I've heard good things about ketamine.
How many more of these debates are there going to be?
How many more of these debates are there going to be?
I can't remember the last time I saw him speaking off-the-cuff(1), but it hasn't even been 13 hours since the debate. Let's give it time for things to shake out a bit. This is a bad news cycle for him, and sanity and democracy in general, but the election is still four months away. A lot will happen between now and then.
(1) The SOTU, maybe? That went fine. If that really was the last time, it's a bit suspicious that it's been so long, but of course what I've personally seen doesn't mean much.
Does SCOTUS have to release the immunity decision today, or what?
6 was just going to post that. Final nail in the coffin of the modern administrative state?
Walliowing, but not about Biden.
Chevron is dead, explicitly overruled. Why is Court Packing off the table?
Yeah, I'm more pissed off about Chevron. Would it be possible to reinstate Chevron via an act of Congress?
9: Especially at the state level, legislatures have often tried to direct the judiciary what principles they should use for statutory interpretation, and I think it's been kind of hit-and-miss, judges bristling at it as intruding on their authority. Not sure the matter has had a firm resolution.
"Lets give all the rulemaking power to the branch that has no accountability for its decisions" seems like a bad idea.
Roberts denigrated the 1984 Chevron decision by noting "only" six justices were for it, using the term "bare quorum". In fact three were recused & there was no dissenting opinion; it was mostly writing down existing practice.
So 6 justice precedents don't really count, huh?
Let's give all the rulemaking power to the branch that has no accountability for its decisions understanding of technology more complex than a microwave. There have been several SCOTUS arguments where they failed to grasp basic technological concepts; a problem I assume is pretty widespread through all levels of the judiciary.
In an opinion this week Gorsuch (or his clerks) confused nitrogen oxide air pollution with nitrous oxide (laughing gas). I have great confidence in the knowledge of our new judicial overlords!
Easily corrected with a friendly administrative lawsuit.
It would be laughed out of court!
On the J6 case I also don't get the reasoning. The signed electoral college certificates were an explicit target of many members of the mob- is it saying that unless they can show each defendant specifically wanted to destroy them, the overall attempt to break into where they were being tallied isn't sufficient to meet the definition of obstruction?
20: I haven't read it but i think Barrett dissented (surprisingly) and Jackson concurred.
Chevron and Grants Pass on the same day. They don't lack efficiency.
Vote for the crook corpse: it's important.
All the normie Democrats in my Facebook feed are calling for Biden to step aside. Much as I don't like the guy, I think that's dumb. See Johnson, Lyndon Baines.
I wish Bernie were president or we had skipped Trump entirely, but I tend to agree with Spike.
Yeah, for better or worse I think we are stuck with Biden at this point. I still think he's a slight favorite to win but it'll be uncomfortably close.
Yeah, if the normie Dems decide they want to switch to Bernie, I suppose I'd be down for that. But to pick, like, Gavin Newsom and then have everyone east of California ask "who the fuck is Gavin Newsom?", well, I don't think thats going to help the situation.
I'd be more inclined to ask "Why the fuck is Gavin Newsom?"
24: I could play what-if and try to imagine scenarios in which Biden stepping down or announcing he wouldn't run again at some point in the past made sense. If Biden wanted to announce he wouldn't run, early 2023 might have been a good time, after the 2022 election but giving potential replacements as much time as possible to do their thing, but he didn't. Or if someone else won the 2020 primary. Biden, Sanders, and Warren were the serious candidates. (No offense intended to Buttigieg, who has done well as Secretary of Transportation but wasn't ready for the Oval Office. Offense intended to Bloomberg.) Sanders is older than Biden. If Warren had beat the two of them and got elected, she wouldn't be having this specific problem.
But today or later, Biden changing his mind and deciding he's no longer the candidate? It's hard to imagine that going well.
27-28: I've seen people online today championing Gretchen Whitmer. Seems better than Newsom to me, for whatever that's worth.
The way to do it would be for Biden to fake a medical emergency and step aside for Kamala so she can run as an incumbent.
Newsom wouldn't win; California is toxic in a national context. I continue to believe female candidates are very risky (and in the case of Harris, that plus California). I've never really understood the marginal Trump voters, since he seems to function as a kaleidoscopic projection of fantasies and desires: the outsider, the permission structure in human form, the messiah, King Arthur, whatever.
I'm idly looking for lessons in the way 68 played out, but that's all pretty contingent. (Plus, more kaleidoscopic projection etc.) I mostly ignored the debate and watched a WNBA game with my family, in which one player scored 34 points, 19 of them after getting a hard poke in the eye, 2 of them via one-eyed free throws resulting from the foul. I mean honestly, she's got my vote.
I really don't care for Newsom. Whitmer probably is better. I love Warren, but I know lots of middle-of-the-road suburban Mass Dems who didn't like her enough to vote for her as presidential nominee and preferred Biden. So, how was her style/brand supposed to win anywhere else?
I didn't watch the debate but I listened to the Obama bros' recap this morning. Usually they're pretty calm and level headed about things but they were freaking out. They threw out Whitmer as a possibility and I don't hate it, if it does turn out Biden's had some sort of sharp downturn and can't continue. Sanders is older than Biden but seems to be obviously still with it and he has the crotchety old man thing already going in his favor.
Anyways, this is the worst timeline. I do agree with the Obama bros that if Biden is going to step down it has to be ASAP.
I mentioned the post-debate much more peppy Biden, and today he was extremely on during a campaign speech in North Carolina--including a great riff on his being old. Now, I understand of course the difference between scripted and unscripted response, but the difference in tone is pretty stark. Here via twitter is the bit including the age riff--I do encourage watching (only about 2 minutes).
Ah well
I'm also worried that maybe we've learned the lessons of 68 and 80 too well. I've been impressed with Biden as a president so far but at 80 things really can turn on a dime. I wasn't supportive of primarying him but maybe that would have been the right move if the debate wasn't a glitch. He was apparently equally bad at a fundraiser and people chalked it up to jetlag. That was two weeks ago and presumably he's not jetlagged anymore.
AOC will be 35 by election day, I'm just saying.
I'm fairly convinced that (a) it's a terrible idea for Biden to step down, but that doesn't mean it's the worst idea and (b) the only way it could work, practically and politically, is for Kamala to become the nominee.
I could be wrong, but I'd say either argue for Kamala Harris or don't bother talking about the possibility of Biden stepping down.
https://x.com/bidenhq/status/1806745985441263850?s=46&t=qd8I3ZXUD2bzNhzE_AtTxA
Oops, here's the link.
Hate that I have had the thought that people like the Nates, David fucking Axelrod, and many asshole MSM types are chortling.
I'm not sure Kamala is the right choice. She's had 5ish years of being utterly demonized by the rightwing hate machine and she doesn't seem to be a once in a generation political talent that could overcome that.
I've got people suggesting Secretary Mayor Pete. Kill me now.
I think a good way to figure out which candidate to run would have been to have had a primary.
5ish years of being utterly demonized by the rightwing hate machine
Yeah, but who hasn't?
43: Me? Or at least not so as I have noticed.
I'm pretty camouflaged by the Google guy.
New polling suggests that the debate changed little (as predicted?). By the same token, some hypothetical debate hero Biden replacement might have similarly minimal impact.
For an alternative to wallowing, Balloon Juice (anyone else read that? I'll check it every 3-6 months, probably) is trying to be constructive. Post one, Post two.
1789: How can we create a political system where the problem of succession does not depend on the vagaries of the human lifespan?
2024:
Various people have pointed out that a stellar first-debate performance, as assessed the next day, is probably what won the election for President Gore, President Kerry, etc.
I don't understand how almost any event short of death can change the polling. We've known both these candidates for far too long now. They don't change except to creep closer to death. It's corpse vs. raw sewage. There isn't much to learn, and if you're a so-called low information voter, you're probably not going to pick up anything from any singular event that you're not watching.
(I'm also not sure the death of a candidate would change the polling. Especially if Trump is the one who dies, since he'd deny it while praising the size of his funeral reception.)
Well, we're all corpses creeping closer to death. The difference is in the how. Can't fault Biden's how: plenty of reserves of character there.
https://www.ft.com/content/493c16cd-df8e-4178-b2bb-527150b3b926
Thursday night's US presidential debate was watched by 48mn television viewersIt was never going to matter.
[...]
Trump and Biden drew 73mn viewers for their first debate in 2020, while Trump and Hillary Clinton pulled in an audience of 84mn for the opening showdown of their 2016 contest.
Asterisk though: a large and increasing number of people don't watch on actual televisions any longer.
Can't believe no one has made this into a prestige miniseries yet. I think it might be too insane to be offensive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999
Relatedly, Matt Robison makes a compelling argument that campaign spending on TV ads is just about useless now.
60 reminds me of my plans to write an alternate history novel about the Republic of Texas East India Company.
Sounds like the mirror image of SM Stirling, "A Shikari in Galveston".
Post debate polling so far suggests if anything Biden gained a point or two. One theory is people saw Trump saying over and over how the US is a complete shithole now and they look at their own situation (as opposed to polls where people are asked how the country overall is doing) and worry he'll throw things into chaos.
The NYT discussion between Bouie and three morons is pretty pathetic. Just 200 proof conventional wisdom and one guy actually trying to be thoughtful.
It's striking that Bouie is the only NYT columnist that didn't call for Biden to step down. Up to the debate, Friedman and Krugman were much bigger Biden boosters than Bouie
65: i think Krugman has met with Biden personally. I wonder if he feels that influenced his thinking and now he's worried about being an enabler.
In a weird way, the universality of everyone's dismay at the evening is kind of a unifying experience. It's like Left Shark or What Color is the Dress or the watercooler days.
At the risk of stating the obvious, though, the issue here is not actually Biden's poor performance in a debate -- you're all correct that candidates routinely bounce back from that. The issue is, as LTL said, that at 80 things really can turn on a dime and it's a four-year term.
Bouie's comments were interesting.
60: If we're going to get a Howard Waldrop adaptation, I want "Do Ya Do Ya Wanna Dance?".
I want to know who were the anonymous Democratic muckety-mucks were who decided it would be a good idea to share quotes expressing panic about Biden's performance to the guy who was about to go live on CNN.
God, it was Carville, wasn't it? What an ass.
how concerning is it that avian flu has been detected in sf bay area wastewater? seems concerning ...
Maybe the birds have started pooping in toilets?
68: To a first degree of approximation I don't give two fucks who the Democratic president is for any part of 2025-28. Biden can die or go bonkers or whatever--it will be handled.
Only question is whether he or Kamala* are more likely to win and secondarily how orbad are their coattails.
*Only realistic option despite the misogynistic racism of the punditry. (Not that there are not electability concerns mostly related to the misogynistic racism of the general public.
Am reminded this from the egregious Jonathan Martin, late of the Times now being an asshole at Politico or some such hellhole.
A smart Repub notes that we're on verge of having a soon-to-be-81-year-old potus, a vp w scant experience on world stage (to be charitable) and a vacancy in the speakership
Emphasis mine.
To the extent that I have any feelings about this, they may be colored by the Feinstein experience. I'm reasonably confident that Biden can make it through to inauguration without any major incidents, and as I've said, I don't think there are that many votes in play around this particular issue. But I'm also not interested in pretending this entire election, along with every election involving Trump, isn't a miserable fucking situation.
I don't know that there are many votes that are up for grabs, but depressed turnout is a real threat. I don't see any way you can reasonably replace Biden with anybody other than Harris without causing an all-out war inside the party. Her entire job for the past four years was to be ready to step in for Biden.
I'm so frustrated that the Democratic party keeps following the process even though the predictable outcome will deeply fuck over (perhaps even existentially) all of us. It was clear that the 2016 election was corrupted by Russia and by Trump's illegal hush money payouts. Obama should have had the guts to hold a do-over (and himself left office, so it wouldn't have been self-dealing), but he didn't and other people suffered the consequences.
Klein is right; the convention is the best opportunity to pick someone who isn't Biden (not Newsom! except it would get him out of here and he might be better if he weren't governing wholly out of his hope of being president.) and "but the process" isn't an adequate response when we're the hostages that will suffer if the process fails us.
Obama should have had the guts to hold a do-over (and himself left office, so it wouldn't have been self-dealing), but he didn't and other people suffered the consequences.
The Democratic Party has issues, but there is no decision or action which Obama could have taken that accomplishes whatever you think calling "do over" would accomplish.
It's a bleak moment, to be sure, but it's both too soon and too late to replace Biden. Give it a month and see what happens. Personally, I expect him to pull it together. I think the debate was an outlier.
But maybe not. But then the likely question is: How would you prefer to lose? All the pundits have their own fantasy formula for how to replace Biden. (Alter in the NYT provides a hilariously dumb take today). But all pundit scenarios rely on dictating some kind of process, and then dictating how people react to it. It's magical thinking.
Certainly, as has been said, the only plausible scenarios end with Harris as the candidate. We'll just have to see how Joe recovers.
What about that nice lady with the emails?
What about Al Gore? I hear he's tanned, rested, and ready.
Honestly puzzled by the breadth and depth of the hostility to aging Biden. Has he made substantive bad decisions or missed anything important due to health? The point about his age in 2027 was clear before the primaries, that was the time to raise it. The president isn't the one poring over the backgrounds of the people he's talking with to understand their biases, nor the one cross-checking monstrous documents, nor the one drafting clauses. Unlike Obama, he's made good substantive choices for where to exert effort.
All that said, I totally do not know how to think about uninformed voters in Georgia and Michigan. I guess I'll sign up to knock on doors in the nearest swing state.
I think the debate was an outlier.
I hope so, but having dealt with several seniors undergoing cognitive decline (which both candidates very obviously are), I sure wouldn't bet on it.
I mean, it's as bad or worse on the page.
Imagine if Biden had run in 2016 and beat Trump. After an open primary, we might be facing a Republican presidency after 8 years of Democratic rule. But I don't think the candidate would be Trump.
It is/was bad, but verbatim page transcripts of that sort of speech always reads like crap.
It has all been worse than I anticipated, the press are in pack mode. But I think pf is right that it probably needs to percolate somewhat longer. It will all be very stressful.
I think Biden's administration has been incredibly good and would very much like for it to continue for four more years. I don't care if Biden is running it or if he's propped up in a chair somewhere.
Biden explicitly campaigned as a one-term course correction president who would then graciously hand off to a younger generation because obviously he was too old.
I totally get that he understands the good work he is doing and wants to keep doing it. But he made an extraordinarily selfish decision when he chose to run again. It is a campaign issue; it increases the risk that Trump will get elected; and we'll pay the price if that risk gets realized, not Biden.
That whole fucking shithead generation who can't let go and never fucking die already. Biden, Clinton, Bader Ginsburg, Feinstein. They are so fucking selfish and they're not even the bad guys.
Agree with 88.1, but isn't 88.2 a complete myth?
89: For the most part. He did make some equivocal statements that could certainly be interpreted that way. But was certainly not his message, particularly at the end.
Biden, Clinton, Bader Ginsburg, Feinstein.
To be fair, it's a long-running and biparti-- [McConnell freeze, blink, blink...]
"Biden explicitly campaigned as a one-term course correction president who would then graciously hand off to a younger generation because obviously he was too old."
This is a lie.
Biden was explicitly asked in December 2019 whether he intended to serve only one term if elected, and he explicitly said no. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-denies-mulling-term-pledge-elected-president/story?id=67662497
I found that out in five seconds by googling " did Biden campaign as a one term president".
And is there a potential Democratic candidate out there who polls better than Biden against Trump? Not obviously https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump
...though there are big grey bars for a lot of those names, indicating most people haven't heard of them
"I may end up, if I get elected, only having one term, but the idea of committing not to do one term. Look, I, here's the deal: I think it's important for people, it's a legitimate question to ask about my age, and the dame question was asked of me at age 29, whether I was old enough to serve. It's a question of whether or not, hopefully, I can demonstrate, not only with age comes wisdom, and experience that can make things a lot better. And look, that's for you all to decide," Biden said on the topic.
lol ok
88: you know what genuinely would increase the chances of re-electing Trump?
*Months of brutal, incomprehensible-but-unpleasant infighting and blindingly obvious chaos while the Ds somehow sack the president the nation actually elected and whose record you - you! - want to defend, followed by trying to stand up a presidential campaign with five minutes to go before election day*
That'll do it. It really will. The absolute worst thing any campaign can have is red-on-red (or if you like blue-on-blue) and this is an argument for the absolute maximum of it.
94: thanks for providing a quote in which Biden does not promise to resign after one term, anonymous person who is anonymous
I find it kind of funny that the left/libs that have been most critical of Biden like Jamelle Bouie are mostly level headed about this (basically calm the fuck down and if you're talking up anyone other than Harris then you're not serious and should STFU) while Biden's biggest boosters are in full blown panic mode.
I think it's more irritating op-ed/consulting/talking head industry AND weirdo tankies on one side and liberals-red-in-tooth-and-claw on the other.
OT and hopefully to remain so:
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/congo-authorities-approve-mpox-vaccines-try-contain-outbreak-2024-06-26/
The fucking New York Times with that editorial.
97 and 100: In fact, people should point out what a good job Harris is doing right now.
She seems to be shut out, compare Biden's much more substantial presence in the Obama administration.
102: She's been doing a bunch of TV interviews recently and doing a good job. I'm not a fan of her Medicare Advantage-ization plan, but Harris vs no Democracy is a no-brainer.
I see there is now a poll with many numbers. Honestly, what can you do with this image but laugh maniacally? I mean, at least ask a follow-up question about whether democracy and the rule of law are even, you know, like, nice to have.
Well, Biden did win in 2020, and democracy seems to be in danger still. Causation is the actual question they should be asking, but don't seem to have asked.
Do people remember that Trump is the same guy who tried to overthrow the election results last time around?
105 is right. It's a bad question.
Something I can't tell from 99, perhaps because it isn't yet established, is how effective the existing vaccines are against the new strain.
Gawd it's hard to find simple information on the web these days, but the answer seems to be probably pretty effective.
Wait, didn't we do Biden v. Trump in 2020? It's happening again? Really?
I hope 94 wasn't Megan because it would grieve me to learn that she is functionally illiterate.
Hopefully also OT:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/25/nippon-us-steel-union/
69: George RR Martin is involved with making several short films adapting Howard Waldrop short stories. He has mentioned them from time to time on his not-a-blog, most recently here:
https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2024/06/14/waldrop-wins-one/
81-82, and a lot of the rest of the thread: Jimmy Carter has the chance to do the funniest thing ever.
I didn't watch the debate, I did watch the "Biden is suddenly coherent the next day in NC" clip. And then finally, grudgingly, I watched the Biden clip I had seen posted multiple times described as the absolute death knell for Biden, the one that ended "we can beat Medicare" or something like that. And you know what? It wasn't terrible. Biden looked stressed and tired. He knew what he wanted to say, generally, and couldn't come up with the words for at least one or two points, so he paused, and he misspoke at the end. But still, I could tell what he was saying and I agreed with it. If it was this versus a stream of polished hateful lies I can see why the (unreliable) polling showed more undecided voters shifting to Biden than to Trump after hearing the debate. Keep on being an effective good president, dude, even if, as Megan said, propped up in a chair somewhere. And FTFNYT. Political reporting, ugh.
||
Arthur's Seat is terrific and I am now extremely impressed with Ajay's dad. Doing that as your regular morning walk would keep you healthy.
|>
At this point it's basically "Joe Biden 2024, Fuck the Media."* A good chance it will end in disaster, but there it is.
A lot of media stuff about how "in denial" the campaign and supporters are in, and yeah I get it, bu for the campaign in particular that is how you have to do it--display confidence. I believe there probably are some serious misgivings, and contingencies are being considered, but as a *campaign* you cannot let that be your posture.
On Biden: I can't see any way to switch candidates now without disaster; I thought he was way too old four years ago, but he's been surprisingly good; people have been claiming he was demented for years when he clearly wasn't; on the other hand just because he wasn't before doesn't mean he isn't now or won't be in the near future; I can't figure out why Harris has become persona non grata since shortly after her inauguration; I hate everything and I want to never think about politics again but I can't stop myself.
I was about to chastise you for darling to enjoy yourself in nice places while we were all busy angsting out, but I see it is not necessary.
So many over the top media takes but Bob Woodward wins with one that has irony quaking in its boots.
I think the answer here is reporting.--in seeking very aggressively what happened here? We don't want it to come out in some book or memoir in a couple of years or a decade. We need to know now.
I can't figure out why Harris has become persona non grata since shortly after her inauguration
In the first two years, I figured she was too busy breaking tie votes in the Senate to do anything else. In the second two years that's no longer relevant. I'm confused too.
Reddit's political discussions have been depressing since the debate, of course. Highly voted comments allegedly from the left want Biden out but aren't suggesting a replacement. When someone mentions Harris, there's always someone allegedly from the left complaining about her pro-law-enforcement record.
A couple of other hits:
-Jim Vanderhei of Acios saying if Biden stays in it is for the same reason he ran, the "oligarchy" decided he was best option to beat Trump. (This may be a bit of a deep cut, but the epitome of "centrist" DC establishment invoking oligarchy in this context is laugh out loud funny.
- Brian Steitler endorsing that the election is now all about Biden's "ability to serve, period."
And if you want to see some of the rot at the center of the NYT political team for the prior decade watch Alex Burns and Jonathan Martin now that they are out in the wild. Martin's latest was piece about Doug Burgrum (sp? not wasting asearch on the fucker) would be a moderating influence on Trump.
I guess I'll say here what I said on twitter: Practically every person calling for Biden to stop campaigning is white and very, very privileged.
I can't figure out why Harris has become persona non grata
I strongly suspect she's been shoring up Black voters and organizations, and especially working to build Black turnout. In the states that closely went D in 2020, GA, WI, PA, and MI have significant Black populations and turnout in those communities is going to have to be large to get us over the line again this year. (AZ and NV are different stories.) NC looks like our best opportunity to flip a state; we need another 100,000 voters there, and again there's a significant Black population that we absolutely need to turn out if we are going to get that change.
For example, she had a pre-recorded appearance for the BET awards last night and referenced the Kendrick Lamar/Drake beef. A quick news search mainly showed me right-ish outlets criticizing her appearance. CNN, WaPo both mention the awards, but not Harris. Race and gender render her invisible to national media.
I made a separate Supreme Court thread in case anyone wants to dive in there instead of here.
111: Ajay, you have access to twenty years of my writings; I doubt you are questioning whether I am functionally illiterate. Further, dropping into text speech does not mean that someone is functionally illiterate.
Which means you can't seem to stop yourself from taking a shitty little dig at me, and either a lurker or some regular commenter whose handle dropped off. None of those people are making shitty little digs at you at the moment. This was gratuitous and unprovoked. You are often personally mean for no reason and I'm ashamed that I'm only pointing this out when it came around to me (sorry especially to Cecily).
In terms of the Unfogged discourse, whatever. Personal beef is boring and I'm too old for internet fights. But Ajay, I want you to know that I notice that you are often gratuitously personally mean and it makes me think poorly of you. I did even before it was my turn.
125 is correct: the bullying is pretty relentless and almost no one stands up to it or calls it out. I certainly don't. I just leave for medium-length periods because it's unpleasant, and I try not to show weakness, the way conflict-averse people have adapted to bullying since time immemorial. So thanks, Megan, someone definitely needed to say something.
I agree with Megan and lurid. I'm sure the meanness is intended to be funny, but it's not. From an observer's perspective it's tiresome at best.
"I doubt you are questioning whether I am functionally illiterate."
I mean, I wasn't, that is why I said "I hope this isn't Megan". But given how severely you've misread what I wrote, maybe I should be?
"Further, dropping into text speech does not mean that someone is functionally illiterate."
No. But, as 94 also pointed out, posting something that doesn't prove your point, and then acting as though it has proved your point, does suggest that you have difficulty parsing written text.
I'm sorry someone lied to you about Biden promising not to run again, and lied so convincingly that you believed them and told everyone else (in what was a fairly intemperate comment overall, but lets not tone police) but that is partly on you as well for not checking what is plainly a pretty unlikely assertion!
You don't have to double down on how clever you are and others aren't. You could make the decision to stop being mean out of nowhere, or if that is too vague, make a decision rule not to say anything ad hominem at all. That's a coarse approach but would mostly solve this particular problem. Or, you are still within the bounds of Unfogged discourse and you can live with the rarely expressed poor regard of some of us.
"That whole fucking shithead generation who can't let go and never fucking die already. Biden, Clinton, Bader Ginsburg, Feinstein. They are so fucking selfish and they're not even the bad guys."
Bounds of discourse will be sedulously observed from now on.
There's an obvious difference between saying mean things about prominent public figures who will never see them and being gratuitously mean to individual people in direct conversation.
At this point, ajay, fuck off. You know what people are talking about and are playing dumb. I've engaged with you out of habit but I think now that was a mistake.
I missed 111 when it happened; I agree that Ajay is often intentionally rude, and that Megan is correct to make an issue of it.
I also sort of see Ajay's point. Is the feeling that he should have written, "whoever wrote 94 appears to believe that the quote means something other than what the words actually say. I presume that isn't Megan."
I think that, without the prior context of Ajay's other comments, that isn't *that* different.
I am also conflict-averse by temperament, but I think the standards of unfogged should allow people to say, "what you are saying seems not only wrong but obviously wrong."
There's an obvious difference between saying mean things about prominent public figures who will never see them and being gratuitously mean to individual people in direct conversation.
That's clearly correct, but I don't think that should be the basis for making a judgement about what is or isn't appropriate. There are plenty of cases in which gratuitously insulting a public figure is also, by implication, making a statement about other people in the conversation (along the lines of, "I know some people defend this person, but they are wrong and indeed, obviously wrong, to do so.")
For example, she had a pre-recorded appearance for the BET awards last night and referenced the Kendrick Lamar/Drake beef. A quick news search mainly showed me right-ish outlets criticizing her appearance. CNN, WaPo both mention the awards, but not Harris. Race and gender render her invisible to national media.
That is a good point.
Question that I was thinking about this morning. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the chances of winning are similar between (a) Biden/Harris or (b) Biden drops out and the ticket is Harris/[new VP]* which scenario would you prefer if you were Harris? On one hand, I assume she's appropriately ambitious and would always want to be on the top of the ticket. On the other hand, that might look like being set up for failure. She'd be stepping in at the top of the ticket with 4 months (or less) to campaign, enormous amounts of pressure and, if she does win, likely to face an unfavorable senate.
I don't know that I'd be pushing for option (b) if I were Harris (but, obviously, if Biden does step down I think Harris would want and should get the option to be at the top of the ticket).
* if you think one path has a significantly greater chance of victory that probably determines your preferences.
I kinda feel bad for Dean Phillips, who ran an entire primary campaign focused on how Biden is too old and got no traction whatsoever. Now suddenly its the popular position, and all the people who eschewed his candidacy when he was on the ballot suddenly want takebacksies.
There are technical issues people just ignore-
- If not Harris, it is quite difficult to transfer the hundreds of millions that have been raised for Biden/Harris.
- If Biden resigns now, Harris has to appoint a VP that has to be approved by a majority of both houses. Does anyone thing any Democrat will be approved by the House? They'll hold the VP slot open, then who knows who's in charge of counting electoral votes- senate president pro tempore? If Republicans take the Senate as is projected, that means you have the most senior Republican in the next Congress adjudicating EV challenges- Chuck Grassley?
-Some states have approaching deadlines for ballot listing. The conventions are actually after some of these deadlines which some Republican states tried to fuck around with to prevent Biden from being listed although I think they relented. But now there's a new opportunity for fuckery- refuse to switch the ballot listing over to Harris.
I kinda feel bad for Dean Phillips
I don't. For one, Biden's age was widely known in 2020 and a wide range of younger candidates were on offer. For two, timing is everything in politics, and at the top table you either have to understand timing or have the ability to create timing. Phillips had neither. For three, as you know Bob post-WWII US presidents who get strongly primaried lose the general; it's a two-term commitment as any fule kno federal officeholder knows. For four, apparently Phillips is not well liked among Minnesota Dems either; can't imagine why.
Plus, dropping Harris into suddenly being the President of the United States at the same time she has to run a national campaign as an unexpected nominee, that's asking a lot. I'm not saying she couldn't handle it - she could probably handle it better than anyone - but there is a lot of opportunity for things to go poorly.
136: KD goes there-- Biden must resign, and then?
And what then should Harris do? This is purely a question of politics. I can hardly believe I'm about to say this, but my suggestion would be to talk a moderate Republican--a Rob Portman type--into becoming her vice president and running mate and creating a bipartisan front against Donald Trump. This would shake things up enough to give her a chance of beating Trump in November.
I feel like by choosing a moderate Republican, Harris could win the vote of several hundred moderate Republicans. They would have a decent chance of beating RFK Jr for 2nd place.
Bouie floated Harris/Manchin, arguing that Manchin was usually a party soldier when he's the swing vote (eg judicial nominations) despite his gasbaggery and other well known betrayals. Might get the NYT editorial board all wet at least.
139 this is the terminal stage of pundit brain
Sorry, comment 94 was mine. Wrote while proofing a file at 4 in the morning
Thanks! But were you responding to Megan (88) or to ajay (92)? And how good is your proofing at 4 a.m.? Mine is so bad.
Maybe the Democrats should just skip Harris and nominate Nikki Haley.
I remember Lincoln picked a guy from the other party. It was very magnanimous and unifying, and nothing bad happened as a result of that.
Ajay. Client seems to be happy with me, is all I can say. I'm dumb though, I'd done two minor projects in the wrong order, with the earlier deadline last. And I could have gone up early and done it, I just hate going to bed with a project nearly done.
Dean Phillips, who ran an entire primary campaign focused
That's a generous assessment of his campaign. He seemed to be desperately looking for some reason, any, for him to be a candidate. I can't even remember when he stopped. Maybe he hasn't.
I don't even know who Dean Phillips is but if I had to guess I'd say he's a writer of airport thrillers.
135: And in fact, he has weighed in, sort of.
Playing what-if can be like crack. But any what-ifs about the 2020 or 2024 primary have to include the phrase "... and then they also won the general," because we know how 2020 turned out with Biden and don't know how it would have turned out with anyone else, or how 2024 will turn out. If I had a primary ballot in front of me right now with Biden's and Phillips' names on it, I think I'd still vote Biden, but it's a harder choice than it was a week ago. Who's more electable, Biden even post-debate or an almost-three-term Minnesota Congressman?
So much of the pundit pontificating goes to the underlying assumption, even among those who would never admit thinking such a thing, that minority votes aren't "real" votes they're just assumed. No other candidate has anything close to Biden's coalition and support from the base of the Democratic Party.
The first few minutes of this week's Galeotti suggest some of the Russian POV.
152: The only acceptable alternative would be Harris, and that's who it would be if he died in office. I'm terrified of what will happen if Democrats try to contest this. It would amount to taking Black votes for granted.
With some misgivings, I'll share this additional polling data reported by Puck News, the brown-nosing access journalism collective, since it does reveal an interesting divergence between the national (popular vote?) numbers, where the debate had very little effect, and the EC projections, which show changes. This will all change, but it isn't certain to change in the way everyone hopes. Meanwhile, the NYT is doubling down on its anti-Biden position, Biden has committed to a TV interview Friday, and it's about to suck a lot in Jamaica.
I was stuck in a hospital waiting room once and forced to watch George Stephenopolis interview Brook Shields. It really made waiting to find out how a loved one's surgery was going an even more unpleasant event.
