The Harris Coronation
It's logical, maybe even inevitable. But is it a good idea?
As Steven Taylor has already noted, Democrats are coalescing around Kamala Harris as the nominee in the wake of President Biden’s dropping his re-election bid. Whether the Democrats are thereby solving their dilemma remains to be seen.
For reasons discussed on both the front page and the comments section, rallying behind Harris makes a lot of sense. She is, after all, the sitting Vice President and, as such, is the only plausible contender not named “Joe Biden” for whom Democrats have at least nominally voted in both the last general election and in the 2024 primaries. And failing to nominate a Black-Indian woman under those circumstances would be highly problematic for obvious reasons.
While Steven—an expert on comparative political institutions—has repeatedly explained why U.S. parties are extremely weak, the Democratic Party is at the apex of its power in this situation. With a convention commencing in less than a month, it is too late for a primary do-over. The sitting Democratic President has endorsed Harris, both implicitly by choosing her as his running mate for 2020 and the 2024 primaries and explicitly by endorsing her as his replacement. So have Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1992, 1996, and 2016 nominees. Crucially, Governors Gavin Newsom (CA), Josh Shapiro (PA), and Roy Cooper (NC)—all of whom are high on lists of ideal Biden replacements—have already endorsed her. So have all 50 state party chairs.
Thus, as Steven noted, “any would-be challenger would have to decide how much of the party it wants to fight with to get a job which would require uniting the party.” Aside from Joe Manchin, nobody who would be a plausible candidate* has given even the slightest indication they’re prepared to do so.
So, the cake is likely already baked.
Still, I have pretty strong misgivings about simply handing the baton to Harris without party brokers at least considering alternatives.
First, while she has certainly gained considerable experience over the last four years, it’s not at all clear that she’s an effective campaigner on a broad scale. Aside from one strong debate performance, she fared poorly in her national debut, dropping out of the 2020 race before the first primary. Is she really the ideal candidate to face Donald Trump?
Second, she carries most of the baggage of the Biden-Harris Administration.** To the extent uncommitted voters are frustrated with the economy and “the direction of the country,” I don’t see how switching to Biden’s understudy helps chance the dynamic. The only thing she brings in that regard is that she’s not 81 with signs of dementia. And, having simply been handed the nomination rather than winning it through a competitive process, it will be exceedingly hard to run against any of the Biden-Harris agenda. It was awkward enough for Al Gore in 2000, the last time a sitting VP ran.
Third, simply anointing her without some sort of competition just feels undemocratic. Yes, she was on the ticket in 2020 and in the 2024 primaries. But, in reality, she was hand-picked by Biden for both and voters had no real choice in the mater.
Fourth, the party is potentially picking its leader for the next eight years here. There are a lot of talented governors and other rising stars in the party who are poised for a presidential run who would essentially be sidelined until 2032 without even having a chance to persuade Democratic primary voters. Cooper just turned 67; he would be 75 in 2023. Newsom is 56; he would be 65 by Election Day 2032. Gretchen Whitmer turns 53 next month; she’d be 61. Shapiro is 51 and would be 59. Granted, they’d all still be younger than Trump, much less Biden, is today, but they’d certainly be well past the peak of their political appeal. (This is admittedly much less of an issue for rising stars in the Senate like Michael Bennet and Mark Kelly, 59 and 60, respectively, who would still be active players in eight years.)
Again, this is all likely a moot point. The only power player who has voiced support for an open nomination process is Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi—and that was when Biden dropping out was a hope rather than a reality. That someone with her keen parliamentary instincts is saying that leads me to believe that it’s at least plausible.
Still, as Jamelle Bouie rightly noted on a recent episode of the Ezra Klein Show,
The delegates to conventions, if you go on a very micro level, these are not party bosses. This is not 1944, when you have the boss of Saint Louis on the floor hassling people to get Truman on the ticket.
This is not a party convention, even in 1960 or 1964, where you have party bosses, and people who represent constituencies and interests and votes on the floor, hassling people, making deals, trading that kind of thing. That doesn’t exist anymore. It’s some elected officials, but it’s a lot of just ordinary people who are dedicated volunteers in their local parties, their state parties. And they are — they go on behalf of a candidate.
And so I think this is important to emphasize because — no offense to any of these people, they’re all great. I’ve been to conventions. I’ve talked to people who go. They’re wonderful people who are really engaged in the day to day of American democracy. And I have a lot of respect for them.
But I don’t think there are people equipped to do the high stakes negotiating that comes with choosing a presidential nominee. And I think that putting that kind of weight on the process as it actually exists is not going to lend itself well to a kind of orderly or even sort of only temporarily chaotic decision making that I think people want. I think what’s more likely to happen is confusion and disarray in a way that does harm the Democratic ticket.
It’s not obvious what an alternative route would look like. But I’d prefer that there at least be some serious discussion within the party before going all-in on someone in this position because of the Democratic Party zeitgeist of the summer of 2020.
To be sure, I’ll vote for Harris or any other name that I’ve seen on any of these lists come November if Trump is the alternative. But we need to get low-information voters in a handful of swing states on board and, by definition, they are not similarly committed.
*I think he’d be an excellent general election candidate and would almost certainly beat Trump. There’s no way on earth he gets the Democratic Party nomination. Indeed, I think they’d be more inclined to pick Mitt Romney, given their frustrations with his obstruction of the Biden legislative agenda.
**I’ve long disliked that odd branding, but the administration has done this from Day 1. Harris may well come to regret that.
Early voting starts in 2 months in some places. Harris is the only credible possibility who already has a campaign up and running, with offices, staff, ad buys, reserved ad space etc. etc. Anyone else starts from zero to create a campaign.
How is this not dispositive?
Primary voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of continuity.
As is it too late to redo the primaries, which party bosses should be invited to engage in these intra-party discussions? What is their democratic mandate?
I don’t see why a bunch of party bosses deliberating gives you more legitimacy than going with the #2 on the original ticket.
@charontwo: I strongly suspect Harris would be the nominee, regardless. Having considered other alternatives removes some of the objections.
@drj: I keep seeing this argument and just don’t buy it. Biden was the incumbent President and faced no serious opposition.
James, why on earth do you think other possibilities weren’t discussed by party leaders? Or do you think they should have somehow held them in public?
@MarkedMan: I think there should be some sort of competitive process resulting in votes at the convention rather than a rubber stamp.
@James Joyner:
Fine.
Joe Manchin throws his hat in the ring, now he is back to being a Democrat again.
Let’s have him and Harris duke it out, along with anyone else who steps up to take on Harris.
(Biden’s pledged delegates now being freed to vote for whoever they like).
Don’t you expect a roll call vote at the convention – I do?
@James Joyner: This is an incomplete logical conclusion in a system of volunteer challengers and competition.
Biden faced no competition because no A-lister volunteered to challenge him. That is neither his fault nor voters— but could be a character statement about said “A-listers”
@James Joyner: How do you suggest this process work to create competition for future incumbent Presidents running for re-election?
Specifically, when high name-recognition candidates elect to wait and run for the open seat in 4-years?
The opportunity for a competitive process has passed.
The timing of this is all that’s leading to this suggestion. Had Biden not withdrawn and instead succumbed to covid, the direction would be clear. Dropping out after the convention would yield the same result.
The only thing that calls for a selection process now serve are to delay the necessary campaigning that has to begin in earnest, NOW.
Regulars around here know I have been saying all year Biden wasn’t right mentally
Regulars around here know I have been saying all year Biden wouldn’t win in November
I took ridicule and grief for saying these things. Till the debate
Biden has stepped aside. I always thought he should but I’m surprised he did.
I will vote for Harris in November. I will vote for Manchin or most any other democrat in November. Not Lois Frankel however but if she is running f0r President I expect there to be cricket playing Martians in my condo’s backyard or one of my books reaching #1 in genre fiction.
Oops be careful saying the latter. One of my books was #2 at Japan Amazon yesterday morning. Wedged between a HP0tter book and one by Stephen King. Its not #2 anymore but I’m still in the top 5.
So, the winner of the Democratic primaries dropped out a month before the convention and the Democratic leadership quickly coalesced around a single candidate, apparently because they viewed a chaotic fight as harmful to the country (and the Dems). The delegates are free to vote their conscience, but the leadership is sending a clear message. Why is this is a bad thing? It seems to me this is the best possible outcome given a grave situation and a few very bad alternatives.
Some of you may remember the Ohio kerfuffle, wherein Ohio Republicans were exploiting the fact that the Buckeye State deadline for filing is 2 weeks before the Democratic Convention. They submitted legislation that corrected this but included a rider that essentially gave the elected Republicans more power. The Dems said F it and scheduled a special session before the deadline where they would legally nominate Biden ahead of the convention. Once that was committed to and the Ohio Reps had lost their blackmail opportunity, they quietly passed legislation without the rider. Which raises two questions for me: First, will the pre-convention nominating session still take place? This would remove all potential for snakes in the grass like Manchin to screw up the convention. And, second, I haven’t been able to find the specific legislation Ohio passed, merely references to a bill that “fixed” it. I’m curious about the specific language though. Republicans are lying chaos agents, and the Dems should make darn sure there aren’t poison pills in that law before assuming they can get a new name on the ballot if they wait for the convention to nominate.
Saw this on Twitter just now:
https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1815356470029869298
Seems like Manchin is not challenging Harris.
As a practical matter, the coronation better happen. I am curious to see who the Vice Presidential nominee will be.
Also, I would add, that Joe Manchin ‘Independent’ is rarely the answer to any question.
@al Ameda:
Manchin has never been more than a third rate, corrupt, political hack. Now we can add “clown” to that list.
@MarkedMan: Odd question, if Manchin is no longer a Democrat, is he even permitted to have any official function at the convention?
I know that he caucases with the Dems, but that’s different than having an official function at the nominating convention.
Of course it is a bloody good idea. Leaving aside intellectual whankery, no other solution is pragmatic from a financial, administrative and time bounded resources POV.
She was no.2 on the selected ticket, it is also entirely politically logical. You have zero time for bloody hand wringing and purity ponyism (here in theoretical process concern).
Hand wringing at this time is like bringing bloody tea-lady étiquette to a knife fight. The opposition is going to play dirty pool and you lot bloody well need the cleanest administrative and financial route to focus on the knife fight.
@MarkedMan: As Ohio’s GOPers showed, an army of Federalist Society approved lawyers will litigate any perceived irregularities with getting anyone other than Joe Biden on the ballot, regardless of the legality of any such move. That is why it has been important to see the state courts/agencies that regulate attorney conduct slapping down the likes of Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman and Ken Cheseboro, etc. for their endless frivolous, “fraud upon the court” filings. It was left to the profession to clean up the mess created by Trump humping lawyers, and perhaps a few more disbarments will dampen the zeal of such partisan hacks with JDs.
@James Joyner: and such prim thinking is one reason Weimar and 3rd Republic died, among others. Competitive process…. team lady organisation in face of gangster rules.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
By what criteria would Manchin be an excellent general election candidate besides being an old white guy? He’s only one year younger than Trump and he’s from a tiny state. Rank & file Republicans would hate him solely because he once had a D after his name and establishment Democrats hate him for the reason you named.
If the convention started tomorrow, you could have some sort winnowing process among candidates, but it’s a month from now. Fiddling around with some sort of process only makes it more difficult for whoever would come out with the nomination to go after Felon trump. The beauty of a Harris coronation is that she can proceed as the Dem nominee immediately and adopt the Biden campaign infrastructure.
Is Harris the best possible candidate, likely not, but she is the best candidate in a position to launch a campaign today.
I feel a lot better about Dems retaining the WH this AM than I did yesterday at this time.
The real race is for VP. Don’t have a feel for who would be best. Just heard a laundry list of positives for Mark Kelly (veteran, astronaut, senator, winner in AZ, wife survivor of an assassination attempt, not too old, not too young, etc.).
Anyway, I think that the VP chatter is going to occupy the political noise for the next two weeks; not Presidential noise.
@Jen: No idea. What does Angus King do?
The whole situation is screwed and the idea that any solution is a good one when your candidate drops out like this is ridiculous. To me, it seems likely that Harris did a ton of work in the last few weeks to bring this about. She went from hypothetically pushed aside to immediately anointed. And that’s good. Preempting an open convention filled with political wrangling via behind the scenes political wrangling is a sign of strength. Same goes with creating a feeling of optimism. What’s next? Confidence? The horror.
Sure, it’s likely that the optimism Democrats are feeling is going to look dumb in retrospect, but I don’t know what the other options are for politics and winning.
James, you a parroting the MSM, which we know has bad faith.
First, Biden must go!
Second, Kamala must go!
Third, maximum chaos!
Fourth, the final survivor is flawed!
@Barry: This is tiresome.
I came to the independent conclusion that Biden needed to go during the debate because he’s clearly not fit to campaign for President. He’s likely not fit to continue serving as President.
I’m independently leery of simply handing the nomination to Harris because nobody voted for her to be the nominee. She ran for the job four years ago and failed spectacularly. She literally didn’t make it to the first primary.
This is all unprecedented so we’re figuring it out. It’s not my fault that Biden waited this long or that the convention is inordinately late this year.
As noted in the OP, I’ll vote for the nominee regardless. But I think there should be some process other than simply going with the VP because it’s convenient.
Whuuut?
Not sure I caught it completely, but somebody on MSNBC said Manchin had contacted the DNC to ask about the nominating process and received an answer along the lines of, “What’s it to you? It’s for Democrats.” OK, Manchin would get a lot of coal money backing, but other than the perennial centrist pundit fallacy where does he get support?
@JenI have no expertise in this area, but what the heck, I’ll speculate, despite that the fact that Manchin has dropped out this morning. Re-registering as a Democrat is all it takes to make him a Democrat. And then I assume he would have the rights and responsibilities of any other Democratic Senator, but I have no idea what those would be.
@James Joyner:
The process is there: the delegates select the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. It so happens that the Democratic leadership has gotten together and said they want unity above all else and the best chance for that is Harris and so have gotten the word out, and are no doubt applying pressure. But in the end the delegates vote their conscience.
Is what you are really object to that the leadership has gotten together in the first place? I can’t for the life of me think why it is bad for the leadership of a political party to try to agree on a consensus candidate to represent that party.
@MarkedMan: For the last half century, the expectation has been that voters, not party bosses, pick the nominee. It may well be that this was a bad idea.
Here, though, they’re coalescing around Harris because it’s easy, not because of an assessment that she’s the best candidate to beat Trump. I seriously doubt she’d have won a competitive primary.
I just wonder why Kamala wasn’t out dominating the 2024 campaign news after Joe’s debate performance. Yes, technically, she wasn’t even the 2024 VP pick but it seems the Biden people could legally consider her the VP pick.
It seemed to me, she could have done the loyal partner schtick campaigning for the ticket, all the while building up her reputation. She got the coronation anyway, but it just seems like it would be better for her if only the signs changed instead of her having to step up her schedule.
Also, it certainly looks like the Democratic Convention will the themed
“HOW COULD You?”
not follow your party masters’ orders.
Fits the party of the women in this age of the harridans
@JKB:
Really? lol
@James Joyner:
Fair. Are you simply saying that you are uncomfortable with Harris and wish there was time for some sort of pseudo-primary in order to get the best candidate, but acknowledge that there isn’t? Or do you think there is still time to pull something like that off?
@MarkedMan: @Charley in Cleveland:
Because I ( formerly known as Bob@Youngstown) was specifically interested in the exact wording of the Ohio legislation I finally found it a couple of weeks ago.
IIRC, it does not mention any candidate by name, nor does it reference a convention, rather it very simply resets the date that a campaign has to certify a candidate to be able to proceed. My recollection is that that date is now Sept 6.
@MarkedMan: As noted in the OP, I don’t know what the art of the possible is. This is unprecedented. The fact that Pelsoi seemed to think, at least late last week, that some sort of “open” process is feasible makes me think it likely is. What that looks like, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@JKB:
Lol, the age of the harridans…from the top down the GOP acting like clone copies of the same little ridiculous dude is a huge break for the Democrats. Saying Biden was old and sleepy made some sense, even if delivered by a guy coming out of his own nap, but misogyny at your level is just counteproductive.
Maybe I’m wrong on this, but the biggest problem MAGA is that nobody who has a chance wishes to be around them. Rich tech guys may pay their employees and give them benefits but that’s about it. Give anybody a Rawlsian blindfold and they would not elect to be raised in a conservative/Southern/right-wing Christian environment that produces the Trumps, the Stephen Millers, the JKBs. So hopefully Trump and co keep on melting down.
I just accidentally read a comment from someone I usually ignore, not noticing the byline and man, was I confused. What the heck was this person even trying to say? The little that was understandable showed a complete lack of knowledge about what’s been going on with the Biden-Harris campaign, with the unearned certainty that only the truly ignorant have.
Then I noticed who posted and understood.
@James Joyner:
The National Review is calling for Biden to resign.
A Democratic Congressman said just a few days ago that Biden didn’t seem to know him when they were both in Normandy last month. That’s just one more troubling sign.
@Bobert: Thanks!
BTW, you may have covered this while I was AFD on this site, but why the name change?
@James Joyner:
Spoiler alert: it was.
Obviously I am being glib, but I will leave it at that for now.
I will say this: the voters will, in fact, have their say, which ultimately, in my view, take’s care of the issue of democratic legitimacy.
And, also: the lack of serious challengers means that this is really no different than the 2024 Dem primaries anyway.
@James Joyner:
According to this at Politico,
When I said a few weeks ago, that somebody/some people close to Biden, had to influence him to withdraw. I was called impotent among other things.
@JKB:
Filing this under “Tell us you have serious issues with women without telling us you have serious issues with women.”
Yesterday racism, today misogyny… Man you keep telling us who you are and trust me, we believe you.
@MarkedMan:
Frustration, prior handle ALWAYS dumped me into moderation.
Back to the Ohio legislation (found it) just resets the certification date to 65 days prior to Election Day.
…not follow your party masters’ orders.
Trump: Kim’s people sit up when he speaks, ‘I want my people to do the same’
Not a single reference to Cincinnatus.
Proof that the Roman Empire is in decline 😉
@Jen:
Possibly worth noting that each time Sen. Sanders ran to be the nominee, he registered as a Democrat in Vermont well in advance. After the elections he changed his registration back to independent.
@James Joyner:
True enough but so what? The time for that would have been last February/March but Biden made sure that did not happen. With the election so close, now, it’s eyes on the prize – it’s too urgent to now swing into campaign mode with a selected candidate.
@James Joyner:
True enough but so what? The time for that would have been last February/March but Biden made sure that did not happen. With the election so close, now, it’s eyes on the prize – it’s too urgent to now swing into campaign mode with a selected candidate.
@Kathy:
“Proof that the Roman Empire is in decline”
And it is still summer. It won’t be fall for almost 2 months.
@James Joyner: “I think there should be some sort of competitive process resulting in votes at the convention rather than a rubber stamp.”
Yes, you do.
I assume anyone is certainly welcome to stand up and declare that they are running against Harris at the Convention. They are then welcome to try to get 300 Electors to back them up. The Democratic Party itself is under no obligation to help them do that.
@Kathy: FWIW, Ian Bremmer posted the follwoing on Linkedin yesterday:
Biden=Cincinnatus
Trumo=Nero
@Bill Jempty:
A hit dog will holler. For weeks on, apparently.
You know those people who cannot comment on anything without turning the subject to their personal psychodramas and “me me me”? Those people are…interesting.
@MarkedMan:
It depends on who you think the leaders are, or should be. In a democratic system, I think representatives should be chosen by the voters since “We The People” are the nominal leaders. But I do take “of the people, by the people, for the people” seriously, and my doing so appears quaint if not totally naïve.
The America of the party boss era was not a great place, frankly.
@Steven L. Taylor:
There are so many terrible Roman emperors, it’s hard to pick one.
I suppose Nero may be a good choice. You can totally see him holding press conferences as a sub for rallies while COVID burns the country down.
Shades of ’68 are strong
But for old Democrats this is their last hurrah. Those who were 18 in ’68 are 74 in ’24. And all those drugs they took are coming paid.
@mattbernius:
Tell it to James Carville
Or the nagging hordes of college women on campus quads. If it works for Democrats, good on you.
@Bill Jempty:
Actually, you weren’t and while you may have genuinely misunderstood, it was explained to you at the time.
@JKB: So you are telling us that you aren’t responsible for your own words.
And that, moreover, you are just parroting James Carville?
Is that really that stance you are taking?
@Bill Jempty:
Some Democratic congressmen just aren’t very memorable. That’s not on Biden.
@Gustopher: The congressman in question was Seth Moulton. He thinks one of the world’s busiest and most stressed men forgetting him is a sign of cognitive decline, not a sign that Seth Moulton is a forgettable and undistinguished backbencher. Which tells you alot about Seth Moulton’s ego.
Could anybody pick Seth Moulton out of a lineup of generic dudes in a blue suit?
@DK:
I get this, but let me offer a contrarian opinion: Voters chose the President, but Parties are free to put forward whatever candidate they deem best represents them. Why should the voters get to decide that, too?
I came about to question the wisdom of voters picking the candidates back in the transition between the era of smoke filled rooms and the current one, the dictatorship of the primary voter. Ross Perot had formed and funded the Reform Party, and was adamant that “the people” would select it’s candidates. Political consultants took one look at that large bag of cash sitting in its coffers and started vying to get their otherwise non-viable candidate nominated, then proceeded to siphon off all the cash for themselves.
I’m not sold on the smoke filled room ideas either, as it is its own type of shit show. Maybe the business philosophy of Soichiro Honda has the right pattern: when he created Honda Motors he struggled with whether it would be better to have most decisions radiating from the center, or to give each division maximum independence. In the end he decided on a cycle, wherein for 7 years they would centralize decision making, and then for the next 7 they would decentralize. He found that forcing people to think about how the institution worked resulted in a constant optimization. Maybe parties should cycle back and forth between smoke filled rooms and primaries on a regular basis.
When voting for someone who is 50 billion years old as President, you are also voting for the Vice President who will take over suddenly if the President can’t continue.
I don’t see how this is undemocratic.
It’s a more theoretical possibility when the candidate for President is younger, but at Biden’s age (or Trump’s age) it’s a one in four chance (guessing at the actuarial tables — we know it’s not a remote possibility, but that an 80 year old can expect to live to 87-88 or so).
In fact, given that we knew who Biden’s VP would be when voting in the 2024 primaries, it’s more democratic than the Republicans this year, or the Democrats in 2020. And there the chances of a rando taking the reins of President could have been lessened by not nominating someone 50 billion years old.
@Gustopher:
From the Hill-
It is past time for making excuses. He shouldn’t even be President because he is clearly mentally diminished.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes it was and calling anyone impotent in any form or another is an insult.
DK wrote-
Denial, impotence, that isn’t meant as an insult or personal attack?
Bullshit.
Don’t forget this either from DK-
That was before he wrote impotent. He was writing the above as insults.
I would love to know Biden’s reasoning for choosing Harris as his VP. Was it solely because she was a Black/Asian Female? Or was it because he trusted her to be the POTUS should he die? If he had reasons other than trying to get votes from a particular political sector, it would be helpful for him to share them. Along with any observations about her performance as VP. He has a wealth of knowledge that, if shared, might be helpful to those have doubts about Harris–a short-cut for Americans to assess her as a candidate.
I agree with Dr. Joyner’s belief that it would be healthy to engage in a process in which she is vetted in contrast to other possible candidates. Or at least to know that the party bosses have engaged in such a process out of the public sphere. This may have already been done without our knowledge, and they may have concluded that because of the situation we’re in, Harris must be the nominee. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden resigned on the condition that the party bosses supported Harris. Again, this would be helpful to know.
Another thing to consider is that it would be helpful to Harris if she become POTUS to have undergone some process in which other candidates are considered.
I acknowledge the short time-frame and the risks of considering other possible Democrats and find myself having to trust the judgment of Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, and others party leaders. If they have coalesced around Harris, they must decided that unity is far more important than scrutiny.
@Bill Jempty:
Bill, I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I did go back and read the exchange. In my reading he wasn’t calling you in particular impotent, but rather making an observation that it is frustrating to people because the decision is completely out of our hands and we have no chance to do anything about it.
James, whatever your personal opinion or reasons, you are traveling an obvious path, which the MSM very obviously wants:
Get rid of Biden
Bypass the VP
Spend August in chaos.
End up with an unknown candidate carrying maximum baggage, with two months to establish themself.
Many do not want that, and frankly, you are a slow learner.
One more reason to be happy.
Trump is clearly worried, backing away from a debate. And Putin is worried, too, while every one of our allies is hopeful.
@Michael Reynolds:
Michael,
I agree with you. One forum regular not too long ago thought Putin wanted Biden to remain in office.
Remember, we’ve still not actually heard from Joe Biden. Someone tweeted something out under his name. Didn’t even release it to the White House press corps. Gave themselves several days before Biden is suppose to appear on the parapet to be seen.
@James Joyner:
Am I to understand that Harris was known to be the running mate of an 81 year old man whose mental and physical health has long been a concern, and you’re trying to argue that no one voted for Harris?
Please.
Given the attention in the media to Biden’s health, to think that primary voters did not consider the identity of the running mate at all while casting votes strains credulity.
When the incumbent is facing a primary challenge–the VP is known–each vote is for the entire ticket. Biden vote=Harris vote. If you prefer the construction I have used previously, Biden vote=implied Harris vote. You keep seeing this argument because it is both intuitive and true.
And acting as if voters didn’t have a choice is complete bullshit, because the process was not competitive. Those who still turned out and voted despite it not affecting the outcome, showed enthusiasm for the entire ticket.
I understand the desire for process, Pelosi has stated it, and Obama appears to share the same concern. But someone would need to throw their hat in the ring, and who will? Every single high quality candidate has stated they support Harris.
That leaves Manchin–rumor has it donors approached him to re-register as a Dem so he could challenge her.
So, the only alternative to Harris is another elderly white man, who is reviled by the most loyal parts of the Democratic base, and on top of that would be running against a biracial female. Yeah, that’s a great way to goose turnout.
Outside some donors who have mostly gone nameless, no one seems to bitching about Harris. Oh, and Biden staffers, some of whom also resented Obama and his staff when their boss was VP.
On top of that, both of the senior Bidens appear to have skin as thin as the staff they chose–Joe is said to hold some resentment toward Obama, and Jill toward Harris.
We are going to continue to see articles like this:
Scoop: Biden doubted Harris’ election chances, Axios
This scoop cites “three Biden aides familiar with his recent talks about his plans.”
Or, ‘Ludicrous’: Donors leave call with Kamala Harris frustrated and annoyed, CNBC
Buried in this one:
Interesting considering that one of the knocks on Harris has been the management in her office.
So, deep into the text, that the call to donors that seems “rushed” and “mismanaged” was organized by the head of Biden’s campaign rather than the head of finance. Neither hired by Harris.
And we find out donors stressed that the criticism wasn’t of Harris. The headline certainly implies otherwise.
Let’s all be honest what this looks like. A bunch of bitter Biden staffers letting it all out because they treated the VP and her staff like shit and have no hope of securing employment.
And the media will happily take any scoop that will draw clicks.
It’s bullshit.
To return to your post, it seems quite clear that everyone within the party knows how this will play out. It may indeed be Kabuki theater, but this is an odd situation. The fact is, viable contenders have chosen not to compete. So, your concern is moot.
Moreover, we all know that primaries are not exactly the epitome of fair democratic process. I’m sure we all wish there could be or could have been a competitive process, but it is seriously a little late for that. And all the challengers seem to have disappeared.
If the report I saw last night is true, that Trump is going to attack Harris as an ‘illegitimate’ candidate, then continuing to profess the preference for a competitive process, even though no one is jumping at the chance to compete, just feeds into that.
All this hostility toward Harris needs to stop. All these questions about process need to stop.
@Barry: I’d agree in principle except that there don’t seem to be any candidates jumping up and down waving their arms to get attention waiting in the wings to propel such a process. Even Manchin has dropped out. For my take as a bystander, that’s good news. But I understand why complaints of this being a coronation could be troubling.
But Republicans would call whatever happens a coronation, so they’re just trolling. How that will affect the election, I have no idea.
@Bill Jempty:
Okay, you were right. What more do you want? Stop taking things so personally.
During the 2020 primary, I expressed worry that Biden was a poor choice unless we absolutely knew that he would only seek a single term. I also acknowledged that it was a tricky situation.
It turns out, I was right to worry. Have I taken a victory lap? No. Are my feelings hurt, because others disagreed? No.
IIRC, you were banned previously for some condescending posts that devolved into a bunch of unpleasantness. If you are not the same person as @Bill, I apologize.
I don’t think you should go away. I enjoy your contributions. So, please, don’t do decide to leave.
But show some grace and class when you turn out to be correct, and ffs don’t take things so personally to the point of feeling attacked when you haven’t been. Especially given what led to your ban.
@JKB:
So, until Fox News tells you what conspiracy theory to focus on you’re just making up your own? You’re not good at it, dude.
@Barry:
And thank goodness. Not having an official ticket ~100 days before election day – and less than two months before early voting commences – is not ideal. But it is not insurmountable, just like Joe Biden’s non-ideal candidacy was not insurmountable. The game remains the same: convincing the ~10% that’s undecided to keep breaking for Democrats, as they’ve been for the past two years.
The quicker people can get behind a nominee and (her) running mate, the quicker Democrats can get to that game. It requires the center-left to do what they should have done for their previous nominee: close ranks and pivot to attacking the vastly inferior rapist and felon Trump, and his extremist Project 2025 anti-abortion campaign.
Wasting yet another month on uncertainty and intraparty squabbling would not be helpful. Concerns about coronation optics and democratic legitimacy are too little too late. Donorcrats just forced the nullification of 14+ million primary votes, so that ship has sailed. Time to focus on Trump-Vance, not on optics.
Pelosi just endorsed Harris. I expect Schumer, Jefferies and Obama to follow on soon.
@Bill Jempty: I honestly cannot believe that you do not understand what he was saying.
But you do have a habit of being utterly unable to back down on something like this. I can recall two prominent previous examples.
I will leave you to it, but find it impossible to believe you are incapable of understanding but if you can’t (or won’t) there is no point is further discussion.
Oh, please please please go with a “step children aren’t really your children” attack! Every divorced and remarried parent in the country will hate the Repubs with the fury of a 1000 suns.
@MarkedMan: I am guessing that the play was to make sure no other prominent contenders or factions emerged so as to preserve some level of “above it all” from prominent leaders.
Not only did no such challenge emerge, the wagons have circled very quickly.
@MarkedMan: Agreed.
Nobody likes a sore winner.
@Steven L. Taylor:
As usual, it’s disappointing but not surprising.
What’s strange is that JKB’s particular hangups* are so consistent that it’s especially sad when he claims that’s not actually his position.
* Examples:
(I’ve probably missed some, but those are the key hits)
@MarkedMan:
Hey, we saw how well IVF = abortion played out for them. So I agree–go for that.
@Michael Reynolds:
Seriously? From an all in advocate of Russia, Russia, Russia? Until, of course, it was an obvious HRC dirty op. Even Rachel Maddow finally gave up the ghost.
I may not always get the nuances of US politics, but its hard to the upside for one of the “big names” jumping in now, leading to a convention catfight, probably losing out, and likely damaging chances of future office.
In exchange for a tussle with Trump that looks like a tight fight.
So any challenger is likely to be a minnow, would be my guess, if any arises at all.
@Jack:
False. Rapist felon Trump colluded with Russia and is still colluding.
In June 2016, Dementia Donald publicly asked Putin to steal Hillary’s emails. The DNC was then hacked by the Russians later that day. Trump’s scampaign met with Russian operatives in Trump Tower to discuss election meddling and sanctions; afterwards, the Republican platform softened Russian sanctions language at Trump’s behest.
Steve Bannon and Trump’s Russian asset campaign manager Paul Manafort — who had previously helped Putin rig elections in Ukraine — then sent data to the Russians to help them coordinate its anti-Hillary social media propaganda. Manafort himself now publicly admits this.
Treason Trump was impeached for his criminal attempt to withhold weapons from Ukraine; now Trump says he wouldn’t care if Russia attacks Europe.
There is an unhealthy dynamic going on with sharing in this forum, in my view.
1. A strong tendency to group think, with some responses to those who go against the grain being snarky and intimidating. Name calling, STFU, etc.
2. There are different kinds of participants in group. The extremes are (1) Those with low information, but are loud and take over or create turmoil for the group, and (2) Those with high information, but not listened.
I’m not a frequent poster, but I held the view that Biden should STRONGLY be encouraged to step aide. As one who goes against the grain in this group, I have learned takes courage to participate. People enjoy shooting one another down rather than rejoicing in collective analysis. If the point of this forum is see who can be the wittiest in the snarkiest possible way, then participating is a waste of time.
The same people who said that it was wrong to doubt Biden’s abilities and questioned the commitment of those who did are now questioning the commitment of those want to examine a possible process to consider other people than Harris. In my view not challenging Biden in the primaries that got us into this mess, and I don’t want the same thing to occur with Harris IF she is not a viable candidate for whatever reason. As I stated in my previous post, I believe the party leadership has already decided that unity is more important than scrutiny. But really, is it so dangerous to discuss possible pathways to producing the best candidate?
@Skookum:
Hey, I just want to say thank you for giving us some critique from a point of caring. One thing in what you wrote really stands out:
I just want to second this. There’s definitely a tendency to throw elbows and make assumptions about anyone who bucks trends–even long after they have demonstrated that they are not trolling for the lulz.
Unfortunately, it’s something that is common in internet discourse (and has been since the mid-1990s in my experience). I wish I had a good solution for this, but I’d be lying if I said I did. If you (or anyone) has any ideas about this, please let us know!
That isn’t intended to be an excuse for the treatment–more just an acknowledgement of the truth of what you said.
@Jack:
Putin wants Trump. Russian media is 100% behind Trump. And you know it, so stop lying, it’s boring. You want a fascist state. You want an end to democracy. You want a dictator, and we all know it.
Why can’t you people ever tell the truth? Just for once cut the bullshit and make an honest statement. Be a man.
@Skookum: Good critique, but I would also caution against groupthink about, well, groupthink 🙂 As someone who has gotten my fair share of slings and arrows, it seems to me that the sniping falls into more than the two groups you mentioned, with a bunch of different subgroups
1) The low information types that you mentioned, who are uniformly nasty and usually ludicrously uniformed. But there is only a small handful of them. I find it easy to ignore them.
2) The people who engage those above and who almost inevitably end up slinging insults, if not from the get go then by the end of a pointless dialog with someone whose only goal is to get them angry. It’s only a little harder to ignore these ones because they usually have an @LowInformationBuffoon reply to in messages of this type. There are maybe 15 or so who fall into this category.
3) The people who make good points and have interesting perspectives but who seem to really, really want “to set this idiot straight”, and self righteously judge and “give this ignoramus a piece of my mind”. I generally continue to read their comments and even engage when they are not in their avenging sword of righteousness mode, and just kind of mentally trim the mold off the bread, so to speak. This group makes up maybe 10-15%
4) People who, while not being a complete #1, have a “useful insights” to “insults, pompousness and fractured English” ratio so very, very low that it puts them on the “not worth the bother list”. Right now that’s just one person for me.
5) The people that treat each other with respect and want to actually explore ideas. That’s most of the people here, and certainly the top level posters.
@JohnSF: I concur on all points.
@Steven L. Taylor:
He can’t help it. He’s powerless to stop it. He’s just impotent in the face of such things.
ETA: I really couldn’t help myself.
@MarkedMan:
I read your list with some trepidation. And indeed, in some sense, I could probably be categorized in some of the negative items, at least some of the time.
I definitely engage @JKB and @Jack. But I have explained why I do that–for lurkers. Their posts are either incoherent and vague, or filled with the same catchphrases and lazy stereotypes of Dems/Lefties. If a commenter appears to be a person only interested in aggressively spouting partisan phrases and the responses are coherent and substantive, that is a good thing. If the only responses are volleys of return fire, it just makes both sides look obsessive and psychotic to leaners.
Now, could I be better about tone? Probably. I do my best to keep my responses substantive, even if I include a jab or two. And yes, I have, even once or twice recently failed to restrain myself.
Perhaps I should eliminate those.
You all have helped me to soften my language a bit, while retaining a bit of humor (hopefully), without going into lunatic mode.
But my natural approach is to a.) give the same tone given by my discussion partner; b.) try to do the same with their language in an effort to be persuasive.
Because of that, my elbows can still be a little sharp, I just try to reserve it for those who agree with me more than those who do not.
I don’t know what you think about this or any of my posts. But I do hope you feel I treat you with respect–I enjoy your contributions. Anyone who I offend, feel free to tell me to fuck off, or at least let me know I went a little too hard.
I like all of you and don’t wish to drag down the discourse.
To @Skookum: I am always interested in understanding how my posts are received. And I very much like hearing from those who comment less frequently. So thank you for the criticism, and feel free to direct whatever you need to at me. I will likely say thank you, explain myself, or look at it as an opportunity for growth.
@Kurtz: It can’t stop–because Dems don’t have a smoke machine big enough to change a narrative. That’s exactly why the Biden talk never went away and Dems were forced to simply roll with it.
Thomm Hartman did an interview and said Mitt Romney’s hedge full bought Clear Channel and then tossed Air America over the side. He said he mentioned to Left-leaning billionaires that they do the same and they thought it was market-tampering.
As Lounsbury eloquently stated– bringing ‘bloody tea-lady étiquette to a knife fight’ is a fools errand.
Harris gets 2-3 weeks of honeymoon–then will get melted by a slime machine from every major outlet sans MSNBC, The Grio, and Mother Jones. The conversation will never so much singe the remaining old guy.
But oh those Zingers—
@Skookum: Sooooo–you are not a group think person–yet your discussion topic is the topic Du Jour of most major news outlets?
-Check
@MarkedMan: ” People who, while not being a complete #1, have a “useful insights” to “insults, pompousness and fractured English” ratio so very, very low that it puts them on the “not worth the bother list”. Right now that’s just one person for me.”
Hey, is that me? I can’t help it… I’m a writer before I’m a political junkie, and bad writing makes me even crazier than bad political thinking!
But sorry if I annoy you. I promise not to be mad if you choose to skip my posts!
@JKB:
LOL, not getting much, are you?
wr:
No. Look at the descriptors. Only one writes in broken English, yet provides some insight. “Pompous” also doesn’t describe the ones with iffy writing skills.
@anjin-san:
Haha. I dunno, man. I was on one the other day. And halfway through my endless string of posts, I realized I had gotten laid the night before. Temporary distraction for me, personally.
@Jim Brown 32:
Zing!
@Skookum:
I enjoy reading your comments. Please post more. But only if you want to.
@DK: Could anybody pick Seth Moulton out of a lineup of generic dudes in a blue suit?
Probably not even Ms. Moulton
@Kurtz:
It takes a fair amount to ruffle me. Given that, I’ve never put you into any negative category. When I see your name I think, “This could be interesting”. I don’t always agree with you, but that’s the reason I come to this blog: interesting, intelligent people who come from a different perspective.
I know there are many, like you, who believe there are lurkers out there who may fall for the bloviators BS and you are doing a service by pointing out the fallacies. I suspect there are a vanishingly small number of these impressionable lurkers, but of course have no way to prove it because, lurkers. But FWIW, one way to effectively refute someone who just wants to get your goat is to do a separate “FWIW” or “for the record” comment that is not a reply, i.e. does not contain their name. That’s the key. Never mention them by name. You’ve done your refutation and they will most likely not respond. For the most part these trumpers don’t read anything here except the replies to comments they have made. I’ve done this for years and don’t think I’ve ever seen a reply from them to any comments like that I’ve made. In fact, only once in my memory on this blog has one of them replied to anything I’ve ever written. It was a few months back and I didn’t read it once I realized who it was from, and so didn’t reply to it, but it stuck in my mind as a rarity.
That’s the bottom line. If you feel compelled to refute them for the lurkers, don’t use the reply function or use their name in some other way. You will definitely get the last word, every time. How often does that happen in life?
@wr: Not you at all. I look forward to reading your comments. But I’m astounded that it isn’t obvious who I’m talking about. (Unless you were being sarcastic? Remember to hold up your hand and give the sign when you do that)
@JKB: Fits the party of the women in this age of the harridans
“Age of the Harridans”. That’s a new one, almost sounds like a series on Netflix. We have a few authors here, maybe they can get the book rights from you.
@wr: It could well be me. Whenever I attack the poster (I think is) in question, that’s the direction I usually go.
@MarkedMan:
I will definitely take your advice under consideration. The persuadable lurker is likely a mythical beast.
You are correct that those guys typically don’t respond to substance. On the other hand, Jack did the other day. That’s why I made an effort to elicit a response. When I got crickets, I reminded him the next day just to give him a chance at some explanation. The crickets were too tired by then.
I suspect that if they do reply to substance, it is something they can respond to easily based on hearing someone else’s response to the same argument.
Sometimes it appears they have a sheet of phrases to use. Just an appearance, though. When I see people who just recycle the same phrases repeatedly–the ones that are clearly part of a planned messaging campaign–it’s petty clear they have turned their brain off and just spread it around.
Yeah, you are probably correct.
—
Hey! I’ll take interesting. If someone did agree with me all the time, I would be sad–that is bad for me and the other person.
Shit, I may not agree with myself all that often.
@JohnSF:
Totally agree. There was some noise about Joe Manchin (D?) -Coal taking a shot but he has disavowed the rumor. Instead he asks some sort of “mini primary”. Weak at best.
@Jim Brown 32:
After MSNBC’s smear job on the president the past month, I wouldn’t take it for granted they’ll now finally realize Trump is the dangerously unfit elder who needs hounding, not the Democrat.
It surprising to see and hear so many Democrats and pundits now issuing such positive assessments of Biden’s character, leadership, and accomplishments. One wonders where they’ve been for the past 3.5 years, and what the polls would’ve looked like had they bothered telling their audiences that, yes, the ocotogenarian is historically great at his actual job duties — rather than just something something inflation something something he’s old, on loop repeatedly.
They always love you after they kill you.
@Lucysfootball:
Haaaaaaa.
@Kathy: @Steven L. Taylor: Nero doesn’t strike me as a good analog to Trump. My recollection of the story is that Nero fiddled (with a lyre) while Rome burned, not that he took an active role in burning it.
@Kurtz: Oh, I thought you meant people who complained that other people couldn’t write a clear sentence… to which I plead guilty.
Now that I’ve read your comment without looking in the mirror, I know exactly who you’re talking about. In fact, it was mostly my comments to him that made me think you meant me, because I thought it was the complaint that was bugging you, not the offense!
@Lucysfootball: I laughed pretty hard when I read “Age of the Harridans”, too, reminded me of The Croods 2 and the Thunder Sisters. 😉
@gVOR10:
I agree. I think a better comparison for Trump is Sulla
@gVOR10:
I wonder if someone has sorted Roman emperors by psychopathology, especially the really bad ones.
As to fiddling, Nero probably wasn’t in Rome when that fire broke out. His response wasn’t terrible, but he erred in blaming the whole things on Christians at a time when persecuting them wasn’t en vogue.
He was a massive narcissist, thinking himself a great artist. Rather cowardly, prone to fits of violence, and willing to sacrifice anyone for his benefit (exhibit A, he had his mother killed).
Maybe Commodus fits better. Very chaotic reign, and also he marked the end of good governance in Rome. He was preceded by the Five Good Emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pious, and Marcus Aurelius), and after his reign Rome saw the Year of Five Emperors.
For the record, I feel like there is a similarity between the use of the word “harridans” and a certain VP candidate’s pejorative phrase “childless cat ladies.” It’s clear that misogyny is alive and well. Some men just can’t handle it when women don’t make the choices they want them to make.
@Franklin: You know, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of instead of calling it K-hive or the Thunder Sisters, we call them the Harridan sisters. Poor JKB might go exorcist at the idea. Animated campaign ads to bring the young ones in. How DARE those college-aged women get all sassy and shit!
All of that said….Harris has changed things, with the young folk. My own young person was going to vote for RFK (I know, I know), but now that Biden stepped down, she’s totally Harris and whatever white guy. And she wants Harris to HAMMER abortion/contraceptive rights. She says Tik Tok has totally changed since yesterday, and that’s where they get their news.
Us oldies should get on board.
@Matt Bernius:
I haven’t been around here long enough to really know JKB, but this has the scent of piling on someone who isn’t in the leftist OTB club.
Just a few observations.
Bureaucracy is bad. Why deny it? Left leaning people love to criticize the Pentagon. You think all the efficient people and processes work in the other ares of government?
Slavery. Really? Slavery is the single worst pox on American history. But it has become, like racism, the trite go to argument for people who cannot make a case.
Colleges? Anyone who denies that are just hot beds of liberal hegemony is just in denial.
Woke women and NY. WTF?
Sharks and bleach. Please, this is beneath you, Matt. I heard, first hand, the shark remarks. Total tongue in cheek. Total. Having fun with the crowd. Get your analysis from Raw Story or something? And bleach? C’mon man. Again, beneath you, and trivializes you. This is so absurd no sane person would cite it.
Turley and Derch. You must know they are both lifelong Dems. I think you meant: I don’t agree with their analysis. They are sane voices recently. Not like paid shills for MSNBC. I saw Taylor claiming recently Turley was a hack. Yet Turley’s analysis continues to show correct over time. Taylor should look in the mirror. Talk about a hack.
Sowell is a well reasoned guy. Oppose his views if you like. It’s a free country. But compare his writings to other black opinion it’s or scholars. Men and boys.
@Jack: Don’t lie, dude. You’re using the same email as Drew/Guarneri. You’ve been around here plenty long enough to know JKB.
@Jack:
Bureaucracy:
And I pointed out to you that every large organization, whether a government department, or a private company has a bureaucracy. It is, may I say, the go-to buzzword for people who don’t have an argument. As is pro forma for you, you did not respond. I even asked twice.
Lefty criticism of the Pentagon has little to do with bureaucracy. Either you are being dishonest, or revealing that you show little understanding of Left positions.
Slavery, bleach/sharks: I am not going to look through your posts to see if you have said anything about it. If Matt wants to bring receipts, he can.
Though I’ll add one of my own: he hurricane chart with a suspicious addendum that did not reflect the models.
Colleges:
Have you ever looked through the curriculum of most American economics departments? Or looked at their funding? Not exactly a bastion of anti-capitalist sentiment. Ditto business schools. Not every political science professor is on the left. And philosophy departments are the same way.
This idea that colleges are nothing but commies and fellow travelers is absolute nonsense. It’s a talking point–your stock and trade.
Dershowitz: meh, don’t really care. Though it is curious that Republicans love to talk about Democrats and Epstein, but are silent about Dershowitz and Trump (especially given his own public statements and plenty of anecdotes about encounters with him).
Turley: There is far more evidence of his hackery than there is of your nonstop Biden crime family crap. (Same thing wrt what you call Russia Russia Russia.)
The testimony he gave during two separate impeachments cannot be reconciled. To my knowledge, he has never even attempted to say something like, “My views have changed.”
Even if he did, punditry can be lucrative–for money or attention–so one would have to take a good hard look about how a scholar who claims to be a life-long Democrat suddenly swerves to the right and his profile rises immensely.
Sowell: Is he really? Would you know who he was if he wasn’t a Black economist who criticizes ‘Black culture’? I’m guessing you would not. Call it DEI for the Right.
Hahahaha….OMG, it just occurred to me that Jack might be the MOST RECENT paid russian troll. What if they don’t know each other, they just get assigned email addresses and websites to troll?
I wonder how much that pays?!
@Kurtz: He certainly seems to live in his own fantasy alternate reality. Yow!
@Jack: So I take it you dislike disingenuous, bad faith arguments. But yet you show up here every day to make them.
I guess disingenuous, bad faith arguments are bad—but only when they counter Right Wing points of view. Other than that—you don’t seem to have a problem with them
@Jack:
Taking this at face value, I’m sure to your clearly unbiased eyes it might feel that way. On the other hand, JKB has been a fixture on our comment threads since at least 2007 (before I started reading OTB) and has a long record of expressing certain opinions. So while my list was snarky, I’ll stand by it.
And I’ll provide some citations to back up those allegations that I’m sure you will seriously consider.
I realize you think this is a galaxy brain take. But unless you mean bad in the sense of “democracy is bad, but all other systems are worse,” most sane people see the transition from patronage-based governing systems to bureaucracies as one of the most critical advancements in governing.
Also, it’s weird that you apparently think that criticism about the Pentagon or the American Military is about bureaucracy… perhaps you don’t know what that word actually means.
BTW, here is JKB on the subject:
Note that he states it’s a great evil than slavery… which gets to:
Slavery. Really? Slavery is the single worst pox on American history.