Marina Hyde of the Guardian wryly points out an odd feature of the gathering in Milwaukee - the presence of several people who are not especially highly regarded in the UK any more:
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.
Holy hyperbole! My brother in Christ, I'm discussing politics on an obscure online forum. Lecturing Democratic institutions? Lol. Lmao.
And, once again, the party is set up in such a way that it just falls lockstep behind the incumbent, which is odd. Ideally the purpose of elections is to put forward the strongest candidate, not just the candidate that happens to be there.
Also, I listened to Biden's press conference when it happened. It was certainly adequate.
And, once again, the party is set up in such a way that it just falls lockstep behind the incumbent, which is odd. Ideally the purpose of elections is to put forward the strongest candidate, not just the candidate that happens to be there.
"The Party" isn't set up that way. It is possible to mount a primary challenge to an incumbent president. Dean Phillips did so, as I mentioned earlier and which you continue to ignore. No shadowy Party forces swooped in to stop him from breaking the allegedly mandatory lockstep. He was simply rejected overwhelmingly by voters. This unaddressed point seems to undercut your theorized conspiracy by some ill-defined group within the Democratic party to suppress non-Biden presidential candidates.
As for the claim that contested primaries weaken the incumbent: Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 were all pretty weak to begin with.
As was Biden.
I see the point you’re making. But I’m afraid I see no reason to agree with it, and lots of reasons, history and experience included, to disagree with it. It seems more like “what I think the political realities ought to be” than “what the political realities are.”
And, once again, the party is set up in such a way that it just falls lockstep behind the incumbent, which is odd. Ideally the purpose of elections is to put forward the strongest candidate, not just the candidate that happens to be there.
"The Party" isn't set up that way. It is possible to mount a primary challenge to an incumbent president. Dean Phillips did so, as I mentioned earlier and which you continue to ignore. No shadowy Party forces swooped in to stop him from breaking the allegedly mandatory lockstep. He was simply rejected overwhelmingly by voters. This unaddressed point seems to undercut your theorized conspiracy by some ill-defined group within the Democratic party to suppress non-Biden presidential candidates.
Party politics in America overwhelmingly favor the incumbent. What I'm suggesting is that the party could support, or encourage, a contested primary through various means: holding debates, giving airtime to challengers, etc. Surely the system we have isn't the only system possible, forever and ever world without end. The possibility of a better system is particularly acute right now given Biden's weaknesses, which have been well-known for awhile.
As for the claim that contested primaries weaken the incumbent: Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 were all pretty weak to begin with.
As was Biden.
I see the point you’re making. But I’m afraid I see no reason to agree with it, and lots of reasons, history and experience included, to disagree with it. It seems more like “what I think the political realities ought to be” than “what the political realities are.”
That's fair. It literally doesn't matter what we think. This is just idle speculation.
I disagree about what the political realities are. That's partly my point, the DNC has not caught up to what the political realities of today encompass. Not by a long shot.
Party politics in America overwhelmingly favor the incumbent. What I'm suggesting is that the party could support, or encourage, a contested primary through various means: holding debates, giving airtime to challengers, etc.
Interesting suggestion. According to Ballotpedia 323 people registered with the FEC to run for president on the 2024 Democratic ticket. It seems an unwieldy number to have debate each other, and I suspect that once you announce that anyone who registers gets free nationwide air time that number would balloon. Given these realities the very pragmatic decision is usually made to give debate invitations only to those who meet some minimum threshold of public support, rather than anyone who can operate a pen successfully enough to fill out some FEC paperwork. How would you do this differently?
Marina Hyde of the Guardian wryly points out an odd feature of the gathering in Milwaukee - the presence of several people who are not especially highly regarded in the UK any more:
Sorry, America. You have enough to deal with already...
I just came here to post about Liz Truss' speech to the Pennsylvania delegation, informing them that she had just purchased a Liberty Bell showerhead at the Ronald Reagan ranch in California.
Marina Hyde of the Guardian wryly points out an odd feature of the gathering in Milwaukee - the presence of several people who are not especially highly regarded in the UK any more:
Sorry, America. You have enough to deal with already...
I just came here to post about Liz Truss' speech to the Pennsylvania delegation, informing them that she had just purchased a Liberty Bell showerhead at the Ronald Reagan ranch in California.
The Democratic party has seldom been completely united behind their nominee. I can go as far the Kennedy nomination. Kennedy was a Northern Democrat, but he was strongly opposed by the Southern democratic coalition. He resolved that problem by nominating Johnson as his VP. When Johnson ran, there was an anit-war coalition. When Humphry ran, he still had to contend with the anti Vietnam War members. Clinton was considered too conservative for some Democrats. The Clintons strongly opposed Obama. They had hoped the nomination would go to Hilary. Biden had to contend with Sanders.
The only time a Democratic nominee was unopposed in the process was Obama's second nomination as I recall.
As a public service announcement for any shipmates living in Ohio, your state will be purging 160,000 registered voters from its rolls on Monday (22 July 2024). This is about 2% of the total voter registrations in the state. If you want to check to see if your registration was mistakenly purged you can do so at https://registrationreadiness.ohiosos.gov/
Marina Hyde of the Guardian wryly points out an odd feature of the gathering in Milwaukee - the presence of several people who are not especially highly regarded in the UK any more:
Sorry, America. You have enough to deal with already...
I just came here to post about Liz Truss' speech to the Pennsylvania delegation, informing them that she had just purchased a Liberty Bell showerhead at the Ronald Reagan ranch in California.
Is Truss still in favor of a republic?
Well, she's probably at least in favour of whatever right-wing populists mean by "liberty".
Marina Hyde of the Guardian wryly points out an odd feature of the gathering in Milwaukee - the presence of several people who are not especially highly regarded in the UK any more:
Sorry, America. You have enough to deal with already...
I just came here to post about Liz Truss' speech to the Pennsylvania delegation, informing them that she had just purchased a Liberty Bell showerhead at the Ronald Reagan ranch in California.
Is Truss still in favor of a republic?
Well, she's probably at least in favour of whatever right-wing populists mean by "liberty".
Trump and Vance have both talked a lot about wanting to make the US dollar weaker in order to support US exports; he thinks our trade deficit is very bad. If Trump somehow implemented the various things passing for economic policy in his word salad speeches and social media rantings, the US economy could be quite a mess, and I don't get the impression he understands how things in the national and global economies interact. Tariffs on imports would be inflationary, and they'd also make other countries weaken their currencies relative to the dollar. Tax cuts would increase the deficit and the national debt, which would push up interest rates, which strengthens the dollar.
Trump and Vance have both talked a lot about wanting to make the US dollar weaker in order to support US exports;
Although for all sorts of reasons this is unlikely to work, not least because the dollar is the global reserve currency and the US the consumer of last resort.
Yep, it’s happened. I feel a mixture of relief and terror. Relief, because it removes the issue that wasn’t going away and that was keeping everyone distracted from the horrors of a potential Trump presidency. And because the Dems *could* make their August convention a hopeful event that celebrates Biden’s accomplishments and presents the best alternative for the future. (This is my optimistic half.)
But there are many bumps in the road ahead. The ensuing MAGA attack on Harris will be a vile cocktail of racism and sexism. And if it’s not Harris (which runs into all kinds of legal and financial hurdles mentioned elsewhere in this thread), prepare for legal challenges and other such GOP shenanigans. Finally, my pessimistic self fears the Dems’ potential to muck up the opportunity. God help us.
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
I think it is for the best; he can go out with honor. I am more than willing to support Harris. I was not always a big fan, but I think she can handle the job. Interested in who will be Vice President.
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
I don’t know that he would have made any other decision, but it would have been devastating (not just to Harris but to the party as a whole) if he had issued what would have amounted to a vote of no confidence. Will it help the dynamics of the Party? I honestly don’t know. Republicans historically have tended to fall in line while Dems have been more like herding cats.
Right now the talk is “do we want a truly Open Convention or just have a Harris coronation?” And that could get ugly before it’s over with.
I just heard. Holy $%^&***! I didn't think it would happen.
I hoped it wouldn't happen, but I am not surprised. It is hard to run an effective campaign when your OWN PARTY keeps telling the voters that you aren't fit for the job. Basically, the Democrats put Biden in a position where he really couldn't do anything else. And of course he will endorse and support Harris, first because he does believe in her and second because he remains faithful to the party that was faithless to him.
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
Perhaps if there was an open primary with support for all of the candidates a last minute dropout wouldn’t have happened. Who’s to say.
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
Probably not. At this point, Harris is the heir presumptive, and whether or not you genuinely think that Kamala Harris is the best candidate for president, the optics of replacing a black woman with someone who probably wouldn't be a black woman is pretty bad.
Biden's support of Harris is I think expected, and so already priced in.
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
Perhaps if there was an open primary with support for all of the candidates a last minute dropout wouldn’t have happened. Who’s to say.
As pointed out, there was a primary. It was open to anyone who chose to participate. Even non-Democrats like Bernie Sanders have been known to participate in Democratic presidential primaries. "All the candidates" who managed even a little support were the Biden/Harris campaign, Dean Phillips, and Marianne Williamson (last seen two days ago trying to poach Joe Biden's delegates). Everyone else decided to sit it out. Your objection seems to be to the fact that the Democratic party (however conceived) cannot conjure candidates into existence ex nihilo, and then similarly conjure up an electoral base to support them.
I think it will pique people's interest, make for an exciting election, and give the party a lot more free air time. I was not going to vote for Trump no matter what, but now I am more hopeful about the race.
No, CM - it's not just you. I do hope the American People get behind Ms Harris; I'd like to think that her gender and colour shouldn't matter to people who are sensible and decent enough to vote Democrat.
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
Perhaps if there was an open primary with support for all of the candidates a last minute dropout wouldn’t have happened. Who’s to say.
As pointed out, there was a primary. It was open to anyone who chose to participate. Even non-Democrats like Bernie Sanders have been known to participate in Democratic presidential primaries. "All the candidates" who managed even a little support were the Biden/Harris campaign, Dean Phillips, and Marianne Williamson (last seen two days ago trying to poach Joe Biden's delegates). Everyone else decided to sit it out. Your objection seems to be to the fact that the Democratic party (however conceived) cannot conjure candidates into existence ex nihilo, and then similarly conjure up an electoral base to support them.
I admire your defense of the status quo. Are you a party official in real life? Everything is working as planned, eh?
No, CM - it's not just you. I do hope the American People get behind Ms Harris; I'd like to think that her gender and colour shouldn't matter to people who are sensible and decent enough to vote Democrat.
I totally agree with the BIB but as a concerned observer I want to know about her qualities and what makes her especially qualified for the job.
The ensuing MAGA attack on Harris will be a vile cocktail of racism and sexism.
In a rather perverse and depressing way, I do wonder if Trump will be able to restrain himself and his surrogates in this regard, or if they’ll manage to turn off the swing voters they need by taking the sexism and racism too far?
BBC reports Biden supporting Harris for the nomination - will that help from the perspective of the internal dynamics of the Democratic party picking their nominee ?
Perhaps if there was an open primary with support for all of the candidates a last minute dropout wouldn’t have happened. Who’s to say.
Support from whom? The party? The party, aka the Democratic National Committee, doesn’t support any candidate in a primary, and the primaries themselves are run by the states, not by the DNC.
No, CM - it's not just you. I do hope the American People get behind Ms Harris; I'd like to think that her gender and colour shouldn't matter to people who are sensible and decent enough to vote Democrat.
I totally agree with the BIB but as a concerned observer I want to know about her qualities and what makes her especially qualified for the job.
Without intending to suggest in any way that she isn’t qualified, as far as I’m concerned the fact that her last name isn’t “Trump” makes her more qualified than the Trump Party candidate.
I hope the DNC knows what it's doing. I, for one, am glad Pres. Biden is stepping down. IIRC, he hadn't originally planned to seek re-election when he jumped in at the last minute in 2020. I'm looking forward to candidate VP Harris' campaign, and I will be thinking about and searching the tea leaves for an inkling about her running mate.
Harris will be a strong advocate for women's choice. She has strong connections with South East Asia. Her skills as prosecutor will stand up to Trump's continued falsehoods. At least she can string together a coherent sentence.
First, though, is the open Democratic Convention. The first time since Humphrey's nomination. And we will have gavel to gavel coverage. Looking forward to it. It will show a vivacious party on the left, instead of a moribund party on the right.
So there’s nothing that could have been done differently? The system we have is perfect? Lol
Nobody has said that.
What some of us have said is that the alternative you have suggested appears to ignore what actually happened during the Democratic primaries, as well as how—for better or worse—the primary system has worked for decades, which informs the calculations of those who are actually considering running for office.
A number of prominent Democrats have already endorsed Harris, and no one has said they will run against her. Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Roy Cooper, and Josh Shapiro - all governors who could make plausible cases for their own candidacies - have endorsed Harris. So have the Clintons. Several state delegations to the Democratic National Convention have held informal straw polls, and they have all come out in favor of Harris. ActBlue says they took in $27.5 million in small-dollar donations for her campaign within 5 hours after Harris said she's running.
I think this will informally be over very quickly because no one will offer a serious challenge. The real horse trading will be in the choice of the VP candidate.
And guess who is old and therefore unfit to run now? I think the Republicans need to change their tune, but it may be too late. They have been singing that song for too long.
And guess who is old and therefore unfit to run now? I think the Republicans need to change their tune, but it may be too late. They have been singing that song for too long.
“The first party to retire its 80-year-old candidate is going to be the one who wins this election.”
Who ever is chosen to be the Democrat candidate needs to be the President asap. To achieve this Biden needs to make them Vice President and then immediately resign as President ( Not necessary if it's Harris) It would give them time to make an impression actually doing the job.
Who ever is chosen to be the Democrat candidate needs to be the President asap. To achieve this Biden needs to make them Vice President and then immediately resign as President ( Not necessary if it's Harris) It would give them time to make an impression actually doing the job.
Biden can’t just make someone Vice President. Kamala Harris was elected to that position and sworn in; she holds that office; Biden can only replace her if she dies, resigns, becomes incapacitated or is impeached and removed from office.
And his appointment of a replacement would require confirmation by both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives, with its Republican majority (slight though that majority be) might not want to play along in giving the Democratic candidate the benefit of incumbency.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/19/britain-trump-whisperer-boris-johnson-liz-truss-nigel-farage-republican-national-convention
Sorry, America. You have enough to deal with already...
Holy hyperbole! My brother in Christ, I'm discussing politics on an obscure online forum. Lecturing Democratic institutions? Lol. Lmao.
And, once again, the party is set up in such a way that it just falls lockstep behind the incumbent, which is odd. Ideally the purpose of elections is to put forward the strongest candidate, not just the candidate that happens to be there.
Also, I listened to Biden's press conference when it happened. It was certainly adequate.
"The Party" isn't set up that way. It is possible to mount a primary challenge to an incumbent president. Dean Phillips did so, as I mentioned earlier and which you continue to ignore. No shadowy Party forces swooped in to stop him from breaking the allegedly mandatory lockstep. He was simply rejected overwhelmingly by voters. This unaddressed point seems to undercut your theorized conspiracy by some ill-defined group within the Democratic party to suppress non-Biden presidential candidates.
I see the point you’re making. But I’m afraid I see no reason to agree with it, and lots of reasons, history and experience included, to disagree with it. It seems more like “what I think the political realities ought to be” than “what the political realities are.”
Party politics in America overwhelmingly favor the incumbent. What I'm suggesting is that the party could support, or encourage, a contested primary through various means: holding debates, giving airtime to challengers, etc. Surely the system we have isn't the only system possible, forever and ever world without end. The possibility of a better system is particularly acute right now given Biden's weaknesses, which have been well-known for awhile.
That's fair. It literally doesn't matter what we think. This is just idle speculation.
I disagree about what the political realities are. That's partly my point, the DNC has not caught up to what the political realities of today encompass. Not by a long shot.
Interesting suggestion. According to Ballotpedia 323 people registered with the FEC to run for president on the 2024 Democratic ticket. It seems an unwieldy number to have debate each other, and I suspect that once you announce that anyone who registers gets free nationwide air time that number would balloon. Given these realities the very pragmatic decision is usually made to give debate invitations only to those who meet some minimum threshold of public support, rather than anyone who can operate a pen successfully enough to fill out some FEC paperwork. How would you do this differently?
I don’t know brother. You seem pretty clever, how would you do a different primary system?
I just came here to post about Liz Truss' speech to the Pennsylvania delegation, informing them that she had just purchased a Liberty Bell showerhead at the Ronald Reagan ranch in California.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2024/jul/20/whos-been-jumping-on-trumps-bandage-bandwagon
This isn't restricted to random members of the public:
https://x.com/talktv/status/1814189917435777222
TalkTV is - of course - part of the News International stable of media outlets.
Is Truss still in favor of a republic?
The only time a Democratic nominee was unopposed in the process was Obama's second nomination as I recall.
Well, she's probably at least in favour of whatever right-wing populists mean by "liberty".
Ohh ohhh, I know this one!
Liberty = absolute freedom for the US Dollar.
Although for all sorts of reasons this is unlikely to work, not least because the dollar is the global reserve currency and the US the consumer of last resort.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e5xpdzkd8o
But there are many bumps in the road ahead. The ensuing MAGA attack on Harris will be a vile cocktail of racism and sexism. And if it’s not Harris (which runs into all kinds of legal and financial hurdles mentioned elsewhere in this thread), prepare for legal challenges and other such GOP shenanigans. Finally, my pessimistic self fears the Dems’ potential to muck up the opportunity. God help us.
I don’t know that he would have made any other decision, but it would have been devastating (not just to Harris but to the party as a whole) if he had issued what would have amounted to a vote of no confidence. Will it help the dynamics of the Party? I honestly don’t know. Republicans historically have tended to fall in line while Dems have been more like herding cats.
Right now the talk is “do we want a truly Open Convention or just have a Harris coronation?” And that could get ugly before it’s over with.
I hoped it wouldn't happen, but I am not surprised. It is hard to run an effective campaign when your OWN PARTY keeps telling the voters that you aren't fit for the job. Basically, the Democrats put Biden in a position where he really couldn't do anything else. And of course he will endorse and support Harris, first because he does believe in her and second because he remains faithful to the party that was faithless to him.
Perhaps if there was an open primary with support for all of the candidates a last minute dropout wouldn’t have happened. Who’s to say.
Probably not. At this point, Harris is the heir presumptive, and whether or not you genuinely think that Kamala Harris is the best candidate for president, the optics of replacing a black woman with someone who probably wouldn't be a black woman is pretty bad.
Biden's support of Harris is I think expected, and so already priced in.
As pointed out, there was a primary. It was open to anyone who chose to participate. Even non-Democrats like Bernie Sanders have been known to participate in Democratic presidential primaries. "All the candidates" who managed even a little support were the Biden/Harris campaign, Dean Phillips, and Marianne Williamson (last seen two days ago trying to poach Joe Biden's delegates). Everyone else decided to sit it out. Your objection seems to be to the fact that the Democratic party (however conceived) cannot conjure candidates into existence ex nihilo, and then similarly conjure up an electoral base to support them.
I admire your defense of the status quo. Are you a party official in real life? Everything is working as planned, eh?
I hope and pray he recovers - apart from anything else, he deserves a happy and healthy retirement.
Support from whom? The party? The party, aka the Democratic National Committee, doesn’t support any candidate in a primary, and the primaries themselves are run by the states, not by the DNC.
Without intending to suggest in any way that she isn’t qualified, as far as I’m concerned the fact that her last name isn’t “Trump” makes her more qualified than the Trump Party candidate.
I guess there was no way to assess Joe Biden’s fitness for office before his historically early debate with Trump. A shame no one could have known.
The nice thing about this forum is that if you want to see what middle class boomers think in real time you can just come here!
First, though, is the open Democratic Convention. The first time since Humphrey's nomination. And we will have gavel to gavel coverage. Looking forward to it. It will show a vivacious party on the left, instead of a moribund party on the right.
What some of us have said is that the alternative you have suggested appears to ignore what actually happened during the Democratic primaries, as well as how—for better or worse—the primary system has worked for decades, which informs the calculations of those who are actually considering running for office.
True that, but depressing all the same.
I think this will informally be over very quickly because no one will offer a serious challenge. The real horse trading will be in the choice of the VP candidate.
— Nikki Haley, January, 2024
And his appointment of a replacement would require confirmation by both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives, with its Republican majority (slight though that majority be) might not want to play along in giving the Democratic candidate the benefit of incumbency.