After Biden What?

by wj 

 

We're about due for a new thread anyway.  And Biden stepping aside from the campaign seems like an inevitable topic.  So here we go.

 

 

Comments

[Ugh]

Media tomorrow: Is Harris too young?

[wonkie]

I broke my vow not to read "news" that kneecapped Biden by reading an article about Harris. About halfway through the article the concern-trolling and promotion of Republican smears got so bad that I checked the "news" source. LA Times. Fuck them. They were on my "not read" list for good reason because they are right back at the passive aggressive smearing.

[Hartmut]

Ugh, that would still be on the harmless side.
I expect: Is America ready for a black female? Will the naturally conservative black male vote for a black female? Is she black enough? ...
Also intensive coverage on smears that she slept her way up since childhood.

[nous]

wonkie- LA Times is the newspaper of the Hollywood donor class. No surprise to me that it is following the script that was already sketched out for them. In anything editorial in nature they are trend followers and disperser of sponsored content. You have to dig to find actual journalistic content. It's there, but it's buried in the regional reporting.

[nous]

The actual party endorsement of a candidate has to happen before the convention, and a lot would have to be done behind the scenes to try to cut the convention delegates out of the loop and bring in an alternate group of electors (where have we heard this sort of thing before?).

I don't know that the people chosen by the political die hards in their state party are going to be in any mood to listen to Aaron Sorkin try an elevator pitch for Romney, or to let Clooney have another crack at things. I think tensions are high between grass roots and donors and the delegates are going to clap back.

[wj]

a lot would have to be done behind the scenes to try to cut the convention delegates out of the loop and bring in an alternate group of electors

IIUC, doing that would require the delegates to change the rules to cut themselves out of the process. Which seems unlikely. And there simply isn't a process to do it any other way.

Someone could (almost cettainly will) try to convince the delegates to abandon Harris. I wouldn't put money on the succeeding.

[JanieM]

Thank you, nous. That anyone would take the notion of Romney as the D nominee seriously is a measure of how far through the looking glass we have gone.

No matter how many ways there are to be unhappy with Biden (Gaza, age, etc.), and no matter how messed up the past month has made the Ds seem, Biden has accomplished a lot; he has worked to build and heal where the Rs will destroy and maim.

I think and hope you're right that grass roots Ds know it, and recognize the notion of Romney as the vicious ratfucking that it is. No, I will rephrase that. Romney is not a serious proposal, it is just another attempt to murk up the picture. It's idiotic beyond belief. He couldn't win as an R, he'd be able to win as a D? Ha ha ha ha ha.

bobbyp wrote in the other thread that Clickbait should now step down. I don't know if bobbyp was smarking or not, but I think Clickbait stepping down, or vacating the top of the ticket by whatever cause, would be a disaster for the Ds.

Hartmut asked in the other thread: So, will this repel more black women* than attract racists and misogynists? I wonder something similar on the other side: are there enough people who would sign in relief at the exit of Clickbait to outnumber the MAGA people who would be furious and leaderless?

I don't know if there are now going to be tons of legal and procedural barriers put in front of Harris and the D party or what. If I had a cabin in the woods I would be sorely tempted ... especially if it was within walking distance of the Canadian border. Just in case.

Hard to string words together at this point.

[JanieM]

Does anyone know what happens now with the plan for an early virtual nominating process, the one that was put in place to circumvent possible Ohio shenanigans?

[JanieM]

Sorry, I don't have time right now to "do my own research," lol.

[nous]

As a practical question, where should one go to donate to Harris's campaign at this point. Everything still points to Biden/Harris, and while it seems like Harris should still have access, I'd like to know that those funds won't get tied up in any delays or legal challenges.

[russell]

Media tomorrow: Is Harris too young?

LOL

I'm glad the whole "will he step down" thing is resolved so that the focus can be returned to (somewhere in the general vicinity of) the substance of what's at stake this year.

I'm less glad that Biden won't be POTUS again. He is and has been IMO the most effective (D) President at least since LBJ, and possibly of my lifetime. The man has the skills.

I hope the (D)'s settle on Harris expeditiously, which is to say as of now and without argument. Enough of this "who's it gonna be?" drama for one election cycle.

And I hope everybody leaves Biden the hell alone.

Is there another debate scheduled? I would look forward to Trump going toe to toe with Harris. She doesn't take crap from anybody.

Onward and upward y'all.

[novakant]

Here's a quick anaylsis of Kamala's chances if indeed she runs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akvhkLHnOAM

I think one important tactical advantage is that Trump won't be able to attack her directly on the basis of her being a.) a woman b.) black/asian - simply because that would dissuade large parts of these voter groups. So he has to tread lightly (I'm sure there will be some dogwhistle).

Kamala can probably make a strong case on abortion rights, appeal to young voters and activists and promise a continuation of the progressive Biden policies. And she's been pretty tough on Israel's war in Gaza.

[wonkie]

I think a lot of my upsetness about this is my bitterness when the bad guys win. The smug, shallow, wannabe kingmakers and unmakers who smeared Biden and the smug, shallow, wannabe kingmakers and unmakers in the donor class or Dem leadership who forced him out are the bad guys in this situation. Not just wrong, but wrong for illegitimate reasons. In the case of the "news" wrong for reasons that reflect on character and lack of professionalism
m. IN the case of donors wrong out of egotism. IN the case of Dems, wrong out of panic.

I hope Biden makes a huge speech of farewell and lists all the things he did and all the problems Republicans have never even tried to address. He should be given a starring role in the convention.

[nous]

Since you know that the right is going to be dog whistling like crazy, I see no reason not to confront that fight head on. I think that either Booker or Buttigieg would be good at showing genuine enthusiasm for Harris's candidacy and be capable of countering the worst of the attacks while also perhaps provoking the Trump campaign to take those attacks a step too far for minority swing voters who are already a bit nervous about the tone on the right.

I also think a message of hope and change is amplified when tied to younger faces. Not being ageist in that, just noting how the genre works. If you are campaigning for the future, you need faces that speak of the future and not of the past.

[wj]

Does anyone know what happens now with the plan for an early virtual nominating process, the one that was put in place to circumvent possible Ohio shenanigans?

Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn't matter who the nominee is.

[JanieM]

Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn't matter who the nominee is.

That means the window is very small....

[nous]

Follow up on the donations thing. I've received a couple DNC fundraiser emails asking me to donate to them to support whoever is the Democratic candidate.

Nope. Don't trust them. Any donations of mine are going directly to candidates from here on out for the foreseeable future until the DNC figures out who it is that they are working for.

[wj]

Speculating on Harris' VP choice. I note that Obama picked an "old white guy" to help make those who were twitchy about electing a black man a little more comfortable.

Will Harris feel it necessary to do something similar? That would probably be the low risk approach. But who? Someone to help carry Pennsylvania (since Trump really has no plausible path to victory if he loses Pennsylvania) -- Fetterman? Someone specifically aimed to making life as miserable as possible for Vance? Someone as bland, no drama, as possible?

Or will she go all in on "time for a change"? Buttigieg, even? Higher risk, but....

[wj]

That means the window is very small....

The window for those who want someone other than Harris is indeed very small.

[nous]

Any donations of mine are going directly to candidates from here on out for the foreseeable future until the DNC figures out who it is that they are working for.

...and I just told them this in my response to the latest email. They need to hear that loud and clear. Trust is thin and should not be taken for granted.

[JanieM]

Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn't matter who the nominee is.

This, by the way, is not strictly true. Ohio did officially move its date to after the D convention, but the virtual roll call was kept on the schedule because the Ds don't feel that they can rely on the result of any legal challenges.

From the WaPo just now:

The virtual vote is not a typical part of the process. It was largely set up to confirm Biden as the nominee before Ohio’s ballot deadline, which falls before the Democratic convention this year. Ohio legislators resolved the problem, but Democrats had planned to go through with the early vote anyway to avoid any legal challenges that would try to keep Biden off Ohio’s ballot.

I believe not a single one of the Rs challenges to the 2020 vote in court was upheld. I wish I could hope for the same for any bullshit challenges they try to put in the way of one of the two major parties actually fielding a candidate in a presidential election. But.......

[nous]

Also, I'm shaking my head at the number of Biden supporters - understandably crushed and furious - who are directing their rage at "the leftists" in this moment as if all of this was coming from them and not from the donor/beltway crowd.

The left did not do this, nor does the left/labor side of things want any open convention nonsense.

[JanieM]

@nous: Balloon-Juice connetariat has become an inch from unbearable at this point, although it has been nearly there for the past month and heading that way (for me) for a long time. Still, anyone who hangs out there will have had a good dose of fury and finger-pointing at the donor/beltway crowd. I don't read widely on the internet (mostly BJ, ObWi, and the occasional DKos or Guardian piece that someone points me to) -- I have seen nothing about it being the fault of "the leftists." That in itself is an interesting comment on the silo-ing of viewpoints.

I suppose I'm somewhere between political junkies online, and ordinary people who actually have lives to lead. I had seen Romney's name in the headlines but hadn't even bothered to try to figure out why. ...

What a mess.

[wj]

The left did not do this

Even some of us not on the left are very clear on this.

[JanieM]

More on blaming "the left": I was already mistrustful of sources, and totally dismissive of 99.99% of the pundit class. But this is a huge lesson in not trusting *any* source without digging deeper, and probably still being left to make up your own mind. GftNC's searching out of hilzoy is a good example of having someone you can at least consider a touchstone for intelligence and rectitude.

Everyone I know IRL who doesn't hang out at "left"-leaning political blogs still things the Times is a left-wing or "liberal" newspaper. (The label, of course, depending on which bogus untrustworthy taxonomy the person defining it uses. ;-) )

[JanieM]

things -> thinks

[novakant]

old white guy? Bernie Sanders! :)

[wonkie]

Kelly is being discussed for VP. I think that the old white guy route will be chosen.

We need to get the not-MAGGAT vote. That's some female Republicans, some independents, new voters and people who don't vote regularly. That's probably a fairly diverse group of people. If it was up to me, I'd look for a new face, someone with charisma, and someone who can clearly and forcefully state positions in terms of memorable sound bites. If that person is an old white guy, then fine. Otherwise, go with whoever it is.

[wonkie]

ANd please not Gavin Newsome. Please.

[Ugh]

She should throw the GOP a bone and pick Hunter.

[wonkie]

Newsome is out for P. He endorsed Harris. Also out and endorsing Harris are most of the other names that came up as possible replacements for BIden.

[JanieM]

"Old white guy" may be half a joke, though I think "white guy" is probably required (not by me, mind you), and "straight white guy" in particular (though Buttigieg makes me think there should be a cabinet position called "Explainer in Chief"; did someone here once suggest that already?).

My point is, I don't see the necessity for "old." Wet behind the ears would be bad. Middle-aged would be great.

*****

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/21/joe-manchin-democrat-presidential-run-bid

And someone ought to put a pin into Manchin's ego and let all the hot air out. The opportunistic asshole took himself out of the party, and now he thinks he can come back in and run for the top office under the D banner? And mind you, we've just gone through a monthlong shitshow because Biden is allegedly too old, and Manchin will be 77 in August, and look at that picture, the picture of youth, isn't he?

Bahhhhhhhhhhhh.

Earlier I mentioned the bubbles we live inside. These politicians certainly live in bubbles of their own.

[nous]

I'm just hoping that the big donors see the $27.5M that small donors gave to Harris in the first 5 hours and step back a bit. There's an actual election to be won and I don't want to waste any more time while the big donors smell their own farts and have the media offer up their tasting notes.

[wj]

ANd please not Gavin Newsome. Please.

Not a problem. Harris and Newsom are both from California. No way the ticket wins without California's electoral votes.** So nobody from California will be Harris' VP pick.

** If you want to get really, really technical, the restriction is on electors voting for both a presidential and a vice presidential candidate from their own state. So California electors could vote for Harris, but not for Newsom. Which, again theoretically, could leave no VP candidate with enough electoral votes. Which would elect a President, but throw the election of a Vice President into the Senate. And what a fun time that might be!

[wj]

"Old white guy" may be half a joke, though I think "white guy" is probably required (not by me, mind you), and "straight white guy" in particular (though Buttigieg makes me think there should be a cabinet position called "Explainer in Chief"; did someone here once suggest that already?).

"Old white guy" was a stereotypic joke. Not least motivated by the fact that I work for a brilliant woman of South Asian descent. And every now and then we feel like it helps a sales presentation if I, a white guy with grey hair, am visibly in the room. I don't even have to say more than a sentence or two. Just be a visible presence.

I'm not sure whether we, as a nation, are quite past that yet. Although it seems to me that, TCFG's presence and sort-of success (he did, after all, lose the popular vote; twice) notwithstanding, we are getting close overall. But the stakes are high enough this time that it is better (IMHO, but what do I know?) not to take the risk.

As for Buttigeig, I've long hoped that he would spend the next 4 years as Secretary of State. Give him the foreign policy experience he currently lacks. Then put him on the ticket in 2028 or 2032.

[bobbyp]

bobbyp wrote in the other thread that Clickbait should now step down. I don't know if bobbyp was smarking or not, but I think Clickbait stepping down, or vacating the top of the ticket by whatever cause, would be a disaster for the Ds.

JanieM: It was pure snark. I mean he is old, is he not? Not sure how a Vance/Harris race would shake out. He is, as you know, not the cult leader.

My take on the resignation is pretty much in line with this:

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/07/a-great-act-of-statesmanship

[GftNC]

I agree with bobbyp, that LGM post is pretty much right, particularly:

Let’s give Biden all the credit in the world for making a very difficult choice in order to advance the cause of American democracy and get behind the vice president. Let’s go.

And immediately followed by this excellent ad:

https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1814799243401699812?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1814799243401699812%7Ctwgr%5Ee07ea883687607b2fab29c64bafc5fd676996c78%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%2F2024%2F07%2Fa-great-act-of-statesmanship

[liberal japonicus]

None of these are serious, just thoughts bouncing around in my head.

In the last election, I wanted a women candidate just so the orange canker sore would have gotten beat by a woman. So I'm, illogically and unrealistically, hoping it's a female for Harris' VP. Cause getting seeing him get beat by two women would be even better.

Sorkin suggested, though I don't know if it was a big joke, that Romney be Harris' VP. Hell, why not go all out and ask Mike Pence.

Again, totally unserious thoughts. To me, Harris could run with a bucket of warm piss or the reanimated corpse of John Nance Garner and I'd be fine with that.

[Tony P.]

When Obama picked a Senator to be his running mate, it was a Senator from a reliably blue state. I don't want to see Harris pick a Veep nominee who is a Senator running for re-election in a purple (at best) state.

In my dreams, she'd pick Al Franken, who is not (currently) a Senator but has experience in both The World's Greatest Deliberative Body AND in the skewering-Republicans trade.

Alternatively, she should pick a popular, accomplished, non-politician -- like Warren Buffett, say, if were less than 94 years old.

Realistically, a Governor of some sort might do.

But the VP choice hardly matters.

What matters is whether anti-MAGAts like most of us here are willing to be as vocal and brazen as the MAGAts in our midst. Supposedly there are likely voters out there who (like a man-in-the-street interviewee my sister was telling me about) claim they haven't really thought about their vote, and will probably just flip a coin to decide at the last minute. I don't think people like that actually exist in significant number, but even if they do I don't worry about them -- coin flips are 50/50 after all. The sort of people who do exist, IMO, are low-info, low-engagement, maybe-voters who will get persuaded by the message they hear most loudly or most often. Their MAGAt neighbors are not bashful about championing Orange Jesus in daily life, face-to-face. (I say this from personal experience.) Let us be no less vocal, no less brazen.

At the very least, our low-info low-engagement friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances are less likely to swallow the guaranteed-to-happen MAGAt claims of a stolen election if they are aware that we, as well as MAGAts, live among them.

Bottom line: we can't let the fascists take over the government just because they want it more.

--TP

[liberal japonicus]

Franken is a nice suggestion. It's interesting that Starmer appointed several non-politicans and got praise, but they were tied to particular issues/areas. It is hard for me to think of a non-politician easily fitting into the VP slot in a similar fashion.

[novakant]

Franken resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations...

[liberal japonicus]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken

I feel like he got stiched up.

[novakant]

Maybe, but it doesn't really matter.

[novakant]

It would stick to him and give Trump a get-out-of-jail-card, erasing Harris' advantage in this regard.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"It would stick to him and give Trump a get-out-of-jail-card"

Trump *already* has a "get-out-of-jail card", courtesy of the Supremely Deplorable Six.

Biden should focus his remaining (immune!) months drone-striking fascist a-holes. Starting with the Supremely Deplorable Six, who arguably signed their own death-warrants with their immunity ruling.

[hairshirthedonist]

Hell, why not go all out and ask Mike Pence.

I had the same very unserious thought. I may have even chuckled out loud to myself at the idea. It would be a riot, wouldn't it?

[Girl from the North Country]

I said on the other thread that (to my surprise) I experienced the Biden news physically, as if I had received an actual blow. But now I feel as if the intense anxiety of the previous days was a sort of awful stasis, which now is shattered. The election of Labour was a glowing, hopeful sign, a kind of pushback (maybe almost accidental, but nonetheless real) against the populist, nativist, hateful rhetoric that has been advancing in so much of the world. And now it seems as if there is a chance for America too, and that the flood of donations that immediately started streaming to the Dems was a sign of it. Perhaps I am going mad, but this feels like a really positive development. God bless Joe Biden, in a long life of service this may be his finest hour.

[Ugh]

It's full blown panic in MAGA-land on twitter. Stephen Miller in particular.

[JanieM]

@ugh: I love the "we spent all this $ opposing Biden wah wah" aspect of it. Lots of new things to oppose, though. I'm sure they won't run out.

[wj]

Lots of new things to oppose, though. I'm sure they won't run out.

But the timing means that they won't have the free air time of the convention for their attacks on their new target. And their campaign funds are mostly gone to TCFG's lawyers.

That's part of why he's bitching about how the Democrats owe him some kind of refund. He spent all that money and effort attacking Biden and now it's wasted.

[JanieM]

wj -- yes to all of that. But also, from another angle, it highlights how much of their effort is simply opposing Ds (cleek's law at work). They don't have anything positive whatsoever to offer. Policy? What's that, the insurance you have to buy on your car? (They'll probably get rid of that requirement at some point along the path of dismantling anything the gov't does to hinder their "freedom.")

[Ufficio]

No reason to get creative with the VP pick. Go with either the popular governor of Michigan or the popular governor of Pennsylvania, each of who won election by over 10 points.

Either one would make a fine contrast with the creepy Republican VP nominee.

[wj]

Go with either the popular governor of Michigan or the popular governor of Pennsylvania, each of who won election by over 10 points.

My sense is that Michigan needs to keep Whitmer in place more than Pennsylvania needs to hang on to Shapiro. Plus, we're going to see more than enough misogyny already. Having two women on the ticket would make it more than twice as bad. Super unfair. Super regrettable. But that's the world we live in.

No idea who Harris will actually go with. Only hope it's someone who can shred Vance early and often.

[nous]

Don’t know how Shapiro’s stance on restricting public employee speech would go over with the newly engaged youth vote. Would prefer to sidestep that whole wrinkle as best left for after the election. Which means that, strategically speaking, there should be nothing but praise for Shapiro (for all the genuine reasons that he’s been good) but a chance to embrace someone else for their own, different strengths.

No need to resurrect a former thorn in the D coalition.

[wonkie]

WHitner is out for VP. I do think Harris needs someone who can out-Vance Vance in the "just plain folks" competition.

"I said on the other thread that (to my surprise) I experienced the Biden news physically, as if I had received an actual blow. But now I feel as if the intense anxiety of the previous days was a sort of awful stasis, which now is shattered."

What she said. Plus, yes god bless Joe for being such a good president and such a decent guy.

[Michael Cain]

Still needs to happen in odrder to get on the ballot in Ohio. No difference on that front. Doesn't matter who the nominee is.

Current Ohio statute, after their special session, says the deadline this year is Sep 1. The Ohio Secretary of State notified all of the county-level officials -- who actually have the ballots produced -- early in June. Gets tougher to yank the county officials around on scheduling as we get closer to the deadlines.

The Convention's rules committee is meeting on Wednesday to decide how they're going to proceed.

[Girl from the North Country]

Apparently there is consternation in the R camp because they chose Vance out of cockiness, and now see him (as we hope he is) as a disadvantage. I must say, I like the idea of Harris (DV) fighting a campaign partly on the issue of abortion, against a VP pick whose views on abortion are pretty extreme. Also climate change denial. Good news for the youth and female vote.

[nous]

It's too bad that Brown is so desperately needed in Ohio. I'd love to see a strong, middle-US voice for working people on the ticket to further fire up younger voters and get the swing votes talking. And Brown could clobber Vance on most of Vance's talking points.

[wonkie]

I think our ticket needs to be Mom and Dad. Safe, reliable, practical, comfortable problem-solvers in contrast to the temper tantrum babies, corner screamers, and TV ranters. Provide a contrast so that Republicans become the kind of people you point at and laugh.

That's pretty much what Whitner did in MI. She help, of course, because there are no sane people left in the R party there, She and the Dems deliver and the R's just yell and try to kidnap and murder people. Our biggest problem is Dems who don't want to do anything like Manchin and Semina, (who are both out( because shitty people like them block the D's from delivering. So Dems deliver, Republicans rave and rant and have hysterics.

It seems to me that FL should be getting close to the tipping point where people decide that they have real problems and can't afford to have time wasted on R BS anymore. The senate race is closer than one would think. Of course Republicans know that they can't win unless they cheat and FL is a voter suppression state--but the state level Dem party has been revived and seems to have much more assertive leadership than in previous cycles. Meanwhile climate change i kicking their asses and anti-woke schools won't help when you can't get insurance.

I've always seen the Republican agenda as essentially a matter of privilege: a person needs to have their basic Maslow needs met to have the privilege of voting out of anger over imaginary problems. I know that isn't the complete picture because there are people who vote R out of tribalism or family tradition or the mistaken belief that Rs are good and Ds are evil; nevertheless, as in the Great Depression, a fundamental American belief is that government is supposed to help people who are in trouble, so when the trouble gets bad enough I think even red areas will vote D if they see Ds as a source of solutions while Rs remain hysterical idiots.

[Pete]

Plus, we're going to see more than enough misogyny already. Having two women on the ticket would make it more than twice as bad. Super unfair. Super regrettable. But that's the world we live in.

Yeah. I think the same is true of 2 PoC on the ticket, which narrows the field. I might like Buttigieg. Agree that it'd be better if he had SecState under his belt, but perfect/good and all that jazz. His military and McKinsey experience smooths that somewhat. He'd be an excellent contrast to Vance. And he's a Michigander now, which doesn't hurt.

[wj]

Current Ohio statute, after their special session, says the deadline this year is Sep 1.

Glad to hear it. That also helps me understand the report I saw that Harris has asked that her nomination be done "in regular order.". That is, a roll call at the convention.

[Michael Cain]

Or will she go all in on "time for a change"? Buttigieg, even?

Getting close. Jared Polis won reelection overwhelmingly in 2022 in Colorado (19 percentage points). It wasn't an issue for anyone who wasn't gettable for other reasons (eg, abortion or gun control). He was recently elected chair of the National Governors Association (the chair alternates between Democratic and Republican by rule). The press release didn't mention that he is gay.

I don't know if it's odd or not, but Colorado governors seem to wind up as chairs of the various governors associations to which they belong disproportionately often.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Beshear, KY would do a good job of cutting the knees out from under JD "Hillbilly? As if" Vance.

VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it's different this time.

[Pete]

VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it's different this time.

Respectfully, I think it is. My tea-reading is historically lousy, but I kinda think we need all those govs/sens where they are. Buttigieg doesn't move any of those pieces around. I'd like Schiff in for Garland and Porter in for Feinstein --> Schiff, but I'm greedy.

[wonkie]

I'm probably wrong but it just feels like this is the year for "Time for a change" even if the actual change is new faces to keep promoting the Biden/Dem ideas for domestic policy.

I have a feeling the Dems will go for older white male on the assumption that they need to compensate for having a black woman on the ticket. Maybe that's right--but I think the older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face, a mover and shaker, a new spirit of change because there's a whole generation of citizens out there who are fully aware that they have been massively screwed by our generation and would like to vote for someone who is willing to face up to and assertively address their issues.

[Pete]

older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face

This strikes me as a contradiction. ?

[CharlesWT]

VP choices can only hurt; they never help, and are mostly neutral. But maybe it's different this time.

Some examples of how the vice presidential candidate impacted a presidential candidacy.

VP Impacts

[Girl from the North Country]

older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face

This strikes me as a contradiction. ?

Depends how old - Harris, who is 59, is being seen as "young". I'd think mid-50s or 60s would be OK. Nobody in their 70s, I reckon.

Vance is 39, and a quick precis of his career so far on something I saw yesterday was extremely unimpressive. It looks like apart from writing his book, he has been mediocre at every job he has had, and he has got them all through Tiel. Perfect for a Trump sidekick of course.

[nous]

Probably best to think of Vance as the latest Celebrity Apprentice.

Someone needs to save a picture of Usha Vance to use as a background on which to float all of the racist, sexist, dog whistle things that get said about Harris. Those things won't play well when attached to an image that they read as being on their own side and in need of defense, and that might just trigger some dissonance.

[Girl from the North Country]

Deeply frustrated because I have just heard that Biden is calling in live to MSNBC to talk about what's happening, and say the name at the top of the ticket has changed but the mission has not, and that he's going to fight like hell for Kamala, and I can't get access to it in the UK. Absolutely infuriating!

[Girl from the North Country]

OK, just saw it on BBC 24 hour news channel. Confirms the calibre of his character, his generosity, and the absolute correctness of his decision. I am starting to feel really quite optimistic...

[Ugh]

Some GOP House member wrote a letter to Harris "demanding" she and the cabinet use the 25th amendment to oust Biden. Lol

[liberal japonicus]

One thing that I haven't seen noted is that Biden stepping back is so effective precisely because it is something that is unimaginable for the orange POS and his entourage, because they imagine their opponent to be just like them.

[nous]

Dear GOP,

You first.

Sincerely,

- K Brat

[Ugh]

lj - it's all projection. Every accusation is a confession.

[Pete]

@GftNC

Mid 50s-60s isn't "young". It's "not old". Buttigieg is a few years older than Vance, and his education, military service, and public service run circles around Vance. I get the want for the experienced, steady hand who assuages all fears, but I don't think that unicorn exists. A 59 yo candidate covers the "wisdom" element. A younger VP suggests a bridge to the future. Biden was a good choice for Obama (unfortunately for a lot of "practical" reasons I find distasteful, but maybe necessary at the time). I don't think that's what Kamala needs in a running-mate this go-round.

Grain of salt. One of these days I'm bound to be right. Right? right? :-)

[Ugh]

There's so much conservative flop sweat over at twitter right now I almost drowned.

[Girl from the North Country]

There's so much conservative flop sweat over at twitter right now I almost drowned.

Good.

Pete: from what I know of Buttigieg, he is fairly impressive. My only concern is, in the same way that I would be slightly worried about two women for the reasons already touched on, I can't help wondering if a mixed race Californian woman and a gay man (much though many of us would welcome it) might be a step too far for some parts of the country. But I don't know a great deal about some of the other possibilities, so I have no fixed opinion on the VP choice.

[wj]

I can't help wondering if a mixed race Californian woman and a gay man (much though many of us would welcome it) might be a step too far for some parts of the country.

Unfortunately, that's a valid concern. The nation has come a long way on the topic. Frankly, further and faster than I would have believed possible a couple of decades ago. But far enough? Not so sure.

On the other hand, those who are still upset on the subject of gay marriage, or homosexuality generally, aren't likely Democratic voters. And this election is likely to turn on turning out voters more than anything else. Also the biggest concentrations of bigotry on the subject are in states that Democrats aren't likely to win anyway. So the downsides may not, in practice, be significant.

I worry that I may be letting the fact that I think he'd be great** is skewing my analysis. But it's what I've got.

** In 2020 he was actually my favorite among the candidates. Didn't believe he would beat Trump, which was critical. But ignoring that detail, I thought he'd be good at the job.

[wonkie]

older white male needs to also be seen as a fresh face

This strikes me as a contradiction. ?

Yes it is. And that's the tension, isn't it? The conventional wisdom is that you balance a candidate the pushes the envelope with one that totally does the opposite. But is the a year for conventional wisdoms? Maybe this is the year to lean into "We AREN"T the past. We AREN'T the conventional politics of the past. We are the future." From that perspective a gay white male looks pretty good.

[liberal japonicus]

My wife is looking for the Taylor Swift recommendation. I told her Ariana Grande has stepped up (via LGM)

So, rather than think of something substantive, like who her VP should be, I'm wondering how the glitterati have lined up.

[Pete]

@wonkie

I apologize. I misread you and thought you were suggesting "conventional wisdom". We are in accord, I think, for the reasons I wrote above.

[Nigel]

Harris wins, I think.

The good news about the VP choice is that all the top picks look pretty good. The Democrats have an impressive bench.

But I would love to see Pete B debate Vance.

[Priest]

My first choice is Mark Kelly, for multiple reasons. Not least that a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement. I believe I have read that Arizona law requires an appointee to be of the same party, but that would still leave room for ratfuckery (even if the law withstood legal challenges).

[Girl from the North Country]

I am posting this because I find my mind strangely divided. I meant what I said yesterday about God blessing Joe Biden, and that after a life of service this might be his finest hour. But on the other hand, I can't disagree with much of Ian Leslie's clear eyed analysis here (although I don't necessarily agree with what he says about Harris). Real life is very complicated, and I guess two things can be true at the same time, no matter how contradictory they seem.

IAN LESLIE
JUL 23

It took an almighty push from Democrats to get Joe Biden out of the race. After the debate I thought he would be gone within a week, since what was already obvious had suddenly become undeniable to everyone except him and his coterie. But in the following days and weeks he dug in with such ferocity that it seemed as if he might just face everyone down - including the voters, who would then get their revenge in November.

It was an almost awesome display of egotistical stubbornness, and an increasingly infuriating one. Biden seemed prepared to destroy his whole party, and perhaps his country, in order to protect his delusions. Yet as soon as he announced his withdrawal the people who had campaigned hardest to get him out of the race rushed to declare him a hero.

The New York Times virtually performed a 21-gun salute. Its columnist Ezra Klein, who to his great credit did more than anyone else in the media to hasten Biden’s demise, immediately hailed Biden “an actual hero”. He tweeted, “This is what America First looks like when it’s a lived ethos”. Another columnist, Frank Bruni, described Biden’s decision as an act of “fundamental humility”. The same paper’s editorial board said that Biden had “placed the national interest above his own pride and ambition”. It wasn’t just the NYT; virtually the whole of America’s liberal establishment took out their hankies and wiped an eye. The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos wrote, “He has made the rarest of choices in the desiccated, demoralized politics of our time: he has sacrificed his own ambition for the sake of the country.”

What a carnival of cant. To state the screamingly obvious, Biden was forced out of the race. He did not go of his own accord. He got out because there came a point when even he realised that fighting an election when most of your party have declared no confidence in you was an act of suicidal stupidity. The politicians and donors who had already called for him to go were just the first; there were plenty more where they came from. No, Biden did not look deep within himself, channel his inner George Washington, and lay aside personal ambition on behalf of the Republic. He looked up and realised he was surrounded.

This ceremony of moist eyes would have made sense if Biden had announced his intention to serve only one term earlier - say at the start of 2023. He would have been making it from a position of strength. His party had just done remarkably well in the midterms. The economy was motoring again. He had passed several big bills. He had brought together NATO in support of Ukraine. If he’d stepped down then, which he plainly ought to have done, he would have been awarded full canonisation, and deserved it.

This is not just the kind of thing that’s easy to say in hindsight; it made sense at the time. Running for a second term at the age of 81, when you don’t seem in the best of shape, was always an insane proposition. Even though his party had done well in 2022, his own approval ratings were already in the toilet. Voters were sending a clear signal that he shouldn’t try his luck in 2024. But if he had swallowed his ambition at that point, nobody would remember the approval ratings. Biden would be remembered as the hero who lanced the monster and restored America’s global prestige, before sloping off to Delaware, mission accomplished.

As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock. How did they end up with this guy as their candidate? It wasn’t just the sight of his cognitive or physical decline that was so painfully apparent in the debate; it was the lack of seriousness. He called Trump “a sucker and a loser” and attacked his golf game. The grown-up in the room had become another overgrown kid. Does anyone know what Biden wanted a second term for?

Most infuriatingly, he stuck around long enough to land his party with a candidate who is only marginally stronger than he would have been. ...

[russell]

I can't disagree with much of Ian Leslie's clear eyed analysis here

I'm sure there was a large element of ego in Biden's resistance to stepping down. That said, my own sense of this is that Biden stuck it out until his own reading of the polls etc. made it clear to him that he was likely to lose.

As for "what he wanted a second term for", Biden was a tremendously effective POTUS and I imagine he wanted to keep doing a job he was really good at. I completely support Harris, but should she win she is not likely to be as effective, simply because she doesn't have Biden's range and depth of experience, or his hands-on political skills (yet - that's a learn-on-the-job thing I think). It's quite possible all of that was a factor in Biden's thinking.

I'll also say that his stepping down right after the end of the (R) convention was a brilliant play, whether intentional or not. It stole their spotlight. And Biden's a sufficiently able political player that it would not surprise me if the timing was intentional, or at least a matter of seizing a golden opportunity.

People do things for a mixture of reasons. Leslie's reading of events seems, to me, unnecessarily one-sided and critical. And in the end I'm not sure Biden's reasons for holding on are that important. Leslie's piece here seems less clear-eyed than simply contrarian, and unkind and unneedfully sour in tone at that.

[JanieM]

Thank you, russell. You captured what I was groping for, without the snarky parts. :-)

[Donald]

I expected the canonization of Biden— in fact I touted it as a useful feature if he chose to resign.

But I mostly agree with Leslie as far as that quoted part goes, but that part says nothing about Gaza. Biden is in violation of the Leahy Law and is complicit in Israel’s war crimes. He recently sent 1700 more 500 lb bombs to them. In an interview with Complex, he said he had done more for the Palestinians than anyone and claimed he was sending defensive weapons, which would be true if we were only strengthening Iron Dome, but of course he was lying. He was talking about the fact that he has pressured Israel to allow more food in. What a saint. ( I watched the part of the interview dealing with Gaza.)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/biden-zionist-speedy-360-interview/index.html

We really don’t have a press corps that asks tough questions on human rights issues. When Biden had his press conference on foreign policy a week or so ago, the only Gaza question was a softball— did he have any regrets? No followup. Democrats might complain that the press went into a feeding frenzy over the cognitive issue, but I would like to see Biden in a one-on-one interview with someone who wouldn’t hold back on Gaza. You could do this politely and in a professional manner. I can’t imagine the MSM ever doing it.

[wj]

As it is, he stuck around long enough to allow the monster to revive, and also to turn his own party into a laughing stock.
....
Most infuriatingly, he stuck around long enough to land his party with a candidate who is only marginally stronger than he would have been. ...

I'd say this is wrong twice.

The more I think about it, the more it looks like a carefully orchestrated deal. Biden has to have been aware from the srart that he needed contingency plans, in case something happened to him. When something did (and he'd had time to process it; say a week maybe?) the plan went into effect.

Note first that (as russell says) he stuck around long enough that the Republican convention is over. They don't have a week of free air time to attack Harris, having spent it attacking a target which is now gone. They are locked in, not only to Trump (which was going to happen regardless) but to a VP candidate who is about the best target the Democrats could ask for.

Note also the smooth way that endoresments have flowed in. An initial rush. Then a gradual series of big names, to keep the change in the headlines. All with the biggest names (Obama, Pelosi, etc.) holding back, so it looked like a bottom up reaction rather than something pushed down from the top.

Overall, it looks like some really savvy politicians had it all worked out, including the timing. Yes, Biden had to endure a couple of weeks of increasingly strident calls for him to step aside. Sometimes ya gotta take one for the team.

As for Harris as a candidate, the party seems to be pretty damn enthused. Only look at the ridiculous amounts of money she got in small donor donations. Both on the first day and again on the second day. Elections these days tend to be about turning out your voters. And the folks in the field seem charged up and ready to work hard on that.

Also note that Harris has, for months, been the one hammering on abortion rights. Since Dobbs, it's been the Democrats strongest issue. Trump has looked (admittedly sporadically) to be attempting to lower the profile of abortion in the campaign. But in picking Vance he's got someone who is loudly on the extreme end of even the Republicans on the issue.

And then there's the detail that Trump is suddenly the guy who is OLD. Even if they'd like to forget the issue they have been screaming from the rooftops for the last month, that's going to be challenging.

It may also be worth noting the chaos in the Republican reaction. The dog has caught the car. Most amusing, at least to me, has been Trump whining about how he's spent all this time and energy attacking Biden, and now that's all wasted. He was upset enough to ask for a refund!

[wj]

should she win she is not likely to be as effective, simply because she doesn't have Biden's range and depth of experience, or his hands-on political skills (yet - that's a learn-on-the-job thing I think).

Also, she's had 4 years learning at the elbow of a master.

[wj]

On a lighter note
https://xkcd.com/2962/

[wonkie]

I hope Kamela doesn't pick Shapiro. He's great in many ways and on many issues, but he has the kind of kneejerk defensiveness toward Israel that makes him blind to the role of the Israeli government in creating and promoting the violence and conflict between Israel and Palestine. He's completely dismissive of any concerns about the ethnic cleansing, engineered starvation, and mass murder going on in Gaza and seems to have no appreciation of the role of the apartheid policy, the illegal settlements, the historic ethnic cleansing, and the mass incarceration in creating a motivation for organizations like Hamas.

[Donald]

I think any reasonably competent Democrat would have achieved what Biden achieved. Any Democrat would have had the same narrow margin and would have had to submit to Manchin and Sinema.

Over at the LGM blog they make fun of the Green Lantern theory of the Presidency that some lefties allegedly hold. I don’t get the reference ( yes,an old TV character but I don’t know what the connection is) but it seems to be the idea that Presidents have magical powers to get what they want.

There was a bare majority of Democrats in the Senate and they were limited by what Manchin and Sinema would allow. I don’t think Biden did anything magical using his political chops. The numbers were what they were.

His Middle East policy has been a disaster. He inherited Trump’s determination to build an Israeli- Gulf Arab alliance against Iran, while shoving the Palestinians to one side, and he went with it.

And he should have been a one term President and allowed the several much younger centrist liberals to compete for the nomination. ( I wouldn’t be crazy about either Sanders or Warren trying again and yess, because of their age, though both are way better off than Biden.)

[Donald]

“ allowed the several much younger centrist liberals to compete for the nomination”

I mean earlier. A full primary season. At this point it is Harris.

[russell]

the Green Lantern theory

[hairshirthedonist]

I'll also say that his stepping down right after the end of the (R) convention was a brilliant play, whether intentional or not. It stole their spotlight. And Biden's a sufficiently able political player that it would not surprise me if the timing was intentional, or at least a matter of seizing a golden opportunity.

This.

In decades past, I would think it delayed detrimentally if done at the same point in the race. The news cycle is shorter now. At least from that standpoint, it works. Mounting a campaign this late is difficult, but I think there is enough of a groundswell of enthusiasm (and a sense of relief from the stasis GftNC described a bit ago) that the difficulty can be readily overcome.

People appear to be pretty jacked on the D side and I don't think tRump is deft enough to pivot effectively to regain the voters who were voting for him (or just sitting it out) primarily over their misgivings about Biden rather than a real desire for another tRump presidency.

[Girl from the North Country]

Leslie's piece here seems ... unkind and unneedfully sour in tone at that.

This is the main aspect that bothered me. Whatever the possible equation of ego + stubborness + resentment might have been, it seems to me that he has been a) a very successful president, and b) very gracious in the endgame. In terms of his actual motivation in the last few weeks, I could completely believe that 1. he was understandably bitter at Obama for backing HRC because he thinks he would have won (probably confirmed by win in 2020), 2. given that win, he might well have believed he was the only person who could do it again, 3. he didn't think the debate performance was as bad as it was (bolstered by Jill Biden's extraordinary though understandable remarks to him straight afterwards).

I am not letting go of my admiration for and gratitude to Biden, but (as always) I also want to retain the ability to look at events with a clear eye. That doesn't stop me hoping that the "canonisation" becomes his main takeaway, and that it eases his slide into retirement (easier if Harris wins), and possible increasing deterioration. Unlike Donald, I can compartmentalise my disapproval of his attitude re Gaza, and focus on e.g. Ukraine, NATO etc. Whether the timing (after the R convention) was planned or not, it turns out to be excellent news, as I hope does the choice of Vance. And the groundswell towards Kamala is really heartening.

On Harris's VP pick, I am agnostic because ignorant about most of them. If what wonkie says about Shapiro is accurate, then that could certainly be very problematic.

[Donald]

Oh I can compartmentalize— I was going to vote for Biden. But Americans do way too much of this. Politicians, with very rare exceptions, should be held at arm’s length and not treated as heroes.
When you start seeing them as heroes you push aside the issues where they are not heroes and if anything they are criminals.

What kind of person brags about what he has done for Palestinians when Gaza is hell on earth, in large part because of the bombs he supplied? Just normal human decency should have kept him from pounding his chest like that.

I don’t have a problem with people touting his accomplishments but they have to be put alongside his crime. His accomplishments are real. So is his crime.

Speaking of that, there is a WSJ article I can’t read ( not being a subscriber) which says Harris is well to Biden’s left on Gaza. That wasn’t always the case— she used to be quite the AIPAC fan. But Iif she has shifted that is great. It will also be awkward for her over 5he next several months.

Russell— thanks for 5he link.

[Michael Cain]

If Harris chooses Mark Kelly, I'm trying to decide if the first set of NYTimes opinion pieces will be (a) the Dems can't possibly win with two westerners on the ticket or (b) the astronaut ought to be in the top spot.

[novakant]

We should add Afghanistan to the list of FP snafus.