Thomas L. Friedman, Paul Krugman. Nicholas Kristof, and Frank Bruni (all of the New York Times) say Biden should bow out. Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) said, "This can’t continue. I am sorry to say this harsh thing, but allowing him to go forward at this point looks like elder abuse."
Politico reports
From the New York Times to the Financial Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Atlantic, left-leaning columnists — many of whom have been covering Biden for years — admitted that the president didn’t just lose the debate: He confirmed his party’s greatest fears that his advanced age had rendered the election unwinnable for the Democrats if he remains their candidate.
It seems to me that whether or not Biden is too old to govern (and I don't even know what that means, exactly), he can no longer effectively campaign. But who can replace him (and win) at this stage of the game?
It's said that he's exceedingly stubborn - which can, at times, be a virtue in a president. And that his circle of trusted advisers is quite small. Could the First Lady prevail upon him to step aside (if she wishes him to?)
ReplyDeleteThe next shoe to fall probably would be: I don't think there will be a great deal of enthusiasm for the Vice President to move to the top of the ticket. But it's surely the path of least resistance for the party.
The last two Democrats to show the ability to earn large percentages of votes nationally are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Clinton owns the distinction of already having lost to Trump. Sanders is 82 (a bit older than Biden), although seemingly more energetic and sharp. Not sure how a Jewish male would fly as a candidate in today's Democratic Party. Maybe it wouldn't be a problem. If anything, the Democratic Party has moved closer to Sanders's platform over the last eight years.
I'd guess there would be no shortage of other candidates willing to throw their hat into the ring.
I am seeing a lot of suggestions for a "brokered convention". Apparently the last time that happened was 1952. But at least there is a precedent. I looked up some info on who the likely candidates would be if that happens:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/these-are-the-likely-democratic-presidential-candidates-if-biden-drops-out-as-rough-debate-prompts-calls-to-stand-down/ar-BB1iegGn?ocid=BingNewsSerp
The names were Kamala Harris, because she is the sitting v.p. But the others were all state governors: Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, Jared Polis, and Josh Shapiro. To be honest I would rather see any of those people run, because I think they would have a better chance against Trump than Harris.
The one in the list of governors who has been the most politically active in the national scene is Gavin Newsom, who at one point debated Ron DeSantis.
DeleteShapiro might be able to deliver Pennsylvania's electoral votes. That could be huge.
DeleteWhat it's going to take is someone with a lot of political ambition to instigate and win a floor fight at the convention.
ReplyDeleteThat person would have to be loud, brash, thick-skinned, ruthless, well-connected, and able to persuade everyone that Biden should step aside. That person would need to be somebody able to dance circles around Trump and call him on every lie he tells. That person would also need considerable skill at wrangling delegates and donors in smoke-filled back rooms between now and the convention.
In other words, somebody even bigger and scarier than LBJ. And I don't believe any such person exists in the Democratic party.
I'd like to tell pundits who are obsessing over the optics of the debate is that I'll vote for Grampa Joe if I have to. At least he has competent people in there. If he loses, it's back to Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Michael Flynn, and Franklin Graham dismantling democracy while Trump sells arms to dictators in exchange for real estate deals.
If nothing changes in the next four years, 2028 will be the the Walking Dead Democrats vs the GOP Hell's Angels. And God help our young people.
FWIW - I watched the debate. Biden wasn't brilliant. He started very slow, but he sort of warmed up as the evening went on. One pundit said that, as Trump got under his skin and pushed his buttons, his temper carried him through.
ReplyDeleteBut even when he sort of recovered from his disastrous first 15-20 minutes, he didn't seem up to challenging Trump on what he was saying. Trump was pure Trump: lying, insulting, provoking, apparently living in an alternative fantasy world, being on the offensive (in every meaning of that word) all night.
Trump is a brawler. I really think that is the visceral core of his popularity. It explains why those who perceive they've been left behind by modernity love him, and why he is making inroads with Black and Hispanic men.
Delete"Trump is a brawler." Yes he is. I never enjoyed pro-wrestling, either. Sometimes I think it's all about his entertainment value. Because he's not actually going to do anything for the ones who feel they are left behind.
DeleteIf only there were a competent (and continent) candidate in the room. They keep the third parties out of debates and politics but that's the only hope to invigorate debates and politics in general. Could you imagine what the Gore/Bush debate would have been with Ralph Nader introducing the questions nobody wants to discuss? What would this debate have been like with Cornel West, Jill Stein, the Libertarian guy and even RFK? Better. And at least Biden would have gotten breaks. As I've stated in other venues, asking Biden to give up his candidacy would be like me asking my mother to give up her driver's license. An affirmative response is unlikely. I've been voting for the lesser evil for decades and things just keep getting more and more evil. This coming election will be the crash-and-burn of the two-party system and maybe our democracy itself. It will take a new revolution but I doubt the American citizens, hothouse plants that they are, would even know where to start. I don't know what the Democrats should do. I wish them good luck but I am no longer a Democrat. This may be the last time there IS a vote.
ReplyDeleteThe Boy said he's just biding his time until the revolution, doesn't plan to vote. Can't stand either party because the agenda that the Millennials and GenZ care about--global warming, wage disparity, housing costs, and health care--gets no traction.
DeleteThis old boy is with the Boy. But I will still vote and that vote will be for a third party. They have us locked out and do extensive lawfare against the Green Party and others. If they don't get on the ballot in PA, I will write in. My messaging from the Democrats has been dinging like crazy today. I will support some Squad members, but the Party in general is bankrupt and just a self-serving political entity.
DeleteI liked Jimmy McMillan (The Rent Is Too Damn High Party), but they never got on the Michigan ballot. Not voting at all is a cop-out. If young people voted as a bloc for a third party, they could cause serious problems for both parties. Sitting at home dreaming of some vague revolution causes zero problems.
DeleteI don't think doing poorly in a debate means Biden is senile. I thought the debate was a bad idea from the get go, turns out I wasn't wrong. I think doing well at actually governing is more important than out-yelling Donald Trump in a cage match. But if Biden decides to step aside and the Dems choose choose someone else I will vote for that person. I do think Kamala Harris is being underestimated. She has done a decent job of being v.p., they aren't supposed to be the stars of the show. Until they have to be.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with those who are saying "none of the above", I voted for Evan McMullen in one election myself. And I think it would be healthier if a viable third party would come into existence. But for right now I'm not counting Joe B. out.
Completely agree about the debate, and dismayed this morning to see the NYT calling for him to step aside.
DeleteHarris? She seems like more flair than substance, and I was not impressed with her performance on committees. But anybody but Trump at this point.
I don't think many people believe Biden will beat Trump. Among Democrats, "anybody but Trump" would seem to be the strongest reason to replace Biden on the ballot.
DeleteI'd be happy if Repubs who don't like Trump would worry about the mess in their own party instead of trying to give mine advice.
DeleteAmong several nonsensical ideas I have read since the debate is the one that the 25th amendment should be applied to Biden. If they couldn't get article 3 of the 14th amendment to apply to Trump, along with 34 convictions and all the indictments, and his firehose of lies, it is pretty presumptuous to try to take Biden out with the 25th. The so-called guard rails are made of kleenex; we just have to do the best we can with what we have.
DeleteI wonder if all the people who think the Democrats "just need to pick someone else" have considered that the ballots in most states have most likely already been printed. Their preferred candidate would have to be written in. How many people would do that as opposed to just blackening a circle?
My sense is that Biden appointees would be more likely to apply the 25th Amendment than Trump appointees. He can subject fellow Repubs (and their wives in Ted Cruz's case) to the most demeaning personal attacks without losing any support whatever.
DeleteI seriously doubt that any states have printed ballots for the 2024 presidential election. Neither Biden nor Trump has been nominated yet. And we don't even know the name of the Republican vice-presidential candidate.
DeleteI don't think Biden is senile, but he is clearly in worse shape than we have all been led to believe. I think the Republicans were mostly lying about what bad shape Biden was in, but it turns out their lies were true. According to the accounts I have read, Biden was fully prepared for the debate, but he still wasn't up to the challenge. And of course he has more than four years to go if he wins the election. I would certainly prefer a senile Biden in office to an evil, lunatic Trump. But Biden has four more months of campaigning to do, and if he is in as bad as it seems, the American people can't be fooled for the rest of the campaign. If he remains the Democratic candidate, we can only hope that voters prefer a cognitively impaired Biden to demented scoundrel like Trump.
Biden doesn't seem any more impaired than my octogenarian relatives who had balance problems and didn't hear so good. They were wholly lucid but petered out fast and their reflexes were such that they limited or gave up driving.
DeleteMost of us here are in our 70s and know that we would be hard pressed to do the 24/7 job that is the presidency.
Joe's main problem is that he overestimates his stamina. He should have stuck with his intention to be a one-term prez, and opened the field two years ago. Maybe because he felt ok 2 yrs ago. This age stuff can creep up fast.
But he didn't, he's not gonna, so we have to suck it up or put up with the return of the Prince of Lies.
Still waiting on an analysis if the SC's ruling released minutes ago that the prez has absolute immunity for official acts, no immunity for unofficial acts. Goes back to a lower court for a ruling?
It appears that the SC has decided that a president IS above the law. Apparently the SC is going to help destroy our country and constitution. I met Gorsuch a couple of years ago at a wedding. A very charming man who should have stayed in England with his wife instead of returning to the US to help destroy us.
DeleteSo, what I am getting according to analysis of the ruling:
Delete1. A lower court will have to decide which federal charges stem from unofficial acts. This all but assures delay of Trump's trial until after November.
2. If elected, Trump can instruct the Justice Dept to drop the case. That effectively makes the charges disappear.
3. If Trump is not elected, the trial may go forward unless Biden tells the JD to drop the case. (I suppose this is at the heart of Trump's claim that Biden is waging lawfare on him).
4. There is speculation that the SC's decision is broad enough for Trump to pardon himself for any unofficial acts that were criminal. One analyst said pardon powers were "nearly absolute."
5. Another analyst said that there is nothing in the Constitution that offers immunity to the president, and that the ruling alters this.
#4 and 5 strike me as of greatest concern long-term if the analysts are correct. If they ate, it's a big win for Nixon and Kissinger.
Thanks for the summary, Jean.
DeleteYou can read the majority opinion and dissent here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/
DeleteThis is Ilya Shapiro's analysis of the SC ruling:
Deletehttps://x.com/ishapiro/status/1807799271011279050
Maybe we have to be like some Republicans I know. They may or may not like Trump, but they're "Team R". They have what I feel is a misplaced trust that he will choose competent people.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I have no idea if Biden will stay in the race or not. If he drops out, it will be a big ugly fight if they don't back Kamala Harris. I have confidence that either Biden or Harris will choose competent people, (even if Biden is not at the top of his game). I have zero confidence that Trump will choose his people well or wisely. So I guess I am " Team D" , even though I am a registered Republican, and lean more independent.
Maybe see yourself as Team Rule of Law and Accountability?
DeleteI was leaning very much in favor of Biden stepping down, but the Supreme Court ruling on immunity pretty much changes everything. I can think of no alternative other than to make the court the primary issue for the campaign and to rely heavily on the argument that Biden can be trusted and Trump cannot.
DeleteDavid, I think you are right that the court ruling needs to be the primary issue now, along with trust.
DeleteJust a thought, Evan McMullen ran as an independent in 2016. What are the chances that some guy like that could come out of nowhere and at least scare the pants off the two major parties this time?
ReplyDeleteI actually liked what I read about McMullen. I would be sorely tempted to vote for him again.
Back when Evan McMullin was in the news a lot, I saw him browsing in Barnes & Noble Union Square, one of my favorite bookstores before I started reading Kindle books and listening to Audibles almost exclusively. He was a good looking man.
DeleteI saw Rami Malek and Wallace Shawn (separately) in my local Whole Foods.
I saw Hermione Gingold standing outside La Grenouille (a very fancy restaurant right near where I was working at the time). She was beautifully dressed and flawlessly made up, and It was a thrill. As a kid I thought she was hilarious. There is something very poignant in I Remember It Well, the great duet with Maurice Chevalier . I sat in the same row as James Dickey when I saw the movie Deliverance. He laughed occasionally at scenes that were not funny, so he must have been recalling personal experiences. I saw Barbara Cook and Cyril Ritchard (separately) in the Metropolitan Opera House.
I don't know that the Supreme Court ruling changes anything. Presidents already were acknowledged to have some level of immunity, but until the recent ruling, there wasn't much definition as to what was immune and what wasn't. Now there is some definition.
ReplyDeleteThe majority opinion makes several crucial distinctions: between core and "edge" presidential duties, and between actions that pertain to the office of president and those that pertain to a political candidate and/or private citizen.
Donald Trump seeking to subvert the results of the 2020 election seems, at first glance, to be the actions of a political candidate. I am sure he could find lawyers to argue those actions were core presidential actions, but I think it would be a difficult argument to make.
It appears this section of Sotomayor's dissent is getting a lot of political traction:
"The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
Are any of those acts (none of which ever have happened - although the bribe-for-pardon scenario doesn't sound far-fetched) part of the core office of the president? If not, then: not immune, not immune, not immune. And of course, that is apart from the core remedies of impeachment and elections. And Constitutional amendments.
Then, too, there is Roberts' reply to Sotomayor's hypotheticals:
"The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. … Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors."
Jim, the ruling did NOT clarify the difference between official and unofficial acts around which immunity revolves. That has been booted back to a lower court to work out and charges against Trump adjusted based on that ruling. But that ruling is appealable, and all Trump needs to do is keep delaying the process until he is in office and can tell the DoJ to drop the matter.
DeleteJust because we don't have evidence of the horrors Sotomayor outlines does not mean that, in the fullness of time, it won't enter someone's head to do so.
I get that a Latina justice, who got into law school on Affirmative Action, sounding alarms about what nice white presidents might do is unappealing to nice white justices and their fans. But how many of us four years ago could have conceived of the steaming pile on the national lawn that is trump?
"Jim, the ruling did NOT clarify the difference between official and unofficial acts around which immunity revolves. That has been booted back to a lower court to work out"
DeleteThe ruling distinguished between core presidential duties (as listed in the Constitution), for which a president would seem to enjoy absolute immunity; and 'edge' presidential duties (which belong to the president but aren't explicitly set out in the Constitution), for which he is given a presumption of immunity - but that presumption can be overriden via evidence, argument et al. The decision further distinguishes those categories from actions a president may make which are not proper to his being president but rather to his identity as a private citizen (which includes his possible identity as a political candidate). No immunity attaches to actions when the president is wearing that "hat".
Btw, I understand Roberts may also have noted that a vice president overseeing the certification of an election does not enjoy immunity, because when s/he is doing so, it is as a member of the legislative branch rather than the executive branch (i.e. it is Congress's role to certify election results). So had Mike Pence chosen to commit the chicanery Trump urged him to do, he wouldn't have been immune from prosecution.
For a former president charged with a crime, what a lower court is going to have to do under this new decision is take the pile of facts in evidence and sort out which category each fact belongs in. E.g. Trump called the State of Georgia's election commissioner and asked him to "find" 15,000 votes. (The conversation was recorded, so it seems to be a fact.) Is that a core presidential act, an edge presidential act, or the act of a political candidate? It seems pretty clear it was the act of a candidate.
To take another example, on January 6, for hours Trump declined to call in the National Guard to reinforce the overwhelmed Capitol Police. Was that sin of omission a core presidential act, an edge presidential act, or the act of a candidate? I'd think lawyers could have a good argument over that one.
I think your answer points to the many holes in the decision that will have to be adjudicated that negates your idea that this is all tidied up.
Delete... and this should surprise nobody, but Trump's lawyers now claim his hush money conviction should be set aside in light of the SC's ruling. More grounds for appeals and delays until Trump is re-elected and can deal with Judge Juan Merchan. Cuz, IMMUNE.
ReplyDeleteAnd that delay strategy is working. Trump's gonna have two more months to careen around the country holding rallies and lying his head off before sentencing because he can afford to hire lawyer to gum up the works. IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?
DeleteFrom the Wash Post:
NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s sentencing in the New York hush money case was pushed back to September, as his lawyers seek to convince the trial judge that his conviction should be tossed out after a Supreme Court ruling that presidents have immunity for official acts.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
The much-anticipated sentencing of the former president and presumptive GOP nominee for president was set to take place next week, following his May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. That sentencing is now tentatively scheduled for Sept. 18, and the judge said other proceedings could take place that day instead, if necessary.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan granted requests by the parties to allow time for legal filings. Merchan said he would rule on those motions Sept. 6.
DeleteJim, regarding the quote from Roberts, it seems to me Donald Trump and the Republicans are promising to get their revenge ("retribution") by practicing the same kind of "lawfare" conservatives are criticizing Democrats for (unfairly, in my opinion). We know that Trump had to be dissuaded from attempts to prosecute Hilary Clinton and James Comey. He would be immune now if he is elected and orders the Justice Department to prosecute any of his political enemies.
Donald Trump tried to hold on to the presidency illegitimately by claiming the 2020 election was invalid, which was a lie. And it is a lie he not only still tells, but he uses as a litmus test to determine who will be in or out in his next administration. Everyone knows what Trump did. And yet the Supreme Court feels that they have to give immunity to him and to future presidents because of what might. They don't seem to care much about what actually did happen. One can only imagine that they are not troubled by Trump's past actions. Of course, he did appoint three of them.
I’ve been reading about Project 2025. It’s a truly terrifying project. How can the tens of millions of Americans who support trump be so gullible, so stupid, so ignorant. I’m very glad that two of our sons at least have been making plans to move to Europe. Although France may be as bad as the US if the LePen party takes over. But as EU citizens they can move wherever they want. Unfortunately several countries in the EU are also heading towards far right extremism. Under the French system, it’s easier to get rid of extremists once the people get fed up enough with them. Not so here. The UK is fed up with the damage the Conservatives have done and are now heading full speed to the left. But their system is more like France’s system, not like ours. Now, with the SC determined to help destroy the Constitution, it seems that there will be nothing to stop trump’s authoritarian takeover agenda. So much for the separation of powers.
ReplyDeleteThis article on Snopes has a lot of information about Project 2025: https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/07/03/project-2025-trump-us-government/
DeleteLike you, I certainly find Project 2025 alarming. And I see that the Democrats are making it a major concern in their campaign.
However, a few things to remember; it is quite common for groups such as the Heritage Foundation to push their ideas and try to influence candidates in a campaign. Up to now the Trump campaign has made no official connection to Project 2025. The downside of that is that they don't need to; about two thirds of what Heritage wants to do with their Project 2025, Trump has already thought of on his own.
As far as budget, Heritage is a private foundation and gets no government money. It is said that about $22 million is budgeted for Project 2025. Which sounds like a lot, but in a political campaign it really isn't a huge amount. The Dems should keep beating the Drum about Project 2025, but the real problem is still Trump.
Thanks for the Snopes link. I am on a news diet until Monday, but read the summary and will go back to it.
DeleteMeantime, this has been a year of many butterflies. Looking at a lovely velvety black one with electric blue at lower wing plus two dots at t the top. Very goth. Gotta look it up it's name and remember that God sends us beauty to offset our often self-created ugliness.
I'm glad you're seeing butterflies. We don't usually see many until a little later. I'm hoping the monarchs will be back, and sometimes we get some tiger swallow-tails. I love the way they just float.
DeleteIt's a blue admiral. I think the unusual heat wave brought out a lot of bugs. I have been seeing early dragonflies and spiders, too. We also get monarchs later.
DeleteI was reading the comment section on the America site, of an article which urged Biden to step aside. I thought this comment by reader Kathleen Foote was interesting:
ReplyDelete"I’m stationed in Germany so I wasn’t able to watch the debate. Instead, I read the full transcript put out by CNN.
"I don’t understand the vociferous and sudden about-face of so many Biden supporters, T became less and less coherent as the debate went on, and Biden became stronger and stronger. Biden called out T’s misinformation, lies, and gush gallop, and reminded us of the accomplishments of his own administration."
"I don’t remember when I last saw world leaders debate each other in a public forum, so I’m not sure how important debate skills are in public service."
"Wisdom, compassion, experience, focus on goals that I agree with - these are the values that I look for in a national leader. Although I see several leaders-in-the-making in the Democratic Party, for now I’m still quite comfortable supporting the Biden-Harris ticket."
Ms. Foote said she didn't have access to live coverage of the debate, and had read the transcript. I rarely watch live coverage of something like this debate, and usually read a transcript or print coverage. Certainly if you compare transcripts of what Biden said, and what Trump said, definitely Biden comes across as more reasonable and coherent (and he didn't carpet the place with lies) I honestly don't see the purpose of presidential debates. Do they tell us anything we didn't already know about policy, or the candidates? Decisions made by a president don't happen in a split instant, even or especially quite crucial ones. There are always team members involved in the process. Who would I trust to choose the most competent team members?
Arguing Biden really was okay if you just ignore the televised debate and read the transcript is kind of like saying, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" William Saletan did an excellent video on The Bulwark analyzing all the defenses of Biden'd poor debate performance.
ReplyDeleteI keep wavering in my opinion from minute to minute, and at the moment feel that Biden should step down.
Bottom line, Biden will either step aside, or he won't. I'm trying not to catastrophize about either outcome. I think the Dems can work with it either way.
DeleteI think if he does step aside, the best outcome is for them to back Kamala Harris. The campaign money would transition smoothly, which it wouldn't if they had to pick another candidate in a brokered convention. More important, she is already vetted and has been on the scene in the administration for three years plus. She wouldn't be coming in cold and starting from square one.
David, can you put me back in here as a moderator? My latest blood work looks pretty good, so I should be lucid for another three months. Maybe I can post some nice things instead of just arguing with people.
DeleteGreat news! Now if David can just get Stanley back in too, we have a great future.
DeleteJean, we all could use some uplifting posts! My access as a moderator doesn’t work any more either.
DeleteKatherine, I stopped watching debates and commercial tv with ads, especially political ads, about 25 years ago. When I reregistered as Not Affiliated to a party the political robocalls stopped also. I prefer to read, like the woman who lives in Germany. I am not as concerned about Biden as some are. And there is no doubt that he has more qualified advisors than trump. Since Biden doesn’t believe that he is god, as trump does, Biden actually studies policy papers and listens to his advisors, unlike trump who never read policy analyses and insisted on bullet point, minimal briefings. I’m not convinced that he is capable of understanding normal presidential policy briefings. The Heritage Foundation acts as an unofficial policy advisor to trump, just as the Judges are recommended by the Federalist Society. They aren’t official advisors, and the Heritage Foundation won’t be buying ads to promote their agenda so they don’t need a huge budget.. They work directly with trump and his official advisors. The Heritage Foundation has been an unofficial advisory group/think tank for decades to Republicans and the most extreme elements in it .
Jean, I have sent an invitation to the gmail address I have for you (r*******4@gmail.com). Let me know if that is not the correct address or if you have any problems signing in.
DeleteThanks, David. I think I am all signed up now.
DeleteWe need to rethink the Vice-Presidency. We should always be electing as vice president the next best person to be president other than the top of the ticket.
ReplyDeleteThe Vice presidency should be considered a training ground for the presidency. However, that does not mean that we should choose a person to be vice president for eight years followed by eight years of being president. Sixteen years is too long; four years apprentice followed by eight- years of service is much better.
Democrats should choose a vice president with the notion that he or she would serve only for four years followed by a new vice president who would serve for four years. Then Democrats would have two experienced vice presidents to choose from for an eight-year presidency.
I think it was demeaning of the office of vice president for Biden to declare that he planned to pick an African-American woman for his vice president, rather than the best person
.
I think automatically choosing Harris as the presidential candidate or implying that she should be the candidate would loose a great opportunity for Democrats to create interest in the Democratic party and its candidates.
If Harris wins a contested convention fine, but becoming president through the efforts of Biden and a small elite group, not so fine.
I am on Gavin Newsom’s e-mail list; did not ask to be. From his latest e-mail:
“As you read this, I am on my way to Washington, D.C. to meet and stand with the president at the White House later tonight.
When that's over, I'll be hitting the road to campaign for him and Democrats running up-and-down the ballot in several swing states.
One of the places I'll be going is Pennsylvania, where I'll be with Senator Bob Casey as he runs for re-election in a tough race against a well-funded opponent.
The truth is, we all have our roles to play if Democrats are going to win this fall. That's the only way it's going to happen. If we are simply witnesses, we'll lose.”
This is what I expect of all potential replacements.
Jack, I don’t think many VPs became President. Most presidents were former Governors, Senators, Representatives and sometimes Generals. VP candidates are usually chosen to attract votes from a specific part of the electorate - states with lots of electoral votes, or swing states, or a demographic like suburban white women or women in general, or evangelical christians. (Pence, Palin for example) Etc.
DeleteI suspect that one reason some Dems want a different ticket is because they might get 8 more years with a different president. The trump folk will try to change the rules to allow three terms total since trumps second term didn’t immediately follow the first. They essentially want trump to live forever and be president for life.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article at Politico
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/anti-abortion-delegates-committee-gop-platform-debate-00166323
And another interesting story by zAP
ReplyDeletehttps://apnews.com/article/project-2025-trump-american-revolution-6e02a297fb91b55de01ba7e86615bb08
That reads like a threat. This Kevin Roberts guy sounds like a nut job. It tells you all you need to know that he made the comment about violence on Steve Bannon's show? podcast? Whatever it was. I hope the Democrats run hard against the "Project 2025" implications. It sounds like they are picking it up.
DeleteI am fascinated with the stories from the liberal, MSM. I lived in DC too long. It’s clear that there is a not so hidden agenda at work in what is happening, in the coverage - part of the pressuring of Biden. But I worry it’s too late to change candidates. But, who knows. I doubt it would be Kamala since she’s so heartily disliked. I’m guessing if there is a change, she won’t be on the ticket. The Dems see her as an obstacle - the fear that Biden might die during another term and she would become Pres could stop people from voting for Biden so I doubt the forces pushing Biden out would want her to remain on the ticket with a new candidate.It would defeat the purpose of getting Biden to step down. Much less replace him with her at the top of the ticket.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why Kamala Harris is so disliked. Or is she really, and that's just the spin the media is putting on it? Sure she is a person of color, but so was Obama, so are a lot of politicians. She was an AG in California, I think there is some misogyny at work, that some people think a woman "shouldn't" be a prosecutor. She is also the first woman VP ever in the US.
DeleteShe would be my choice if Biden were to step aside, for the reasons I stated before that she wouldn't be starting from square one and the campaign money issues would be a lot easier. But they're not going to ask my opinion anyway. I just think there's something to be said for going with the strength you have. There may be the magic unicorn candidate out there, but I don't know who it would be.
I don’t get it either, Katherine. She’s not a charmer, but she’s smart, experienced, and knowledgeable. . But Sarah Palin dragged down McCains ticket ( She was not smart or knowledgeable but she was a female governor who was. “ Christian” and she gave birth to a son with Downs so she was a hero to the anti- abortion crowd. But I knew more than one Republican who voted for Obama because they thought Palin was a clueless idiot and feared that McCain was too old and could have a heart attack and she would become President.
DeleteSarah Palin was one of the reasons I didn't vote for McCain. I didn't think she was a bad person, I just thought she was unqualified. And later on it seemed like she was more interested in being a media star.
DeleteHarris is pretty much a carbon copy of Hillary--cool, limousine liberal, second-wave feminist, very little understanding of the working class. I'll vote for her if I have to, but candidates like that are sucking my enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. Give me Jasmine "bleached blonde bad built butch body" Crockett any day. That's what I call Democrat. https://youtu.be/Uo7PUUVCwJU?si=4oqgFxSihU6edRoF
Delete