Whatever ends up happening, if the Biden administration really does view Harris this negatively and thinks she's unfit to be in office, then it was very irresponsible for them to pick her as VP in the first place given Biden's advanced age - identity politics at its worst.
“I’m deliberately taking a light touch on Harris’s race and gender in this newsletter, since you don’t need another White Guy With Opinions,”
If I may, Nate - yeah, I do. I literally pay you to have opinions, and I happen to know you’re a white guy.
I’m sure you’re just saying this because you feel you have to, and I won’t speak for anyone but myself, but I’m here because I respect your opinions and am willing to pay money to read them. At least for my part (however small and irrelevant it is), please never feel like you have to censor them for me. And especially not for demographic traits you don’t control.
Yes, and even more: openly telling me that you're deliberately censoring your opinions because of your disfavored demographics makes me less likely to renew my subscription after the election.
Holding your political opponents to a higher standard than you hold yourself is a trademark tactic of the right, so I won’t engage any further seeing you’ve clearly displayed your hypocrisy for the rest of us to see.
I am a yellow dog democrat. I have followed Nate since NYT days. So I am not here as someone studying the nuances of the model or evaluating probabilities (although I have learned a lot about those things over the years following Nate/FiveThirtyEight). I initially bristled at calls for Biden not to run and I stopped reading/listening to Ezra Klein for a bit and was even upset with Nate; but after the debate Dems really can’t run Biden, especially if the real goal is defeating Trump. I have tended to believe The Economist who says the election of Trump is the most significant danger to the world in 2024.
I would vote for any Democrat, Harris or not. I hope those with influence can persuade Biden to step aside. I almost thought I should send my senators and representative a link to Nate and Maria’s podcast segment on how to appeal to Joe Biden to want him to step down.
Feeling better getting it off my chest; but, not hopeful.
you need to get on the phone and call your senators and representatives and say you have concerns with Bidens cognitive abilities and his delusional rants and you want a different president. if enough people call their senators / reps then they will come out against Biden
nice, but congressional offices care more about phone calls than emails. they take tallies of how many phone calls for each subject, etc. this is how Ukraine Aid got passed, enough people made phone calls
It checks out that the people who actually have time in their day to contact their representatives are the people who care more about a foreign proxy war than actually helping Americans here at home.
The “you liberals and your blue-dyed hair” insult! Super inventive, only the 47th time I’ve seen that one used in substitution for an actual argument. Never even dyed my hair before either which is the best part 😂
"33. I think the White House’s treatment of Harris has been borderline despicable, from giving her impossible assignments like the border and voting rights..."
First, she's the one who chose voting rights. But yes, this narrative that she keeps being set up for failure does exist -- and throwing away her 2028 chances by giving her another "impossible assignment" (you acknowledge she's likely to lose this election) would be another example of the glass cliff. Whether or not "variance" is an optimal strategy for the party, that doesn't mean it's the optimal path for Harris. This is why members of the Congressional Black Caucus have argued against this path.
The nomination is a poisoned chalice and she doesn't want it.
Why is the border an "impossible" assignment? If she can't handle one difficult task, what should we infer about her ability to handle multiple more difficult tasks?
The border is impossible because it's more of a PR battle than it is anything about policy (see: Republicans acting in bad faith, torpedoing their own bi-partisan bill, and the endless scaremongering in the media).
From the perspective of an immigration restrictionist, it was a shitty bill that also came with billions of unwanted aid to Ukraine. Why should Biden get political cover for a policy problem he largely created?
Bill was both terrible and totally unnecessary. Stop repeating the insane Biden talking points which he soon abandoned and took actions he could have taken on Day one of his administration. Dems biggest policy failure and misunderstanding of the consequences IMHO.
Good point. Republicans will never agree to a bill or any Improvement in the immigration situation since this is an issue they run on in each and every election. And people always think that they do a great job here when in fact no one does a great job
I agree. Much better to let Biden take the loss, and potentially run on her own in 2028. Even better if Biden manages to win she is either President by 2028 or a strong contender for the nomination if Biden somehow makes it through 4 years. Worst case for her is taking over the sinking ship and losing to Trump.
As Nate reminds us, Harris dropped out in 2020 before Iowa. No reason to think she has any chance to be the nominee in 2028 where an actual primary will be held. Being appointed the nominee is clearly her best shot at the presidency. Think about it, she gets appointed VP and then appointed the nominee - what a gift.
This is lunacy. Did Dan Quayle become president? How about Walter Mondale or Rockefeller. Vice presidents who fail to secure second terms rarely amount to much.
“I agree. Much better to let Biden take the loss, and potentially run on her own in 2028. Even better if Biden manages to win she is either President by 2028 or a strong contender for the nomination if Biden somehow makes it through 4 years.”
This is only true if you accept that the rhetoric from almost every prominent Democrat about “democracy is on the ballot!” is a total lie. If it is true then there will be no 2028 election for her to run in because God-Emperor Trump will have had himself crowned fascist dictator of the entire continent and sent all his enemies to death camps.
I agree that the Democrats are lying about democracy being on the ballot, as if they really believed it they'd do anything to get the best candidate, but I think that lie is a worthwhile thing to note about them and their contempt for the electorate.
I’ve heard reporting that the CBC has decided that, if they call for Biden to step aside, they will do it as a unified block. They might actually think Biden should stay in the race. But it’s also likely that their decision to move against him will come, but come later because they have to work through disagreement within the caucus.
That's nuts. Here's a winnable head to head matchup against a flawed and unpopular opponent just falling into her lap. And she's going to reject it for fear of damaging her chances in some future election that would require her to get through a competitive primary and face a stronger opponent?
1. Whitmer said she wouldn’t accept the nomination if Biden dropped. Maybe that’s because she doesn’t want to be seen holding the knife, but I think it’s in earnest.
2. What matters isn’t what you and I calculate as her best path. She is a key decision maker, and I’d argue she is risk-averse. CBC members are publicly saying that handing her the nomination in this type of environment is setting her up for failure. Nate argues the CBC would be happy with her selection, but I’ve only heard Clyburn with that view—admittedly, he is super prominent.
But the point is, Nate can’t just say how “despicable“ it is that the WH gave her tasks that were difficult to win and then say she should be given a nomination where he says she is likely to lose. If it’s “despicable,” he at least needs to grapple with whether this is in her interest, even if he comes out on the side of it being her best chance.
Donald Trump is the weakest presidential candidate ever - criminal convictions. Only person weaker than Donald Trump is someone with dementia like Joe Biden.
Any generic democratic candidate can beat Donald Trump.
I would argue at this point that the bulk of the evidence is that Biden _intends_ to stay in the race. If he cannot be persuaded to voluntarily step down the only alternative is to remove him forcefully somehow and that would obviously tear the Democratic Party apart.
As for why Biden refuses to leave, I have to wonder if his son Hunter isn't an underappreciated factor. Could it be that an outcome where Biden loses the presidential race but is able to pardon Hunter is preferable to the old than stepping down and leaving Hunter to the uncertain mercies of whoever his replacement is? Anybody that pardons Hunter is going to have to absorb a major political scandal. Is that really worth it for anyone else but family?
In addition consider reports that a) Hunter is effectively Joe's chief of staff at this point and b) there are also reports that Biden is desperate to keep his son close to prevent him from relapsing into addiction. I am not so sure that Biden is going anywhere.
It’s actually much easier to pardon Hunter if he drops out of the race but stays president. He can wait til after the election and not worry much about the consequences on his future administration.
The problem is that if he drops out of the race the pressure for him to resign as President will ratchet up considerably. Senility is disqualifying for a candidate but it is even more disqualifying for an office holder.
Consider the specific criticisms leveled against Biden in an attempt to get him to step down:
1. He only works from 10 am to 4 pm. Anything outside of those hours tires him..
2. He seems increasingly confused and listless. He has trouble following the thread of communication.
3. His lapses are growing in frequency, worrying those close to him.
If those charges are used to pressure Biden to give up the nomination it's naive to think that Republicans wouldn't step up the pressure to force him to resign--using those exact same charges! They will argue that he has the nuclear launch codes and that the risk from a senile old man at the helm is too much to bear for another nine months.
This is a very weak argument. He has demonstrated basic capabilities that can last him half a year. People are using these examples to say "imagine what he'll be like in 2-3 years" to state that it is extremely unlikely he is able to finish his next term.
"it's naive to think that Republicans wouldn't step up the pressure to force him to resign"
There is absolutely no strategic reason for Republicans to want Biden to resign. In fact it would probably help Harris's campaign.
Way back when Hillary Clinton ran a campaign ad that questioned voters as to who would they rather have answer the phone at 3 am when an emergency hit. If Biden is useless after dusk due to "sundowning" who gets to take that call?
Obviously Republicans would want to pressure Biden to resign as President. If they can force him out they would be able to say "See? We've been saying for years that he's senile and we've been proven right. The Democrats and the media have been lying to you all this time." A resignation would tarnish the rest of the administration and the DNC as a whole. The other element is the cover up: did Harris and the administration conspire to conceal Biden's disability from the public?
The Bidens should understand that all of them are personally in trouble from the new regime if Democrats lose this election, pardons or not. Getting out of the country safely is going to be far more important to them. (Granted, the key word in the first sentence is 'should'. And perhaps a pardon is an essential part of the plan to flee.)
The difference was that Clinton committed no crimes and Trump committed many. The US justice system operates at the federal, state, and local level. Even at the federal level it is not controlled by the president. Trump may change that. But until then what I said is true.
There's a very important element you've missed from the historical polling that kills your idea that Harris has a higher floor than Biden. Her 2020 Presidential campaign wasn't merely bad. Before the actual campaigning started she was polling 15–20%. But the more voters saw of her, the more they disliked her. By sole virtue of her public appearances, she turned that 15–20% figure into a 3–5% figure. She didn't even make it to election year before dropping out, let alone to Iowa.
Harris is just an exceptionally bad campaigner and retail politician. Like, Ron deSantis levels of bad. You can't say she has a high floor when we know how badly voters react to her on the campaign trail. She probably does have a higher ceiling than Biden, but she surely has a lower floor.
She was a total disaster and has done nothing as Veep to improve her image, unless you are with Nate and feel that being adopted as a coconut is an improvement. I can just picture the AI generated ads showing her as a coconut falling out of a tree.
"I’ve consistently found that the median voter theorem is still right more often than not and you’d rather nominate a more moderate candidate, other things being equal."
While I believe you are the best in the business at predicting elections, I completely disagree with the above quote. I believe that "moderates" (who used to be socially conservative economic liberals mostly concentrated in the South and are now socially liberal fiscal conservatives...ie oligarch-enablers with civility) are now the least electable group in the bunch. McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all the more moderate choices and all lost. Biden only won because of COVID. This isn't the 90's anymore. The term "moderate" changing meaning also means that what is a swing voter/independent has changed. Independents are all over the political spectrum, and the group of voters who went from Obama in '12 to Trump in '16 were all low information, apolitical, anti-status quo, and anti-institution. This is not a group that loves moderates, as our modern-day version of the word "moderate" is very much the status quo that these voters cannot stand. Look at both the far right and far left rising in France. (side note: a lot of people consider themselves to be moderate but actually aren't)
I completely agree with you that there was not a real primary, and I also strongly believe that the DNC convention would be the LAST place we could field the outsider/anti-status quo candidate that these apolitical/low information voters would be more likely to vote for. Our only chance, in my opinion (and very unlikely), would be to hold a national primary that would include Democratic and independent voters (as opposed to the convention filled w/ insiders likely to pick the most familiar name).
I will admit that I cannot name a single person that would fit the bill. Bernie Sanders is too old. Fetterman has pissed off the left too much recently and has health issues...while I do think a progressive outsider would be ideal, because these apolitical/low information voters do not care about ideology, we may be best off running a very popular/national treasure celebrity (like Dolly Parton or Bill Murray/etc.). I know this sounds bonkers, but I cannot name anyone from the progressive wing of the party who would fit the bill of outsider, and I strongly believe that anyone from the "moderate" wing of the party, even a more conservative Dem like Manchin, would do worse than Biden.
Harris may be to the left of Biden on some issues, but progressives remember her beating a progressive D.A. candidate w/ her tough on crime message. While the age issue is hurting Biden, he was losing well before the debate. I believe it has more to do with anti-incumbency/anti-status quo (apolitical/low information voters are more likely to erroneously blame Biden for inflation/etc.) and the fact that Democrats abandoned the whole hope and change message than anything else. Democrats need to run an outsider populist loudly calling for change, or replacing Biden won't make a difference/we'll still end up with Trump.
Disagree but won’t refute point by point. The ticket that would completely scramble the race and send all the useless media back to their bombshell shelters would be Manchin- Gabbard. Certainly the only Dems that I might consider voting for as a libertarian without a home, since the capital L Libertarian Party is a bad joke and a party divided.
If we could get 2016 Gabbard, before she went on her alt-right pro-Putin journey, she would be the perfect candidate. Manchin is part of the status quo and would do no better than Biden; possibly worse.
The difficult part about running as a Dem now is you have to keep the independent leaning left wing of the party on board. They won't vote Republican, but they will stay home or vote 3rd party. The moderates will vote for the party no matter who now that the Republican Party is so far from them (moderate Dems and Rs were practically the same in the 90s/early 2000s).
Beg to disagree- Tulsi is not pro Putin , as do many with actual military experience she is strongly anti War, in opposition to the war mongers in both parties. I think she is wrong on Ukraine if we would support it with enough sis to actually win, but given how we have handcuffed them it will be endless attrition. Manchin is a bridge between the status who and the far left, in other words an old time Democrat. At least Sanity on fiscal issues and the insane net zero aspirations that will not succeed unless people do not resist when being dragged back to the dark ages.
Manchin is conservative and has to be because he is in West Virginia. I believe his time and other moderate to more conservative types will be more electable once we have a good economy that benefits younger and working class people more. Once people feel like they have something, they get selfish and fight to keep it/support more conservative fiscal values.
(Note: When I say they I mean the average apolitical/low information voter...don't mean low information in an insulting way, but they focus their intelligence elsewhere) Right now they are being railed with inflation. They are watching record corporate profits, while their paychecks do not stretch as far as they used to. They are angry and they want change, and they don't care what ideological corner that change comes from. That's why Trump is more electable than Romney, and that's why a progressive would be more electable than a moderate on the national stage now.
I plan to vote for Biden or whoever the D nominee in order to vote against Trump, but I do not have much hope unless we run a populist calling for change or (and I hate admitting this) a well-liked celebrity. We have to think outside the box on this one.
We should have another huge political realignment by 2032 or so, if not sooner. I predict the progressives will take over the Dems (because Millennials and younger will be 50+% of the voting age population by 2028...probably not the actual voting population until 2032), and I used to think more libertarian types would take over the GOP; however, it looks like the alt-right is taking root w/ younger conservatives. The alt right destroys the libertarian economic ideology traditionally held by Republicans, which I love, but I am absolutely terrified of everything else the alt-right stands for. Not to mention calling for a 15%/30% tax code will lead to middle class people paying more taxes (while the wealthy pay less). That would fit well with our modern day "moderates" (oligarch-enablers w/ civility).
Harris accused Joe Biden of being racist in one of the early '20 primary debates. He may have picked her to shore up his coalition, but I cannot imagine that they want to hand her the presidency.
He also showed up an hour late to a meeting with congressional Dems who were concerned, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that they are taking this seriously.
The "Vice President Trump" bit was actually a brilliant maneuver on Biden's part. It's illegal for one candidate on a ticket to run on another ticket. In one master stroke Biden has removed Trump from the race.
I know this isn't the point of your comment, but is it really illegal? I believe some states forbid it, but I don't know about all. And it's been done before, I believe, with Bryan (nominated by the Populists and the Democrats in 1896).
Re Item 31: While I agree in principle that the president at any given time should be whoever's most suited for the job, Biden can't plausibly endorse Harris without resigning. If he does, he's effectively saying to the American people "Harris will be the best person to run the country on and after January 20 of next year, but until then, she's not." Nobody is going to believe that, because it does not make a lick of sense.
I don't think that's right. It's saying that he is confident in his ability to be President for the next few months, but not in four and a half years' time. It's saying that he wants to step down while he's still capable, rather than forcing Harris to endure a succession crisis because he's made some ghastly error and been forced to stand down.
The Independents I know voted for Biden in ‘20 because they genuinely disliked Trump and believed Biden when he said he’d govern from the center. These folks now believe Biden conned them on governing from the center. When you couple that with what they view as his cognitive decline, they will never vote for him. They still cannot vote for Trump. So they are leaning write in because many of them are veterans and they refuse to give up their right to vote. Larry Hogan is popular…as is Beshar.
There's a center? I call the modern day "center" oligarch-enablers with civility. They also match the status quo that modern day swing voters want nothing to do with.
Harris has some other issues that aren't talked about much that I think will scare voters.
1. Her Senate voting record is far left.
2. She has a pamphlet or book or something that shows the difference between equity and equality. When it gets circulation, people are going to see what DEI is really all about. The identity politics is written into Executive orders. She will make this much worse.
3. She refused to continue prosecution of sexual abuse victims by the Catholic church after she won DA. There are people right now who are still upset that she wouldn't release papers.
Those are just a few and the Reps aren't showing their cards right now, as they are waiting until she gets the spot.
I actually think passing her over without going to the voters is anti-democratic.
I’ve read several columns that DOCTOR Jill Biden hates Harris because of her attack on Joe during the 2020 debates. Factor this in, bigly.
Speaking of pros and cons, I hope Nathaniel Bleu and Nathan Redd make an appearance sometime this election season. 😎
Whatever ends up happening, if the Biden administration really does view Harris this negatively and thinks she's unfit to be in office, then it was very irresponsible for them to pick her as VP in the first place given Biden's advanced age - identity politics at its worst.
“I’m deliberately taking a light touch on Harris’s race and gender in this newsletter, since you don’t need another White Guy With Opinions,”
If I may, Nate - yeah, I do. I literally pay you to have opinions, and I happen to know you’re a white guy.
I’m sure you’re just saying this because you feel you have to, and I won’t speak for anyone but myself, but I’m here because I respect your opinions and am willing to pay money to read them. At least for my part (however small and irrelevant it is), please never feel like you have to censor them for me. And especially not for demographic traits you don’t control.
Yes, and even more: openly telling me that you're deliberately censoring your opinions because of your disfavored demographics makes me less likely to renew my subscription after the election.
Good riddance man, if you stop showing up in these comment sections the Silver Bulletin will be a better place
The legendary kindness and inclusivity of the left on full display.
“so much for the tolerant left” is such a cheaply overused comeback it feels like I’m talking to an AI when I see it appear in conversation 😂
It gets used because it's true. If you don't want to keep seeing it, stop living down to the reputation.
Holding your political opponents to a higher standard than you hold yourself is a trademark tactic of the right, so I won’t engage any further seeing you’ve clearly displayed your hypocrisy for the rest of us to see.
I am a yellow dog democrat. I have followed Nate since NYT days. So I am not here as someone studying the nuances of the model or evaluating probabilities (although I have learned a lot about those things over the years following Nate/FiveThirtyEight). I initially bristled at calls for Biden not to run and I stopped reading/listening to Ezra Klein for a bit and was even upset with Nate; but after the debate Dems really can’t run Biden, especially if the real goal is defeating Trump. I have tended to believe The Economist who says the election of Trump is the most significant danger to the world in 2024.
I would vote for any Democrat, Harris or not. I hope those with influence can persuade Biden to step aside. I almost thought I should send my senators and representative a link to Nate and Maria’s podcast segment on how to appeal to Joe Biden to want him to step down.
Feeling better getting it off my chest; but, not hopeful.
you need to get on the phone and call your senators and representatives and say you have concerns with Bidens cognitive abilities and his delusional rants and you want a different president. if enough people call their senators / reps then they will come out against Biden
Been writing them, my governor, and the DNC. 🤞
nice, but congressional offices care more about phone calls than emails. they take tallies of how many phone calls for each subject, etc. this is how Ukraine Aid got passed, enough people made phone calls
It checks out that the people who actually have time in their day to contact their representatives are the people who care more about a foreign proxy war than actually helping Americans here at home.
lol, its called time management. scheduling a 90 second phone call once a week during ones lunch break its some herculean effort.
maybe if you spent less time dying your hair, you would have more time to participate in our democracy
The “you liberals and your blue-dyed hair” insult! Super inventive, only the 47th time I’ve seen that one used in substitution for an actual argument. Never even dyed my hair before either which is the best part 😂
"33. I think the White House’s treatment of Harris has been borderline despicable, from giving her impossible assignments like the border and voting rights..."
First, she's the one who chose voting rights. But yes, this narrative that she keeps being set up for failure does exist -- and throwing away her 2028 chances by giving her another "impossible assignment" (you acknowledge she's likely to lose this election) would be another example of the glass cliff. Whether or not "variance" is an optimal strategy for the party, that doesn't mean it's the optimal path for Harris. This is why members of the Congressional Black Caucus have argued against this path.
The nomination is a poisoned chalice and she doesn't want it.
Why is the border an "impossible" assignment? If she can't handle one difficult task, what should we infer about her ability to handle multiple more difficult tasks?
The border is impossible because it's more of a PR battle than it is anything about policy (see: Republicans acting in bad faith, torpedoing their own bi-partisan bill, and the endless scaremongering in the media).
From the perspective of an immigration restrictionist, it was a shitty bill that also came with billions of unwanted aid to Ukraine. Why should Biden get political cover for a policy problem he largely created?
Bill was both terrible and totally unnecessary. Stop repeating the insane Biden talking points which he soon abandoned and took actions he could have taken on Day one of his administration. Dems biggest policy failure and misunderstanding of the consequences IMHO.
Good point. Republicans will never agree to a bill or any Improvement in the immigration situation since this is an issue they run on in each and every election. And people always think that they do a great job here when in fact no one does a great job
None of that is true. All they needed to do in 2021 or 2022 was fix the asylum loophole. Would have passed easily in the Congress.
I agree. Much better to let Biden take the loss, and potentially run on her own in 2028. Even better if Biden manages to win she is either President by 2028 or a strong contender for the nomination if Biden somehow makes it through 4 years. Worst case for her is taking over the sinking ship and losing to Trump.
As Nate reminds us, Harris dropped out in 2020 before Iowa. No reason to think she has any chance to be the nominee in 2028 where an actual primary will be held. Being appointed the nominee is clearly her best shot at the presidency. Think about it, she gets appointed VP and then appointed the nominee - what a gift.
This is lunacy. Did Dan Quayle become president? How about Walter Mondale or Rockefeller. Vice presidents who fail to secure second terms rarely amount to much.
Rockefeller never ran. Ford replaced him with Dole for the campaign.
Correct and illustrative of my point.
“I agree. Much better to let Biden take the loss, and potentially run on her own in 2028. Even better if Biden manages to win she is either President by 2028 or a strong contender for the nomination if Biden somehow makes it through 4 years.”
This is only true if you accept that the rhetoric from almost every prominent Democrat about “democracy is on the ballot!” is a total lie. If it is true then there will be no 2028 election for her to run in because God-Emperor Trump will have had himself crowned fascist dictator of the entire continent and sent all his enemies to death camps.
I agree that the Democrats are lying about democracy being on the ballot, as if they really believed it they'd do anything to get the best candidate, but I think that lie is a worthwhile thing to note about them and their contempt for the electorate.
I’ve heard reporting that the CBC has decided that, if they call for Biden to step aside, they will do it as a unified block. They might actually think Biden should stay in the race. But it’s also likely that their decision to move against him will come, but come later because they have to work through disagreement within the caucus.
Or they want to wait until there’s no time for anyone but Harris to be the nominee.
That's nuts. Here's a winnable head to head matchup against a flawed and unpopular opponent just falling into her lap. And she's going to reject it for fear of damaging her chances in some future election that would require her to get through a competitive primary and face a stronger opponent?
1. Whitmer said she wouldn’t accept the nomination if Biden dropped. Maybe that’s because she doesn’t want to be seen holding the knife, but I think it’s in earnest.
2. What matters isn’t what you and I calculate as her best path. She is a key decision maker, and I’d argue she is risk-averse. CBC members are publicly saying that handing her the nomination in this type of environment is setting her up for failure. Nate argues the CBC would be happy with her selection, but I’ve only heard Clyburn with that view—admittedly, he is super prominent.
But the point is, Nate can’t just say how “despicable“ it is that the WH gave her tasks that were difficult to win and then say she should be given a nomination where he says she is likely to lose. If it’s “despicable,” he at least needs to grapple with whether this is in her interest, even if he comes out on the side of it being her best chance.
Donald Trump is the weakest presidential candidate ever - criminal convictions. Only person weaker than Donald Trump is someone with dementia like Joe Biden.
Any generic democratic candidate can beat Donald Trump.
I think this overlooks how he does in polls against many likely opponents.
The second someone else is a nominee, they no longer get that wonderful "generic" status and people will have things about them they don't like.
Completely agree. If she’s likely to lose why would she want the nomination? If she loses, she’s done politically.
I would argue at this point that the bulk of the evidence is that Biden _intends_ to stay in the race. If he cannot be persuaded to voluntarily step down the only alternative is to remove him forcefully somehow and that would obviously tear the Democratic Party apart.
As for why Biden refuses to leave, I have to wonder if his son Hunter isn't an underappreciated factor. Could it be that an outcome where Biden loses the presidential race but is able to pardon Hunter is preferable to the old than stepping down and leaving Hunter to the uncertain mercies of whoever his replacement is? Anybody that pardons Hunter is going to have to absorb a major political scandal. Is that really worth it for anyone else but family?
In addition consider reports that a) Hunter is effectively Joe's chief of staff at this point and b) there are also reports that Biden is desperate to keep his son close to prevent him from relapsing into addiction. I am not so sure that Biden is going anywhere.
It’s actually much easier to pardon Hunter if he drops out of the race but stays president. He can wait til after the election and not worry much about the consequences on his future administration.
The problem is that if he drops out of the race the pressure for him to resign as President will ratchet up considerably. Senility is disqualifying for a candidate but it is even more disqualifying for an office holder.
He seems to function well enough to finish his term honorably. However, the odds he will function well for four plus years straight are slim.
Consider the specific criticisms leveled against Biden in an attempt to get him to step down:
1. He only works from 10 am to 4 pm. Anything outside of those hours tires him..
2. He seems increasingly confused and listless. He has trouble following the thread of communication.
3. His lapses are growing in frequency, worrying those close to him.
If those charges are used to pressure Biden to give up the nomination it's naive to think that Republicans wouldn't step up the pressure to force him to resign--using those exact same charges! They will argue that he has the nuclear launch codes and that the risk from a senile old man at the helm is too much to bear for another nine months.
This is a very weak argument. He has demonstrated basic capabilities that can last him half a year. People are using these examples to say "imagine what he'll be like in 2-3 years" to state that it is extremely unlikely he is able to finish his next term.
"it's naive to think that Republicans wouldn't step up the pressure to force him to resign"
There is absolutely no strategic reason for Republicans to want Biden to resign. In fact it would probably help Harris's campaign.
Way back when Hillary Clinton ran a campaign ad that questioned voters as to who would they rather have answer the phone at 3 am when an emergency hit. If Biden is useless after dusk due to "sundowning" who gets to take that call?
Obviously Republicans would want to pressure Biden to resign as President. If they can force him out they would be able to say "See? We've been saying for years that he's senile and we've been proven right. The Democrats and the media have been lying to you all this time." A resignation would tarnish the rest of the administration and the DNC as a whole. The other element is the cover up: did Harris and the administration conspire to conceal Biden's disability from the public?
The Bidens should understand that all of them are personally in trouble from the new regime if Democrats lose this election, pardons or not. Getting out of the country safely is going to be far more important to them. (Granted, the key word in the first sentence is 'should'. And perhaps a pardon is an essential part of the plan to flee.)
Trump: did not have H Clinton prosecuted
Biden: did have Trump prosecuted
Democrats: “Oh no, Trump is going to use the law as a weapon! It's the end of our sacred democracy!”
The difference was that Clinton committed no crimes and Trump committed many. The US justice system operates at the federal, state, and local level. Even at the federal level it is not controlled by the president. Trump may change that. But until then what I said is true.
I am not so sure setting up your own unsecured email server couldn't be prosecuted if somebody really wanted to make an example out of you.
What is the evidence that Biden caused the NY (false biz records) prosection? Or any of the other three Trump indictments?
He seconded one of his team to work with the prosecution to ensure it went through.
Never bring facts into a debate with leftists. If they understood facts they wouldn't be leftists to begin with.
I often wonder if leftists actually believe what they say, or if they just say it for political purposes.
Definitely an unbiased and totally objective take, with no partisan motivation behind it whatsoever 🙄
??? This is crazy talk.
Yeah, it seems a little hyperbolic.
There's a very important element you've missed from the historical polling that kills your idea that Harris has a higher floor than Biden. Her 2020 Presidential campaign wasn't merely bad. Before the actual campaigning started she was polling 15–20%. But the more voters saw of her, the more they disliked her. By sole virtue of her public appearances, she turned that 15–20% figure into a 3–5% figure. She didn't even make it to election year before dropping out, let alone to Iowa.
Harris is just an exceptionally bad campaigner and retail politician. Like, Ron deSantis levels of bad. You can't say she has a high floor when we know how badly voters react to her on the campaign trail. She probably does have a higher ceiling than Biden, but she surely has a lower floor.
She was a total disaster and has done nothing as Veep to improve her image, unless you are with Nate and feel that being adopted as a coconut is an improvement. I can just picture the AI generated ads showing her as a coconut falling out of a tree.
Her high floor is solely the "vote blue no matter who block", I can't imagine anyone willingly voting for her on her own merits.
And the point is that that bloc will also vote for Biden.
"I’ve consistently found that the median voter theorem is still right more often than not and you’d rather nominate a more moderate candidate, other things being equal."
While I believe you are the best in the business at predicting elections, I completely disagree with the above quote. I believe that "moderates" (who used to be socially conservative economic liberals mostly concentrated in the South and are now socially liberal fiscal conservatives...ie oligarch-enablers with civility) are now the least electable group in the bunch. McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all the more moderate choices and all lost. Biden only won because of COVID. This isn't the 90's anymore. The term "moderate" changing meaning also means that what is a swing voter/independent has changed. Independents are all over the political spectrum, and the group of voters who went from Obama in '12 to Trump in '16 were all low information, apolitical, anti-status quo, and anti-institution. This is not a group that loves moderates, as our modern-day version of the word "moderate" is very much the status quo that these voters cannot stand. Look at both the far right and far left rising in France. (side note: a lot of people consider themselves to be moderate but actually aren't)
I completely agree with you that there was not a real primary, and I also strongly believe that the DNC convention would be the LAST place we could field the outsider/anti-status quo candidate that these apolitical/low information voters would be more likely to vote for. Our only chance, in my opinion (and very unlikely), would be to hold a national primary that would include Democratic and independent voters (as opposed to the convention filled w/ insiders likely to pick the most familiar name).
I will admit that I cannot name a single person that would fit the bill. Bernie Sanders is too old. Fetterman has pissed off the left too much recently and has health issues...while I do think a progressive outsider would be ideal, because these apolitical/low information voters do not care about ideology, we may be best off running a very popular/national treasure celebrity (like Dolly Parton or Bill Murray/etc.). I know this sounds bonkers, but I cannot name anyone from the progressive wing of the party who would fit the bill of outsider, and I strongly believe that anyone from the "moderate" wing of the party, even a more conservative Dem like Manchin, would do worse than Biden.
Harris may be to the left of Biden on some issues, but progressives remember her beating a progressive D.A. candidate w/ her tough on crime message. While the age issue is hurting Biden, he was losing well before the debate. I believe it has more to do with anti-incumbency/anti-status quo (apolitical/low information voters are more likely to erroneously blame Biden for inflation/etc.) and the fact that Democrats abandoned the whole hope and change message than anything else. Democrats need to run an outsider populist loudly calling for change, or replacing Biden won't make a difference/we'll still end up with Trump.
Disagree but won’t refute point by point. The ticket that would completely scramble the race and send all the useless media back to their bombshell shelters would be Manchin- Gabbard. Certainly the only Dems that I might consider voting for as a libertarian without a home, since the capital L Libertarian Party is a bad joke and a party divided.
If we could get 2016 Gabbard, before she went on her alt-right pro-Putin journey, she would be the perfect candidate. Manchin is part of the status quo and would do no better than Biden; possibly worse.
The difficult part about running as a Dem now is you have to keep the independent leaning left wing of the party on board. They won't vote Republican, but they will stay home or vote 3rd party. The moderates will vote for the party no matter who now that the Republican Party is so far from them (moderate Dems and Rs were practically the same in the 90s/early 2000s).
Beg to disagree- Tulsi is not pro Putin , as do many with actual military experience she is strongly anti War, in opposition to the war mongers in both parties. I think she is wrong on Ukraine if we would support it with enough sis to actually win, but given how we have handcuffed them it will be endless attrition. Manchin is a bridge between the status who and the far left, in other words an old time Democrat. At least Sanity on fiscal issues and the insane net zero aspirations that will not succeed unless people do not resist when being dragged back to the dark ages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/04/the-gops-new-russia-friendly-campaign-trail-buddy-tulsi-gabbard-00065024
Manchin is conservative and has to be because he is in West Virginia. I believe his time and other moderate to more conservative types will be more electable once we have a good economy that benefits younger and working class people more. Once people feel like they have something, they get selfish and fight to keep it/support more conservative fiscal values.
(Note: When I say they I mean the average apolitical/low information voter...don't mean low information in an insulting way, but they focus their intelligence elsewhere) Right now they are being railed with inflation. They are watching record corporate profits, while their paychecks do not stretch as far as they used to. They are angry and they want change, and they don't care what ideological corner that change comes from. That's why Trump is more electable than Romney, and that's why a progressive would be more electable than a moderate on the national stage now.
I plan to vote for Biden or whoever the D nominee in order to vote against Trump, but I do not have much hope unless we run a populist calling for change or (and I hate admitting this) a well-liked celebrity. We have to think outside the box on this one.
We should have another huge political realignment by 2032 or so, if not sooner. I predict the progressives will take over the Dems (because Millennials and younger will be 50+% of the voting age population by 2028...probably not the actual voting population until 2032), and I used to think more libertarian types would take over the GOP; however, it looks like the alt-right is taking root w/ younger conservatives. The alt right destroys the libertarian economic ideology traditionally held by Republicans, which I love, but I am absolutely terrified of everything else the alt-right stands for. Not to mention calling for a 15%/30% tax code will lead to middle class people paying more taxes (while the wealthy pay less). That would fit well with our modern day "moderates" (oligarch-enablers w/ civility).
Harris accused Joe Biden of being racist in one of the early '20 primary debates. He may have picked her to shore up his coalition, but I cannot imagine that they want to hand her the presidency.
If that were the case, it's more evidence of a lack of thoughtfulness by team Biden.
they are being advised by Hunter Biden
"But with the world’s eyes on him, the press conference started an hour late [...]"
It started an hour late, AFTER having already been pushed to the right an hour. The announced start time was 5:30pm.
This kind of stuff by Nate just looks petty, in my opinion. Who cares? He was at the NATO summit.
He also showed up an hour late to a meeting with congressional Dems who were concerned, doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that they are taking this seriously.
The "Vice President Trump" bit was actually a brilliant maneuver on Biden's part. It's illegal for one candidate on a ticket to run on another ticket. In one master stroke Biden has removed Trump from the race.
Is this Third Year Letterman?
I know this isn't the point of your comment, but is it really illegal? I believe some states forbid it, but I don't know about all. And it's been done before, I believe, with Bryan (nominated by the Populists and the Democrats in 1896).
Probably not illegal, except maybe at the state level.
Re Item 31: While I agree in principle that the president at any given time should be whoever's most suited for the job, Biden can't plausibly endorse Harris without resigning. If he does, he's effectively saying to the American people "Harris will be the best person to run the country on and after January 20 of next year, but until then, she's not." Nobody is going to believe that, because it does not make a lick of sense.
I don't think that's right. It's saying that he is confident in his ability to be President for the next few months, but not in four and a half years' time. It's saying that he wants to step down while he's still capable, rather than forcing Harris to endure a succession crisis because he's made some ghastly error and been forced to stand down.
Am I the only one who noticed the irony that "what can be unburdened by what has been" is a clear suggestion to get rid of both Biden and Harris?
Amazing how many times she says it - it seems to be her fallback mantra.
The Independents I know voted for Biden in ‘20 because they genuinely disliked Trump and believed Biden when he said he’d govern from the center. These folks now believe Biden conned them on governing from the center. When you couple that with what they view as his cognitive decline, they will never vote for him. They still cannot vote for Trump. So they are leaning write in because many of them are veterans and they refuse to give up their right to vote. Larry Hogan is popular…as is Beshar.
There's a center? I call the modern day "center" oligarch-enablers with civility. They also match the status quo that modern day swing voters want nothing to do with.
Harris has some other issues that aren't talked about much that I think will scare voters.
1. Her Senate voting record is far left.
2. She has a pamphlet or book or something that shows the difference between equity and equality. When it gets circulation, people are going to see what DEI is really all about. The identity politics is written into Executive orders. She will make this much worse.
3. She refused to continue prosecution of sexual abuse victims by the Catholic church after she won DA. There are people right now who are still upset that she wouldn't release papers.
Those are just a few and the Reps aren't showing their cards right now, as they are waiting until she gets the spot.
I actually think passing her over without going to the voters is anti-democratic.
She's also not been the most progressive DA, although that might help her with the moderates.