM on July 19 [14 favorites]
Chanelling both a pollyanna hope of Democratic wins up and the ticket, and also a "f*** you I won't do what you tell me" despair that a MAGA win is inevitable, into Ridin' with Biden even harder. Don't tell me the odds. Vote Save America
posted by otherchaz at 8:10 AM on July 19
posted by otherchaz at 8:10 AM on July 19
I will be astonished if Harris doesn't get pushed out by the media and Dem party elites. The next media pile on is going to be on Harris, if/when Joe is pushed out.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:14 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 8:14 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
This is a rare time when I wish MetaFilter had polls. I don’t actually understand what people believe here.
Does anyone think Biden can be replaced against his will?
Does anyone think Biden will step down voluntarily?
Does anyone think he can win the election in his current and future condition?
I’m a no for all three. We’re in a tragedy and have to look elsewhere for comfort.
posted by argybarg at 8:15 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Does anyone think Biden can be replaced against his will?
Does anyone think Biden will step down voluntarily?
Does anyone think he can win the election in his current and future condition?
I’m a no for all three. We’re in a tragedy and have to look elsewhere for comfort.
posted by argybarg at 8:15 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Just want to co-sign that the "never signed the front of paycheck" line is some hot fucking garbage.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:26 AM on July 19 [62 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:26 AM on July 19 [62 favorites]
Anyway, Hillary Clinton is also publicly and privately maneuvering to support Biden, so we are truly living in a time with very strange bedfellows.
posted by coffeecat at 8:40 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeecat at 8:40 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Yesterday the BIG BOLD headline on WaPo was Obama and Tester calling for Joe to step down. Today's it's basically 'Joe is 100% staying in'
So, yeah no one knows.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:41 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
So, yeah no one knows.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:41 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Comment and follow up removed - absolutely not okay to tear down a person because you don't personally like the way she looks. Hit reload to reload this page and rerail this conversation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:46 AM on July 19 [20 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:46 AM on July 19 [20 favorites]
Anyway, Hillary Clinton is also publicly and privately maneuvering to support Biden, so we are truly living in a time with very strange bedfellows.
posted by coffeecat at 8:40
Source?
posted by bluesky43 at 8:46 AM on July 19
posted by coffeecat at 8:40
Source?
posted by bluesky43 at 8:46 AM on July 19
> I am worried that if Harris is the nominee, the rapist will win.
Of course, that's a wholly valid position. In the same spirit, many of us are concerned that if Biden is the nominee, the rapist will win. That a different set of people will come up with reasons not to vote for him.
Whereas I'm actually willing to bet that there is a sizeable majority of people like me who don't care who they put up against the rapist, they'll still vote for them.
Seriously, I'd vote Democrat even if the candidate was a bucket of paint.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:47 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Of course, that's a wholly valid position. In the same spirit, many of us are concerned that if Biden is the nominee, the rapist will win. That a different set of people will come up with reasons not to vote for him.
Whereas I'm actually willing to bet that there is a sizeable majority of people like me who don't care who they put up against the rapist, they'll still vote for them.
Seriously, I'd vote Democrat even if the candidate was a bucket of paint.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:47 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
“I would vote for anyone against Trump” is irrelevant by definition. Your vote is locked.
posted by argybarg at 8:50 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 8:50 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Source?
Re: Hillary - here's one article from CNBC .
posted by coffeecat at 8:51 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Re: Hillary - here's one article from CNBC .
posted by coffeecat at 8:51 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
And if there were, as you say, “a sizable majority” who feel likewise, they would probably show up in the polls.
posted by argybarg at 8:51 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 8:51 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
“I would vote for anyone against Trump” is irrelevant by definition. Your vote is locked.
You missed the part where I said that a big number of people feel the same way. And the polls actually bear that out - Biden's performance at the debate actually didn't move the needle much. Nor did the assassination attempt. Most of us have made our minds up already, and each side is trying to appeal to a very quirky handful - and it's likely impossible to predict how to shift the needle on that quirky handful.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:53 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
You missed the part where I said that a big number of people feel the same way. And the polls actually bear that out - Biden's performance at the debate actually didn't move the needle much. Nor did the assassination attempt. Most of us have made our minds up already, and each side is trying to appeal to a very quirky handful - and it's likely impossible to predict how to shift the needle on that quirky handful.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:53 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Thanks coffeecat. I wish these 'sources' would broadcast their support.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:55 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by bluesky43 at 8:55 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
I don’t think the “anyone but Trump” demographic is large enough. I also think that Biden is genuinely slipping, quite notably and rapidly, and so at the very least is not in a condition to win over the disaffected. I think he deserves the dignity of making his own decision, but someone needs to help him see that he’s not in a state in which he can win the election.
posted by argybarg at 9:00 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 9:00 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
You missed the part where I said that a big number of people feel the same way.
Every 4 years I hear this and every 4 years it needs to be repeated over and over: elections are about turnout, and people don’t want to turnout for old Biden.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:09 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Every 4 years I hear this and every 4 years it needs to be repeated over and over: elections are about turnout, and people don’t want to turnout for old Biden.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:09 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
We Need to Talk About Donald Trump's Cognitive Failings
posted by Artw at 9:09 AM on July 19 [10 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:09 AM on July 19 [10 favorites]
I'm actually willing to bet that there is a sizeable majority of people like me who don't care who they put up against the rapist, they'll still vote for them.
I think this is correct, yes. In my own life, I know leftists and some more normie liberals, and everyone agrees that four more years of Trump would be awful (plus the chance of more than four years....). I am pretty confident that a majority of Democrats would fall in line and support anyone. That's not enough to win per se, but it certainly a piece of it. So there is really two questions here:
1. Who will do better in terms of exciting people and avoiding poor turnout of the base?
2. Who will do a better job with the swing voter/independent who may prefer some aspects of Republic policy (especially in terms of crime and economics) but who also cares about abortion rights, democracy, etc.?
I think you can make a pretty compelling case for Harris on both points.
For #1: There has been ample reporting (and I believe it) that a majority of Americans are bummed that we are destined for a Biden-Trump rematch. I'll admit I don't quite get the psychology of "ugh, a rematch? I'm tired of this, I'm going to sit this out" but it does seem to be a not uncommon sentiment that voters have been expressing to reporters for the last year or so. And even if this is just 5% of voters, Biden only won several swing states by very narrow margins.
Not only is Harris 100% more lively than Biden and better at making the case against Trump and for the Democratic agenda, but moving her up to President means we also get a completely new person for VP. I think most people are not quite recognizing how much we'd gain for whoever is the VP pick. Like a lot of people, recently I've been digging into who Andy Beshear is, and while he's not the sort of candidate I'd normal get excited about, I think it's notable that when he was facing a tough re-election and his opponent went after him for supporting Trans Rights, he didn't shy away but dug in his heels, and he often did so by quoting the Bible. And look, I generally have no interest in the Bible, but I've also known some progressive Christians, and I'm happy to have them in the tent. I think having him be able to go head-to-head against Vance would be great, and he'd really add something to the ticket.
On #2: Here I think it boils down to what is a bigger problem - appearing very frail and in cognitive decline or racism/sexism. Personally, I think the former is a bigger problem, especially if the VP pick for Harris is a normie white guy (like Beshear). Also if Biden steps down, the whole "Dems in disarray" narrative will die down, and there can be more focus on how frightening Trump and his agenda promises to be. Whether it's fair or not, as long as it's Biden, the focus will be on him and his continued difficulties. He steps down, we'll have a lot of puff pieces about "getting to know the new VP" etc.
posted by coffeecat at 9:23 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
I think this is correct, yes. In my own life, I know leftists and some more normie liberals, and everyone agrees that four more years of Trump would be awful (plus the chance of more than four years....). I am pretty confident that a majority of Democrats would fall in line and support anyone. That's not enough to win per se, but it certainly a piece of it. So there is really two questions here:
1. Who will do better in terms of exciting people and avoiding poor turnout of the base?
2. Who will do a better job with the swing voter/independent who may prefer some aspects of Republic policy (especially in terms of crime and economics) but who also cares about abortion rights, democracy, etc.?
I think you can make a pretty compelling case for Harris on both points.
For #1: There has been ample reporting (and I believe it) that a majority of Americans are bummed that we are destined for a Biden-Trump rematch. I'll admit I don't quite get the psychology of "ugh, a rematch? I'm tired of this, I'm going to sit this out" but it does seem to be a not uncommon sentiment that voters have been expressing to reporters for the last year or so. And even if this is just 5% of voters, Biden only won several swing states by very narrow margins.
Not only is Harris 100% more lively than Biden and better at making the case against Trump and for the Democratic agenda, but moving her up to President means we also get a completely new person for VP. I think most people are not quite recognizing how much we'd gain for whoever is the VP pick. Like a lot of people, recently I've been digging into who Andy Beshear is, and while he's not the sort of candidate I'd normal get excited about, I think it's notable that when he was facing a tough re-election and his opponent went after him for supporting Trans Rights, he didn't shy away but dug in his heels, and he often did so by quoting the Bible. And look, I generally have no interest in the Bible, but I've also known some progressive Christians, and I'm happy to have them in the tent. I think having him be able to go head-to-head against Vance would be great, and he'd really add something to the ticket.
On #2: Here I think it boils down to what is a bigger problem - appearing very frail and in cognitive decline or racism/sexism. Personally, I think the former is a bigger problem, especially if the VP pick for Harris is a normie white guy (like Beshear). Also if Biden steps down, the whole "Dems in disarray" narrative will die down, and there can be more focus on how frightening Trump and his agenda promises to be. Whether it's fair or not, as long as it's Biden, the focus will be on him and his continued difficulties. He steps down, we'll have a lot of puff pieces about "getting to know the new VP" etc.
posted by coffeecat at 9:23 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
This Crew Is Totally Beatable: Democrats just need to believe they can do it. [David Frum | The Atlantic via Internet Archive]
So.
posted by mazola at 9:29 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
This crew is as beatable as any reactionary minority faction ever was beatable.Frum places blame directly on Democrats for not believing hard enough. I think it's largely right, this is a crisis of confidence (and they're running against a con man!), but dodges the question if Biden is up to the task of inspiring that confidence. Indeed, he leads by saying that's not his style.
Democrats seem to be persuaded by the hope that the way to inflict the beating is to change leadership. But the biggest defect of the present Democratic leadership was imposed by the Democratic followership: the reluctance to accept the fact that four years of non-Trump leadership have accomplished an enormous amount that is worth defending.
With a predator’s cunning, Trump has always understood that the first step to winning the confidence of others is to project confidence in oneself. Trump has used that understanding for his own crooked and criminal purposes. But the same understanding can be put to good use by better people.
Believe! Or lose.
So.
posted by mazola at 9:29 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
It looks like Kamala Harris has a lot more charisma than some of us might remember from the 2020 primaries, when we were judging her against more-preferred candidates.
Here are a couple speeches from this week:
C-Span link to a Fayetteville, NC speech.
PBS link to a Raleigh, NC speech.
posted by nobody at 9:30 AM on July 19 [8 favorites]
Here are a couple speeches from this week:
C-Span link to a Fayetteville, NC speech.
PBS link to a Raleigh, NC speech.
posted by nobody at 9:30 AM on July 19 [8 favorites]
Amy Poehler as Hilary Clinton on SNL: “I guess I just didn’t want it badly enough.”
posted by Melismata at 9:34 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 9:34 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Harris’ speeches have always been fine. When speaking ex tempore she gets into weird nonsensical double-talk, as if there’s something she’s afraid of saying but doesn’t know how not to say it.
posted by argybarg at 9:37 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by argybarg at 9:37 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
MattD Funny how no one shrieks "ageism" when you sneer at AOC for not using archaic and stupid technology that has long past its expiration date. And, of course, you're also wrong. She fucking worked for a living dude, of course she's seen fucking checks. JFC.
But more to the point, you're either missing or ignoring her central thesis. Which I happen to somewhat agree with:
It doesn't matter who's actual ass is in the chair behind the Resolute Desk as long as they're a pliable Democrat who will do whatever their advisors tell them to.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: my cat would be a better President than Trump, provided we give my cat a Democratic cabinet. Yes, it literally doesn't matter if Biden is a Strom Thurmond or Dianne Fienstine type Weekend at Bernies semi-corpse who has advisors to sign their name for them and so on.
What matters is that someone who isn't a Repuhblican is in office.
Would I hire Biden to fix my computer or run my 401k? Who gives a shit. That's not relevant to the question at all. Becasue the question is not "is Biden fit to be the monarch and actually do everything himself", the answer to that is obviously no. The question is "will the next President surround themselves with mainstream bog standard boring ass Democrats who will do boring shit, or will the next Preident surround themselves with Project 2025 zealots who will dismantle America and turn it into a Christofascist state."
I'm not sure if she's right about the legal hassles but she is 100% right that Biden's mental state is more or less entirely irrelevant to him being better in office than Trump.
I personally dislike Biden, and on top of that i'm deeply concerned he's going to lose, but if you convinced me Biden running would win, and anyone else running would lose I'd say run Biden.
Literally, and I mean that in the actual sense not the metaphorical sense, all that matters is getting absolutely anyone with a D after their name into office.
posted by sotonohito at 9:40 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
But more to the point, you're either missing or ignoring her central thesis. Which I happen to somewhat agree with:
It doesn't matter who's actual ass is in the chair behind the Resolute Desk as long as they're a pliable Democrat who will do whatever their advisors tell them to.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: my cat would be a better President than Trump, provided we give my cat a Democratic cabinet. Yes, it literally doesn't matter if Biden is a Strom Thurmond or Dianne Fienstine type Weekend at Bernies semi-corpse who has advisors to sign their name for them and so on.
What matters is that someone who isn't a Repuhblican is in office.
Would I hire Biden to fix my computer or run my 401k? Who gives a shit. That's not relevant to the question at all. Becasue the question is not "is Biden fit to be the monarch and actually do everything himself", the answer to that is obviously no. The question is "will the next President surround themselves with mainstream bog standard boring ass Democrats who will do boring shit, or will the next Preident surround themselves with Project 2025 zealots who will dismantle America and turn it into a Christofascist state."
I'm not sure if she's right about the legal hassles but she is 100% right that Biden's mental state is more or less entirely irrelevant to him being better in office than Trump.
I personally dislike Biden, and on top of that i'm deeply concerned he's going to lose, but if you convinced me Biden running would win, and anyone else running would lose I'd say run Biden.
Literally, and I mean that in the actual sense not the metaphorical sense, all that matters is getting absolutely anyone with a D after their name into office.
posted by sotonohito at 9:40 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
The composition of the factions is fascinating.
Joe Must Go: Blue Dog Democrats, Adam Schiff, Marianne Williamson, Anonymous Democratic megadonors, Ezra Klein and various other New York Times columnists, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Nate Silver
Joe Must Stay: AOC, Bernie, Fetterman, Jerry Nadler, Ilhan Omar, Barbara Lee, Roy Cooper, Gavin Newsom, Maxine Waters
Send this thread back in a time machine to the 2016 primaries.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:42 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
Joe Must Go: Blue Dog Democrats, Adam Schiff, Marianne Williamson, Anonymous Democratic megadonors, Ezra Klein and various other New York Times columnists, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Nate Silver
Joe Must Stay: AOC, Bernie, Fetterman, Jerry Nadler, Ilhan Omar, Barbara Lee, Roy Cooper, Gavin Newsom, Maxine Waters
Send this thread back in a time machine to the 2016 primaries.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:42 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
At this point, I don't care. I am one of those single-issue voters, in that I am transgender and every Republican seems to think that my people are a poison corrupting the country and we need to be destroyed.
I am going to vote straightline blue, including whoever gets the nomination, because a Trump-led administration means I will live every day and night wondering when his brownshits will kick in my door, drag me down the stairs and shoot me as a "groomer".
I'd love to have someone to be energized to vote for, but the last person I started to feel that way for was John Fetterman and he's transformed into Manchin 2.0.
I am fucking terrified at the idea of a Republican administration and all the Project 2025/Agenda 47 stuff, and yes, I will illegally immigrate somewhere with what it looks like might happen. Call me a coward, and I'll accept that.
posted by mephron at 9:43 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
I am going to vote straightline blue, including whoever gets the nomination, because a Trump-led administration means I will live every day and night wondering when his brownshits will kick in my door, drag me down the stairs and shoot me as a "groomer".
I'd love to have someone to be energized to vote for, but the last person I started to feel that way for was John Fetterman and he's transformed into Manchin 2.0.
I am fucking terrified at the idea of a Republican administration and all the Project 2025/Agenda 47 stuff, and yes, I will illegally immigrate somewhere with what it looks like might happen. Call me a coward, and I'll accept that.
posted by mephron at 9:43 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
Harris’ speeches have always been fine. When speaking ex tempore she gets into weird nonsensical double-talk, as if there’s something she’s afraid of saying but doesn’t know how not to say it.
This is true, though Ezra Klein interviewed a reporter who had spent a lot of time with her recently, and according to this reporter she's gained a lot of confidence lately and figured out how to position herself in a way that feels much more authentic than in 2020.
I also think it's telling that the worst Trump can come up with is "Laughing Kamala" - reminds me of when the GOP thought it was smart to make fun of AOC for dancing.
posted by coffeecat at 9:44 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
This is true, though Ezra Klein interviewed a reporter who had spent a lot of time with her recently, and according to this reporter she's gained a lot of confidence lately and figured out how to position herself in a way that feels much more authentic than in 2020.
I also think it's telling that the worst Trump can come up with is "Laughing Kamala" - reminds me of when the GOP thought it was smart to make fun of AOC for dancing.
posted by coffeecat at 9:44 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Biden's mental state is more or less entirely irrelevant to him being better in office than Trump
This point, which has been made many many times over, is not relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about whether Biden has the mental acuity to successfully execute this campaign, not the presidency. As we have seen over time, those are two often quite different tasks. The existence of a good cabinet is essential to the presidency but basically worthless in a campaign. I would say Obama was a genius level campaigner, but an oddly middling president, while Biden has quite often been the reverse — and now, in what is a clearly diminished state, is even less capable of executing a campaign.
But if we could simply abandon the declarations that we prefer any version of Biden to any version of Trump (as we all do), we stand a better chance of discussing the actual dilemma of the moment.
posted by argybarg at 9:45 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
This point, which has been made many many times over, is not relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about whether Biden has the mental acuity to successfully execute this campaign, not the presidency. As we have seen over time, those are two often quite different tasks. The existence of a good cabinet is essential to the presidency but basically worthless in a campaign. I would say Obama was a genius level campaigner, but an oddly middling president, while Biden has quite often been the reverse — and now, in what is a clearly diminished state, is even less capable of executing a campaign.
But if we could simply abandon the declarations that we prefer any version of Biden to any version of Trump (as we all do), we stand a better chance of discussing the actual dilemma of the moment.
posted by argybarg at 9:45 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Joe Must Stay: AOC, Bernie, Fetterman, Jerry Nadler, Ilhan Omar, Barbara Lee, Roy Cooper, Gavin Newsom, Maxine Waters
The leftists in this list are shrewdly publicly supporting Biden because if they don't, and he stays, they'll get blamed for his loss.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:46 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
The leftists in this list are shrewdly publicly supporting Biden because if they don't, and he stays, they'll get blamed for his loss.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:46 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
> The leftists in this list are shrewdly publicly supporting Biden because if they don't, and he stays, they'll get blamed for his loss.
Yes, because this is a group of people famously concerned about laying low and toeing the party line.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:48 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Yes, because this is a group of people famously concerned about laying low and toeing the party line.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:48 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
of course, none of us in this particular metafilter thread have any say over the outcome anyway, but fervently and over and over again answering the question “do you still prefer Biden to Trump” is completely beside the point.
posted by argybarg at 9:48 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 9:48 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
I also think it's telling that the worst Trump can come up with is "Laughing Kamala" - reminds me of when the GOP thought it was smart to make fun of AOC for dancing.
See also laughing and dancing Hillary Clinton hate. They loooooathe female joy.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:48 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
See also laughing and dancing Hillary Clinton hate. They loooooathe female joy.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:48 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Also if Biden steps down, the whole "Dems in disarray" narrative will die down,
I am clasping my head like a stunned monkey at this.
The POTUS will have stepped down because of perceived physical and mental inability to function in the job any more, right in the middle of his reelection campaign, something that has never happened before in American history. He will have been pushed out by angry donors as much as anyone else, and absolutely unwillingly. His hand-picked successor, who's been standing by in the In Case of Presidential Infirmity Break Glass box for 3.5 years, is getting rumblings that she should have to run yet another gauntlet to remain there. One of the central lines of attack by the Republicans -- that the Democrats nominated someone visibly unfit to hold and retain the office -- will have been demonstrated as being accurate, which will be trumpeted from every rooftop and television. The chaos of attempting to herd enough cats together to crown a new nominee and weld together some kind of campaign that stands a chance of succeeding has to happen in not months, but weeks.
And you believe that "Dems in Disarray" will die down in the media, rather than multiplying exponentially?
posted by delfin at 9:50 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
I am clasping my head like a stunned monkey at this.
The POTUS will have stepped down because of perceived physical and mental inability to function in the job any more, right in the middle of his reelection campaign, something that has never happened before in American history. He will have been pushed out by angry donors as much as anyone else, and absolutely unwillingly. His hand-picked successor, who's been standing by in the In Case of Presidential Infirmity Break Glass box for 3.5 years, is getting rumblings that she should have to run yet another gauntlet to remain there. One of the central lines of attack by the Republicans -- that the Democrats nominated someone visibly unfit to hold and retain the office -- will have been demonstrated as being accurate, which will be trumpeted from every rooftop and television. The chaos of attempting to herd enough cats together to crown a new nominee and weld together some kind of campaign that stands a chance of succeeding has to happen in not months, but weeks.
And you believe that "Dems in Disarray" will die down in the media, rather than multiplying exponentially?
posted by delfin at 9:50 AM on July 19 [18 favorites]
So I worked for 8 years as a director with a major Fortune 500 company I won't name. Even at that level I had to annually name a successor (a manager under me) and make efforts to grow his talent and show him some of my work. I did that even though I never thought he could replace me; great guy, but different skillsets and a some liabilities. Also, I owned all the internal/external relationships including a 200+ plus series of internal contacts from VPs/CTO to random people I'd helped. I did all the budgeting, strategic planning, and was still a go-to for certain technical problems. I got lots of awards.
In February I was laid off for merger/financial reasons (high salary). I was shocked and thought how can they do this without me? Shocked messages poured in from other departments and people who took it as a sign things were falling apart. I had my hands in a million user groups, committees, and whatnot and - if I can say so - added a lot of clarity and purpose to them.
Guess what? 5 months later, they appear to be doing fine. The successor stepped in. A couple of people quit, but not many. A few initiatives were delayed or dropped. But the moral, if any, is that a good leader should be developing talent and working with experts in different areas to distribute knowledge and reduce risk.
In Biden's case, I think he's a great one-on-one communicator and has earned trust from other leaders by having a steady hand over the years. But Harris is the successor - that's the VP role. Unless the admin thinks she's turned out awful and picking her was a huge mistake, let her take center stage. And the executive branch has a 26-member Cabinet plus a zillion people at agencies doing the work. I think things have been running as smoothly as they have due mostly to the people around Biden, which is a good thing. I'm not for a second worried that the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General (yes I'm naming the Cabinet from Wikipedia), Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security are just going to freeze up and fail if we end up with the above-named paint can as President, or if Biden wins and mentally fades away in year one.
I'm much more worried about whether Biden can *win* in the first place. I just don't know. It's really got to be someone who can be out there speaking and campaigning and showing mastery of all the issues, accomplishments, and plans, plus an off-the-cuff facility with Project 2025, Trump's gaffes and plans, and all the rest. I think until the debate I thought his team could buoy him along and get us over the finish line, but it seems less likely now. I wish I knew Harris better, but VPs are always invisible. A little part of me worries that she clashes with Biden and the other parts of the administration for some reason that would only be public once we switched to her.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:50 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
In February I was laid off for merger/financial reasons (high salary). I was shocked and thought how can they do this without me? Shocked messages poured in from other departments and people who took it as a sign things were falling apart. I had my hands in a million user groups, committees, and whatnot and - if I can say so - added a lot of clarity and purpose to them.
Guess what? 5 months later, they appear to be doing fine. The successor stepped in. A couple of people quit, but not many. A few initiatives were delayed or dropped. But the moral, if any, is that a good leader should be developing talent and working with experts in different areas to distribute knowledge and reduce risk.
In Biden's case, I think he's a great one-on-one communicator and has earned trust from other leaders by having a steady hand over the years. But Harris is the successor - that's the VP role. Unless the admin thinks she's turned out awful and picking her was a huge mistake, let her take center stage. And the executive branch has a 26-member Cabinet plus a zillion people at agencies doing the work. I think things have been running as smoothly as they have due mostly to the people around Biden, which is a good thing. I'm not for a second worried that the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General (yes I'm naming the Cabinet from Wikipedia), Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security are just going to freeze up and fail if we end up with the above-named paint can as President, or if Biden wins and mentally fades away in year one.
I'm much more worried about whether Biden can *win* in the first place. I just don't know. It's really got to be someone who can be out there speaking and campaigning and showing mastery of all the issues, accomplishments, and plans, plus an off-the-cuff facility with Project 2025, Trump's gaffes and plans, and all the rest. I think until the debate I thought his team could buoy him along and get us over the finish line, but it seems less likely now. I wish I knew Harris better, but VPs are always invisible. A little part of me worries that she clashes with Biden and the other parts of the administration for some reason that would only be public once we switched to her.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:50 AM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Yes, because this is a group of people famously concerned about laying low and toeing the party line.
The difference, which is quite obvious, is that whether Biden stays in our out is not a matter of policy, at all.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:51 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
The difference, which is quite obvious, is that whether Biden stays in our out is not a matter of policy, at all.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:51 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Also to Jaqueline on the difficulty of getting involved - I used Vote Save America and from there hooked up with a local canvassing group in no time. I've been invited to a ton of different events and volunteer opportunities, both from the Dems and from non-profits. When I applied with my county Dem org, they called me and spent 30 minutes giving me data and explaining the state strategy and how I could get involved.
NC is a swing state, though. Depending on where you are it might be less well-organized.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:53 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
NC is a swing state, though. Depending on where you are it might be less well-organized.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:53 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
The leftists in this list are shrewdly publicly supporting Biden because if they don't, and he stays, they'll get blamed for his loss.
Not that it will help, sadly. We can already see people, even in these threads, workshopping explanations for how all of this is their fault
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:53 AM on July 19 [7 favorites]
Not that it will help, sadly. We can already see people, even in these threads, workshopping explanations for how all of this is their fault
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:53 AM on July 19 [7 favorites]
> The difference, which is quite obvious, is that whether Biden stays in our out is not a matter of policy, at all.
Whether Donald Trump or the Democratic nominee becomes President in January would seem to have more than a few policy implications.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Whether Donald Trump or the Democratic nominee becomes President in January would seem to have more than a few policy implications.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Probably that good-old-fashioned assassination attempt/convention bounce, but still: https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1814326275642737064
Biden is at his lowest point.
posted by argybarg at 10:12 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Biden is at his lowest point.
posted by argybarg at 10:12 AM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Joe Must Go: Blue Dog Democrats
That's an indictment of the "Joe must go" side. The Blue Dogs back in 2010 tried running to the center, they tried triangulating, they were publicly opposing Obama in their campaigns. And guess what? They got obliterated in the midterms. Half of the Blue Dogs lost their seats.
As for does he stay or go, yes, his campaign chair said he's staying, but you have to remember that the second they make any public statement about thinking about stepping down, that's as good as done at that point. He's in until he isn't. We won't have clarity until the nomination is official.
posted by azpenguin at 10:12 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
That's an indictment of the "Joe must go" side. The Blue Dogs back in 2010 tried running to the center, they tried triangulating, they were publicly opposing Obama in their campaigns. And guess what? They got obliterated in the midterms. Half of the Blue Dogs lost their seats.
As for does he stay or go, yes, his campaign chair said he's staying, but you have to remember that the second they make any public statement about thinking about stepping down, that's as good as done at that point. He's in until he isn't. We won't have clarity until the nomination is official.
posted by azpenguin at 10:12 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
I'm much more worried about whether Biden can *win* in the first place. I just don't know. It's really got to be someone who can be out there speaking and campaigning and showing mastery of all the issues, accomplishments, and plans, plus an off-the-cuff facility with Project 2025, Trump's gaffes and plans, and all the rest. I think until the debate I thought his team could buoy him along and get us over the finish line, but it seems less likely now.
Yeah, for the first time in decades, I'm undecided in a sense, and it's an uncomfortable place to be!
I'll totally vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but Biden seems frail at the moment, like he may not be able to handle the campaign. But I'm not seeing a replacement other than Harris (not choosing the duly election black woman will absolutely piss of the base), but haven't seen much from her that shows she's a good campaigner, and a lot of America is in no mood to vote for a black woman from California (sad to say).
Plus all the news reports about democratic congressional critters muttering this or that about Biden has been very unnerving, since they're rarely actual public statements. Pick a direction and go! Lean into the grandpa President schtick and let's do this!
Seriously, set up a regular 6pm press conference at the White House front doors. Have rocking chair set up with a table next to it with a bottle of whiskey and a glass. Have B shuffle out, sit down, let the reporters yell a bunch of shit for a minute, then quiet them down, look thoughtful and spout off a fact, like so:
"You know, his own Vice President compared him to Hitler."
"I may be old and not move so easily these days, but I was never in photos with Epstein." (or something similar)
"It's been few tough years for our country, but there X number of people who are now free of the burden of student loans."
Etc, etc, rinse and repeat, there's plenty of positive and negative points that could be made, I'd do about 60% positive, 40% negative. Lead the conversation.
Take a question or two, then call it a day and go back inside, probably with slightly smart ass comment about needing beauty sleep to keep working for the American people. Maybe have various upcoming Democrat operative come out and help him back inside. One night Gavin, other night AOC. Doesn't have to be every night, but just a few here and here.
This would be completely odd and not normal, but we're in not normal times, so you play with the hand you have and make it your own.
If anything serious happens that demands a more traditional Presidential look, then yeah, the usual speech or press conference, but otherwise campaign.
And in the next debate, the first question out of Biden's mouth should be "Hey Donald, do you still think the 2020 election was stolen from you and if so how, after 60+ court cases that said it wasn't" Goad the hell out of the very goadable personality.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:18 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Yeah, for the first time in decades, I'm undecided in a sense, and it's an uncomfortable place to be!
I'll totally vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but Biden seems frail at the moment, like he may not be able to handle the campaign. But I'm not seeing a replacement other than Harris (not choosing the duly election black woman will absolutely piss of the base), but haven't seen much from her that shows she's a good campaigner, and a lot of America is in no mood to vote for a black woman from California (sad to say).
Plus all the news reports about democratic congressional critters muttering this or that about Biden has been very unnerving, since they're rarely actual public statements. Pick a direction and go! Lean into the grandpa President schtick and let's do this!
Seriously, set up a regular 6pm press conference at the White House front doors. Have rocking chair set up with a table next to it with a bottle of whiskey and a glass. Have B shuffle out, sit down, let the reporters yell a bunch of shit for a minute, then quiet them down, look thoughtful and spout off a fact, like so:
"You know, his own Vice President compared him to Hitler."
"I may be old and not move so easily these days, but I was never in photos with Epstein." (or something similar)
"It's been few tough years for our country, but there X number of people who are now free of the burden of student loans."
Etc, etc, rinse and repeat, there's plenty of positive and negative points that could be made, I'd do about 60% positive, 40% negative. Lead the conversation.
Take a question or two, then call it a day and go back inside, probably with slightly smart ass comment about needing beauty sleep to keep working for the American people. Maybe have various upcoming Democrat operative come out and help him back inside. One night Gavin, other night AOC. Doesn't have to be every night, but just a few here and here.
This would be completely odd and not normal, but we're in not normal times, so you play with the hand you have and make it your own.
If anything serious happens that demands a more traditional Presidential look, then yeah, the usual speech or press conference, but otherwise campaign.
And in the next debate, the first question out of Biden's mouth should be "Hey Donald, do you still think the 2020 election was stolen from you and if so how, after 60+ court cases that said it wasn't" Goad the hell out of the very goadable personality.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:18 AM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted to stop the AOC/paycheck derail. Also, as given the political landscape, please take active care to avoid ageist comments and be mindful that ageism goes directly against our Content Policy
posted by loup (staff) at 10:18 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 10:18 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Getting back to what AOC actually said, it seems clear that her point is a lot more concerning than people are taking in: A lot of us here have assumed Harris would be the natural replacement, but AOC is saying the donor class isn't happy with that, and will try to put in their preferred white centrist (who, one assumes, would inspire absolutely no one to get out and vote, who wasn't already going to).
Whatever your feelings on Harris's policies, I think it's clear that having her on the top spot would bring our dumb culture war to an absolute head in a way that needs to happen--but there are wealthy forces in the party that would like to prevent that.
posted by mittens at 10:39 AM on July 19 [8 favorites]
Whatever your feelings on Harris's policies, I think it's clear that having her on the top spot would bring our dumb culture war to an absolute head in a way that needs to happen--but there are wealthy forces in the party that would like to prevent that.
posted by mittens at 10:39 AM on July 19 [8 favorites]
I think it's clear that having her on the top spot would bring our dumb culture war to an absolute head in a way that needs to happen
What... is this supposed to mean, exactly?
posted by Selena777 at 10:41 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
What... is this supposed to mean, exactly?
posted by Selena777 at 10:41 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
This would be completely odd and not normal,
What's odd is that this isn't the main talking point - well, any of a number of main talking points. Trump should be assailable from so many angles ("Hey Donald, let's see you drink from a glass using just one hand..." "Hey Donald, how well did you know Epstein?" "Donald, why would you put Putin ahead of our own Intelligence services?") The one refreshing thing about political discussions here (refreshing? mmm, maybe unsettling ), outside of the US, is people asking things like, "But Biden can't finish the sentence he started. How can that be OK?" "With all these court cases against him, and Trump is still being voted for?"
When you step outside of the cultural/media cloud of USA this is a totally fucked up race. Most are bracing for a Trump win, dreading, preparing. (It is very bad.)
posted by From Bklyn at 10:43 AM on July 19
What's odd is that this isn't the main talking point - well, any of a number of main talking points. Trump should be assailable from so many angles ("Hey Donald, let's see you drink from a glass using just one hand..." "Hey Donald, how well did you know Epstein?" "Donald, why would you put Putin ahead of our own Intelligence services?") The one refreshing thing about political discussions here (refreshing? mmm, maybe unsettling ), outside of the US, is people asking things like, "But Biden can't finish the sentence he started. How can that be OK?" "With all these court cases against him, and Trump is still being voted for?"
When you step outside of the cultural/media cloud of USA this is a totally fucked up race. Most are bracing for a Trump win, dreading, preparing. (It is very bad.)
posted by From Bklyn at 10:43 AM on July 19
Mark Kelly has been getting a lot of traction as a replacement candidate. Don't get me wrong, I think he would be a strong candidate... but if you push out Biden and then tell Harris to go pound sand, what does that tell the black voters who pushed Biden into the lead in 2020, long before he chose Harris? You're going to bump out a candidate, who happens to be a black woman, who is fully qualified and who is ready to step into the role of president RIGHT NOW if needed, with little transition help? The donors who would push such a thing would not be hurting under a second Trump administration. The voters they betray, though, would be put through the wringer. I would vote for any dem over Trump, but I highly doubt that there's enough people who would do the same to overcome the obvious "wealthy donors seizing the party because they know better" dynamic there.
posted by azpenguin at 10:46 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 10:46 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Put Mark Kelly in the #2 slot!
posted by kensington314 at 10:54 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by kensington314 at 10:54 AM on July 19 [3 favorites]
AOC is really laying out a convincing argument for just going strongly with the existing ticket. Especially that legal challenges will be most likely in the very states they need to win. I do not trust the SC not to hand a victory over to TFG. She's seen the tactics of the other side so she's approaching this very clear eyed I think.
Very curious what senior D leadership would say to it because they know those facts too.
Anyways, respect to AOC for being transparent and public.
posted by mazola at 10:56 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
Very curious what senior D leadership would say to it because they know those facts too.
Anyways, respect to AOC for being transparent and public.
posted by mazola at 10:56 AM on July 19 [13 favorites]
NYT is reporting Joe "I will never log off" Biden to resume campaigning next week.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:56 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:56 AM on July 19 [4 favorites]
I've said it before and I'll say it again: my cat would be a better President than Trump, provided we give my cat a Democratic cabinet. [...]The question is "will the next President surround themselves with mainstream bog standard boring ass Democrats who will do boring shit, or will the next Preident surround themselves with Project 2025 zealots who will dismantle America and turn it into a Christofascist state.".
Respectfully disagree. That's the next question. The first question is which Democrat (given they're both going to surround themselves with functionally the same staff, which they are) are other people more likely to vote for. Because about 40% of voters are choosing the fascist dismantling guy, no matter what we do, and, and this part is critical, nobody is going to vote for your cat.
What we are ceaselessly, indefatigably chewing ourselves to pieces over is who in God's name those of us who understand the stakes and the nature of the office (as you have so well outlined) can get enough other people to vote for. You're right that it does not matter right now whether they're the fittest possible candidate for the office. I think you're wrong that it matters right now that they're better than the other guy, precisely because that can be taken as assumed. What matters right now is who do they like more. Who can we get elected. And listen, I'll phonebank for your cat, I don't give a fuck, but I'd love if I was volunteering for somebody I thought had a chance.
posted by penduluum at 11:05 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Respectfully disagree. That's the next question. The first question is which Democrat (given they're both going to surround themselves with functionally the same staff, which they are) are other people more likely to vote for. Because about 40% of voters are choosing the fascist dismantling guy, no matter what we do, and, and this part is critical, nobody is going to vote for your cat.
What we are ceaselessly, indefatigably chewing ourselves to pieces over is who in God's name those of us who understand the stakes and the nature of the office (as you have so well outlined) can get enough other people to vote for. You're right that it does not matter right now whether they're the fittest possible candidate for the office. I think you're wrong that it matters right now that they're better than the other guy, precisely because that can be taken as assumed. What matters right now is who do they like more. Who can we get elected. And listen, I'll phonebank for your cat, I don't give a fuck, but I'd love if I was volunteering for somebody I thought had a chance.
posted by penduluum at 11:05 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I’m going to need to see pictures of the cat.
posted by Artw at 11:07 AM on July 19 [28 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:07 AM on July 19 [28 favorites]
NYT is reporting Joe "I will never log off" Biden to resume campaigning next week.
The petty part of me wants Biden to stay in just to show that legacy media cannot force a candidate off the ticket.
posted by ichomp at 11:11 AM on July 19 [7 favorites]
The petty part of me wants Biden to stay in just to show that legacy media cannot force a candidate off the ticket.
posted by ichomp at 11:11 AM on July 19 [7 favorites]
What... is this supposed to mean, exactly?
Surely you remember the Tea Party horseshit. That was a direct response to the shock and horror some..people..had when a black man was elected President. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with metaphorically jamming an even pointier stick in their eye, but it behooves us to remember history and be prepared for what we'd be walking into.
Quaint how the domestic terrorism we saw then would just be another day ending in y these days.
posted by wierdo at 11:11 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Surely you remember the Tea Party horseshit. That was a direct response to the shock and horror some..people..had when a black man was elected President. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with metaphorically jamming an even pointier stick in their eye, but it behooves us to remember history and be prepared for what we'd be walking into.
Quaint how the domestic terrorism we saw then would just be another day ending in y these days.
posted by wierdo at 11:11 AM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Don’t worry - Biden is in Adobe ProCreate right now putting the finishing touches on the incredible Cat for President video campaign spots. He will be stepping back into an advisory role. Cat promises to address the lack of resources for pets at the border and will order the FDA to ramp up inspections of contaminants in so-called organic pet foods. Cat will also mandate 20 hours of naps for American workers and accessibility ramps for fish tanks.
posted by caviar2d2 at 11:47 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 11:47 AM on July 19 [5 favorites]
- when Obama was elected, the entire population* of Missouri went absolutely berzerk
- Racism didn't hurt Obama
- I would say Obama was a genius level campaigner, but an oddly middling president
WTH. So many people went berserk about Obama that their hate and paranoia spawned the Birther movement, which swelled the Tea Party's ranks, which led to the inexperienced pols who swept the midterms and populated Congress with racist meatheads to oppose Obama and his administration's efforts at every turn.
AOC also revealed that her dump-Biden colleagues want to scuttle the entire ticket. As discussed, the Biden replacement candidate would have to be Harris as only Harris can use their campaign funds. We're roughly 100 days out; somebody new would either be stratospherically wealthy to self-fund, OR present as a candidate quickly funded (and controlled) by the mega-wealthy.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:13 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
- Racism didn't hurt Obama
- I would say Obama was a genius level campaigner, but an oddly middling president
WTH. So many people went berserk about Obama that their hate and paranoia spawned the Birther movement, which swelled the Tea Party's ranks, which led to the inexperienced pols who swept the midterms and populated Congress with racist meatheads to oppose Obama and his administration's efforts at every turn.
AOC also revealed that her dump-Biden colleagues want to scuttle the entire ticket. As discussed, the Biden replacement candidate would have to be Harris as only Harris can use their campaign funds. We're roughly 100 days out; somebody new would either be stratospherically wealthy to self-fund, OR present as a candidate quickly funded (and controlled) by the mega-wealthy.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:13 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
The IRS recently reported collecting $1 billion in back taxes from a handful of rich households. Of course the powers that be would like Biden and his administration gone.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:13 PM on July 19 [21 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:13 PM on July 19 [21 favorites]
Powers that be==majority of democratic voters?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:22 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:22 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
It is not helpful for us to act as if the concern about Biden’s competence is a conspiracy or corporate fabrication. If anything, the media has been lagging the voters in this regard.
posted by argybarg at 12:26 PM on July 19 [14 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 12:26 PM on July 19 [14 favorites]
The IRS recently reported collecting $1 billion in back taxes from a handful of rich households. Of course the powers that be would like Biden and his administration gone.
Powers that be==majority of democratic voters?
Are you saying that a majority of democratic voters want Biden and Harris gone?
posted by oneirodynia at 12:35 PM on July 19
Powers that be==majority of democratic voters?
Are you saying that a majority of democratic voters want Biden and Harris gone?
posted by oneirodynia at 12:35 PM on July 19
Pretty sure the majority of Democratic voters including those who think Biden sucks do not want to be in a situation where a post primary replacement of uncertain success may or may not happen.
posted by Artw at 12:44 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:44 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Getting back to what AOC actually said, it seems clear that her point is a lot more concerning than people are taking in: A lot of us here have assumed Harris would be the natural replacement, but AOC is saying the donor class isn't happy with that
there is absolutely no controlling what will happen if biden steps aside
posted by lescour at 12:44 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
there is absolutely no controlling what will happen if biden steps aside
posted by lescour at 12:44 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Are you saying that a majority of democratic voters want Biden and Harris gone?
That’s what the polls would suggest.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:46 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Are you saying that a majority of democratic voters want Biden and Harris gone?
That’s what the polls would suggest.
Absolutely dishonest argument. Polls say that if Biden steps down that Harris would be strongly welcomed as a candidate.
posted by azpenguin at 12:48 PM on July 19 [12 favorites]
That’s what the polls would suggest.
Absolutely dishonest argument. Polls say that if Biden steps down that Harris would be strongly welcomed as a candidate.
posted by azpenguin at 12:48 PM on July 19 [12 favorites]
Most dem voters think the Democrats have a bigger chance of winning the election if Biden is replaced than if he stays. What’s completely weird is that they believe this but still want Biden to be the nominee.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:54 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:54 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
That’s what the polls would suggest
And what do you think the chances are that polls are suggesting this because there's literally been a months' worth of public freaking out all over social media and old school media and punditry, and anonymous leaks from who knows who and major corporate and rich donors suggesting they're not going to donate and now a bunch of people who mostly weren't planning on paying attention to politics until September are now thinking, "Hmm, maybe if all those people are freaking out i should too?"
posted by soundguy99 at 12:55 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
And what do you think the chances are that polls are suggesting this because there's literally been a months' worth of public freaking out all over social media and old school media and punditry, and anonymous leaks from who knows who and major corporate and rich donors suggesting they're not going to donate and now a bunch of people who mostly weren't planning on paying attention to politics until September are now thinking, "Hmm, maybe if all those people are freaking out i should too?"
posted by soundguy99 at 12:55 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
AOC also revealed that her dump-Biden colleagues want to scuttle the entire ticket. As discussed, the Biden replacement candidate would have to be Harris as only Harris can use their campaign funds. We're roughly 100 days out; somebody new would either be stratospherically wealthy to self-fund, OR present as a candidate quickly funded (and controlled) by the mega-wealthy.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:13
This. Harris would be strongly welcomed by some of us we-the-voters but the same cabal going after Biden you betcha are going to go after Harris. She has had throughout her vice-presidency horrible press for reasons that are very murky to me. (I don't need to be educated now on how horrible Harris is so please don't).
posted by bluesky43 at 12:55 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:13
This. Harris would be strongly welcomed by some of us we-the-voters but the same cabal going after Biden you betcha are going to go after Harris. She has had throughout her vice-presidency horrible press for reasons that are very murky to me. (I don't need to be educated now on how horrible Harris is so please don't).
posted by bluesky43 at 12:55 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Which part of THE POLLS ARE NOT ACCURATE don’t people understand? Even the media seem to be baffled by the obvious: oh noes, how did we get it wrong? Why aren’t people picking up their landlines?
posted by Melismata at 12:57 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 12:57 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Wait so we’re throwing out all public opinion polling? Not just “who would you vote for” not predicting election outcomes, but all polling in general?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:59 PM on July 19 [10 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:59 PM on July 19 [10 favorites]
Lukewarm at best on Biden, but it feels very much to me like a fix is in here. Genuinely wondering if the Dems survive the coming blowout + Trump regime as a party at all.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:00 PM on July 19
posted by ryanshepard at 1:00 PM on July 19
If anything, the media has been lagging the voters in this regard
Not just the voters but also so many deeply pro-Joe Dem electeds. We just learned that Raskin asked Biden to step down on July 6. Pelosi's been maneuvering for a couple weeks now. Fifty+ Dem House members were planning to demand Biden step down the day the projectile buzzed the clown with the extra long tie.
Pelosi's whole job for years was understanding her members and their needs in swing districts. Do we think that Biden has greater wisdom than Pelosi? Do we think that we do? Do we think she's been cornered into submission by the New York Times because they want him to step down for not granting them interviews? I have to admit I don't understand the media conspiracy angle.
posted by kensington314 at 1:04 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
Not just the voters but also so many deeply pro-Joe Dem electeds. We just learned that Raskin asked Biden to step down on July 6. Pelosi's been maneuvering for a couple weeks now. Fifty+ Dem House members were planning to demand Biden step down the day the projectile buzzed the clown with the extra long tie.
Pelosi's whole job for years was understanding her members and their needs in swing districts. Do we think that Biden has greater wisdom than Pelosi? Do we think that we do? Do we think she's been cornered into submission by the New York Times because they want him to step down for not granting them interviews? I have to admit I don't understand the media conspiracy angle.
posted by kensington314 at 1:04 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
David Frum
David Frum has been wrong about literally everything since the beginning of his career, and he's also basically a Republican. If he thinks Biden should stay in, it's yet another good sign that Biden needs to go.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:10 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
David Frum has been wrong about literally everything since the beginning of his career, and he's also basically a Republican. If he thinks Biden should stay in, it's yet another good sign that Biden needs to go.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:10 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Okay, to be perfectly candid, the ramping-up of litigation about who would make the best replacement is giving me serious 2016 flashbacks - where we had two popular options for a long time, and when one ultimately won, several supporters of the other sat out the vote - and that is partly why we ended up with Trump.
That's why I say to the people who say that "elections are about turnout, and people don’t want to turnout for old Biden" that likely people would turn out for Not-Trump, if the race is spun that way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:12 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
That's why I say to the people who say that "elections are about turnout, and people don’t want to turnout for old Biden" that likely people would turn out for Not-Trump, if the race is spun that way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:12 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
David Frum has been wrong about literally everything since the beginning of his career, and he's also basically a Republican.
Frum predicted in 2018 that the GOP would abandon democracy once demographics turned decidedly against it. So there's that.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:13 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Frum predicted in 2018 that the GOP would abandon democracy once demographics turned decidedly against it. So there's that.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:13 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
The more I think about this, the more I think there is zero chance Biden drops out unless he has an absolutely ironclad guarantee that Harris is the nominee. And to me that is the smart move. Getting him to step down and then pushing Harris aside because that's what the donors want? First of all that makes it feel like they know exactly who they want. Second, it would validate every single "liberal elites" "limousine liberals" "corporate democrats" criticism that was ever thrown out there. It would massively depress turnout. If there's even a hint of an open convention, forget it. I don't need to see opportunists such as Newsom trying to make a ton of noise in the media to try to swing the nomination his way. Biden holds the cards here. They can push as hard as they want, they can threaten to withhold money all they want, but the decision is his to make.
posted by azpenguin at 1:20 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 1:20 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
several supporters of the other sat out the vote - and that is partly why we ended up with Trump.
That isn't how we wound up with Trump. Supporters of both candidates showed up to vote for Biden on election day. There was a higher percentage of Sanders-Clinton voters in 2016 than Clinton-Obama voters in 2008. (And both percentages were quitw high.)
Trump's victory might be laid at the feet of the analyst who believee the "blue wall" meant Clinton didn't need to campaign in the midwest. It cannot readonably be laid at the feet of any group backing any primary candidate in 2016.
I suspect those of us who care enough to vote in the primaries will come out to support whoever the non-Trump option is. There may be a few hold outs who refuse to support Biden because of hos complicity on the genocide in Gaza, but no one is going to tefuse to vote for him out of pique over not getting to vote for Harris at the top of the ticket, nor vice versa.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:20 PM on July 19 [14 favorites]
That isn't how we wound up with Trump. Supporters of both candidates showed up to vote for Biden on election day. There was a higher percentage of Sanders-Clinton voters in 2016 than Clinton-Obama voters in 2008. (And both percentages were quitw high.)
Trump's victory might be laid at the feet of the analyst who believee the "blue wall" meant Clinton didn't need to campaign in the midwest. It cannot readonably be laid at the feet of any group backing any primary candidate in 2016.
I suspect those of us who care enough to vote in the primaries will come out to support whoever the non-Trump option is. There may be a few hold outs who refuse to support Biden because of hos complicity on the genocide in Gaza, but no one is going to tefuse to vote for him out of pique over not getting to vote for Harris at the top of the ticket, nor vice versa.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:20 PM on July 19 [14 favorites]
And what do you think the chances are that polls are suggesting this because there's literally been a months' worth of public freaking out all over social media and old school media and punditry
I was going to dig up some polls because I know there have been polls but (warning: “the media”) what’s left of 538 conveniently published this
posted by atoxyl at 1:27 PM on July 19
I was going to dig up some polls because I know there have been polls but (warning: “the media”) what’s left of 538 conveniently published this
posted by atoxyl at 1:27 PM on July 19
it would validate every single "liberal elites" "limousine liberals" "corporate democrats" criticism that was ever thrown out there
SUPER DUPER DELEGATES
posted by lescour at 1:28 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
SUPER DUPER DELEGATES
posted by lescour at 1:28 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Which part of THE POLLS ARE NOT ACCURATE don’t people understand
Going to need more than a flat assertion here to actually believe that. The polls were in fact accurate in 2016; Clinton won the popular vote by 2.2%, which was in line with national polling, especially when accounting for margin of error. The polls were accurate in 2020, the polls were accurate in 2022. "The polls aren't accurate" feels a lot more like a belief than a fact at this point.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:31 PM on July 19 [10 favorites]
Going to need more than a flat assertion here to actually believe that. The polls were in fact accurate in 2016; Clinton won the popular vote by 2.2%, which was in line with national polling, especially when accounting for margin of error. The polls were accurate in 2020, the polls were accurate in 2022. "The polls aren't accurate" feels a lot more like a belief than a fact at this point.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:31 PM on July 19 [10 favorites]
Note that there is a pretty big range in results depending on the exact question that’s asked - the opinion that he absolutely couldn’t do it, that he would be “severely limited” is his ability to carry out the duties of President, is a narrow majority one among all respondents, but still unpopular with Democrats. Having “some concern” or saying that he’s too old to serve another four years is a majority opinion among Democrats. But none of these results have actually changed that much since the debate.
posted by atoxyl at 1:34 PM on July 19
posted by atoxyl at 1:34 PM on July 19
The mainstream media has been lagging the voters, but the right wing media has very much been leading the voters. "Biden is too old to be president" has been exactly the Trump campaign (and Murdoch) messaging for a long time now. Remember when Hillary Clinton was supposedly sick? And hiding it? And everyone freaked out when she fainted - from heat, exhaustion, and dehydration if I recall correctly, but Republicans claimed she was dying. It's 8 years later, and Hillary is fine.
"Biden is old" obviously has more truth to it than "Hillary is sick" did. But we all knew how old he was in 2020, and how old he was gonna be in 2024. That it's suddenly perceived as a crisis does seem to me like a right wing meme which successfully spread through the population.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:35 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
"Biden is old" obviously has more truth to it than "Hillary is sick" did. But we all knew how old he was in 2020, and how old he was gonna be in 2024. That it's suddenly perceived as a crisis does seem to me like a right wing meme which successfully spread through the population.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:35 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
Also just noting that 2020 saw the biggest turnout in modern history and Biden still only won by a hair. Hugely doubtful that level of historic turnout is going to hold with Biden in the condition he's in, democrats in the state of chaos they are in, and the media feedback loop inflaming it all that will *not* stop for the next few months. There's just not a path to victory here without changing a major piece of the equation.
"Maybe millions of disparate voters who feel extremely disillusioned and pissed off by democrats trying to Weekend at Bernies Biden across the finish line will have an epiphany, decide not to stay home, and #JustVote to #SaveDemocracy yall" is pure fantasy, it ain't gonna happen.
posted by windbox at 1:36 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
"Maybe millions of disparate voters who feel extremely disillusioned and pissed off by democrats trying to Weekend at Bernies Biden across the finish line will have an epiphany, decide not to stay home, and #JustVote to #SaveDemocracy yall" is pure fantasy, it ain't gonna happen.
posted by windbox at 1:36 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
"Biden is too old to be president" has been exactly the Trump campaign (and Murdoch) messaging for a long time now
It's been a leading concern of people who actually voted for Biden in 2020 and generally support him, also; you can't pretend this is all just some sinister right-wing conspiracy, especially not after most of the country saw his obvious decline cast in stark relief by his atrocious debate performance (where he couldn't maintain a train of thought, appeared lost for words, and seemed confused at many points).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:39 PM on July 19 [14 favorites]
It's been a leading concern of people who actually voted for Biden in 2020 and generally support him, also; you can't pretend this is all just some sinister right-wing conspiracy, especially not after most of the country saw his obvious decline cast in stark relief by his atrocious debate performance (where he couldn't maintain a train of thought, appeared lost for words, and seemed confused at many points).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:39 PM on July 19 [14 favorites]
Everyone loves the backup quarterback when they're holding a clipboard.
I keep seeing this coming up as a metaphor and I'm not picking on this one comment in particular but this just doesn't ring true for me. Maybe it's because I'm from Minnesota where the term "quarterback controversy" is so very, very common.
The premise of the movie Any Given Sunday is all based around the hall of fame bound veteran QB getting injured and the backup QB stepping up to be just as good as the starter. Someone that follows football more closely than me could probably come up with some examples of backup QBs stepping up to be heroes when the beloved starting QB goes down.
Aaron Rodgers was Brett Farve's backup and both are well loved in Wisconsin (and felt...differently about over here in Minnesota -_- ).
posted by VTX at 1:42 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I keep seeing this coming up as a metaphor and I'm not picking on this one comment in particular but this just doesn't ring true for me. Maybe it's because I'm from Minnesota where the term "quarterback controversy" is so very, very common.
The premise of the movie Any Given Sunday is all based around the hall of fame bound veteran QB getting injured and the backup QB stepping up to be just as good as the starter. Someone that follows football more closely than me could probably come up with some examples of backup QBs stepping up to be heroes when the beloved starting QB goes down.
Aaron Rodgers was Brett Farve's backup and both are well loved in Wisconsin (and felt...differently about over here in Minnesota -_- ).
posted by VTX at 1:42 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
There's also gambling that Dobbs activated voters will turnout.
Have the old, centrist defectors given any indication as to who they want as a candidate? That's been conspicuously absent from "dems beg Biden to drop" articles and statements.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:42 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Have the old, centrist defectors given any indication as to who they want as a candidate? That's been conspicuously absent from "dems beg Biden to drop" articles and statements.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:42 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Someone that follows football more closely than me could probably come up with some examples of backup QBs stepping up to be heroes when the beloved starting QB goes down.
Steve Young stepping in for Joe Montana. Although Steve was lobbying for the starting job for a while before that finally occurred.
posted by grubi at 1:49 PM on July 19
Steve Young stepping in for Joe Montana. Although Steve was lobbying for the starting job for a while before that finally occurred.
posted by grubi at 1:49 PM on July 19
The Democrats need a hero. They already have one (Daily Beast), in which it is proposed that presidential candidate Kamala Harris's ideal VP is... Mark Kelly.
I find a lot of Daily Beast writing to be just this side of magical thinking--this is one of those.
posted by box at 1:52 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I find a lot of Daily Beast writing to be just this side of magical thinking--this is one of those.
posted by box at 1:52 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Hillary Clinton did get sick, from exhaustion and pneumonia, and then recovered because those are reversible conditions. Being old in 2020 is not a condition that reverses on the way to 2024, or 2028, which is a big part of why it was a topic in 2020. And now it is 2024 and he’s visibly not better, he’s worse. The majority of Democrats I know, and I’m talking about people who phone bank and register voters and certainly would vote for Biden over Trump if he were actually dead, have been “fingers crossed he can keep it together because it’s not clear that there’s a better option” the whole time. I really, really don’t know the right move here. I wasn’t sure there was a stronger candidate in waiting at the beginning of this year - if there’s a logical reason for that opinion to change now it’s not any of the alternatives looking stronger, it’s just Biden looking weaker, and that’s a miserable situation to be in. But you gotta let go of this not being a real issue.
posted by atoxyl at 1:55 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:55 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Like I said above, my personal happiness re: Biden leaving is entirely contingent on Biden resigning, Harris becoming president, and Harris being the candidate. Some stooge handpicked by Nancy Pelosi could suck a fuck. That is not how this shit works.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:56 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:56 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
I'm reminded of an episode of Boston Legal. Guest star James Whitmore (about 80 yo) played a lawyer with dementia who was still more kickass than the prosecution.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:57 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:57 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
The point of the QB analogy isn't that backups are never better than starters -- that's obviously false. (And I'm duty-bound as a Philadelphia native to mention that Randall Cunningham came along as Ron Jaworski was starting to decline, and did quite nicely for himself.)
The point of the analogy is that the *popularity* of the backup is based on the fact that they're not the ones having the finger pointed at them when the other team's defensive back is running into the endzone because of an errant throw. The player on the field takes that blame, and, in the political sphere, that means the poll numbers go down. Harris has a clean rep because she's not been directly associated with anything majorly unpopular, e.g. inflation, war in Gaza -- though she will of course be cast as being part of the Biden admin if she does inherit the nomination. The point is that you can pretty much set your watch to her taking a 5+% or more hit within a week or two of becoming the actual / presumptive nominee, regardless of how well she does.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:02 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
The point of the analogy is that the *popularity* of the backup is based on the fact that they're not the ones having the finger pointed at them when the other team's defensive back is running into the endzone because of an errant throw. The player on the field takes that blame, and, in the political sphere, that means the poll numbers go down. Harris has a clean rep because she's not been directly associated with anything majorly unpopular, e.g. inflation, war in Gaza -- though she will of course be cast as being part of the Biden admin if she does inherit the nomination. The point is that you can pretty much set your watch to her taking a 5+% or more hit within a week or two of becoming the actual / presumptive nominee, regardless of how well she does.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:02 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
...meant to add that it's also a bunch of people projecting their hopes and dreams on the backup, not just the "heavy is the head that wears the crown" factor.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:03 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 2:03 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
My above comment was about the show, "The Practice," not "Boston Legal."
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:13 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:13 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
The choices are basically:
(a) Treat Biden age concerns as priced in since they do predate the debate and didn’t poll massively worse after, figure out how to hit Trump harder, deploy surrogates more, maybe play up Harris as a worthy successor since she is the designated successor already. Besides the death of a thousand cuts that is the “nothing changes from this moment” outcome the big risk here is that Biden falls apart again at the September debate or even closer to the election and it’s Joever immediately.
(b) Have him step aside for Harris now. Upside: least chaos and most continuity of any possible transition, she’s not an unknown, her stage presence is a little goofy but certainly sharper and more energetic than his, maybe could get some momentum just out of the excitement of change? Downside: still a little chaotic, and I’m not going to beat around the bush about saying she was probably never going to win a national primary.
(c) Bring in somebody else, somehow. Upside: there probably is somebody else who theoretically has more appeal to swing state swing voters than Harris. Downside: super chaotic, bringing in a relative unknown, bad optics, hard for it not to come off as a fuck you to some core Democratic voters.
posted by atoxyl at 2:15 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
(a) Treat Biden age concerns as priced in since they do predate the debate and didn’t poll massively worse after, figure out how to hit Trump harder, deploy surrogates more, maybe play up Harris as a worthy successor since she is the designated successor already. Besides the death of a thousand cuts that is the “nothing changes from this moment” outcome the big risk here is that Biden falls apart again at the September debate or even closer to the election and it’s Joever immediately.
(b) Have him step aside for Harris now. Upside: least chaos and most continuity of any possible transition, she’s not an unknown, her stage presence is a little goofy but certainly sharper and more energetic than his, maybe could get some momentum just out of the excitement of change? Downside: still a little chaotic, and I’m not going to beat around the bush about saying she was probably never going to win a national primary.
(c) Bring in somebody else, somehow. Upside: there probably is somebody else who theoretically has more appeal to swing state swing voters than Harris. Downside: super chaotic, bringing in a relative unknown, bad optics, hard for it not to come off as a fuck you to some core Democratic voters.
posted by atoxyl at 2:15 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
The Democrats need a hero. They already have one (Daily Beast), in which it is proposed that presidential candidate Kamala Harris's ideal VP is... Mark Kelly.
I find a lot of Daily Beast writing to be just this side of magical thinking--this is one of those.
posted by box at 3:52 PM on July 19
The article seems to make a good argument to me. A quick search hasn't turned up any scandals or Shermanesque statements. Not saying you're wrong, just wondering, why is it magical thinking?
posted by Reverend John at 2:18 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
I find a lot of Daily Beast writing to be just this side of magical thinking--this is one of those.
posted by box at 3:52 PM on July 19
The article seems to make a good argument to me. A quick search hasn't turned up any scandals or Shermanesque statements. Not saying you're wrong, just wondering, why is it magical thinking?
posted by Reverend John at 2:18 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Downside: super chaotic, bringing in a relative unknown, bad optics, hard for it not to come off as a fuck you to some core Democratic voters.
Further downsides - no one else can spend the Biden/Harris campaign money. Any attempt to select someone else will likely take long enough that Ohio ballot eligibility is at risk (deadline arguably Aug 7.) And instead of being an incumbent, the new nominee would effectively be running against an incumbent, since Trump was president recently. Harris is at least thr incumbent vice president, with all of the name recognition and networking advantages that confers.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:24 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Further downsides - no one else can spend the Biden/Harris campaign money. Any attempt to select someone else will likely take long enough that Ohio ballot eligibility is at risk (deadline arguably Aug 7.) And instead of being an incumbent, the new nominee would effectively be running against an incumbent, since Trump was president recently. Harris is at least thr incumbent vice president, with all of the name recognition and networking advantages that confers.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:24 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
I think Kelly as VP could deliver Arizona's EVs to the Dems. He's popular here and won two Senate elections in two years (2020 election to finish McCain's term, 2022 for a full six year term.) Holding those 10 EVs would be pretty crucial. In 2022 he beat another of Thiel's hand-picked guys and did so going away.
posted by azpenguin at 2:25 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 2:25 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
We've been talking about the optics of brute-force replacing Biden, but does anyone really believe it's possible, logistically? The amount of coordinated leverage that would have to be applied to convince delegates, who take their loyalty to the voters they represent super seriously, is just unfathomable. If there were a massive, unified groundswell among the voters and a half a year … maybe. In these conditions? No way.
I think we have to completely discount the idea that a new nominee will come without Biden's assent. Either he chooses to resign or he stays. Those are the only two options (leaving out the third option of Biden having a major medical event or dying).
posted by argybarg at 2:26 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I think we have to completely discount the idea that a new nominee will come without Biden's assent. Either he chooses to resign or he stays. Those are the only two options (leaving out the third option of Biden having a major medical event or dying).
posted by argybarg at 2:26 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I think we've been talking about the optics of brute force bypassing Harris? I haven't heard anyone claim that it's possible to replace Biden without him choosing to step down.
Though donors and elected Democrats can put a lot pressure on him to step down (and many are currently trying to do so.) We can talk about whether or not that's wise or effective. But this thread is about reports that he might be willing to bow to that pressure.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:36 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Though donors and elected Democrats can put a lot pressure on him to step down (and many are currently trying to do so.) We can talk about whether or not that's wise or effective. But this thread is about reports that he might be willing to bow to that pressure.
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:36 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
The chaos of attempting to herd enough cats together to crown a new nominee and weld together some kind of campaign that stands a chance of succeeding has to happen in not months, but weeks.
And you believe that "Dems in Disarray" will die down in the media, rather than multiplying exponentially?
Yes, because the comment of mine that you're responding to is explicitly calling for option (b) as outlined above by atoxyl. I have an above-average tolerance for chaos, and even I am tired of this, so I feel fairly confident in assuming that the majority of Democrats will fall in line behind Harris, especially if Biden gives a masterful speech (ideally pre-recorded to make sure it's close to perfect) that glowingly endorses Harris and sings her praises. The campaign will still be more or less the same - she can own their accomplishments, but perhaps crucially pivot a bit where it would be smart to do so. Biden can still be involved in the campaign, touting her skills. Sure, FOX et al. will stir shit, but they'll stir shit no matter what happens. And I'd say there is a reason (or two) the Trump campaign doesn't want Biden to step down. But if the Democrats unite around Harris, they will literally not be in disarray, they will be united.
But yeah, if it turns out the problem is that Pelosi or some strong faction is pushing for option (c) that would be a mess. But besides the AOC livestream, I've not seen any reporting suggesting that's what's going on. And if it is, then Biden totally has the option of resigning and passing the torch to her. So, I won't pretend to know exactly what's going on, but the idea he's not stepping down because he fears Harris will get passed over isn't quite adding up.
posted by coffeecat at 2:43 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
And you believe that "Dems in Disarray" will die down in the media, rather than multiplying exponentially?
Yes, because the comment of mine that you're responding to is explicitly calling for option (b) as outlined above by atoxyl. I have an above-average tolerance for chaos, and even I am tired of this, so I feel fairly confident in assuming that the majority of Democrats will fall in line behind Harris, especially if Biden gives a masterful speech (ideally pre-recorded to make sure it's close to perfect) that glowingly endorses Harris and sings her praises. The campaign will still be more or less the same - she can own their accomplishments, but perhaps crucially pivot a bit where it would be smart to do so. Biden can still be involved in the campaign, touting her skills. Sure, FOX et al. will stir shit, but they'll stir shit no matter what happens. And I'd say there is a reason (or two) the Trump campaign doesn't want Biden to step down. But if the Democrats unite around Harris, they will literally not be in disarray, they will be united.
But yeah, if it turns out the problem is that Pelosi or some strong faction is pushing for option (c) that would be a mess. But besides the AOC livestream, I've not seen any reporting suggesting that's what's going on. And if it is, then Biden totally has the option of resigning and passing the torch to her. So, I won't pretend to know exactly what's going on, but the idea he's not stepping down because he fears Harris will get passed over isn't quite adding up.
posted by coffeecat at 2:43 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Basically the media and donors and leaking Dems can endanger the campaign and theoretically force his hand. Throwing the election to Trump is another way that can go.
This cases me to have opinions on how seriously the above take that prospect.
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
This cases me to have opinions on how seriously the above take that prospect.
posted by Artw at 2:44 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
If you listen to AOC's storygram last night, one of her major concerns beyond what has already been discussed is that the GOP is already readying litigation to sue about who the 'new' candidate is if Biden is off the ticket. This had to do with republican state rules about when the ballot is finalized. She raised the issue that if this happened, the odds are less than zero that this would end up in the fucking no-good president-is-king supreme court.
posted by bluesky43 at 2:45 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 2:45 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
I haven't heard anyone claim that it's possible to replace Biden without him choosing to step down.
Technically the DNC delegates can go rogue, so they could legally not vote to make him the nominee. But that would be wild and chaotic and I highly doubt that would actually happen - but it is technically possible in the legal sense.
posted by coffeecat at 2:45 PM on July 19
Technically the DNC delegates can go rogue, so they could legally not vote to make him the nominee. But that would be wild and chaotic and I highly doubt that would actually happen - but it is technically possible in the legal sense.
posted by coffeecat at 2:45 PM on July 19
I can't believe that so little attention is being paid to the ballot shenanigans that will dead-certainly follow any movement at all on the Dem ticket, brought to you by the party of disbarred lawyers, bad-faith election lawsuits, slates of fake electors and January 6th.
Gosh, I wonder who the Supreme Court will endow us with, in that case?
But hey, let's find out!
Then we can all rewind to Biden's stuttering and slow walking and be glad we avoided that. Phew!
posted by Dashy at 2:45 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Gosh, I wonder who the Supreme Court will endow us with, in that case?
But hey, let's find out!
Then we can all rewind to Biden's stuttering and slow walking and be glad we avoided that. Phew!
posted by Dashy at 2:45 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
But this thread is about reports that he might be willing to bow to that pressure.
"What happens next" is inseparable from the question of "will Biden step down." And with the current chatter that the big Dem donors want to push Harris aside, well, then that raises the big question of just why they want him to step down. Some of us are starting to smell a really big ratfuck here, that the kingmakers aren't getting what they want and they're putting their thumbs on the scale for far less than honest reasons.
posted by azpenguin at 2:47 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
"What happens next" is inseparable from the question of "will Biden step down." And with the current chatter that the big Dem donors want to push Harris aside, well, then that raises the big question of just why they want him to step down. Some of us are starting to smell a really big ratfuck here, that the kingmakers aren't getting what they want and they're putting their thumbs on the scale for far less than honest reasons.
posted by azpenguin at 2:47 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
It’s suggestions like “Mark Kelly could be the VP candidate” that make me think that people maybe haven’t done a whole lot of thinking about the consequences of their suggested actions.
It was very recent in AZ history that we had two Republican Senators. Mark Kelly was able to overcome the conservative bias in AZ and get elected because he’s former military, a former astronaut, husband of the assassination attempt survivor Gabby Giffords, and comes across as a moderate, with an almost blue collar affect. AZ doesn’t have anyone in any statewide prominence that comes close to his popularity as a replacement.
Gallego is a good bet to replace Sinema because, again, former military helps with conservatives in this military retiree state, he has a well established power base as an Congressman, he is Latino, and because folks on the Left love his policies.
With Kelly and Gallego, we have a good chance of continuing for decades with two strong Dem senators that can weather their next elections, beyond any Governor appointment.
In short, I think it would be better to consider someone else as VP candidate in any fantasy league ticket. We need Kelly to stay in AZ. At least until he runs for President. ;)
posted by darkstar at 2:49 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
It was very recent in AZ history that we had two Republican Senators. Mark Kelly was able to overcome the conservative bias in AZ and get elected because he’s former military, a former astronaut, husband of the assassination attempt survivor Gabby Giffords, and comes across as a moderate, with an almost blue collar affect. AZ doesn’t have anyone in any statewide prominence that comes close to his popularity as a replacement.
Gallego is a good bet to replace Sinema because, again, former military helps with conservatives in this military retiree state, he has a well established power base as an Congressman, he is Latino, and because folks on the Left love his policies.
With Kelly and Gallego, we have a good chance of continuing for decades with two strong Dem senators that can weather their next elections, beyond any Governor appointment.
In short, I think it would be better to consider someone else as VP candidate in any fantasy league ticket. We need Kelly to stay in AZ. At least until he runs for President. ;)
posted by darkstar at 2:49 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Re: the potential legal challenges - I posted this article from The Hill on an older thread, which includes a helpful map with every state deadline. If Biden withdrew and endorsed Harris, there really would be very little to worry about legally, except New Mexico (but that's a fairly Blue state, so should be fixable). The only states with deadlines before the end of the DNC convention are Ruby Red states, but I agree, it would be better to not wait until the convention - another point for Harris.
posted by coffeecat at 2:52 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 2:52 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Yesss thanks for sharing this, coffeecat
posted by kensington314 at 2:57 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by kensington314 at 2:57 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
We need Kelly to stay in AZ. At least until he runs for President.
While I fully agree with this, if Kelly were to become VP this time around, Hobbs would appoint his replacement who would serve until 2026 and then would have to run in 2026 to finish out his term. The replacement has to be Dem by law. So the risk we would run would be losing two years (27-28) of a Dem in that Senate seat, but that's not guaranteed. If Hobbs were to choose wisely then there would be a strong candidate ready to go for that seat.
posted by azpenguin at 2:58 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
While I fully agree with this, if Kelly were to become VP this time around, Hobbs would appoint his replacement who would serve until 2026 and then would have to run in 2026 to finish out his term. The replacement has to be Dem by law. So the risk we would run would be losing two years (27-28) of a Dem in that Senate seat, but that's not guaranteed. If Hobbs were to choose wisely then there would be a strong candidate ready to go for that seat.
posted by azpenguin at 2:58 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
The party of Jan 6th and fake electors is not playing by the rules. They are playing by "make shit up" and "appeal appeal appeal". I am not willing to risk democracy to believing they will play fair and institutions will save us.
Seriously, the idea that Biden steps back and it *poof* all just works is a fucking tooth-fairy tale.
Biden is nowhere near old enough to warrant that.
posted by Dashy at 3:02 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Seriously, the idea that Biden steps back and it *poof* all just works is a fucking tooth-fairy tale.
Biden is nowhere near old enough to warrant that.
posted by Dashy at 3:02 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reiterates his complete support of Biden as the nominee & says Biden has “the ability, the capacity, and the track record” to win.
posted by darkstar at 3:29 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by darkstar at 3:29 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile Sen. Sherrod Brown calls on Biden to drop out - making today's tally 11 House members and 2 Senators, if I'm up to date.
posted by coffeecat at 3:34 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeecat at 3:34 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Democratic Polling Shows Biden Getting Crushed
Meanwhile: Pelosi voiced support for an open nomination process if Biden drops out
The data, which is based on thousands of voter surveys compiled by Democratic firm Blue Rose Research and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows Biden losing not only all the swing states, but also behind or even in New Hampshire, Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia and Maine. It shows the president leading by only 2.9 percentage points in New Jersey.Biden "seething" at Pelosi
Meanwhile: Pelosi voiced support for an open nomination process if Biden drops out
In a meeting with fellow California Democrats last week, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed the need for an open process to choose the party’s next nominee if President Joe Biden steps aside, in an effort to avoid the appearance of a Kamala Harris coronation.posted by Rhaomi at 3:36 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
The concern wasn’t about Harris’ strengths as a candidate — and in fact, several people made clear Harris needed to be the party’s next pick — but instead centered on worries that party bosses were choosing the president, rather than the party’s base.
Democratic Polling Shows Biden Getting Crushed
Well, maybe if prominent media outlets weren't broadcasting increasingly prominent Democrats shouting "Our candidate can't win" on a multiple-times-a-day basis everywhere
posted by delfin at 3:41 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Well, maybe if prominent media outlets weren't broadcasting increasingly prominent Democrats shouting "Our candidate can't win" on a multiple-times-a-day basis everywhere
posted by delfin at 3:41 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
So they're supposed to actively ignore this historical thing?
posted by Selena777 at 3:48 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 3:48 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
They sure ignore plenty else.
posted by Dashy at 3:49 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by Dashy at 3:49 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Well, maybe if prominent media outlets weren't broadcasting increasingly prominent Democrats shouting "Our candidate can't win" on a multiple-times-a-day basis everywhere
Seems pretty obviously newsworthy, why would they not report on this. Should they also not report on prominent republicans that speak out against Trump?
posted by windbox at 3:52 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Seems pretty obviously newsworthy, why would they not report on this. Should they also not report on prominent republicans that speak out against Trump?
posted by windbox at 3:52 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
in an effort to avoid the appearance of a Kamala Harris coronation.
Oh my god, Pelosi's going to be the death of us all. Harris isn't getting a crown--we literally elected her to replace Biden if and when necessary! This is what we asked her to do! This is why she was on the ticket, and why she has been doing the VP job for almost four years! Let her complete her mission!!!
posted by mittens at 3:54 PM on July 19 [37 favorites]
Oh my god, Pelosi's going to be the death of us all. Harris isn't getting a crown--we literally elected her to replace Biden if and when necessary! This is what we asked her to do! This is why she was on the ticket, and why she has been doing the VP job for almost four years! Let her complete her mission!!!
posted by mittens at 3:54 PM on July 19 [37 favorites]
From my perspective, the appearance of coronation would be if Harris is pushed aside in favor of wealthy donors' choice.
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:00 PM on July 19 [27 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:00 PM on July 19 [27 favorites]
I'm mad and annoyed now. How many times does Biden need to say he is staying in the race?
posted by ichomp at 4:01 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by ichomp at 4:01 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Seems worth noting that meeting where Pelosi is reported to have said that was July 10 (which frankly, feels like ages ago). So, presumably it's possible her thinking has shifted since then, especially given the assassination attempt and all. But I agree, if it turns out she's making the transition to Harris more difficult, very annoying and I'd say a miscalculation on how the average voter will react. Still, if that's what's holding Biden back, why not just resign and hand the keys over to Harris?
posted by coffeecat at 4:03 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 4:03 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
I wrote the President and told him that if he cannot continue, he must resign. Having a floor fight at the convention or some ersatz primary seems like a terrible idea to me.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:06 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by ob1quixote at 4:06 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
It's starting to feel like the media thinks that if they say enough times that Biden will bow to pressure and step aside, that will make it true. Biden is obviously much more interested in staying president as long as humanly possible than in the well-being of the country. Sounds familiar!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:08 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:08 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Biden is obviously much more interested in staying president as long as humanly possible than in the well-being of the country. Sounds familiar!
Bosen staying president IS for the well-being of the country.
posted by ichomp at 4:23 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Bosen staying president IS for the well-being of the country.
posted by ichomp at 4:23 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
These fuckers are seriously stamping their feet and having a tantrum because Biden won't give them a do over and a choose-your-own-primary-winner.
posted by Slackermagee at 4:41 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 4:41 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
So having the vice president chosen by voters in two primary elections and one general election become the nominee would be seen as a coronation by party bosses, but having unelected, unknown “superdelegates” make the choice instead would be seen as an open process representing the will of the party base?
posted by chimpsonfilm at 4:42 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by chimpsonfilm at 4:42 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
If we could actually do the primary over with a broader slate of candidates I’d be all for it - let’s not pretend it was a serious competition the first time. Unfortunately that would also require redoing the past half-year.
posted by atoxyl at 4:57 PM on July 19
posted by atoxyl at 4:57 PM on July 19
Y’all, they are. They will. “But what if the media weren’t doing what they’re doing” sure as hell isn’t something to base a campaign strategy around.
They wouldn't be doing that reporting on prominent Dems actively undermining the President if the prominent Dems weren't actively undermining the President.
posted by delfin at 5:08 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
They wouldn't be doing that reporting on prominent Dems actively undermining the President if the prominent Dems weren't actively undermining the President.
posted by delfin at 5:08 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
stamping their feet and having a tantrum because Biden won't give them a do over and a choose-your-own-primary-winner
The primary wasn't competitive and the electorate was unaware of Biden's general decline and evident cognitive issues. If there had been serious candidates and Biden's frailty were more general knowledge he might not be the nominee (or at least might have had a hard enough time with the primaries to reconsider running again).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:08 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
The primary wasn't competitive and the electorate was unaware of Biden's general decline and evident cognitive issues. If there had been serious candidates and Biden's frailty were more general knowledge he might not be the nominee (or at least might have had a hard enough time with the primaries to reconsider running again).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:08 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
What did Dean Phillips know, and when did he know it?
posted by Selena777 at 5:13 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 5:13 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
If the plan is to do something where the paper can announce, "DEMOCRAT ELITE DICTATE CHOICE", don't even bother with the convention. It'll be a Reagan map.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:17 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by Slackermagee at 5:17 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
I’d feel better about this if the biggest boosters weren’t the worst people in the Democratic Party and opinion media
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:21 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:21 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
If the plan is to do something where the paper can announce, "DEMOCRAT ELITE DICTATE CHOICE", don't even bother with the convention
Not sure how a non-competitive primary election where Biden was the only candidate in over half a dozen contests isn't that, honestly. Also not sure what part of "65% of Democrats want a different candidate" isn't getting through to you.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:24 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Can someone who thinks major Democrat donors and the mainstream media are applying illegitimate or "ratfucking" pressure to Biden to make him abandon his campaign -- as opposed to the regular pressure of, like, choosing not to donate to him and reporting on his problems -- offer a theory on why they'd do that? They certainly backed him 4 years ago. Why do we think they're trying to undermine the election? What's their goal? Is the theory that major Democrat donors want Trump to win, or just that they want some other candidate to run that nobody has named yet?
posted by penduluum at 5:27 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by penduluum at 5:27 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
If it comes to some bullshit Donor’s Coup Mini-Primary then yeah, we are all fucking dead and the Democratic Party is dead too.
I do not think that anyone pushing that understands that or cares about that.
posted by Artw at 5:28 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
I do not think that anyone pushing that understands that or cares about that.
posted by Artw at 5:28 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
So that other 35% is just going to behave? He won in 2020 by fewer than 60,000 votes spread across three states.
"Stand with the president" during the primary when we're coming after him for Gaza, but now that the polls look a little worse they aren't even talking about Harris.
If this is the way the party ends it is fitting that the centrist/Obama contingent led the way off the cliff.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:30 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
"Stand with the president" during the primary when we're coming after him for Gaza, but now that the polls look a little worse they aren't even talking about Harris.
If this is the way the party ends it is fitting that the centrist/Obama contingent led the way off the cliff.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:30 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Not sure how a non-competitive primary election where Biden was the only candidate in over half a dozen contests isn't that
I think the difference is that incumbent presidents generally don't face serious competition in the primaries. If the incumbent wants to run again, challenging them comes across as a power play.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:31 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
I think the difference is that incumbent presidents generally don't face serious competition in the primaries. If the incumbent wants to run again, challenging them comes across as a power play.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:31 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
IIRC There was RFK, briefly, and some weird asshole I’ve forgotten the name of.
Probably either of them would be more than happy to try and stir up trouble based on being also-rans.
posted by Artw at 5:33 PM on July 19
Probably either of them would be more than happy to try and stir up trouble based on being also-rans.
posted by Artw at 5:33 PM on July 19
incumbent presidents generally don't face serious competition in the primaries
Again, if Biden's decline were more general knowledge? He would have (and honestly should have anyway over his Gaza policy which it was clear back in October was going to lose him Michigan).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:36 PM on July 19
Again, if Biden's decline were more general knowledge? He would have (and honestly should have anyway over his Gaza policy which it was clear back in October was going to lose him Michigan).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:36 PM on July 19
I am trying to think of some process that can (a) make Joe Average Democrat feel at all represented in selecting a new candidate, (b) isn't a coronation of Harris as the designated successor that people already voted in as the designated successor, (c) involves more than just a list of names and "Which one of these should it be?" being voted upon, and (d) can get planned, started and done in the next week or two so that the theme of the convention isn't "we have no candidate, no momentum and no harmony whatsoever."
Anyone?
posted by delfin at 5:36 PM on July 19
Anyone?
posted by delfin at 5:36 PM on July 19
Someone that follows football more closely than me could probably come up with some examples of backup QBs stepping up to be heroes when the beloved starting QB goes down.
Tom Brady enters thechat game, wins seven Super Bowls.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:37 PM on July 19
Tom Brady enters the
posted by kirkaracha at 5:37 PM on July 19
Harris has to be the nominee. Biden is untenable and she is number two on the ticket. She isn't my ideal president by any stretch, but I genuinely think that she is the option that gives us the best shot at taking down Trump.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:38 PM on July 19 [17 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 5:38 PM on July 19 [17 favorites]
She's the only intelligent option. Pete Buttigieg or Gavin Newsom, voted on by a bunch of billionaire donors, that's not gonna fly with the hoi polloi. It's Harris or Biden.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:41 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:41 PM on July 19 [8 favorites]
The senators calling for him to step aside are up for reelection. Their big donors are pulling the drawstring because Biden's IRS is collecting. They have to denounce Biden for their donors.
This is a testament to Biden being the most progressive and dare I say -- leftist! -- president of our lifetime!
posted by ichomp at 5:44 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
This is a testament to Biden being the most progressive and dare I say -- leftist! -- president of our lifetime!
posted by ichomp at 5:44 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
most progressive and dare I say -- leftist! -- president of our lifetime
200,000 dead Palestinians say otherwise.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:45 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
200,000 dead Palestinians say otherwise.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:45 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
Keep in mind, regardless of why you or anyone else might want Biden out of the race for political reasons, he is ostensibly being pressured to leave due to health considerations. So while I think what's going on in Gaza is horrible, and that Biden is part of why it's horrible, this turn of events is not because anyone placing pressure on Biden disagrees with him. So it's probably a mistake to think that any of the courses pursued by Biden so far would be altered significantly by a new nominee.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:56 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:56 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Who’s the more progressive president of our lifetime?
posted by box at 6:06 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 6:06 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Who’s the more progressive president of our lifetime?
One who didn't arm and fund a genocide? That alone is a disqualification, regardless of whatever else he may or may not have done.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:10 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
One who didn't arm and fund a genocide? That alone is a disqualification, regardless of whatever else he may or may not have done.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 6:10 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Who’s the more progressive president of our lifetime?
Probably Johnson.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:11 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Probably Johnson.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:11 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Can someone who thinks major Democrat donors and the mainstream media are applying illegitimate or "ratfucking" pressure to Biden to make him abandon his campaign -- as opposed to the regular pressure of, like, choosing not to donate to him and reporting on his problems -- offer a theory on why they'd do that? They certainly backed him 4 years ago. Why do we think they're trying to undermine the election? What's their goal? Is the theory that major Democrat donors want Trump to win, or just that they want some other candidate to run that nobody has named yet?
As for the powerbrokers, they're seeing their chance to be kingmakers again. If they were applying legitimate pressure, they would be fully in line behind Harris. Instead, they want to choose someone different, this late in the campaign. Whether it be a "blitz primary" or an open convention, they're going to look to pick their person and a lot of opportunists are going to try to be that person. If they weren't wanting to push Harris out, we wouldn't be smelling a rat. (And, by the way, if people knew about this a year ago, then where was the courage to start working behind the scenes *before* the primaries? They're seeing an opportunity and they're trying to make it real.) As for the press, they want chaos, they want clicks, and if they can claim the trophy of ending an incumbent's campaign on their mantle, oh they want that really bad.
posted by azpenguin at 6:13 PM on July 19 [12 favorites]
As for the powerbrokers, they're seeing their chance to be kingmakers again. If they were applying legitimate pressure, they would be fully in line behind Harris. Instead, they want to choose someone different, this late in the campaign. Whether it be a "blitz primary" or an open convention, they're going to look to pick their person and a lot of opportunists are going to try to be that person. If they weren't wanting to push Harris out, we wouldn't be smelling a rat. (And, by the way, if people knew about this a year ago, then where was the courage to start working behind the scenes *before* the primaries? They're seeing an opportunity and they're trying to make it real.) As for the press, they want chaos, they want clicks, and if they can claim the trophy of ending an incumbent's campaign on their mantle, oh they want that really bad.
posted by azpenguin at 6:13 PM on July 19 [12 favorites]
The data, which is based on thousands of voter surveys compiled by Democratic firm Blue Rose Research and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows Biden losing not only all the swing states, but also behind or even in New Hampshire, Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia and Maine. It shows the president leading by only 2.9 percentage points in New Jersey.
Worth noting maybe that Blue Rose Research is the playground of controversial analyst David Shor, who is mistrusted by many progressives due to his aggressive centrism. (Like, he basically thinks the Dems should stay away from any mention of race that makes white people uncomfortable.)
IOW, a bunch of politically aware folks aren't gonna buy that data at all.
Ryan Cooper article in The Week covering some of this.
Also, Shor self-named his style of analysis "shorpilled", which, way to memebro it up, bro.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:18 PM on July 19
Worth noting maybe that Blue Rose Research is the playground of controversial analyst David Shor, who is mistrusted by many progressives due to his aggressive centrism. (Like, he basically thinks the Dems should stay away from any mention of race that makes white people uncomfortable.)
IOW, a bunch of politically aware folks aren't gonna buy that data at all.
Ryan Cooper article in The Week covering some of this.
Also, Shor self-named his style of analysis "shorpilled", which, way to memebro it up, bro.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:18 PM on July 19
Eh I a bunch of people that work there and no, they aren’t putting their thumb on the polling scales.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:30 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:30 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Who’s the more progressive president of our lifetime?
Carter was still president when i was born.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:34 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Carter was still president when i was born.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:34 PM on July 19 [9 favorites]
Well, now I KNOW whose freaking team I'm on.
Comedian David Letterman will headline a fundraiser for President Biden fundraiser at Hawaii governor's home on July 29.
posted by delfin at 6:51 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Comedian David Letterman will headline a fundraiser for President Biden fundraiser at Hawaii governor's home on July 29.
posted by delfin at 6:51 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
I am getting the sinking feeling that the idea is indeed to push in some jagoff nobody voted for. The democrats resorted to backroom dealing to get Biden the nomination in 2020; are they thinking it would be better if they didn't have to worry about people voting at all? Maybe politics is just another job that would be great if only it wasn't for all the customers.
I will say right now, I think that would be an even more disastrous mistake than Biden continuing his run. If Biden loses, the country is in for a bad four years. If the democrats push a candidate no one voted for us, that candidate will lose, and the democrats will lose their credibility for a generation. Trump and two terms of JD Vance. At least.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:04 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
I will say right now, I think that would be an even more disastrous mistake than Biden continuing his run. If Biden loses, the country is in for a bad four years. If the democrats push a candidate no one voted for us, that candidate will lose, and the democrats will lose their credibility for a generation. Trump and two terms of JD Vance. At least.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:04 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Carter was still president when i was born
Carter wasn't a progressive. Wish Ted Kennedy had succeeded in chasing him off the ticket.
posted by kensington314 at 7:10 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Carter wasn't a progressive. Wish Ted Kennedy had succeeded in chasing him off the ticket.
posted by kensington314 at 7:10 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
The democrats resorted to backroom dealing to get Biden the nomination in 2020
There were primaries real honest to fucking god primary elections with real fucking voters casting no-shit actual votes in every fucking state and beyond and Biden got the nomination because he won the fucking primaries
real fucking voters with real actual agency casting real votes that were actually counted
the dreaded party elites can help you portray yourself to those voters they can connect you with their own volunteers they can do lots of things to help you campaign to the voters but you still have to campaign to the voters and convince them to vote for you and it is still their votes that decide the nomination
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:11 PM on July 19 [22 favorites]
There were primaries real honest to fucking god primary elections with real fucking voters casting no-shit actual votes in every fucking state and beyond and Biden got the nomination because he won the fucking primaries
real fucking voters with real actual agency casting real votes that were actually counted
the dreaded party elites can help you portray yourself to those voters they can connect you with their own volunteers they can do lots of things to help you campaign to the voters but you still have to campaign to the voters and convince them to vote for you and it is still their votes that decide the nomination
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:11 PM on July 19 [22 favorites]
There were primaries real honest to fucking god primary elections with real fucking voters casting no-shit actual votes in every fucking state and beyond and Biden got the nomination because he won the fucking primaries
real fucking voters with real actual agency casting real votes that were actually counted
the dreaded party elites can help you portray yourself to those voters they can connect you with their own volunteers they can do lots of things to help you campaign to the voters but you still have to campaign to the voters and convince them to vote for you and it is still their votes that decide the nomination
This. 100% this. Ever since 2020 there’s been some people screaming that the primary was fixed, that the elites pushed Biden through. No. He won the primaries. He built coalitions. Bernie Sanders didn’t even try to get Jim Clyburn’s endorsement, and then afterwards said the establishment was trying to halt his campaign’s momentum, to which Clyburn responded “I find it very interesting that someone is referring to African American voters in South Carolina as the establishment. I don’t understand how that vote can be dismissed.” You win elections by getting people to vote for you. Biden did that. The other candidates didn’t.
posted by azpenguin at 7:25 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
real fucking voters with real actual agency casting real votes that were actually counted
the dreaded party elites can help you portray yourself to those voters they can connect you with their own volunteers they can do lots of things to help you campaign to the voters but you still have to campaign to the voters and convince them to vote for you and it is still their votes that decide the nomination
This. 100% this. Ever since 2020 there’s been some people screaming that the primary was fixed, that the elites pushed Biden through. No. He won the primaries. He built coalitions. Bernie Sanders didn’t even try to get Jim Clyburn’s endorsement, and then afterwards said the establishment was trying to halt his campaign’s momentum, to which Clyburn responded “I find it very interesting that someone is referring to African American voters in South Carolina as the establishment. I don’t understand how that vote can be dismissed.” You win elections by getting people to vote for you. Biden did that. The other candidates didn’t.
posted by azpenguin at 7:25 PM on July 19 [7 favorites]
Anyway, we voted for Harris. Harris makes sense. I'd vote for her. I'm not voting for someone my betters picked for me. Fuck that shit.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:26 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:26 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry I even mentioned 2020, Jesus Christ who gives a shit. They pushed Biden on us and it obviously worked out great. Whatever.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:27 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:27 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
For the last time, Biden won the primaries in 2020 and 2024.
posted by ichomp at 7:29 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by ichomp at 7:29 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
I'm not voting for someone my betters picked for me. Fuck that shit.
....So if it's "someone your betters picked for you" vs. Trump, then....what, you'll just say "oh well" and let Trump win?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:29 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
....So if it's "someone your betters picked for you" vs. Trump, then....what, you'll just say "oh well" and let Trump win?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:29 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
WE KNOW.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:29 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:29 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
...So if it's "someone your betters picked for you" vs. Trump, then....what, you'll just say "oh well" and let Trump win?
At that point, what difference does it make? The system is a sham. Who cares who wins?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:31 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
At that point, what difference does it make? The system is a sham. Who cares who wins?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:31 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
>Carter wasn't a progressive. Wish Ted Kennedy had succeeded in chasing him off the ticket.
We're too good for Carter now? The guy who was putting up solar panels in the 70s, and was building houses for people up 'til last week? The guy so scrupulous he sold the peanut farm to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? The only Christian we've had in the office in my lifetime who didn't need quotation marks around the word "Christian"? We should be so lucky as to have a person of such decency and principle anywhere near our political system now. Go wash your mouth out with soap.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 7:32 PM on July 19 [36 favorites]
We're too good for Carter now? The guy who was putting up solar panels in the 70s, and was building houses for people up 'til last week? The guy so scrupulous he sold the peanut farm to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? The only Christian we've had in the office in my lifetime who didn't need quotation marks around the word "Christian"? We should be so lucky as to have a person of such decency and principle anywhere near our political system now. Go wash your mouth out with soap.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 7:32 PM on July 19 [36 favorites]
At that point, what difference does it make? The system is a sham. Who cares who wins?
Are you SERIOUSLY saying you wouldn't care whether Trump won or lost?
....I genuinely don't know how to talk to you right now.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:39 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Are you SERIOUSLY saying you wouldn't care whether Trump won or lost?
....I genuinely don't know how to talk to you right now.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:39 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
I would care if Trump won, because I think that would be a calamity. But I also think the democrats have asked voters to really settle for less, over and over, and felt they could get away with it because the other guy was so much worse. And I'm feeling like them just yoinking the ticket Americans actually voted for and replacing it whoever their biggest fundraisers like better, that's a bridge too far.
Biden's a zombie, fine. He can go. That's why he has a vice-president. Those are the rules.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:46 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Biden's a zombie, fine. He can go. That's why he has a vice-president. Those are the rules.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:46 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
I would care if Trump won, because I think that would be a calamity.
And yet it sounds like you are saying that whether or not you vote at all depends on who the Dem candidate is.
If I've misunderstood what you're saying you'll do, please tell me, because right now it sounds like you don't actually think Trump winning is "a calamity", because calamities are things you would try to STOP BY ANY MEANS if you had the ability to do so.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:56 PM on July 19
And yet it sounds like you are saying that whether or not you vote at all depends on who the Dem candidate is.
If I've misunderstood what you're saying you'll do, please tell me, because right now it sounds like you don't actually think Trump winning is "a calamity", because calamities are things you would try to STOP BY ANY MEANS if you had the ability to do so.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:56 PM on July 19
I'm not sure whether rewarding a party for taking power from voters is better. I think it might be as bad. I don't really want to be in that situation. I think that Trump is a shotgun to the face of US democracy. I think a president selected for us by a party elite...I don't know. Maybe that's cancer to the lower intestine of democracy? That's also pretty dire. I hope that's not the democrats' plan, because it's a bad one.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:00 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:00 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
Can someone who thinks major Democrat donors and the mainstream media are applying illegitimate or "ratfucking" pressure to Biden to make him abandon his campaign -- as opposed to the regular pressure of, like, choosing not to donate to him and reporting on his problems -- offer a theory on why they'd do that?
Since you asked: Because his domestic policy has been too far from the centrist pablum they expected given his record in Congress. Whether because of him, despite him, or some of both, his administration has been very much on the side of consumer protection and trust busting in a way none has in the past 40 years.
Whether it's true that there's a ratfucking in progress I'm not well placed enough to say, but I can confidently say that there is ample cause to motivate said ratfucking.
And yeah, Carter wasn't particularly progressive. Mostly kind, definitely well meaning in the sense that he did what he thought was best for America, but not really progressive except in contrast with the Presidents that followed, who have at best been on the left edge of center-right.
Carter was not only the king of deregulation when it came to transportation of all kinds (planes, trains, trucks, pipelines, etc) his administration was the one that started the whole "arming the mujahideen" thing in Afghanistan which so sorely bit us in the ass 20 years later, among many other questionable activities relative to human rights around the globe, both actively supporting murderous dictators in the name of the domino theory and passively standing by the same way Bill Clinton did with Rwanda.
The US has always looked the other way at human rights abuses and even outright genocide when doing something about it has even a small risk of affecting our broader geopolitical goals. It was thus before Kissinger and has been thus ever since. I suspect one of the reasons Clinton described his choice not to intervene in Rwanda as his biggest mistake is because it was one of the few times in history where taking a stand wouldn't have interfered with other aims and clearly had little to no risk of sparking an even larger calamity.
I don't necessarily agree with this thinking, but I do understand where it comes from, distasteful as it may be. It's not a matter of malice, it's a matter of priorities, fucked up as they may or may not be in any given case.
And personally, my vote will go to any Democratic candidate who has not attempted to overthrow the government. I will not be happy about discarding the results of the primary, but parties get to pick their candidate, so I don't see this possibility as nearly as much of a threat as Trump. Younger Democrat is not an existential threat to the continuation of free elections, Trump is. My distaste for the process or my feelings of having been ratfucked are irrelevant. I want my niece to grow up in a country where the elected are still accountable to the voters. We're teetering on the brink here, so it is incumbent upon us all to do whatever we need to do to keep the insurrectionist rapist from taking power again, even if we find it an unpleasant duty.
posted by wierdo at 8:14 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
Since you asked: Because his domestic policy has been too far from the centrist pablum they expected given his record in Congress. Whether because of him, despite him, or some of both, his administration has been very much on the side of consumer protection and trust busting in a way none has in the past 40 years.
Whether it's true that there's a ratfucking in progress I'm not well placed enough to say, but I can confidently say that there is ample cause to motivate said ratfucking.
And yeah, Carter wasn't particularly progressive. Mostly kind, definitely well meaning in the sense that he did what he thought was best for America, but not really progressive except in contrast with the Presidents that followed, who have at best been on the left edge of center-right.
Carter was not only the king of deregulation when it came to transportation of all kinds (planes, trains, trucks, pipelines, etc) his administration was the one that started the whole "arming the mujahideen" thing in Afghanistan which so sorely bit us in the ass 20 years later, among many other questionable activities relative to human rights around the globe, both actively supporting murderous dictators in the name of the domino theory and passively standing by the same way Bill Clinton did with Rwanda.
The US has always looked the other way at human rights abuses and even outright genocide when doing something about it has even a small risk of affecting our broader geopolitical goals. It was thus before Kissinger and has been thus ever since. I suspect one of the reasons Clinton described his choice not to intervene in Rwanda as his biggest mistake is because it was one of the few times in history where taking a stand wouldn't have interfered with other aims and clearly had little to no risk of sparking an even larger calamity.
I don't necessarily agree with this thinking, but I do understand where it comes from, distasteful as it may be. It's not a matter of malice, it's a matter of priorities, fucked up as they may or may not be in any given case.
And personally, my vote will go to any Democratic candidate who has not attempted to overthrow the government. I will not be happy about discarding the results of the primary, but parties get to pick their candidate, so I don't see this possibility as nearly as much of a threat as Trump. Younger Democrat is not an existential threat to the continuation of free elections, Trump is. My distaste for the process or my feelings of having been ratfucked are irrelevant. I want my niece to grow up in a country where the elected are still accountable to the voters. We're teetering on the brink here, so it is incumbent upon us all to do whatever we need to do to keep the insurrectionist rapist from taking power again, even if we find it an unpleasant duty.
posted by wierdo at 8:14 PM on July 19 [11 favorites]
I hope that's not the democrats' plan, because it's a bad one.
Yeah I don’t think any of withholding of votes is required to insure destruction in that case, the deed is already done.
posted by Artw at 8:14 PM on July 19
Yeah I don’t think any of withholding of votes is required to insure destruction in that case, the deed is already done.
posted by Artw at 8:14 PM on July 19
Carter wasn't a progressive.
I know! And he was still more progressive than Biden! Among other things, he was genuinely, deeply anti-racist, both personally and politically.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:14 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
I know! And he was still more progressive than Biden! Among other things, he was genuinely, deeply anti-racist, both personally and politically.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:14 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Update: more details from sources inside the Whitehouse.
posted by Artw at 8:20 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:20 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
I have decided to blame Taylor Swift for this stalemate. She has yet to either direct her army of followers to support Joe Biden, direct them to ask him to resign, or announce her own candidacy and I feel like that decision's what everyone's waiting for now.
posted by delfin at 8:29 PM on July 19 [12 favorites]
posted by delfin at 8:29 PM on July 19 [12 favorites]
I don't understand why anyone is mad about "throwing away the results of the primary" when there was no primary to speak of. Sure I voted in it, but it wasn't contested. If the party leaders who interact with him are concerned he's really not going to be able to campaign (and if he's saying he can't stay up past 8 pm) then I think it's irresponsible not to address that. I think Harris should be the candidate. She's on the ticket. But I will vote for anyone who's not Trump and hope for better choices next time. Some people are always willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, but I'm not one of them.
posted by rikschell at 8:38 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 8:38 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure whether rewarding a party for taking power from voters is better. I think it might be as bad.
Our political parties have done lots of different things to choose their candidates over the years. I guess the current system is more "directly democratic" but we didn't even have a competitive Democratic primary this year because Biden practically ran unopposed.
The modern primary system has only been around since 1972. Ironically, they settled on this system because things didn't go so well in 1968. That year, the DNC chose a candidate that didn't participate in any primaries: Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He joined the race only after LBJ decided to drop out and gave him his pledged delegates--but by then it was too late for Humphrey to participate in any primaries to earn any direct votes himself. Of course, I guess that didn't work out super well because Humphrey lost to Nixon. Who knows what would have happened if LBJ hadn't just given his support to his VP! Regardless, I'll vote for the Democrat once we get to the real election part of things.
posted by thechameleon at 8:43 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Our political parties have done lots of different things to choose their candidates over the years. I guess the current system is more "directly democratic" but we didn't even have a competitive Democratic primary this year because Biden practically ran unopposed.
The modern primary system has only been around since 1972. Ironically, they settled on this system because things didn't go so well in 1968. That year, the DNC chose a candidate that didn't participate in any primaries: Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He joined the race only after LBJ decided to drop out and gave him his pledged delegates--but by then it was too late for Humphrey to participate in any primaries to earn any direct votes himself. Of course, I guess that didn't work out super well because Humphrey lost to Nixon. Who knows what would have happened if LBJ hadn't just given his support to his VP! Regardless, I'll vote for the Democrat once we get to the real election part of things.
posted by thechameleon at 8:43 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
If you listen to AOC's storygram last night, one of her major concerns beyond what has already been discussed is that the GOP is already readying litigation to sue about who the 'new' candidate is if Biden is off the ticket. This had to do with republican state rules about when the ballot is finalized.
Cry me a river, the DNC sues third party candidates off the ballot when it doesn't suit them. Make your bed and lie in it.
posted by so fucking future at 8:49 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
Cry me a river, the DNC sues third party candidates off the ballot when it doesn't suit them. Make your bed and lie in it.
posted by so fucking future at 8:49 PM on July 19 [5 favorites]
The US has always looked the other way at human rights abuses and even outright genocide when doing something about it has even a small risk of affecting our broader geopolitical goals.
...
And personally, my vote will go to any Democratic candidate who has not attempted to overthrow the government.
Yeah, I wonder why they don't feel more beholden to win your vote?
posted by so fucking future at 8:55 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
...
And personally, my vote will go to any Democratic candidate who has not attempted to overthrow the government.
Yeah, I wonder why they don't feel more beholden to win your vote?
posted by so fucking future at 8:55 PM on July 19 [3 favorites]
The D’s can’t win my vote, because they already have it. Bucket of Paint. They’ll have volunteer hours from me too.
But if they want my *enthusiasm*, which will make those volunteer hours *more effective*, then it’s either Biden/Harris or Harris/Bucket of Paint.
(Also this isn’t about my vote— or even my volunteer effectiveness as I can’t do that many hours, it’s about my belief that I’m not alone in this perspective. Among the people who volunteer or give small dollar donations, I expect there’s a larger number who would be Pissed if Random Younger Democrat is put on the ticket. Some of them might be less effective or volunteer fewer hours or donate 15$ instead of 20$, some of their friends may donate 0 or even not bother to vote. Pissing off your base is a Bad Idea. )
posted by nat at 9:39 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
But if they want my *enthusiasm*, which will make those volunteer hours *more effective*, then it’s either Biden/Harris or Harris/Bucket of Paint.
(Also this isn’t about my vote— or even my volunteer effectiveness as I can’t do that many hours, it’s about my belief that I’m not alone in this perspective. Among the people who volunteer or give small dollar donations, I expect there’s a larger number who would be Pissed if Random Younger Democrat is put on the ticket. Some of them might be less effective or volunteer fewer hours or donate 15$ instead of 20$, some of their friends may donate 0 or even not bother to vote. Pissing off your base is a Bad Idea. )
posted by nat at 9:39 PM on July 19 [4 favorites]
Only if I get a picture of the cat.
posted by nat at 10:00 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
posted by nat at 10:00 PM on July 19 [6 favorites]
Who knows what would have happened if LBJ hadn't just given his support to his VP!
interesting. it is an interesting question and relating to the topic at hand if Biden did not decide to run, he should endorse no one, this is not throwing his vice president under the bus because he already has endorsed this person. I also find it sort of problematic with the vice president campaigning as vice president. if this was a matter on my table, the first talking point I would consider is resigning as vice president and running on my own if this decision to be made. in my own personal view. I see Harris as a caretaker for the future, the long-term future of this country. so she decides to run and wins and loses in 4 years, I think she would be a remarkable candidate for the supreme Court.
The assassination of Robert Kennedy pretty much decided the 1968, imo. Hubert Humphrey was a rational choice for president but it was an irrational time in America. Hubert Humphrey was practically beloved by everyone, the mirror of Humphrey was his friend Gerald Ford who ironically Nixon picked as vice president. both had a pretty healthy understanding of the legislature were known to be bipartisan and they both lost.
I think the clue in this is Nixon getting reelected in 1972. solar panels on the White House we're interesting and it's a bon mot to criticize them on the aesthetics, as a kid I just want to know if it worked. I find it satisfactory that Carter, as elder statesman, has become the embodiment of what a president should be. Grace under pressure.
Warren could be one of the strongest working vice presidents in modern history given the right candidate.
Governor Whitmer is doing good things for Michigan and I don't see her dropping that to possibly lose to Donald Trump, in my opinion she needs finish the job here and then demonstrate what can be done in 2028. the problem here is that for some reason a Democrat wins that is not Joe Biden in 2024, that presumptive candidates going to run again in 2028 and this speeds up everybody's political agenda and perhaps that's part of the problem. I'm personally naive to believe that "after" covid perhaps who governs the world could reconsider how they conduct business and international relations but it seems everybody wants to trot out their War machine. I think we're beyond the allegory of the dust bowl in the wizard of Oz as The Man behind the iron curtain has been exposed for years and made a new curtain of silicon.
it's as if power were playing pick up sticks in the eye of a hurricane.
posted by clavdivs at 10:08 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
interesting. it is an interesting question and relating to the topic at hand if Biden did not decide to run, he should endorse no one, this is not throwing his vice president under the bus because he already has endorsed this person. I also find it sort of problematic with the vice president campaigning as vice president. if this was a matter on my table, the first talking point I would consider is resigning as vice president and running on my own if this decision to be made. in my own personal view. I see Harris as a caretaker for the future, the long-term future of this country. so she decides to run and wins and loses in 4 years, I think she would be a remarkable candidate for the supreme Court.
The assassination of Robert Kennedy pretty much decided the 1968, imo. Hubert Humphrey was a rational choice for president but it was an irrational time in America. Hubert Humphrey was practically beloved by everyone, the mirror of Humphrey was his friend Gerald Ford who ironically Nixon picked as vice president. both had a pretty healthy understanding of the legislature were known to be bipartisan and they both lost.
I think the clue in this is Nixon getting reelected in 1972. solar panels on the White House we're interesting and it's a bon mot to criticize them on the aesthetics, as a kid I just want to know if it worked. I find it satisfactory that Carter, as elder statesman, has become the embodiment of what a president should be. Grace under pressure.
Warren could be one of the strongest working vice presidents in modern history given the right candidate.
Governor Whitmer is doing good things for Michigan and I don't see her dropping that to possibly lose to Donald Trump, in my opinion she needs finish the job here and then demonstrate what can be done in 2028. the problem here is that for some reason a Democrat wins that is not Joe Biden in 2024, that presumptive candidates going to run again in 2028 and this speeds up everybody's political agenda and perhaps that's part of the problem. I'm personally naive to believe that "after" covid perhaps who governs the world could reconsider how they conduct business and international relations but it seems everybody wants to trot out their War machine. I think we're beyond the allegory of the dust bowl in the wizard of Oz as The Man behind the iron curtain has been exposed for years and made a new curtain of silicon.
it's as if power were playing pick up sticks in the eye of a hurricane.
posted by clavdivs at 10:08 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
at this point I'm going to call it, the executive and judicial branchs has more rot then new sprouts.
the only thing that will save the republic is the legislative branch. politics is local, power is the consequence.
posted by clavdivs at 10:20 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
the only thing that will save the republic is the legislative branch. politics is local, power is the consequence.
posted by clavdivs at 10:20 PM on July 19 [2 favorites]
Warren could be one of the strongest working vice presidents in modern history given the right candidate.
Warren was reportedly the strong favorite to be Biden's running mate in 2020 until responses to the BLM protests led Biden to pivot to Black female candidates for his shortlist instead.
posted by Gadarene at 11:06 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Warren was reportedly the strong favorite to be Biden's running mate in 2020 until responses to the BLM protests led Biden to pivot to Black female candidates for his shortlist instead.
posted by Gadarene at 11:06 PM on July 19 [1 favorite]
Harris taking over before the election leaves us with the problem of getting a vice president through Congress, because obviously the GOP would prevent Harris from getting the 2/3 vote she'd need to get a candidate confirmed. So the office would probably remain vacant until January, with Mike Johnson next in line for succession should anything happen to Harris. That's a precarious place to be but it's the best option we're likely to have
Which leaves Mike Johnson next in line for the presiidency (and with no VP who certifies the electoral votes?)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:07 AM on July 20
Which leaves Mike Johnson next in line for the presiidency (and with no VP who certifies the electoral votes?)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:07 AM on July 20
It has to Biden-Harris or Harris-another VP. We cannot let the megadonors appoint an untested candidate. That is literally discarding the base of the Democratic Party.
Biden and Harris, together, pulled a coalition that BARELY got us over the finish line. They flipped swing states. We needed every demographic on board -- Gen Z voters, old voters, Asians, Latinos, suburban women, white men. That's not an easy ticket to replicate 4 months out. I still say our best bet is Biden-Harris.
posted by ichomp at 12:09 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Biden and Harris, together, pulled a coalition that BARELY got us over the finish line. They flipped swing states. We needed every demographic on board -- Gen Z voters, old voters, Asians, Latinos, suburban women, white men. That's not an easy ticket to replicate 4 months out. I still say our best bet is Biden-Harris.
posted by ichomp at 12:09 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Like Pelosi, I'm excited for a mini-primary.
The party's job is to arrange victory, not to coronate the next in line just to avoid stepping on toes. Imagine the eyeballs the party would attract with a half-dozen prime-time events introducing the nation to Whitmer and the rest of the next generation of Democratic leaders. Takes the air right out of the opponent's sails.
posted by daveliepmann at 4:41 AM on July 20
The party's job is to arrange victory, not to coronate the next in line just to avoid stepping on toes. Imagine the eyeballs the party would attract with a half-dozen prime-time events introducing the nation to Whitmer and the rest of the next generation of Democratic leaders. Takes the air right out of the opponent's sails.
posted by daveliepmann at 4:41 AM on July 20
I've imagined it, and I believe it would not work, and I'm amazed that anyone thinks it would work. Whitmer or Newsom or any of these other people, you don't just get a battlefield promotion to presidential candidate because George Clooney says so. That's fucking dumb. You have to campaign for it like anybody else.
I don't think the party's job is to arrange victory. The party's job is to present the electorate with choices. They did that, and we chose. We chose Biden's successor; it's Kamala Harris.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:00 AM on July 20 [9 favorites]
I don't think the party's job is to arrange victory. The party's job is to present the electorate with choices. They did that, and we chose. We chose Biden's successor; it's Kamala Harris.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:00 AM on July 20 [9 favorites]
The party's job is to arrange victory, not to coronate the next in line just to avoid stepping on toes.
I listen to the Ezra Klein show too, and recognize that wording. But I would like to tell Ezra that you don't "arrange a victory" by stepping on the toes of your voters and strongest supporters.
But more importantly, there is just no time. No time for a mini primary. No time to build support and name recognition. No time to unify people around a new candidate.
And what's more, there's no money for anyone else. The Biden/Harris campaign raised money to support Biden and Harris, and those are the only candidates that money can support directly.
I can't believe that Klein, who is usually such a practical and level headed guy, is still breezing past these obvious points.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:13 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
I listen to the Ezra Klein show too, and recognize that wording. But I would like to tell Ezra that you don't "arrange a victory" by stepping on the toes of your voters and strongest supporters.
But more importantly, there is just no time. No time for a mini primary. No time to build support and name recognition. No time to unify people around a new candidate.
And what's more, there's no money for anyone else. The Biden/Harris campaign raised money to support Biden and Harris, and those are the only candidates that money can support directly.
I can't believe that Klein, who is usually such a practical and level headed guy, is still breezing past these obvious points.
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:13 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
While I 100% agree that if Biden steps down Harris is the only choice to replace him at this point, I think the argument that the voters chose Harris as VP and thus his successor is a weak one. The voters chose Biden; Biden chose Harris as his VP. The voters had no say in that decision, there was no separate vote for VP. Heck, Trump didn't even have a VP when the voters had their say in the Republican primaries; you wouldn't say the voters chose Vance as his successor. The number of voters who were swayed into voting for/not voting for Biden because Kamala is his VP is insignificant (but admittedly maybe not zero, especially in the latter case; bigots gonna bigot)
posted by Roommate at 5:27 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by Roommate at 5:27 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
As far "arranging victory" goes, it seems sort of exciting and West Wing-y, and people who identify more with the donor class than the American people may be numb to the feeling of disenfrachisement I assure you it would engender in voters to take even the illusion of choice out of the people's hands. It's a breathtakingly stupid idea, and unless it results in the nomination of Jesus Christ Himself I guarantee you that not only will Trump win, the democrats will not see the inside of the White House again for at least a decade. It is moronic beyond belief.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:31 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:31 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
While I 100% agree that if Biden steps down Harris is the only choice to replace him at this point, I think the argument that the voters chose Harris as VP and thus his successor is a weak one.
I disagree profoundly. The whole reason her name is on the ticket is that she's the backup in case something goes wrong. She isn't set dressing, she's the person the voters agreed was the backup. If it was supposed to be Gavin Newsom all along, that dude should have run with Biden.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:33 AM on July 20 [9 favorites]
I disagree profoundly. The whole reason her name is on the ticket is that she's the backup in case something goes wrong. She isn't set dressing, she's the person the voters agreed was the backup. If it was supposed to be Gavin Newsom all along, that dude should have run with Biden.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:33 AM on July 20 [9 favorites]
Yeah, I wonder why they don't feel more beholden to win your vote?
Even if the alternative wasn't Trump, Biden won my vote over the past 3.5 years. His administration has had the best domestic policy record in my lifetime, including Obama and Carter. I expected meh and got a nice surprise.
posted by wierdo at 5:38 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Even if the alternative wasn't Trump, Biden won my vote over the past 3.5 years. His administration has had the best domestic policy record in my lifetime, including Obama and Carter. I expected meh and got a nice surprise.
posted by wierdo at 5:38 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Wasting your convention time on a "mini-primary" that doesn't actually allow Dem voters input while simultaneously insulting the current vice president and the very important part of the coalition that has steadfastly supported the current ticket is a recipe for disaster.
Having an old candidate and sending out your younger rising stars to support the messaging and goals of the party, which is where the Democratic Party has its actual advantages over the Republican Party and Project 2025, is a much better use of convention time.
Hell, the RNC just got a ton of good press about their unity, despite the fact that the content of their speeches and platform is all divisiveness and othering. Does anyone really think the narrative coming out of a convention nomination contest would be anything other than "Dems in disarray"?
I understand why the media and big money donors like this idea of a shitshow mini primary, but it's such an obviously terrible idea from a campaign messaging and voter turnout perspective.
Tressie McMillan Cottom on the RNC: As convention speakers said over and over again, this party can reconcile the imperfect messenger with its winning message. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will be able to say the same.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:44 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
Having an old candidate and sending out your younger rising stars to support the messaging and goals of the party, which is where the Democratic Party has its actual advantages over the Republican Party and Project 2025, is a much better use of convention time.
Hell, the RNC just got a ton of good press about their unity, despite the fact that the content of their speeches and platform is all divisiveness and othering. Does anyone really think the narrative coming out of a convention nomination contest would be anything other than "Dems in disarray"?
I understand why the media and big money donors like this idea of a shitshow mini primary, but it's such an obviously terrible idea from a campaign messaging and voter turnout perspective.
Tressie McMillan Cottom on the RNC: As convention speakers said over and over again, this party can reconcile the imperfect messenger with its winning message. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will be able to say the same.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:44 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
If it was supposed to be Gavin Newsom all along, that dude should have run with Biden.
Nothing you say really contradicts what I said. The voters didn't choose Harris over Newsom, Biden did.
But I agree, as VP, and as the VP nominee for the presumptive Pres nominee, she is *the* backup if Biden cannot serve for whatever reason. It must be Biden or Harris on the ballot in November, period.
posted by Roommate at 6:02 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Nothing you say really contradicts what I said. The voters didn't choose Harris over Newsom, Biden did.
But I agree, as VP, and as the VP nominee for the presumptive Pres nominee, she is *the* backup if Biden cannot serve for whatever reason. It must be Biden or Harris on the ballot in November, period.
posted by Roommate at 6:02 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
We chose Biden and Harris. We didn't choose Biden and Mystery Meat. The selection of running mate is important. If Biden had run with Kyrsten Sinema or Joe Manchin, I am not sure he would have won.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:20 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:20 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
Biden should resign the presidency to save his legacy (historian Alexis Coe for Rolling Stone)
posted by box at 6:23 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 6:23 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Nate Silver
Now works for Peter Thiel on some shady “news gambling” site.
posted by Artw at 6:26 AM on July 20 [5 favorites]
Now works for Peter Thiel on some shady “news gambling” site.
posted by Artw at 6:26 AM on July 20 [5 favorites]
Yes, Alexis, this is what I've been screaming. Can somebody put a big story about Steely Dan or Jimmy Buffett or something in that issue of Rolling Stone so that Biden will actually read it? Damn.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:31 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:31 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
It really is a little disturbing that if you hear about an elderly politician dying you can tell if they were in office or retired by if they were Democrat or Republican.
posted by Artw at 6:48 AM on July 20
posted by Artw at 6:48 AM on July 20
The combination of the AOC reel and the anonymously-sourced report that Pelosi favors the "Boar on the Floor" primary over Harris makes me wonder how many of the people currently wanting to dump Biden would continue to hold that opinion of they had a reasonable suspicion that it would not be Harris being the nominee. I can at least respect, if not yet agree with, someone who says that a move to Harris could be a net positive, but I can't get from there to the point where opening up the Pandora's box of a contested nomination process makes sense.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:02 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:02 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Democratic consensus solidifies around Harris, should Biden step aside
“F**k it, I’m coconut pilled. I just want this to stop,” said one well-known Democratic operative...
posted by pattern juggler at 7:06 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
“F**k it, I’m coconut pilled. I just want this to stop,” said one well-known Democratic operative...
posted by pattern juggler at 7:06 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
> “F**k it, I’m coconut pilled. I just want this to stop,” said one well-known Democratic operative...
For anyone else like me who missed the "coconut" thing. This reminds me of when I had to google for an explainer for dril's corncob tweet.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:16 AM on July 20 [11 favorites]
For anyone else like me who missed the "coconut" thing. This reminds me of when I had to google for an explainer for dril's corncob tweet.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:16 AM on July 20 [11 favorites]
I just want this to stop
From your mouth to the gods' ears, my sibling in Cthulhu.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:17 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
From your mouth to the gods' ears, my sibling in Cthulhu.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:17 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
Since a few people recently brought him up, I think it's worth noting that Ezra Klein has softened on the idea of a mini-primary. Yesterday he tweeted "The other thing worth saying on Harris is she has, in a very tricky situation, been showing how she'd run every day since the debate. Democrats who've been watching her have been impressed. She's changed minds. She hasn't misplaced a foot, not once, in a very high-stakes period." And also "Not a single Democrat I've spoken to who doubts that if Biden endorses Harris, the party will unite behind her. At this point, given how little time is left before the convention, and how strong she's been since the debate, that probably happens even if he doesn't endorse her."
And from the CNN article linked above "It’s not that everyone has suddenly coalesced – but exhaustion is gelling into consensus."
It seems like a mistake that all the members of the House and Senate haven't yet united and gotten together to make a joint-public statement that they not only agree Biden should step down, but that Harris should get the torch. And I'd say it would be smart if Harris, as a pledge of unity and nod to the strangeness of the situation, vowed to keep all the cabinet members Biden appointed as her own. That might also appease some of the progressives, who like that Biden took their wishes into consideration with some of those appointments. I don't see how Pelosi could override all of that, regardless of how powerful she may be.
And if people still want a blitz primary to make headlines and build up excitement, have a mini primary for the VP. Let Harris have the final say, sure, but make the contenders do some high-stakes public appearances to make sure they're ready for the VP debate stage with Vance, and remind voters in the process that the Democrats have a much more attractive bench of non-fascists.
posted by coffeecat at 7:22 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
And from the CNN article linked above "It’s not that everyone has suddenly coalesced – but exhaustion is gelling into consensus."
It seems like a mistake that all the members of the House and Senate haven't yet united and gotten together to make a joint-public statement that they not only agree Biden should step down, but that Harris should get the torch. And I'd say it would be smart if Harris, as a pledge of unity and nod to the strangeness of the situation, vowed to keep all the cabinet members Biden appointed as her own. That might also appease some of the progressives, who like that Biden took their wishes into consideration with some of those appointments. I don't see how Pelosi could override all of that, regardless of how powerful she may be.
And if people still want a blitz primary to make headlines and build up excitement, have a mini primary for the VP. Let Harris have the final say, sure, but make the contenders do some high-stakes public appearances to make sure they're ready for the VP debate stage with Vance, and remind voters in the process that the Democrats have a much more attractive bench of non-fascists.
posted by coffeecat at 7:22 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Harris taking over before the election leaves us with the problem of getting a vice president through Congress, because obviously the GOP would prevent Harris from getting the 2/3 vote she'd need to get a candidate confirmed.
It is a straight majority vote in each house, not a 2/3 vote. That may not be achievable, either, but it's at least closer to the realm of plausibility than 2/3 would ever be.
posted by delfin at 7:26 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
It is a straight majority vote in each house, not a 2/3 vote. That may not be achievable, either, but it's at least closer to the realm of plausibility than 2/3 would ever be.
posted by delfin at 7:26 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
coffeecat, the problem is that nobody, not Ezra Klein, not VP Harris, not even President Biden himself, and certainly not any of us, gets to decide what happens once the die is cast. From a game theory perspective, it isn't enough to say you prefer an outcome where one candidate or another is the nominee -- you need to account for the full likely range of outcomes that you can reasonably infer from current knowledge, and it's clear that no consensus for an orderly transition to Harris exists. Ezra Klein may have an outsized ability to increase uncertainty and chaos using his platform to amplify doubts about Biden, but that's a one-way ratchet.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:31 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:31 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Biden can control it if he resigns. Then Kamala Harris is the 47th president. I'm not sure what that means for her election prospects -- I literally don't know what it means that a person who the people approved as vice-presidential candidate has become, during the run up to the election, the sitting president -- but it seems to me she would be the logical candidate.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:34 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:34 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
tonycpsu - even if Biden doesn't resign (but yeah, kfb is correct, that's one route), but if he announces he won't seek re-nomination and endorses Harris and tells all of his pledged delegates to switch to her, do you really think the DNC would not go along? Because the optics of the DNC not honoring the wishes of Biden, to dick over the first Black/Asian female VP, would be really bad. I have little to no faith in the DNC, but even I don't think they are that inept. Biden has that power - and I'd say members of Congress could be doing a better job to facilitate that choice - again, a joint statement of supporting Harris would be a powerful signal.
posted by coffeecat at 7:42 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 7:42 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Two recent ([?] Ha! What counts as 'recent' these days?) pieces from Stephanie Jones worth reading:
Are you a thermometer or a thermostat? (July 12):
Are you a thermometer or a thermostat? (July 12):
Too many people in the progressive community are behaving like thermometers, looking at polls, gauging popular opinion, listening to what "they are saying," etc. and treating this information, not as useful and changeable data points for shaping messaging and strategy (which they surely are), but as static and unalterable immutable facts that will determine all that comes next. And based on that, they are now ready to throw in the towel and kick our staunchest allies to the curb in hopes of finding someone else they believe is more in line with the atmosphere as they assess it to be in this immediate moment.He's Got Her Back (July 13):
I wrote this piece in August 2020, after Joe Biden put Democrats on notice that he has Kamala Harris' back and he expected all of us to, as well.posted by mazola at 7:53 AM on July 20 [6 favorites]
Now is a good time to think about this again.
(and with no VP who certifies the electoral votes?)
This is my regular reminder that the VP does not certify the votes. Congress certifies the Electoral College votes during a joint session, and the VP's role in this joint session is administrative and ceremonial. It's a big meeting with a lot of folks, somebody's gotta be up at the podium going, "Ok, are we ready to vote? OK, let's vote. OK, next order of business." That's it, that's their role, that's all they do, they're in charge of moving the process along.
We know this because the Constitution states that if the VP can't carry out their role as "president of the Senate" then the Senate President pro tempore does it instead, and the Senate President pro tempore doesn't even technically have to be a Senator. I mean, they always are, but there's nothing in the rules that states that the Senate can't just grab the nearest hot dog vendor and vote them in as president pro tempore.
And if the President pro tempore can't or won't do it, the rules of the Senate allow for the designation of an Acting President pro tempore, and if they can't do it, then the Secretary of the Senate does it, and if they can't do it then the Assistant Secretary does it, and if every single one of these people is out with the flu then there's precedent for the Chief Justice to preside over a joint session.
If it's not crucial for the Vice President to be present at the joint session that certifies the Electoral College votes, then it follows that the Vice President doesn't have any legal role in certifying the votes. (Also, it's complete insanity to think that the Constitution and laws of the US and of the individual states have set up this whole complex process of voting and certification and approval but at the last second it all comes down to ONE PERSON going, "yup" or "nope.")
That's why Pence wouldn't do what Trump wanted him to on Jan 6th - between the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate there's a whole line of succession of who can carry out the administrative business of running a session of the Senate or a joint session of Congress, but ultimately that boils down to "Joe Rando who is available", and even the Roberts Court would balk at the idea that whichever Joe Rando is running the joint session gets unilateral say in which Electoral College votes get certified. If we don't give that power to the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, or the hot dog vendor selected as Senate President pro tempore, then the VP doesn't have that power either.
The other element of the Pence plan was that in theory Pence could use his administrative powers to suggest that "alternate slates" of fake electors from certain states should be considered - again, though, this is not the VP certifying the results, this is the VP trying to pull a fast one and get Congress to vote on different electors. But his problem there was that 1) the real results of the Electoral College had already gone into the official records at the National Archives, and 2) the Electoral College results had already been approved and certified by state legislatures and governments. Had he tried to introduce fake elector slates he would have been inundated with lawsuits and objections, all with receipts that his suggested slate of electors was illegitimate.
All Pence could do was allow members of Congress to raise objections under the rules of the session, which they did, which ultimately didn't do anything but drag the process out. (Which is one of the reasons that some people suspect certain members of Congress were in on the riot planning - ordinarily the certification session is a formality that takes like half an hour, so if Congresspeople kept objecting and slowing things down they were doing it so the rally mob would have time to get organized and over to the Capitol Building and disrupt the process enough that the certification session would be halted.)
Furthermore, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 states:
The act also expands the conditions under which members of Congress can raise objections to elector slates, so now MTG or some other MAGA wing nut can't unilaterally slow everything down.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:54 AM on July 20 [23 favorites]
This is my regular reminder that the VP does not certify the votes. Congress certifies the Electoral College votes during a joint session, and the VP's role in this joint session is administrative and ceremonial. It's a big meeting with a lot of folks, somebody's gotta be up at the podium going, "Ok, are we ready to vote? OK, let's vote. OK, next order of business." That's it, that's their role, that's all they do, they're in charge of moving the process along.
We know this because the Constitution states that if the VP can't carry out their role as "president of the Senate" then the Senate President pro tempore does it instead, and the Senate President pro tempore doesn't even technically have to be a Senator. I mean, they always are, but there's nothing in the rules that states that the Senate can't just grab the nearest hot dog vendor and vote them in as president pro tempore.
And if the President pro tempore can't or won't do it, the rules of the Senate allow for the designation of an Acting President pro tempore, and if they can't do it, then the Secretary of the Senate does it, and if they can't do it then the Assistant Secretary does it, and if every single one of these people is out with the flu then there's precedent for the Chief Justice to preside over a joint session.
If it's not crucial for the Vice President to be present at the joint session that certifies the Electoral College votes, then it follows that the Vice President doesn't have any legal role in certifying the votes. (Also, it's complete insanity to think that the Constitution and laws of the US and of the individual states have set up this whole complex process of voting and certification and approval but at the last second it all comes down to ONE PERSON going, "yup" or "nope.")
That's why Pence wouldn't do what Trump wanted him to on Jan 6th - between the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate there's a whole line of succession of who can carry out the administrative business of running a session of the Senate or a joint session of Congress, but ultimately that boils down to "Joe Rando who is available", and even the Roberts Court would balk at the idea that whichever Joe Rando is running the joint session gets unilateral say in which Electoral College votes get certified. If we don't give that power to the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, or the hot dog vendor selected as Senate President pro tempore, then the VP doesn't have that power either.
The other element of the Pence plan was that in theory Pence could use his administrative powers to suggest that "alternate slates" of fake electors from certain states should be considered - again, though, this is not the VP certifying the results, this is the VP trying to pull a fast one and get Congress to vote on different electors. But his problem there was that 1) the real results of the Electoral College had already gone into the official records at the National Archives, and 2) the Electoral College results had already been approved and certified by state legislatures and governments. Had he tried to introduce fake elector slates he would have been inundated with lawsuits and objections, all with receipts that his suggested slate of electors was illegitimate.
All Pence could do was allow members of Congress to raise objections under the rules of the session, which they did, which ultimately didn't do anything but drag the process out. (Which is one of the reasons that some people suspect certain members of Congress were in on the riot planning - ordinarily the certification session is a formality that takes like half an hour, so if Congresspeople kept objecting and slowing things down they were doing it so the rally mob would have time to get organized and over to the Capitol Building and disrupt the process enough that the certification session would be halted.)
Furthermore, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 states:
“(b) Powers Of The President Of Senate.—So that's that. Even if there was some wild-ass theoretical basis for the VP having the sole power to certify the results before (Narrator: there really wasn't) it's now explicity the law of the land that they don't have that power.
“(1) MINISTERIAL IN NATURE.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the role of the President of the Senate while presiding over the joint meeting shall be limited to performing solely ministerial duties.
“(2) POWERS EXPLICITLY DENIED.—The President of the Senate shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors."
The act also expands the conditions under which members of Congress can raise objections to elector slates, so now MTG or some other MAGA wing nut can't unilaterally slow everything down.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:54 AM on July 20 [23 favorites]
The next media pile on is going to be on Harris, if/when Joe is pushed out.
My spidey senses tell me those articles and op-eds are already drafted.
posted by missmobtown at 7:56 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
My spidey senses tell me those articles and op-eds are already drafted.
posted by missmobtown at 7:56 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
My spidey senses tell me those articles and op-eds are already drafted.
Even if they are, there is no reason to think they will be effective. Biden would not be facing pressure to resign if he had not been repeatedly showing himself to be unable to campaign or serve effectively. This is not the media arbitrarily deciding he should go. This is his party and much of the voting public losing faith in his ability to lead.
To say that the same could happen to Harris is to say that there is nothing wrong with Biden, and this is all just lies by the media. As appealing a notion as that is to those who like and support Biden, it is not reality. The man is clearly vastly less capable than he was in 2020..
posted by pattern juggler at 8:17 AM on July 20 [11 favorites]
Even if they are, there is no reason to think they will be effective. Biden would not be facing pressure to resign if he had not been repeatedly showing himself to be unable to campaign or serve effectively. This is not the media arbitrarily deciding he should go. This is his party and much of the voting public losing faith in his ability to lead.
To say that the same could happen to Harris is to say that there is nothing wrong with Biden, and this is all just lies by the media. As appealing a notion as that is to those who like and support Biden, it is not reality. The man is clearly vastly less capable than he was in 2020..
posted by pattern juggler at 8:17 AM on July 20 [11 favorites]
Yeah a normie could watch a 30 second clip from the debate and conclude that there is something wrong with Biden. The media is just amplifying that, not fabricating it or reporting on rumors.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:22 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:22 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
> To say that the same could happen to Harris is to say that there is nothing wrong with Biden, and this is all just lies by the media.
Nah. Like everything in life, the situation we find ourselves in did not arise from a single cause. Some attacks against Biden will continue to work against Harris, since she was part of his administration. Some new ones will be deployed that only work against Harris. And some will arise from the fact that many who want Biden to step down also want a candidate other than Harris.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:24 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Nah. Like everything in life, the situation we find ourselves in did not arise from a single cause. Some attacks against Biden will continue to work against Harris, since she was part of his administration. Some new ones will be deployed that only work against Harris. And some will arise from the fact that many who want Biden to step down also want a candidate other than Harris.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:24 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Nah. Like everything in life, the situation we find ourselves in did not arise from a single cause. Some attacks against Biden will continue to work against Harris, since she was part of his administration. Some new ones will be deployed that only work against Harris. And some will arise from the fact that many who want Biden to step down also want a candidate other than Harris.
Nothing has a single cause, but some causes are necessary but not sufficient to produce their effects. In this case, Biden being pressured to leave the ticket is unprecedented. It hasn't happened before, despite all the attacks against candidates in the past, because no candidate has ever been as visibly incapacitated in the run up to an election as Biden is now.
Sure, Harris will be attacked. So would any candidate. But the idea that this press conspiracy exists and will force her out the way Biden is being pressured out is baseless. This isn't a slippery slope. Removing one candidate doesn't open the floodgates and mean all candidates are subject to removal. If Biden weren't uniquely vulnerable this would not be happening.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:28 AM on July 20 [7 favorites]
Nothing has a single cause, but some causes are necessary but not sufficient to produce their effects. In this case, Biden being pressured to leave the ticket is unprecedented. It hasn't happened before, despite all the attacks against candidates in the past, because no candidate has ever been as visibly incapacitated in the run up to an election as Biden is now.
Sure, Harris will be attacked. So would any candidate. But the idea that this press conspiracy exists and will force her out the way Biden is being pressured out is baseless. This isn't a slippery slope. Removing one candidate doesn't open the floodgates and mean all candidates are subject to removal. If Biden weren't uniquely vulnerable this would not be happening.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:28 AM on July 20 [7 favorites]
many who want Biden to step down also want a candidate other than Harris.
I'm not sure we know that's true though? I mean, we now know this was/is Pelosi's inclination, and some other unnamed political elites, but the majority of Congress? The average American? It's like 2020 - most people really just want to beat Trump, but they disagree on what the best approach is to do so. If Biden steps down and endorses Harris, I don't think anyone serious is going to think "Hmmm, maybe there is still a chance for my favorite to get the nomination." No, that will be the moment that the party unifies, and surrogates all get and adhere to their marching orders, etc. Sure, some will disagree with the choice, but the political elite is very accustomed to lying on behalf of the party - they'll be fine.
As for voters, Harris has a higher approval rating than Biden, and it's not unreasonable to think that if she has the whole campaign apparatus behind her, singing her praises, that her approval rating will rise.
posted by coffeecat at 8:44 AM on July 20 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure we know that's true though? I mean, we now know this was/is Pelosi's inclination, and some other unnamed political elites, but the majority of Congress? The average American? It's like 2020 - most people really just want to beat Trump, but they disagree on what the best approach is to do so. If Biden steps down and endorses Harris, I don't think anyone serious is going to think "Hmmm, maybe there is still a chance for my favorite to get the nomination." No, that will be the moment that the party unifies, and surrogates all get and adhere to their marching orders, etc. Sure, some will disagree with the choice, but the political elite is very accustomed to lying on behalf of the party - they'll be fine.
As for voters, Harris has a higher approval rating than Biden, and it's not unreasonable to think that if she has the whole campaign apparatus behind her, singing her praises, that her approval rating will rise.
posted by coffeecat at 8:44 AM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Harris, GenericWhitedudeGovernor, that person upthread's fucking cat, Hot Dog Vendor, Anime Girl Pillow, like seriously I do NOT give a fuck. I'll absolutely take Joe on the Rocking Chair if he can get it together and sound credible.
Just start the next phase of the campaign, which was already getting going when Trump got shot at and had to be interrupted for that and the RNC. It's super simple and effective as hell: "Here's a picture of a 10yo girl who was raped by a youth pastor and is now having to carry his child to term. This is Extrashitty Gilead. This is what the Republicans intend to do in their own words. If you don't vote for us, you get Idiocracy plus The Handmaid's Tale. Do you want rapists to choose the mothers of their children? If you don't, vote for us, and oh yeah, we're going to legalize weed." It will be So. Fucking. Effective., which is why Team Biden is putting its fingers in its ears and saying La La LA la la la about poll numbers, because they'd not even started yet.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:48 AM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Just start the next phase of the campaign, which was already getting going when Trump got shot at and had to be interrupted for that and the RNC. It's super simple and effective as hell: "Here's a picture of a 10yo girl who was raped by a youth pastor and is now having to carry his child to term. This is Extrashitty Gilead. This is what the Republicans intend to do in their own words. If you don't vote for us, you get Idiocracy plus The Handmaid's Tale. Do you want rapists to choose the mothers of their children? If you don't, vote for us, and oh yeah, we're going to legalize weed." It will be So. Fucking. Effective., which is why Team Biden is putting its fingers in its ears and saying La La LA la la la about poll numbers, because they'd not even started yet.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:48 AM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Biden and Harris, together, pulled a coalition that BARELY got us over the finish line. They flipped swing states. We needed every demographic on board -- Gen Z voters, old voters, Asians, Latinos, suburban women, white men. That's not an easy ticket to replicate 4 months out. I still say our best bet is Biden-Harris.
It's true, in 2020 Biden-Harris as a ticket pulled together a coalition that just squeaked over the finish line. And I agree that we needed all of the demographics you list. That's why I think Biden should step down though - polling suggests that he's hemorrhaging voters from pretty much all of those demographics. One survey of Black women ages 18-55 found that 18% plan on voting for Trump. Gen Z is very critical of Biden because of Gaza. Biden has also lost ground with men across all racial demographics. As was mentioned above as a point in favor of Biden, data is not fixed, it changes - and it hasn't been changing in Biden's favor - even before the debate.
Do you want rapists to choose the mothers of their children? If you don't, vote for us, and oh yeah, we're going to legalize weed." It will be So. Fucking. Effective., which is why Team Biden is putting its fingers in its ears and saying La La LA la la la about poll numbers, because they'd not even started yet.
I agree it would be effective if the messenger can deliver. But again, this was Biden's answer to a softball question on abortion:
"Look, there's so many young women who have been – including a young woman who just was murdered and he - he went to the funeral. The idea that she was murdered by a - by - by an immigrant coming in, and they talk about that. But here's the deal, there's a lot of young women who are being raped by their - by their in-laws, by their - by their spouses, brothers and sisters, by - just - it's just - it's just ridiculous. And they can do nothing about it. And they tried to arrest them when they cross state lines."
posted by coffeecat at 8:58 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
It's true, in 2020 Biden-Harris as a ticket pulled together a coalition that just squeaked over the finish line. And I agree that we needed all of the demographics you list. That's why I think Biden should step down though - polling suggests that he's hemorrhaging voters from pretty much all of those demographics. One survey of Black women ages 18-55 found that 18% plan on voting for Trump. Gen Z is very critical of Biden because of Gaza. Biden has also lost ground with men across all racial demographics. As was mentioned above as a point in favor of Biden, data is not fixed, it changes - and it hasn't been changing in Biden's favor - even before the debate.
Do you want rapists to choose the mothers of their children? If you don't, vote for us, and oh yeah, we're going to legalize weed." It will be So. Fucking. Effective., which is why Team Biden is putting its fingers in its ears and saying La La LA la la la about poll numbers, because they'd not even started yet.
I agree it would be effective if the messenger can deliver. But again, this was Biden's answer to a softball question on abortion:
"Look, there's so many young women who have been – including a young woman who just was murdered and he - he went to the funeral. The idea that she was murdered by a - by - by an immigrant coming in, and they talk about that. But here's the deal, there's a lot of young women who are being raped by their - by their in-laws, by their - by their spouses, brothers and sisters, by - just - it's just - it's just ridiculous. And they can do nothing about it. And they tried to arrest them when they cross state lines."
posted by coffeecat at 8:58 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
It will be So. Fucking. Effective., which is why Team Biden is putting its fingers in its ears and saying La La LA la la la about poll numbers, because they'd not even started yet.
I don't see Biden's campaign as likely to say any of that. Biden is clearly uncomfortable campaigning on abortion access, and has been slow to act on decriminalization of cannabis. He mentioned it in 2022 and rescheduled marijuana to schedule III in 2024. (Like student loans, cannabis seems to become more popular with the Biden admin every couple of years for some reason.)
He is "on the right side" in both cases. But due to personal qualms or an outdated view of what the electorate wants he takes a very moderate approach to both issues. To Biden's credit, he has been willing to directly (if archaically) attack Trump personally, but I think the love of decorum and fear of offending right leaning voters means we are not going to see the sort of attack on the Christofascism of the Republicans you outline.
Maybe I am wrong and the Biden camp really is winding up for a massive, no-holds-barred, progressive offensive. But I really don't think so. And I don't think Biden could carry it off at this point.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:02 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
I don't see Biden's campaign as likely to say any of that. Biden is clearly uncomfortable campaigning on abortion access, and has been slow to act on decriminalization of cannabis. He mentioned it in 2022 and rescheduled marijuana to schedule III in 2024. (Like student loans, cannabis seems to become more popular with the Biden admin every couple of years for some reason.)
He is "on the right side" in both cases. But due to personal qualms or an outdated view of what the electorate wants he takes a very moderate approach to both issues. To Biden's credit, he has been willing to directly (if archaically) attack Trump personally, but I think the love of decorum and fear of offending right leaning voters means we are not going to see the sort of attack on the Christofascism of the Republicans you outline.
Maybe I am wrong and the Biden camp really is winding up for a massive, no-holds-barred, progressive offensive. But I really don't think so. And I don't think Biden could carry it off at this point.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:02 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
Maybe I am wrong and the Biden camp really is winding up for a massive, no-holds-barred, progressive offensive.
No no no NOT a "progressive" offensive. Fundamentally a conservative one, in the original meaning of conservative, not the 2020s one. "We're here to PRESERVE your rights", with a touch of extra like weed, framed as common sense. They're not nearly stupid enough to act like Ardent Progressives: they'd lose all but three or four states.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:04 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
No no no NOT a "progressive" offensive. Fundamentally a conservative one, in the original meaning of conservative, not the 2020s one. "We're here to PRESERVE your rights", with a touch of extra like weed, framed as common sense. They're not nearly stupid enough to act like Ardent Progressives: they'd lose all but three or four states.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:04 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
this was Biden's answer to a softball question on abortion
The man can't even bring himself to say the word "abortion", or "termination". He's a long way from being convincing as a champion of the right of women to bodily autonomy (especially after a career of being anti-choice and voting for things like the Hyde amendment).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:07 AM on July 20 [3 favorites]
The man can't even bring himself to say the word "abortion", or "termination". He's a long way from being convincing as a champion of the right of women to bodily autonomy (especially after a career of being anti-choice and voting for things like the Hyde amendment).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:07 AM on July 20 [3 favorites]
No no no NOT a "progressive" offensive. Fundamentally a conservative one, in the original meaning of conservative, not the 2020s one. "We're here to PRESERVE your rights", with a touch of extra like weed, framed as common sense. They're not nearly stupid enough to act like Ardent Progressives: they'd lose all but three or four states.
Oh don't worry, Biden is no danger of looking "ardent" (God forbid!)
Seriously, this continuous need to needle those to your left and remind them that you have contempt for them is rather unbecoming. Yes, no one likes to be told they are doing something morally wrong.
But the people to your left aren't the ones trying to trap women in a nightmare version of the 1950s, murder trans kids, harass and brutalize migrants and destroy workers' rights and create global famine. That is the right. It would seem a lot more reasonable to project your ire at them, instead of people who annoy you by thinking we should do better.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:09 AM on July 20 [13 favorites]
Oh don't worry, Biden is no danger of looking "ardent" (God forbid!)
Seriously, this continuous need to needle those to your left and remind them that you have contempt for them is rather unbecoming. Yes, no one likes to be told they are doing something morally wrong.
But the people to your left aren't the ones trying to trap women in a nightmare version of the 1950s, murder trans kids, harass and brutalize migrants and destroy workers' rights and create global famine. That is the right. It would seem a lot more reasonable to project your ire at them, instead of people who annoy you by thinking we should do better.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:09 AM on July 20 [13 favorites]
Anyway, the news cycle continue to churn, and and it doesn't look good for Biden:
-Warren on MSNBC: “If President Biden decides to step back, we have Vice President Kamala Harris, who is ready to step up to unite the party”
-Mark Takano (a CA House member - so, in Pelosi's orbit) put out a statement today not only calling for Biden to step down, but explicitly for him to pass the torch to Harris.
posted by coffeecat at 9:22 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
-Warren on MSNBC: “If President Biden decides to step back, we have Vice President Kamala Harris, who is ready to step up to unite the party”
-Mark Takano (a CA House member - so, in Pelosi's orbit) put out a statement today not only calling for Biden to step down, but explicitly for him to pass the torch to Harris.
posted by coffeecat at 9:22 AM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Biden making way for Harris really seems like the right solution. You don't pass over the first woman of color to be vice president, you don't totally invalidate the ticket selected in 2020 (albeit with numerous caveats and asterisks), and you get someone who I could imagine actually delivering the kind of campaign outgrown_hobnail describes.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:27 AM on July 20 [7 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 9:27 AM on July 20 [7 favorites]
Biden family grapples with pressure on their patriarch to step aside (WaPo)
In recent days, those close to the family have become more combative as a growing number of Democrats have publicly called for him to step aside. If Biden gets out, they say, he should make the decision based on his own political gut and not because of external pressures from figures such as George Clooney, former president Barack Obama or former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).posted by box at 10:45 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Welp, despite all the calls for him to bail, and all the "he's considering bailing" articles, he still doesn't want to bail. That's not really working or working fast enough.
It sounds like there's no way to force him out of the presidential race without his consent and if he's not giving it--how ugly are people willing to get to try to force him out? I'm guessing not very.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:59 AM on July 20
It sounds like there's no way to force him out of the presidential race without his consent and if he's not giving it--how ugly are people willing to get to try to force him out? I'm guessing not very.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:59 AM on July 20
I still suspect he’s not stepping down without an ironclad guarantee that Harris is the nominee. He holds the cards on this.
posted by azpenguin at 11:03 AM on July 20 [5 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 11:03 AM on July 20 [5 favorites]
how ugly are people willing to get to try to force him out?
Friends on the people. Suspect the press and donors are just going to be massively hostile right up to the election whatever happens now.
posted by Artw at 11:12 AM on July 20
Friends on the people. Suspect the press and donors are just going to be massively hostile right up to the election whatever happens now.
posted by Artw at 11:12 AM on July 20
I still suspect he’s not stepping down without an ironclad guarantee that Harris is the nominee
Dunno why you'd suspect that rather than what's more likely and more obvious: that a man whose life's ambition has been the presidency doesn't want to relinquish it and go down in history as serving only one term. Joe Biden didn't get where he is by lacking ego or being selfless.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:13 AM on July 20 [10 favorites]
Dunno why you'd suspect that rather than what's more likely and more obvious: that a man whose life's ambition has been the presidency doesn't want to relinquish it and go down in history as serving only one term. Joe Biden didn't get where he is by lacking ego or being selfless.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:13 AM on July 20 [10 favorites]
Being president is, apparently, a hell of a drug. Considering how very shady it was that he became president in the first place, it's perhaps ironic that George W. Bush is the only recent president who left DC like his ass was on fire; we just about never heard of him again, which is fine by me.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:27 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
In fairness if the New York Times and a bunch of venture capital nerds tried to chase me out of my job I’d tell them to fuck off also.
posted by Artw at 11:32 AM on July 20 [11 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:32 AM on July 20 [11 favorites]
The ICJ is getting a bit feisty! We might hear from Old W yet. Comeback special live from The Hague.
posted by stet at 11:32 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by stet at 11:32 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
because no candidate has ever been as visibly incapacitated in the run up to an election as Biden is now.
You have a very narrow definition of the word history and a very broad definition of the word incapacitated.
posted by wierdo at 11:32 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
You have a very narrow definition of the word history and a very broad definition of the word incapacitated.
posted by wierdo at 11:32 AM on July 20 [4 favorites]
it's perhaps ironic that George W. Bush is the only recent president who left DC like his ass was on fire
I did get to flip off his helicopter as he was heading out of town. Thanks, Obama!
posted by kirkaracha at 11:37 AM on July 20 [3 favorites]
I did get to flip off his helicopter as he was heading out of town. Thanks, Obama!
posted by kirkaracha at 11:37 AM on July 20 [3 favorites]
You have a very narrow definition of the word history and a very broad definition of the word incapacitated
Actually true, though, as far as "visibly incapacitated" goes. FDR's physical disability was largely hidden, he was never photographed in a wheelchair, he wore leg braces and stood up for most photos. In an age before television, his public image was carefully managed. He never had a very public and widely reported "the emperor has no clothes" moment like Biden's debate with Trump.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:43 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Actually true, though, as far as "visibly incapacitated" goes. FDR's physical disability was largely hidden, he was never photographed in a wheelchair, he wore leg braces and stood up for most photos. In an age before television, his public image was carefully managed. He never had a very public and widely reported "the emperor has no clothes" moment like Biden's debate with Trump.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:43 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
I just want this to stop
too late. it will not, in fact, stop
posted by lescour at 11:45 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
too late. it will not, in fact, stop
posted by lescour at 11:45 AM on July 20 [2 favorites]
In fairness if the New York Times and a bunch of venture capital nerds tried to chase me out of my job I’d tell them to fuck off also.
posted by Artw 29 minutes ago
(In a fantasy/alternative reality I dallied in earlier while riding my bike to the gym - what if they want Biden out so badly because they know he's looking to raise taxes on the top 0.1% next. That he's coming for the billionaires next... that he's actually, genuinely concerned with the middle class? With the blue-collar people that make up the vast majority of the country in the first place?... yeah no way in hell. But still, there really does seem to be a palpable struggle to get him to quit. And I don't know what that means but I would like to know.)
posted by From Bklyn at 12:05 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw 29 minutes ago
(In a fantasy/alternative reality I dallied in earlier while riding my bike to the gym - what if they want Biden out so badly because they know he's looking to raise taxes on the top 0.1% next. That he's coming for the billionaires next... that he's actually, genuinely concerned with the middle class? With the blue-collar people that make up the vast majority of the country in the first place?... yeah no way in hell. But still, there really does seem to be a palpable struggle to get him to quit. And I don't know what that means but I would like to know.)
posted by From Bklyn at 12:05 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
You have a very narrow definition of the word history and a very broad definition of the word incapacitated.
I said "visibly incapacitated" for a reason. :)
Reagan, Wilson, and arguably Kennedy were all wrecks, but that was either covered up effectively, or didn't come out until substantially after the relevant election had taken place. TV is a huge factor here. Ubiquitous cellphone cameras, too. FDR could stage manage 95% of his appearance to hide his inability to walk, and he seemed able to actually do the job of president right to the end. Wilson's handlers likewise had a lot of freedom to conceal the man from the public after his stroke.
Reagan was always a dull witted man, and just how severe his dementia had become wasn't clear to most of the public till after 84.Kennedy did a very good job projecting virility and rationality, even as his body failed him and his mind suffered the consequences of the powerful medication he was on.
They and their staffs and handlers hid these things for a reason. Because it would destroy the confidence of the country in them if it was discovered, and mean the end of their administration. That's what is happening to Biden.
But still, there really does seem to be a palpable struggle to get him to quit. And I don't know what that means but I would like to know.
A lot of people will die or suffer needlessly if Trump takes office, and a lot of people think that will happen if Biden doesn't step down.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:07 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
I said "visibly incapacitated" for a reason. :)
Reagan, Wilson, and arguably Kennedy were all wrecks, but that was either covered up effectively, or didn't come out until substantially after the relevant election had taken place. TV is a huge factor here. Ubiquitous cellphone cameras, too. FDR could stage manage 95% of his appearance to hide his inability to walk, and he seemed able to actually do the job of president right to the end. Wilson's handlers likewise had a lot of freedom to conceal the man from the public after his stroke.
Reagan was always a dull witted man, and just how severe his dementia had become wasn't clear to most of the public till after 84.Kennedy did a very good job projecting virility and rationality, even as his body failed him and his mind suffered the consequences of the powerful medication he was on.
They and their staffs and handlers hid these things for a reason. Because it would destroy the confidence of the country in them if it was discovered, and mean the end of their administration. That's what is happening to Biden.
But still, there really does seem to be a palpable struggle to get him to quit. And I don't know what that means but I would like to know.
A lot of people will die or suffer needlessly if Trump takes office, and a lot of people think that will happen if Biden doesn't step down.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:07 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
A lot of people also think that might be more likely to happen if he does step down.
posted by Artw at 12:09 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:09 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
A lot of people also think that might be more likely to happen if he does step down.
Sure. But, but my point was that there is no need to project some secret, progressive agenda on to Biden to explain how much pressure there is on him to leave. People thinking he's going to lose to Trump is sufficient.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:11 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Sure. But, but my point was that there is no need to project some secret, progressive agenda on to Biden to explain how much pressure there is on him to leave. People thinking he's going to lose to Trump is sufficient.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:11 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
A lot of people also think that might be more likely to happen if he does step down
Yes, but that doesn't include a majority of Democratic voters or a sizeable percentage of Democratic leaders (including, if reports are to be believed, the Senate majority leader, the House minority leader, the speaker emerita, and the previous Democratic president) who see Biden as a drag on the ticket who is going to lose seats in both houses if he insists on remaining the nominee.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:15 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Yes, but that doesn't include a majority of Democratic voters or a sizeable percentage of Democratic leaders (including, if reports are to be believed, the Senate majority leader, the House minority leader, the speaker emerita, and the previous Democratic president) who see Biden as a drag on the ticket who is going to lose seats in both houses if he insists on remaining the nominee.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:15 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
there is no need to project some secret, progressive agenda on to Biden to explain how much pressure there is on him to leave.
I absolutely project a not so secret regressive agenda on the two main places the pressure is coming from though.
if reports are to be believed
I also see the majority of reports as attempts to push the news rather than recount it.
posted by Artw at 12:22 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
I absolutely project a not so secret regressive agenda on the two main places the pressure is coming from though.
if reports are to be believed
I also see the majority of reports as attempts to push the news rather than recount it.
posted by Artw at 12:22 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
also see the majority of reports as attempts to push the news rather than recount it
If you don't see Biden's abysmal and cognitively challenged debate performance, poor polling, and negative public perception as a major issue, then I don't really know what to tell you, because for a lot of people all of that adds up to a conclusion that he's unfit to serve another four years and unfit to be the nominee right now.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:28 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
If you don't see Biden's abysmal and cognitively challenged debate performance, poor polling, and negative public perception as a major issue, then I don't really know what to tell you, because for a lot of people all of that adds up to a conclusion that he's unfit to serve another four years and unfit to be the nominee right now.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:28 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
While the media is definitely run by plutocrats, it has not generally been solidly in Trump's camp up to this point. Nor has Biden been some Marxist radical outside the delusions of Fox News watchers.
So it just doesn't seem very plausible to me that they are trying to undermine Biden to put Trump in power or stop some radical social and economic justice program.
I think the sudden surge in the news is easily enough explained by a genuine belief Biden will lose to Trump at the top of the ticket, scared Democratic politicians talking to the media, and the media loving a story with continuous developments to fill out the news cycle.
Maybe I am naive, but I just don't see a reason to think everyone with influence over the media has decided all at once to push for a Trump victory. And I know none of them care about Harris, Whitmer, Warren, or Kelly.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:32 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
So it just doesn't seem very plausible to me that they are trying to undermine Biden to put Trump in power or stop some radical social and economic justice program.
I think the sudden surge in the news is easily enough explained by a genuine belief Biden will lose to Trump at the top of the ticket, scared Democratic politicians talking to the media, and the media loving a story with continuous developments to fill out the news cycle.
Maybe I am naive, but I just don't see a reason to think everyone with influence over the media has decided all at once to push for a Trump victory. And I know none of them care about Harris, Whitmer, Warren, or Kelly.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:32 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Yeah I consider that a tad naive.
posted by Artw at 12:37 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:37 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
Maybe I am naive, but I just don't see a reason to think everyone with influence over the media has decided all at once to push for a Trump victory.
That's a charitable read on the media. They have every incentive to push for a Trump victory -- they did in 2016, and they do now. I remember in 2021 when Biden announced the First 100 Days agenda, there was a journalist from WaPo or other report saying they ARE having a crisis reporting what is a legitimately good-for-Americans agenda. What is the critical angle here? and how do you both-sides when one party just did an insurrection and one is rescuing Americans from a pandemic?
Legacy media doesn't know how to report an Democratic agenda that is good for people. I'm sure they know how to praise Trump though. They are doing it right now.
posted by ichomp at 12:45 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
That's a charitable read on the media. They have every incentive to push for a Trump victory -- they did in 2016, and they do now. I remember in 2021 when Biden announced the First 100 Days agenda, there was a journalist from WaPo or other report saying they ARE having a crisis reporting what is a legitimately good-for-Americans agenda. What is the critical angle here? and how do you both-sides when one party just did an insurrection and one is rescuing Americans from a pandemic?
Legacy media doesn't know how to report an Democratic agenda that is good for people. I'm sure they know how to praise Trump though. They are doing it right now.
posted by ichomp at 12:45 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
Yeah I consider that a tad naive.
Fair enough. I do entirely see how it could benefit their class interests to back Trump, but they generally haven't been all in on him. I could absolutely believe several American oligarch's might decide a Trump win is in their best interests and start pushing this narrative. But this reporting is so wide spread, that it seems to require essentially everyone with power to be on board. Whereas if this is being driven primarily by the Democratic party, the simultaneous flush of stories in all different media outlets would make more sense.
I suppose what I am saying is that I don't doubt their malice. Just their coordination.
Also, I genuinely think we have a better shot without Biden. He has a lot of negatives Harris doesn't. And I think that, win or lose, Harris would be less of an anchor, dragging down turnout for down ballot races, which are even more vital if Trump wins.
That's a charitable read on the media. They have every incentive to push for a Trump victory -- they did in 2016, and they do now.
The media gave Trump too much attention in 2016 during the primaries. He was also roundly criticized as an idiot and a blowhard. The media definitely gave Trump power by focusing on him. It gave him attention because he was ridiculous and his idiotic statements made for good content, and after the primaries the horse race narrative kept eyes on screens. But there doesn't seem to me to be much evidence for some industry wide collusion. Their interest in Trump was completely explainable in terms of seeking ratings first and foremost. And I think that is likely what is going on with media coverage of Biden's collapsing support. It is novel, and it is exciting/scary. It keeps people watching TV or hitting refresh on news sites. No conscious political agenda or coordination required.
In the news:
Union support for Biden weakens amid calls for him to step aside
A 55,000-member union local in the Pacific Northwest on Friday issued a public letter calling on Biden to end his candidacy. Democratic members of Congress with close ties to labor on Friday also joined the roster of elected officials calling on Biden to step aside.
Local 3000 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the union in the Pacific Northwest, released a letter on Friday that said Biden should leave the race. The labor organization did not endorse Biden in this year's Democratic primary, opting to weigh in as "uncommitted," but it has vowed to support whoever the party nominates for the general election.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:49 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Fair enough. I do entirely see how it could benefit their class interests to back Trump, but they generally haven't been all in on him. I could absolutely believe several American oligarch's might decide a Trump win is in their best interests and start pushing this narrative. But this reporting is so wide spread, that it seems to require essentially everyone with power to be on board. Whereas if this is being driven primarily by the Democratic party, the simultaneous flush of stories in all different media outlets would make more sense.
I suppose what I am saying is that I don't doubt their malice. Just their coordination.
Also, I genuinely think we have a better shot without Biden. He has a lot of negatives Harris doesn't. And I think that, win or lose, Harris would be less of an anchor, dragging down turnout for down ballot races, which are even more vital if Trump wins.
That's a charitable read on the media. They have every incentive to push for a Trump victory -- they did in 2016, and they do now.
The media gave Trump too much attention in 2016 during the primaries. He was also roundly criticized as an idiot and a blowhard. The media definitely gave Trump power by focusing on him. It gave him attention because he was ridiculous and his idiotic statements made for good content, and after the primaries the horse race narrative kept eyes on screens. But there doesn't seem to me to be much evidence for some industry wide collusion. Their interest in Trump was completely explainable in terms of seeking ratings first and foremost. And I think that is likely what is going on with media coverage of Biden's collapsing support. It is novel, and it is exciting/scary. It keeps people watching TV or hitting refresh on news sites. No conscious political agenda or coordination required.
In the news:
Union support for Biden weakens amid calls for him to step aside
A 55,000-member union local in the Pacific Northwest on Friday issued a public letter calling on Biden to end his candidacy. Democratic members of Congress with close ties to labor on Friday also joined the roster of elected officials calling on Biden to step aside.
Local 3000 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the union in the Pacific Northwest, released a letter on Friday that said Biden should leave the race. The labor organization did not endorse Biden in this year's Democratic primary, opting to weigh in as "uncommitted," but it has vowed to support whoever the party nominates for the general election.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:49 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Right, but that’s a feedback loop. That wouldn’t be happening without the media and donors doing a stone soup routine.
posted by Artw at 1:11 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:11 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
I think the sudden surge in the news is easily enough explained by a genuine belief Biden will lose to Trump at the top of the ticket, scared Democratic politicians talking to the media, and the media loving a story with continuous developments to fill out the news
That’s not naive, it’s realistic and probably true.
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:16 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
That’s not naive, it’s realistic and probably true.
posted by Liquidwolf at 1:16 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
Right, but that’s a feedback loop. That wouldn’t be happening without the media and donors doing a stone soup routine.
I agree with that. I just think the media are acting to generate ratings, rather than setting out to give Trump the presidency. That doesn't mean that won't be the outcome of their actions, of course.
As for the donors, they are donors to the Democrats. Rather than saying they want a different candidate at the top of the ticket before they give money to the campaign, it seems like they could just withhold the money in the first place, or funnel it to Trump instead.
It raises the question of what their plan was if Biden didn't have a disastrous debate performance. Were they going to give them the money anyway and just hope Biden lost?
If Biden were an economic radical, I could see the corporate backers of the Democrats refusing to fund his campaign in order to get a more centrist or right leaning candidate, but Harris looks like a lateral change at best, and many of the listed candidates are substantially to Biden's left fiscally. If there was some huge push to coronate Mark Cuban or Kristen Sinema or some other laissez-faire type, I could see their angle, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It is hard to see how they can do better on the pro-business front than Joe Biden.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:26 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
I agree with that. I just think the media are acting to generate ratings, rather than setting out to give Trump the presidency. That doesn't mean that won't be the outcome of their actions, of course.
As for the donors, they are donors to the Democrats. Rather than saying they want a different candidate at the top of the ticket before they give money to the campaign, it seems like they could just withhold the money in the first place, or funnel it to Trump instead.
It raises the question of what their plan was if Biden didn't have a disastrous debate performance. Were they going to give them the money anyway and just hope Biden lost?
If Biden were an economic radical, I could see the corporate backers of the Democrats refusing to fund his campaign in order to get a more centrist or right leaning candidate, but Harris looks like a lateral change at best, and many of the listed candidates are substantially to Biden's left fiscally. If there was some huge push to coronate Mark Cuban or Kristen Sinema or some other laissez-faire type, I could see their angle, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It is hard to see how they can do better on the pro-business front than Joe Biden.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:26 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
I don't think they understood the severity of Biden's problems until they saw the debate. And that's actually understandable, because Biden is old, and he has always been prone to malapropisms and shooting his mouth off in an ill-advised way. A donor who met with Biden in passing at some function and was alarmed by what they saw probably told themselves the president had had a long day, or was just kind of a goofball. Or maybe they privately realized things had gone horribly awry but figured Biden could keep it together in front of the camera. After the debate, that illusion was over.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:34 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:34 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
Several paragraphs down at pattern juggler's linked ABC News article, about Local 3000: "The UFCW, the 1.3-million member union to which Local 3000 belongs, shared a statement with ABC News on Friday pledging its continued support for Biden's presidential campaign."
At UFCW.org, July 19: Today, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which represents 1.2 million essential workers in grocery, meatpacking, food processing, retail, and other essential industries, released a statement reaffirming the union’s support for President Biden’s reelection campaign:
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:35 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
At UFCW.org, July 19: Today, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which represents 1.2 million essential workers in grocery, meatpacking, food processing, retail, and other essential industries, released a statement reaffirming the union’s support for President Biden’s reelection campaign:
“Over a year ago, the UFCW International Executive Board made the decision to endorse President Biden’s reelection bid. We did this because the president has been one of the most pro-union presidents in modern America’s history. The impact his administration has had in uplifting our country’s essential workers, especially throughout the pandemic, cannot be understated. President Biden stood with us on picket lines, organizing campaigns and on behalf of workers throughout this country.Earlier this month: UFCW Applauds Biden Administration’s New Rules Protecting Workers from Extreme Heat
“President Biden is the nominee of the Democratic Party and the only pro-labor candidate in this race, and we strongly support his candidacy over former President Trump.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:35 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
If Biden were an economic radical, I could see the corporate backers of the Democrats refusing to fund his campaign in order to get a more centrist or right leaning candidate, but Harris looks like a lateral change at best, and many of the listed candidates are substantially to Biden's left fiscally.
That’s just the thing. He HAS been an economic radical by collecting taxes from millionaires, supporting unions, and protecting consumers. When we look back, this will be the thing that marks Biden’s administration. The ultra-rich are not happy with him. He’s running against Musk and Thiel.
posted by ichomp at 1:40 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
That’s just the thing. He HAS been an economic radical by collecting taxes from millionaires, supporting unions, and protecting consumers. When we look back, this will be the thing that marks Biden’s administration. The ultra-rich are not happy with him. He’s running against Musk and Thiel.
posted by ichomp at 1:40 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
If he were an economic radical who had control over the past 4 years, wouldn’t he poll better?
posted by Selena777 at 1:47 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 1:47 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
It continues to amuse me, darkly, how people who are all like "rah, unions," "rah, this," and "rah, that" are pretty much shrugging their shoulders about having gotten much of what they've been agitating for these past years. "Nah, not like that" seems to be a common refrain. Or, more infuriatingly, they deny that anything has actually happened. "What has Biden even done?" "Like half of what you were asking for." "That didn't happen, stop gaslighting me."
I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
posted by wierdo at 1:51 PM on July 20 [11 favorites]
I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of their professed beliefs.
posted by wierdo at 1:51 PM on July 20 [11 favorites]
Thiel and Musk are definitely pro-Trump.
But I don't think Biden's actions have been radical in any meaningful way. The ultra-wealthy do not care about few millionaries and single digit billionaires paying a million or so bucks each in back taxes. Biden has done some genuine good things for some workers, but he was also willing to break a strike when it threatened to actually have a significant impact on corporate profits.
A lot of billionaires, like Musk and Thiel and the remaining Koch brother are in the tank for Trump. But they weren't Democratic donors who broke with Joe Biden. (Musk used to be a supporter of the Democrats, but his break had to do with his ongoing midlife crisis and world's worst dad status.) But nothing Biden has done seems like it would drive long term Democratic donors off.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:54 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
But I don't think Biden's actions have been radical in any meaningful way. The ultra-wealthy do not care about few millionaries and single digit billionaires paying a million or so bucks each in back taxes. Biden has done some genuine good things for some workers, but he was also willing to break a strike when it threatened to actually have a significant impact on corporate profits.
A lot of billionaires, like Musk and Thiel and the remaining Koch brother are in the tank for Trump. But they weren't Democratic donors who broke with Joe Biden. (Musk used to be a supporter of the Democrats, but his break had to do with his ongoing midlife crisis and world's worst dad status.) But nothing Biden has done seems like it would drive long term Democratic donors off.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:54 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
But nothing Biden has done seems like it would drive long term Democratic donors off.
That is literally what is happening right now. They are holding their money hostage on the Congressional races.
The ultra-wealthy do not care about few millionaries and single digit billionaires paying a million or so bucks each in back taxes.
That’s a charitable read on the ultra-wealthy.
posted by ichomp at 2:04 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
That is literally what is happening right now. They are holding their money hostage on the Congressional races.
The ultra-wealthy do not care about few millionaries and single digit billionaires paying a million or so bucks each in back taxes.
That’s a charitable read on the ultra-wealthy.
posted by ichomp at 2:04 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
weirdo As a leftist I agree he's done some positive things on the taxation front. I'm not so sure about the union front, he did force the rail workers union to return to work by basically imperial fiat and even if you argue he later sort of negotiated for them to get some of what they want opening by humbling the union and reminding everyone it had no real power wasn't so great.
But yes, he's done some good things.
But no, none of that is radical. It's standard incrementalism. Which isn't bad, and I'll definitely take it and give his team kudos for it, but when people describe mild incrementalism as radical it has the same effect as calling Liberals leftists: it makes actual radicalism harder to describe.
RADICAL would be 100% wealth tax on all wealth over $500 million in order to completely eliminate billionaires as a class.
Radical would be abolishing all sales tax (regressive) and forcing states to fund themselves via progressive income tax.
Radical would be abolishing landlords by forbidding corporations from owning single unit housing at all and limiting them to exactly one apartment complex that they're obligated to sell to a tenant coop at market value if said coop demands it.
Radical isn't a bump in corporate income tax or a bump in stock buyback taxes. Those things are an improvement, no denying it at all. But they aren't radical.
posted by sotonohito at 2:07 PM on July 20 [16 favorites]
But yes, he's done some good things.
But no, none of that is radical. It's standard incrementalism. Which isn't bad, and I'll definitely take it and give his team kudos for it, but when people describe mild incrementalism as radical it has the same effect as calling Liberals leftists: it makes actual radicalism harder to describe.
RADICAL would be 100% wealth tax on all wealth over $500 million in order to completely eliminate billionaires as a class.
Radical would be abolishing all sales tax (regressive) and forcing states to fund themselves via progressive income tax.
Radical would be abolishing landlords by forbidding corporations from owning single unit housing at all and limiting them to exactly one apartment complex that they're obligated to sell to a tenant coop at market value if said coop demands it.
Radical isn't a bump in corporate income tax or a bump in stock buyback taxes. Those things are an improvement, no denying it at all. But they aren't radical.
posted by sotonohito at 2:07 PM on July 20 [16 favorites]
Yeah, Biden has been good at doling out little cookies here and there to the oppressed. That's better than a kick in the face, but when people say he's been underwhelming, it's because he's underwhelmed people.
That said, not relevant to replacing Biden. I do not think it's naive to say the donors want Biden out because they're scared shitless he's going to lose to Trump. The little cookies are actually kind of great for them, because they're things they can point to as evidence that their guy is doing nice things for the poor, while not a fucking thing gets any harder for themselves. It's kind of a win win for the donors.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:14 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
That said, not relevant to replacing Biden. I do not think it's naive to say the donors want Biden out because they're scared shitless he's going to lose to Trump. The little cookies are actually kind of great for them, because they're things they can point to as evidence that their guy is doing nice things for the poor, while not a fucking thing gets any harder for themselves. It's kind of a win win for the donors.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:14 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
That is literally what is happening right now. They are holding their money hostage on the Congressional races.
But that seems far more likely to be on the grounds that Biden is not able to effectively campaign, rather than Biden being an economic threat. I just don't see donors to the Democratic party funding his campaign until his incapacity becomes clear, and then deciding he is too radical and cutting off the tap. It seems more likely that if they saw Biden as a threat they would be less likely to act if he seemed weak and unable to get his policies through. They could easily have tried to generate a genuine primary challenge, and leaned in to the genuine discontent among civil rights groups and young people over Gaza. That didn't happen. This started when Biden gave several very weak performances and started losing in the polls in the swing states.
I think Democratic donors actually mostly want the Democrats to win and are attempting to pursue that end, whether they are doing so well is a different matter.
That’s a charitable read on the ultra-wealthy.
I don't think it is charitable. I'm saying the ultra-wealthy do not care about millionaires any more than they care about the rest of us. Jeff Bezos could not give less of a damn about some guy who owns a couple of car dealerships having to pay back taxes. That guy means as little to him as I do.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:15 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
But that seems far more likely to be on the grounds that Biden is not able to effectively campaign, rather than Biden being an economic threat. I just don't see donors to the Democratic party funding his campaign until his incapacity becomes clear, and then deciding he is too radical and cutting off the tap. It seems more likely that if they saw Biden as a threat they would be less likely to act if he seemed weak and unable to get his policies through. They could easily have tried to generate a genuine primary challenge, and leaned in to the genuine discontent among civil rights groups and young people over Gaza. That didn't happen. This started when Biden gave several very weak performances and started losing in the polls in the swing states.
I think Democratic donors actually mostly want the Democrats to win and are attempting to pursue that end, whether they are doing so well is a different matter.
That’s a charitable read on the ultra-wealthy.
I don't think it is charitable. I'm saying the ultra-wealthy do not care about millionaires any more than they care about the rest of us. Jeff Bezos could not give less of a damn about some guy who owns a couple of car dealerships having to pay back taxes. That guy means as little to him as I do.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:15 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
Right, if the current conspiracy theory is that Biden is "too radical" for the donor class, why was the donor class happily funneling money into his campaign up until the debate?
posted by coffeecat at 2:22 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 2:22 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
I'm not personally surprised that this is dragging out in the way it is because when someone is going through cognitive decline it can be real tricky/sticky to see it if you are close to the person and to be aware of when shit started going differently, how it started going differently, etc., If you are the person - you either don't see it or you don't want to see it and you probably don't want it examined.
However, this guy is president and it would be super cool if someone involved would get a medical professional in front of it and find out wtf is actually going on with his noodle. He has done a pretty outstanding job given the circumstances. I think it's likely that he's had a lot of help and I would love to know how much of it was because of the work of Kamala Harris.
Personally I feel for Biden and his family because it's an absolute shit salad. At the same time somebody needs to be taking the keys of the nation from him. I'm gonna vote for whoever the D is (and right now I'm inclined to think Kamala Harris has been doing a shit ton of work behind the scenes for years.) I just wish the D's would call it so we can get a move on with it. The longer this drags out, the worse it's going to be.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 2:26 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
However, this guy is president and it would be super cool if someone involved would get a medical professional in front of it and find out wtf is actually going on with his noodle. He has done a pretty outstanding job given the circumstances. I think it's likely that he's had a lot of help and I would love to know how much of it was because of the work of Kamala Harris.
Personally I feel for Biden and his family because it's an absolute shit salad. At the same time somebody needs to be taking the keys of the nation from him. I'm gonna vote for whoever the D is (and right now I'm inclined to think Kamala Harris has been doing a shit ton of work behind the scenes for years.) I just wish the D's would call it so we can get a move on with it. The longer this drags out, the worse it's going to be.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 2:26 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
Radical isn't a bump in corporate income tax or a bump in stock buyback taxes. Those things are an improvement, no denying it at all. But they aren't radical.
They're clearly pretty radical if you're a millionaire/billionaire who's been growing their fortune by leaps and bounds since the collapse of 2008, if not longer.
posted by soundguy99 at 2:26 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
They're clearly pretty radical if you're a millionaire/billionaire who's been growing their fortune by leaps and bounds since the collapse of 2008, if not longer.
posted by soundguy99 at 2:26 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
His agenda is not radical in the leftist sense, but it is radical because it has been so long, and it is so rare, for the goverment to make this kind of broad changes on behalf of people.
I agree that donors want 1) Democrats to win and 2) keep making money the way they have been.
Yeah, Biden has been good at doling out little cookies here and there to the oppressed. That's better than a kick in the face, but when people say he's been underwhelming, it's because he's underwhelmed people.
Punishing the person giving out cookies, during the rise of fasicsm, is not how I would react.
posted by ichomp at 2:36 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
I agree that donors want 1) Democrats to win and 2) keep making money the way they have been.
Yeah, Biden has been good at doling out little cookies here and there to the oppressed. That's better than a kick in the face, but when people say he's been underwhelming, it's because he's underwhelmed people.
Punishing the person giving out cookies, during the rise of fasicsm, is not how I would react.
posted by ichomp at 2:36 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Who gets to choose? Democrats detail ‘blitz primary’ options to replace Biden. [Semafor]
The two Democrats who popularized the idea of a “blitz primary” to replace Joe Biden are circulating a detailed proposal offering possible answers to three key questions: Who chooses the candidates to replace Joe Biden? How can they campaign? And how will the Democratic nominee be chosen?posted by mazola at 2:43 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
…
The memo, according to its authors, is intended both as a loose roadmap for Democratic leaders and as a response to critics like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who have raised questions about whether a process like this could work.
(Memo written by Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks and venture capitalist Ted Dintersmith FWIW)
posted by mazola at 2:45 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by mazola at 2:45 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
His agenda is not radical in the leftist sense, but it is radical because it has been so long, and it is so rare, for the goverment to make this kind of broad changes on behalf of people.
I don't think anything Biden has done has been remotely close to the level required for long term Democratic donors to revolt. But even if you disagree, it is very hard to explain the timing. Why wait till after the debate, when the nominations were largely considered closed? Why risk replacement with someone who might be substantially more fiscally progressive than Biden?
As a palace coup, this isn't coherent. As a genuinely panicked response to Trump being in position to take power by people who very much don't want that, it is entirely understandable.
Punishing the person giving out cookies, during the rise of fasicsm, is not how I would react.
They probably aren't intending to punish anyone, though. They are saying they won't give money to a campaign that shows every sign of losing. If you believe Biden can't win, not pressuring him out is capitulation to Trump.
There were a lot of chances to undermine Biden if this was about spiking the Democrats and putting Trump in office. There were safer ways to try to get Biden off the ticket that might have let donors hand pick a replacement that is aligned with their interests instead of rolling the dice with several progressives in the running. If this is a deliberate attack on Biden, it is a very poorly devised one that relies on a lot of things happening in ways no one could predict.
It is sort of like the 9/11 Truthers' problem. You can create a plausible motive for faking 9/11, but you are still left with the question of why the conspirators are bothering to crash planes into buildings that they have already rigged with explosives. It seems like either a bombing or people crashing planes into buildings should be sufficient to do what you want. The logic only works if you start at the actual result and work backwards to the theory.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:50 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
I don't think anything Biden has done has been remotely close to the level required for long term Democratic donors to revolt. But even if you disagree, it is very hard to explain the timing. Why wait till after the debate, when the nominations were largely considered closed? Why risk replacement with someone who might be substantially more fiscally progressive than Biden?
As a palace coup, this isn't coherent. As a genuinely panicked response to Trump being in position to take power by people who very much don't want that, it is entirely understandable.
Punishing the person giving out cookies, during the rise of fasicsm, is not how I would react.
They probably aren't intending to punish anyone, though. They are saying they won't give money to a campaign that shows every sign of losing. If you believe Biden can't win, not pressuring him out is capitulation to Trump.
There were a lot of chances to undermine Biden if this was about spiking the Democrats and putting Trump in office. There were safer ways to try to get Biden off the ticket that might have let donors hand pick a replacement that is aligned with their interests instead of rolling the dice with several progressives in the running. If this is a deliberate attack on Biden, it is a very poorly devised one that relies on a lot of things happening in ways no one could predict.
It is sort of like the 9/11 Truthers' problem. You can create a plausible motive for faking 9/11, but you are still left with the question of why the conspirators are bothering to crash planes into buildings that they have already rigged with explosives. It seems like either a bombing or people crashing planes into buildings should be sufficient to do what you want. The logic only works if you start at the actual result and work backwards to the theory.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:50 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
We don’t know the donors’ motives and the exact outcome they want, but I want to add that the fact that Biden can pass even a slightly progressive agenda (we may disagree on the magnitude of how progressive it is) is because he is SEEN as a moderate and he is an old white guy. Kamala Harris is going to have a harder time doing the same because who she is already presents as radical to many Americans.
posted by ichomp at 2:58 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
posted by ichomp at 2:58 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
In fairness if the New York Times and a bunch of venture capital nerds tried to chase me out of my job I’d tell them to fuck off also.
Donald Trump, the entire RNC, and the Heritage Foundation want him to stay in his job, though, which would give a sensible non-narcissistic person pause!
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:01 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
Donald Trump, the entire RNC, and the Heritage Foundation want him to stay in his job, though, which would give a sensible non-narcissistic person pause!
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:01 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
Nat You ask, I deliver. Cat pic. He's very Presidential.
posted by sotonohito at 3:04 PM on July 20 [12 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 3:04 PM on July 20 [12 favorites]
sotonohito: he clearly understands computers better than anybody in power, at least!
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:06 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:06 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
Hail to the Chief!
posted by pattern juggler at 3:06 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 3:06 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
Biden has done some genuine good things for some workers, but he was also willing to break a strike when it threatened to actually have a significant impact on corporate profits.
Although I wasn't intending to reference anything said in this thread, this embodies the exact thing I was talking about. Yeah, he nerfed the strike that would have given us yet another supply shock at a time when inflation was already at levels not seen in 40 years. And then he got the union most of what they were asking for, likely no less than they would have gotten had the strike gone ahead.
There's actually a reason why the President has the power under the RLA to delay strikes by railway or airline workers (and conversely to prevent management from staging a lockout). It's not for shits and giggles, it's because it doesn't just fuck the company, it fucks each and every one of us when a third or more of the entire economy just shuts down all of a sudden. It's not just corporate profits at risk, it's food on the table at risk.
Presidents can and have used the power cynically to put their thumb on the scale for the company before, but Biden didn't do that. He did the adult thing and took the political hit so a still fucked supply chain wasn't kicked while it was down while also not leaving the workers in the lurch. That's called good governance. It isn't as exciting as burning everything down, I'll grant.
And no, Biden is not radical in the sense of radical leftism. His administration has been making steady and measurable progress on many fronts, not just relying on a couple of big centerpieces, saying "the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice" and going off to play golf or whatever.
However, his administration has been pretty radical in some other senses. Not leftist radical, but doing what many, even some leftists, have been calling for in terms of economic policy. Actually doing what Trump was lying about doing with bringing back middle class blue collar jobs and making it less advantageous to offshore labor. The FCC has been doing the work on broadband equity, and now after 25 years of promises, people are actually getting decent connectivity in rural areas so they're at less of a disadvantage in attracting businesses and workers both.
After the court thwarted his student loan forgiveness, he didn't just throw up his hands, he went ahead and cancelled over $150 billion in student loans that he could, made PSLF forgiveness an actual reality rather than the pipe dream it turned out to be under Trump, and fixed IBR so that while those whose debt didn't get cancelled or forgiven might still have an absurdly high number to look at, the actual payments will be low enough (now as low as $0 while still getting credit for having made on time payments, unlike with forbearance) that it shouldn't keep people from actually having a life despite the big top line number.
There's much more besides, but dismissing it all as mere incrementalism is simply counterfactual. Indeed, some of it is radical in the sense that it's a radical departure from previous practice. What it is not is revolutionary in the literal sense of the word. He's not burning the system down, he is reshaping it in a way that sets us up for long term success and provides a stronger foundation to build upon without having to go through the disruptive and often literally deadly spasms that accompany sudden revolutionary changes.
It's fine not to like the guy, but ignoring or downplaying what has happened and is happening just because it hasn't been super obvious in your day to day life and/or because the press simply won't cover the boring day to day mechanics of governance because it doesn't generate clicks like this "is he in or is he out" bullshit is just plain wrong. You're (the general you, not you specifically) are doing yourself a disservice.
And if you're (again, general you, not talking about anyone present as far as I'm aware) mad at Biden because you're an accelerationist and think that his actions are making that less likely, I hope you come to your senses but until then please fuck all the way off and don't come back until you have the necessary surgery to remove your head from your ass.
posted by wierdo at 3:16 PM on July 20 [33 favorites]
Although I wasn't intending to reference anything said in this thread, this embodies the exact thing I was talking about. Yeah, he nerfed the strike that would have given us yet another supply shock at a time when inflation was already at levels not seen in 40 years. And then he got the union most of what they were asking for, likely no less than they would have gotten had the strike gone ahead.
There's actually a reason why the President has the power under the RLA to delay strikes by railway or airline workers (and conversely to prevent management from staging a lockout). It's not for shits and giggles, it's because it doesn't just fuck the company, it fucks each and every one of us when a third or more of the entire economy just shuts down all of a sudden. It's not just corporate profits at risk, it's food on the table at risk.
Presidents can and have used the power cynically to put their thumb on the scale for the company before, but Biden didn't do that. He did the adult thing and took the political hit so a still fucked supply chain wasn't kicked while it was down while also not leaving the workers in the lurch. That's called good governance. It isn't as exciting as burning everything down, I'll grant.
And no, Biden is not radical in the sense of radical leftism. His administration has been making steady and measurable progress on many fronts, not just relying on a couple of big centerpieces, saying "the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice" and going off to play golf or whatever.
However, his administration has been pretty radical in some other senses. Not leftist radical, but doing what many, even some leftists, have been calling for in terms of economic policy. Actually doing what Trump was lying about doing with bringing back middle class blue collar jobs and making it less advantageous to offshore labor. The FCC has been doing the work on broadband equity, and now after 25 years of promises, people are actually getting decent connectivity in rural areas so they're at less of a disadvantage in attracting businesses and workers both.
After the court thwarted his student loan forgiveness, he didn't just throw up his hands, he went ahead and cancelled over $150 billion in student loans that he could, made PSLF forgiveness an actual reality rather than the pipe dream it turned out to be under Trump, and fixed IBR so that while those whose debt didn't get cancelled or forgiven might still have an absurdly high number to look at, the actual payments will be low enough (now as low as $0 while still getting credit for having made on time payments, unlike with forbearance) that it shouldn't keep people from actually having a life despite the big top line number.
There's much more besides, but dismissing it all as mere incrementalism is simply counterfactual. Indeed, some of it is radical in the sense that it's a radical departure from previous practice. What it is not is revolutionary in the literal sense of the word. He's not burning the system down, he is reshaping it in a way that sets us up for long term success and provides a stronger foundation to build upon without having to go through the disruptive and often literally deadly spasms that accompany sudden revolutionary changes.
It's fine not to like the guy, but ignoring or downplaying what has happened and is happening just because it hasn't been super obvious in your day to day life and/or because the press simply won't cover the boring day to day mechanics of governance because it doesn't generate clicks like this "is he in or is he out" bullshit is just plain wrong. You're (the general you, not you specifically) are doing yourself a disservice.
And if you're (again, general you, not talking about anyone present as far as I'm aware) mad at Biden because you're an accelerationist and think that his actions are making that less likely, I hope you come to your senses but until then please fuck all the way off and don't come back until you have the necessary surgery to remove your head from your ass.
posted by wierdo at 3:16 PM on July 20 [33 favorites]
Sorry that turned into a screed, I've just seen too many whiny dipshits elsewhere on the Internet complaining about how they're not going to vote because the candidates are old this afternoon.
posted by wierdo at 3:28 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 3:28 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
I know Biden put out a press release about the "deal" he got the rail workers. I can only say the ones I have interacted with felt it was far too little and were still angry he broke their strike. That isn't exactly scientific data, but he clearly didn't make everyone happy, and many of the elements of the plan were made to sound better than they were, Workers got paid sick leave. But they could still get fired for taking it. They'd just get a days pay for the shift they missed. Which is barely anything, but let the administration say they got 80% of workers paid sick leave. (Some didn't even get that.)
The strike did stand the potential to hurt the economy. That is the point of strikes. They are supposed to squeeze the owner class and force them to make concessions. Saying we'll let you strike when it won't hurt the economy is like saying we'll let you protest when it won't cause anyone any inconvenience. It misses that this is fundamentally and deliberately disruptive.
You can still argue that Biden did right for the good of the economy over all. I think that might be so. But that goes to demonstrating why he isn't seen as some dangerous radical. He is not at war with corporate America. I don't deny Biden has done good things. We are better off in a number of ways than we were before he took over, and not just because of the Trump policies that were reversed. But I am denying that he has been so threatening to the wealthy that they engineered the response to his seeming incapacity.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:33 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
The strike did stand the potential to hurt the economy. That is the point of strikes. They are supposed to squeeze the owner class and force them to make concessions. Saying we'll let you strike when it won't hurt the economy is like saying we'll let you protest when it won't cause anyone any inconvenience. It misses that this is fundamentally and deliberately disruptive.
You can still argue that Biden did right for the good of the economy over all. I think that might be so. But that goes to demonstrating why he isn't seen as some dangerous radical. He is not at war with corporate America. I don't deny Biden has done good things. We are better off in a number of ways than we were before he took over, and not just because of the Trump policies that were reversed. But I am denying that he has been so threatening to the wealthy that they engineered the response to his seeming incapacity.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:33 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
I'm with wierdo here. Incrementalism is not glamorous or exciting, but it IS the way to lasting progress. That's how we achieve it.
The Biden administration embodies that and I am 100%, no regrets, supporting it.
posted by ichomp at 3:34 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
The Biden administration embodies that and I am 100%, no regrets, supporting it.
posted by ichomp at 3:34 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
The way we get progress is by unequivocally applauding and rewarding it when it happens. When we don't, we get less or in this polarized climate, none of it.
Women and girls' rights are already being taken away.
posted by ichomp at 3:50 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Women and girls' rights are already being taken away.
posted by ichomp at 3:50 PM on July 20 [3 favorites]
Anybody have an explainer for the truth of the matter with ballot access issues as things stand at this moment? Just trying to avoid misinformation or disinformation.
posted by cashman at 3:56 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 3:56 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Women's and girls' rights have been being taken away for decades, and Biden was instrumental in that. He supported the original fucking Hyde Amendment!
Yes, Trump is worse! We all fucking know that! But we're allowed to want better!
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:57 PM on July 20 [13 favorites]
Yes, Trump is worse! We all fucking know that! But we're allowed to want better!
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:57 PM on July 20 [13 favorites]
The strike did stand the potential to hurt the economy. That is the point of strikes
With obvious exceptions, no, the point of a strike isn't to fuck everyone, it's to fuck the owners and management of a specific company. This can, of course, have knock on effects, but in general if miners at one mine strike, that just means more business for the other mines. Or if workers at one steel mill strike, other mills will get the lost business.
This, incidentally, is yet another reason why allowing too much consolidation is bad regardless of impacts or the lack thereof on consumer prices. It pleases me to see Lena Khan pushing back on this bullshit idea that monopolies are ok, really, so long as they don't make price go up.
posted by wierdo at 4:09 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
With obvious exceptions, no, the point of a strike isn't to fuck everyone, it's to fuck the owners and management of a specific company. This can, of course, have knock on effects, but in general if miners at one mine strike, that just means more business for the other mines. Or if workers at one steel mill strike, other mills will get the lost business.
This, incidentally, is yet another reason why allowing too much consolidation is bad regardless of impacts or the lack thereof on consumer prices. It pleases me to see Lena Khan pushing back on this bullshit idea that monopolies are ok, really, so long as they don't make price go up.
posted by wierdo at 4:09 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
With obvious exceptions, no, the point of a strike isn't to fuck everyone, it's to fuck the owners and management of a specific company. This can, of course, have knock on effects, but in general if miners at one mine strike, that just means more business for the other mines. Or if workers at one steel mill strike, other mills will get the lost business.
I'd disagree with that. In an interconnected economy there is always going to be spill over. And the whole point of solidarity strikes is to put pressure on the economy as a whole and owners as a class. One could also ask why workers so essential that they can supposedly destroy the economy by not working shouldn't have a contract that reflects that reality.
But that is beside the point. Joe Biden is many things. A threat to the ultra-wealthy isn't one of them. Democratic donors are not trying to remove Biden because he is a threat to corporate power.
The idea that this movement to see him replaced is a plot by media oligarchs to give the election to Trump or a Trojan horse by Democratic donors to remove Biden because he is too pro-labor just doesn't comport with reality.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:23 PM on July 20 [9 favorites]
I'd disagree with that. In an interconnected economy there is always going to be spill over. And the whole point of solidarity strikes is to put pressure on the economy as a whole and owners as a class. One could also ask why workers so essential that they can supposedly destroy the economy by not working shouldn't have a contract that reflects that reality.
But that is beside the point. Joe Biden is many things. A threat to the ultra-wealthy isn't one of them. Democratic donors are not trying to remove Biden because he is a threat to corporate power.
The idea that this movement to see him replaced is a plot by media oligarchs to give the election to Trump or a Trojan horse by Democratic donors to remove Biden because he is too pro-labor just doesn't comport with reality.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:23 PM on July 20 [9 favorites]
I'm not going to keep harping on it, but there's a reason the RLA survived the New Deal. Transportation, and most especially railroads, is not like other industries given the natural monopoly they have. That's why they're treated differently, not because of some nefarious scheme to dilute the power of workers.
Even after the rise of trucking it's still relevant since there are not enough trucks (or space on the roads) in the entire country to replace the capacity of even one of the class 1 railroads. Not even to transport only the things that might reasonably be classified as essential.
And saying "oh, but the workers didn't get everything they asked for" isn't actually saying much. It evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work and how strikes end. Unions never get their full ask. If it was an intolerably bad deal, they could still strike, just after the cooling off period.
posted by wierdo at 4:49 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Even after the rise of trucking it's still relevant since there are not enough trucks (or space on the roads) in the entire country to replace the capacity of even one of the class 1 railroads. Not even to transport only the things that might reasonably be classified as essential.
And saying "oh, but the workers didn't get everything they asked for" isn't actually saying much. It evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work and how strikes end. Unions never get their full ask. If it was an intolerably bad deal, they could still strike, just after the cooling off period.
posted by wierdo at 4:49 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Oh, and the law is reflective of the reality of the essential nature of railroads. The RLA isn't lopsided bullshit. While it does make it harder to strike, it also comes with job protections that don't exist in any other industry. Railroads (and airlines) can bring in scabs during the strike, but they can't then fire the striking workers for not showing up or eliminate their jobs with a title change or whatever. Sympathy strikes are prohibited, but intermittent strikes and other forms of labor action that aren't allowed in other industries are allowed.
Would that all workers get the benefit of RLA protection.
posted by wierdo at 4:58 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Would that all workers get the benefit of RLA protection.
posted by wierdo at 4:58 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Maybe the railroad strike is a derail.
posted by NotLost at 5:08 PM on July 20 [11 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 5:08 PM on July 20 [11 favorites]
weirdo Sorry, I can't agree that Biden did the right thing in the railway issue. Presidential powers to break strikes but NOT force companies to make concessions is just the President as a pinkerton and I hate it. At a time when unions are weak he chose a path that reinforced that image and ruined the one single thing unions have that they can use to force change: the voluntary withholding of labor. Instead Biden said "fuck you, you're not free workers you're slaves and you'll work or go to prison". Anything he did after that does not and cannot make up for what he did to crush unions there.
I flatly refuse to accept the legitimacy of the government ordering ANY workers to work or go to prison. I don't give half a shit how vital they are, labor has a right to strike or we're not free people. Let justice be done though the heavens fall, and let labor win against fucking management though the economy fall.
You seem to be missing the part where the rail worker unions were utterly demolished. They're unions in name only now thanks to Biden stealing the only tool they actually have to force management to make concessions.
This isn't about optics. It's about power. And Biden stole all the power from the workers and gave it to the bosses.
And saying "oh, but the workers didn't get everything they asked for" isn't actually saying much. It evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work and how strikes end. Unions never get their full ask.
OK, but the bosses DID get their full ask. The union was kicked to pieces and is no threat to their power now.
Why not give the President the power to decree that the bosses have to give the Union everything if they won't negotiate? Why is it always, fucking goddamn ALWAYS, us who have to bleed while the parasites win and win and win and fucking win?
If the strike is so terrible then make the fuckers at the top pay for a change. We've been paying for all of human history, isn't it their turn now?
And that brings us back to liberalism vs leftism. Liberals want capitalist lords to be a little nicer. Leftists want capitalist lords gone.
There's much more besides, but dismissing it all as mere incrementalism is simply counterfactual.
Perhaps we're using different definitions of things? Because gradual slow change towards something marginally less horrible is what most people would call incrementalism. Radical means big systemic changes. I mean, I'm not going to link to dictionaries or anything here but it's kind of weird to me that first you claim Biden is radical then start lecturing about the innate superiority of incrementalism and how anyone who wants real change is bad.
If you mean you favor incrementalism then just say so and stop pretending incrementalism is radical?
NotLost It depends on who you ask. My son insists his name is, god help us, "Kitten". I have no idea why.
My partner decided his name was "Moshi" because she liked the way the "moshimoshi" Japanese use when answering the phone sounded.
I am of the position that his full name is "Moshi T. Badcat".
posted by sotonohito at 5:32 PM on July 20 [9 favorites]
I flatly refuse to accept the legitimacy of the government ordering ANY workers to work or go to prison. I don't give half a shit how vital they are, labor has a right to strike or we're not free people. Let justice be done though the heavens fall, and let labor win against fucking management though the economy fall.
You seem to be missing the part where the rail worker unions were utterly demolished. They're unions in name only now thanks to Biden stealing the only tool they actually have to force management to make concessions.
This isn't about optics. It's about power. And Biden stole all the power from the workers and gave it to the bosses.
And saying "oh, but the workers didn't get everything they asked for" isn't actually saying much. It evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of how negotiations work and how strikes end. Unions never get their full ask.
OK, but the bosses DID get their full ask. The union was kicked to pieces and is no threat to their power now.
Why not give the President the power to decree that the bosses have to give the Union everything if they won't negotiate? Why is it always, fucking goddamn ALWAYS, us who have to bleed while the parasites win and win and win and fucking win?
If the strike is so terrible then make the fuckers at the top pay for a change. We've been paying for all of human history, isn't it their turn now?
And that brings us back to liberalism vs leftism. Liberals want capitalist lords to be a little nicer. Leftists want capitalist lords gone.
There's much more besides, but dismissing it all as mere incrementalism is simply counterfactual.
Perhaps we're using different definitions of things? Because gradual slow change towards something marginally less horrible is what most people would call incrementalism. Radical means big systemic changes. I mean, I'm not going to link to dictionaries or anything here but it's kind of weird to me that first you claim Biden is radical then start lecturing about the innate superiority of incrementalism and how anyone who wants real change is bad.
If you mean you favor incrementalism then just say so and stop pretending incrementalism is radical?
NotLost It depends on who you ask. My son insists his name is, god help us, "Kitten". I have no idea why.
My partner decided his name was "Moshi" because she liked the way the "moshimoshi" Japanese use when answering the phone sounded.
I am of the position that his full name is "Moshi T. Badcat".
posted by sotonohito at 5:32 PM on July 20 [9 favorites]
Maybe the railroad strike is a derail.
I see what you did there.
posted by Dorinda at 5:54 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
I see what you did there.
posted by Dorinda at 5:54 PM on July 20 [8 favorites]
After the railroad strike was stopped in late 2022, the unions did get some (significant?) advances several months later. e.g.:
https://www.thestand.org/2023/07/railroad-unions-are-winning-paid-sick-leave-for-workers/?amp=1
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-unionized-us-rail-workers-now-have-new-sick-leave-2023-06-05/
I don’t know know it fits into everything but fyi.
posted by brendano at 6:14 PM on July 20
https://www.thestand.org/2023/07/railroad-unions-are-winning-paid-sick-leave-for-workers/?amp=1
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-unionized-us-rail-workers-now-have-new-sick-leave-2023-06-05/
I don’t know know it fits into everything but fyi.
posted by brendano at 6:14 PM on July 20
We have fed you all, for a thousand yearsposted by adrienneleigh at 6:34 PM on July 20 [7 favorites]
And you hail us still unfed,
Though there's never a dollar of all your wealth
But marks the worker's dead.
We have yielded our best to give you rest
And you lie on your crimson wool.
Then if blood be the price of all your wealth,
Good God! We have paid in full.
There is never a mine blown skyward now
But we're buried alive for you.
There's never a wreck drifts shoreward now
But we are its ghastly crew.
Go reckon our dead by the forges red
And the factories where we spin.
If blood be the price of your cursèd wealth
Good God! we have paid it in.
We have fed you all for a thousand years—
For that was our doom you know,
From the days when you chained us in your fields
To the strike of a week ago
You have taken our lives, and our babies and wives
And we're told it's your legal share;
But if blood be the price of your lawful wealth
Good God! we have bought it fair.
Instead Biden said "fuck you, you're not free workers you're slaves and you'll work or go to prison".
Wild exaggerations are not helpful. Nobody was being forced to work, they were being forced (for only 60 days) to not strike. Individual employees always have the option to just not go to work. It's called quitting. People do it all the time, and when unemployment is low it's often a good idea.
And saying that the union is somehow neutered is just doomerism. If they thought that was the case, they were perfectly free to wait out the cooling off period and then strike. That the union and its membership chose to take the offer and sign the new contract is a pretty strong indicator that they didn't think they were going to get enough of an improvement on the deal to go through with the strike.
Personally, I'd rather my overlords be neutered, not gone entirely. Workers end up having less power, not more, in state owned enterprises. The key is actually neutering the greedy fucks and taking our pound of flesh rather than letting them amass dynastic wealth and power that exceeds that of the popularly elected government. Let them keep a few toys and a fancy office, pat them on the head and tell them how important they are, and then fucking ignore them until they decide they want to get stupid again.
As far as radical goes, to the extent Biden has been able to get his way or hasn't yet been smacked down by the courts many of his policies are a drastic change from the status quo ante. Not revolutionary in the sense it's gonna end capitalism or anything, but radical in the sense that if it works it will go down in the history books like the New Deal.
If Lena Khan gets her way, antitrust enforcement will be radically changed. If the the aims of the IRA and CHIPS Act are achieved, American industry will be changed in a way not seen since World War Ii. It feels like incrementalism because even major changes in large systems almost definitionally can't happen overnight. One way in which history is misleading is that it gives the impression that events happen and the results are immediate and obvious. Even dramatic change is not always obvious in the moment even though it usually is in hindsight.
posted by wierdo at 6:38 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Wild exaggerations are not helpful. Nobody was being forced to work, they were being forced (for only 60 days) to not strike. Individual employees always have the option to just not go to work. It's called quitting. People do it all the time, and when unemployment is low it's often a good idea.
And saying that the union is somehow neutered is just doomerism. If they thought that was the case, they were perfectly free to wait out the cooling off period and then strike. That the union and its membership chose to take the offer and sign the new contract is a pretty strong indicator that they didn't think they were going to get enough of an improvement on the deal to go through with the strike.
Personally, I'd rather my overlords be neutered, not gone entirely. Workers end up having less power, not more, in state owned enterprises. The key is actually neutering the greedy fucks and taking our pound of flesh rather than letting them amass dynastic wealth and power that exceeds that of the popularly elected government. Let them keep a few toys and a fancy office, pat them on the head and tell them how important they are, and then fucking ignore them until they decide they want to get stupid again.
As far as radical goes, to the extent Biden has been able to get his way or hasn't yet been smacked down by the courts many of his policies are a drastic change from the status quo ante. Not revolutionary in the sense it's gonna end capitalism or anything, but radical in the sense that if it works it will go down in the history books like the New Deal.
If Lena Khan gets her way, antitrust enforcement will be radically changed. If the the aims of the IRA and CHIPS Act are achieved, American industry will be changed in a way not seen since World War Ii. It feels like incrementalism because even major changes in large systems almost definitionally can't happen overnight. One way in which history is misleading is that it gives the impression that events happen and the results are immediate and obvious. Even dramatic change is not always obvious in the moment even though it usually is in hindsight.
posted by wierdo at 6:38 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Nobody was being forced to work, they were being forced (for only 60 days) to not strike. Individual employees always have the option to just not go to work. It's called quitting.
“You can quit working, as long as you don’t do it in solidarity and allow yourself to be replaced with a scab” is not really the winning argument for radicalism you may think it is.
posted by corb at 6:44 PM on July 20 [13 favorites]
“You can quit working, as long as you don’t do it in solidarity and allow yourself to be replaced with a scab” is not really the winning argument for radicalism you may think it is.
posted by corb at 6:44 PM on July 20 [13 favorites]
So, guys, here's the thing: either we're voting for this piece of shit because he's better than the other piece of shit, or some other shitpiece will run in his stead, and we'll vote for them or not vote, probably. What we will not do is reform this piece of shit. He's 81 years old, there's some question as to whether he knows the year is 2024. He's not changing. So what is the point of going on about this?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:15 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:15 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
I am really hesitant to ask this, for obvious reasons, but as a Canadian whose country is next on the fascist list, and who therefore has a genuine fear of what will happen in November, I've been concerned for a while. Do you here, Democrats or fellow travellers, and all those who are agitating for Biden to step down: do you believe, is it really possible, that a relatively young woman of colour can beat an old white man for the office of president? In these days?
posted by jokeefe at 7:51 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 7:51 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
I do. Clinton was historically unpopular and still won the populat vote against Trump. Obama was elected twice by a large margin. I don't know if Kamala Harris can win this election, but I don't think being a black woman makes it impossible in 2024. She won't have as easy a time as a young white man would, but I think she has a better ahot than Joe Biden right now.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:56 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 7:56 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
Definitely. A lot of America hates Trump. But turning out to vote against a guy is not how the mind of the American voter works. You have to give us someone to vote for; and at the moment we don't have one. Most of the people you see in this thread would literally vote for a chicken against Donald Trump. A cat. A possum. Billy Idol, he's not even American, it'll work out. But we are not normal. Most people need to see someone who can put a sentence together. That's Harris. That's good enough. She will win.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:03 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:03 PM on July 20 [10 favorites]
KFB, go read what weirdo said upthread.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:17 PM on July 20
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:17 PM on July 20
Can you be more specific?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:19 PM on July 20
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:19 PM on July 20
Nah, I'm not reading all that. Goodnight!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:28 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:28 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
Metafilter: Nah, I'm not reading all that
posted by lescour at 8:31 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
posted by lescour at 8:31 PM on July 20 [6 favorites]
(I did read all that earlier, and I don't know what it has to do with anything kfb wrote, for whatever it's worth)
Anyway.
do you believe, is it really possible, that a relatively young woman of colour can beat an old white man for the office of president?
First off, she's almost 60. But yes, like I said upthread, I think a woman of color in her prime has a better shot than a white guy who struggles to form coherent thoughts during interviews. That doesn't mean I think Harris is a slam dunk, but if the last three weeks have achieved anything, I'd say they've woken up a lot of people to the fact that this is a critical election that's going to require a lot of effort to win.
In these days?
This isn't directed to you specifically - a lot of people have voiced a similar concern - but I'm not sure we have clear evidence that the American electorate is more racist and sexist than it was previously. Sure, Trump emboldened the worst of America to come out of the woodwork, but they were always there. And yes, there is a real problem of young men getting radicalized online through right-wing YouTubers and whatnot. I'm not naively suggesting progress is linear. But I've spent a lot of time with Gen Z as a college instructor over the past decade or so (mostly in public schools whose student bodies lean liberal, but do have a mix of all types from the state), and I feel pretty confident in saying that in the last decade the new voters are on the whole way more open-minded and progressive than the average voter of the Boomer+ generations that have died. And I'd say that the reason there is a right-wing backlash to "CRT" and "DEI" (air quotes, since obviously their framing of these things is bogus) is because they know they're losing. It energizes the MAGA base, but it's good to remember that Trump really leaned into culture war shit in 2020 and he lost, in part because a lot of people, even people who aren't particularly progressive, would rather politicians focus on fixing roads than stirring up moral panics.
But also, I really have a hard time conceiving of the racist and/or sexist voter who thinks "I won't vote for Harris because she's a Black woman" but also thinks "I will vote for the 81 year-old who probably won't manage to finish out his second term and will thus eventually hand things over to Harris."
posted by coffeecat at 8:52 PM on July 20 [12 favorites]
Anyway.
do you believe, is it really possible, that a relatively young woman of colour can beat an old white man for the office of president?
First off, she's almost 60. But yes, like I said upthread, I think a woman of color in her prime has a better shot than a white guy who struggles to form coherent thoughts during interviews. That doesn't mean I think Harris is a slam dunk, but if the last three weeks have achieved anything, I'd say they've woken up a lot of people to the fact that this is a critical election that's going to require a lot of effort to win.
In these days?
This isn't directed to you specifically - a lot of people have voiced a similar concern - but I'm not sure we have clear evidence that the American electorate is more racist and sexist than it was previously. Sure, Trump emboldened the worst of America to come out of the woodwork, but they were always there. And yes, there is a real problem of young men getting radicalized online through right-wing YouTubers and whatnot. I'm not naively suggesting progress is linear. But I've spent a lot of time with Gen Z as a college instructor over the past decade or so (mostly in public schools whose student bodies lean liberal, but do have a mix of all types from the state), and I feel pretty confident in saying that in the last decade the new voters are on the whole way more open-minded and progressive than the average voter of the Boomer+ generations that have died. And I'd say that the reason there is a right-wing backlash to "CRT" and "DEI" (air quotes, since obviously their framing of these things is bogus) is because they know they're losing. It energizes the MAGA base, but it's good to remember that Trump really leaned into culture war shit in 2020 and he lost, in part because a lot of people, even people who aren't particularly progressive, would rather politicians focus on fixing roads than stirring up moral panics.
But also, I really have a hard time conceiving of the racist and/or sexist voter who thinks "I won't vote for Harris because she's a Black woman" but also thinks "I will vote for the 81 year-old who probably won't manage to finish out his second term and will thus eventually hand things over to Harris."
posted by coffeecat at 8:52 PM on July 20 [12 favorites]
jokeefe: as a leftist who loathes both Biden & Harris but is pretty interested in electoral politics, yes, i think Harris can beat Trump, although it's not a sure thing. (And i don't think Biden can, period.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:12 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:12 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
(I'm also a dual American-Canadian citizen, these days, having emigrated to Canada in 2016. So i feel you on the fascism in Canada as well as the fascism in America. Scylla and Charybdis.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:16 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:16 PM on July 20 [1 favorite]
Saying it again, the impressive combination of Kamala Harris/Mark Kelly would inspire many, many voters.
posted by artdrectr at 10:13 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
posted by artdrectr at 10:13 PM on July 20 [4 favorites]
You have to give us someone to vote for; and at the moment we don't have one.
I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
this piece of machinery will wind up nominally attached to a person & I literally do not care which person; a presidential administration is run by way more than a single person
I would literally crawl through broken glass to vote for Joe Biden's corpse if it was running against Donald Trump, whose Supreme Court has already started the process of turning him into a dictator
this doesn't mean I don't think we deserve a great President who implements progressive policies but Jesus fucking Christ can we just get our collective shit together to pull the lever for "not the fascist dictatorship"
this makes me crazy every single day
posted by taquito sunrise at 11:03 PM on July 20 [19 favorites]
I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
this piece of machinery will wind up nominally attached to a person & I literally do not care which person; a presidential administration is run by way more than a single person
I would literally crawl through broken glass to vote for Joe Biden's corpse if it was running against Donald Trump, whose Supreme Court has already started the process of turning him into a dictator
this doesn't mean I don't think we deserve a great President who implements progressive policies but Jesus fucking Christ can we just get our collective shit together to pull the lever for "not the fascist dictatorship"
this makes me crazy every single day
posted by taquito sunrise at 11:03 PM on July 20 [19 favorites]
Saying it again, the impressive combination of Kamala Harris/Mark Kelly would inspire many, many voters.
I think this ticket could pull replicate the coalition in 2020: suburban women, white men, young and old voters, Asians, and Latinos, and Black Americans.
posted by ichomp at 11:03 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
I think this ticket could pull replicate the coalition in 2020: suburban women, white men, young and old voters, Asians, and Latinos, and Black Americans.
posted by ichomp at 11:03 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
Thank you all, and I actually didn't realize that Harris was 60-ish; my fault.
If I was an American I'd vote for a moldy ham sandwich instead of Trump, so I hear you. I might even be feeling slightly better about the whole thing; I figured Biden withdrawing would send a really bad message of disorganization, but perhaps the alternative slate mentioned above would create its own energy?
posted by jokeefe at 11:21 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
If I was an American I'd vote for a moldy ham sandwich instead of Trump, so I hear you. I might even be feeling slightly better about the whole thing; I figured Biden withdrawing would send a really bad message of disorganization, but perhaps the alternative slate mentioned above would create its own energy?
posted by jokeefe at 11:21 PM on July 20 [2 favorites]
If Biden steps aside, it needs to happen in a way where he is fully behind the Harris-VP slate, and announces to everyone that this new slate will continue the work his term has started. And everyone else -- elected Democrats, Democratic voters -- need to full rally around the new slate.
posted by ichomp at 11:27 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
posted by ichomp at 11:27 PM on July 20 [5 favorites]
The best case scenario would be Biden making a public statement to the effect that he's resigning due to health concerns, and enthusiastically endorsing Harris, who then takes the oath of office and becomes the sitting president. I sincerely hope Biden can do this; it's looking grim thus far.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:21 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:21 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
You have to give us someone to vote for; and at the moment we don't have one.
I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
You do realize this is not how most people behave and that you do actually need to give someone to vote for as an option in order to win, and running a geriatric with clear cognitive deficiencies will not cut it. I can see a lot of people having fun conjuring up things they would vote for over Trump, BUT THAT WILL NOT WIN AN ELECTION. That won't generate enough turnout an enthusiasms to get enough donations and enough votes. So what's the plan?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:44 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
You do realize this is not how most people behave and that you do actually need to give someone to vote for as an option in order to win, and running a geriatric with clear cognitive deficiencies will not cut it. I can see a lot of people having fun conjuring up things they would vote for over Trump, BUT THAT WILL NOT WIN AN ELECTION. That won't generate enough turnout an enthusiasms to get enough donations and enough votes. So what's the plan?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:44 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
> I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
You do realize this is not how most people behave and that you do actually need to give someone to vote for as an option in order to win
I actually am not sure it isn't the other way around, and that this IS how most people behave. I admit, though, that I have only anecdotal evidence around me to support my own position; would you have any more evidence to support your own take?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:03 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
You do realize this is not how most people behave and that you do actually need to give someone to vote for as an option in order to win
I actually am not sure it isn't the other way around, and that this IS how most people behave. I admit, though, that I have only anecdotal evidence around me to support my own position; would you have any more evidence to support your own take?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:03 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
this piece of machinery will wind up nominally attached to a person & I literally do not care which person; a presidential administration is run by way more than a single person
I absolutely agree with you 100%, and this is how politics works in actual functional democracies - people vote for parties not individuals and have more than two viable choices (see most European countries). In a perfect world, most Americans would behave the same way.
Unfortunately we are not in a perfect world. The vast, vast number of Americans I have met (including some very well-educated folks) treat the presidential race as though the entire Executive branch was a one-man operation and some sort of weird popularity contest at that. Never mind there are 15 Cabinet members, 1000+ Senate-confirmed appointees, and literally millions of nonpartisan civilian employees who keep the gears of bureaucracy turning.
I absolutely hate the weird one-person politics, even when it happens on the left - it feels like something they do in authoritarian countries - but that's the way it works in the US unfortunately. Most Americans are going to vote for the person, not the policies or the party. You have to give them a person to get excited to vote for.
posted by photo guy at 5:06 AM on July 21 [10 favorites]
this piece of machinery will wind up nominally attached to a person & I literally do not care which person; a presidential administration is run by way more than a single person
I absolutely agree with you 100%, and this is how politics works in actual functional democracies - people vote for parties not individuals and have more than two viable choices (see most European countries). In a perfect world, most Americans would behave the same way.
Unfortunately we are not in a perfect world. The vast, vast number of Americans I have met (including some very well-educated folks) treat the presidential race as though the entire Executive branch was a one-man operation and some sort of weird popularity contest at that. Never mind there are 15 Cabinet members, 1000+ Senate-confirmed appointees, and literally millions of nonpartisan civilian employees who keep the gears of bureaucracy turning.
I absolutely hate the weird one-person politics, even when it happens on the left - it feels like something they do in authoritarian countries - but that's the way it works in the US unfortunately. Most Americans are going to vote for the person, not the policies or the party. You have to give them a person to get excited to vote for.
posted by photo guy at 5:06 AM on July 21 [10 favorites]
Saying it again, the impressive combination of Kamala Harris/Mark Kelly would inspire many, many voters.
Many is a very broad word, so I’ve no doubt this assertion is true. But this voter’s first reaction was “who the heck is Mark Kelly?” It sounds vaguely like one of those generals who maybe worked with but then got fed up with Trump. Then I did a quick internet search to remind myself that, no, he’s one of those generals or military guys who has always been associated with Democrats. A cop and soldier ticket. Very American I guess. His name recognition might not be quite as national as you are predicting, and the diversity of appeal to different subgroups within the Democratic coalition in that proposed ticket may not be quite as full coverage as it appears to you. What are Kelly’s views on Gaza, policing, and immigration, for example? If I’m going to be asked to bite the bullet and vote for the same old party platform to keep Trump out, I’d just as soon keep with the same characters, thanks.
posted by eviemath at 5:15 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Many is a very broad word, so I’ve no doubt this assertion is true. But this voter’s first reaction was “who the heck is Mark Kelly?” It sounds vaguely like one of those generals who maybe worked with but then got fed up with Trump. Then I did a quick internet search to remind myself that, no, he’s one of those generals or military guys who has always been associated with Democrats. A cop and soldier ticket. Very American I guess. His name recognition might not be quite as national as you are predicting, and the diversity of appeal to different subgroups within the Democratic coalition in that proposed ticket may not be quite as full coverage as it appears to you. What are Kelly’s views on Gaza, policing, and immigration, for example? If I’m going to be asked to bite the bullet and vote for the same old party platform to keep Trump out, I’d just as soon keep with the same characters, thanks.
posted by eviemath at 5:15 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Like, if the argument is that we have to have candidates that will appeal to the portion of the Democratic base who will shrug in the face of fascism and only vote for a candidate they actively like, because those of us who are anti-fascist will vote strategically for the lesser harm anyway so the issue of who would “energize” us is strategically unnecessary to consider, that both ignores the lessons of the couple elections before the last presidential election and is really poor solidarity and coalition-maintenance. You can only do that for so long, which seems to me to be a large part of why we’re in the current dilemma in the first place.
Focus on the platform, the get out the vote efforts, and building whatever ticket the Democrats have rather than infighting.
posted by eviemath at 5:21 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Focus on the platform, the get out the vote efforts, and building whatever ticket the Democrats have rather than infighting.
posted by eviemath at 5:21 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Well, maybe George Clooney can run with Kamala. It seems like he has a lot of free time, and he kinda owes us one imo.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:23 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:23 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
If we’re going all in on cult of personality, George Clooney would definitely be more electable in that framework.
posted by eviemath at 5:26 AM on July 21
posted by eviemath at 5:26 AM on July 21
And, like Kelly, he’s the husband of a highly qualified woman!
(Note: please don’t anyone shoot Amal. I don’t think it would impact Clooney’s entrance into politics one way or the other, and we need human rights lawyers.)
posted by eviemath at 5:29 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
(Note: please don’t anyone shoot Amal. I don’t think it would impact Clooney’s entrance into politics one way or the other, and we need human rights lawyers.)
posted by eviemath at 5:29 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Don't worry, Aaron Sorkin has solved the dilemma in an opinion piece in today's NYTimes:
posted by the primroses were over at 5:30 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
The problem in the real world is that there isn’t a Democrat who is polling significantly better than Mr. Biden. And quitting, as heroic as it may be in this case, doesn’t really put a lump in our throats.(I'm not linking to this piece; not sure the coverage of this discourse actually can get any dumber at this point, but no need to encourage it. If this were from a more serious person, I would assume it is satire of the other stupid, campaign destroying ideas floating around out there. But as it's Sorkin, it may well be sincere. I still enjoy some of his tv shows, but yeesh.)
But there’s something the Democrats can do that would not just put a lump in people’s throats with its appeal to stop-Donald-Trump-at-all-costs unity, but with its originality and sense of sacrifice. So here’s my pitch to the writers’ room: The Democratic Party should pick a Republican.
At their convention next month, the Democrats should nominate Mitt Romney.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:30 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
Quite apart from the unseriousness of the proposal in general, Romney didn’t even energize Republicans, let alone Democrats (even the shrugging-at-fascism ones).
posted by eviemath at 5:41 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 5:41 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
At their convention next month, the Democrats should nominate Mitt Romney.
Shocked by the timidity of such a move. If the Democrats don't nominate DONALD J TRUMP HIMSELF, they clearly do not want to win.
posted by mittens at 6:11 AM on July 21 [10 favorites]
Shocked by the timidity of such a move. If the Democrats don't nominate DONALD J TRUMP HIMSELF, they clearly do not want to win.
posted by mittens at 6:11 AM on July 21 [10 favorites]
The Sorkin op-ed is unbelievably dumb. Wealth is wasted on the rich.
Moving on-
would you have any more evidence to support your own take?
I'm not who you were responding to, but I agree with their point that it's a losing strategy to assume that enough people will vote for a Democrat simply because they aren't Trump. I think it's worth repeating that this was mostly Biden's pitch in 2020 (we'll go "back to normal") and he barely won - he did well in the EC, but he won many states by very thin margins. For him to do it again requires his support and Trump's support to stay the same, and there is a lot of evidence (much of it already discussed in this thread) that this isn't the case.
In general, I agree with you that a sizable chunk of the electorate will either vote Dem or Republican no matter who is running. Then there is a smaller group, but still a significant one in terms of winning, that can go either way. It's worth recalling that there are some people who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump.* People in this group are a real mixed bag - you've got your libertarians who like civil rights/abortion but hate taxes, and then you have a lot of people who have somewhat idiosyncratic reasons for voting - a childhood friend's grandma reliably voted for whoever had a nicer smile. And then you have people, generally "low-info" voters, who don't pay a ton of attention to policy and vote more on vibes - i.e. they vote on which candidate has the more inspiring campaign narrative. Trump in 2016 got a lot votes from people who liked his "drain the swamp" promise - I mean, selling people on Washington being corrupt isn't too hard. Obama's "Hope and Change" was also a good slogan. Biden's "Finish the Job"?
And then there is a third group of people that don't reliably vote, either due to apathy or because of the various barriers to voting (the most obvious being elections take place on a work day) or some combo of the two. These are also voters who tend to respond more to "vibes," elections being historic, or a candidate that really inspires them. Here we can look at historic turnout numbers - looking at the percentage of the Voting Eligible Population (VEP) and Voting Age Population (VAP), we see a slight bump for Bill Clinton's first run when he did excite people, and another slight bump for Obama in 2008. The 2016 election is comparable to 2012, but this perhaps undersells what Trump accomplished - presumably turnout numbers would have been even higher if more people thought Trump might actually win. Then historic numbers for 2020 - when you had not only a lot of people voting in fear of Trump, but still a good number of Trump supporters voting in fear of the other side winning. So yeah, turnout numbers do roughly correlate with inspiration for a candidate and/or fear of the other candidate. And what's bad news for the Democrats, is that most voters don't consume the news, and time heals are wounds and all that - it's going to be really hard to replicate the same level of fear/hatred for Trump that existed four years ago. It was visceral in 2020 in a way that it's just not right now.
I think a lot of us suggesting Harris would do better are because we basically imagine a large percentage of Democratic voters are locked, and so the question isn't about the majority of voters, it's about swing voters and apathetic voters. And for reasons I've already outlined previously, I think there is good reason to believe Harris will do better with both categories. Personally, I think it's still possible that Biden pulls it off - he's in the margin of error for enough swing states, and perhaps some journalists are reporting out as we speak a real banger of an investigation into Trump and Epstein...but I'd rather go with what appears to be a clearly safer bet.
*As an aside, I've met two Obama-Trump voters. So, small sample size, but they were both working class white guys either in their 50s-60s who didn't trust politicians. They viewed both Obama and Trump as largely political outsiders, who would shake things up. One even believed that Obama wasn't born in the US and that he was Muslim - still voted for him twice. I share this because I think it's helpful to remember that people's voting habits can vary wildly from our own.
posted by coffeecat at 7:10 AM on July 21 [7 favorites]
Moving on-
would you have any more evidence to support your own take?
I'm not who you were responding to, but I agree with their point that it's a losing strategy to assume that enough people will vote for a Democrat simply because they aren't Trump. I think it's worth repeating that this was mostly Biden's pitch in 2020 (we'll go "back to normal") and he barely won - he did well in the EC, but he won many states by very thin margins. For him to do it again requires his support and Trump's support to stay the same, and there is a lot of evidence (much of it already discussed in this thread) that this isn't the case.
In general, I agree with you that a sizable chunk of the electorate will either vote Dem or Republican no matter who is running. Then there is a smaller group, but still a significant one in terms of winning, that can go either way. It's worth recalling that there are some people who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump.* People in this group are a real mixed bag - you've got your libertarians who like civil rights/abortion but hate taxes, and then you have a lot of people who have somewhat idiosyncratic reasons for voting - a childhood friend's grandma reliably voted for whoever had a nicer smile. And then you have people, generally "low-info" voters, who don't pay a ton of attention to policy and vote more on vibes - i.e. they vote on which candidate has the more inspiring campaign narrative. Trump in 2016 got a lot votes from people who liked his "drain the swamp" promise - I mean, selling people on Washington being corrupt isn't too hard. Obama's "Hope and Change" was also a good slogan. Biden's "Finish the Job"?
And then there is a third group of people that don't reliably vote, either due to apathy or because of the various barriers to voting (the most obvious being elections take place on a work day) or some combo of the two. These are also voters who tend to respond more to "vibes," elections being historic, or a candidate that really inspires them. Here we can look at historic turnout numbers - looking at the percentage of the Voting Eligible Population (VEP) and Voting Age Population (VAP), we see a slight bump for Bill Clinton's first run when he did excite people, and another slight bump for Obama in 2008. The 2016 election is comparable to 2012, but this perhaps undersells what Trump accomplished - presumably turnout numbers would have been even higher if more people thought Trump might actually win. Then historic numbers for 2020 - when you had not only a lot of people voting in fear of Trump, but still a good number of Trump supporters voting in fear of the other side winning. So yeah, turnout numbers do roughly correlate with inspiration for a candidate and/or fear of the other candidate. And what's bad news for the Democrats, is that most voters don't consume the news, and time heals are wounds and all that - it's going to be really hard to replicate the same level of fear/hatred for Trump that existed four years ago. It was visceral in 2020 in a way that it's just not right now.
I think a lot of us suggesting Harris would do better are because we basically imagine a large percentage of Democratic voters are locked, and so the question isn't about the majority of voters, it's about swing voters and apathetic voters. And for reasons I've already outlined previously, I think there is good reason to believe Harris will do better with both categories. Personally, I think it's still possible that Biden pulls it off - he's in the margin of error for enough swing states, and perhaps some journalists are reporting out as we speak a real banger of an investigation into Trump and Epstein...but I'd rather go with what appears to be a clearly safer bet.
*As an aside, I've met two Obama-Trump voters. So, small sample size, but they were both working class white guys either in their 50s-60s who didn't trust politicians. They viewed both Obama and Trump as largely political outsiders, who would shake things up. One even believed that Obama wasn't born in the US and that he was Muslim - still voted for him twice. I share this because I think it's helpful to remember that people's voting habits can vary wildly from our own.
posted by coffeecat at 7:10 AM on July 21 [7 favorites]
Now, for the people still arguing that Biden should stay in and Democrats should all apologize for their betrayal and get back to focusing on supporting the Biden-Harris ticket and drumming up fear of another Trump term, I have questions - and I know tone in text can be tricky, but these are sincere questions.
1. Is there any amount of polling data (whether in terms of approval rating, % of Democratic voters who think he should step down, % of voters who think he has the cognitive ability to be president, or how well he's doing in different swing states) that would make you change your mind? Or number of points in which Biden is behind that would make you change your mind?
2. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down is you don't think Harris can win, is there any amount of polling data that would make you feel more confident in Harris?
3. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down that you think Harris won't get the nomination, a set of questions: Do you think that's because Biden won't endorse her? Or do you think Biden's delegates, the DNC, and the Democratic Party won't follow his lead if he passes the torch to her?
posted by coffeecat at 7:19 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
1. Is there any amount of polling data (whether in terms of approval rating, % of Democratic voters who think he should step down, % of voters who think he has the cognitive ability to be president, or how well he's doing in different swing states) that would make you change your mind? Or number of points in which Biden is behind that would make you change your mind?
2. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down is you don't think Harris can win, is there any amount of polling data that would make you feel more confident in Harris?
3. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down that you think Harris won't get the nomination, a set of questions: Do you think that's because Biden won't endorse her? Or do you think Biden's delegates, the DNC, and the Democratic Party won't follow his lead if he passes the torch to her?
posted by coffeecat at 7:19 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
If you think the problem is that people aren't excited to vote for Biden (or Harris), maybe it would help to actually talk about his litany of domestic policy achievements rather than completely ignoring them and supporting the "what has he even done" narrative or latching on to the one or two things that made you mad.
There are plenty of lists out there, and they've got something for pretty much anyone who isn't a plutocrat or an accelerationist.
You can start now, as the shine will rub off on the VP, too, so we're covered whether Biden decides to stay in the race or turn it over to Kamala.
posted by wierdo at 7:25 AM on July 21 [14 favorites]
There are plenty of lists out there, and they've got something for pretty much anyone who isn't a plutocrat or an accelerationist.
You can start now, as the shine will rub off on the VP, too, so we're covered whether Biden decides to stay in the race or turn it over to Kamala.
posted by wierdo at 7:25 AM on July 21 [14 favorites]
Agreed, wierdo.
I desperately wish they would start campaigning on something. That is one reason I want Biden off the ticket. I don't think he is able to do the kind of campaigning necessary.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:35 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
I desperately wish they would start campaigning on something. That is one reason I want Biden off the ticket. I don't think he is able to do the kind of campaigning necessary.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:35 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Yeah, wierdo, I don't entirely disagree with you - but you're individualizing this - I mean, if Metafilter got to decide elections, I'd completely agree with you. But alas, we don't, nor is the user base here particularly representative of the country. I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing Biden needs to step down for reasons based on his record or policy - so this insistence of "but look at his record!" is entirely missing the point, which is the guy was significantly behind before the debate, the debate was supposed to be his comeback moment, and he shit the metaphorical bed, and then in the last three weeks has failed to reassure anyone's nerves or unite his party behind him or put forth a plan for winning besides pseudo-science (i.e. the 13 keys).
posted by coffeecat at 7:41 AM on July 21 [7 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 7:41 AM on July 21 [7 favorites]
I am not arguing that Biden needs to step down because of his track record, and that's not because I think he's done a great job. I think he's done a passable job. That's not the point, though, because:
(a) He won renomination on the basis of his tenure. You can argue that the contest wasn't competitive, which it wasn't, but it usually is not for incumbent candidates. If enough Americans had found Biden to be deeply objectionable, a challenger would at least have eaten considerably into Biden's margins. It didn't happen. Therefore I think most democratic voters feel that Biden was, if not on the right track, on a good enough track that there is no need for a dramatic change of course.
(b) That being so, a candidate dramatically different from Biden would not represent the express will of the democratic voter.
(c) For me, and I think for most of us, what is most important is that Trump loses. I did not feel this way prior to the Supreme Court deciding that the president will henceforth be God Emperor of the United States. I think that is an enormous problem, and I think that a Trump thusly empowered would be the end of democracy as we know it. So, whatever people want to vote for that isn't Trump, I'm in favor of.
(d) However, if the nominee is decided on by the democratic elite, that would also be a huge subversion of democracy. I don't think the democratic candidate would represent the immediate existential threat that Trump does, but I do think a candidate selected by the wealthiest donors would represent a slower foundational threat to the American experiment. I also think, frankly, that a candidate selected this way would lose their fucking ass.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:38 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
(a) He won renomination on the basis of his tenure. You can argue that the contest wasn't competitive, which it wasn't, but it usually is not for incumbent candidates. If enough Americans had found Biden to be deeply objectionable, a challenger would at least have eaten considerably into Biden's margins. It didn't happen. Therefore I think most democratic voters feel that Biden was, if not on the right track, on a good enough track that there is no need for a dramatic change of course.
(b) That being so, a candidate dramatically different from Biden would not represent the express will of the democratic voter.
(c) For me, and I think for most of us, what is most important is that Trump loses. I did not feel this way prior to the Supreme Court deciding that the president will henceforth be God Emperor of the United States. I think that is an enormous problem, and I think that a Trump thusly empowered would be the end of democracy as we know it. So, whatever people want to vote for that isn't Trump, I'm in favor of.
(d) However, if the nominee is decided on by the democratic elite, that would also be a huge subversion of democracy. I don't think the democratic candidate would represent the immediate existential threat that Trump does, but I do think a candidate selected by the wealthiest donors would represent a slower foundational threat to the American experiment. I also think, frankly, that a candidate selected this way would lose their fucking ass.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:38 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Biden does talk about his accomplishments and Trump's threat in nearly every appearance he does, but that's neither here nor there. We've gone over that ground so many times the grass is dead and we're all wading through a mud pit.
The small thing each of us can do is pick a few of our favorite items from the list of good things his administration has done, the concrete things, not just nebulous things like "surrounded himself with competence" or "isn't an actual fascist", and talk about those things with friends and acquaintances when politics comes up. With luck, a few of those people will be interested enough to share with their own friends, but even if not you've at least given them something to vote for, not just against.
Personally, I like the student loan saga in particular because it shows that he doesn't just give up in the face of setbacks. The original plan was blocked by the Supreme Court, but he and his team didn't just throw up their hands and say "oh well, we tried, but the Supreme Court said no." They took a step back, changed tack, and worked out a way to drastically improve the situation for the people they couldn't help with immediate debt cancellation in a different way.
posted by wierdo at 8:38 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
The small thing each of us can do is pick a few of our favorite items from the list of good things his administration has done, the concrete things, not just nebulous things like "surrounded himself with competence" or "isn't an actual fascist", and talk about those things with friends and acquaintances when politics comes up. With luck, a few of those people will be interested enough to share with their own friends, but even if not you've at least given them something to vote for, not just against.
Personally, I like the student loan saga in particular because it shows that he doesn't just give up in the face of setbacks. The original plan was blocked by the Supreme Court, but he and his team didn't just throw up their hands and say "oh well, we tried, but the Supreme Court said no." They took a step back, changed tack, and worked out a way to drastically improve the situation for the people they couldn't help with immediate debt cancellation in a different way.
posted by wierdo at 8:38 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Sorry, I posted without adding:
So basically, whether Biden has been a great president, a bum, or somewhere in between just isn't relevant in my opinion, and I think it's a waste of time to try and browbeat people into accepting that he's Franklin Delano Guevara in deep cover. Especially when those people are people you know will vote for anyone with a D after their name. Just let it go, it is not a constructive argument.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:48 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
So basically, whether Biden has been a great president, a bum, or somewhere in between just isn't relevant in my opinion, and I think it's a waste of time to try and browbeat people into accepting that he's Franklin Delano Guevara in deep cover. Especially when those people are people you know will vote for anyone with a D after their name. Just let it go, it is not a constructive argument.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:48 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
Now, for the people still arguing that Biden should stay in and Democrats should all apologize for their betrayal and get back to focusing on supporting the Biden-Harris ticket and drumming up fear of another Trump term, I have questions - and I know tone in text can be tricky, but these are sincere questions.
My main reasons for staying the course:
posted by mazola at 8:53 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
My main reasons for staying the course:
- Biden is a known quantity for America. When the election is lies vs truth there is value in having a truth to evaluate (i.e. a true record, and known true experiences). "Biden is old" is another truth and has so far only been amplified instead of mitigated/contextualized/countered. But it is a problem of selling a product people aren't buying, yes. Perhaps the 'product' can be reframed as not 'the president' but 'democracy' itself.
- I sense any change or deviation from normal process at this point is going to be legally challenged, even for bullshit reasons that have no reason for being in a court of law. Keeping Biden in minimizes a possible bullshit path that leads to the (legal) coronation of TFG by the Supreme Court. Fascist leaders usually are not as completely popular as it seems and need a nudge from a King or Kaiser (see Italy and Germany). In the US that's probably the Supreme Court.
- Any replacement scenario will be a 'big deal' and may distract the actual work of voter registrations/get of the vote initiatives. We need to get out of the way and on with it already.
- Any replacement will be next in the firing line of the very same 'both sides' coverage we see now. We have a known attack vector in place and will replace that with an unknown attack vector. Maybe counter the known attack?
- the core reason to vote D in this election is still "Not Trump". Replacement scenario does not change that basic question.
posted by mazola at 8:53 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Biden is a known quantity for America.
I think part of the problem is that he's not, at this point. If a voter believes Biden is exhibiting a marked deterioration, whether cognitively or physically, from where they were even a year or two ago, how confident is that voter going to be in what condition Biden will be in 6 months from now, let alone four years? (And given his current stance on not stepping down, how confident can that voter be that Biden will step down if his condition deteriorates even further?)
posted by trig at 9:20 AM on July 21 [8 favorites]
I think part of the problem is that he's not, at this point. If a voter believes Biden is exhibiting a marked deterioration, whether cognitively or physically, from where they were even a year or two ago, how confident is that voter going to be in what condition Biden will be in 6 months from now, let alone four years? (And given his current stance on not stepping down, how confident can that voter be that Biden will step down if his condition deteriorates even further?)
posted by trig at 9:20 AM on July 21 [8 favorites]
kittens for breakfast, the point isn't to convince people who are going to pull the lever against Trump regardless, it's to give them the ammunition necessary to convince the people who need something to vote for, not just against. Narratives don't only come from the media. In many groups they don't come from the media at all except second or third hand. Many people just listen to what their friends and acquaintances are saying.
posted by wierdo at 9:23 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 9:23 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
So what I am saying is this: What you want is not going to happen. People on the left who have at best tolerated Biden are not going to be like, "It's good that he's a union buster, actually." This is the wrong approach to take.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:25 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:25 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
I get that wierdo, what I don't get is why when you have the choice between a candidate that can excite people and make the case against Trump and for the Democrats, and a candidate that struggles to read the teleprompter and put together a coherent point, why are you so stubborn about sticking with the latter option?
posted by coffeecat at 9:27 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeecat at 9:27 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
The point is to make it about his administration's accomplishments, which Harris is a part of, and will thus benefit should she end up being the candidate.
There is a long list of good stuff the administration has done. Pick a few you agree with and run with it. Refusing to do so because you're mad about some things that have happened is deeply unserious in the face of the threat Trump represents. Nobody's asking you to justify what you see as union busting. You don't have to like the bad to talk about the good.
posted by wierdo at 9:33 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
There is a long list of good stuff the administration has done. Pick a few you agree with and run with it. Refusing to do so because you're mad about some things that have happened is deeply unserious in the face of the threat Trump represents. Nobody's asking you to justify what you see as union busting. You don't have to like the bad to talk about the good.
posted by wierdo at 9:33 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
So when you go out and do this, you find it does resonate with people?
posted by Selena777 at 9:36 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 9:36 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Refusing to do so because you're mad about some things that have happened is deeply unserious
Dude, I'm not doing that - neither are many on this thread who are advocating for Biden to step down. When we're talking about enthusiasm, we aren't talking about our own individual enthusiasm - we're talking about the electorate as a whole. I'd still like it if you answered my question to you - why are you stubbornly sticking with Biden when there is a more inspiring option as VP?
posted by coffeecat at 9:38 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
Dude, I'm not doing that - neither are many on this thread who are advocating for Biden to step down. When we're talking about enthusiasm, we aren't talking about our own individual enthusiasm - we're talking about the electorate as a whole. I'd still like it if you answered my question to you - why are you stubbornly sticking with Biden when there is a more inspiring option as VP?
posted by coffeecat at 9:38 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
Dude, it's not going to happen, I promise. I am strongly advising you to let this approach go, because it's just going to turn into an argument over Biden's merits, and that shit is from nowhere, man. Look ahead.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:40 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:40 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Hectoring people to your left about Biden's electoral politics is going to be largely ineffective because, no matter what, they're just going to be demonized for whatever they're doing. Two weeks ago people were angry over baseless claims about sabotaging the Biden campaign, now it's complaining about being too loyal to him.
If they're just going to be blamed for this whole fiasco no matter what they do or what stance they take, why would they put themselves out there? Especially if it just puts a bigger target on their back under a Trump admin?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:48 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
If they're just going to be blamed for this whole fiasco no matter what they do or what stance they take, why would they put themselves out there? Especially if it just puts a bigger target on their back under a Trump admin?
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:48 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
1. Is there any amount of polling data (whether in terms of approval rating, % of Democratic voters who think he should step down, % of voters who think he has the cognitive ability to be president, or how well he's doing in different swing states) that would make you change your mind? Or number of points in which Biden is behind that would make you change your mind?
2. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down is you don't think Harris can win, is there any amount of polling data that would make you feel more confident in Harris?
3. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down that you think Harris won't get the nomination, a set of questions: Do you think that's because Biden won't endorse her? Or do you think Biden's delegates, the DNC, and the Democratic Party won't follow his lead if he passes the torch to her?
1. At this stage of the game? No.
2. Since that's not my main reason, n/a.
3. Since that's not my main reason, n/a.
My main reason has not changed. Despite the polls, despite the circular firing squad, the Republicans remain vulnerable. Every element of chaos injected into this election process improves their chances. At a critical point in the campaign, after the primaries, after the debate, every ad dollar and every moment before a camera should be spent by all concerned SCREAMING about what many Republicans are happy to confirm is coming.
Instead, we have had a month of an increasing crescendo of "the Democratic POTUS is senile and incapable of campaigning and is a completely terrible choice and must be replaced" SHOUTED BY DEMOCRATS-AT-LEAST-IN-NAME, followed by mock astonishment that the somehow-still-undecideds hearing that are listening to that and moving away from him.
Yes, Biden had a period of weakness at the debate. Yes, it is being Dean Screamed exponentially. But the people who are so concerned about perception driving everything and how Biden is irreparably damaged by that don't seem to take into account what the perception would be (and is) of a party reaching the 11th hour/59th minute and declaring that their incumbent (the leader of their party and the guy they've spent tons of time and money telling everyone to vote for) is now fundamentally broken, that no one will or should vote for him, and that the understudy should step aside in favor of some sort of vague two-week talent show that will produce someone who will magically herd all the cats and be inspiring and make everyone forget this month of Dems setting each other and everything around them on fire.
Weakness? That is the ULTIMATE weakness. That is shouting "as a party, we're out of ideas, so we're going to try anything else" and praying for a miracle.
Rather than, y'know, being a third choice shoved in because megadonors voted No Confidence in the first AND second choice, on there because someone has to be on the ballot rather than because anyone found them compelling enough to support up until this point, and who will face a ten-ring circus of both credibility and legal challenges just to remain on all fifty ballots.
posted by delfin at 9:53 AM on July 21 [6 favorites]
2. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down is you don't think Harris can win, is there any amount of polling data that would make you feel more confident in Harris?
3. If your main reason for thinking that Biden shouldn't step down that you think Harris won't get the nomination, a set of questions: Do you think that's because Biden won't endorse her? Or do you think Biden's delegates, the DNC, and the Democratic Party won't follow his lead if he passes the torch to her?
1. At this stage of the game? No.
2. Since that's not my main reason, n/a.
3. Since that's not my main reason, n/a.
My main reason has not changed. Despite the polls, despite the circular firing squad, the Republicans remain vulnerable. Every element of chaos injected into this election process improves their chances. At a critical point in the campaign, after the primaries, after the debate, every ad dollar and every moment before a camera should be spent by all concerned SCREAMING about what many Republicans are happy to confirm is coming.
Instead, we have had a month of an increasing crescendo of "the Democratic POTUS is senile and incapable of campaigning and is a completely terrible choice and must be replaced" SHOUTED BY DEMOCRATS-AT-LEAST-IN-NAME, followed by mock astonishment that the somehow-still-undecideds hearing that are listening to that and moving away from him.
Yes, Biden had a period of weakness at the debate. Yes, it is being Dean Screamed exponentially. But the people who are so concerned about perception driving everything and how Biden is irreparably damaged by that don't seem to take into account what the perception would be (and is) of a party reaching the 11th hour/59th minute and declaring that their incumbent (the leader of their party and the guy they've spent tons of time and money telling everyone to vote for) is now fundamentally broken, that no one will or should vote for him, and that the understudy should step aside in favor of some sort of vague two-week talent show that will produce someone who will magically herd all the cats and be inspiring and make everyone forget this month of Dems setting each other and everything around them on fire.
Weakness? That is the ULTIMATE weakness. That is shouting "as a party, we're out of ideas, so we're going to try anything else" and praying for a miracle.
Rather than, y'know, being a third choice shoved in because megadonors voted No Confidence in the first AND second choice, on there because someone has to be on the ballot rather than because anyone found them compelling enough to support up until this point, and who will face a ten-ring circus of both credibility and legal challenges just to remain on all fifty ballots.
posted by delfin at 9:53 AM on July 21 [6 favorites]
Thanks mazola for sharing your thinking. I do have some questions though.
1. When the election is lies vs truth
I'm assuming here you mean when you have one politician/party that is truthful (though Biden's increasingly going down the #fakenews route) vs. a candidate/movement that will say anything, regardless of whether it's tethered to reality. But I'm not sure that's actually what this election is about for everyone.
Someone who has done 14 focus groups with different factions of swing voters since the debate posted a thread on Twitter yesterday that I found interesting, in which she summarized some key findings. Relevant to this discussion are:
1. "Almost ALL want Biden to step aside. They don’t think he can do the job for four more years."
2. They have a negative impression of Kamala Harris, but it’s an impression, not locked in. Mainly don’t know what she does.
4. They mostly still HATE Trump. They don’t want to vote for him (though some will). But they don’t feel like it’s responsible to vote for Biden in his diminished state. They are despondent over these choices. Many talking about leaving the top of the ticket blank.
So, I'm not sure there is much evidence that Biden being a known quantity is good- and as trig notes, his future seems very uncertain.
2. I sense any change or deviation from normal process at this point is going to be legally challenged
No doubt, the GOP will continue to do what they do. But the practice that each party gets to nominate a candidate at their convention, and that whoever they nominate ends up on the ballots, is far more fundamental to our democracy than anything that Supreme Court has overturned. Since we started doing primaries, true, it's the norm for whoever wins them to get the nomination - but it's not a legal requirement. I appreciate that the courts have given us a large number of bad headlines lately, but this strikes me as pretty extreme doomerism. Every legal expert I've seen cited or interviewed has made clear that any legal challenges would have absolutely no basis and would be quickly dismissed. Moreover, thankfully very few swing states have a Republic trifecta in state gov, if any (at least PA, VA, WI, MI, NV, AZ, and these are all either all Dem or a mix).
3. Any replacement scenario will be a 'big deal' and may distract the actual work of voter registrations/get of the vote initiatives. We need to get out of the way and on with it already.
I'm genuinely confused what you mean here - do you think people are less likely to volunteer on behalf of Harris than Biden?
4. Any replacement will be next in the firing line of the very same 'both sides' coverage we see now. We have a known attack vector in place and will replace that with an unknown attack vector. Maybe counter the known attack?
Here we might just have to agree to disagree - I don't think Biden is getting negative coverage right now because the media is trying to give balanced coverage - he's getting negative coverage because voters and his whole party is rebelling against him and his response is to hunker down and listen to whatever his family tells him to do - but we've been over this already in this thread countless times. But I find it again to be doomerism/conspiratorial thinking that the mainstream press is going to hammer Harris if she's the nominee - she's' been getting great press lately. Sure, the right-wing press will do it's thing, but the NYTimes, MSNBC, NPR, etc. will move on from Biden, and that will be good.
5. the core reason to vote D in this election is still "Not Trump". Replacement scenario does not change that basic question.
Yeah, but again - why not choose an option that allows for a bit more than that? I don't get the stubbornness here. Again, my core question for all of the Biden supporters here is, is there any amount of evidence that will change your mind? Yes or no?
(Edit to add: just saw delfin's comment after I posted mine)
posted by coffeecat at 9:54 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
1. When the election is lies vs truth
I'm assuming here you mean when you have one politician/party that is truthful (though Biden's increasingly going down the #fakenews route) vs. a candidate/movement that will say anything, regardless of whether it's tethered to reality. But I'm not sure that's actually what this election is about for everyone.
Someone who has done 14 focus groups with different factions of swing voters since the debate posted a thread on Twitter yesterday that I found interesting, in which she summarized some key findings. Relevant to this discussion are:
1. "Almost ALL want Biden to step aside. They don’t think he can do the job for four more years."
2. They have a negative impression of Kamala Harris, but it’s an impression, not locked in. Mainly don’t know what she does.
4. They mostly still HATE Trump. They don’t want to vote for him (though some will). But they don’t feel like it’s responsible to vote for Biden in his diminished state. They are despondent over these choices. Many talking about leaving the top of the ticket blank.
So, I'm not sure there is much evidence that Biden being a known quantity is good- and as trig notes, his future seems very uncertain.
2. I sense any change or deviation from normal process at this point is going to be legally challenged
No doubt, the GOP will continue to do what they do. But the practice that each party gets to nominate a candidate at their convention, and that whoever they nominate ends up on the ballots, is far more fundamental to our democracy than anything that Supreme Court has overturned. Since we started doing primaries, true, it's the norm for whoever wins them to get the nomination - but it's not a legal requirement. I appreciate that the courts have given us a large number of bad headlines lately, but this strikes me as pretty extreme doomerism. Every legal expert I've seen cited or interviewed has made clear that any legal challenges would have absolutely no basis and would be quickly dismissed. Moreover, thankfully very few swing states have a Republic trifecta in state gov, if any (at least PA, VA, WI, MI, NV, AZ, and these are all either all Dem or a mix).
3. Any replacement scenario will be a 'big deal' and may distract the actual work of voter registrations/get of the vote initiatives. We need to get out of the way and on with it already.
I'm genuinely confused what you mean here - do you think people are less likely to volunteer on behalf of Harris than Biden?
4. Any replacement will be next in the firing line of the very same 'both sides' coverage we see now. We have a known attack vector in place and will replace that with an unknown attack vector. Maybe counter the known attack?
Here we might just have to agree to disagree - I don't think Biden is getting negative coverage right now because the media is trying to give balanced coverage - he's getting negative coverage because voters and his whole party is rebelling against him and his response is to hunker down and listen to whatever his family tells him to do - but we've been over this already in this thread countless times. But I find it again to be doomerism/conspiratorial thinking that the mainstream press is going to hammer Harris if she's the nominee - she's' been getting great press lately. Sure, the right-wing press will do it's thing, but the NYTimes, MSNBC, NPR, etc. will move on from Biden, and that will be good.
5. the core reason to vote D in this election is still "Not Trump". Replacement scenario does not change that basic question.
Yeah, but again - why not choose an option that allows for a bit more than that? I don't get the stubbornness here. Again, my core question for all of the Biden supporters here is, is there any amount of evidence that will change your mind? Yes or no?
(Edit to add: just saw delfin's comment after I posted mine)
posted by coffeecat at 9:54 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
I am a Biden supporter to the extent that, if the candidate is not Kamala Harris, I think it has to be Biden. It may be legal for the party to just tell the voters to suck it and pick anybody they want, but I am telling you that is how you get Reagan Maps.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:01 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:01 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
“Republicans have no principles. Democrats have no spine.“ by Allan LichtmanMeidasTouch host Ben Meisalas interviews pollster Alan Lichtman, who has predicted the winners of all the Presidential elections since 1984, on Biden's chances in this one. tldr: Biden Wins
“If Donald Trump actually wins, the media will be complicit in their own demise because Trump will destroy the free press.“ by Allan Lichtman
“If I simply predicted according to my own political views, I'd be useless as a forecaster. I'd be wrong about half the time.“ by Allan Lichtman
“And you may think that's easy, but it's not. I trained for years as an historian to learn how to do that.“ by Allan Lichtman
posted by y2karl at 10:12 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
But the people who are so concerned about perception driving everything and how Biden is irreparably damaged by that don't seem to take into account what the perception would be (and is) of a party reaching the 11th hour/59th minute and declaring that their incumbent (the leader of their party and the guy they've spent tons of time and money telling everyone to vote for) is now fundamentally broken, that no one will or should vote for him, and that the understudy should step aside in favor of some sort of vague two-week talent show that will produce someone who will magically herd all the cats and be inspiring and make everyone forget this month of Dems setting each other and everything around them on fire.
Ok, but first, some politicians have explicitly called for Biden to pass the torch to Harris, and I have a hard time imagining Biden wouldn't back her if he did step down - talk about tarnishing his legacy! So I don't think it's a huge leap to make to assume that Harris is most likely going to end up being the back up plan.
Anyway, I wouldn't call one month before the convention and the 3.5 months before the election the 11th hour. That would be if he again bombs in the September debate and they tried to replace him then - that would be a mess.
Look, 76% of Americans (with obviously some margin of error, but still) already think Biden is mentally unfit to be president. You can argue that's unfair - but politics isn't fair. I don't see why a party responding to the data, and allowing the #2 pick, that people technically voted for twice, to get the top of the ticket is weakness. Being able to adapt to reality as it churns is a strength. Sticking your head in the sand, while continuing to dole out bloopers like referring to a member of your cabinet as "the Black guy," is a great way to be cemented as the butt of a joke.
SHOUTED BY DEMOCRATS-AT-LEAST-IN-NAME
FYI, typing in all caps like this and accusing people in your party who disagree with you as "fake" democrats really helps people make the case that Biden die-hards are no different in style/temperament than MAGA folks (i.e. RINOs).
posted by coffeecat at 10:15 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
Ok, but first, some politicians have explicitly called for Biden to pass the torch to Harris, and I have a hard time imagining Biden wouldn't back her if he did step down - talk about tarnishing his legacy! So I don't think it's a huge leap to make to assume that Harris is most likely going to end up being the back up plan.
Anyway, I wouldn't call one month before the convention and the 3.5 months before the election the 11th hour. That would be if he again bombs in the September debate and they tried to replace him then - that would be a mess.
Look, 76% of Americans (with obviously some margin of error, but still) already think Biden is mentally unfit to be president. You can argue that's unfair - but politics isn't fair. I don't see why a party responding to the data, and allowing the #2 pick, that people technically voted for twice, to get the top of the ticket is weakness. Being able to adapt to reality as it churns is a strength. Sticking your head in the sand, while continuing to dole out bloopers like referring to a member of your cabinet as "the Black guy," is a great way to be cemented as the butt of a joke.
SHOUTED BY DEMOCRATS-AT-LEAST-IN-NAME
FYI, typing in all caps like this and accusing people in your party who disagree with you as "fake" democrats really helps people make the case that Biden die-hards are no different in style/temperament than MAGA folks (i.e. RINOs).
posted by coffeecat at 10:15 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
When we're talking about enthusiasm, we aren't talking about our own individual enthusiasm - we're talking about the electorate as a whole. I'd still like it if you answered my question to you - why are you stubbornly sticking with Biden when there is a more inspiring option as VP?
The way to create enthusiasm is to project enthusiasm and to give other people reason to be enthusiastic. Harris is part of Biden's administration, so talking about his administration's accomplishments is helpful regardless of whether Biden or Harris is at the top of the ticket. If the media won't talk about Democratic accomplishments we have to.
As to your question, I've said it before, but I'll repeat myself once again, I like Biden because of his (more accurately his team's) overall record, but I'm fine with Harris, especially if she keeps most of the existing administration in place. I don't think changing horses in the middle of the race is good strategy, but that's out of my hands. I'll play whatever hand I'm dealt.
posted by wierdo at 10:18 AM on July 21
The way to create enthusiasm is to project enthusiasm and to give other people reason to be enthusiastic. Harris is part of Biden's administration, so talking about his administration's accomplishments is helpful regardless of whether Biden or Harris is at the top of the ticket. If the media won't talk about Democratic accomplishments we have to.
As to your question, I've said it before, but I'll repeat myself once again, I like Biden because of his (more accurately his team's) overall record, but I'm fine with Harris, especially if she keeps most of the existing administration in place. I don't think changing horses in the middle of the race is good strategy, but that's out of my hands. I'll play whatever hand I'm dealt.
posted by wierdo at 10:18 AM on July 21
pick a few of our favorite items from the list of good things his administration has done, the concrete things, not just nebulous things like "surrounded himself with competence" or "isn't an actual fascist", and talk about those things with friends and acquaintances when politics comes up.
That might make a tiny difference if you have politically undecided friends or acquaintances and live in a swing state. But Tennessee is going to go for Trump. If it is in contention, Biden has already won a crushing victory.
This isn't a problem that can be solved by individual virtue. There is no level of enthusiasm anyone can feign for Biden that will dig him out of this hole. The problem is the candidate and the campaign. Unless those issues are addressed, Trump wins, regardless of our actions.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:20 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
That might make a tiny difference if you have politically undecided friends or acquaintances and live in a swing state. But Tennessee is going to go for Trump. If it is in contention, Biden has already won a crushing victory.
This isn't a problem that can be solved by individual virtue. There is no level of enthusiasm anyone can feign for Biden that will dig him out of this hole. The problem is the candidate and the campaign. Unless those issues are addressed, Trump wins, regardless of our actions.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:20 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
For every non-Biden Dem candidate, there's huge doubt about their ability to win. Now the Biden-should-leave-the-race story has so much media traction that it is the only story about Biden, whose accomplishments are significant. GOPers beat the Biden's too old message to death and the debate was such a gift.
So now it's inevitable, and I think the whole mess may give the presidency to the bad guys, gift-wrapped, with icing and sprinkles.
Dems are our own worst enemy and the Extreme Right capitalizes on it skillfully and at every opportunity.
Personally, I think Biden is able to do the job, and we know this because he's been doing it. We had primaries and chose Biden. This will go down as a Clusterfuck Of Monumental Proportions, Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition, the very definition of debacle. Dems, the original fumbling poo-flingers. I cannot fucking even. The world's burning and the fuckers stoking the fire are getting rewarded.
There is a slim chance that Joe tells them all to fuck themselves and manages to stay in, and Dems all figure out that we are desperate to not have Trump and he wins. There's a smaller chance that somebody else magically wins. But this is the sort of lottery where, you pay you r$3 and if you don't win, you are subject to misery and loss.
posted by theora55 at 10:22 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
So now it's inevitable, and I think the whole mess may give the presidency to the bad guys, gift-wrapped, with icing and sprinkles.
Dems are our own worst enemy and the Extreme Right capitalizes on it skillfully and at every opportunity.
Personally, I think Biden is able to do the job, and we know this because he's been doing it. We had primaries and chose Biden. This will go down as a Clusterfuck Of Monumental Proportions, Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition, the very definition of debacle. Dems, the original fumbling poo-flingers. I cannot fucking even. The world's burning and the fuckers stoking the fire are getting rewarded.
There is a slim chance that Joe tells them all to fuck themselves and manages to stay in, and Dems all figure out that we are desperate to not have Trump and he wins. There's a smaller chance that somebody else magically wins. But this is the sort of lottery where, you pay you r$3 and if you don't win, you are subject to misery and loss.
posted by theora55 at 10:22 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
Again, I don't disagree with your basic premise wierdo - I don't know many people who aren't planning on voting for Biden, but I do know some leftists who are leaning 3rd party, and I've already been doing exactly what you're instructing us to do. But I'm also writing my Democratic Governor of House Rep to encourage them to support Harris over Biden - because I think she and whoever she picks as VP will have far more enthusiasm baked in - and if you can raise the floor, why not!
posted by coffeecat at 10:25 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 10:25 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
It's really a shame that no one could have foreseen that Biden would be the unacceptable age of 81 say... two years ago when he was 79. But how could anyone have seen this coming?!?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:36 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:36 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
This is undeniably a bad situation, but it isn't the creation of the media or the party as a whole. This could have been averted numerous ways, starting in 2020 and continuing up to the night of the debate. But we have passed those points. This is where we are, and simply acting like their isn't a crisis isn't a viable option.
If the Democrats pull out a win with Biden somehow, it will be despite him, not because of him. If winning with Buden is possible, it will be because Trump is so feared and hated by so many. But I don't think that is enough.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:43 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
If the Democrats pull out a win with Biden somehow, it will be despite him, not because of him. If winning with Buden is possible, it will be because Trump is so feared and hated by so many. But I don't think that is enough.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:43 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
Allan Lichtman's Plan B regarding a Harris candidacy
posted by y2karl at 10:46 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 10:46 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Never mind what happened to the old Nate Silver, we have a new one.
posted by Selena777 at 10:49 AM on July 21
posted by Selena777 at 10:49 AM on July 21
This is where we are, and simply acting like their isn't a crisis isn't a viable option.
Every single person arguing here agrees that there is a crisis. Where we disagree is to what the actual crisis and remedy are.
posted by delfin at 10:51 AM on July 21
Every single person arguing here agrees that there is a crisis. Where we disagree is to what the actual crisis and remedy are.
posted by delfin at 10:51 AM on July 21
Nah, Nate Silver is actually good at creating a model to analyze polling data and is respected about other polling data analysts, Lichtman is just a hack that nobody in his profession takes seriously. (I have a PhD in history too - it doesn't mean I can divine the future, that's not how it works).
posted by coffeecat at 10:54 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 10:54 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
Oh, goddamn it.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:55 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:55 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
Praise be! I am so ready to knock on doors for Harris in NC.
posted by coffeecat at 10:55 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 10:55 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
Finally.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:57 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 10:57 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
People who are going to vote Dem regardless of the candidate vote Dem. The people who wouldn't vote for Biden because of Gaza won't vote for Harris, either.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:57 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:57 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Boom
posted by kensington314 at 10:57 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by kensington314 at 10:57 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
Welp, the NYT Putsch succeeded. Good luck, buckle up, and plan accordingly.
posted by delfin at 10:58 AM on July 21 [7 favorites]
posted by delfin at 10:58 AM on July 21 [7 favorites]
Then there is a smaller group, but still a significant one in terms of winning, that can go either way.
I don't think this is actually true. It's a bell curve where the folks at the ends that care a lot vote the same way and vote every time (that describes a lot of us mefites). The next group towards the center mostly always votes the same way, they're just less likely to actually vote.
Then a big fat group of folks in the middle that would vote either way but mostly don't pay attention and don't vote. It's a big country with a lot of people so there are exceptions all over but those are the broader trends. GOP seems to have a larger core of consistent voters but there are broadly a lot more that vote blue, just less often (which voter suppression efforts are a big part).
That's why elections hinge on turnout and why the idea of trying to sway voters that would otherwise vote Trump is mostly a waste of time.
To me the goal is to increase turnout and to give democrats more power to reduce voter suppression to cement that power including whatever ranked choice methods can get implemented to prevent a progressive candidate from running independently and splitting the vote. The hope is that the GOP gets voted into oblivion and it's remnants* join with the democrats to form the new right as a new left springs up where, say, Bernie is now a moderate. Then ranked choice voting becomes widespread and more refined and well understood. Then, finally, after all of that maybe my grandchildren will actually get to for for one or more candidates from a variety of parties for every office
*There can't be that many worthwhile republicans left.
posted by VTX at 11:01 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is actually true. It's a bell curve where the folks at the ends that care a lot vote the same way and vote every time (that describes a lot of us mefites). The next group towards the center mostly always votes the same way, they're just less likely to actually vote.
Then a big fat group of folks in the middle that would vote either way but mostly don't pay attention and don't vote. It's a big country with a lot of people so there are exceptions all over but those are the broader trends. GOP seems to have a larger core of consistent voters but there are broadly a lot more that vote blue, just less often (which voter suppression efforts are a big part).
That's why elections hinge on turnout and why the idea of trying to sway voters that would otherwise vote Trump is mostly a waste of time.
To me the goal is to increase turnout and to give democrats more power to reduce voter suppression to cement that power including whatever ranked choice methods can get implemented to prevent a progressive candidate from running independently and splitting the vote. The hope is that the GOP gets voted into oblivion and it's remnants* join with the democrats to form the new right as a new left springs up where, say, Bernie is now a moderate. Then ranked choice voting becomes widespread and more refined and well understood. Then, finally, after all of that maybe my grandchildren will actually get to for for one or more candidates from a variety of parties for every office
*There can't be that many worthwhile republicans left.
posted by VTX at 11:01 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
The people who wouldn't vote for Biden because of Gaza won't vote for Harris, either.
I mean, I know two people that applies to who live in a swing state who will.
What is concerning right now is he hasn't yet endorsed Harris, but I guess that's what his prime-time speech could be about - fingers crossed.
posted by coffeecat at 11:01 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
I mean, I know two people that applies to who live in a swing state who will.
What is concerning right now is he hasn't yet endorsed Harris, but I guess that's what his prime-time speech could be about - fingers crossed.
posted by coffeecat at 11:01 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
Well, y'all got what you wanted. I hope it works out the way you said it would.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:02 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 11:02 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
Here is Biden's statement from his official Twitter for some additional confirmation.
posted by VTX at 11:03 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 11:03 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
I hope it works out the way you said it would.
Let's be crystal clear - nobody here said it would work out if he steps down. We just said that all the data we have suggest there is a much better chance than if he stays.
posted by coffeecat at 11:04 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
Let's be crystal clear - nobody here said it would work out if he steps down. We just said that all the data we have suggest there is a much better chance than if he stays.
posted by coffeecat at 11:04 AM on July 21 [5 favorites]
BBC: Joe Biden withdraws from US presidential election race
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:07 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:07 AM on July 21 [3 favorites]
What is concerning right now is he hasn't yet endorsed Harris,
Dude, it's only been like FIVE MINUTES, be patient.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:08 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
Dude, it's only been like FIVE MINUTES, be patient.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:08 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
https://www.metafilter.com/204764/Joe-Biden-Steps-Down-as-Democratic-Nominee-Presumptive
posted by cashman at 11:09 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by cashman at 11:09 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
Who says that Leftists and Establishment Democrats can’t find common cause?
posted by darkstar at 11:09 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by darkstar at 11:09 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
I took it as a positive sign that Biden's statement mentioned Harris by name.
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:10 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:10 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
Welp, the NYT Putsch succeeded. Good luck, buckle up, and plan accordingly.
The NYT didn't make Biden repeatedly embarass himself on national television. This is Biden's own doing.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:10 AM on July 21 [9 favorites]
The NYT didn't make Biden repeatedly embarass himself on national television. This is Biden's own doing.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:10 AM on July 21 [9 favorites]
LOL, no.
posted by darkstar at 11:11 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
posted by darkstar at 11:11 AM on July 21 [1 favorite]
"This was the story of Howard Beale: The first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings."
posted by delfin at 11:16 AM on July 21
posted by delfin at 11:16 AM on July 21
Biden endorses Harris as Democratic nominee. (X)
posted by artdrectr at 11:19 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
posted by artdrectr at 11:19 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
Joe, you have immunity until next Jan. Let's Do This!
posted by theora55 at 11:31 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 11:31 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
I hate how this has played out and I think we've been hustled by the right, who own the media in every sense of the word.
Okay. I can be pissed about that and still work to elect Harris + a VP of her choosing. I can't tell you how much I want a woman President. A Black woman, this Black woman, hell yes.
posted by theora55 at 11:34 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
Okay. I can be pissed about that and still work to elect Harris + a VP of her choosing. I can't tell you how much I want a woman President. A Black woman, this Black woman, hell yes.
posted by theora55 at 11:34 AM on July 21 [4 favorites]
I'm not voting for a person, I'm voting for the piece of political machinery that will temporarily hold off the authoritarian slide & keep the queers & dissidents out of camps for another 4 years
You do realize this is not how most people behave and that you do actually need to give someone to vote for as an option in order to win
as far as my circles go, if they have an Obama to vote for they will be energized & naturally engage in grassroots get-out-the-vote posting, if they have a candidate they dislike they will grumble about it publicly but still vote for harm reduction
granted my bubble consists of regular voters & a lot of us are middle-aged queers who are used to voting for candidates whose platform is "I think you are sinners who should not have rights but unlike my opponent I do not advocate hunting you for sport" so there's that
anyway we'll see how this goes; I have to go write my post to all of them explaining that Kamala Harris did not single-handedly do FOSTA-SESTA now
posted by taquito sunrise at 11:37 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
You do realize this is not how most people behave and that you do actually need to give someone to vote for as an option in order to win
as far as my circles go, if they have an Obama to vote for they will be energized & naturally engage in grassroots get-out-the-vote posting, if they have a candidate they dislike they will grumble about it publicly but still vote for harm reduction
granted my bubble consists of regular voters & a lot of us are middle-aged queers who are used to voting for candidates whose platform is "I think you are sinners who should not have rights but unlike my opponent I do not advocate hunting you for sport" so there's that
anyway we'll see how this goes; I have to go write my post to all of them explaining that Kamala Harris did not single-handedly do FOSTA-SESTA now
posted by taquito sunrise at 11:37 AM on July 21 [2 favorites]
I’m not sure if anything in my life has made me loathe the Democrats, the NYT, the New Yorker, and the rest of the commentariat as this moment.
Walking this back ever so slightly about the Ds since they’ve handled the switch smoothly.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:27 AM on July 22 [1 favorite]
Walking this back ever so slightly about the Ds since they’ve handled the switch smoothly.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:27 AM on July 22 [1 favorite]
I’m gonna maintain it’s largely gone well by accident but I’m maybe gonna mumble that a bit quieter than usual.
posted by Artw at 9:40 AM on July 22
posted by Artw at 9:40 AM on July 22
That’s fine, we are due some lucky breaks. We live in effects, not in causes.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:28 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 7:28 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
« Older 1929-2024 | If that pattern isn’t size inclusive, you can fix... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"A person with knowledge of the projections said the Biden campaign now expects it will raise only 25% of the big donor money it had originally projected to raise in July — that’s a further downgrade from the expectation last week that large-dollar fundraising would be down by as much as 50%. The money has “dried up,” this person said."
posted by procrastination at 5:06 PM on July 18 [1 favorite]