It would have had to be by the end of 2014: once the Democrats lost control of the Senate, there was no way McConnell was going to let any scotus appointment pass.
Yes, Harris is definitely better off for inheriting the nomination rather than fighting her way to it. And so is everyone else.
I'm not sure McConnell would have felt able to get away with it in 2015. He might have tried it, though, and who know, maybe it would have worked after all. In 2014, a re-elected Obama would have to have predicted that Dems would lose the Senate. Part of this includes predicting that Montana's lieutenant governor, running to fill Max Baucus' seat, would have to drop out and resign when it was discovered he plagiarized a paper at the Army War College, and that despite all the assurances and presumptions, it would turn our that the charismatic leftish young women who took his place would not increase youth turnout. And all the other races where seats turned over. In sum, I think the RBG thing is mostly hindsight from cranky contrarians desperate to blame Democrats for the rise of the Right.
I haven't heard a discouraging word about Gov Walz. I'm not sure the governor of Pennsylvania is the right guy as Israel spins out of whatever shred of rationality has been part of their policy formation. It's like the worst week ever for a guy who's on record with some fairly strong views.
Yes. she already has a Jewish First Man. If she chooses a Jewish VP too, it might seem weird.
Second Gentleman, that is. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
That's quite all right, Mr. Peep.
I think the current knock on RBG is that she should have retired much earlier for the reasons Chet gives. I am tempted to forgive her because it really did sneak up on her: McConnell blocking Scalia's replacement maybe should have been foreseen, but it was unprecedented, and as you say once she knew that was happening, it was too late.
Officiating a Covid wedding was probably a bad choice.
Kill, fuck, marry.
Mpox, flu-like illness, covid.
Do we all agree that Kamala Harris is in a much stronger position to win the general than if Joe had said two years ago that he wasn't going to re-run? You can't orchestrate this kind of cinematic narrative.
I'm really enjoying the roller coaster at the moment. I definitely think the transition from Biden to Harris has worked better than I would have expected. I also think it's a little too early to say much with confidence (side note, Yggles had an interesting post about why primaries are such a drag. I don't think his proposed solution would work, but his summary of the problems is good).
Do we all agree that Kamala Harris is in a much stronger position to win the general than if Joe had said two years ago that he wasn't going to re-run? You can't orchestrate this kind of cinematic narrative.
Maybe. If we imagine minimal changes to the timeline otherwise in this what-if scenario, then agreed, good timing. But I've kind of had the sense that Harris has had a hands-off vice-presidency, compared to the past few. From 2021-2023, I assumed that was because she was too busy breaking tie votes in the Senate or being ready to do so. That's no longer the case, so I'm not sure why. If she had been the presumptive candidate two years ago and also had a higher profile in that time and more involvement in running things, she might even be better positioned to run than she is now.
Then again, that could be just my perception. I don't pay as much attention to politics as some people, and in a recent thread I think someone said the media was going out of their way to ignore Harris, so who knows.
I do actually like the Yglesias solution in 14! National election, proportional delegates, if no majority on first ballot superdelegates come in. Keep it quick, shorten the window for backroom dealings for the media to obsess over, minimize the money spent.
I guess I think that idea would work if tried. It seems hard to imagine how we would get there though. But maybe the Harris coalescence will be an inspiration.
It's always frustrating trying to tweak the system, because we should just go to a parliamentary system. Presidents are really bad! But at least with primaries as Saiselgy says at least the Democratic Party can basically do whatever we want, so there really is the possibility to improve things.
Some concerns I have with his spending proposals are: 1) The current Supreme Court almost certainly strike down any spending rules and 2) Wouldn't this just mean that non-Democratic groups advertising would dominate the primary? There's nothing stopping Republicans from blanketing the airways with attack ads during the primary.
Yeah, I like the Yglesias proposal a lot and I think the structural changes would probably be doable but the spending limits are more questionable.
Was the Garland nomination really such an unwinnable fight? I feel like Democrats often declare procedural fights boring and no one cares and what are you going to do about it, just try to win the next election etc., while Republicans ran ads on the news networks attacking Democrats for holding up the FISA amendments process in 2008. I guess I could have missed the big campaign to stop McConnell from carrying out an unprecedented attack on the US by leaving an essential position vacant, and all the press conferences about it, the protests, the ads on national networks, and so on, but the response to McConnell seemed kind of muted, didn't it? I also think a second vacancy would have put more rather than less pressure on the Senate to nominate new justices.
I thought expenditure limits had been overruled many Supreme Courts ago. Maybe that's just limits on direct spending by candidates. Anyway, a quick look at Yglesias' post and Ctrl-F search for "spend" indicates he's suggesting voluntary limits within the Democratic party procedures.
I wish I had written 15 faster, because the link in 14 addresses a lot of it. Valid points about what would have happened if there had been a 2024 primary.
I agree with NickS that Yglesias' solution wouldn't work though. That internal Democratic Party rule/norm would last right up until a candidate decides they're losing but could win if they spent money on it. (That's more likely to come from an outsider candidate, but not necessarily; Newsom for example might have been in a position to do this in the hypothetical 2024 primary.) Then the DNC would have to either toss out the rule/norm or alienate their supporters. Also, Yglesias just assumes that all the money spent in the primary is wasted, but I'm not sure about that. It keeps Democrats in the news when they otherwise wouldn't be.
20: Democrats complained about it, but I don't know if there was anything else. Democratic attack ads were focused on Trump. I'd have to look of the details of the FISA thing to be sure, but I'd bet most of those ads were aimed at individual Congresspeople in unsafe seats, right? Whereas running ads targeting McConnell doesn't seem like a good use of money.
Whereas running ads targeting McConnell doesn't seem like a good use of money.
Not sure what you mean by targeting McConnell? As a candidate? That would be pointless. The ads would be about the nomination fight, not McConnell's seat.
The FISA thing I remember because I was briefly in political journalism and assigned to monitor C-SPAN and all the news networks. I was pretty surprised to see the ads, which were during the roughly one month period where the amendments were under debate.
I feel like keeping the campaign season short has some inherent spending-limiting impact - it reduces the hours of ad time there are to buy. Of course without official spending limits you can't prevent people from campaigning earlier & earlier.
Someone really needs to shorten the campaign season. It really feels like nothing has stopped since June of 2016.
People are not just using the FEC database to have every Democratic candidate in the nation text me, it's also being used for scams of steadily improving quality and now phishing.
The fuckers can link my cell to my street address, which has creeped me out since the first time it happened.
I think Harris's ascent to the top of the ticket has been characterized by absolutely flawless Democratic unity and messaging. It's hard to measure a counterfactual against perfection.
The one thing I can think of: She would have done the job that Biden couldn't do in that first debate -- and would have scheduled several debates, all of which she would have won.
OP.3: Has Shapiro been deemed unlikely? PredictIt currently has him at 75 cents, which I believe translates to 75% odds, and the next highest is Beshear at 13.
I think he would be the first Jewish vice presidential candidate who isn't a complete tool since Reconstruction.
29: Interesting. The anti-genocide folks are pretty pissed off at him.
If I were interested in gambling on it, I might take a flier on Gretchen Whitmer or Amy Klobuchar for a penny each. You can also get Hillary Clinton shares for a penny.
But it seems like it has to be one of the white boys. And Shapiro makes a lot of sense, especially if Harris decides she needs to personally take a position against mass killings.
Just have Biden shoot Bibi. It's legal and he's not on the ballot.
You missed your calling, Moby. You'd be a great political consultant or Supreme Court justice.
Whoever it is, I want to take this opportunity to make clear that I admire and respect them, and wouldn't think of crossing them under any circumstances.
I think Shapiro will be something of a mistake (at least in initial reaction, he is skilled and could turn it around). Combo of Gaza (somewhat unfairly given other guys not great on it as well) and few other positions, but I think the sexual harassment thing is the sleeper (aide, but not handled well).
Not loving Shapiro's support for school vouchers. Democrats should not be caving on education issues. It will do us only harm in the long run.
Be thought it was "Skoal vouchers".
My scoutmaster got kicked out of the troop for using those as prizes.
PSA: If you've been buying your shrooms retail, there is an FDA recall.
Also, apparently these days you can buy your shrooms retail.