I would argue that the country has not returned to normal and that as a consequence underlying conditions are ripe for a challenge to the incumbent.
The big three are undoubtedly:
1. Illegal immigration
2. Inflation/interest rates
3. Crime
In addition you could name stuff like overdose deaths, trouble overseas, urban homelessness, reduced traffic in downtown cores, increased traffic deaths, sky rocketing truancy levels, etc.
Illegal immigration is a bit higher than it was at the previous peak around 2000, but not that much higher.
Inflation and interest rates are actually below the average in the 1980s and 1990s, even if they're higher than the average in the 2000s and 2010s.
Crime is basically at 2019 levels, which is not quite as low as second-term Obama levels, but is lower than basically any other time in the last 50 years.
Overdose deaths and homelessness are much higher than they have been in many decades.
Traffic deaths are higher than they were a decade or two ago, but below where they were up until the 1990s or whatever.
I don't know how to compare "trouble overseas" and "truancy levels" and "traffic in downtown cores".
2) You're comparing interest rates to rates from 40-50 years ago. Don't you think it's problematic that you have to go back that far to find a period when rates were comparable?
3) Crime took a major jump after 2019 and has been slowly declining ever since but has i no way returned to pre-pandemic levels. Future historians will draw a line between America's pre and post pandemic periods.
4) Again, traffic deaths are higher now than in prior decades despite improvements in crash technology as well as better medical procedures/tech.
5) Downtown foot traffic is measured by cel phone signals.
6) Truancy rates are measured by local governments.
7) By trouble overseas I obviously mean Ukraine and Israel.
I agree that on illegal immigration, interest rates, and crime, there are definitely at best ambiguities about whether we are "back to normal" or better or worse, given how these things have fluctuated.
I understood that Ukraine and Israel were what you were talking about with overseas trouble, but I don't know how to compare that to the "normal" situation of the United States.
But I really don't get what you are saying about traffic fatalities. Traffic fatalities are higher than they were from 2007-2020 - but before then, you have to go all the way back to the 1950s to find a smaller raw number of traffic fatalities, and all the way to the 1910s to find a smaller number of traffic fatalities per capita. It's appalling the way that traffic fatalities have been rising since the early 2010s, but I'm wondering what data you're looking at that suggests this is "higher than in prior decades".
1. When was the last time interest rates were this high? At a pure quantitative level the country is experiencing rates now that it hasn't seen for decades. Same with homicides. Same with interest rates. There's just no basis for arguing that is not the case given that it involves simple numerical comparisons.
2. What were the corresponding foreign crises pre-2020 for Ukraine and Israel?
3. You just wrote that traffic fatalities are higher than the period from 2007-2020, meaning a multidecade high. In addition keep in mind that both automotive and medical technology has improved markedly over that time period so a real comparison is even more unfavorable to current rates.
1. In 2006-2007 the interest rate was almost identical to what it is now. While homicides in 2020 and 2021 were higher, homicides in 2024 appear to be back down to 2019 levels.
2. Iraq, Afghanistan, and ISIS. And also the Second Intifada in Israel. They were obviously very different in many ways. They were less brutal conflicts, but they actually involved sending American troops to die.
3. By "multidecade" you really mean "1.3 decades"? Do you think that automotive and medical technology have improved more than the population has grown? We absolutely should be doing more to make driving kill fewer people, but I'm a bit surprised that you think this is something Americans are asking for - they usually seem to be asking for rules making it easier to kill *more* people, because they care more about convenience and speed than deaths. In any case, there's nothing "multidecade" high about this - we've just lost a decade and a half of progress that we could have had (probably largely due to smartphones).
1. Homicides in 2023, the last full year for which we have statistics, are not down to pre-pandemic levels. Any estimates for 2024 are preliminary. Interest rates are higher now than in decades, and I notice you don't seem eager to talk about interest rates plus inflation.
2. "They were less brutal conflicts". Also how many American troops do you think died overseas from 2016 to 2020?
3. "Do you think that automotive and medical technology have improved more than the population has grown?"
_Per capita_ rates have increased substantially since the pandemic.
Interest rates are a tangled mess. The underlying problem was partly Biden's fault (insofar as BBB contributed), but far from entirely - the pandemic-era stimulus was essentially a nasty chess fork for the political leadership, and most of the world got hit with a similar wave.
Having said that, the Keynesian-and-beyond era of avoiding deflation as a matter of policy and stimulating your way out of panics/recessions is only 100 years old (the historical answer was to let panics run their course in contracting the economy). With that as your governing paradigm, it is arguably too soon to tell where the "natural" interest rate would/should fall (and that's before we get into other inputs such as collapsing population growth). Were the 1970s-1990s the aberration? Were the 2010s? Or is there a natural cycle between them that is likely to play out and there IS no normal "steady state"?
Most of these stats (other than office work and kids being checked out) are not meaningfully different than pre pandemic they are just more salient because the gop is the out party and opinion is thermostatic
About 25,000 a month coming before Biden took over; over 100,000 a month since then. Stop fulminating your ideology and look at the facts. If you live in one of those blue citadels, and you're still coming up with this, you are a true expert in self-deception.
Did you forget something really BIG nationwide which affect multi-millions of Americans who happen to be…(wait for it)..young women who may need an abortion or IVF in order to be a “free” citizen of this Nation along with the men and other family who love her and/or agree with her? That is THE ISSUE this election &Trump caused it all to happen after 50 yrs of freedom of reproductive rights!So bye Donald you said you were “proud” of banning Roe v. Wade—so shove it!!
Nate's substack seems to draw a lot of male commenters, and most men still don't have a f***ing clue about pregnancy, reproductive health care, any of it. The Republican party, whether out of free choice or out of inability to contradict their Christian Nationalist faction, has adopted a platform and policies that make women no longer people, but objects, mere incubators, and highly disposable ones at that. Anyone who disagrees with that statement doesn't know anything about the issue and what's happening in this country. But again, that would disproportionately be men, who are far more likely to confidently express an opinion on something they know nothing about, rather like the presidential candidate whom the male half of the electorate favors, and certainly like the Republican legislators who are responsible for these laws.
🤣🤣🤣 Tell that to the women who've almost died since Dobbs. Or, since I'm sure you couldn't care less about them, go talk to their husbands about it, and do it in person, and see what kind of reaction you get.
I read about this issue almost every day. It's a ruse. The platform still indicates fetal personhood, and they also don't need any new laws to impose a national ban on both abortion and whatever forms of contraception they don't like as well. If they can't restrain themselves when it's unpopular and causing them huge political problems before a critical election (and they can't, which is obvious looking at policy in any of the states they control), they certainly won't restrain themselves after they've won an election which has eliminated all checks and balances, and those pressure groups come for the piper to be paid.
Comstock. I would love nothing more than to be wrong, but so far none of their plans have failed them, so if this one did it would be the (very very welcome) first.
Biden had control of both chambers of Congress until 2022 and did nothing about the issue. Regardless how does this address my point that the country has not returned to "normalcy" post pandemic?
A law protection abortion needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate, which Democrats clearly did not have. It’s honestly saddening how few people seem to know how our government works.
It's also debatable whether it falls under Congress's power to regulate abortion in the first place. Medical licensing and healthcare is mostly state regulated. The only place you can find support for Congress's power to regulate abortion would be in the commerce clause, and the commerce clause DOES have its limits. Regulating schools for example was held to be beyond the realm of the commerce clause, and that was in the 90s with a far less originalist court than the one we have today. It would likely have to be relatively narrowly tailored and specifically crafted - likely limited to federally-owned hospitals and hospitals that accept federal money.
No. Comstock is already on the books and this court will not stand in the way of using it for a national ban (and remember they also consider many forms of contraception to be abortion). The FDA is also perfectly free to withdraw mifepristone for political reasons. The people who say this won't happen are the same people who have predicted everything else that happened wouldn't happen, and the same people who think maternal mortality is not a big deal.
First, the comstock act only applies to mailing things between states (and generally has been overruled as unconstitutional in almost all cases and Fed has not tried to enforce it in fifty years), which leaves almost all abortion activity unregulated by it. In the context of Chevron being overruled, any attempt to radically expand the scope of the Comstock act without actually amending the law would be dead in the water; any attempt to pass a law expanding it would be political suicide.
Second, If you think any agency action is "perfectly free" in the modern day, I don't think you understand the APA and how review of administrative law works. Any agency action is heavily scrutinized by courts these days. Particularly now that Chevron is overruled, any political action by an agency will be heavily scrutinized with a court, with no presumption to overcome that the agency is right in doing so.
Third, any kind of ban or restriction on contraception would require someone to actually pass a law to restrict contraception. Just because it would theoretically be constitutional to restrict something, doesn't mean you would. And even the reddest red states would be hard pressed to pass a ban on contraception these days.
Fourth, you're overreacting. There has been no statistically significant increase in maternal mortality, and most states have been moving towards what the consensus position for Americans is - which is restricting abortion after 15 to 20 weeks. We've seen a lot of states pass some kind of abortion guarantee, and we've seen several states repeal old laws that were set to become active again. The debate has passed back to the states, which is where it belongs.
You're not wrong; however, the Trump presidential platform is the most socially moderate of that of any GOP candidate in the last half century, if not more. Gay marriage, IVF, contraception--all OK, per the platform. The only mention of abortion is opposition to late-term abortions.
I get that it's weak sauce in that regard compared to the Dems'. I get it. But it does represent an acknowledgement of electoral reality.
Their reference to the 14th amendment is a clear call for fetal personhood, and late-term abortion has no medical meaning; it's a political term that they keep defining earlier and earlier.
Yes, any claim that we have actually returned to normal demonstrates a tin ear when it comes to speaking to the portion of the country that is not already reliably blue.
This tells the conservative leaning, we are fine with the current level of illegal immigration. Which is absurd on the face of it, given President Biden's efforts to obtain reform legislation. Rather, "Things could return to normal if Donald Trump would...." perhaps, but not "This is normal." (And based on worldwide trends, I assume that this is actually an extremely important issue.)
But even more than that, even the less politically minded are getting their daily news through news feeds that create the impression of a siege of crises. The stories are overwrought, even when they contain some merit, but on an emotional level, people are being pushed to the breaking point. Tell people you consider this the new normal and they are going to conclude that they need a new leader.
imho, the increased traffic deaths are almost certainly indicative of the exactly this. It's not that, objectively, crime or inflation or whatever is necessarily getting worse, but traffic deaths are and, subjectively, hyper-aggressive road rage is too. This isn't all just texting while driving, there are an awful lot of people, in all kinds of vehicles, who must be awfully frustrated with life if they are reacting this way to a few seconds of traffic inconvenience. I'm going to assume they will not be happy to hear that the world they are living in is now to be considered normal.
I like this column, you're fair, mostly. But the notion that there is no reason to vote for Trump is very bizarre from a guy that seems to love solving problems with data and reality based reasoning. Just look at illegal border crossings and rampant inflation. And the prospect of another endless war that America LOSES in Ukraine. The Democrats talk about packing the Court; making Guam and Puerto Rico states, eliminating the electoral college, etc. These are serious issues that should be given a nod occasionally, right? I mean, most conservatives don't like Trump, but it's all we got. But "a strong man, or a con man". LOL 😂🤣😂 Biden ain't no Saint! We'll see how corrupt his family is later, when it's ok for the MSM to report on it.
Yes, after five years of digging into Hunter and the flacid House impeachment "investigation," not much to report on. Perhaps another five years or so will yield more, or not. Last I checked, zero US boots on the ground in Ukraine. Fawning over Putin as trump has done is not a way to maintain stability and peace in the world or protect US interests. I'd mention convicted felon, but those only count for the "other side."
By the same token how did the accusations of collaboration with Russia pan out?
Both sides are only too eager to weaponize civic institutions to attack the political opposition. Asking Americans who are not political partisans to bestow the mantle of moral superiority on one party or the other is nonsensical. And in a contest where those voters compare the current day to Trump's first term it's advantage Trump.
Agree to disagree. Biden's DOJ is targeting his son. Russia DID interfere with with that election and it was a fair inquiry to make sure the beneficiary of that interference was not involved. trump has repeatedly publicly boasted about targeting all his political enemies. No "both sides" to this.
Yes, both sides are the same. A real laptop with evidence of Biden family payments from the CCP, that was deemed fake by 51 intelligence "experts" (all liars) PLUS all major media channels (60 Minutes) & papers - eliminated from social media as Russian propaganda 2 weeks before the election - vs. the Russiagate bullshit that the entire DC Swamp was a part of - all lies. FBI, NSA, CIA CORRUPT. Weaponize? Did Trump prosecute Hillary? What political opponents did Trump charge?
Plenty of people have articulated it, you probably just couldn't understand and there's nothing I can do to help you with that, friend.
Also, just because you don't like the fact that you're voting for a criminal doesn't mean the ruling was wrong or it was a "kangaroo court," a term I'm not sure you don't even understand. Keep mirroring those big words you hear on Fox News or OAN.
I'm a defense contractor, I've been in the Donbas. Ukraine has been losing and has lost this war. You're being lied to. Most of the ethnic Russian "Ukrainians" there consider themselves Russian. Read about the Ukrainian ASOV Brigades - they were considered Neo-Nazis units until the Democrats decided they weren't. We should have not gotten involved. We are depleting our own ammunition stores - reaching critical levels - it's insane.
Yes, the Hunter laptop is not real. LOL 😂🤣😂 You'll see that you're wrong, but won't care, sadly. Biden has done his Leftist duty, time to dump his old ass.
Mysterious only to people with the cognitive faculties of people such as yourself. Just because you can't comprehend something, that doesn't mean everyone else is as cognitively challenged as yourself.
"But the notion that there is no reason to vote for Trump is very bizarre from a guy that seems to love solving problems with data and reality based reasoning"
I think Silver is basically writing this to partisan Democrats, not independents or Republican moderates. And if you're a partisan Democrat, there really is no reason to vote for Trump.
But those voters are independents, or at the most soft Democrats. What's going to convince a partisan Democrat to give Trump a chance?
If he was a normal politician - or even a likable man to them - they still wouldn't vote for him because they don't agree with his policies. Hence the term "partisan Democrat".
But...we should care right? All of us? If you're serious about America then it shouldn't matter if they vote for the other side as long as they have their proper right to vote as American citizens, no?
On the other hand if what you're saying is it's unfair that a relatively small population would get such a huge influence on the government via two whole senate seats...oh boy are there some democrats that would agree with you on that. But I don't think any side of this should only support the wider system when it benefits them (I know many do, but they shouldn't...)
Don't the citizens in a lot of these holdings occupy a privileged position in that they reap a lot of benefits without the burdens of being forced to register for the draft and so on? IIRC there is not a lot of support inside places like Guam for statehood for precisely that reason.
Guam is home to a large military population and has a larger Christian population (mostly Catholic) than any state. I don't see any reason to think it would be a lock for the Democrats
Yeah, The people who think that Guam is a Democratic strong hold are clowns. The Guam legislature is currently 9-6 for Democrats but has been controlled by republicans as recently as 2008 and was 8-7 as recently as 2022. There non voting representative in congress is a Republican. I do think that the democratic and republican parties in Guam are more idiosyncratic than the state parties of any state so it’s not obvious how to translate that to real national elections. But it seems likely that Guam would be lean Blue but swingy state.
I do think that it would be ridiculous to have the people of Guam would have the same representation in the Senate that California would. But I think it is ridiculous that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate that California has. Ironically I suspect that the same people saying it's ridiculous to make Guam a state would defend the Senate as protecting the interests of small states.
Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa all have Republican delegates currently. The idea that all the territories are solid Dem is widespread but seemingly just wrong. (Maybe derived from the 90s when all the delegates were Democrats, which contrasted with the then-new Republican majority. But that was an anomaly for a few years. In any given year since the 70s there has usually been at least one GOP delegate.)
These are serious issues, but Trump's instincts are not likely to make them any better.
For example, what is Trump's economic agenda? I can name tax cuts and tariffs, and it seems likely he would also pressure the Fed to cut rates prematurely. All bad for inflation.
At some point, trying to convince other substackers of the realities is pointless. Can you afford groceries is a much more important than trumps legal cases, it just is.
I understand and have heard Puerto Rico, but you're obviously making up Guam. It's hysterical what boogey monsters you'll make to justify your position and pretend that you're for "reality-based" anything. Guam has a population of 200k. Making them a state would be as insane making Wyoming a state.
@John "Rampant inflation". Check again. Latest Core PCE change was a whopping 3.06%. That's not much. It's higher than the target of 2%, but it's also the case that most economists under the age of 50 think the target rate should be higher than 2% (perhaps 4-5%) given the unsolved problem of the zero lower bound on rates.
I think the issue is that there's a non-trivial case to vote for a sede vacante for a year while a new election is run. However, that simply isn't an option under the Constitution (and RFK has his own batch of issues), so...
Honestly, this could have been interesting if Manchin had decided to run (or RFK hadn't proved to be so far "out there", or you had basically any other mainstream Democrat under about 70 in the mix) since if Biden were "doomed", the incentives to threaten to bolt to a "safe pair of hands" would be there right now. "If you don't withdraw, I'm backing this third party guy because if we're going to be stuck with Trump no matter what I can at least say I did my best to stop him" is /potentially/ plausible, but with the current crop of alternatives I'm not sure you can say that RFK makes the grade there and the other candidates are non-entities in the scheme of things.
Oh I'm sorry, am I detracting from vocal fry/uptalking about sAViNg oUr dEMoCraCy (by socially outlawing all non-Marxist opinions and parties, of course)?
Nate - I'd love your take on the incentives for Democrat Party insiders along the spectrum from supporting Biden to calling from him to step aside.
If they think Biden can win, it's easy. But I wonder how many think both Biden and a replacement are likely to lose. If so, isn't the best move to back Biden? If Biden loses, its his fault and there's a good chance of a thermostatic shift toward the left in 2026 and 2028. But if you push for Biden to step aside and the replacement loses, then the party is implicated in the disaster. Especially if the nomination process is messy or results in a sub-optimal candidate. I don't see pundits allowing the scenario where the party nominates a woke progressive and I struggle to see why not. And, if a candidate thinks the presidency is lost, it's easier to run the "I'll be a check on Trump" ad and undercut Biden than do so and undercut somebody you just helped thrust into the race.
If somebody thinks Biden can't win but a plausible replacement can, the decision depends on what they value most. I'd like to think that not putting an infirm man into the presidency would be #1, but the incentives for each insider may differ.
I agree with you. I also don’t think that they actually see Trump as a risk for democracy. Polling probably told them it makes sense to say that. I disagree with his policies (I think he’ll lead to more inflation and I don’t think he’ll close the border) but if democrats thought he was a danger you would make sure your best person went up to bat, without a doubt. That person needed to be decided back in January. It was obvious then (if you’re not rich and out of touch).
It also depends whether they expect free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028. They might want to ask the Hungarians and the Turks, among others, about that (and those are the more benign scenarios). They can say this election poses an existential threat, but actions speak louder than words so I don't know if they really get it or not.
If Trump had his way in 2020 he wouldn't have had free and fair elections. He only wanted to guarantee a victory for himeslf. He has the full backing of the GOP now.
Why would 2028 be any different? I keep saying that the conditions have changed on the ground but that Dem leaders don't get this. They're too insultated, which is how we got Hillary and now Biden. Norms are gone and those that aren't MAGA need to understand that things that were taken for granted (such as rule of law) shouldn't be assumed to exist in the future. I'd bet if you went back and asked normal, politically connected Germans back in the early 1930s about this, they'd tell you the same.
The Democrats "assume" that there will be free and fair elections next time around, or that he won't actually get the DOJ to haul off his political enemies to jail. Who's going to stop him? Chuck Schumer? Are we going to jaw Trump to death, a la Neville Chamberlain? I get it, the Democrats are supposed to be party of the educated and the reasonable, but sometimes you've got to pick up a stick and be ready to defend yourself.
Look at Kodak or Blockbuster. The world fundamentally changed around them but they had been so successful with cash cows that they simply weren't capable of the strategic mindset needed to analyze the changes and respond accordingly. Trump was an authoritarian in waiting in 2015; I thought it would be a miracle if Trump lost "peacefully" in 2020 and yet 75% of the population seemed in shock when January 6th happened. How could those events have taken anyone by surprise?
When they win this election they're going to have a much firmer grip on our institutions than any political party has had in generations, so I think we should take them at their word for how they plan to use it. They speak in apocalyptic, existential tones, so it's very hard to see how they'd be willing to see their revolution undone by something as trifling as voters. The only question is if and how the American people fight back when they come for the rest of our human rights and civil liberties.
Personally, I think it highly likely that there will be free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028, even assuming a Trump victory. However:
1) That one can outline a non-ridiculous scenario to there *not* being free and fair elections (in 2028, at least, it's harder to see for '26) is highly concerning.
2) Trump would almost certainly try to remain in office past January 2029. That, or try to engineer to hand the Presidency to one of his kids with the explicit understanding that he'll call the shots behind the scenes. Whether he will succeed in any of this is a separate question.
3) There's lots of other bad stuff Trump could do, like pull out of NATO, or come up with ways to staff the civil service with MAGA hacks, etc.
The qualifying word there is "try". I don't know if anyone thinks he would actually stay past 2029; if anyone does, they're either dumb or fear-mongering.
However, there's every expectation he'll try to stay in office and be immediately shut down by the adults in the room. He could run his mouth off and start another Jan 6 though, which is feasible since... it's happened before (see: Jan 6).
"... which is feasible since... it's happened before (see: Jan 6)."
see: Jan 6
Let me know if anything else confuses you, happy to explain it to you piecemeal (bit-by-bit, like you'd feed a baby) in using the simplest (easiest) words possible.
The GOP candidate in 2028 will almost certainly be Trump's VP, assuming he wins. Failing to acknowledge this is a clear indicator that one is not dealing with reality.
People said the same thing about Bush, about Obama, and about Trump the first time around, and it never happened. And there is a hell of a lot Trump could have tried to remain in power by force and declined to. He used all legal-but-scummy-and-antidemocratic means at his disposal to try to persuade the applicable authorities to declare his victory.
Every evaluation I've seen considers Hungary only a partially free democracy, not like the other EU states, who are exasperated dealing with Orban's violations. It's kind of a kleptocracy too. But those who want to promote it will just claim all the evaluations are biased so it's pointless.
The problem is that there really are not good objective criteria for measuring freedom in a democracy. And those objective criteria that exist are either extremely restrictive or extremely permissive.
For example, if I were to come up with an objective set of criteria, it would be something like the following:
1. Ability of any citizen to register to vote, and to vote in any applicable local, state, or federal election.
2. Ability to stand on a streetcorner with a sign expressing the most heinous opinion you can imagine and not getting arrested for it.
3. Ability to financially support causes you care about, whether political or otherwise.
Under those standards, the USA is essentially the only free democracy. And even the USA falls short of those standards sometimes.
What I've seen of the Hungarian system is that it's not that it's un-free, but that the Hungarian system is very swingy. It basically has the German system - half the seats are at-large and half the seats are constituencies - but importantly there's no "correction" factor like there is for Germany to make the final composition match the at-large vote total.
And also, Hungary is much more homogenous than Germany. There is some rural/urban divide and some regional divide, but the fact that they were reduced so much both after WW1 and WW2 means basically it's a pretty homogenous state. So small demographic shifts produce disproportionately large changes in the vote returns. Which means it's easy to get seat shares that are disproportionate to your vote shares.
So in that sense, if there is an issue, it's structural and bidirectional in terms of partisanship. But my problem is that these indexes conflate democracy and freedom. It's possible for a less-democratic republic to be equally as free or more free than a direct democracy, and it's possible for a democracy to be very un-free but still have fair democratic elections.
I will admit to not reading intensely into these indexes, but I have never seen them present a metric or set of metrics that I could agree represents how free or fair or democratic a government is. And I don't think that's their fault, just that those are virtually impossible things to actually measure directly.
(the propagation of state media might impact the fairness side of hungarian elections somewhat, but again I'm working from incomplete information there)
More than half of the Senate is older than 65 and there are a dozen plus members of congress over 80. historically, politicians don't retire based on age or health. the federal judiciary serve for life and many of them literally do that regardless of their health. we've had multiple past presidents who continued to serve and actively hid worse health deterioration than biden (wilson, fdr, Reagan).
I think we're overlooking the incentive of politicians not to call on biden to drop out to protect their own ability to serve in perpetuity. washington needs a reckoning with health and age that goes far beyond biden.
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Trump isn't going to destroy American democracy, and every one of you knows that. Every post to that effect is barest demagogy and hysteria. Trump IS going to make life very uncomfortable for the career government employees who've been running the government at least since the resignation of Nixon (which may itself have been something engineered by the career government employees).
Don't be fooled. The biggest Supreme Court decision of the last five years wasn't Dobbs. It wasn't the decision about presidential immunity. It was the decision about whether government agencies were entitled to a presumption of right as against private parties. THAT, not abortion, not the border, not inflation, not "threats to democracy", is the chief issue this year. Are we run by an administrative state in which "experts" impose fines, cancel licenses, etc., without any real opportunity for review? Or is this really a constitutional state in which an elected legislature passes laws, an executive branch carries out what the legislature has passed AND NOTHING MORE, and a judicial branch decides ONLY whether the legislation exceeded constitutional bounds?
I'm voting Trump not because I think he's great but because I, extremely aware of the administrative state, want our government to be returned to the voters.
Also I think you don’t really understand the underlying issue, which is what level of deference during judicial review should be shown to executive agencies when a law that Congress passes is unclear or broad in scope. It doesn’t mean that the executive branch will only do what the legislature passed “AND NOTHING MORE”. It just shifts the decision from one group of unelected people (executive bureaucrats) to another (federal judges).
why do you assume that I don't understand it? I practiced law for 15 years. I defended people facing criminal charges for offenses that no legislature had ever prohibited. The legislature makes laws. The executive carries them out. Separation of powers has to be maintained or it is meaningless. You just don't like the makeup of the courts. That's a different issue, one that will gradually resolve in one way or another as time goes on. I remember when liberals LOVED it if courts legislated. Here, I'm not talking about courts legislating. I'm talking about courts determining that the executive exceeded its lawful powers, something they've done since Marbury v. Madison.
So you think that the electoral college means that the executive may do whatever it likes, at least unless there's a Republican president, at which point you'll suddenly start screaming about an "imperial presidency" or "authoritarianism". No. The Electoral College was part of a general effort to keep "the turbulence and follies of democracy" from destroying the republic the founders were creating. Right now the whole fight is really because total Democratic control in one state has produced majorities in that state that are such as to produce a popular majority. The Democratic plurality or majority in recent elections has been based entirely on lopsided majorities in California. So California should dictate how the whole country is run? The founders rather specifically didn't want things like that to happen.
This is a constitutional republic constituted of 50 states (as Franklin said, "if you can keep it"). It is not a direct democracy. Now--if you want to change the Constitution and turn it into an ochlocracy (look that one up in your Funk & Wagnall's), then push for a constitutional amendment. That's what it would take.
I’m not sure why you say Biden has a weak hand. Biden can play the game out as long as he likes. If he doesn’t fold he wins.
Democrats can do whatever they want. Attack him, dry up donations, whatever but if Biden stays strong through the convention he’s the nominee outside of some convention shenanigans that seems exceptionally difficult to pull off.
Biden seems to actually think this is a 50/50 election still, which I think Matt Y. alluded to. There is a wing of the Democratic Party that truly does believe all of these polls have horrific methodology issues because the media is biased against Biden (my take, what?????) and wants a very close election.
A common quote I've seen a few times is something like, "2020 was the highest turnout election in history. No one is voting for Trump who didn't vote for him then." I waded into one of these discussions pointing out that Black and Hispanic voters are defecting pretty significantly, especially low-income ones, but the reaction was pretty negative and disbelieving. A couple people said, more or less, "Take that somewhere. else. That's what Republicans say every, single, election and it never happens." (as if I was like a right-wing troll for even bringing this up)
The point is, I truly think Biden and his team think they have like a 60% chance of winning this and that polling and people like Nate are just way off base. I agree way more with Nate, but a lot of Dems do not and I believe they are in denial.
You don’t win the hand cause you see the flop by just putting more and more money in with a bad hand… he may be the nominee and then after the river card he shows down only to lose all the money.
Right I think the proper metaphor is that he’s doomed to lose the hand (the election) but it’s going to be exceedingly difficult to get him to fold before the hand is over. Would take a lot of “political courage” (oxymoron) on the part of the Dems to drag him away from the table, so that feels unlikely to happen. Besides, even though he’s got a shit hand (he’s got nada - he “thinks” he has a pair of jacks but one is a wayward joker that got left in the shuffle) —- Kamala’s hand is not much better. I think there’s probably a better chance of either Biden or Trump stroking out than seeing a different name on the ballot.
I’ll take any bet on the 25th amendment. And what other levers? As long as Biden toughens it out he’s going nowhere. Biden doesn’t have to do anything. They can do whatever they want to him. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Nancy Pelosi can show up demanding he drop out.
If he says I’m staying in then he’s the nominee. That’s why none of them will. Because in the long run they have weak hands.
No there isn't: the 25th Amendment allows the Cabinet to remove the President temporarily. At any point after that the President can write to the leaders of Congress that he's able to resume his duties and he's back, unless 2/3 of the Congress votes to override him. 2/3 of the Senate won't vote against Joe Biden.
I actually think you'd get the senate and the House fairly easily given Mike Johnson's comments today; obviously this assumes D's went along (which if it comes time to break the glass like that i'm assuming they would). But with that said, the optics of forcibly removing the president would be absolutely awful for Dems and might raise even further questions/scandal: i.e. "Harris was his vice president, surely she knew he was incompetent?"
It just doesn't really seem like an option that's likely to make the election tangibly more winnable.
It will be bad optics for the GOP if they vote against a relatively-united Democratic Party intent on removing Biden. It will make the GOP look like they are putting party before country.
If the Dem whip does their job and gets most of the Dems to oust Biden, the GOP will have no choice but to go along.
Honestly, it will take a while for the damage on the Dem side to heal, so there's not much downside for the GOP voting to oust Biden for a better person.
It's not like they have Bill Clinton or Barack Obama on deck.
It's a game of chicken. I think both sides have pretty weak hands. Will these megadonors really just sit out and let the Dems crash and burn? Or will they quietly get back in the game if it seems that Biden has no chance of dropping out?
Already seems like Biden has turned the tide, the chorus of voices calling him to drop out this week has been pretty underwhelming so far. Next week, all Democrats will see the Republican convention and then be told or realize it's time to "fall in line". They will look ridiculous pretending that Biden is up for the job, but only slightly more ridiculous than Republicans with Trump. At least, this is what Biden and his team are counting on.
Biden's absurd line that he's the man of the people being attacked by the elites ... seems like it might be freezing some of the action against him? Probably his decision to spend a few days straight surrounded by supportive black voters helped as well, as it made it a much worse look to try and force him out in the context of today's Democratic Party and its racial politics.
The issue is that there is some degree of bravery it takes right now to say "Biden should step aside" if you're an elected Democrat, and certainly if you're Nancy Pelosi or someone higher. The risk--like the GOP faced with Trump--is that you're going to be hated by a large segment of your party and deal with a huge backlash from those folks.
The GOP has had multiple chances to disarm Trump--candidates dropping out in 2016 and impeachment and removal in 2020 were easy choices--but people always assumed, "If it's bad enough, someone else can do it."
I fear the Dems will fall back on, "Elections are unpredictable, and I feared Harris would be weakened by association from not speaking out about Biden's infirmities."
TLDR- Dem electeds or delegates have to be semi-brave, and cowardice is the defining characteristic of this era, so I sadly now think he's the nominee unless he botches the press conference this week.
Yes, if what happens next year is what we think is going to happen, future generations will look back bitterly at the cowardice of the years before it.
I think it's actually worth asking, "and then what?"
Supposing that Trump tries to fire a bunch of federal bureaucrats and replace them. What happens? Most of these people are protected by law from being political appointees. Would he try to just pass huge budget cuts? But then how does he hire the new ones? Or would he literally just ignore Congress and the federal courts? Some employees in this scenario will just refuse to leave their desks. Will the federal police evict them? Is that the military's job?
What if the shoe was on the other foot and it was obvious that 80% of the federal bureaucracy supported the Republican Party. Would it be a threat to democracy if Democrats started looking for creative ways to smoke them out and replace them?
Thinking game theory a little bit, people like AOC or Wes Moore both have reasons to prefer Biden to stay in, vs. him losing the nomination to Kamala.
Game it out from AOC's perspective. Nobody is going to blame her if Biden loses. She wasn't in the inner circle when he decided to run. She's just one voice of dozens who are supporting him. But... if Biden pulls out an upset, he owes her one, and it's not like that makes Kamala some unbeatable juggernaut in 2028. If he just loses, then that's a great scenario for AOC. The moderate Democrats are going to be 100% implicated in the loss, the cover-up of Biden's health, etc. while AOC clearly had nothing much to do with it. This could easily set up a scenario where the left-wing of the Democrats is perfectly placed to capitalize on the rage of 1,000 suns that will be directed at Biden and his allies.
However, if AOC would have jumped on the anti-Biden bandwagon right now -- if it fails, then it makes her look weak and ineffectual. Now Biden is knives out for her if he somehow wins. If he loses AOC shares the "blame" a lot more for kind of peeling off the progressive left even more. If he is replaced with Kamala Harris, who is the only real option, that increases the chances of the progressive left being frozen out into the early 2030s at least.
I mean, you can argue about how much people are even going to remember AOC's actions in the broader cluster$$ of this election. However, on balance it seems like scenarios where she comes out and loudly supports Biden, definitely have a stronger ulterior motive than ones where she doesn't.
I agree from a purely self-interested position, I understand why she did it.
From a, "What's best for the country," the cowardice is stunning but, as the GOP has shown us, exactly what happens when individuals have to choose between their own interests and the country's.
I am extremely skeptical about betting markets and their ability to predict whether Biden will step down. In contrast to an issue like polling where there are metrics that can be used to form an argument the question of Biden giving up the nomination seems to be driven almost entirely by subjective opinion.
I would also point out one complicating factor: if Biden agrees to give up the nomination isn't the logical next step resigning the office of the Presidency? Where does that leave Hunter Biden and his convictions?
Graeme Wood attempted to frame a compromise where Biden remains in office but agrees to reopen the nominating process at the convention, where he would run again like any other candidate. That's the bare minimum I can envision since resigning from the Presidency is something that I don't think Biden will be willing to accept.
I really do not see why it would be so hard for Biden to say that 1) he is stepping down to make way for someone who can beat Donald Trump, which is a moral imperative and 2) while he has it in him to serve out his term, after consulting with his family, blahdiddyblah, he has decided that his health and age have reached a point where he feels he cannot do it until January 2029.
I think most people will easily understand that "can Biden serve now?" and "can Biden serve for four more years?" are two different questions. So, for that matter, is "can Biden do President stuff?" and "can Biden do President stuff while also running a campaign?"
He absolutely should resign the presidency. If Hunter's passport has already been seized, as I would expect, his father can pardon him before he resigns, it's hardly any worse than the pardons Trump has made. Leading Democrats are going to have to seriously consider their own safety before January 20th anyway. Those who don't will come to regret it.
The problem as I see it is that if Biden resigns he will have to trust whoever his successor is to pardon Hunter, and that will be massively unpopular. If he stays in office and loses he can just issue the pardon himself right before he leaves office or at any time after the election.
I will say with respect to that question i still kind of find it hard to imagine Biden stays in? I know there's been a bit more movement toward him the last two days, but I just feel things are very likely to get worse not better. And by worse I mean worse polling, more senior moments, more stumbles in phrases and generally being unable to coherently make the case against Trump. It's really hard to imagine Biden surviving even one more age-related ordeal as the candidate much less the party allowing him to stumble his way on a slow death march to a GOP landslide and armageddon.
Is it possible he doesn't have any more age-related moments? Sure. But what is the actual probability of that? I suppose if they kept him under lock and key it might be manageable, but in that case calls for him to step aside would likely get so loud that he'd be out in a matter of weeks. If he tries to run a normal campaign (which seems to be what the Dems in his corner are insisting) what is the probability that he doesn't have a single significant age-related stumble between now and the Dem convention? 10%? 15-20% at the absolute max? So with that in mind, and given how close to the brink he is now, Idk i just have a hard time imagining him making it to September as the nominee....or at least imagining it being more than say 30-35%.
Even if he’s nominated I don’t see how his polling improves, he can’t campaign. Which means at some point in the fall the swing state dems throw him under the bus in a futile senate seat play. It’s pure ego.
I do see a path where Biden just waits, does nothing and hopes Trump does something incredibly stupid or that some other bad act comes up. I agree that he should step down but I suspect this is what his family and advisors are hoping
For years, I taught a course in media analysis, and we always discussed the Nixon-Kennedy debates demonstrating a basic principle: you never want to get too hung up on the underlying factual merits of debate, as contrasted with the image.
I do not know Joe Biden's underlying mental condition, nor can I compare it to Donald Trump's, nor can I extrapolate either man's over the next four years. Maybe their doctors know more, maybe they don't -- but we are in the dark.
What we do know is that the image Joe Biden presented to the public during that debate was incredibly damaging.
It seems to me that the conflict among the Dems is a conflict between those who have truly internalized that basic lesson, and those who still underestimate the power of image.
However, there is something else that we do not know. We are living in a rare moment when the spotlight is on the Dems and not on Donald Trump; and although Dem partisans universally find this to be grossly unfair, we do not know who that will help or hurt.
It appears to me that, for the first time ever, Donald Trump and/or his advisors, are playing as the team trying to preserve a lead. He's keeping a low profile. I am far from sure how that is going to work out for him if Biden stays in. I am far from sure how that is going to work for him if the Dems switch to Harris. And I am far from sure whether it works for or against the Dems if this struggle within the Democratic party goes on for a while (as long as, in the end, everyone ends up backing the candidate -- which, given the opponent, is fairly certain).
I think an underrated aspect of the game here is that many Democratic officials at this point may rather go ahead and lose to Trump in order to have a better personal position in 2026 and 2028 than if Harris is able to turn things around.
If I’m either a Senator up for election in those years or I’m seriously considering my chances as nominee, I don’t want Harris to be president and I definitely would rather aim for a blue backlash to another Trump presidency.
On (6). It's a poisoned chalice. Harris would rather take her chances in a crowded primary four years from now than suddenly after the party blew up their own nomination in a "nuclear option" with little time left. Whether or not "variance" is an optimal strategy for the party, that doesn't mean it's the optimal path for Harris. Her odds are better than Biden's, but still would likely lose.
And her supporters? The narrative for years now has been she keeps getting set up for failure by the White House (e.g. immigration). See the "setting her up for failure" comments by Rep. Jahana Hayes, who is in the Congressional Black Caucus. This would be seen as a glass cliff. Maybe Whitmer said 'no' in earnest.
My point isn't even that Team Harris along with the Congressional Black Caucus (aside from Clyburn) is *correct* that it's a poisoned chalice, just that Nate doesn't seem to understand that's how it's viewed and therefore it has political implications. If there's a deal to be made with the CBC, it might involve Biden stepping down from the presidency immediately (admittedly, a happy bonus for Nate, but a less likely outcome).
The top issue is whether Biden should continue to be president, not whether he should be the nominee. Yet Ds’ focus - and yours, here - is on the nomination, which further undermines Ds’ credibility. Fwiw, WSJ has some editorial points about why the 25A isn’t quite the cure all it’s supposed to be in this case, which shd be considered.
I would argue that the country has not returned to normal and that as a consequence underlying conditions are ripe for a challenge to the incumbent.
The big three are undoubtedly:
1. Illegal immigration
2. Inflation/interest rates
3. Crime
In addition you could name stuff like overdose deaths, trouble overseas, urban homelessness, reduced traffic in downtown cores, increased traffic deaths, sky rocketing truancy levels, etc.
Illegal immigration is a bit higher than it was at the previous peak around 2000, but not that much higher.
Inflation and interest rates are actually below the average in the 1980s and 1990s, even if they're higher than the average in the 2000s and 2010s.
Crime is basically at 2019 levels, which is not quite as low as second-term Obama levels, but is lower than basically any other time in the last 50 years.
Overdose deaths and homelessness are much higher than they have been in many decades.
Traffic deaths are higher than they were a decade or two ago, but below where they were up until the 1990s or whatever.
I don't know how to compare "trouble overseas" and "truancy levels" and "traffic in downtown cores".
1) The previous peak in 2000 was 24 years ago.
2) You're comparing interest rates to rates from 40-50 years ago. Don't you think it's problematic that you have to go back that far to find a period when rates were comparable?
3) Crime took a major jump after 2019 and has been slowly declining ever since but has i no way returned to pre-pandemic levels. Future historians will draw a line between America's pre and post pandemic periods.
4) Again, traffic deaths are higher now than in prior decades despite improvements in crash technology as well as better medical procedures/tech.
5) Downtown foot traffic is measured by cel phone signals.
6) Truancy rates are measured by local governments.
7) By trouble overseas I obviously mean Ukraine and Israel.
I agree that on illegal immigration, interest rates, and crime, there are definitely at best ambiguities about whether we are "back to normal" or better or worse, given how these things have fluctuated.
I understood that Ukraine and Israel were what you were talking about with overseas trouble, but I don't know how to compare that to the "normal" situation of the United States.
But I really don't get what you are saying about traffic fatalities. Traffic fatalities are higher than they were from 2007-2020 - but before then, you have to go all the way back to the 1950s to find a smaller raw number of traffic fatalities, and all the way to the 1910s to find a smaller number of traffic fatalities per capita. It's appalling the way that traffic fatalities have been rising since the early 2010s, but I'm wondering what data you're looking at that suggests this is "higher than in prior decades".
1. When was the last time interest rates were this high? At a pure quantitative level the country is experiencing rates now that it hasn't seen for decades. Same with homicides. Same with interest rates. There's just no basis for arguing that is not the case given that it involves simple numerical comparisons.
2. What were the corresponding foreign crises pre-2020 for Ukraine and Israel?
3. You just wrote that traffic fatalities are higher than the period from 2007-2020, meaning a multidecade high. In addition keep in mind that both automotive and medical technology has improved markedly over that time period so a real comparison is even more unfavorable to current rates.
1. In 2006-2007 the interest rate was almost identical to what it is now. While homicides in 2020 and 2021 were higher, homicides in 2024 appear to be back down to 2019 levels.
2. Iraq, Afghanistan, and ISIS. And also the Second Intifada in Israel. They were obviously very different in many ways. They were less brutal conflicts, but they actually involved sending American troops to die.
3. By "multidecade" you really mean "1.3 decades"? Do you think that automotive and medical technology have improved more than the population has grown? We absolutely should be doing more to make driving kill fewer people, but I'm a bit surprised that you think this is something Americans are asking for - they usually seem to be asking for rules making it easier to kill *more* people, because they care more about convenience and speed than deaths. In any case, there's nothing "multidecade" high about this - we've just lost a decade and a half of progress that we could have had (probably largely due to smartphones).
1. Homicides in 2023, the last full year for which we have statistics, are not down to pre-pandemic levels. Any estimates for 2024 are preliminary. Interest rates are higher now than in decades, and I notice you don't seem eager to talk about interest rates plus inflation.
2. "They were less brutal conflicts". Also how many American troops do you think died overseas from 2016 to 2020?
3. "Do you think that automotive and medical technology have improved more than the population has grown?"
_Per capita_ rates have increased substantially since the pandemic.
Interest rates are a tangled mess. The underlying problem was partly Biden's fault (insofar as BBB contributed), but far from entirely - the pandemic-era stimulus was essentially a nasty chess fork for the political leadership, and most of the world got hit with a similar wave.
Having said that, the Keynesian-and-beyond era of avoiding deflation as a matter of policy and stimulating your way out of panics/recessions is only 100 years old (the historical answer was to let panics run their course in contracting the economy). With that as your governing paradigm, it is arguably too soon to tell where the "natural" interest rate would/should fall (and that's before we get into other inputs such as collapsing population growth). Were the 1970s-1990s the aberration? Were the 2010s? Or is there a natural cycle between them that is likely to play out and there IS no normal "steady state"?
Most of these stats (other than office work and kids being checked out) are not meaningfully different than pre pandemic they are just more salient because the gop is the out party and opinion is thermostatic
I think you should spend some time on Google to clear up your misapprehensions.
About 25,000 a month coming before Biden took over; over 100,000 a month since then. Stop fulminating your ideology and look at the facts. If you live in one of those blue citadels, and you're still coming up with this, you are a true expert in self-deception.
Did you forget something really BIG nationwide which affect multi-millions of Americans who happen to be…(wait for it)..young women who may need an abortion or IVF in order to be a “free” citizen of this Nation along with the men and other family who love her and/or agree with her? That is THE ISSUE this election &Trump caused it all to happen after 50 yrs of freedom of reproductive rights!So bye Donald you said you were “proud” of banning Roe v. Wade—so shove it!!
Nate's substack seems to draw a lot of male commenters, and most men still don't have a f***ing clue about pregnancy, reproductive health care, any of it. The Republican party, whether out of free choice or out of inability to contradict their Christian Nationalist faction, has adopted a platform and policies that make women no longer people, but objects, mere incubators, and highly disposable ones at that. Anyone who disagrees with that statement doesn't know anything about the issue and what's happening in this country. But again, that would disproportionately be men, who are far more likely to confidently express an opinion on something they know nothing about, rather like the presidential candidate whom the male half of the electorate favors, and certainly like the Republican legislators who are responsible for these laws.
This is just progressive word salad. Trump is objectively one of the most pro-choice Republicans in a very long time.
🤣🤣🤣 Tell that to the women who've almost died since Dobbs. Or, since I'm sure you couldn't care less about them, go talk to their husbands about it, and do it in person, and see what kind of reaction you get.
I'm pro-choice, you clown. Calm down.
Abortion is murder
This is exactly the kind of violent rhetoric that will lead us to war.
You're the one threatening violence.
Is it the blue-hair brigade we're fighting? I'm thinking that 'war' will be pretty short-lived, lol
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pence-anti-abortion-republicans-denounce-trump-backed-rnc/story?id=111785286
I read about this issue almost every day. It's a ruse. The platform still indicates fetal personhood, and they also don't need any new laws to impose a national ban on both abortion and whatever forms of contraception they don't like as well. If they can't restrain themselves when it's unpopular and causing them huge political problems before a critical election (and they can't, which is obvious looking at policy in any of the states they control), they certainly won't restrain themselves after they've won an election which has eliminated all checks and balances, and those pressure groups come for the piper to be paid.
"...they also don't need any new laws to impose a national ban on both abortion and whatever forms of contraception they don't like as well"
I think you're going to need to supply some details here.
Comstock. I would love nothing more than to be wrong, but so far none of their plans have failed them, so if this one did it would be the (very very welcome) first.
Biden had control of both chambers of Congress until 2022 and did nothing about the issue. Regardless how does this address my point that the country has not returned to "normalcy" post pandemic?
A law protection abortion needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate, which Democrats clearly did not have. It’s honestly saddening how few people seem to know how our government works.
It's also debatable whether it falls under Congress's power to regulate abortion in the first place. Medical licensing and healthcare is mostly state regulated. The only place you can find support for Congress's power to regulate abortion would be in the commerce clause, and the commerce clause DOES have its limits. Regulating schools for example was held to be beyond the realm of the commerce clause, and that was in the 90s with a far less originalist court than the one we have today. It would likely have to be relatively narrowly tailored and specifically crafted - likely limited to federally-owned hospitals and hospitals that accept federal money.
No. Comstock is already on the books and this court will not stand in the way of using it for a national ban (and remember they also consider many forms of contraception to be abortion). The FDA is also perfectly free to withdraw mifepristone for political reasons. The people who say this won't happen are the same people who have predicted everything else that happened wouldn't happen, and the same people who think maternal mortality is not a big deal.
First, the comstock act only applies to mailing things between states (and generally has been overruled as unconstitutional in almost all cases and Fed has not tried to enforce it in fifty years), which leaves almost all abortion activity unregulated by it. In the context of Chevron being overruled, any attempt to radically expand the scope of the Comstock act without actually amending the law would be dead in the water; any attempt to pass a law expanding it would be political suicide.
Second, If you think any agency action is "perfectly free" in the modern day, I don't think you understand the APA and how review of administrative law works. Any agency action is heavily scrutinized by courts these days. Particularly now that Chevron is overruled, any political action by an agency will be heavily scrutinized with a court, with no presumption to overcome that the agency is right in doing so.
Third, any kind of ban or restriction on contraception would require someone to actually pass a law to restrict contraception. Just because it would theoretically be constitutional to restrict something, doesn't mean you would. And even the reddest red states would be hard pressed to pass a ban on contraception these days.
Fourth, you're overreacting. There has been no statistically significant increase in maternal mortality, and most states have been moving towards what the consensus position for Americans is - which is restricting abortion after 15 to 20 weeks. We've seen a lot of states pass some kind of abortion guarantee, and we've seen several states repeal old laws that were set to become active again. The debate has passed back to the states, which is where it belongs.
Did they even bring it up for a vote to force Republicans to invoke the filibuster?
Yes
And it looks like Joe Manchin defected in that vote to the Republican side.
You're not wrong; however, the Trump presidential platform is the most socially moderate of that of any GOP candidate in the last half century, if not more. Gay marriage, IVF, contraception--all OK, per the platform. The only mention of abortion is opposition to late-term abortions.
I get that it's weak sauce in that regard compared to the Dems'. I get it. But it does represent an acknowledgement of electoral reality.
Their reference to the 14th amendment is a clear call for fetal personhood, and late-term abortion has no medical meaning; it's a political term that they keep defining earlier and earlier.
No one trusts trump. Nor should they
Truancy lol.
Five seconds on Google.
Shake your fist at those juvenile delinquents officer krupke.
My hot take is that children should go to school.
Truancy matters a lot more than your dismissive reddit-tier take is suggesting
There are many many things that matter more than truancy.
I listed some other issues in my original post:
1. Illegal immigration
2. Inflation and the economy
3. Crime
My point is that the massive increase in truancy rates is probably tied to the pandemic.
Immigration: Sorry you can't figur out some other way to signal your bigotry, but we hear you.
Inflation: Willfully ignorant. Interest Rates: will start down before the election
Crime: Just lying. Lowest in 50 years.
So why are these challenges? They just are, I guess.
Why is the best econonmy in 50 years bad for Biden? It just is.
Go check out the homicide rates. Just use Google.
Done. Sounds like an awesome point for Biden.
Thanks for the pointer, I couldn't believe I didn't think of that.
And what did you discover when you actually did some research?
Same thing you did, crime is way down. MAGA are way pissed about it.
And where did you find that out?
Yes, any claim that we have actually returned to normal demonstrates a tin ear when it comes to speaking to the portion of the country that is not already reliably blue.
This tells the conservative leaning, we are fine with the current level of illegal immigration. Which is absurd on the face of it, given President Biden's efforts to obtain reform legislation. Rather, "Things could return to normal if Donald Trump would...." perhaps, but not "This is normal." (And based on worldwide trends, I assume that this is actually an extremely important issue.)
But even more than that, even the less politically minded are getting their daily news through news feeds that create the impression of a siege of crises. The stories are overwrought, even when they contain some merit, but on an emotional level, people are being pushed to the breaking point. Tell people you consider this the new normal and they are going to conclude that they need a new leader.
imho, the increased traffic deaths are almost certainly indicative of the exactly this. It's not that, objectively, crime or inflation or whatever is necessarily getting worse, but traffic deaths are and, subjectively, hyper-aggressive road rage is too. This isn't all just texting while driving, there are an awful lot of people, in all kinds of vehicles, who must be awfully frustrated with life if they are reacting this way to a few seconds of traffic inconvenience. I'm going to assume they will not be happy to hear that the world they are living in is now to be considered normal.
I like this column, you're fair, mostly. But the notion that there is no reason to vote for Trump is very bizarre from a guy that seems to love solving problems with data and reality based reasoning. Just look at illegal border crossings and rampant inflation. And the prospect of another endless war that America LOSES in Ukraine. The Democrats talk about packing the Court; making Guam and Puerto Rico states, eliminating the electoral college, etc. These are serious issues that should be given a nod occasionally, right? I mean, most conservatives don't like Trump, but it's all we got. But "a strong man, or a con man". LOL 😂🤣😂 Biden ain't no Saint! We'll see how corrupt his family is later, when it's ok for the MSM to report on it.
Yes, after five years of digging into Hunter and the flacid House impeachment "investigation," not much to report on. Perhaps another five years or so will yield more, or not. Last I checked, zero US boots on the ground in Ukraine. Fawning over Putin as trump has done is not a way to maintain stability and peace in the world or protect US interests. I'd mention convicted felon, but those only count for the "other side."
By the same token how did the accusations of collaboration with Russia pan out?
Both sides are only too eager to weaponize civic institutions to attack the political opposition. Asking Americans who are not political partisans to bestow the mantle of moral superiority on one party or the other is nonsensical. And in a contest where those voters compare the current day to Trump's first term it's advantage Trump.
Agree to disagree. Biden's DOJ is targeting his son. Russia DID interfere with with that election and it was a fair inquiry to make sure the beneficiary of that interference was not involved. trump has repeatedly publicly boasted about targeting all his political enemies. No "both sides" to this.
Trump's DOJ prosecuted Flynn, which a) Trump was not okay with and b) turned out to be a major miscarriage of justice.
Yes, both sides are the same. A real laptop with evidence of Biden family payments from the CCP, that was deemed fake by 51 intelligence "experts" (all liars) PLUS all major media channels (60 Minutes) & papers - eliminated from social media as Russian propaganda 2 weeks before the election - vs. the Russiagate bullshit that the entire DC Swamp was a part of - all lies. FBI, NSA, CIA CORRUPT. Weaponize? Did Trump prosecute Hillary? What political opponents did Trump charge?
Criminal with 34 guilty convictions.
Convicted in a kangaroo court of charges that nobody can really articulate.
"Criminal with 34 guilty convictions."
Plenty of people have articulated it, you probably just couldn't understand and there's nothing I can do to help you with that, friend.
Also, just because you don't like the fact that you're voting for a criminal doesn't mean the ruling was wrong or it was a "kangaroo court," a term I'm not sure you don't even understand. Keep mirroring those big words you hear on Fox News or OAN.
I'm a defense contractor, I've been in the Donbas. Ukraine has been losing and has lost this war. You're being lied to. Most of the ethnic Russian "Ukrainians" there consider themselves Russian. Read about the Ukrainian ASOV Brigades - they were considered Neo-Nazis units until the Democrats decided they weren't. We should have not gotten involved. We are depleting our own ammunition stores - reaching critical levels - it's insane.
Yes, the Hunter laptop is not real. LOL 😂🤣😂 You'll see that you're wrong, but won't care, sadly. Biden has done his Leftist duty, time to dump his old ass.
Criminal with 34 guilty convictions.
Based on bizarro charges that are still mysterious to most pundits, let alone most Americans.
Mysterious only to people with the cognitive faculties of people such as yourself. Just because you can't comprehend something, that doesn't mean everyone else is as cognitively challenged as yourself.
Criminal with 34 guilty convictions.
So what precisely was he found guilty of?
"But the notion that there is no reason to vote for Trump is very bizarre from a guy that seems to love solving problems with data and reality based reasoning"
I think Silver is basically writing this to partisan Democrats, not independents or Republican moderates. And if you're a partisan Democrat, there really is no reason to vote for Trump.
He needs to get out more. Most soldiers, Marines, cops, pastors, farmers, etc. are voting Trump. Not because they like him.
But those voters are independents, or at the most soft Democrats. What's going to convince a partisan Democrat to give Trump a chance?
If he was a normal politician - or even a likable man to them - they still wouldn't vote for him because they don't agree with his policies. Hence the term "partisan Democrat".
Still as a partisan Democrat one should recognize what the likely outcome of the election will be if independents/swing voters side with Republicans.
Oh my god Guam could be a state! Oh the humanity.
It's 2x Senate seats for the Democrats. See how serious y'all are about America? It's just a game to be rigged.
American citizens should get representation.
You don't care about that!!
But...we should care right? All of us? If you're serious about America then it shouldn't matter if they vote for the other side as long as they have their proper right to vote as American citizens, no?
On the other hand if what you're saying is it's unfair that a relatively small population would get such a huge influence on the government via two whole senate seats...oh boy are there some democrats that would agree with you on that. But I don't think any side of this should only support the wider system when it benefits them (I know many do, but they shouldn't...)
Don't the citizens in a lot of these holdings occupy a privileged position in that they reap a lot of benefits without the burdens of being forced to register for the draft and so on? IIRC there is not a lot of support inside places like Guam for statehood for precisely that reason.
You don't care. It just shows the lengths the Left will go to when they can't win - change the rules of the game.
Guam is home to a large military population and has a larger Christian population (mostly Catholic) than any state. I don't see any reason to think it would be a lock for the Democrats
Yeah, The people who think that Guam is a Democratic strong hold are clowns. The Guam legislature is currently 9-6 for Democrats but has been controlled by republicans as recently as 2008 and was 8-7 as recently as 2022. There non voting representative in congress is a Republican. I do think that the democratic and republican parties in Guam are more idiosyncratic than the state parties of any state so it’s not obvious how to translate that to real national elections. But it seems likely that Guam would be lean Blue but swingy state.
I do think that it would be ridiculous to have the people of Guam would have the same representation in the Senate that California would. But I think it is ridiculous that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate that California has. Ironically I suspect that the same people saying it's ridiculous to make Guam a state would defend the Senate as protecting the interests of small states.
Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa all have Republican delegates currently. The idea that all the territories are solid Dem is widespread but seemingly just wrong. (Maybe derived from the 90s when all the delegates were Democrats, which contrasted with the then-new Republican majority. But that was an anomaly for a few years. In any given year since the 70s there has usually been at least one GOP delegate.)
These are serious issues, but Trump's instincts are not likely to make them any better.
For example, what is Trump's economic agenda? I can name tax cuts and tariffs, and it seems likely he would also pressure the Fed to cut rates prematurely. All bad for inflation.
At some point, trying to convince other substackers of the realities is pointless. Can you afford groceries is a much more important than trumps legal cases, it just is.
I understand and have heard Puerto Rico, but you're obviously making up Guam. It's hysterical what boogey monsters you'll make to justify your position and pretend that you're for "reality-based" anything. Guam has a population of 200k. Making them a state would be as insane making Wyoming a state.
@John "Rampant inflation". Check again. Latest Core PCE change was a whopping 3.06%. That's not much. It's higher than the target of 2%, but it's also the case that most economists under the age of 50 think the target rate should be higher than 2% (perhaps 4-5%) given the unsolved problem of the zero lower bound on rates.
I think the issue is that there's a non-trivial case to vote for a sede vacante for a year while a new election is run. However, that simply isn't an option under the Constitution (and RFK has his own batch of issues), so...
Honestly, this could have been interesting if Manchin had decided to run (or RFK hadn't proved to be so far "out there", or you had basically any other mainstream Democrat under about 70 in the mix) since if Biden were "doomed", the incentives to threaten to bolt to a "safe pair of hands" would be there right now. "If you don't withdraw, I'm backing this third party guy because if we're going to be stuck with Trump no matter what I can at least say I did my best to stop him" is /potentially/ plausible, but with the current crop of alternatives I'm not sure you can say that RFK makes the grade there and the other candidates are non-entities in the scheme of things.
There's nothing morally better or worse about Biden or Trump. Both are flawed men.
Yet you people have spun yourself into this hysteria. Just vote for the one with the policies you like. This isn't Bachelorette, it's politics.
Also, I can smell the need for female approval from you all the way over here. They won't sleep with you just because you tip your fedora.
“Flawed” is a gradient, not a binary. Vladimir Putin and I are both flawed men, but I’ve murdered fewer people.
Oh I'm not American, you don't have to talk to me like that. Thanks, girl.
“ Oh I'm not American, you don't have to talk to me like that. Thanks, girl.”
Nice insult to call the commenter a girl. I’m sure that will hit hard, as will the prior insult about the commenter craving sex with women.
I think Nate posted too soon about the civility here in his previous post. At least the American commenters seem to be keeping more on topic.
Oh I'm sorry, am I detracting from vocal fry/uptalking about sAViNg oUr dEMoCraCy (by socially outlawing all non-Marxist opinions and parties, of course)?
“Also, I can smell the need for female approval from you all the way over here. They won't sleep with you just because you tip your fedora.“
Interesting decision to end with that ad hominem attack.
Dear, the entire comment thread is about people's "morality" . It's literally *only* ad hominem by definition.
It's rich to see people who celebrate stuffing children with gender drugs talk "morality", btw.
Criminal with 34 guilty convictions.
Kangaroo court, etc.
Criminal with 34 guilty convictions.
Kangaroo court, etc.
"Lesser of two evils" and all that.
Nate - I'd love your take on the incentives for Democrat Party insiders along the spectrum from supporting Biden to calling from him to step aside.
If they think Biden can win, it's easy. But I wonder how many think both Biden and a replacement are likely to lose. If so, isn't the best move to back Biden? If Biden loses, its his fault and there's a good chance of a thermostatic shift toward the left in 2026 and 2028. But if you push for Biden to step aside and the replacement loses, then the party is implicated in the disaster. Especially if the nomination process is messy or results in a sub-optimal candidate. I don't see pundits allowing the scenario where the party nominates a woke progressive and I struggle to see why not. And, if a candidate thinks the presidency is lost, it's easier to run the "I'll be a check on Trump" ad and undercut Biden than do so and undercut somebody you just helped thrust into the race.
If somebody thinks Biden can't win but a plausible replacement can, the decision depends on what they value most. I'd like to think that not putting an infirm man into the presidency would be #1, but the incentives for each insider may differ.
I agree with you. I also don’t think that they actually see Trump as a risk for democracy. Polling probably told them it makes sense to say that. I disagree with his policies (I think he’ll lead to more inflation and I don’t think he’ll close the border) but if democrats thought he was a danger you would make sure your best person went up to bat, without a doubt. That person needed to be decided back in January. It was obvious then (if you’re not rich and out of touch).
It also depends whether they expect free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028. They might want to ask the Hungarians and the Turks, among others, about that (and those are the more benign scenarios). They can say this election poses an existential threat, but actions speak louder than words so I don't know if they really get it or not.
If Trump had his way in 2020 he wouldn't have had free and fair elections. He only wanted to guarantee a victory for himeslf. He has the full backing of the GOP now.
Why would 2028 be any different? I keep saying that the conditions have changed on the ground but that Dem leaders don't get this. They're too insultated, which is how we got Hillary and now Biden. Norms are gone and those that aren't MAGA need to understand that things that were taken for granted (such as rule of law) shouldn't be assumed to exist in the future. I'd bet if you went back and asked normal, politically connected Germans back in the early 1930s about this, they'd tell you the same.
The Democrats "assume" that there will be free and fair elections next time around, or that he won't actually get the DOJ to haul off his political enemies to jail. Who's going to stop him? Chuck Schumer? Are we going to jaw Trump to death, a la Neville Chamberlain? I get it, the Democrats are supposed to be party of the educated and the reasonable, but sometimes you've got to pick up a stick and be ready to defend yourself.
Look at Kodak or Blockbuster. The world fundamentally changed around them but they had been so successful with cash cows that they simply weren't capable of the strategic mindset needed to analyze the changes and respond accordingly. Trump was an authoritarian in waiting in 2015; I thought it would be a miracle if Trump lost "peacefully" in 2020 and yet 75% of the population seemed in shock when January 6th happened. How could those events have taken anyone by surprise?
When they win this election they're going to have a much firmer grip on our institutions than any political party has had in generations, so I think we should take them at their word for how they plan to use it. They speak in apocalyptic, existential tones, so it's very hard to see how they'd be willing to see their revolution undone by something as trifling as voters. The only question is if and how the American people fight back when they come for the rest of our human rights and civil liberties.
Personally, I think it highly likely that there will be free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028, even assuming a Trump victory. However:
1) That one can outline a non-ridiculous scenario to there *not* being free and fair elections (in 2028, at least, it's harder to see for '26) is highly concerning.
2) Trump would almost certainly try to remain in office past January 2029. That, or try to engineer to hand the Presidency to one of his kids with the explicit understanding that he'll call the shots behind the scenes. Whether he will succeed in any of this is a separate question.
3) There's lots of other bad stuff Trump could do, like pull out of NATO, or come up with ways to staff the civil service with MAGA hacks, etc.
>Trump would almost certainly try to remain in office past January 2029.
Does anyone normal believe this? My god, you people need to lay off Reddit for a second.
The qualifying word there is "try". I don't know if anyone thinks he would actually stay past 2029; if anyone does, they're either dumb or fear-mongering.
However, there's every expectation he'll try to stay in office and be immediately shut down by the adults in the room. He could run his mouth off and start another Jan 6 though, which is feasible since... it's happened before (see: Jan 6).
>However, there's every expectation he'll try to stay in office
From whom? Teenagers on reddit and hysterical women in college? Honey, sit down.
"... which is feasible since... it's happened before (see: Jan 6)."
see: Jan 6
Let me know if anything else confuses you, happy to explain it to you piecemeal (bit-by-bit, like you'd feed a baby) in using the simplest (easiest) words possible.
The GOP candidate in 2028 will almost certainly be Trump's VP, assuming he wins. Failing to acknowledge this is a clear indicator that one is not dealing with reality.
People said the same thing about Bush, about Obama, and about Trump the first time around, and it never happened. And there is a hell of a lot Trump could have tried to remain in power by force and declined to. He used all legal-but-scummy-and-antidemocratic means at his disposal to try to persuade the applicable authorities to declare his victory.
I think the USA is more antifragile than that.
Our last two presidents were pretty sorry, and we got through it OK.
Party excesses are being rectified or will be soon.
I wonder, after Orban loses the next election, if your complaints about the Hungarian electoral system will magically vanish. I suspect so.
Every evaluation I've seen considers Hungary only a partially free democracy, not like the other EU states, who are exasperated dealing with Orban's violations. It's kind of a kleptocracy too. But those who want to promote it will just claim all the evaluations are biased so it's pointless.
The problem is that there really are not good objective criteria for measuring freedom in a democracy. And those objective criteria that exist are either extremely restrictive or extremely permissive.
For example, if I were to come up with an objective set of criteria, it would be something like the following:
1. Ability of any citizen to register to vote, and to vote in any applicable local, state, or federal election.
2. Ability to stand on a streetcorner with a sign expressing the most heinous opinion you can imagine and not getting arrested for it.
3. Ability to financially support causes you care about, whether political or otherwise.
Under those standards, the USA is essentially the only free democracy. And even the USA falls short of those standards sometimes.
What I've seen of the Hungarian system is that it's not that it's un-free, but that the Hungarian system is very swingy. It basically has the German system - half the seats are at-large and half the seats are constituencies - but importantly there's no "correction" factor like there is for Germany to make the final composition match the at-large vote total.
And also, Hungary is much more homogenous than Germany. There is some rural/urban divide and some regional divide, but the fact that they were reduced so much both after WW1 and WW2 means basically it's a pretty homogenous state. So small demographic shifts produce disproportionately large changes in the vote returns. Which means it's easy to get seat shares that are disproportionate to your vote shares.
So in that sense, if there is an issue, it's structural and bidirectional in terms of partisanship. But my problem is that these indexes conflate democracy and freedom. It's possible for a less-democratic republic to be equally as free or more free than a direct democracy, and it's possible for a democracy to be very un-free but still have fair democratic elections.
I will admit to not reading intensely into these indexes, but I have never seen them present a metric or set of metrics that I could agree represents how free or fair or democratic a government is. And I don't think that's their fault, just that those are virtually impossible things to actually measure directly.
(the propagation of state media might impact the fairness side of hungarian elections somewhat, but again I'm working from incomplete information there)
Aren't you the country with unsupervised drop boxes and electronic voting machines? Maybe fix that and *then* lecture Europeans on election integrity.
More than half of the Senate is older than 65 and there are a dozen plus members of congress over 80. historically, politicians don't retire based on age or health. the federal judiciary serve for life and many of them literally do that regardless of their health. we've had multiple past presidents who continued to serve and actively hid worse health deterioration than biden (wilson, fdr, Reagan).
I think we're overlooking the incentive of politicians not to call on biden to drop out to protect their own ability to serve in perpetuity. washington needs a reckoning with health and age that goes far beyond biden.
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Trump isn't going to destroy American democracy, and every one of you knows that. Every post to that effect is barest demagogy and hysteria. Trump IS going to make life very uncomfortable for the career government employees who've been running the government at least since the resignation of Nixon (which may itself have been something engineered by the career government employees).
Don't be fooled. The biggest Supreme Court decision of the last five years wasn't Dobbs. It wasn't the decision about presidential immunity. It was the decision about whether government agencies were entitled to a presumption of right as against private parties. THAT, not abortion, not the border, not inflation, not "threats to democracy", is the chief issue this year. Are we run by an administrative state in which "experts" impose fines, cancel licenses, etc., without any real opportunity for review? Or is this really a constitutional state in which an elected legislature passes laws, an executive branch carries out what the legislature has passed AND NOTHING MORE, and a judicial branch decides ONLY whether the legislation exceeded constitutional bounds?
I'm voting Trump not because I think he's great but because I, extremely aware of the administrative state, want our government to be returned to the voters.
Also I think you don’t really understand the underlying issue, which is what level of deference during judicial review should be shown to executive agencies when a law that Congress passes is unclear or broad in scope. It doesn’t mean that the executive branch will only do what the legislature passed “AND NOTHING MORE”. It just shifts the decision from one group of unelected people (executive bureaucrats) to another (federal judges).
Republicans are very happy moving that power to the federal judiciary for now. Democrats would be too if the tables were turned.
why do you assume that I don't understand it? I practiced law for 15 years. I defended people facing criminal charges for offenses that no legislature had ever prohibited. The legislature makes laws. The executive carries them out. Separation of powers has to be maintained or it is meaningless. You just don't like the makeup of the courts. That's a different issue, one that will gradually resolve in one way or another as time goes on. I remember when liberals LOVED it if courts legislated. Here, I'm not talking about courts legislating. I'm talking about courts determining that the executive exceeded its lawful powers, something they've done since Marbury v. Madison.
Returned to the voters, huh? What's your take on the electoral college?
So you think that the electoral college means that the executive may do whatever it likes, at least unless there's a Republican president, at which point you'll suddenly start screaming about an "imperial presidency" or "authoritarianism". No. The Electoral College was part of a general effort to keep "the turbulence and follies of democracy" from destroying the republic the founders were creating. Right now the whole fight is really because total Democratic control in one state has produced majorities in that state that are such as to produce a popular majority. The Democratic plurality or majority in recent elections has been based entirely on lopsided majorities in California. So California should dictate how the whole country is run? The founders rather specifically didn't want things like that to happen.
This is a constitutional republic constituted of 50 states (as Franklin said, "if you can keep it"). It is not a direct democracy. Now--if you want to change the Constitution and turn it into an ochlocracy (look that one up in your Funk & Wagnall's), then push for a constitutional amendment. That's what it would take.
That's what I thought.
and?
What is a “presumption of right against private parties”? Are you trying to refer to the overturning of Chevron in Loper v. Raimondo?
Yes, I am.
There's a typo in footnote 2 - should be 51 senators, not 15. I was having trouble making the numbers add up!
I had to double-check that too.
I’m not sure why you say Biden has a weak hand. Biden can play the game out as long as he likes. If he doesn’t fold he wins.
Democrats can do whatever they want. Attack him, dry up donations, whatever but if Biden stays strong through the convention he’s the nominee outside of some convention shenanigans that seems exceptionally difficult to pull off.
Biden has the strongest hand.
Biden's "hand" is his probability of winning reelection, which is what is described as "bad" and is what actually is bad here on planet earth.
Biden seems to actually think this is a 50/50 election still, which I think Matt Y. alluded to. There is a wing of the Democratic Party that truly does believe all of these polls have horrific methodology issues because the media is biased against Biden (my take, what?????) and wants a very close election.
A common quote I've seen a few times is something like, "2020 was the highest turnout election in history. No one is voting for Trump who didn't vote for him then." I waded into one of these discussions pointing out that Black and Hispanic voters are defecting pretty significantly, especially low-income ones, but the reaction was pretty negative and disbelieving. A couple people said, more or less, "Take that somewhere. else. That's what Republicans say every, single, election and it never happens." (as if I was like a right-wing troll for even bringing this up)
The point is, I truly think Biden and his team think they have like a 60% chance of winning this and that polling and people like Nate are just way off base. I agree way more with Nate, but a lot of Dems do not and I believe they are in denial.
Hello, fellow Judson.
That is all.
We now have multiple Judsons. Repeat: multiple Judsons.
You don’t win the hand cause you see the flop by just putting more and more money in with a bad hand… he may be the nominee and then after the river card he shows down only to lose all the money.
Right I think the proper metaphor is that he’s doomed to lose the hand (the election) but it’s going to be exceedingly difficult to get him to fold before the hand is over. Would take a lot of “political courage” (oxymoron) on the part of the Dems to drag him away from the table, so that feels unlikely to happen. Besides, even though he’s got a shit hand (he’s got nada - he “thinks” he has a pair of jacks but one is a wayward joker that got left in the shuffle) —- Kamala’s hand is not much better. I think there’s probably a better chance of either Biden or Trump stroking out than seeing a different name on the ballot.
And a tens of millions of Americans money too actually
There is always the 25th Amendment. Plus - there are other levers available to call Biden's bluff as mentioned in the article.
I’ll take any bet on the 25th amendment. And what other levers? As long as Biden toughens it out he’s going nowhere. Biden doesn’t have to do anything. They can do whatever they want to him. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Nancy Pelosi can show up demanding he drop out.
If he says I’m staying in then he’s the nominee. That’s why none of them will. Because in the long run they have weak hands.
"There is always the 25th Amendment"
No there isn't: the 25th Amendment allows the Cabinet to remove the President temporarily. At any point after that the President can write to the leaders of Congress that he's able to resume his duties and he's back, unless 2/3 of the Congress votes to override him. 2/3 of the Senate won't vote against Joe Biden.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv
I actually think you'd get the senate and the House fairly easily given Mike Johnson's comments today; obviously this assumes D's went along (which if it comes time to break the glass like that i'm assuming they would). But with that said, the optics of forcibly removing the president would be absolutely awful for Dems and might raise even further questions/scandal: i.e. "Harris was his vice president, surely she knew he was incompetent?"
It just doesn't really seem like an option that's likely to make the election tangibly more winnable.
It will be bad optics for the GOP if they vote against a relatively-united Democratic Party intent on removing Biden. It will make the GOP look like they are putting party before country.
If the Dem whip does their job and gets most of the Dems to oust Biden, the GOP will have no choice but to go along.
Honestly, it will take a while for the damage on the Dem side to heal, so there's not much downside for the GOP voting to oust Biden for a better person.
It's not like they have Bill Clinton or Barack Obama on deck.
It's a game of chicken. I think both sides have pretty weak hands. Will these megadonors really just sit out and let the Dems crash and burn? Or will they quietly get back in the game if it seems that Biden has no chance of dropping out?
Already seems like Biden has turned the tide, the chorus of voices calling him to drop out this week has been pretty underwhelming so far. Next week, all Democrats will see the Republican convention and then be told or realize it's time to "fall in line". They will look ridiculous pretending that Biden is up for the job, but only slightly more ridiculous than Republicans with Trump. At least, this is what Biden and his team are counting on.
Biden's absurd line that he's the man of the people being attacked by the elites ... seems like it might be freezing some of the action against him? Probably his decision to spend a few days straight surrounded by supportive black voters helped as well, as it made it a much worse look to try and force him out in the context of today's Democratic Party and its racial politics.
Strong article.
The issue is that there is some degree of bravery it takes right now to say "Biden should step aside" if you're an elected Democrat, and certainly if you're Nancy Pelosi or someone higher. The risk--like the GOP faced with Trump--is that you're going to be hated by a large segment of your party and deal with a huge backlash from those folks.
The GOP has had multiple chances to disarm Trump--candidates dropping out in 2016 and impeachment and removal in 2020 were easy choices--but people always assumed, "If it's bad enough, someone else can do it."
I fear the Dems will fall back on, "Elections are unpredictable, and I feared Harris would be weakened by association from not speaking out about Biden's infirmities."
TLDR- Dem electeds or delegates have to be semi-brave, and cowardice is the defining characteristic of this era, so I sadly now think he's the nominee unless he botches the press conference this week.
Yes, if what happens next year is what we think is going to happen, future generations will look back bitterly at the cowardice of the years before it.
I think it's actually worth asking, "and then what?"
Supposing that Trump tries to fire a bunch of federal bureaucrats and replace them. What happens? Most of these people are protected by law from being political appointees. Would he try to just pass huge budget cuts? But then how does he hire the new ones? Or would he literally just ignore Congress and the federal courts? Some employees in this scenario will just refuse to leave their desks. Will the federal police evict them? Is that the military's job?
What if the shoe was on the other foot and it was obvious that 80% of the federal bureaucracy supported the Republican Party. Would it be a threat to democracy if Democrats started looking for creative ways to smoke them out and replace them?
Yep.
Pelosi seemingly has the least to lose, but there are several weeks until he's the nominee that he has to hold on.
Thinking game theory a little bit, people like AOC or Wes Moore both have reasons to prefer Biden to stay in, vs. him losing the nomination to Kamala.
Game it out from AOC's perspective. Nobody is going to blame her if Biden loses. She wasn't in the inner circle when he decided to run. She's just one voice of dozens who are supporting him. But... if Biden pulls out an upset, he owes her one, and it's not like that makes Kamala some unbeatable juggernaut in 2028. If he just loses, then that's a great scenario for AOC. The moderate Democrats are going to be 100% implicated in the loss, the cover-up of Biden's health, etc. while AOC clearly had nothing much to do with it. This could easily set up a scenario where the left-wing of the Democrats is perfectly placed to capitalize on the rage of 1,000 suns that will be directed at Biden and his allies.
However, if AOC would have jumped on the anti-Biden bandwagon right now -- if it fails, then it makes her look weak and ineffectual. Now Biden is knives out for her if he somehow wins. If he loses AOC shares the "blame" a lot more for kind of peeling off the progressive left even more. If he is replaced with Kamala Harris, who is the only real option, that increases the chances of the progressive left being frozen out into the early 2030s at least.
I mean, you can argue about how much people are even going to remember AOC's actions in the broader cluster$$ of this election. However, on balance it seems like scenarios where she comes out and loudly supports Biden, definitely have a stronger ulterior motive than ones where she doesn't.
I agree from a purely self-interested position, I understand why she did it.
From a, "What's best for the country," the cowardice is stunning but, as the GOP has shown us, exactly what happens when individuals have to choose between their own interests and the country's.
I am extremely skeptical about betting markets and their ability to predict whether Biden will step down. In contrast to an issue like polling where there are metrics that can be used to form an argument the question of Biden giving up the nomination seems to be driven almost entirely by subjective opinion.
I would also point out one complicating factor: if Biden agrees to give up the nomination isn't the logical next step resigning the office of the Presidency? Where does that leave Hunter Biden and his convictions?
Graeme Wood attempted to frame a compromise where Biden remains in office but agrees to reopen the nominating process at the convention, where he would run again like any other candidate. That's the bare minimum I can envision since resigning from the Presidency is something that I don't think Biden will be willing to accept.
I really do not see why it would be so hard for Biden to say that 1) he is stepping down to make way for someone who can beat Donald Trump, which is a moral imperative and 2) while he has it in him to serve out his term, after consulting with his family, blahdiddyblah, he has decided that his health and age have reached a point where he feels he cannot do it until January 2029.
I think most people will easily understand that "can Biden serve now?" and "can Biden serve for four more years?" are two different questions. So, for that matter, is "can Biden do President stuff?" and "can Biden do President stuff while also running a campaign?"
He absolutely should resign the presidency. If Hunter's passport has already been seized, as I would expect, his father can pardon him before he resigns, it's hardly any worse than the pardons Trump has made. Leading Democrats are going to have to seriously consider their own safety before January 20th anyway. Those who don't will come to regret it.
The problem as I see it is that if Biden resigns he will have to trust whoever his successor is to pardon Hunter, and that will be massively unpopular. If he stays in office and loses he can just issue the pardon himself right before he leaves office or at any time after the election.
Yea this is spot on.
I will say with respect to that question i still kind of find it hard to imagine Biden stays in? I know there's been a bit more movement toward him the last two days, but I just feel things are very likely to get worse not better. And by worse I mean worse polling, more senior moments, more stumbles in phrases and generally being unable to coherently make the case against Trump. It's really hard to imagine Biden surviving even one more age-related ordeal as the candidate much less the party allowing him to stumble his way on a slow death march to a GOP landslide and armageddon.
Is it possible he doesn't have any more age-related moments? Sure. But what is the actual probability of that? I suppose if they kept him under lock and key it might be manageable, but in that case calls for him to step aside would likely get so loud that he'd be out in a matter of weeks. If he tries to run a normal campaign (which seems to be what the Dems in his corner are insisting) what is the probability that he doesn't have a single significant age-related stumble between now and the Dem convention? 10%? 15-20% at the absolute max? So with that in mind, and given how close to the brink he is now, Idk i just have a hard time imagining him making it to September as the nominee....or at least imagining it being more than say 30-35%.
Even if he’s nominated I don’t see how his polling improves, he can’t campaign. Which means at some point in the fall the swing state dems throw him under the bus in a futile senate seat play. It’s pure ego.
I do see a path where Biden just waits, does nothing and hopes Trump does something incredibly stupid or that some other bad act comes up. I agree that he should step down but I suspect this is what his family and advisors are hoping
For and it is not totally outside impossible.
For years, I taught a course in media analysis, and we always discussed the Nixon-Kennedy debates demonstrating a basic principle: you never want to get too hung up on the underlying factual merits of debate, as contrasted with the image.
I do not know Joe Biden's underlying mental condition, nor can I compare it to Donald Trump's, nor can I extrapolate either man's over the next four years. Maybe their doctors know more, maybe they don't -- but we are in the dark.
What we do know is that the image Joe Biden presented to the public during that debate was incredibly damaging.
It seems to me that the conflict among the Dems is a conflict between those who have truly internalized that basic lesson, and those who still underestimate the power of image.
However, there is something else that we do not know. We are living in a rare moment when the spotlight is on the Dems and not on Donald Trump; and although Dem partisans universally find this to be grossly unfair, we do not know who that will help or hurt.
It appears to me that, for the first time ever, Donald Trump and/or his advisors, are playing as the team trying to preserve a lead. He's keeping a low profile. I am far from sure how that is going to work out for him if Biden stays in. I am far from sure how that is going to work for him if the Dems switch to Harris. And I am far from sure whether it works for or against the Dems if this struggle within the Democratic party goes on for a while (as long as, in the end, everyone ends up backing the candidate -- which, given the opponent, is fairly certain).
I think an underrated aspect of the game here is that many Democratic officials at this point may rather go ahead and lose to Trump in order to have a better personal position in 2026 and 2028 than if Harris is able to turn things around.
If I’m either a Senator up for election in those years or I’m seriously considering my chances as nominee, I don’t want Harris to be president and I definitely would rather aim for a blue backlash to another Trump presidency.
Depends if they want to take the chance that elections in 2026 and 2028 will be under the same rules as they are now.
On (6). It's a poisoned chalice. Harris would rather take her chances in a crowded primary four years from now than suddenly after the party blew up their own nomination in a "nuclear option" with little time left. Whether or not "variance" is an optimal strategy for the party, that doesn't mean it's the optimal path for Harris. Her odds are better than Biden's, but still would likely lose.
And her supporters? The narrative for years now has been she keeps getting set up for failure by the White House (e.g. immigration). See the "setting her up for failure" comments by Rep. Jahana Hayes, who is in the Congressional Black Caucus. This would be seen as a glass cliff. Maybe Whitmer said 'no' in earnest.
My point isn't even that Team Harris along with the Congressional Black Caucus (aside from Clyburn) is *correct* that it's a poisoned chalice, just that Nate doesn't seem to understand that's how it's viewed and therefore it has political implications. If there's a deal to be made with the CBC, it might involve Biden stepping down from the presidency immediately (admittedly, a happy bonus for Nate, but a less likely outcome).
Based on her comments and behavior throughout this crisis, Kamala seems like she doesn't want to run in 2024.
Typo: "someone in Biden’s decision*" - should be"position"
The top issue is whether Biden should continue to be president, not whether he should be the nominee. Yet Ds’ focus - and yours, here - is on the nomination, which further undermines Ds’ credibility. Fwiw, WSJ has some editorial points about why the 25A isn’t quite the cure all it’s supposed to be in this case, which shd be considered.
Minor typo in the second foot note, should be 51 senators not 15. Doesn't detract from the article, but stood out to me.
Nate Silver has been wrong over and over again! Bye Nate: I’m done with you!
Tell me you don’t understand statistics without telling me you don’t understand statistics
Excellent! Now please run along... and go save "Democracy" as your bio contends... or something.