186 Comments
User's avatar
Sondes's avatar

You know what is truly bizarre - in most countries (think of the UK, France, Italy, to name a few) the months we have before the election would be considered more than long enough to get an alternative candidate, if the Democrats could simply get their act together. Honestly the incredibly long US campaigning season is one of the most unproductive use of time and resources. Rather than govern, most politicians seem to spend most of their time campaigning, preparing to campaign, fund raising, preparing to fund raise. What complete rubbish.

Expand full comment
Nick C's avatar

Here here! The fact that the first primaries happen almost a year before the election is ridiculous, and that's not even considering the nearly 2 year-long soft Presidential campaign season.

Unfortunately, our long campaign season is a vestige of our history, political machines, and geography. We've made changes in the past (for example, with the 20th Amendment moving inauguration day to January), and I feel like it's time for us to continue to make more changes.

Obviously, a big reason for our longer election cycles compared to European democracies is our Primary Elections. We have publicly funded primary elections (or open primaries in a few states), whereas most (all?) European democracies use internal party primaries. That can dramatically shorten the campaign season.

Historically, the party conventions were the place to actually select the candidates, but as the primaries have become formalized, party conventions have taken on a smaller role, so our need to allow buffer weeks for the party convention has also been reduced.

Just as we have universal November election day, we could easily have a National Primary Day. To figure out the right day, we can work backwards. Based on the UK process, candidates must be declared approximately 1 month before the election. That means our party conventions could be as late as the first week in October. However, we also do a lot of mail-in ballots/absentee ballots, so we need additional time to get the ballots printed and mailed out. Some states take this really far (requiring candidate certifications by early Aug), though most states need certifications in early September.

Going with the early September date, that means conventions need to happen at the end of August. And if we generously give delegates a month to manage travel plans, that would mean we'd need our primary election results certified by the end of July. The state that allows the longest time to certify an election is California, at 38 days, though most states only require 2 weeks. Going with a month-long certification, that puts the primaries in the end of June.

Yes, that would still be a lot longer than many European systems, but it would cut 6 months out of the election calendar. An end-of-June date would also be a good time: school's out, and it's before July 4th, so it would allow campaigning during that holiday.

If we revisit our timeline above, looking at the states with the tightest election calendars, we could probably squeeze another month out (or even two), pushing the National Primary day back to late July/early August.

We also should revisit our Tuesday election day. Why we can't have elections on a weekend when most people aren't working seems silly.

Expand full comment
K Tucker Andersen's avatar

Not sure that I view the European models as fostering governments good for their constituents and leading to a more successful and productive society than ours. Let’s not focus on the prices for its faults, and it’s own let’s debate what would give us better outcomes and lead better people to be willing to become candidates, particularly in helping us move back to the middle from the extremes - a trend which is evident everywhere. Thank you social media for our increasing polarization.

Expand full comment
Joel's avatar

Well the results are mixed. There are Euro nations with better living standards than U.S., and Euro nations that are poorer. Agreed that it’s not a sure bet.

Expand full comment
Jacob Manaker's avatar

"in most countries (think of the UK, France, Italy, to name a few) the months we have before the election would be considered more than long enough…the incredibly long US campaigning season is one of the most unproductive use of time and resources"

How many of those countries have a population anywhere close to 330mil? And how many have the comparable levels of internal diversity to the US? It's a big country; politicians need to put out more messages to build a 50%+1 coalition.

Expand full comment
Will McComb's avatar

The rapid coalescence around Harris is more a reflection of the huge interest in seeing an alternative emerge than in her actual candidacy IMO. The groundswell push on the left for Biden dropping out is growing by the day. It’s amazing to watch and I hope we’ll see him take action by this weekend.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

Prior to the debate Harris was widely viewed as an even worse candidate than Biden. In fact a Harris candidacy was often offered as an argument for Biden staying in the race.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 3
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Evan's avatar
Jul 3Edited

IMO, the focus on Harris is mainly because she minimizes the risks of the transition itself. She's been through a Presidential campaign before, she's tested on the national stage. She could make immediate use of Biden's war chest. She would not have to go through a contested convention which might end up making some utterly bonkers choice. And choosing her wouldn't result in left-wing voters staying home at the sight of Biden's black, female VP being passed over for some white person.

And then there's the fact that we had a bunch of primaries, and the people in those primaries voted for Biden to be the nominee. When "defending democracy" is a central theme of your campaign, you're really undercutting yourself if you just override the will of the voters. Harris is Biden's officially designated successor; she has legitimacy which none of the others do.

If Biden had dropped out eight months ago, Harris would be an unlikely pick to replace him. But that's not where we are now. You can't just look at how good a candidate would be if you could magically swap them for Biden; the cost of getting them there matters a lot.

Expand full comment
Spencer Roach's avatar

My hope was that Biden would drop out tomorrow as an act of patriotism and love for his country, but given that he's doing the interview Friday that seems unlikely

Expand full comment
Anthony's avatar

I assume when you say "the left" you mean Democrats in general (as in, on the left side of American politics), rather than the left wing within the Democratic Party. I have seen some Democrats online complain the calls for Biden to resign are just far left rabblerousing from bitter Bernie bros, but I think that's extremely naive. There are mainstream, capital D Democrats who helped carry Biden past Bernie in the primary four years ago who want him to drop out now.

Expand full comment
Max's avatar

The teleprompter use at private fundraisers is pretty wild. Going off the cuff in front of friendly audiences at private events should be rather bare minimum for any politician.

Expand full comment
Treeamigo's avatar

And the average length of speech is less than 10 minutes

Expand full comment
Petey's avatar

I like Scott’s solution best. In an ambiguous and difficult situation, people should always go for the funniest option:

“[Biden] should decline the nomination and endorse some likeable purple-state governor. If Kamala Harris gets angry, he should just say “sorry, I’m a demented old man, you can’t blame me for my actions”. If she gets angry at the other Democrats, they should just say “sorry, it’s an old man’s dying wish, it would be cruel not to honor it”.”

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

Unless that candidate is black and or a woman, bypassing Harris is going to rub a lot of Dem voters the wrong way. And they cannot afford to hemorrhage any more of the black vote.

Expand full comment
Joel's avatar

Gretch Gretch Gretch!

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

I could see her mounting a serious challenge in 2028 but there's no way the woke left will bypass a black woman for a white one. Maybe I'm too cynical?

Expand full comment
Nick H's avatar

I'm amused by the idea that the press has been "duped by partisan hacks" into not covering something that has been blatantly obvious for the last few years. For one, I'm not sure how much distinction can be made between those two groups. The majority of the press was perfectly fine going along with the White House spin that videos showing the President exhibiting the symptoms of dementia were "cheapfakes" and misleading. They willingly chose to tell everyone that the Emperor's new outfits were the height of fashion, and they deserve all the scorn they're getting for that.

Expand full comment
Martin Blank's avatar

I really don't understand where this idea that a good 30-40% of the press aren't ideological hacks/activists comes from, and this subset of them certainly dominates and controls the MSM discussion of politics much of the time. There is this constant contention that the press never really outright lies from smart fairly heterodox people. And it is just so obviously false.

As this exact extremely important scenario is laying bare (again).

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

I made this exact post. Either the press were lying to us, or they were too stupid to see what we saw. Either way, it’s just further proof that they are indeed Fake News, and just reinforces the eroding trust in media.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

There is something of a trap buried in the issue of Biden giving up the candidacy: if he is so diminished that he cannot run for office does that imply that he cannot fulfill the duties of his office?

Expand full comment
jabster's avatar

Yeah, there's still the question of whether he should be 25Aed right now.

If Harris appears to be a viable replacement, I could see this accelerating to at least give her some power of incumbency.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

Ten minutes before Trump steps up on the podium for his acceptance speech at the RNC, everyone cuts away to “Breaking News: Biden steps down, Harris sworn in as first woman president”.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

Isn't Harris even more unpopular than Biden?

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

I thought Nate was saying above that this is at best ambiguously true, and there’s more room for that to change (for better or for worse) if she takes on a new role (which Biden can’t really do).

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

Warren's approval ratings have consistently been lower than Biden's. He specifically references one poll in his article, a poll taken after the debate where Democrats may be desperate for any warm body that can stand in for Biden.

Expand full comment
Kenny Easwaran's avatar

I had thought that both her approval and disapproval have been a few points lower, for approximately the same net balance (plus or minus a few points). But I haven't tracked specifically.

Expand full comment
deadbeef's avatar

In my dreams: Biden resigns with a private understanding that Harris would not run for a full term this year. He would make history by elevating a woman to the Presidency, and wouldn't have the backlash from her supporters that she was muscled aside for a (possibly) white or (possibly) male candidate. She would get to be president for 6 months and would be free to run for two full terms in the future.

Expand full comment
Anthony's avatar

Harris would never, ever agree to that. She has political ambitions, and agreeing not to run if Biden steps down is tantamount to agreeing that she isn't capable of winning. It's not like her chances would be any better four or eight years from now than they are now.

If she were 39, instead of 59, she might consider it, but this point she has been in the public eye for 20 years, and a senator and VP for the past eight. There is no more résumé building she can possibly do. She's either the next Democratic nominee (either in 2024 or 2028), or she will never be the nominee.

Expand full comment
Richard A Polin's avatar

There are only a handful of individuals who can convince Biden to drop out. Jill Biden is unlikely to be that person. Obama is capable and the best chance we have to convince Biden that running again for presidents a big mistake. Any planned interview wiith George Stephanopoulos will be meaningless.. Bedsides, Obama, Senate and House members should start to publicly question Biden's value as a politician. I am a physician and an every stage of my career, there have been individuals whose capacity has been questioned. In almost every instance, even close friends were too emabarrased to say something. This is not the time to be quiet. The risk of having a 500 pound gorilla in the Whitehouse is too great. Harris is eloquent and means well, but I don't think she can beat Trump.

Expand full comment
Fuzz's avatar

My take is that Biden greatly respects Obama and would heed his advice on nearly anything EXCEPT "don't run for president," simply because that's essentially what Obama advised him in 2016. I think Biden and most in his orbit think that if he had been the nominee instead of Clinton, Trump never would have been president, and there's a great deal of resentment between the Biden and Obama teams over that move. To be clear, I think that's all considered water under the bridge and fully processed by now, but Obama advising Biden to drop out might reopen old wounds.

Expand full comment
jabster's avatar

Biden is going to tell Obama to commit an anatomical impossibility.

Expand full comment
Lonnie Hanekamp's avatar

Frankly, I would like to see Biden do that. Obama has always been dismissive of Biden and every time Biden appeared with Obama, it diminished Biden rather than elevating him. The fact that Biden ever believed that Obama was a true supporter, demonstrates a serious lack of judgment.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

Well Barry did once say “don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to F things up”. I also remember Joe advising not to take down Bin Laden, or to carve up Iraq into three separate nations. In fact, I can’t think of one foreign policy issue or decision that he was right on.

Expand full comment
Lonnie Hanekamp's avatar

Yes, that is true. And Biden does have a terrible record on foreign policy. This is why Biden believing that Obama will save him is inexplicable. Given the chance, Obama will throw Biden under Kamala’s bus.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

And we all know Kamala loves school busses lol...

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

Why was it right to not carve Iraq up into three nations..? Does Iraq look like a functional state to you currently thanks to that decision?

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

Well besides the fact that we shouldn't play mapmaker? Arbitrarily drawing lines to group or separate people shouldn't be our role in the world. As of now it seems Iraq is functioning fine, no thanks to the Bush and Cheney cabal.

Expand full comment
CC's avatar

'As of now it seems Iraq is functioning fine' said noone ever?

Do you even know anything about what's going on in Iraq right now?

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

The question is whether Obama and Jill Biden neutralize each other. Reports are that Biden's family is digging in and want him to stay in the race.

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

It's the weirdest thing. His legacy would have been excellent if he'd stepped down shortly after passing his major legislation. It's been getting worse month by month, and losing this campaign will make it worse again.

Expand full comment
Martin Blank's avatar

Not sure his legacy matters a ton to anyone but him and Jill, and she might also see a legacy for herself as the power behind the throne and modern day Wilson/Roosevelt.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

I suspect that the perks of office are impossible to resist.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

It’s not weird at all. Jill loves being on the cover of Vogue. Hunter needs Joe to continue raking in millions. Joe is just the means to an end for them.

Expand full comment
K Tucker Andersen's avatar

Of course they do, Jill was clear in the incredibly badly timed VF article how much she enjoyed the trappings of power. And Hunter needs to get Biden to pardon him before he relinquishes power.

Expand full comment
K Tucker Andersen's avatar

Face reality - at this point the only likely person to be able to beat Trump is in fact Trump himself. And Trump is clearly capable of being his own worst enemy as are most emotionally immature and narcissist males.. But recently the dislikable Trump has only appeared very briefly to those not suffering TDS. Don’t believe me, just look at Nate’s odds and talk to unbiased individuals trying to decide whether Biden or Trump are the less bad of two horrible choices. Anecdotally I know a lotbof people who before the debate were inclined to hold their nose and vote for Biden, they may not become Trump voters but after the debate and all its implications including being lied to by the White House and so many Dems there is nothing on earth that could now convince them that Biden is an acceptable choice.

Expand full comment
Tyler Spaugh's avatar

Even with the 25th it ultimately still is Biden's decision alone. The 25th only removes the president from office, not from the ballot

Of course the concept of a president removed from office via the 25th still running for reelection is absurd, but we're already through the looking glass

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

If the 25th is invoked it will do massive damage to Biden's candidacy, but I doubt the votes are there to actually remove him from office.

Also I feel like the odds that his cabinet attempts to remove him are miniscule in the first place.

Expand full comment
Kevin Nelson's avatar

Invoking the 25th Amendment does not actually remove the president from office. It merely relieves the president of his powers and duties, with the vice-president becoming "Acting President."

I'm certainly not betting on Biden's own cabinet using the 25th on him, but I think the probability is higher than minuscule. It all depends on the impression they get of him during private meetings. If (for example) he keeps asking them the same thing over and over even after getting an answer, they'll have to start thinking about what they can do.

They'd almost certainly start out by trying to persuade Biden to step aside voluntarily. If he refuses, it will ultimately come down to Congress to decide. Why do you doubt the votes are there to declare him incapacitated? Democrats would probably go along with Biden's own cabinet. Do you think Republicans would follow a Machiavellian strategy of propping up Biden just so people would vote against him?

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

Even if Biden is relieved of his duties he would still be the Democratic nominee. The only path forward for the Democrats is for Biden to voluntarily resign.

From Biden's perspective resigning as the 2024 nominee leads to a next step, relinquishing the office of President. I doubt his wife and family will allow him to do so.

For a Democrat in Congress how does this play out? The PR damage from invoking the 25th would be massive. Plus what if Biden insists on staying on as the nominee?

Attempting to force Biden out won't work. If he goes it has to be voluntarily. From a Democratic perspective better to avoid a very public and very messy battle that could tarnish the party's reputation so badly that the November election is unwinnable.

Expand full comment
John Bejarano's avatar

Looks like I'll be voting third-party for the fourth consecutive presidential election. Being politically homeless and despising both sides of the political cultural war gets wearisome.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

In terms of fund raising my understanding is that all of the money already donated to the Biden-Harris ticket simply couldn't be automatically reassigned to another candidate. Harris at least could receive the bulk of those donations.

The other thing I would point out is that you look at RCP I am pretty sure that Harris is even more unpopular than Biden (at least pre-debate) and had worse odds. I would warn that her fundamentals are pretty terrible and that is being glossed over now because the Democrats are desperate to get somebody, anybody, other than Biden.

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

As I was reading Nate's take I was thinking taking such a dramatic and unprecedented step with so many moving parts and so many potential procedural pitfalls for a shot at losing by only 2 points instead of losing by 6 doesn't really seem worthwhile. If you're gonna take a big risk there should be a big reward on the other side, even if it's only theoretical.

Expand full comment
Tim Rhode's avatar

I have not seen a single article or video talking about how calm cool and dare I say "Presidential" Trump was during the debate. All of the after debate "talk" was about Bidan's shockingly poor performance. Now the Dems are scurrying like rats to dump Bidan in favor of Kamala, Gretchen, Gavin and Michelle. They must now have "somebody" to PLEASE beat Trump! (Orange Man bad) They (The Dems) should have played it straight had a real primary and allowed all of the above, including Kennedy (Who, like Bernie, they could NOT accept) vie for the nomination from the git go. But no. They did all they could to set this up so "Ole Joe" from Scranton can lead us for the next 4 years. Now the show is about to begin. The public has once again been played by a fawning in the tank press. The voters saw with their own eyes the gaslighting our leaders in the White House have used to keep and TRY to retain power. Please pass the popcorn and wake up the masses to see the coronation in November next POTUS DJT. Elvis (mainstream voters) have left the building. Thanks for your great work here on this page Nate.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

"I have not seen a single article or video talking about how calm cool and dare I say 'Presidential' Trump was during the debate."

True, we have not seen any such articles. There's a reason for that.

Expand full comment
Elan's avatar

An important point in Harris' favor (vs convention) is she can inherit his campaign org and $ *today* b/c she's one the ticket, but if we go to the convention the nominee will need to build and fundraise for a campaign from zero starting *in 6 weeks* or so. The winning candidate would have to be substantially better to justify that. (not to mention the risk of the convention splintering the coalition like the last time dems had an open convention in Chicago in August.)

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

We've all got our checkbooks waiting.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

As exhibit 1a I offer Democratic Representative Jared Golden's new editorial:

"Donald Trump is going to win the election and democracy will be just fine"

https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-contributor/jared-golden-donald-trump-going-to-win-election-democracy-be-just-fine/

Expand full comment
Treeamigo's avatar

Harris is a peripheral part of the shadow government and is in on the scam on the American people, ignoring her constitutional duty. I think this discredits her, though I agree she is the easiest choice (ideally Joe would resign tomorrow and endorse Kamala, but neither is happening). The governors might be better off looking to 2028, post-Trump.

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

If Trump wins I seriously doubt we’ll see a D president again in my lifetime. Project 2025 coupled with this Supreme Court ruling on immunity more or less guarantees a Republican hegemony keeping power by any means necessary.

Expand full comment
Clay's avatar

Has Trump even endorsed project 2025? I believe the Heritage Foundation is the group that came up with it.

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

Not directly, but most of the proposals are based on issues Trump complained about in his first term and his advisors helped write it. There is no reason for him to publicly embrace it, just opens new avenues to attack Trump, but there is also no reason to doubt he’d follow it.

Expand full comment
Mike Ritter's avatar

He knows nothing about it, except there are some parts he doesn't agree with.

Typical Trumpian bullshit, it's run by people that were in his administration.

He's begged for help from the authors and the Heritage foundation.

It's his. He won't be able to run from it.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

I'll bite. What precisely is so objectionable about Project 2025?

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

Removing almost every federal employee and replacing them with conservatives, attacks on the first amendment in the name of Christian morals, the unitary theory giving the president direct control over huge swaths of the federal government, the end of most social and environmental protections, typical tax cuts for the rich. You should really read at least their website, they aren’t shy about what it would do.

Expand full comment
jabster's avatar

It still has to go through Congress and ruled on by the courts. The lessons of Schoolhouse Rock still are valid.

The immunity ruling isn't the gift to Trump that progressives are making it out to be. Heck, it would prevent Biden from being hauled into court for some of his stuff that the GOP happens to disagree with. And Trump's case was just sent back to the lower court, not thrown out. If the prosecutor hadn't claimed that presidents have NO immunity whatsoever, SCOTUS probably wouldn't have taken the case.

And the American electorate is quite thermostatic. Just look at what is happening on abortion. If it weren't for Dobbs Trump would have won 2024 months ago.

To be clear--I'm 0-2 for voting for Trump and soon to be 0-3.

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

The schedule f reclassification of employees does not need to go through Congress, although they could stop him. The rest is (arguably) abusing the enforcement of existing laws, which is an official power of the President. If his official act is in furtherance of that enforcement the Supreme Court just said it isn’t a crime. If there is a legal challenge to his action the Supreme Court would need to stop him. Do you think this Supreme Court stops Trump? Congress is left holding the purse strings but beyond that, without new amendments, I don’t see how they curtail Trump in what will likely be a very divided Congress.

Expand full comment
Evan's avatar

Some of the stuff in there might be too much for even this court to stomach. But it's quite possible that Trump responds by channeling Andrew Jackson*: "Chief Justice Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

*Jackson didn't actually say this.

Expand full comment
David N.'s avatar

There are close to 3 million federal employees. Your contention is really that "almost every" one will be replaced? What percentage are you actually estimating, and based on what source?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001

As far as I can tell, Project 2025 involves a couple thousand higher up GS pay scale employees, in addition to the normal presidential appointment positions. You can find that worrisome without engaging in hyperbole.

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

I’m sorry schedule F would only been applied to tens of thousands and not millions. A grave oversimplification in my original post.

Expand full comment
Mike Ritter's avatar

You forgot Trump has said he would reclassify schedule F so he could fire anyone without cause. So naive. Pretending, eh?

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

A lot of this stuff is so vague as to be meaningless. What specifically does "attacks on the first amendment" mean? Or firing federal employees?

"Typical" tax cuts for the rich doesn't sound apocalyptic. "Typical" implies commonplace. If it's happened before what makes this time different?

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

Specifically an outlaw on pornography and a crackdown on all telecommunications companies to ensure compliance. There are also forced compliance with biblical law which manifests in the removal of protections on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual identify. Again, you don’t need to take my word for any of it go read their website or white paper.

Expand full comment
Slaw's avatar

"Specifically an outlaw on pornography and a crackdown on all telecommunications companies to ensure compliance."

Does anybody seriously think this could get past the Supreme Court?

"There are also forced compliance with biblical law which manifests in the removal of protections on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual identify."

The Supreme Court will have the final call on this one--see Obergefell.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

You talk as if this is a bad thing.

Expand full comment
Tom Iwancio's avatar

If you enjoy freedom they are indeed bad.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

Ask Bannon and Navarro if they are enjoying freedom.

Expand full comment
Ed Y.'s avatar

I hope you’re right! In fact, Republicans might try to remove D candidates from state ballots, or throw them in jail, just like the left has done. I mean, the precedent has been set.

Expand full comment
Mike Ritter's avatar

Constitutional duty? Pray tell, what does that mean?

Or are you just continuing to slander her?

I'm not really interested in hearing what DINOs think.

Expand full comment
Treeamigo's avatar

Read the constitution and get back to us.

And slander? Is your nutbag theory that she was too dimwitted and out of touch to be aware that Biden was not able to fulfill his duties and so not part of the cabal…just incompetent herself? That sounds slanderous! Or being a true blue partisan hack is your belief that Biden, the 6 hour a day prez is just fine, hence should be the candidate. I think he is certainly the candidate you deserve.

Expand full comment
Mike Ritter's avatar

None of Biden’s presidential duties require him to run again.

Expand full comment
Ezra Berger's avatar

Doesn’t the fact that only Harris can inherit Biden’s existing campaign make her the only real alternative? Anyone else, even a self funded, would struggle logistically and get unflattering coverage in the press.

Expand full comment
Nathan Dornbrook's avatar

Yes.

Expand full comment
jabster's avatar

I thought that many of the Biden staff are "Biden lifers" and probably have a great deal of loyalty to him, and whose careers would be damaged regardless of whether they flee the ship at this point. It's not like an AOC would welcome them with open arms. Maybe an older, moderate senator, but not a young radical.

Kind of like a longtime IBMer trying to get a job with Google or Salesforce.

Maybe some young folks with a lot of time ahead of them would get out while the getting is good (while CYAing in the process), but I could see some of the older folks riding off into the sunset with him. They won't give up without a fight, because this is their farewell tour.

Expand full comment