To be perfectly frank, I don't know a thing about her. That in itself might be a problem -- her national name recognition can't be higher than... 15%? (just a guess). But that is not necessarily an insurmountable problem if she can quickly make herself known and impress. Certainly winning in a red state is a good sign for her capability.
From a purely "Win the election: standard I think you analysis might well be right. Here is the difference. Everyone should actually care about the office and duties of the presidency. Biden is not capable of serving as president. I have been firm in my assessment of that since early 2021. Now it is common knowledge. To push through with Biden based on not being able to improve the calculated likelihood of victory is cynicism - cynicism about the government as a whole. People who actually hold that line should pay a huge penalty in public opinion. Seriously, a person who argues in incompetent, addled, ineffective, useless figurehead to sign the documents with a shadow cadre of unelected political hacks running the government without accountability or legal authority is preferable to losing an election should pay an enormous penalty in public opinion.
It can't just be about winning the election. It has to be about who will serve as president. at the very least there has to be the tacit admission that really we are electing the VP who will take over shortly - but that gets back to the same thing - we are running the VP as the candidate.
Yeah, this is a fair point. My analysis is cynical about the parties' motives, I suppose because *I* have grown cynical about the parties' motives. (And even my own.)
I just came across this quote from another author with whom this is my first encounter. I am open to considering how well this reasoning holds up to scrutiny, but I was pleased that it fit well with the logic I was trying to convey in my comment above:
Sounds like Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution with the argument that it'd mean many decisions about Virginia would be made by people who weren't Virginians!
A little over a week later, the calls for Biden to step down are growing, but Joe Biden is defiant.
And the pundits I listen to agree that, for political reasons (including transfer of Biden's campaign funds) the most likely person to replace Biden, should he withdraw, would be his Vice-President and running mate, Kamala Harris.
That does not strike me as any kind of improvement. She is more to the left of Biden, but also in over her head. Whether she could beat trump is anyone's guess.
I think he is going to be cashiered. Biden is outwardly defiant, and I think he has the support of his inner circle, but the party seems to have decided. Once the party decides, it's hard to stop, and they have enough tools to ramp up the pressure on him until he capitulates. He might have a miraculous escape, but it's harder and harder to see what it would be.
The funny thing about it is, even as Nate Silver continues bang the drum that Biden needs to go, Biden's actual odds of winning the election in Nate Silver's *model* remain stubbornly close to where they were pre-debate: about 30%, compared to 35% or so pre-debate. (I'm not checking.) The Kamala swap-in continues to present a ton of downside risks, and Biden continues to have a decent shot.
But Nate seems convinced by the argument that very few things could make things better for Biden while lots and lots of things could make things worse, and there's surely something to that. Also, Nate thinks it's not enough to beat Trump; he has the civic bone in his body that insists it's important for the person who beats Trump to be a capable President himself. Still, his model update posts are starting to get funny: "Okay, I know the model isn't matching what I'm saying on my Twitter but here's an excuse for why the model isn't updating in the way I keep saying it's gonna."
If I were a Dem, I would probably support a change at this point from sheer panic and a desire to shake up a losing race, but still not sure it's tactically optimal from a beat-Trump standpoint.
Now, if they wanted to WIN, they could run a moderate, but that's not even on the table. The closest you get to a "moderate" in Dem discussion circles is flipping Andy Beshear.
How about Laura Kelly as a replacement?
To be perfectly frank, I don't know a thing about her. That in itself might be a problem -- her national name recognition can't be higher than... 15%? (just a guess). But that is not necessarily an insurmountable problem if she can quickly make herself known and impress. Certainly winning in a red state is a good sign for her capability.
From a purely "Win the election: standard I think you analysis might well be right. Here is the difference. Everyone should actually care about the office and duties of the presidency. Biden is not capable of serving as president. I have been firm in my assessment of that since early 2021. Now it is common knowledge. To push through with Biden based on not being able to improve the calculated likelihood of victory is cynicism - cynicism about the government as a whole. People who actually hold that line should pay a huge penalty in public opinion. Seriously, a person who argues in incompetent, addled, ineffective, useless figurehead to sign the documents with a shadow cadre of unelected political hacks running the government without accountability or legal authority is preferable to losing an election should pay an enormous penalty in public opinion.
It can't just be about winning the election. It has to be about who will serve as president. at the very least there has to be the tacit admission that really we are electing the VP who will take over shortly - but that gets back to the same thing - we are running the VP as the candidate.
Yeah, this is a fair point. My analysis is cynical about the parties' motives, I suppose because *I* have grown cynical about the parties' motives. (And even my own.)
I just came across this quote from another author with whom this is my first encounter. I am open to considering how well this reasoning holds up to scrutiny, but I was pleased that it fit well with the logic I was trying to convey in my comment above:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-146086147?selection=6057558b-6e8d-402b-8bb0-80fa1b17de5f#:~:text=We%20cannot%20find%20out%20who%20is%20responsible%20for%20opening%20the%20border%2C%20deciding%20to%20grant%20Iran%20a%20%2410%20billion%20sanctions%20waiver%2C%20or%20committing%20any%20of%20the%20other%20grievous%20errors%20of%20the%20last%20four%20years
Oh, I really like this essay.
me too
Lambasts Trunp on morality; promptly advocates for elder abuse. The hypocrisy is rank.
didja happen to read footnote 4?
I, too, am alarmed that many, even most (!) influential decision makers aren’t Minnesotan!
Sounds like Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution with the argument that it'd mean many decisions about Virginia would be made by people who weren't Virginians!
A little over a week later, the calls for Biden to step down are growing, but Joe Biden is defiant.
And the pundits I listen to agree that, for political reasons (including transfer of Biden's campaign funds) the most likely person to replace Biden, should he withdraw, would be his Vice-President and running mate, Kamala Harris.
That does not strike me as any kind of improvement. She is more to the left of Biden, but also in over her head. Whether she could beat trump is anyone's guess.
I think he is going to be cashiered. Biden is outwardly defiant, and I think he has the support of his inner circle, but the party seems to have decided. Once the party decides, it's hard to stop, and they have enough tools to ramp up the pressure on him until he capitulates. He might have a miraculous escape, but it's harder and harder to see what it would be.
The funny thing about it is, even as Nate Silver continues bang the drum that Biden needs to go, Biden's actual odds of winning the election in Nate Silver's *model* remain stubbornly close to where they were pre-debate: about 30%, compared to 35% or so pre-debate. (I'm not checking.) The Kamala swap-in continues to present a ton of downside risks, and Biden continues to have a decent shot.
But Nate seems convinced by the argument that very few things could make things better for Biden while lots and lots of things could make things worse, and there's surely something to that. Also, Nate thinks it's not enough to beat Trump; he has the civic bone in his body that insists it's important for the person who beats Trump to be a capable President himself. Still, his model update posts are starting to get funny: "Okay, I know the model isn't matching what I'm saying on my Twitter but here's an excuse for why the model isn't updating in the way I keep saying it's gonna."
If I were a Dem, I would probably support a change at this point from sheer panic and a desire to shake up a losing race, but still not sure it's tactically optimal from a beat-Trump standpoint.
Now, if they wanted to WIN, they could run a moderate, but that's not even on the table. The closest you get to a "moderate" in Dem discussion circles is flipping Andy Beshear.