Biden in Black and White
The President's support is considerably stronger among Black Democrats.
In the heated debates in our discussion section as to whether President Biden should step aside for a younger nominee, I’ve noticed charges from our handful of Black-identified commenters that the movement is driven by White elites who ignore the interests of Black Americans. I’ve largely dismissed this as frustrated rhetoric but I’m now seeing this echoed elsewhere.
MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones attributes a similar view to AOC and others.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has issued a dire warning to her party about the chaos that could ensue if they succeed in pushing President Joe Biden off the ticket. And she criticized Democrats who’ve given off-the-record quotes that suggest the party has resigned itself to a second Trump term.
In an Instagram Live video on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez warned liberals that a brokered convention could lead to chaos, in part because she says some of the Democratic “elites” who want Biden out also don’t want Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee in his place.
[…]
Ocasio-Cortez also highlighted the racial, ethnic and class divisions that appear to have formed between the majority of those pining to blow up the ticket — led mostly by white Democrats and media pundits — and those elected officials who feel they and their constituents have too much at stake to upend the process at this point and so are willing to do the work to re-elect Biden-Harris. She alluded to this cultural divide in her video when she spoke out against anonymous sources expressing a sense of fatalism on behalf of Democrats about what might happen if Biden remains on the ticket
I searched in vain for a transcription or at least a more detailed reporting of this version of AOC’s remarks and am not interested in spending an hour watching the Instagram post. So, it’s possible Jones is interpreting her comments through his own lens.
Regardless, Jones notes,
Earlier this week, I noted similar criticism voiced in a letter from the voter advocacy group Black Voters Matter that denounced some Democrats’ haphazard effort to overrule primary voters, oust Biden and potentially leapfrog Harris as the obvious second-in-line to be the party’s nominee. Part of that criticism stemmed from the fact that mobilizing Biden-Harris voters to cast a ballot for an entirely new set of nominees would most likely prove difficult.
And the criticism didn’t end there. In fact, hours before Ocasio-Cortez’s post to Instagram on Thursday, more than 1,400 Black women who are activists signed a separate letter calling out Democrats who are seeking to push Biden out and install someone other than Harris atop the ticket.
Democrats ought to heed these warnings and cease their hasty effort to oust Biden (or, failing that, to push aside Harris in the process) at the risk of fomenting resentment among voting blocs that are essential to their electoral goals.
That’s all pretty anecdotal. But the little data I can find seems to back it up.
A recent poll commissioned by Split Ticket (“We Polled Black Voters. Here’s What We Found.“), a group about which I have no knowledge, presents a lot of interesting data and analysis about Black attitudes toward the election. Regarding the specific question of replacing Biden on the ticket, we get this:
Although Black voters are ready to back President Biden by large margins if he chooses to stay in the race, it is clear that they are far more split on whether he should. While a clear majority of respondents reject the claim that he is too old to be president, Black voters are noticeably more divided on the question of whether he should step aside.
Our survey finds that 49% of Black voters think that Biden should remain in the race, compared with 43% who believe he should drop out. Notably, there is a clear divide observed among partisan lines; 60% of Black Democrats believe he should stay in, while this figure is just 33% with Independents and 12% with Republicans.
One of the other big dividing lines observed is among age — 62% of Black voters under 30 and 58% of Black voters between the ages of 30 and 44 believe that Biden should step aside. Older respondents, meanwhile, are more opposed to Biden leaving the race, with 68% of Black respondents over 65 favoring Biden staying in. This lines up with the primary elections, where older Black voters were consistently Biden’s strongest group, carrying him to commanding victories in states like South Carolina.
We also asked respondents whether Biden should take time to reconsider running in the presidential election. A majority (52%) agree that Biden should take time to reconsider, compared with 42% who disagree. While a commanding number of Black Independent and Republican respondents agree that Biden should reconsider running, Black Democrats are more divided — they split 49–46 on whether the president should reconsider his bid.
It’s worth noting, however, that if Biden does withdraw from the election, our survey suggests that Black voters are considerably more likely than not to view his decision as strengthening his legacy rather than weakening it, by a margin of 48–34.
Alas, a survey of only Blacks voters doesn’t tell us much about how they compare to White voters. But the recent AP-NORC poll shows a pretty substantial divide:
White and Hispanic Democrats want Biden to withdraw by a 2:1 margin whereas Black Democrats are 50-50.
Similarly, an Economist/YouGov poll similarly shows significantly more enthusiasm for Biden’s withdrawals among White and Hispanics than Blacks:
I’m not sure what to make of all of this, to be honest. Black support was critical to Biden’s securing the nomination in 2020 and they’re roughly a quarter of the Democratic base. Clearly, they’re either more satisfied with Biden’s performance in office, more comfortable with his declining verbal acuity, or more confident of his ability to defeat Trump (or some combination of those) than than their White co-partisans.
But this quotation from AOC’s Instagram commentary is noteworthy:
What I will say is what upsets me is [Democrats] saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don’t care what name is on there. We are not losing. I don’t know about you, but my community does not have the option to lose. My community does not have the luxury of accepting loss in July of an election year. My people are the first ones deported. They’re the first ones put in Rikers. They’re the first ones whose families are killed by war.
Hyperbole aside, it’s not unreasonable for Blacks and other marginalized groups to see the stakes of the election as higher. Although, interestingly, the polling shows that Hispanics—who would seemingly have even more reason to fear a Trump presidency—have essentially the same views on the matter as Whites.
Odds are Biden will step down, but only because it’s easier to change the mind of one person than those of many people; and the latter give every indication they will keep hammering on Biden, and ignoring the Convicted Felon, until election day*.
The matrix of possibilities is clear:
1) Biden stays
2) Biden goes
1.1) Biden wins
1.2) Biden loses
2.1) Replacement wins
2.2) Replacement loses
If we get 1.2 or 2.2, the debate will carry on over who’s to blame, while the fascist machinery plows merrily away.
Best case for both scenarios is a quick decision that ends the argument and allows everyone to focus on turnout and a campaign against the Convicted Felon. And I don’t see that happening.
As noted, as long as Biden doesn’t drop out, the calls for him to do so won’t stop. If he does step down, there will be much argument about whom the replacement will be.
I tend to agree with @Jen, that this looks like trying to build a new boat instead of fixing the boat that sprung a leak.
*Or past it. I can see a Biden win where the drop Biden camp urge electors to give their votes to Newsom, Whitmer, or some other Perfect Ideal Democratic President.
This highlights one of the issues I have with polling. That AP-NORC poll doesn’t illuminate much because of the way the question is worded.
“Withdraw and allow his party to select a different candidate”
The issue here is obvious–it doesn’t show how many who are against withdraw are concerned about the process of choosing another candidate. I haven’t watched the AOC video either, but the quoted part specifies the prospect of a brokered convention. She may be okay with Harris, I don’t know.
I share AOC’s concern. In my view the only palatable alternative to Biden is Harris.
Also, looking at the top line results are kind of interesting.
Nuggets:
-51% total (25% GOP) respondents say Trump should withdraw
-(net very/somewhat UNfav-net very/somewhat fav-dont know enough)
Trump: 59-37-3
Biden: 58-38-3
Harris: 48-43-9
Vance: 22-17-60
RFK Jr.: 40-37-22
And for fun, because he represents my current home state…
Rubio: 38-29-32
ETA: @Kathy mentions Whitmer and Newsom, so here are their numbers:
Whitmer: 22-24-54
Newsom: 32-26-41
Interesting to watch the internal bickering continue among partisans on this forum. This mostly unnecessary, and day late and dollar short, quarrel may find itself lasting longer than Democrats need and fragment the party for years.
On the plus side, JKB, Jack, and the gang may get to watch each side shout “See, I KNEW you were wrong!” at the other from the first Wednesday in November on. The data will be contorted to match the bias.
@just nutha:
From what I gather, I think there is a general consensus that whatever Biden decides, it should happen pretty soon.
As you point out: this is the fourth down decision–too many people form their opinion based on the outcome rather than reasoning process.
But just as the coach doesn’t know whether the offense will succeed if he goes for it, the kicker will miss the fg, or the punt will lead to the other team running out the clock; no one here has any clue what course of action is best.
We. Don’t. Know. So digging one’s heels on a particular position is unwise.
So, take the following with a grain of salt.
If Bernius and @JKB are correct that Biden v. Trump is a turnout election, I think the correct lens is: do any potential Biden replacements turn the race into a referendum on Trump?
If the answer to that is yes, then the best course of action is to pick the candidate least likely to cause Dems to stay home.
So many unknowns.
The issue of “legacy” comes up a lot in these articles. Makes me wonder to what extent Biden’s legacy is linked to the good of the country.
He’s human and a politician, so of course he thinks they are connected (r=1.0).
But how do the various sides of this issue (combinations of run, don’t run, remain in office, resign) think about Biden’s legacy vis-à-vis the good of the country?
Most of us probably work backwards from our position to drum up reasons it maximizes both his legacy and the good of the country. This is the standard way that humans reason, and it also serves a persuasion purpose (to oneself and others).
What about scenarios in which a given decision on this matter harms Biden’s legacy and is for the good for the country? And vice versa, in which a given decision is good for Biden’s legacy and is bad for the country?
I’m finding these considerations to be more interesting, especially the implications regarding how one might try to persuade others (Biden included) based on these hypotheticals.
A problem here, which everyone who publishes things seems to ignore, probably because it doesn’t help pundits to write an “I don’t know” column, is that we don’t know what would have happened if a different choice was made. And we don’t know how likely whatever outcome happened was, given the starting state. Maybe Biden drops out, the replacement wins, and the pundit class will take victory laps. Maybe Biden stays in, and wins, and the pundit class will probably just pretend that nothing happened. If whoever it is looses, I’m sure there will be lots of “I told you so’s” happening instead of/in addition to people trying to stop the mass deportations that have been promised.
I do believe that all the chaos is really unhelpful. If Biden drops out, Harris needs to be the replacement. More chaos in the form of a brokered convention will not help, and a perfect candidate won’t be found. Is a woman, or a black woman, more problematic to swing voters than an elderly man? I don’t know. What about a California liberal? You know what really doesn’t help, whoever the candidate is? Their own side saying they can’t win. And I realize all the leaks are being done to encourage him to drop out, but what if he decides to stay?
Again, the problem here isn’t Biden, mostly. I’m not saying it’s possible he isn’t a problem, I’m saying I don’t know, and humility from all sides would be helpful. The problem is that a large percentage of the country is willing to vote for a convicted rapist and serial fraudster, and that a large portion of the federal judiciary is acting as an enabler. The problem is that every time the Republicans have been offered the chance to rid themselves of Trump, they’ve refused to do so. The problem is people are willing to tolerate a level of awfulness and bad faith from Republicans that they won’t tolerate from Democrats.
I think Biden can win. I’d take a well intentioned, if old, person over a malignant narcissist any day, and I think if people were reminded enough of why they elected Biden in the first place, he’d win. It would be nice if he could win based on a positive message rather than a “look at the other guy” platform, but that’s where we are. Do you want Biden doing good work for 8 hours a day, or Trump tweeting and running “The Apprentice: White House” 24/7? Do you think 2016-2020 was bad? How much worse is it going to be if all that’s there staffing the leadership positions are the sideshow acts of the first term? How much of what people perceive as cognition problems that Biden is having are just a man who’s had a stutter all his life that’s gotten older? I don’t know.
I do like the idea that was presented on a podcast a few days ago, of Harris stepping in, and presenting herself as a way to turn the page on the past 8 years. That might be a way to get to a positive message, which would be nice. But I don’t really know her politics; for the most part, I’ve been really happy with what Biden’s been able to achieve the past 4 years. I don’t know if a President Harris is preferable to a President Biden.
Reagan almost certainly had Alzheimer’s for some significant part of his second term. Woodrow Wilson during the last part of his presidency. And Trump doesn’t look really healthy either. He’s just more energetic, and can talk incoherently for long periods of time.
My comment in italics.
More nuggets from that AP-NORC poll:
How confident are you that each of the following has the mental capability to serve effectively as president?
Net NOT very/NOT at all-Net extremely/very confident-Somewhat confident
Trump: 51-30-18
Biden: 70-14-15
I note that they last asked this question in February and Trump’s numbers are virtually unchanged. Biden’s were 63-20-17.
The MOE of this iteration is +/-3.8%. I don’t know if it is the same for the previous one or not.
Please indicate whether you think each word or phrase better describes Joe Biden, better
describes Donald Trump, describes both equally, or doesn’t describe either one.
Trump-Biden-Both equally-Neither
Honest:
21-40-5-33
Capable of winning the 2024 election:
42-18-26-13
The 13% who think neither is capable of winning must be uninformed pollyannas AKA ride or die RFK Jr. supporters
Has the right vision for the country:
34-35-5-26
Capable of handling a crisis:
38-28-9-24
Many seem to think both candidates are vaguely human-shaped invitations sent from the American electorate to Russia/China/Iran/North Korea to have some fun on the international stage. Of course, one wonders if some of them have already forgotten how Covid went–IIRC most people did not approve of his handling of it. And forgot about the Mueller Report or bought into Barr’s pre-release spin.
Sigh.
@Mimai:
Dude, I was really hoping you would pop up in the threads from yesterday and the day before.
It was a bit wild.
I posted that Split ticket poll in a recent thread while debating DK.
I’d like to point a couple of things out:
86%/82% of the Black vote is a major decrease from the 92% in 2020, which was a key factor in him winning.
Secondly is this:
So 60% of Black Democrats say he should stay in but 74% would be happy if Harris replaced him.
So I think the only real problem is if the party skips over Harris, but there are a lot of reasons for the party not to do that and even an “open” process is likely to still lead to Harris winning the nomination, especially considering the influence of the Black coalition in the party.
In short, if Harris is the nominee, this is a non-problem and actually benefits Democrats in several ways.
@Kurtz:
This:
should read, addition in bold:
If the answer to that is yes, then the best course of action is to pick the candidate and process least likely to cause Dems to stay home.
I have to reiterate my view that a brokered convention risks pissing off key voting blocks and increases the possibility of low turnout. And it risks playing into the GOP framing I heard yesterday from Scott Jennings on NPR: the Dems are a chaotic mess.
For reasons, I was hanging out with a group of patients in a large safety-net hospital. The discussion turned to politics — should he stay or should he go, etc.
The conversation took an interesting turn when folks started discussing the fallout of a potential Harris ticket. Cliff notes version: “We need more Black people and/or women in these positions of power. And yet anytime a Black person gets attention like this, my life / our lives get worse in terms of racial animosity. Remember Obama?”
There was mixed opinion on whether/how their lives would improve given the different scenarios. And the group was roughly split on resignation vs. hope.
To be sure, this is one anecdote from a select population. And I thought it was interesting enough to share.
@Mimai:
Good observation. It’s why I tend to be an outlier. Like any writer I have strengths and weaknesses, but I’m rather good at plotting. Plotting involves informed guesswork around solving future problems. Essentially, get the protagonist in a jam, then get the protagonist out of that jam. Backstory certainly sets the stage going forward, but direct extrapolation – the past was X therefore the future will also be X – ignores too many uncertainties. (And yes, makes for a boring story.) Someone’s allies could lose faith after a catastrophic event. Or someone could get shot in the ear.
I have a harder time plotting a Biden comeback than I do a Harris break-out. Biden’s own team also does not seem to be able to write a convincing plot going forward, or if they have they’re keeping it a closely guarded secret.
Our protagonist, Joe Biden, has these potential strengths: incumbency/record and experience. But incumbency and a record are factors that can be spun, good or bad. Can Biden and his team spin his record to be more appreciated than it currently is, and do it in three months? I don’t think they can, in large part because our hero is in declining mental and physical health and lacks the mental agility that, say, Pete Buttigieg, has in abundance. But also because much of Biden’s best work is in foreign policy which American voters don’t care about. On the economy he can claim a lot of positives, but the positives are abstract, while inflation in food and rent is very tangible.
The only positive Biden can absolutely claim is that he is not Trump. But any Democratic nominee is equally not Trump. And all of them can make that case better than Biden can, because Biden cannot hope to campaign with the kind of energy a new candidate would bring.
The Trump attack line is: Biden’s inflation, Biden’s border and Biden’s age. What is the Trump attack on Harris? Biden’s inflation and Biden’s border, and racism/sexism. Hitting Harris with inflation and border is a bank shot, harder to make. But it probably comes down to the question of which hurts us more? Biden’s age, or Harris’s race and sex? Black voters have a more skeptical view on this than White voters do, and they have cause.
I prefer a new character with potential – maybe Kamala catches fire – over an old character whose powers are known and diminishing. My prejudice, and potentially my analytical weakness, is a bias in favor of a more compelling story. IOW, I can write a Harris breakthrough more convincingly than a Biden resurgence. But certainty is ridiculous at this point, no one knows, and there’s no way anyone can know. We’re all guessing. To put it in Vegas terms, we’re at the roulette wheel, able to bet only on red or black, and until the little ball lands, we won’t know the answer.
@Andy:
The polling you cited supports my view about Harris, I think. But I have to disagree that it should happen in the form of a convention.
As implied above, I suspect that AOC’s fear is that a brokered convention would pass over Harris. She would likely have more insight than any of us has into whether that’s a real possibility. Why risk it?
I think Biden passing the baton to Harris has benefits that outweigh a brokered convention, even if Harris were to win in Chicago.
-For one thing, the primary system is likely perceived as a fair, democratic process for choosing a candidate–an antidote to cigar-chomping, mustache-twirling party bosses–whether or not it functions that way in practice.* I think that returning to the old method, regardless of outcome, may cause some people to feel they don’t have a voice.
It should be noted that a vote for Biden in the primary is an implied vote for Harris. Especially given Biden’s age and the near-universal concern about his physical and mental health.
-A brokered convention is likely to be a nasty bar fight. A vicious street brawl. Knives out. Maybe even a pistol or two. Everyone involved may come out of it with serious injuries, including those on the ticket. That seems like a bad idea, especially this close to the election.
-Biden stepping down may retain much of the advantage a brokered convention provides, because the VP spot on the ticket is still up for grabs. Any deals that need to be made can be made behind closed doors. Putting the top spot up for grabs is will turn the convention into Worldstar.
*See Taylor’s regular posts about weak parties, et cetera.
Three things to help us think through these polls and the way that people are approaching whether or not to vote for Biden. These are all based on interviews I’d been reading and 1:1 conversations.
1. On the emotional processing side of things, it appears that some subset of voters see the current situation through the lens of their experiences dealing with aging and end-of-life issues with elder members of the family. I’ve read some people relating the present situation to experiences with trying to convince an elder to stop driving or move into a more manageable living situation.
2. There’s also a certain type of Black church experience around elder pastors who have clearly lost a stop or three AND continue to be church leaders. Beyond the pragmatic reasons for Black voters supporting Democrats, that cultural issue may play into things as well. We should not discount the importance to the broader Black community of Biden embracing playing second fiddle to the first Black president.
3. With the Latino/a/x/hispanic/Chicano vote, I will continue to argue that everyone makes a mistake in treating a wide range of ethnicities as a monolithic racial category. Colorism tends to play a significant role in those communities, leading to breakouts like the white-Hispanic, black-Hispanic, and Native/Indiginous-Hispanic votes. The lack of a truly shared history binding those categories accounts for many of the shifts that we see in those groups.
Just an observation, but black people have been treated like shit in America in so many ways that any kind of reasoning about the implications of this treatment is carries with it unpleasantness.
I remember a conversation I had with a woman who had a very black-sounding first name. Like, the John Smith of black-sounding names. She worked in finance and felt with good reason that this name had kept her back, and was talking about how sad she felt about the fact that her name was probably not going to be passed on, even though she knew why.
Black people are just judged terribly in this country. That’s what Toni Morrison meant when she called Bill Clinton the first black president. White people in their racism think that she meant he had the soul of a black dude. No: she meant that he was judged like a black man. Quicker and with a false sense of objectivity, of ‘just stating the truth’, i.e. unfairly and as an automatic perpetrator.
The same thing happens with a black person in power having their race weighed and judged. White people are happy to be on the side of how rational the unfairness is, and right or wrong it leaves people bitter.
https://x.com/Bogs4NY/status/1814301077082087505
Biden can’t be forced out – only Biden can remove himself. He seems very unlikely to change his mind about continuing, so this whole discussion is pretty much moot/academic.
This whole dump Biden thing seems largely powered by resistance to both Biden and Harris, thus all the clownish proposals about an open convention, mini campaign etc. But from what I have been reading, the pitfalls associated with attempting to substitute Harris are prohibitive, there is no way that’s not a bad idea. But in the real world, where people are trying to dump both Biden and Harris, the whole thing is just meshuga.
It’s time for me to move on and find something else to talk about.
ETA: How the f did that double post happen?
Ha. The point makes itself.
@Kevin:
There will be “I told you so’s” from pundits, pols, and others who opposed replacing Biden, and from people pretending they opposed replacing Biden. But allow me to fearlessly predict for those who wanted Biden out it’ll be like Brexit, “I was right to want Biden out but “they” did it wrong.”
@gVOR10:
Yeah, this is what happens when you lose and do not have access to alternate realities in which counterfactuals have played out. It’s not new or newsworthy. This goes back to the first mammoth hunt, when the beast got away and the starving tribe was arguing about what should have happened instead of the chief’s plan.
@Kurtz:
Biden has repeatedly said that he has already made his decision. It’s just people continuing to say that Biden has to make a decision soon because they don’t like his decision.
So, I don’t think Biden’s decision will end this.
If we lived under a parliamentary system, I think we would be looking at a vote of no confidence to bring things to a conclusion one way or the other.
Perhaps the Democrats/“They” should set up an American equivalent. Sure, there is no “They” because we have weak parties. So first we would have to find a “They”.
@Michael Reynolds:
Harris has been committing FRAUD ON AMERICA by propping up the corpse of Biden! We cannot trust her! California values! She slept her way to the top! This childless woman has no commitment to Americas future.
Plus the more open racism and sexism. I assume somehow she will be accused of either a figurative or literal drive by shooting. And “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” will make a return to the lexicon.
Also, (((Her husband is one of the seven Jews who secretly rule the world)))
I also expect that the New York Times will be running articles that are essentially “Trump says Harris is too angry, so we used 3-D modeling to create an exact replica of her head, and got out the calipers…”
@Andy:
Except that the “donor class” has allegedly/apparently been making noise about not being happy with Harris in the top spot. This, to put it mildly, is a problem.
And that’s been one of my concerns since the “Biden should go” chorus started up. If Democrats are largely in favor of him stepping away from the campaign, that’s where the kumbaya ends.
What a mess.
@Gustopher:
My fault on this. I meant the consensus here at OTB.
@Jen:
Such a wonderful political system we have.
Let’s set aside informal vote suppression and direct disenfranchisement via legislation for the moment.
One person, one vote can be true in a literal sense and illusory in practice. People with lots of zeroes in their bank account and social cachet end up with weighted votes.
I wrote here a while back that the thing I resent most about Trumpism is that I end up defending dysfunctional, shitty economic and political systems instead of having the option to support something more fair and equitable.
It’s just so frustrating. Magna Carta didn’t solve the problems of too much power in the hands of a Monarch. People who seek to concentrate power for themselves don’t just accept a loss–they find a way around obstacles placed on their path.
But Kurtz! You get to vote! You even have a say in choosing candidates!
Nope. The menu of candidates is selected by those with money and status.
The barrier used to be lineage. That eventually goes away, and then the barrier was holding a deed to land. That goes away, and then the barrier is money for campaigning. The chokepoint changes when necessary.
It’s bullshit. The hell with it all. I wish my body didn’t hate alcohol, because I could use a bender right about now.
Chemical dependence seems pretty damn appealing right now.
@Kurtz: Oh, I know. Chasing dollars has warped the system, utterly.
But we can’t pay for ads, GOTV, and staff on smiles and sunshine, it takes resources.
@Gustopher:
I think those are more in-house MAGA lines of attack. The swing voters are the target. Will those attacks move them? California values? I doubt it. But there will be people who shake their heads and mutter, “I don’t know if a woman is up to it.” Are there more women who’ll welcome a woman, than men who’ll doubt a woman? I’m not worried as much about te racists, they’re already MAGA, but male/female dynamics are fraught.
@Michael Reynolds:
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it. I especially appreciate your self-professed bias for a compelling story. I suspect a lot of us share this bias, whether we are aware of it or not.
Or maybe it’s less a bias for a compelling story, per se, and more a bias for an entertaining moment. And a promise of more to come.
@Kurtz:
Correct. You don’t have a say in choosing candidates. But you do have a say in what kind of country this is. This focus on the people and not the party is a very bad fit for the times.
The character of the candidates used to matter to me. I think McCain would have been a fine president. But, then he picked Palin as his running mate and gave a signal clear as day that no matter how good a man he was, he was still going to lead as head of the Republican Party which at that time was already giving over to the worst instincts of a base on a trajectory toward authoritarian white Christian nationalism.
Obama’s successes as President sealed the path forward for Republicanism and after Romney was the GOP establishment’s last gasp, we got Trump.
Biden, Harris, hell Marianne Williamson, I don’t think it matters except at the outer margins. Just get it done and turn the focus to Democratic administration versus Republican administration. Focus on majoritarian, egalitarian, fact-based, competent governance versus authoritarian, xenophobic, conspiracy-soaked, chaotic, minority rule. Polling consistently indicates the American people prefer the former. And based on the Republican Convention this past week, especially the addition of JD Vance as VP, the GOP is no longer even pretending that they will give any heed to the Consent of the Governed. They’ve leaned fully into Might is Right and The Right is Right.
The contrast in desired outcomes could not be more stark. If the Democrats can make the remainder of the election season about “What’s at Stake” rather than “Who’s in Charge?” then the coming election really will be a referendum on what kind of country we are. Even with the structural advantages for minority rule in the Electoral College, I believe a referendum election goes to the Democrats. And if I’m wrong, the country isn’t what I wish it to be and we will deserve the sh!tshow that will certainly follow the return to power of the GOP.
BTW, to connect my previous comment to the James’ post, I believe Black voters see much more clearly than White voters that this is a stakes election and not a personality contest. I believe Black voters support will be much closer to the 92% support that Biden received in 2020 than the level that any of the potential candidates are polling at now. With what is at stake, Black voters will not be voting for Trump and they won’t be staying at home either.
@DK: Damn, I was hoping to be the first to point out to James, that, of course, he dismisses premium analysis from Black viewpoints that is not necessary prevalent across the internet.
Now that other white punditry are echoing it–it must be taken seriously. The Black experience 101
@Kurtz: I think “this has to end quickly” is the consensus pretty much everywhere people want Democrats to win, not just here.
If the donor class is really divided on Harris, I would begin to suspect that there are a few big Democrat bundlers/donors who actually want Trump to win (for the tax breaks, or they got their lizard brains stuck on trans people existing*) and are sowing chaos.
It’s probably just Democrats destroying each other out of their fear of everything, but the possibility is there.
*: There are so few trans people that I would think trans rights wouldn’t swing many opinions, but we’ve seen this particular radicalization of cishet folks too often to dismiss. Musk and Rowling being prominent examples.
@Mimai:
“But how do the various sides of this issue (combinations of run, don’t run, remain in office, resign) think about Biden’s legacy vis-à-vis (sic) the good of the country?” ( Jack: Perhaps better vs, or “as opposed to.”)
I think you are posing the correct question. Can anyone, given Biden’s performance, declare him sharp enough, and a good steward of the nation? I just can’t see it. It’s actually scary. Our NATO allies saw it for Christs sake. The money backers; the down ballot pols.
So now we get into all the avenues for discussion. Policy debates. Succession issues. Race. Political positioning. And so forth. Seems to me it should all just stop at policy, not legacy etc. But I dream…
I know of no politicians of good character. I know people here will scream bloody murder. But Joe Biden takes bribes. How many of you have 20 LLC’s to funnel money around to your kids and grandkids? (for their profound international wisdom and influence, of course) BO, JB, HRC, Clapper and Comey all participated in the Russia, Russia, Russia dirty trick. But it’s all selective outrage. Especially at this site.
So what to do? Not my call. But Joe Biden has no business occupying that office. None. The chips ought to fall where they may after his departure.
@Jen:
This. And it happens when people treat any given day’s polling as infallible holy writ. There’s many Democrats who apparently think we should dump voting and just have polls.
A July swing state poll with Trump at 44%, Biden at 40%, 5% other, and 11% undecided does not (or should not) mean “Omg the sky is falling, Biden can’t win, let’s set ourself on fire!” It means Democrats should get to work convincing undecideds to keep breaking for Democrats, just as they have been in election after election post-Roe.
Similarly, poll respondents saying “yes” when asked if Biden should be replaced does not mean it’s wise to throw the party into a morass of uncertainty, chaos, legal battles, intraparty infighting, and racial animus weeks before early voting starts — especially when most of your most loyal demographic is not on board.
It’s unsurprising that media-driven Donorcrat elites can’t consider that, given their general inability to self-check. The Dump Biden crowd likes to present itself as the only rational thinkers in the room and the only people interested in winning, in opposition to those supposedly motivated only by emotion and “frustration.”
They are overconfident in their self-assessment. They have not presented a sound case that introducing extra division, disorder, and doubt by nulifying 14 million primary voters increases Democrats’ chances of winning — hence why notoriously-pragmatic black voters aren’t buying what they’re selling. They can’t settle on a candidate or a process. They have no strategy to deal with legal or intraparty blowback. Citing poll responses as set-in-stone gospel is not a plan.
Biden wasn’t even on the ballot in New Hampshire. Yet the organized “uncommited” effort still couldn’t prevail or even muster a compelling alternative. Because responding “yes” to a question is easy. The who, what, when, where, and how that follows is a bit more complex — and will often reveal your “yes” as little more than magical thinking.
@Michael Reynolds: No. White Women and Black Women are RIVALS. Beyond the politics. If 10 percent of voters are in play to sway the election, this is a huge problem as most of that 10% will be Women.
Harris’ problem is cultural not political. She is exposed to the natural tension between black women and white women. She is also a high achieving Black women that picked a white male partner–many Black men in that 10% will take that personal. If Kamala had a Black husband and children, she probably would have beaten Joe in the Primary. Michelle Obama and those adorable girls were the deal sealer for BOs unprecedented Black voter support. Black voters are not motivated by policy alone but by imagery. Joe Biden being a loyal caddie for the 1st Black President (and staying in his place as 2nd fiddle) is imagery, and therefore the motivator of his unshakable Black support. Kamala has good imagery…but not the Gold Standard.
Of course, James will dismiss this unless Ezra Klein repeats it.
Easily solved: Harris at the top and Whitmer or whomever as Vice President.
Btw, as long as we’re gaming out which unpalatable course of risk might give a better chance of winning…
…candidates polling further behind than Biden in summer have prevailed before.
Democrats dumping an incumbent in the middle of election cycle and/or having contested conventions has never resulted in victory.
There is a first time for everything tho. Donorcrats had better hope there is, given their determination to humiliate their incumbent nominee and disregard his primary votes (then warn about the MAGA “threat to democracy”).
@DK:
It’s amazing how so many Democrats are writing off Biden’s debate performance as a ‘one-off, let’s get back to regular business’ occurence. It’s not, people cannot un-see what happened, and Joe has stumbled ever since. In light of Biden’s horrendous debate debacle, it’s very likely that many of those Biden primary voters have since … since … changed their opinion about Joe’s health/fitness concerning a 2nd term. This has nothing to do with a
rather it’s about preventing a massive loss in November, one that gives Republicans the House, Senate, and White House.
@DK: @Jim Brown 32: Just as I don’t take our commentariat (including the front pagers) writ large as representative of the American electorate, I don’t take the, what, three commenters who identify themselves as Black* as representative of Black America or even Black Democrats.
When one of you makes an assertion from a specifically Black POV, I pay attention. Indeed, I would otherwise not have picked up on Ja’han Jones’s point if I hadn’t been cued into it by you guys.
_____
*I’m not sure what the right way to phrase this is. Only a handful of regulars use their name and photo as their handle/avatar here. You two and DeD are the only ones that come to mind that regularly speak from an identified-Black POV.
@Scott F.:
It’s not as if I said I’m sitting the election out. I was commenting about the system itself. In fact, I haven’t even expressed that the Dems must dump Biden. I don’t know what should happen. Under certain conditions, I think it may be better if he steps aside, but I (nor anyone else) knows for sure if those conditions exist. And even if they did, they may be wrong.
And more broadly, making a point about how power works–it’s silly to fixate on an old method of maintaining and exercising power (monarchy, the government) and ignoring that as different rules are enacted, people who seek control alter their goals.
An analogy: it’s not that the doctrines of Catholicism cause some priests to become interested in molesting boys any more than being a teacher does. It’s that predators will find a profession that affords the opportunity to find victims.
Jeez, can’t you all let me blow off a little steam every once in a while? 😉
I may write a lot from a system-wide, theoretical POV, but I very much understand the practical realities.
I have to release the tension somehow.
@Jack:
Speaking of selected outrage, I remain astonished that you continue to use this as some point of corruption…you realize, I’m sure, that the Trump Org is actually a structure of no fewer than FIVE HUNDRED LLCs, right?
So if 20 is a problem for Biden, is having 500 a problem for Trump?
@Jen:
Sorry to be so direct and blunt. Seriously. But that’s a really really stupid comment. Most large organizations – investment oriented – are comprised of many many LLC type entities.
That’s not what the Biden organization is. It’s not a family office. It’s not an investment firm, unless, of course, you want to stipulate to the Biden Crime family. The structure is designed to hide money flows. Not to segregate investments by investment strategy and their respective investors.
Not very sophisticated, are you?
@Jack:
If you truly think it should stop at policy, then I’m not sure bribery should matter much to you.
For example, if the reason the Biden administration decided not to pursue a public option for healthcare was because he took bribes from the executives of Aetna and United, you should be happy he took bribes. The public option doesn’t align with your policy preferences.
For some reason, you do not seem nearly as concerned about the instances of Trump’s corruption–before and after his entry into politics–many of which are backed by clear, damning evidence. Far clearer than the labyrinth of assumptions and shaky inferences made by Andrew C. Mccarthy and the WSJ editorial board.
I cannot say for certain why that inconsistency exists. Probably a combination of things. But I wonder if the allure of putting the puzzle pieces together is one part of it. Because one is so clear, it is boring to acknowledge it.
Regardless of why, it makes your ethical stand (“he has no business occupying that office”) ring hollow.
Also:
That AP-NORC poll suggests that far more people believe in Biden’s fundamental honesty than Trump’s (40-21). Granted, the question about honesty may not immediately bring to mind the question of corruption. But it’s hard to imagine that anyone would say “honest, but corrupt”. Eh, maybe I’m wrong about that.
@Jack: “I just can’t see it.”
Sure, but you couldn’t “see” it with Obama, HRC, Harris, or anyone else with a “D” next to their name. I have some difficulty seeing you as an honest broker as opposed to just another partisan. It’s baked in the mix with you.
@Jack: LOL. Bless your heart.
I am self employed and have run two LLCs, both of them profitable from year one.
@Jack:
Oh, nevermind the speculative part of my post above. It seems clear why you hammer one but focus on the other.
Newsflash: wealthy people, whether their net worth starts with an m or a b, use multiple LLCs to manage their assets. You assume it’s to hide cash flow in one case, and assume it’s all above board in the other.
Politicians have investments, those investments are often handled by professionals who know how to structure them.
Trump isn’t some magic creature privy to specialized knowledge of which no one else is aware.
P.S. The pre-apology for calling a comment stupid and then ending with another insult is something else. Seriously.
All those polls listed showing Democratic voters wanting Biden to withdraw are basically worthless. Why? Because not a single one listed who should be a replacement. The polls are basically “should Biden withdraw so your personal preference can sweep in and save the day?”.
@Jack:
I’ll take either of those, thanks.
We in here talking about policy. I mean, listen, we’re talking about policy, not politics, we talking about policy. Haha, if only! That said, dreams are important. Dreaming is important. It keeps the colonizing parts of our brain from taking over visual turf.
@Mimai: You’re kinda new to the commentariat, you should be warned that Jack is not a new troll. He has YEARS of trolling under Drew and Guarneri aliases.
It blows me away that people keep interacting with him.
@Jax:
Yep, I’m aware. The first half of their comment to me was reasonable. That is what I responded to. I never respond to (or talk about) shitposts.
Hope your cows are well (you too of course). My buddy preg checked (the old school way) 4000 dairy cows over the past 6 days. And TB tested untold numbers of heifers. Herd liquidations are a bitch.
@Kurtz:
To quote Maya Angelou: “When people tell you who they are, believe then.”
@Mimai:
Oh god that’s something I never ever got used to…Hope the results are good.
@Mimai: Thanks. My cows are so far out in the forest, I only saw 12 of 470 the other day. As long as they’re not cleaning up brucellosis-aborted elk or buffalo, I should be safe for now.