This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
To be fair, I also fell asleep during the first three nights of the RNC--and have every hope of making it four for four. What a snorefest!
I found the Sikh prayer kind of interesting, if only from a sociological viewpoint. I kept trying to glean the audience reaction, but it seemed pretty neutral. I'm guessing the big screen that tells them when to applaud was beaming BOO, AND YOU'LL BE IN GUANTANAMO THE DAY AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
No surprise that Trump seemed cool with it, since she's apparently one of his favorite lawyers, and he likely doesn't have any religious sensibilities to offend in the first place.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
Again, exactly what kind of mechanism do you suggest that the Democratic Party use to convince/force some of its members to launch a primary campaign against an incumbent president of their own party? I'm trying to imagine that conversation.
"Sorry, Senator Klobuchar. I know you'd rather run for re-election in the Senate but the party needs you to run a hopeless primary campaign against a popular incumbent president."
"You'll waste a lot of time and money, you'll piss off a lot of powerful Democrats and possibly do irrevocable harm to your political future, you'll weaken the incumbent president as a general election candidate - other than that, it's a great idea."
Umm, technically, Mr. Jamie Harrison is the head of the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic Party is actually a collection of six different entities.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The House Majority PAC
The Democratic Senate National Campaign Committee
The Senate Majority PAC
The Democratic National Committee, and
Priorities USA
As president, Biden may influence who is the chair of the National Democratic Committee. but he is not the head of the party.
My argument would be that to be able to have *a better chance than Biden*, the candidate just needs to be more competent than Trump and more appealing than Biden to the electorate.
Strongly disagree. To have a better chance than Biden any replacement would have to be wildly more appealing than Biden in order to compensate for all the disgruntled Biden fans who would be put off by the ditching of Biden. No such candidate exists. Therefore, keep Biden.
My argument would be that to be able to have *a better chance than Biden*, the candidate just needs to be more competent than Trump and more appealing than Biden to the electorate.
Strongly disagree. To have a better chance than Biden any replacement would have to be wildly more appealing than Biden in order to compensate for all the disgruntled Biden fans who would be put off by the ditching of Biden. No such candidate exists. Therefore, keep Biden.
Would they really prefer Trump ?
A few would. Rather more might fail to vote or be less enthusiastic in encouraging others to vote. In any case if "not being Trump" is the sole criterion then Biden is as good as any replacement.
I am comforted by the way the left were able to unite in France to keep out the far right. The problem with just - not Trump - is to win they need to attract at least a small portion on the republican/swing voters currently supporting Trump.
To be fair, I also fell asleep during the first three nights of the RNC--and have every hope of making it four for four. What a snorefest!
I found the Sikh prayer kind of interesting, if only from a sociological viewpoint. I kept trying to glean the audience reaction, but it seemed pretty neutral. I'm guessing the big screen that tells them when to applaud was beaming BOO, AND YOU'LL BE IN GUANTANAMO THE DAY AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
No surprise that Trump seemed cool with it, since she's apparently one of his favorite lawyers, and he likely doesn't have any religious sensibilities to offend in the first place.
Here is a report of what some more extreme MAGA-ists thought of it. They were not cool with it, we may safely summarise. I suppose the only encouraging thing that can be said is that it shows the internal tensions within the Trump-right.
Unfortunately I don't think the French situation is really comparable. What kept the far right out here was everyone playing our two-round electoral system. Trump is trying to get elected in a system where he only needs the majority of votes in a small number of swing states.
The BBC news in the UK headlines with Trump's claim "God was on his side". Hmmm ... the news item was hardly listenable to an aged liberal like me. Surely this claim, though, is the ultimate blasphemy?
The parallels with what happened in Spain, Italy and Germany in the 1930s are there for all who have eyes to see.
And so to our prayers.
The BBC news in the UK headlines with Trump's claim "God was on his side". Hmmm ... the news item was hardly listenable to an aged liberal like me. Surely this claim, though, is the ultimate blasphemy?
The parallels with what happened in Spain, Italy and Germany in the 1930s are there for all who have eyes to see.
And so to our prayers.
I see little evidence that Trump is on God's side.
And IMHO that's what counts.
I am comforted by the way the left were able to unite in France to keep out the far right. The problem with just - not Trump - is to win they need to attract at least a small portion on the republican/swing voters currently supporting Trump.
Not really.
US polls vary significantly in quality. The reporting of polls is also extremely misleading.
What is known, is that polls of likely voters show the race to be basically neck-a-neck.
As always, due to the Electoral College, the result is decided by the small number of swing states. Behind the headline figures is a lot of fudge. Turnout makes a difference of 2 or 3 % points (because turn out is notoriously low in US elections). Similarly the normal polling error (which is what meant Trump won in '16 when several pundits had written him off*) can be significant. The significance comes from the fact that a poll provides a spread but the outcome is binary. One person wins, one person loses. If a candidate is 20 points ahead then they're gonna win. Unless the poll is completely flawed there's no real doubt about that. If we factor in statistical error and polling error (due to methodology) it might add up to overestimating one candidate by 6% and underestimating the other by the same hence the 20 point lead is in reality only 8 points. So what? The result is the same. When candidates are within 3 points, the polls do not tell you what the result will be.
So, here's the facts.
Polling is very close.
To win Biden needs Democrats to turn out
Biden also needs independents to vote for him
Whilst there are relatively few undecideds by historical standards, he does not really need to win over Trump supporters (probably).
In the Primaries Trump consistently under-performed compared to the polling, sometimes by very large margins.
The truth is that pundits talking about it being "Trump's election to lose" are basing that on no real data. Fivethirtyeight's model has Biden more likely to win than Trump (by a very small margin). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
I am slightly sceptical about whether Biden will step aside or not. I do not really trust these kind of media rumours. Although one this persistent usually has some basis in reality. But it's all insane and fucking irresponsible. Where is the focus on the reality of Trump's capabilities, mental state, lies and plans for government. THAT is the story. I believe Biden can win. Not a certainty - please God, I wish that it were. I also believe that another Democrat can win - please God, anyone but Trump. It is a very fluid situation but so much of the media narrative is over-reading the data.
It is a very close race. That is all we really know apart from the fact that it really should not be.
AFZ
*Fivethirtyeight has is critics. Especially since the last few elections. I go back to them because of how they handled the 2016 situation. Most pundits said that Trump could not win - that the chance was around 1%. This was based on a classical statistical fallacy, that events were independent when they weren't.
I cannot remember the states in question but in order to win Trump needed 4 or 5 states that showed Clinton slightly ahead. The chances of each of these polls being wrong (i.e. Trump was actually slightly ahead) are relatively high as a 6-7% polling error is not unusual. So Clinton 53 - Tump 47 could easily be Trump 52 - Clinton 48. The odds of that in any particular state may be something like 30%. (Depending on the performance of the polling models and the accuracy of sampling).
Pundits looked at these 5 states - and Trump needed at least 4 of them and went well, if the odds are 30% in one state, then Trump winning four such states must be 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.0081. I.e. less than 1% chance. That only holds true is the events are independent. AND THEY ARE NOT. If one poll was wrong in terms over-reporting Clinton support and under-reporting Trump support by enough to flip the state, then the others probably would be as well. This is because the polls uses the same methodology on populations that were incredibly similar. Hence if one state's polling was wrong in one particular direction then all of them almost certainly would be too.
This is why on the day of the 2016 election the 538 model had Trump's chance of winning at 30%. This was a massive outlier as virtually everyone else had written him off.
This footnote is now very long but you see the point; national polling that has Trump/Biden within 2-3% points does not (especially three-four months out) tell you anything with certainty. The polls were systemically wrong in 2016. There are reasons to think the polls are systemically wrong (the other way) now. The reason I am worried is that we just do not know.
To be fair, I also fell asleep during the first three nights of the RNC--and have every hope of making it four for four. What a snorefest!
I found the Sikh prayer kind of interesting, if only from a sociological viewpoint. I kept trying to glean the audience reaction, but it seemed pretty neutral. I'm guessing the big screen that tells them when to applaud was beaming BOO, AND YOU'LL BE IN GUANTANAMO THE DAY AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
No surprise that Trump seemed cool with it, since she's apparently one of his favorite lawyers, and he likely doesn't have any religious sensibilities to offend in the first place.
Here is a report of what some more extreme MAGA-ists thought of it. They were not cool with it, we may safely summarise. I suppose the only encouraging thing that can be said is that it shows the internal tensions within the Trump-right.
I think Nick Fuentes and company are what the kids today call "terminally on-line". I doubt this outrage is gonna effect the voting habits of many real-world Republicans. Most of MAGA just worships Trump and goes along with whatever he wants, and the religious-right knows he gives them them the right judges, and are unlikely to incite their followers against him over one prayer.
And if I understand what is meant by saying this woman is a lawyer who works on behalf "religious freedom", she's basically an active member of the religious-right herself.
The BBC news in the UK headlines with Trump's claim "God was on his side". Hmmm ... the news item was hardly listenable to an aged liberal like me. Surely this claim, though, is the ultimate blasphemy?
Well, Trump has also stated that he doesn't ever ask God for forgiveness because he never sins, so...
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
Again, exactly what kind of mechanism do you suggest that the Democratic Party use to convince/force some of its members to launch a primary campaign against an incumbent president of their own party? I'm trying to imagine that conversation.
"Sorry, Senator Klobuchar. I know you'd rather run for re-election in the Senate but the party needs you to run a hopeless primary campaign against a popular incumbent president."
"You'll waste a lot of time and money, you'll piss off a lot of powerful Democrats and possibly do irrevocable harm to your political future, you'll weaken the incumbent president as a general election candidate - other than that, it's a great idea."
This is what I mean by saying the party could have supported a primary. None of those consequences are required.
Unfortunately I don't think the French situation is really comparable. What kept the far right out here was everyone playing our two-round electoral system. Trump is trying to get elected in a system where he only needs the majority of votes in a small number of swing states.
"You'll waste a lot of time and money, you'll piss off a lot of powerful Democrats and possibly do irrevocable harm to your political future, you'll weaken the incumbent president as a general election candidate - other than that, it's a great idea."
This is what I mean by saying the party could have supported a primary. None of those consequences are required.
Who or what is "the party" in this sentence? These consequences are the usual political calculations politicians make when an incumbent president is running. When was the last time someone ran against and defeated a sitting president in the primaries?
If Democratic bigwigs screwed up, it was by not figuring out sooner that Biden was not going to be a good campaigner. The real blame rests on Biden and his closest aides. I wish he'd declared in January 2021 that he was going to be a one-term president and go balls out doing that job since he wouldn't seek reelection, and let the next generation of candidates be sorted out in thr meantime.
Nick Tamen wrote: It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection.
Caissa replies: In 1968, the Dems had a very lively primary season. If RFK had not been assassinated he may have won the nomination and the presidency.
Obviously God was willing to sacrifice the guy who died instead of his golden boy.
You might do well to define *God* in this context...
I read somewhere that Trump kissed the chap's helmet, and embraced his firefighter's uniform, thereby (presumably) consecrating them as holy relics of a man who laid down his life for his President.
It's easy to see how legends - and false religions - are created.
"You'll waste a lot of time and money, you'll piss off a lot of powerful Democrats and possibly do irrevocable harm to your political future, you'll weaken the incumbent president as a general election candidate - other than that, it's a great idea."
This is what I mean by saying the party could have supported a primary. None of those consequences are required.
Who or what is "the party" in this sentence? These consequences are the usual political calculations politicians make when an incumbent president is running. When was the last time someone ran against and defeated a sitting president in the primaries?
If Democratic bigwigs screwed up, it was by not figuring out sooner that Biden was not going to be a good campaigner. The real blame rests on Biden and his closest aides. I wish he'd declared in January 2021 that he was going to be a one-term president and go balls out doing that job since he wouldn't seek reelection, and let the next generation of candidates be sorted out in thr meantime.
“The party” refers precisely to the Democratic bigwigs who knew about the president’s state and pretended everything was fine. And I agree that there’s not been an instance in the past of a sitting president being defeated in a primary. There’s also not been an instance in the past of an incumbent president losing in the polls to a twice impeached, convicted felon found liable for sexual assault. Unprecedented times and all.
1968 was a long time ago, and we weren't using the same primary system; most states didn't have primaries. Kennedy was behind Humphrey in pledged convention votes when he was killed.
That's interesting. But I think the fallout of the replacement process, especially a messy one, might well shift those polls. The reality might not match the anticipation.
That's interesting. But I think the fallout of the replacement process, especially a messy one, might well shift those polls. The reality might not match the anticipation.
Yep. And theoretical polls are notoriously unreliable at predicting actual voter behaviour
I think there's no way to know anything for sure, and Democrats will be rolling the dice big-time whether we stuck with Biden, go with Harris, or try to choose someone else. The party movers and shakers need to make some decisions, and they need to make them fairly quickly - and the rest of us need to support the result, because the alternative is horrific.
Out to dinner last night I overheard someone at another table say as we were leaving that she didn't like Harris but would support her if she were the candidate, and I interjected that I'd vote for a ham sandwich if it were the Democratic nominee, and the woman shook my hand.
I think there's no way to know anything for sure, and Democrats will be rolling the dice big-time whether we stuck with Biden, go with Harris, or try to choose someone else. The party movers and shakers need to make some decisions, and they need to make them fairly quickly - and the rest of us need to support the result, because the alternative is horrific.
Out to dinner last night I overheard someone at another table say as we were leaving that she didn't like Harris but would support her if she were the candidate, and I interjected that I'd vote for a ham sandwich if it were the Democratic nominee, and the woman shook my hand.
1000% this. God Bless America. (Now, more than ever...)
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
NPR’s Mara Liasson often says something along the lines of historical precedents are instructive until they’re not. You don’t know they’re not until after they’re not.
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
NPR’s Mara Liasson often says something along the lines of historical precedents are instructive until they’re not. You don’t know they’re not until after they’re not.
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
I disagree about the “no reason” bit. The three reasons I gave above have been in effect since last year. There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Biden since jump. And I can’t help but feel many DNC bigwigs were aware of Biden’s challenges and chose to do nothing about it. And they were certainly aware of the concerns about Biden’s age and slipping poll numbers because those have been present since late ‘23, if not earlier.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
NPR’s Mara Liasson often says something along the lines of historical precedents are instructive until they’re not. You don’t know they’re not until after they’re not.
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
I disagree about the “no reason” bit. The three reasons I gave above have been in effect since last year. There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Biden since jump. And I can’t help but feel many DNC bigwigs were aware of Biden’s challenges and chose to do nothing about it. And they were certainly aware of the concerns about Biden’s age and slipping poll numbers because those have been present since late ‘23, if not earlier.
I didn’t say there was no reason to want a candidate other than Biden. I said there was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was preferable to Biden being the candidate. There was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was the way to get a candidate other than Biden—not when every time in the past that has happened (or at least every time I can think of), the result has been losing the White House.
The route to that goal would have been to convince Biden not to run to start with.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
NPR’s Mara Liasson often says something along the lines of historical precedents are instructive until they’re not. You don’t know they’re not until after they’re not.
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
I disagree about the “no reason” bit. The three reasons I gave above have been in effect since last year. There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Biden since jump. And I can’t help but feel many DNC bigwigs were aware of Biden’s challenges and chose to do nothing about it. And they were certainly aware of the concerns about Biden’s age and slipping poll numbers because those have been present since late ‘23, if not earlier.
I didn’t say there was no reason to want a candidate other than Biden. I said there was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was preferable to Biden being the candidate. There was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was the way to get a candidate other than Biden—not when every time in the past that has happened (or at least every time I can think of), the result has been losing the White House.
The route to that goal would have been to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Again, I disagree about the “no reason” part. You may judge the reasons given to be inadequate or not otherwise worth the risk, but there were reasons. The mere fact that Trump was polling as well as he was against Biden was reason to think maybe doing something different was warranted. There were plenty of reasons to think doing something different was warranted.
This may need a separate thread, but what I struggle to get my head around are the people who were once opposed to Trump, and clearly articulated why, but have now lined up on his side. Vance is the one in the headlines at the moment, but we could mention Rubio, Cruz, Haley and scores of others. The only high-profile names I can think of who have not (as far as I know) flipped in this way are Mitt Romney and Laura Cheney. And even they haven't gone so far as to *gasp* endorse a Democrat.
I mean, it's not like these people would have been risking torture and death if they'd left the Republican party. If you write a book in which you seriously ponder whether Trump is the "American Hitler", as Vance did, why wouldn't you change your allegiance?
This may need a separate thread, but what I struggle to get my head around are the people who were once opposed to Trump, and clearly articulated why, but have now lined up on his side. Vance is the one in the headlines at the moment, but we could mention Rubio, Cruz, Haley and scores of others. The only high-profile names I can think of who have not (as far as I know) flipped in this way are Mitt Romney and Laura Cheney. And even they haven't gone so far as to *gasp* endorse a Democrat.
I mean, it's not like these people would have been risking torture and death if they'd left the Republican party. If you write a book in which you seriously ponder whether Trump is the "American Hitler", as Vance did, why wouldn't you change your allegiance?
I think you mean Liz Cheney.
There is a common mantra in the Republican party that goes, "Party United."
When was the last time someone ran against and defeated a sitting president in the primaries?
There have been a few incumbent presidents who had to face down primary challengers. Ford in 1976. Carter in 1980. George H.W. Bush in 1992. These are all the instances since the start of the modern primary system. The closest example of an incumbent president being unseated in a primary I can think of is Lyndon Johnson deciding to end his campaign after a narrower than expected win in the New Hampshire primary, but that was in 1968 when the primary system as we know it today was still in its chrysalis stage.
The notable thing here is that, with the exception of Johnson, the incumbent president was able to successfully quash the primary challenge but went on to lose the general election. This presents us with a chicken-or-egg problem of interpretation. Did the contested primary weaken the incumbent president enough to assure his eventual electoral defeat, or was the incumbent correctly perceived as a weak candidate leading to primary challenges from ambitious rivals? Either way that does not seem to be the case with Biden. During the primaries there was a fairly well founded belief that Biden was popular enough, at least with Democratic primary voters, that any challenge from a fellow Democrat would be futile.
Once again, I'm forced to ask @Thomas Rowans what mechanism should have been used by which particular entity to convince/force prominent Democrats to change their minds about challenging Biden for the presidential nomination?
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the mechanisms of the DNC, nor do I pretend to be a high level political operative. I find it hard to believe, though, that the party was completely helpless to do anything other than fall in line behind Biden simply because he’s the incumbent. If that is the case then that’s further evidence of the sorry state of party politics in America.
I also don’t understand why a contested primary would “weaken” an incumbent.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
NPR’s Mara Liasson often says something along the lines of historical precedents are instructive until they’re not. You don’t know they’re not until after they’re not.
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
I disagree about the “no reason” bit. The three reasons I gave above have been in effect since last year. There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Biden since jump. And I can’t help but feel many DNC bigwigs were aware of Biden’s challenges and chose to do nothing about it. And they were certainly aware of the concerns about Biden’s age and slipping poll numbers because those have been present since late ‘23, if not earlier.
I didn’t say there was no reason to want a candidate other than Biden. I said there was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was preferable to Biden being the candidate. There was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was the way to get a candidate other than Biden—not when every time in the past that has happened (or at least every time I can think of), the result has been losing the White House.
The route to that goal would have been to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Again, I disagree about the “no reason” part. You may judge the reasons given to be inadequate or not otherwise worth the risk, but there were reasons. The mere fact that Trump was polling as well as he was against Biden was reason to think maybe doing something different was warranted. There were plenty of reasons to think doing something different was warranted.
I’ll rephrase to say there was no reason to think that inter-party fighting would increase the likelihood of a Democratic win.
This is what the Democratic Party gets for rejecting calls for a primary and keeping the president cloistered away.
In addition to what @Crœsos said and asked, what are you talking about with “rejecting calls for a primary”? Primaries are not “called for.” They automatically happen (in those states that hold primaries rather than caucuses, which is almost all states), unless no candidate files to run in the primary.
I expressed myself poorly, apologies. I meant that the primary was perfunctory, and not a real and vigorous one with debates and genuine campaigning. I know as head of the party Biden has a lot of say over those maneuvers, but clearly a genuine primary would have benefited everyone.
It was actually quite a typical primary for a party that has the White House and a president who can run for reelection. And as @Crœsos said, there were a number of people who could have run against Biden and chose not to—possibly because in-party challengers to an incumbent, when they do happen, tend to weaken the incumbent (who is almost sure to win the primaries) and the party.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
There were? The historical record for a “proper primary” to challenge an incumbent shows that it generally doesn’t end well for the party in November. I don’t know of anyone in the party who thought it would help the party to have primary challengers to Biden.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
NPR’s Mara Liasson often says something along the lines of historical precedents are instructive until they’re not. You don’t know they’re not until after they’re not.
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
I disagree about the “no reason” bit. The three reasons I gave above have been in effect since last year. There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Biden since jump. And I can’t help but feel many DNC bigwigs were aware of Biden’s challenges and chose to do nothing about it. And they were certainly aware of the concerns about Biden’s age and slipping poll numbers because those have been present since late ‘23, if not earlier.
I didn’t say there was no reason to want a candidate other than Biden. I said there was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was preferable to Biden being the candidate. There was no reason to think that inter-party fighting was the way to get a candidate other than Biden—not when every time in the past that has happened (or at least every time I can think of), the result has been losing the White House.
The route to that goal would have been to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Again, I disagree about the “no reason” part. You may judge the reasons given to be inadequate or not otherwise worth the risk, but there were reasons. The mere fact that Trump was polling as well as he was against Biden was reason to think maybe doing something different was warranted. There were plenty of reasons to think doing something different was warranted.
I’ll rephrase to say there was no reason to think that inter-party fighting would increase the likelihood of a Democratic win.
I disagree. I think an actual, contested primary would have either demonstrated Biden as being competent, capable, and in control or given an avenue for people to vote for someone else. I know Biden didn’t want to step aside and all that, but the DNC and the party more generally could adopt an attitude that doesn’t view a contested primary against an incumbent as offensive or whatever and instead view it as an opportunity for the incumbent to continue demonstrating their ability to lead the party.
I also don’t understand why a contested primary would “weaken” an incumbent.
Because the case made by any challenger would have to focus on why the incumbent isn’t qualified to serve another 4 years. If the incumbent survives the challenge(s), which is more likely than not*, those claims, from within the party, of not being qualified would also survive, and would be used by the other party.
* It’s worth remembering that, at least so far as I can remember and confirm with a quick check, despite Biden’s low approval ratings generally, his approval rating among those who identify as Democrats or who lean Democratic has generally remained above 60%.
I think an actual, contested primary would have either demonstrated Biden as being competent, capable, and in control or given an avenue for people to vote for someone else.
This is an unsupported claim. To convince others, you need to support it with facts and/or reasoning.
I know Biden didn’t want to step aside and all that, but the DNC and the party more generally could adopt an attitude that doesn’t view a contested primary against an incumbent as offensive or whatever and instead view it as an opportunity for the incumbent to continue demonstrating their ability to lead the party.
They can't view it differently and somehow change the reality that contested primaries involving an incumbent only weaken the person who starts off as the strongest candidate. If this worked, someone between 1972 and 2024 would have done it.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the mechanisms of the DNC, nor do I pretend to be a high level political operative.
Are you sure about that? You seem to be devoting a lot of energy to lecturing various Democratic institutions on how they should conduct their presidential primaries.
I find it hard to believe, though, that the party was completely helpless to do anything other than fall in line behind Biden simply because he’s the incumbent. If that is the case then that’s further evidence of the sorry state of party politics in America.
Once again, any high profile Democrat could have decided to challenge Biden's candidacy. They all looked at the prospects and decided it wasn't something they wanted to do. The question isn't "why didn't 'the party' try to derail Biden's re-election bid?" but rather "what should 'the party' (however imagined) have done to change the minds of prominent Democrats who had already decided against running for president in 2024?" Another related question is why party elites should be putting their thumbs on the scale in this way. Being an incumbent president gives the candidate plenty of opportunities to demonstrate "being competent, capable, and in control", as you put it. For example, here's Biden holding an hour long press conference on foreign policy after the recent NATO summit.
I also don’t understand why a contested primary would “weaken” an incumbent.
Because the case made by any challenger would have to focus on why the incumbent isn’t qualified to serve another 4 years. If the incumbent survives the challenge(s), which is more likely than not*, those claims, from within the party, of not being qualified would also survive, and would be used by the other party.
* It’s worth remembering that, at least so far as I can remember and confirm with a quick check, despite Biden’s low approval ratings generally, his approval rating among those who identify as Democrats or who lean Democratic has generally remained above 60%.
I get the reasoning, but given that the opposition is going to make the same claims, heading those off early and developing a strategy to deal with them seems like it would strengthen the candidate. Like we don't assume that the winners of last year's world series is the team to beat this year, so why assume that with the president? Primaries are frequently contested and vigorous for congressional seats and those competing in such races aren't usually ostracized from the party, it's seen as just the way of politics.
I think an actual, contested primary would have either demonstrated Biden as being competent, capable, and in control or given an avenue for people to vote for someone else.
This is an unsupported claim. To convince others, you need to support it with facts and/or reasoning.
I know Biden didn’t want to step aside and all that, but the DNC and the party more generally could adopt an attitude that doesn’t view a contested primary against an incumbent as offensive or whatever and instead view it as an opportunity for the incumbent to continue demonstrating their ability to lead the party.
They can't view it differently and somehow change the reality that contested primaries involving an incumbent only weaken the person who starts off as the strongest candidate. If this worked, someone between 1972 and 2024 would have done it.
Sorry, I thought my reasoning was fairly obvious. If Biden (or any incumbent) had to go up against primary challengers then he would have to defend his record from, ostensibly, nicer challengers than the Republicans. He would also have to reunify the party behind him, which would give him an actual mandate for dealing with the Republican opposition once the general election comes around.
As for the claim that contested primaries weaken the incumbent: Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 were all pretty weak to begin with. I don't think the primary did them in, although I've no data or whatever to back this up and lack the inclination to find any.
And, just in general, we're in such an unusual political climate that I really think looking to the past is not all that much help anymore.
Comments
I found the Sikh prayer kind of interesting, if only from a sociological viewpoint. I kept trying to glean the audience reaction, but it seemed pretty neutral. I'm guessing the big screen that tells them when to applaud was beaming BOO, AND YOU'LL BE IN GUANTANAMO THE DAY AFTER THE INAUGURATION.
No surprise that Trump seemed cool with it, since she's apparently one of his favorite lawyers, and he likely doesn't have any religious sensibilities to offend in the first place.
Right but the party could have encouraged a proper primary. There were plenty of people who wanted to see one.
Those people who wanted a proper primary needed to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Given the amount of voters who didn’t want to see a Trump v. Biden rematch, Biden’s low approval ratings, and the generally unprecedented nature of this election I’m not sure how much the past is a good indicator of how things would have turned out. It’s a moot point, of course.
Again, exactly what kind of mechanism do you suggest that the Democratic Party use to convince/force some of its members to launch a primary campaign against an incumbent president of their own party? I'm trying to imagine that conversation.
"Sorry, Senator Klobuchar. I know you'd rather run for re-election in the Senate but the party needs you to run a hopeless primary campaign against a popular incumbent president."
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The House Majority PAC
The Democratic Senate National Campaign Committee
The Senate Majority PAC
The Democratic National Committee, and
Priorities USA
As president, Biden may influence who is the chair of the National Democratic Committee. but he is not the head of the party.
Would they really prefer Trump ?
A few would. Rather more might fail to vote or be less enthusiastic in encouraging others to vote. In any case if "not being Trump" is the sole criterion then Biden is as good as any replacement.
Here is a report of what some more extreme MAGA-ists thought of it. They were not cool with it, we may safely summarise. I suppose the only encouraging thing that can be said is that it shows the internal tensions within the Trump-right.
The parallels with what happened in Spain, Italy and Germany in the 1930s are there for all who have eyes to see.
And so to our prayers.
I see little evidence that Trump is on God's side.
And IMHO that's what counts.
Not really.
US polls vary significantly in quality. The reporting of polls is also extremely misleading.
What is known, is that polls of likely voters show the race to be basically neck-a-neck.
As always, due to the Electoral College, the result is decided by the small number of swing states. Behind the headline figures is a lot of fudge. Turnout makes a difference of 2 or 3 % points (because turn out is notoriously low in US elections). Similarly the normal polling error (which is what meant Trump won in '16 when several pundits had written him off*) can be significant. The significance comes from the fact that a poll provides a spread but the outcome is binary. One person wins, one person loses. If a candidate is 20 points ahead then they're gonna win. Unless the poll is completely flawed there's no real doubt about that. If we factor in statistical error and polling error (due to methodology) it might add up to overestimating one candidate by 6% and underestimating the other by the same hence the 20 point lead is in reality only 8 points. So what? The result is the same. When candidates are within 3 points, the polls do not tell you what the result will be.
So, here's the facts.
The truth is that pundits talking about it being "Trump's election to lose" are basing that on no real data. Fivethirtyeight's model has Biden more likely to win than Trump (by a very small margin). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
I am slightly sceptical about whether Biden will step aside or not. I do not really trust these kind of media rumours. Although one this persistent usually has some basis in reality. But it's all insane and fucking irresponsible. Where is the focus on the reality of Trump's capabilities, mental state, lies and plans for government. THAT is the story. I believe Biden can win. Not a certainty - please God, I wish that it were. I also believe that another Democrat can win - please God, anyone but Trump. It is a very fluid situation but so much of the media narrative is over-reading the data.
It is a very close race. That is all we really know apart from the fact that it really should not be.
AFZ
*Fivethirtyeight has is critics. Especially since the last few elections. I go back to them because of how they handled the 2016 situation. Most pundits said that Trump could not win - that the chance was around 1%. This was based on a classical statistical fallacy, that events were independent when they weren't.
I cannot remember the states in question but in order to win Trump needed 4 or 5 states that showed Clinton slightly ahead. The chances of each of these polls being wrong (i.e. Trump was actually slightly ahead) are relatively high as a 6-7% polling error is not unusual. So Clinton 53 - Tump 47 could easily be Trump 52 - Clinton 48. The odds of that in any particular state may be something like 30%. (Depending on the performance of the polling models and the accuracy of sampling).
Pundits looked at these 5 states - and Trump needed at least 4 of them and went well, if the odds are 30% in one state, then Trump winning four such states must be 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.0081. I.e. less than 1% chance. That only holds true is the events are independent. AND THEY ARE NOT. If one poll was wrong in terms over-reporting Clinton support and under-reporting Trump support by enough to flip the state, then the others probably would be as well. This is because the polls uses the same methodology on populations that were incredibly similar. Hence if one state's polling was wrong in one particular direction then all of them almost certainly would be too.
This is why on the day of the 2016 election the 538 model had Trump's chance of winning at 30%. This was a massive outlier as virtually everyone else had written him off.
This footnote is now very long but you see the point; national polling that has Trump/Biden within 2-3% points does not (especially three-four months out) tell you anything with certainty. The polls were systemically wrong in 2016. There are reasons to think the polls are systemically wrong (the other way) now. The reason I am worried is that we just do not know.
I think Nick Fuentes and company are what the kids today call "terminally on-line". I doubt this outrage is gonna effect the voting habits of many real-world Republicans. Most of MAGA just worships Trump and goes along with whatever he wants, and the religious-right knows he gives them them the right judges, and are unlikely to incite their followers against him over one prayer.
And if I understand what is meant by saying this woman is a lawyer who works on behalf "religious freedom", she's basically an active member of the religious-right herself.
Well, Trump has also stated that he doesn't ever ask God for forgiveness because he never sins, so...
He wasn’t a popular incumbent, just an incumbent.
This is what I mean by saying the party could have supported a primary. None of those consequences are required.
And actually, only a plurality in most states.
Who or what is "the party" in this sentence? These consequences are the usual political calculations politicians make when an incumbent president is running. When was the last time someone ran against and defeated a sitting president in the primaries?
If Democratic bigwigs screwed up, it was by not figuring out sooner that Biden was not going to be a good campaigner. The real blame rests on Biden and his closest aides. I wish he'd declared in January 2021 that he was going to be a one-term president and go balls out doing that job since he wouldn't seek reelection, and let the next generation of candidates be sorted out in thr meantime.
@alienfromzog, you might be interested in leaked internal Democratic polling from BlueLabs that shows potential candidates other than Biden do better than Trump by 3 to 5 percentage points: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000190-be78-dd41-afb9-fefc35f00000
Caissa replies: In 1968, the Dems had a very lively primary season. If RFK had not been assassinated he may have won the nomination and the presidency.
You might do well to define *God* in this context...
I read somewhere that Trump kissed the chap's helmet, and embraced his firefighter's uniform, thereby (presumably) consecrating them as holy relics of a man who laid down his life for his President.
It's easy to see how legends - and false religions - are created.
“The party” refers precisely to the Democratic bigwigs who knew about the president’s state and pretended everything was fine. And I agree that there’s not been an instance in the past of a sitting president being defeated in a primary. There’s also not been an instance in the past of an incumbent president losing in the polls to a twice impeached, convicted felon found liable for sexual assault. Unprecedented times and all.
Yep. And theoretical polls are notoriously unreliable at predicting actual voter behaviour
Out to dinner last night I overheard someone at another table say as we were leaving that she didn't like Harris but would support her if she were the candidate, and I interjected that I'd vote for a ham sandwich if it were the Democratic nominee, and the woman shook my hand.
1000% this. God Bless America. (Now, more than ever...)
There was no reason in late 2023 to think inter-party fighting would be better for the Democratic Party than another go with Biden, who had beaten Trump once before. Again, these party “big-wigs” needed to convince Biden not to run, not convince others to run against him, if they wanted a different candidate.
The modern primary system dates from 1972. It was adopted in part as a response to the mess that was 1968.
Good to see you, @Ruth!
I disagree about the “no reason” bit. The three reasons I gave above have been in effect since last year. There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Biden since jump. And I can’t help but feel many DNC bigwigs were aware of Biden’s challenges and chose to do nothing about it. And they were certainly aware of the concerns about Biden’s age and slipping poll numbers because those have been present since late ‘23, if not earlier.
The route to that goal would have been to convince Biden not to run to start with.
Again, I disagree about the “no reason” part. You may judge the reasons given to be inadequate or not otherwise worth the risk, but there were reasons. The mere fact that Trump was polling as well as he was against Biden was reason to think maybe doing something different was warranted. There were plenty of reasons to think doing something different was warranted.
I mean, it's not like these people would have been risking torture and death if they'd left the Republican party. If you write a book in which you seriously ponder whether Trump is the "American Hitler", as Vance did, why wouldn't you change your allegiance?
I think you mean Liz Cheney.
There is a common mantra in the Republican party that goes, "Party United."
Democrats are usually all over the place.
There have been a few incumbent presidents who had to face down primary challengers. Ford in 1976. Carter in 1980. George H.W. Bush in 1992. These are all the instances since the start of the modern primary system. The closest example of an incumbent president being unseated in a primary I can think of is Lyndon Johnson deciding to end his campaign after a narrower than expected win in the New Hampshire primary, but that was in 1968 when the primary system as we know it today was still in its chrysalis stage.
The notable thing here is that, with the exception of Johnson, the incumbent president was able to successfully quash the primary challenge but went on to lose the general election. This presents us with a chicken-or-egg problem of interpretation. Did the contested primary weaken the incumbent president enough to assure his eventual electoral defeat, or was the incumbent correctly perceived as a weak candidate leading to primary challenges from ambitious rivals? Either way that does not seem to be the case with Biden. During the primaries there was a fairly well founded belief that Biden was popular enough, at least with Democratic primary voters, that any challenge from a fellow Democrat would be futile.
Once again, I'm forced to ask @Thomas Rowans what mechanism should have been used by which particular entity to convince/force prominent Democrats to change their minds about challenging Biden for the presidential nomination?
I also don’t understand why a contested primary would “weaken” an incumbent.
I disagree. I think an actual, contested primary would have either demonstrated Biden as being competent, capable, and in control or given an avenue for people to vote for someone else. I know Biden didn’t want to step aside and all that, but the DNC and the party more generally could adopt an attitude that doesn’t view a contested primary against an incumbent as offensive or whatever and instead view it as an opportunity for the incumbent to continue demonstrating their ability to lead the party.
Because the case made by any challenger would have to focus on why the incumbent isn’t qualified to serve another 4 years. If the incumbent survives the challenge(s), which is more likely than not*, those claims, from within the party, of not being qualified would also survive, and would be used by the other party.
* It’s worth remembering that, at least so far as I can remember and confirm with a quick check, despite Biden’s low approval ratings generally, his approval rating among those who identify as Democrats or who lean Democratic has generally remained above 60%.
This is an unsupported claim. To convince others, you need to support it with facts and/or reasoning.
They can't view it differently and somehow change the reality that contested primaries involving an incumbent only weaken the person who starts off as the strongest candidate. If this worked, someone between 1972 and 2024 would have done it.
Are you sure about that? You seem to be devoting a lot of energy to lecturing various Democratic institutions on how they should conduct their presidential primaries.
Once again, any high profile Democrat could have decided to challenge Biden's candidacy. They all looked at the prospects and decided it wasn't something they wanted to do. The question isn't "why didn't 'the party' try to derail Biden's re-election bid?" but rather "what should 'the party' (however imagined) have done to change the minds of prominent Democrats who had already decided against running for president in 2024?" Another related question is why party elites should be putting their thumbs on the scale in this way. Being an incumbent president gives the candidate plenty of opportunities to demonstrate "being competent, capable, and in control", as you put it. For example, here's Biden holding an hour long press conference on foreign policy after the recent NATO summit.
I get the reasoning, but given that the opposition is going to make the same claims, heading those off early and developing a strategy to deal with them seems like it would strengthen the candidate. Like we don't assume that the winners of last year's world series is the team to beat this year, so why assume that with the president? Primaries are frequently contested and vigorous for congressional seats and those competing in such races aren't usually ostracized from the party, it's seen as just the way of politics.
Sorry, I thought my reasoning was fairly obvious. If Biden (or any incumbent) had to go up against primary challengers then he would have to defend his record from, ostensibly, nicer challengers than the Republicans. He would also have to reunify the party behind him, which would give him an actual mandate for dealing with the Republican opposition once the general election comes around.
As for the claim that contested primaries weaken the incumbent: Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 were all pretty weak to begin with. I don't think the primary did them in, although I've no data or whatever to back this up and lack the inclination to find any.
And, just in general, we're in such an unusual political climate that I really think looking to the past is not all that much help anymore.