Consider where we are; we'll probably find out well before election day. Election day is just the best measure of the exact preference balance between the candidates at that time.
Said with the impeccable tone and taste of someone huffing a mixture of bath salts out of a garden tub in the Home Depot Parking Lot at 0200. 😆 I'm here for it; please continue. 🍿
I'm nothing if not ambitious. 🪩😜 Minutae of psychonautics aside briefly, I do wonder if your wit would be better put to use helping humanity than playing defense against imagined enemies cast in shadow on a cave wall by firelight. 🤷🏻♂️
Psychonautics - there is a $5 word that Substack doesn't even recognize, does it make you feel better to come off so erudite? I can assure you that my wit, nor yours, makes a hill of beans worth of difference when it comes to slowing or reversing the ongoing looting of this nation by the kleptocrats in both parties. All we can do is try to disrupt their plans for us as best we may, which right now means trying to get Trump back in office. My intent here is simply to call out this coup for what it is and I suppose to enjoy the feeble antics of the brainwashed. So thank you!
Which might be fatal if this was 2020, and not 2024. Personally, i'm more enthusiastic than i've been in months.
I thought Biden had a good midterms and SOTU, but the polling has been going the wrong way for a long time, his campaigning pace was anemic, and after the debate it was clear he just doesn't have enough left in the tank.
I don't love Harris, but i'm happy to support her and vote for her. I think the side-by-side comparisons to an angry old man (and he won't be able to help himself being angry and going off script- it's already happening) are very much to her benefit and with a good Veep pick will be a very strong ticket.
But I'm guessing you weren't an undecided/swing voter. Trump on the other ticket is all you need for leftist enthusiasm. The question is how do moderates feel about Kamala?
I hear ya - but breaking the rematch is huge. 70% of the electorate consistently said they didn’t want EITHER Biden OR Trump - so maybe she can get to ~ 50% just by virtue of being younger and relatively normal. The anti-MAGA majority exists, but whether it exists at the swing state level remains to be seen ….
The assumption here is that people weren't high on Biden because of age, not because of policy/platform.
In 2020 I'd have agreed. But after seeing the shitshow for the last 4 years I'm not so sure. I'm moderate, raised money for Obama. If forced, I'd have gone Democrat last cycle based on my never-Trump attitude.
Now? Border and anti-Semitism have me in Trump's camp.
A democrat that's able to convincingly disavow the border stupidity and convince me that they care about Jewish people being attacked in the streets and blocked from attending college classes would get my vote.
Biden's mental acuity was just another reason. The main reason is the platform and completely shitty behavior by the far left.
Can you imagine the far right attacking Jews outside of a synagogue in LA?
I could have, years ago. Not anymore. The 'Nazis' haven't actually done anything to Jews. The ANTIFA dipshits are totally unchecked and vile.
I don't think Biden is anti-Semitic. It's the far left circus that is out there abusing Jewish people. The problem is that criticizing them is impossible for the mainstream left.
Good heavens, I almost took you seriously. That you actually prefer the insult to intelligence that is the MAGA platform is astounding to me. That you brand the Dems with the actions of a few thuggish self-named “leftists” (though more accurately are called criminals) but somehow excuse a wannabe authoritarian who vows to establish concentration camps as he rounds up millions of migrants and political enemies — well you have found your MAGA home. Why try to paint a veneer of respectability over it, or pretend you moved there intellectually?
Anyone that can't see through Trump's lies needs talking down to so here I go. I suggest trying to Google a few of the things that he says and see what comes up
Ideologues like you are the absolute worst. No thinking, no rational development of opinions at all. You take your talking points from the Party and repeat them as articles of faith.
I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I have a PhD. I've learned to think independently.
And no rational person thinks that a) the border policy was anything but a disaster; and b) that Trump is going to put people in concentration camps (he's been President before lol, we know what a Trump admin looks like).
So screech all you want. You won't convince anyone of anything.
Who said when a man tells you what he’s going to do, believe him. Biden’s border policy was goolish. Trump’s was inhumane. Do we really think our choices are one or another of those policies?
Anti-semitism and racism are a disease of the country. The idea that either is a part of Biden or Harris is laughable. Trump appears to be a racist and a xenophobe.
Bobby Kennedy always said to beware of a Catholic who dangles his rosary in public. My father (a PhD) always said we should be wary of educated people who do the same with their degrees.
Lol, so I guess it's worse to dangle your dad's degree? Do you know who my dad is?
Trump's border policy was Obama's pollicy. Very little changed except a wall. The same numbers came in. Border Patrol housed illegals in the same facilities.
I'm continually amazed that the right thinks Trump did magic at the border and the left thinks he put kids in cages. Both sides are incapable of seeing past their own echo chamber.
Which again brings us back to education. Learn how to think, then exercise that knowledge. Research facts and follow the logic to rational conclusions.
If you find yourself with nothing positive to say about the other side, guess what? You're an ideologue.
I don’t disagree with you on a lot of that. Most people in my circle (and I bet the country) feel similarly. My point was simply that it wasn’t just Biden’s age - it was the rematch ITSELF that voters hated. How many people in how many focus groups would say “I don’t want to vote for EITHER of these guys.” Harris has an uphill battle to dispel a lot of Biden’s baggage, but just being Not Trump AND Not Biden might be enough. Pitch it as “let’s put this toxic era behind us” is something a lot of people feel, and want to hear. I give NO credit to the Dems for intelligence at this point, so who knows if they’ll figure that out, but maybe George Clooney or someone else with like, two brain cells, will put them on the right path.
I can imagine the far right marching down the street chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a certain Presidential candidate saying there were very fine people among them. That was enough to get almost my entire Jewish family to vote for Biden in 2020.
Don't get me wrong, anti-Semites on the left suck as well. But Kamala has made it pretty clear she isn't one of them.
And like I've said elsewhere, I don't think Biden is an anti-Semite. But he won't stop them. As we've seen.
And Kamala can't either. They need the far left to win.
I won't vote for another Democrat that isn't fighting to put down this weird anti-Jew activity. It's organized and well funded. We know who is funding it (Soros and crew, and Palestinian/Hamas fundraisers).
I find it disgusting that there are AMERICANS being held hostage right now, and this Administration has done nothing. In fact, they are tying Israel's hands and making it harder for ISRAEL to rescue Americans.
I never thought I'd see a timeline where the far right stupidity in going pro-Russia would be out-stupided by the far left going full Kristallnacht.
I'm Jewish and quite upset about Israel massacring Palestinians. Have you heard of Tikkun Olam? It's not just for Jews. For you to move to Trump is suicidal -- he's an anti-Semite and his cult of personality called the GOP is full of them. College protests of Israel's genocide had its excesses for sure, but was on the right side of history. Harris will not win Michigan if she sticks to Genocide Joe's rhetoric on Israel.
If you're not first, or mayyybe second, you're last. The intelligent candidate in a crowded field makes the high-risk, high-reward play, knowing that the metric of success is not whether you're fifteenth or tenth out of twenty.
That is, throw caution to the wind and throw the ball deep. You don't win the game by punting (unless you're Iowa).
To go by the comments at the NYT article on the subject, about ⅔ are giddy with excitement. The remainder don’t like her and think she’ll lose to Trump. But even with them, most hate Trump so much they’ll vote for her.
Say what you want about Kamala at this point: she surely has more upside than Biden. She can reach young, disaffected, low engagement voters and bring them to the table. She'll get beat up on the border but those that prioritize that issue are largely already in the Trump camp. She's vocal about women's rights, which have powered recent Dem wins. If those voters feel like somoene is listening to them and make an effort to vote, watch out.
If she introdcues herself well, makes the case that Trump is a potential disaster for 90% of America, and outlines a vision for how we continue to move forward, she should be favored against the historically weak Trump.
Also, the media won't be dwelling 24/7 on Biden being old. They'll move on, hopefully to spotlighting how old and doddering Trump has become. That's an effect that can't be discounted.
>If she introdcues herself well, makes the case that Trump is a potential disaster for 90% of America
Seems like a hard case since we already had a Trump Presidency, and it was pretty regular bad, and I don't think anywhere close to 90% of people would describe it as "disaster".
People can hold three messages in their head. Dems have really pushed “defense of democracy” and “abortion” (for HI voters these code for Project 25 and federal judiciary in general). They get one more. I would make it “Trump will cut taxes for the rich.”
Dems are losing voters right now, rightly or wrongly, who dgaf about those first two issues or have different opinions. They’ve got to hit the ways Trump will hand money to billionaires.
This is overly simplistic. Young voters do vote, and the proportion of them that vote varies by election. How disaffected they are and how engaged they are both functions of how much effort is done to appeal to young voters.
It's probably (sadly) true that you shouldn't weight young eligible voters as highly as old eligible voters, because they're less likely to show up. But some of them *will* show up, and parties discount that at their peril.
There's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy that goes on. Young people don't vote, so parties don't bother appealing to them, so young people don't vote, ad infinitum. One effect this can have (other than the obvious) is turning the young people who *do* vote or *might/sometimes* vote into very low-hanging fruit. You might still get only half the turnout as you do from older demographics, but if you can get that from expending only a quarter as much effort per eligible voter, you still come out ahead.
What do people think about this for Kamala Harris's Vice Presidential pick: former Republican Senator Jeff Flake. There would be howls of protest from liberal Democrats against balancing the ticket with someone so conservative, but anyone who truly believes that democracy is in jeopardy should applaud Harris for putting defense of the Constitution first.
Flake is the type of Christian who could appeal to cultural conservatives. His fierce advocacy for spending restraint would appeal to fiscal conservatives. His defense of the Mueller investigation, which torpedoed Flake's hope of re-election, proves that he puts country ahead of party. And he comes from the swing state of Arizona to boot.
I would so much love to hear Flake destroy J. D. Vance in a Vice Presidential debate: "I got on the ticket by refusing to bow to Trump's lawless behavior. You got on the ticket by backing someone you once compared to Hitler!"
In France's 2024 elections, Macron joined forces with his political rivals to stave off victory by the far right National Rally. Harris should take a page from Macron's book about how to save a republic.
Flake isn’t even close to a moderate, he was about as far right as you could be before the far-right turned into being a Trump loyalist and Russian agitprop supporter. The LARP is showing in this comment, she’ll pick a white guy Democrat like Josh Shapiro or Roy Cooper.
Regardless of how left or right he is, for a lot of people the primary concern isn't left vs right, it's democracy vs authoritarianism. You can be pretty far right while still being pro-democracy. And if anything, the further right the pro-democracy person you pick is, the more credibility it gives you that you're fighting for democracy, not leftism.
The basic problem with this is that very few Democrats are actually at the point where they're at all up for sacrificing their other policy priorities for the sake of keeping Trump out of office. They mostly want to keep Trump out of office *because* he's bad for their other policy priorities.
Clearly not a democrat, are you? Dems want to keep Trump out of office because he’s vowed to be a dictator, supports Project 2025, is a convicted criminal, a convicted rapist whose company has been found guilty of fraud, who tried to overthrow his last election, wants to destroy NATO thus throwing Europe over to a war we won’t be able to avoid, is a helpless liar, and whose policies run counter to women. Maybe some other stuff too, that’s all just top of mind.
You've been saying this since 2016. The personal attacks have all been considered by voters. The hyperbolic handwringing just sounds like Rosie ODonnell or DeNiro at this point. It isn't credible.
For moderates like me, Trump is obviously a shitty person. But so is just about every candidate we've seen, including Biden.
American politics is no longer 'who is the least bad person', like it maybe used to be. It's about 2-3 major issues that the individual independent voter cares about.
Ouch. It would seem like a rational strategy for Democrats to compromise, to at least give away something if the alternative is a slide into authoritarianism. But as Nate said in his previous article, the biggest mistake of his forecasting career was to say Republicans would behave "rationally" in 2016, and therefore not nominate Trump.
And Nate apparently still believes that "... political parties engage in something roughly resembling game-theory optimal behavior and undertake reasonably rational strategies ..." Would reaching across the aisle be good according to game theory? How about just tacking to the center? Have Democrats shown any ability to give away policy priorities in order to increase the chance of winning? Does nominating Biden in 2020 count as an example? I would like to think you are wrong, i.e. that Democrat worries about the end of democracy are not just rhetorical, and, if so, that this single issue outweighs the rest. But I'm not sure the evidence supports my wishful thinking.
'The end of Democracy is going to get voted in, so we must prevent the end of Democracy by ending Democracy before he is elected'.
The actions of the 'end of Democracy' crowd clearly show that they aren't genuinely concerned by the end of Democracy lol.
On the game theory note, Nate may want to call Republican behavior irrational. But it's more likely he poorly assessed the framework, probabilities, and/or payoffs for the participants in the game.
I had a similar thought. But if you want a unity ticket aligned in stopping Trump, I think a better choice would be Liz Cheney. She went down fighting Trump, and never flinched. Flake dropped out when he knew he couldn't win.
Picking a (truly) moderate running mate might not be a bad idea. Especially if she uses that pick to reinforce the “defense of democracy” framing. But Jeff Flake? That’s way too over the edge for that strategy.
Well, first, there’s a rule that to run on the democratic ticket you need to register as a democrat and pledge to remain so while in office. The GOP has the same rule. I don’t think Flake would care to switch parties at this late date in his life.
"the whole thing is a scam. Trump was a middling to bad Republican president with bad tweets. There will be elections in 2028 no matter who wins this fall."
I sure hope you're right. But what odds to you put on there being a peaceful transfer of power (conditional on the incumbent party losing) in 2024/2025, and 2028/2029? And, if you can think back, what odds do you think you *would* have given for a peaceful transfer of power in 2020/2021 back in July 2020?
Elections is a pretty low bar. Iran and Russia have elections.
Please let’s all remember that Yassir Arafat and Adolf Hitler won their first elections. Their paths diverged. Hitler decided once was enough. Arafat decided to win all future elections by mandate.
An honest question to those who say Biden was "forced out", can you please explain how he was *forced*? It would seem to a naive person that enough people presented him with enough evidence that he was very very likely to lose the election AND was an anchor on down-ballot races, and he eventually saw it their way. Forcing implies there was a gun put to his head, a threat was made, coercion used. Can you explain your perspective?
The faction she most needs to recapture are LI, low-propensity, Black and Hispanic males. That is the group that is killing the Dems right now vs. 2020. I won’t claim to know what could break through the noise there, but hammering Trump as a phony, tax-cutting (for the rich), plutocrat is the message you want. And communicated in ways that earn media and break through the noise for LI voters.
The only other option electorally is to really double down on the suburban vote with a more moderate strategy, and try to get those numbers even stronger.
Dems are doing fine with the progressive wing. And if they aren’t after spending $1 trillion on green energy, $1 trillion on infrastructure, and $1 trillion on stimulus, then it’s going to be very hard to get that wing on board.
I am astounded at the stupidity that thinks Climate Change is some sort of progressive agenda. When people say the words climate change, people do realize it means, you know, adversely changing the climate? And I am old enough to remember when mainstream intelligent politicians of both parties regularly spent money on roads, bridges, airports, schools, sewers and clean water. Now it’s bundled into a special word and left to the progressives to get done.
Did I miss it when the earth passed through the tail of a comet and Republicans decided we’ve built all the infrastructure real people need, and you can lobby and vote greenhouse gases away?
There isn't a dichotomy between leftists and Trump voters. I wouldn't be confident enough in this move to advocate for it necessarily, but the argument for it is not that it appeals to Trump voters. The argument is that it appeals to voters who would vote for neither Trump nor [Harris + leftist Democrat]. Some of them would be right-leaning politically, but a lot in the center too.
I think we just need to wait and see what the polling against Trump looks like in a couple of weeks, but basically where I am at is… 1. I think people read a little too much in to Kamala’s poor 2020 primary (times have changed, politicians can change and a primary is different to the general) 2. I would expect some sort of honeymoon period where she gets a bump in the polls and a wave of excitement in to and out of the convention while she gets to reintroduce herself to voters… but 3. You have to weigh the above against the fact that her polling against Trump has seen pretty consistently poor for all of the last 4 years.
I think there is a difference between asking potential voters "Would you vote for Harris over Trump? " when she was not the nominee vs now when she is expected to be. I would moan about the wealth of better options than Harris if I was asked that last week. But if she is the one on the ticket, I am still voting against Trump.
This time around, I agree with you. But in 2016 I voted for Trump and in 2020 I didn't vote for either candidate. I am staunchly anti-Trump after January 6th, 2021, but I am not anti-Republican in general. Additionally, I have lived in relative swing-states (AZ, VA) for the past few elections as well.
My point overall, however, was that I would probably not have responded excitedly to a poll between Harris/Trump a few weeks ago, as I truthfully would prefer another option with better chances. But I also will vote for her as the nominee. This was in response to Peter's 3rd point above, where he was stating Harris has polled poorly against Trump for the past 4 years. I was just saying I would take it with a grain of salt, as she also hasn't been the nominee (a.k.a the only alternative) for the past 4 years until now.
From what I can tell Quinnipiac and HarrisX conducted polls over the weekend that showed Harris losing by 2 and 10 points respectively.
Now to engage in a little tin foil hat conspiracy thinking: Pelosi was late to endorse Harris but I believe she has caved and done so. Two days ago the NY Times reported that she wanted an open primary. Obama, Schumer and Jeffries have yet to pull the trigger ( as far as I know).
What if the plan was to get someone else other than Harris? It seems like a tremendous amount of fuss and bother to eject Biden only to get somebody who actually polls worse. Maybe he wasn't supposed to endorse his own VP?
This was Biden sticking it to all the people who stuck it to him. He knew that KH was a weak VP and would be a weak candidate. In his mind, now they get to live without JRB steading the ship.
Biden didn’t design this. This was a year of Dems saying he’s too old, which swelled to 75% of Dem voters. Then that faceplant at the debalte shook the leadership out of a zombie state.
And Obama out to stick it to people? That’s Trump you’re describing.
"From what I can tell Quinnipiac and HarrisX conducted polls over the weekend that showed Harris losing by 2 and 10 points respectively."
Two polls isn't a lot for a good analysis. Back in one of Nate Silver's earlier pieces his full analysis of polling showed Harris trailing Trump by the same amount that Biden was. And that was when Biden was doing better than he was right before dropping out.
I just bought those specific polls you because they were conducted recently (over the weekend I believe). Maybe they don't show Harris losing by more than Biden's margin but she's still losing.
What an interesting observation! I hadn't realized Jeffries, Schumer, and Obama haven't endorsed yet. I don't know who else would jump into this race because the most obvious names (Newsom, Whitmer, Buttigieg, Pritzker, Shapiro, etc.) have already endorsed or ruled out (Manchin) but wonder what's behind their silence. Maybe just waiting for the right moment to.
With Obama, you might argue that a quick Harris endorsement could feel to Biden a bit like rubbing one's nose in it, and that it wouldn't really accomplish anything anyway (at least at this juncture--it would be weird if Obama does not speak in favor of Harris before November).
I think the evidence is strong that Biden (like anyone) wants to be the hero of his own story, and that he would not engage in a party-rending tantrum after his old boss vocally endorsed his lieutenant, but it's only strong--it's not infinitely rigid.
That is true. Obama respects Biden too much to come anywhere remotely close to humiliating him - and I think timing of an endorsement is what would or would not do that. Biden is grieving the loss of his professional self-concept, an individual who's spent a career defying doubters and people's expectations of him, after his decision. He doesn't need to be kicked while he's down. You also make a good point about the utility of Obama's endorsement, too.
I think they're very much on-board. Eric Holder is running the Veep vetting operation and i've read David Plouffe might be joining the campaign.
I think the explanation is simply leaving the biggest endorsements until last (especially Obama) lets you flush out and crush any potential rivals like they did with Manchin.
As you say all the obvious choices are out already.
I think they held back so as not to be judged as putting their thumb on the scale while delegates and lesser party officials weighed in. All the conspiracy theories are a bit to cute to be real.
I think they are all bright enough to realize such a plan would be the equivalent of trying to manage a consistent and controlled flow of water after blasting the Hoover Dam open.
Pelosi and her crew made this bed by not being honest about Biden a year ago. It’s now impossible to go with a non-Harris route. The time to encourage a challenger was early 2023.
Nate, I love your work but I think the premise of this article is pretty weak. You say "Harris is the clear choice of Democratic voters", but all the polls you showed excludes Biden. It's extremely clear from all polling I've seen that Democratic voters, even after Biden's debate performance, clearly prefer him to any other candidate, including Kamala Harris.
So, now that Biden has dropped out, the question we should be asking is "Who gives the Democrats the best odds of beating Trump?" -- and the answer to that question is not Kamala Harris either, according to most polls and betting markets.
To summarize:
1. "Who is the clear choice of Democratic voters as the nominee?" -- is NOT Kamala Harris, it's Joe Biden.
2. "Who gives the Democrats the best chance of beating Trump?" -- is ALSO NOT Kamala Harris, it's likely Whitmer or Newsom.
So if Kamala Harris is the answer, what is the question?
Even if we take that single poll as conclusive, it still doesn't imply that Kamala or someone else is more preferred than Biden among Dem voters. That poll suggests 35% of Dem voters still prefer Biden, and rest of the candidates combined have 65% support. It's not at all clear if Kamala on her own has >35% support.
You're also ignoring the fact that some voters could support both Biden and Harris. Harris' support is currently well over 50% of Democratic voters, whereas a clear majority wanted Biden to exit the race. She definitely has greater support than he did. Not to mention the evidence of the surge in donations.
It was never 65% think he should get out and 35% favor him - there's always some percentage who say they're unsure, or who don't favor him but also don't think he should get out, or something else hard to report.
Not wanting Biden to step aside is not the same as saying he is their choice. The question would have to be 'who do you want to represent the Democratic party in 2024" and even then, you'll get misleading answers. Most voters don't know Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro at this point. Biden may literally be the only name some LIV know.
You can make up all sorts of reasons that Biden shouldn't step aside (too much risk, too divisive of a process, remember 1968, , can't use campaign funds) but if you track the NYT comments section before he withdrew, it was probably 90/10 saying "Joe, get out". I don't buy for a second that 35% of the D electorate said he was their preferred candidate.
> 1. "Who is the clear choice of Democratic voters as the nominee?" -- is NOT Kamala Harris, it's Joe Biden.
But it's not Joe Biden, since he dropped out, but he did endorse Harris. She's also the vice president. I feel Harris description as the Dem "choice" is a relatively simple deduction from the fact that Biden is "preferred", but also dropped out.
Can we assign "preferred" to an uncontested primary where 14M voted for the inevitable? Doesn't the successful candidate need 5 times that in the general?
I just find the whole framing a bit disingenuous. Biden dropped out, not because he wanted to, nor because majority of Democrat voters wanted him to, but because he had poor odds of beating Trump in November. Fair enough. I applaud him for this.
But, *after* he dropped out, we're suddenly ignoring the odds of beating Trump, and focusing back on the Dem voters instead? It doesn't feel consistent.
Any infighting decreases the odds of beating Trump. Harris is the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump when you account for the fact that any other candidate would have to fight for the nomination.
I'm sure everyone is enthusiastic for the person that was 15th place in the 2020 primary.
Based on donation numbers, it sure seems like they are.
Don't mistake desperation for enthusiasm lol
"Everyone" in the Democraric Party or in the country at large?
Certainly in the Democratic Party. I guess we'll find out about the country at large on election day.
Consider where we are; we'll probably find out well before election day. Election day is just the best measure of the exact preference balance between the candidates at that time.
The country at large doesn't vote in the democratic primary. idk what to tell you.
The Democrats have no choice. They have to embrace Harris.
Not true of the general population.
She's Chris Christie in a trench coat. I'll be voting for the other Democrat who's running
I wonder how much of that donation hail is from China? Oh, wait - that is illegal, right? Hehehehehehe, oookkkkkaaaayyyy.
Said with the impeccable tone and taste of someone huffing a mixture of bath salts out of a garden tub in the Home Depot Parking Lot at 0200. 😆 I'm here for it; please continue. 🍿
Such a specific insult denotes personal knowledge. My hat is off to you, sir, you have gone where lesser morons refuse to tread!
I'm nothing if not ambitious. 🪩😜 Minutae of psychonautics aside briefly, I do wonder if your wit would be better put to use helping humanity than playing defense against imagined enemies cast in shadow on a cave wall by firelight. 🤷🏻♂️
Psychonautics - there is a $5 word that Substack doesn't even recognize, does it make you feel better to come off so erudite? I can assure you that my wit, nor yours, makes a hill of beans worth of difference when it comes to slowing or reversing the ongoing looting of this nation by the kleptocrats in both parties. All we can do is try to disrupt their plans for us as best we may, which right now means trying to get Trump back in office. My intent here is simply to call out this coup for what it is and I suppose to enjoy the feeble antics of the brainwashed. So thank you!
Which might be fatal if this was 2020, and not 2024. Personally, i'm more enthusiastic than i've been in months.
I thought Biden had a good midterms and SOTU, but the polling has been going the wrong way for a long time, his campaigning pace was anemic, and after the debate it was clear he just doesn't have enough left in the tank.
I don't love Harris, but i'm happy to support her and vote for her. I think the side-by-side comparisons to an angry old man (and he won't be able to help himself being angry and going off script- it's already happening) are very much to her benefit and with a good Veep pick will be a very strong ticket.
But I'm guessing you weren't an undecided/swing voter. Trump on the other ticket is all you need for leftist enthusiasm. The question is how do moderates feel about Kamala?
I hear ya - but breaking the rematch is huge. 70% of the electorate consistently said they didn’t want EITHER Biden OR Trump - so maybe she can get to ~ 50% just by virtue of being younger and relatively normal. The anti-MAGA majority exists, but whether it exists at the swing state level remains to be seen ….
The assumption here is that people weren't high on Biden because of age, not because of policy/platform.
In 2020 I'd have agreed. But after seeing the shitshow for the last 4 years I'm not so sure. I'm moderate, raised money for Obama. If forced, I'd have gone Democrat last cycle based on my never-Trump attitude.
Now? Border and anti-Semitism have me in Trump's camp.
A democrat that's able to convincingly disavow the border stupidity and convince me that they care about Jewish people being attacked in the streets and blocked from attending college classes would get my vote.
Biden's mental acuity was just another reason. The main reason is the platform and completely shitty behavior by the far left.
Can you imagine the far right attacking Jews outside of a synagogue in LA?
I could have, years ago. Not anymore. The 'Nazis' haven't actually done anything to Jews. The ANTIFA dipshits are totally unchecked and vile.
Kamala is married to a Jew, she can't be *that* anti-Semitic
I don't think Biden is anti-Semitic. It's the far left circus that is out there abusing Jewish people. The problem is that criticizing them is impossible for the mainstream left.
Good heavens, I almost took you seriously. That you actually prefer the insult to intelligence that is the MAGA platform is astounding to me. That you brand the Dems with the actions of a few thuggish self-named “leftists” (though more accurately are called criminals) but somehow excuse a wannabe authoritarian who vows to establish concentration camps as he rounds up millions of migrants and political enemies — well you have found your MAGA home. Why try to paint a veneer of respectability over it, or pretend you moved there intellectually?
I'm genuinely curious: do you think you attract people to your cause/candidate/team by talking down to them?
There's nothing morally superior about having your political opinions vs. those of the guy you're replying to. Just in case anyone needed a reminder.
Not talking down to them, nor interested in persuasion for that one. That is truly an indefensibly stupid post.
That's nice, dear. Now let the lucid adults talk.
Contrast the platforms. Let's hear your analysis lol.
Anyone that can't see through Trump's lies needs talking down to so here I go. I suggest trying to Google a few of the things that he says and see what comes up
Yep. Like I said, I raised money for Obama.
Ideologues like you are the absolute worst. No thinking, no rational development of opinions at all. You take your talking points from the Party and repeat them as articles of faith.
I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I have a PhD. I've learned to think independently.
And no rational person thinks that a) the border policy was anything but a disaster; and b) that Trump is going to put people in concentration camps (he's been President before lol, we know what a Trump admin looks like).
So screech all you want. You won't convince anyone of anything.
Who said when a man tells you what he’s going to do, believe him. Biden’s border policy was goolish. Trump’s was inhumane. Do we really think our choices are one or another of those policies?
Anti-semitism and racism are a disease of the country. The idea that either is a part of Biden or Harris is laughable. Trump appears to be a racist and a xenophobe.
Bobby Kennedy always said to beware of a Catholic who dangles his rosary in public. My father (a PhD) always said we should be wary of educated people who do the same with their degrees.
Lol, so I guess it's worse to dangle your dad's degree? Do you know who my dad is?
Trump's border policy was Obama's pollicy. Very little changed except a wall. The same numbers came in. Border Patrol housed illegals in the same facilities.
I'm continually amazed that the right thinks Trump did magic at the border and the left thinks he put kids in cages. Both sides are incapable of seeing past their own echo chamber.
Which again brings us back to education. Learn how to think, then exercise that knowledge. Research facts and follow the logic to rational conclusions.
If you find yourself with nothing positive to say about the other side, guess what? You're an ideologue.
I don’t disagree with you on a lot of that. Most people in my circle (and I bet the country) feel similarly. My point was simply that it wasn’t just Biden’s age - it was the rematch ITSELF that voters hated. How many people in how many focus groups would say “I don’t want to vote for EITHER of these guys.” Harris has an uphill battle to dispel a lot of Biden’s baggage, but just being Not Trump AND Not Biden might be enough. Pitch it as “let’s put this toxic era behind us” is something a lot of people feel, and want to hear. I give NO credit to the Dems for intelligence at this point, so who knows if they’ll figure that out, but maybe George Clooney or someone else with like, two brain cells, will put them on the right path.
Yeah, it is two separate issues. Good candidate and good platform both matter.
I can imagine the far right marching down the street chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a certain Presidential candidate saying there were very fine people among them. That was enough to get almost my entire Jewish family to vote for Biden in 2020.
Don't get me wrong, anti-Semites on the left suck as well. But Kamala has made it pretty clear she isn't one of them.
>and a certain Presidential candidate saying there were very fine people among them.
Who said that? Even Snopes concedes DJT explicitly did *not* say this.
Quote from Congress. gov
“AUGUST 15, 2017
President Trump defended the white nationalists who protested in
Charlottesville on Tuesday, saying they included “some very fine people,” while
expressing sympathy for their demonstration against the removal of a statue of
Confederate General Robert E. Lee. It was a strikingly different message from
the prepared statement he had delivered on Monday, and a reversion to his
initial response over the weekend.
Speaking in the lobby of Trump Tower at what had been billed as a statement
on infrastructure, a combative Trump defended his slowness to condemn white
nationalists and neo-Nazis after the melee in central Virginia, which ended in
the death of one woman and injuries to dozens of others, and compared the
tearing down of Confederate monuments to the hypothetical removal of
monuments to the Founding Fathers. He also said that counterprotesters
deserve an equal amount of blame for the violence.”
Lol, honey. When even Snopes calls your smear fantasies 'False', just take the L.
You're spreading misinformation. *You* are the danger to democracy.
Yeah, that was debunked.
And like I've said elsewhere, I don't think Biden is an anti-Semite. But he won't stop them. As we've seen.
And Kamala can't either. They need the far left to win.
I won't vote for another Democrat that isn't fighting to put down this weird anti-Jew activity. It's organized and well funded. We know who is funding it (Soros and crew, and Palestinian/Hamas fundraisers).
I find it disgusting that there are AMERICANS being held hostage right now, and this Administration has done nothing. In fact, they are tying Israel's hands and making it harder for ISRAEL to rescue Americans.
I never thought I'd see a timeline where the far right stupidity in going pro-Russia would be out-stupided by the far left going full Kristallnacht.
I'm Jewish and quite upset about Israel massacring Palestinians. Have you heard of Tikkun Olam? It's not just for Jews. For you to move to Trump is suicidal -- he's an anti-Semite and his cult of personality called the GOP is full of them. College protests of Israel's genocide had its excesses for sure, but was on the right side of history. Harris will not win Michigan if she sticks to Genocide Joe's rhetoric on Israel.
If you're not first, or mayyybe second, you're last. The intelligent candidate in a crowded field makes the high-risk, high-reward play, knowing that the metric of success is not whether you're fifteenth or tenth out of twenty.
That is, throw caution to the wind and throw the ball deep. You don't win the game by punting (unless you're Iowa).
So true. Why ask voters about their enthusiasm when we can just get you to guess? Much cheaper.
To go by the comments at the NYT article on the subject, about ⅔ are giddy with excitement. The remainder don’t like her and think she’ll lose to Trump. But even with them, most hate Trump so much they’ll vote for her.
Say what you want about Kamala at this point: she surely has more upside than Biden. She can reach young, disaffected, low engagement voters and bring them to the table. She'll get beat up on the border but those that prioritize that issue are largely already in the Trump camp. She's vocal about women's rights, which have powered recent Dem wins. If those voters feel like somoene is listening to them and make an effort to vote, watch out.
If she introdcues herself well, makes the case that Trump is a potential disaster for 90% of America, and outlines a vision for how we continue to move forward, she should be favored against the historically weak Trump.
Also, the media won't be dwelling 24/7 on Biden being old. They'll move on, hopefully to spotlighting how old and doddering Trump has become. That's an effect that can't be discounted.
>If she introdcues herself well, makes the case that Trump is a potential disaster for 90% of America
Seems like a hard case since we already had a Trump Presidency, and it was pretty regular bad, and I don't think anywhere close to 90% of people would describe it as "disaster".
People can hold three messages in their head. Dems have really pushed “defense of democracy” and “abortion” (for HI voters these code for Project 25 and federal judiciary in general). They get one more. I would make it “Trump will cut taxes for the rich.”
Dems are losing voters right now, rightly or wrongly, who dgaf about those first two issues or have different opinions. They’ve got to hit the ways Trump will hand money to billionaires.
P2025 seems to be falling flat for moderates in the game. It could increase motivation/GOTV for Dems, though.
Dems need to be really careful about "defense of democracy"; some folks think that the Dems are the greater threat in that regard. https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/no-democracy-is-not-on-the-ballot
This is overly simplistic. Young voters do vote, and the proportion of them that vote varies by election. How disaffected they are and how engaged they are both functions of how much effort is done to appeal to young voters.
It's probably (sadly) true that you shouldn't weight young eligible voters as highly as old eligible voters, because they're less likely to show up. But some of them *will* show up, and parties discount that at their peril.
There's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy that goes on. Young people don't vote, so parties don't bother appealing to them, so young people don't vote, ad infinitum. One effect this can have (other than the obvious) is turning the young people who *do* vote or *might/sometimes* vote into very low-hanging fruit. You might still get only half the turnout as you do from older demographics, but if you can get that from expending only a quarter as much effort per eligible voter, you still come out ahead.
Wrong. They were an important component of the 2008 and 2012 wins for Obama, and the 2030 win for Biden.
What do people think about this for Kamala Harris's Vice Presidential pick: former Republican Senator Jeff Flake. There would be howls of protest from liberal Democrats against balancing the ticket with someone so conservative, but anyone who truly believes that democracy is in jeopardy should applaud Harris for putting defense of the Constitution first.
Flake is the type of Christian who could appeal to cultural conservatives. His fierce advocacy for spending restraint would appeal to fiscal conservatives. His defense of the Mueller investigation, which torpedoed Flake's hope of re-election, proves that he puts country ahead of party. And he comes from the swing state of Arizona to boot.
I would so much love to hear Flake destroy J. D. Vance in a Vice Presidential debate: "I got on the ticket by refusing to bow to Trump's lawless behavior. You got on the ticket by backing someone you once compared to Hitler!"
In France's 2024 elections, Macron joined forces with his political rivals to stave off victory by the far right National Rally. Harris should take a page from Macron's book about how to save a republic.
Flake isn’t even close to a moderate, he was about as far right as you could be before the far-right turned into being a Trump loyalist and Russian agitprop supporter. The LARP is showing in this comment, she’ll pick a white guy Democrat like Josh Shapiro or Roy Cooper.
Shapiro delivers PA. If Trump takes GA and PA...then AZ and NV are immaterial.
Regardless of how left or right he is, for a lot of people the primary concern isn't left vs right, it's democracy vs authoritarianism. You can be pretty far right while still being pro-democracy. And if anything, the further right the pro-democracy person you pick is, the more credibility it gives you that you're fighting for democracy, not leftism.
Kamala should choose Jeff Merkley as VP then
The basic problem with this is that very few Democrats are actually at the point where they're at all up for sacrificing their other policy priorities for the sake of keeping Trump out of office. They mostly want to keep Trump out of office *because* he's bad for their other policy priorities.
Clearly not a democrat, are you? Dems want to keep Trump out of office because he’s vowed to be a dictator, supports Project 2025, is a convicted criminal, a convicted rapist whose company has been found guilty of fraud, who tried to overthrow his last election, wants to destroy NATO thus throwing Europe over to a war we won’t be able to avoid, is a helpless liar, and whose policies run counter to women. Maybe some other stuff too, that’s all just top of mind.
You've been saying this since 2016. The personal attacks have all been considered by voters. The hyperbolic handwringing just sounds like Rosie ODonnell or DeNiro at this point. It isn't credible.
For moderates like me, Trump is obviously a shitty person. But so is just about every candidate we've seen, including Biden.
American politics is no longer 'who is the least bad person', like it maybe used to be. It's about 2-3 major issues that the individual independent voter cares about.
Ouch. It would seem like a rational strategy for Democrats to compromise, to at least give away something if the alternative is a slide into authoritarianism. But as Nate said in his previous article, the biggest mistake of his forecasting career was to say Republicans would behave "rationally" in 2016, and therefore not nominate Trump.
And Nate apparently still believes that "... political parties engage in something roughly resembling game-theory optimal behavior and undertake reasonably rational strategies ..." Would reaching across the aisle be good according to game theory? How about just tacking to the center? Have Democrats shown any ability to give away policy priorities in order to increase the chance of winning? Does nominating Biden in 2020 count as an example? I would like to think you are wrong, i.e. that Democrat worries about the end of democracy are not just rhetorical, and, if so, that this single issue outweighs the rest. But I'm not sure the evidence supports my wishful thinking.
'The end of Democracy is going to get voted in, so we must prevent the end of Democracy by ending Democracy before he is elected'.
The actions of the 'end of Democracy' crowd clearly show that they aren't genuinely concerned by the end of Democracy lol.
On the game theory note, Nate may want to call Republican behavior irrational. But it's more likely he poorly assessed the framework, probabilities, and/or payoffs for the participants in the game.
Again, choosing the furthest-right possible anti-Trump VP is not “compromise” it’s just giving the finger to half of your base.
I had a similar thought. But if you want a unity ticket aligned in stopping Trump, I think a better choice would be Liz Cheney. She went down fighting Trump, and never flinched. Flake dropped out when he knew he couldn't win.
Picking a (truly) moderate running mate might not be a bad idea. Especially if she uses that pick to reinforce the “defense of democracy” framing. But Jeff Flake? That’s way too over the edge for that strategy.
I'd love it. But I'm a centrist high-engagement political nerd living across the Pacific.
Well, first, there’s a rule that to run on the democratic ticket you need to register as a democrat and pledge to remain so while in office. The GOP has the same rule. I don’t think Flake would care to switch parties at this late date in his life.
"the whole thing is a scam. Trump was a middling to bad Republican president with bad tweets. There will be elections in 2028 no matter who wins this fall."
I sure hope you're right. But what odds to you put on there being a peaceful transfer of power (conditional on the incumbent party losing) in 2024/2025, and 2028/2029? And, if you can think back, what odds do you think you *would* have given for a peaceful transfer of power in 2020/2021 back in July 2020?
Elections is a pretty low bar. Iran and Russia have elections.
Please let’s all remember that Yassir Arafat and Adolf Hitler won their first elections. Their paths diverged. Hitler decided once was enough. Arafat decided to win all future elections by mandate.
An honest question to those who say Biden was "forced out", can you please explain how he was *forced*? It would seem to a naive person that enough people presented him with enough evidence that he was very very likely to lose the election AND was an anchor on down-ballot races, and he eventually saw it their way. Forcing implies there was a gun put to his head, a threat was made, coercion used. Can you explain your perspective?
Thanks
The faction she most needs to recapture are LI, low-propensity, Black and Hispanic males. That is the group that is killing the Dems right now vs. 2020. I won’t claim to know what could break through the noise there, but hammering Trump as a phony, tax-cutting (for the rich), plutocrat is the message you want. And communicated in ways that earn media and break through the noise for LI voters.
The only other option electorally is to really double down on the suburban vote with a more moderate strategy, and try to get those numbers even stronger.
Dems are doing fine with the progressive wing. And if they aren’t after spending $1 trillion on green energy, $1 trillion on infrastructure, and $1 trillion on stimulus, then it’s going to be very hard to get that wing on board.
I am astounded at the stupidity that thinks Climate Change is some sort of progressive agenda. When people say the words climate change, people do realize it means, you know, adversely changing the climate? And I am old enough to remember when mainstream intelligent politicians of both parties regularly spent money on roads, bridges, airports, schools, sewers and clean water. Now it’s bundled into a special word and left to the progressives to get done.
Did I miss it when the earth passed through the tail of a comet and Republicans decided we’ve built all the infrastructure real people need, and you can lobby and vote greenhouse gases away?
There isn't a dichotomy between leftists and Trump voters. I wouldn't be confident enough in this move to advocate for it necessarily, but the argument for it is not that it appeals to Trump voters. The argument is that it appeals to voters who would vote for neither Trump nor [Harris + leftist Democrat]. Some of them would be right-leaning politically, but a lot in the center too.
I think we just need to wait and see what the polling against Trump looks like in a couple of weeks, but basically where I am at is… 1. I think people read a little too much in to Kamala’s poor 2020 primary (times have changed, politicians can change and a primary is different to the general) 2. I would expect some sort of honeymoon period where she gets a bump in the polls and a wave of excitement in to and out of the convention while she gets to reintroduce herself to voters… but 3. You have to weigh the above against the fact that her polling against Trump has seen pretty consistently poor for all of the last 4 years.
I think there is a difference between asking potential voters "Would you vote for Harris over Trump? " when she was not the nominee vs now when she is expected to be. I would moan about the wealth of better options than Harris if I was asked that last week. But if she is the one on the ticket, I am still voting against Trump.
Agree 100%… we will also see what all those polls that suggested that voters are desperate for anything other than Trump vs Biden are worth
But weren't you voting Dem regardless? Elections are not won by convincing you.
As long as Trump is the nominee, yes.
This time around, I agree with you. But in 2016 I voted for Trump and in 2020 I didn't vote for either candidate. I am staunchly anti-Trump after January 6th, 2021, but I am not anti-Republican in general. Additionally, I have lived in relative swing-states (AZ, VA) for the past few elections as well.
My point overall, however, was that I would probably not have responded excitedly to a poll between Harris/Trump a few weeks ago, as I truthfully would prefer another option with better chances. But I also will vote for her as the nominee. This was in response to Peter's 3rd point above, where he was stating Harris has polled poorly against Trump for the past 4 years. I was just saying I would take it with a grain of salt, as she also hasn't been the nominee (a.k.a the only alternative) for the past 4 years until now.
From what I can tell Quinnipiac and HarrisX conducted polls over the weekend that showed Harris losing by 2 and 10 points respectively.
Now to engage in a little tin foil hat conspiracy thinking: Pelosi was late to endorse Harris but I believe she has caved and done so. Two days ago the NY Times reported that she wanted an open primary. Obama, Schumer and Jeffries have yet to pull the trigger ( as far as I know).
What if the plan was to get someone else other than Harris? It seems like a tremendous amount of fuss and bother to eject Biden only to get somebody who actually polls worse. Maybe he wasn't supposed to endorse his own VP?
You can't get "someone else" if no one else wants to do it, which is exactly what happened.
This was Biden sticking it to all the people who stuck it to him. He knew that KH was a weak VP and would be a weak candidate. In his mind, now they get to live without JRB steading the ship.
Biden didn’t design this. This was a year of Dems saying he’s too old, which swelled to 75% of Dem voters. Then that faceplant at the debalte shook the leadership out of a zombie state.
And Obama out to stick it to people? That’s Trump you’re describing.
"From what I can tell Quinnipiac and HarrisX conducted polls over the weekend that showed Harris losing by 2 and 10 points respectively."
Two polls isn't a lot for a good analysis. Back in one of Nate Silver's earlier pieces his full analysis of polling showed Harris trailing Trump by the same amount that Biden was. And that was when Biden was doing better than he was right before dropping out.
I just bought those specific polls you because they were conducted recently (over the weekend I believe). Maybe they don't show Harris losing by more than Biden's margin but she's still losing.
What an interesting observation! I hadn't realized Jeffries, Schumer, and Obama haven't endorsed yet. I don't know who else would jump into this race because the most obvious names (Newsom, Whitmer, Buttigieg, Pritzker, Shapiro, etc.) have already endorsed or ruled out (Manchin) but wonder what's behind their silence. Maybe just waiting for the right moment to.
With Obama, you might argue that a quick Harris endorsement could feel to Biden a bit like rubbing one's nose in it, and that it wouldn't really accomplish anything anyway (at least at this juncture--it would be weird if Obama does not speak in favor of Harris before November).
I think the evidence is strong that Biden (like anyone) wants to be the hero of his own story, and that he would not engage in a party-rending tantrum after his old boss vocally endorsed his lieutenant, but it's only strong--it's not infinitely rigid.
I offer no theory on Jeffries and Schumer.
That is true. Obama respects Biden too much to come anywhere remotely close to humiliating him - and I think timing of an endorsement is what would or would not do that. Biden is grieving the loss of his professional self-concept, an individual who's spent a career defying doubters and people's expectations of him, after his decision. He doesn't need to be kicked while he's down. You also make a good point about the utility of Obama's endorsement, too.
I think they want to remain institutionally neutral.
I think they're very much on-board. Eric Holder is running the Veep vetting operation and i've read David Plouffe might be joining the campaign.
I think the explanation is simply leaving the biggest endorsements until last (especially Obama) lets you flush out and crush any potential rivals like they did with Manchin.
As you say all the obvious choices are out already.
...and you know... if there's a slow or unproductive news cycle over these next 100 days, you have an ace ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think they held back so as not to be judged as putting their thumb on the scale while delegates and lesser party officials weighed in. All the conspiracy theories are a bit to cute to be real.
I don’t think we can trust a poll that is literally named after one of the candidates.
(Sorry, had to make that joke.)
I think they are all bright enough to realize such a plan would be the equivalent of trying to manage a consistent and controlled flow of water after blasting the Hoover Dam open.
Pelosi and her crew made this bed by not being honest about Biden a year ago. It’s now impossible to go with a non-Harris route. The time to encourage a challenger was early 2023.
And now, Jeffries and Schumer on part of the #KHive lol
68.31% of Total Needed
626 Delegates to go
1,350 Delegates for her
1,976 Delegates Needed
6:28 p.m. 07-22-24
HT to WashPost
Tonight it will be “presumptive” nominee @KamalaHarris
She has 1,350 announced delegates so far.
She needs 1,976 for the nomination.
New York and California will announce tonight.
They have 800+ delegates. That spells “presumptive
Nate, I love your work but I think the premise of this article is pretty weak. You say "Harris is the clear choice of Democratic voters", but all the polls you showed excludes Biden. It's extremely clear from all polling I've seen that Democratic voters, even after Biden's debate performance, clearly prefer him to any other candidate, including Kamala Harris.
So, now that Biden has dropped out, the question we should be asking is "Who gives the Democrats the best odds of beating Trump?" -- and the answer to that question is not Kamala Harris either, according to most polls and betting markets.
To summarize:
1. "Who is the clear choice of Democratic voters as the nominee?" -- is NOT Kamala Harris, it's Joe Biden.
2. "Who gives the Democrats the best chance of beating Trump?" -- is ALSO NOT Kamala Harris, it's likely Whitmer or Newsom.
So if Kamala Harris is the answer, what is the question?
Uhh except for the poll where 65% of Democratic voters wanted Biden to get out of the race.
Even if we take that single poll as conclusive, it still doesn't imply that Kamala or someone else is more preferred than Biden among Dem voters. That poll suggests 35% of Dem voters still prefer Biden, and rest of the candidates combined have 65% support. It's not at all clear if Kamala on her own has >35% support.
You're also ignoring the fact that some voters could support both Biden and Harris. Harris' support is currently well over 50% of Democratic voters, whereas a clear majority wanted Biden to exit the race. She definitely has greater support than he did. Not to mention the evidence of the surge in donations.
It was never 65% think he should get out and 35% favor him - there's always some percentage who say they're unsure, or who don't favor him but also don't think he should get out, or something else hard to report.
It’s a moot point when no one is running against her.
The definition of time making a point moot.
Not wanting Biden to step aside is not the same as saying he is their choice. The question would have to be 'who do you want to represent the Democratic party in 2024" and even then, you'll get misleading answers. Most voters don't know Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro at this point. Biden may literally be the only name some LIV know.
You can make up all sorts of reasons that Biden shouldn't step aside (too much risk, too divisive of a process, remember 1968, , can't use campaign funds) but if you track the NYT comments section before he withdrew, it was probably 90/10 saying "Joe, get out". I don't buy for a second that 35% of the D electorate said he was their preferred candidate.
> 1. "Who is the clear choice of Democratic voters as the nominee?" -- is NOT Kamala Harris, it's Joe Biden.
But it's not Joe Biden, since he dropped out, but he did endorse Harris. She's also the vice president. I feel Harris description as the Dem "choice" is a relatively simple deduction from the fact that Biden is "preferred", but also dropped out.
Can we assign "preferred" to an uncontested primary where 14M voted for the inevitable? Doesn't the successful candidate need 5 times that in the general?
I just find the whole framing a bit disingenuous. Biden dropped out, not because he wanted to, nor because majority of Democrat voters wanted him to, but because he had poor odds of beating Trump in November. Fair enough. I applaud him for this.
But, *after* he dropped out, we're suddenly ignoring the odds of beating Trump, and focusing back on the Dem voters instead? It doesn't feel consistent.
Any infighting decreases the odds of beating Trump. Harris is the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump when you account for the fact that any other candidate would have to fight for the nomination.