Well?

[majorminor]

Jul 12, 2024 9:19:54 GMT -5 epaul said:

Pretty tough run an effective campaign when the response after your every public appearance isn't about your message but whether you appeared to be clear-headed or looney.

"Biden sounded pretty clear today when he spoke at ..."
"Biden sounded a little looney today when addressed the ..."
"Good day for Biden, he got all the names right when he spoke at..."
"Bad day for Biden, he introduced the podium as VP Harris when he addressed the..."
"Good day ..."
"Bad day ..."

Hey his fly is zipped up!

[John B]

Jul 12, 2024 9:05:17 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

"I'm really, really pissed at the Democratic Party right now. The time to deal with this issue was three years ago."

John, the Democratic Party is just a bunch of people like us. What were we supposed to do three years ago?

If I were Trump, I'd be hoping for Biden to do just well enough to avoid the hook.

Biden essentially ran in 2020 saying "I'll be normal, I'll be around for one term." In 2021 the Dems should have already been positioning younger potential candidates, and in the past three years the list should have coalesced around a 2024 candidate who was not Joe Biden.

Building the bench, not throwing all eggs in one basket, pretending that the presidency doesn't age its office-holders at least 2X as fast as time passes.

[Russell Letson]

There's that old Will Rogers joke--"I don't belong to any organized political party--I am a Democrat." Seems to me that if there was a problem three years ago, it had to do with the nature of the Democratic Party as a coalition or alliance of interest groups. (Yeah, all parties are such coalitions, but the Democrats have less ideological coherence than the post-Reagan GOP, and fewer Gingrich-inspired long-view planners.) Somehow, the Democrats managed to not generate a deep national bench, despite the presence of any number of smart, savvy, telegenic officeholders. Nancy Pelosi, for my money, would be a crackerjack President if she were only a decade younger. (She'd be younger than Trump and is tough enough to wipe the floor with the bastard in any encounter.) If Biden decides (or is persuaded) to step aside soon, Harris might have a chance--if she can channel Nancy, take the gloves off, and relentlessly confront Trump's many flaws. (Which is the same path Joe should take if he stays in the race.)

[Cornflake]

It's academic if Biden stays in but it bothers me that so many people seem to assume that Harris is the presumptive replacement.

[Rob Hanesworth]

Jul 12, 2024 10:08:46 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

It's academic if Biden stays in but it bothers me that so many people seem to assume that Harris is the presumptive replacement.

Wouldn't the political cost of bypassing a black, woman, sitting vice president be extremely high?

[epaul]

Not if they pick a white male instead.

[epaul]

Umm, wait, I want to change my answer. That ChatGIP isn't worth a crap.

[Cornflake]

"Wouldn't the political cost of bypassing a black, woman, sitting vice president be extremely high?"

Not necessarily. IMO.

[majorminor]

Jul 12, 2024 10:08:46 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

It's academic if Biden stays in but it bothers me that so many people seem to assume that Harris is the presumptive replacement.

Just based on the surface read of the various reporting I believe she's the only replacement candidate that can easily access the current campaign fund Biden war chest. And IMO she is as likely to win as any replacement at this late juncture. I don't think there is much, if any, time to re primary. I wonder if there isn't some pent up frustration over the current choices that she wouldn't benefit from to a degree even more than the current polling shows. Like a "thank God" rush to her official candidacy should that happen.

I also have to give her credit or acknowledge her luck. VP is where political dreams go to die it seems. By hitching her wagon to almost dead guy she's in a pretty decent position to get a clear shot somehow.

[epaul]

Emphasize the Asian part.

[majorminor]

Jul 12, 2024 11:13:41 GMT -5 epaul said:

Emphasize the Asian part.

If she could fly a fighter jet and was a lesbian everyone would vote for her!

[Cornflake]

"Just based on the surface read of the various reporting I believe she's the only replacement candidate that can easily access the current campaign fund Biden war chest. And IMO she is as likely to win as any replacement at this late juncture. I don't think there is much, if any, time to re primary. I wonder if there isn't some pent up frustration over the current choices that she wouldn't benefit from to a degree even more than the current polling shows. Like a "thank God" rush to her official candidacy should that happen."

Good points, Steve.

[Russell Letson]

The practical (that is, funding), practical-political, demographic, and public-relations reasons for giving Harris a shot are overwhelming. And, as far as I can tell, she's as able a campaigner as anybody else among the practical Democratic possibilities. And no matter who the Dems put up, the way to beat Trump is to unrelentingly and mercilessly beat the shit out of him and his crew of cronies and crooks and wannabe Masters of the Universe. The company he keeps and all that. (The reptilian Stephen Miller? Seriously?)

[millring]

I wouldn't sweat either Biden or Harris. Either one will win. I just don't see Trump winning, no matter the candidate.

[Marshall]

This from NY Times

Donors Freeze Roughly $90 Million as Long as Biden Stays in Race

The decision to withhold money pledged to the largest super PAC supporting President Biden is one of the most concrete fallouts yet from his poor debate performance.

[Russell Letson]

John, I hope you're right and that my rather jaundiced view of many of my fellow citizens is just a spillover of those awake-at-five-in-the-morning anxieties that are probably more due to a full bladder than to a rational analysis of the civic environment.

And the good news is that, in anticipation of actual July weather showing up soon, I managed to install the bedroom air conditioner without breaking the house or my back.

[Marshall]

Also this from NY Times

The scandal is almost as old as the United States itself: The president has a health problem that he and his aides try to shroud from the public. Only later — years later, in some cases — does the severity become clear.

The list of cover-ups is remarkably long. After a mysterious illness caused James Madison to miss meetings with senators in 1813, he blamed a watch malfunction. During Chester Arthur’s only term as president, he hid a kidney ailment that likely contributed to his death a year after he left office. Grover Cleveland’s aides lied about a surgery in 1893 — performed on a friend’s yacht — to excise a tumor in his mouth.

Woodrow Wilson spent his last year and a half as president debilitated by strokes while his wife and doctor secretly carried out some presidential duties. Franklin D. Roosevelt concealed the ailments that led to his death months after he won the 1944 election. Dwight Eisenhower’s doctor initially described his heart attack in 1955 as “a digestive upset.” John F. Kennedy’s aides lied about his Addison’s disease. Ronald Reagan’s administration hid the extent of his injuries after he was shot in 1981 and the signs of his dementia in later years. Donald Trump misled the public about the severity of his Covid illness.

[Russell Letson]

All of which challenges the notion of the sole importance of the President--at least, if there's effective staff work (which there has to be even if the Prez is fully in charge of his mind and body).

[Russell Letson]

By the way, I write these well-argued and (if I say so myself) well-written posts as I approach 80. And I still mow my own lawn, which I welcome young folks to cross. (But not if they're going to piss on the garage wall.)

[millring]

Jul 12, 2024 14:48:52 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

All of which challenges the notion of the sole importance of the President--at least, if there's effective staff work (which there has to be even if the Prez is fully in charge of his mind and body).

If there's something to be frightened about, it's the degree to which the American public perceives a royal presidency. That is scary.

We all know there is a professional class in Washington that essentially does what we give the president credit for. As big and all encompassing as the government is, it has to be so. Most know it and just call it "experts" and aides. If I point it out it's assumed I'm talking about a shadow government. It's not shadow. It's pretty open and obvious.

Honestly, it's things like keeping up a huge pretense --like a president's health -- that makes it appear "shadow".