General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[EgonSpengler]

Lawrence O'Donell on the topic of replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee (spoiler: He's against it) It's 27 mins...

However, It's pretty good and raises a lot of points that don't generally get discussed in the context of this particular issue (ie Biden stepping aside). The best point raised, is that the President's main role, ie., making decisions, all happens, by necessity, because of classified information, public perception, etc., out of public view, ie., in private. :

TL;DR - I got you covered, since as I said... its 27 mins... The most interesting point raised was about the money and restriction on campaign spending...

1. Its too late to switch candidates. Campaigns are 4 years long and we are in "the 4th quarter" of "the game" (an American football analogy).
2. Gavin Newsom polls worse against Trump than Biden or Harris, that's why Newsom isn't running.
3. The only way to switch is at the Democratic convention in August. It can't be done now.
4. Every time a switch is done at the convention it results in a loss.
5. The last time Democrats attempted a switch at the convention (1968) it was an unmitigated disaster that resulted in rioting, police brutality, national embarrassment and the Democrats lost the election.
6. Contested conventions get dragged out and the Israel/Palestine issue will look bad for Democrats at the convention the longer it gets dragged out.
7. MONEY!!! Beautiful (campaign) money!! Muahahahaha! By law, no prospective Democratic candidate has any... besides Biden and Harris. (On this point, O'Donnell does concede eventually, that Biden/Harris would likely relinquish their campaign funds to the DNC if they were ousted, thus undermining his entire, otherwise compelling argument about money.)
8. Numerology/Bad Omens.
9. Age doesn't matter, because the Presidency is about making decisions not speeches.
10. The media covers the "theatre" of the Presidency, ie., speeches and gaffes... not the substance, ie., consequential decision-making. Everyone who sees Biden behind the scenes knows that he excels at decision-making (in terms of "sharpness/awareness").
11. FDR was disabled in a wheelchair and still managed to be one of the best Presidents ever, through one of the most difficult times ever. So Biden seeming old/frail should not dissuade peoples' confidence in him.
12. Biden's strength as a POTUS does not and can not get camera-time, because it is not allowed. Jon Stewart's admonition "do we have film?" of Joe Biden being sharp in making decisions, can't be satisfied, because the decisions Joe Biden makes, by law/necessity, must be made privately, as they involve the most sensitive national information, and sensitive political information, that can't be revealed publicly, for various reasons, including political reasons.

I haven't watched the video you posted yet, but I listened to Ezra Klein's podcasts on the topic, and he makes the opposite case, that Biden should withdraw and if he did it soon, the Democratic Party would still have time to nominate a new candidate.

1 & 3. The Democratic convention is in August, so if Biden withdrew soon, that'd be essentially 6 months. That's plenty of time.

2. Polls of potential Democrat alternatives to Biden are kind of "name-recognition tests" right now. All of the potential Democratic candidates are relative unknowns because they haven't been campaigning, so polls on them tell us even less than polls usually do.

4. I'm not sure what "Every time a switch is done at the convention" means. Is O'Donnell referring to sitting Presidents being "primaried" by their own party? If so, yeah, that has a bad history (albeit with a very, very small sample size - 2?). This scenario probably only works if Biden voluntarily steps aside and endorses finding someone else.

5. The riots in Chicago in 1968 outside the Democratic convention were about the Vietnam War, not about the convention. [EDIT: Riot is a loaded word. I feel obliged to clarify. There were protests, which only became a riot when the police attacked the protestors.] Incidentally (or not), it was the 1968 Democratic Convention that spurred the creation of the modern primaries. Party primary elections, as we know them today, began in 1972.

6a. Voting at the convention could drag out, yes. I would worry that perceived fighting within the Party about who their replacement candidate would be could hurt the eventual candidate's chances in the General, the same way "getting primaried" has in the past. There was one Democratic Convention in the 19th Century, I forget which one, that went something like 18 ballots without result, and they actually adjourned the entire convention for a month to sort themselves out. Anything like that would obviously be catastrophic.
6b. I don't see how the Israel/Palestine issue plays into that specifically, but if it is a salient issue, that's an argument for replacing Biden. It could be a problem for the Democrats regardless of who their nominee is, but right now Muslim Americans in places like Michigan are talking about not voting, or voting for a 3rd party candidate. Biden won Michigan by ~150,000 votes in 2020; there are ~500,000 Arab Americans in Michigan. If the 2024 election goes much the same as 2020, flipping Michigan alone wouldn't flip the whole thing, but still...

8, 9, 10 & 12. Much of this is about public perception. But it is a 'beauty pageant', after all, so perception matters. It could even be determinative. We probably remember people in '04 saying things like "you don't replace the President in the middle of a war", which of course was (a) untrue, we've replaced our President during a war before, and (b) a stupid thing to say, since it was Bush who'd started the war in the first place. But neither of those rebuttals mattered, because if people believed it, then it was a salient point, whether or not it was true or made any objective sense. If people think Biden is compromised and Trump isn't, it won't matter what the truth is, because they have to win the election first, and then govern.

11. I don't think FDR had any cognitive problems, which is the criticism of Biden related to his health. Unless the comparison is meant to imply that Biden is hiding a life-threatening illness and could die while in office. I guess I wouldn't know what to say, if that's the claim, except that's one of the reasons we have a Vice President.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Commander knows that he is a guard dog and that his Daddy is an important person and needs to be guarded... he takes his job seriously. The Secret Service is dealing with a dog who understandably views himself as the Captain of the Secret Service... because he has been guarding Biden before any of them... and anyone who is not on that page is getting bit, and bit again, until they get the message.

Biden doesn't have the time and perhaps the presence to handle a young German shepherd

My position is a combination of these two. Any dog owner needs to know breed characteristics, needs to observe individual dog characteristics, and needs to provide circumstances in which that dog can be well behaved. The White House does not provide circumstances in which a German Shepherd can be well behaved. There are human beings who (rightly) regard protecting the President as their responsibility, and they will have to take actions that Commander and Champ will misinterpret as infringing on their responsibility to protect the President. If this was going to be made to work, it would require intensive training, directed specifically at this circumstance of these dogs' lives. And Biden would need to be involved in the training to a degree that he probably does not have time for. And I'm not entirely sure it could be done even then. It's not fair to either the dogs or the SS people to keep the dogs in this circumstance.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think you meant "speeches don't make a presidency". One of O'Donnell's many, well made points, was that the media covers the race ("horserace" was how he put it), not the actual work/governing, and the speeches, press conferences and public appearances are the stuff that the media emphasizes (because since that is what they get to see/cover, it justifies their own relevance), but have very little to do with actual governance.

One line on that point that I liked, my 49ers fandom not withstanding... was "You can remember what Patrick Mahomes did on the field (in the Superbowl) but you can't remember one word of he speech (after winning the Superbowl)", the correct implication being, because the speech didn't matter much, only the actions on the field did.

As an aside, O'Donnell does manage to sneak in a version of "Don't Switch Horses Midstream", which is a classic, historic incumbent campaign message. I'll see if I can find it again... but it is a 27 min clip.

Anyway thanks for watching the video, I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I know it was really long. I thought it was a thoughtful piece and I wanted to share, but I did the bullet points for those who would otherwise ignore it because of the length.

I watched it live during his show.

 

[EgonSpengler]

6a. Voting at the convention could drag out, yes. I would worry that perceived fighting within the Party about who their replacement candidate would be could hurt the eventual candidate's chances in the General, the same way "getting primaried" has in the past. There was one Democratic Convention in the 19th Century, I forget which one, that went something like 18 ballots without result, and they actually adjourned the entire convention for a month to sort themselves out. Anything like that would obviously be catastrophic.

This isn't the one I was thinking of, but the 1924 Democratic Convention went 103 ballots. So I guess something in the teens maybe isn't so bad.

John W. Davis, a dark horse, eventually won the presidential nomination on the 103rd ballot, a compromise candidate following a protracted convention fight between distant front-runners William Gibbs McAdoo and Al Smith.

Davis then lost the general election, to Calvin Coolidge.

 

[Lexicus]

6b. I don't see how the Israel/Palestine issue plays into that specifically, but if it is a salient issue, that's an argument for replacing Biden. It could be a problem for the Democrats regardless of who their nominee is, but right now Muslim Americans in places like Michigan are talking about not voting, or voting for a 3rd party candidate. Biden won Michigan by ~150,000 votes in 2020; there are ~500,000 Arab Americans in Michigan. If the 2024 election goes much the same as 2020, flipping Michigan alone flip the whole thing, but still...

This is an impossible dilemma anyway. Speaking plain truths about Gaza will invoke the wrath of the blob ("unserious") and the Zionists.

I haven't watched the video you posted yet, but I listened to Ezra Klein's podcasts on the topic, and he makes the opposite case, that Biden should withdraw and if he did it soon, the Democratic Party would still have time to nominate a new candidate.

Ezra's take on this is very odd; what made party conventions work in the pre-primary era was networks of patronage that simply no longer exist. A party convention without those webs of mutual obligation would be likely to devolve into chaos not unlike what the GOP House majority has been displaying.

 

[Core Imposter]

I watched it live during his show.

This explains a lot.

 

[EgonSpengler]

This is an impossible dilemma anyway. Speaking plain truths about Gaza will invoke the wrath of the blob ("unserious") and the Zionists.



Ezra's take on this is very odd; what made party conventions work in the pre-primary era was networks of patronage that simply no longer exist. A party convention without those webs of mutual obligation would be likely to devolve into chaos not unlike what the GOP House majority has been displaying.

Right. At one point he rattled off 8 or 10 names of people who could replace Biden, just to show that the Democrats do not lack for potential candidates. But the proverbial "clown car" is exactly what they don't need, now. A 'debate' with a dozen people onstage wouldn't help anything. Somehow they would have to narrow the field to a couple of the most serious candidates, pretty much immediately. Klein never said who he thought would be the best, or most likely, candidates. He did acknowledge that whoever it was would need a national network already in place, there wouldn't be a lot of time to build one between now and the convention. Although with modern communications and travel, it might be more possible than it would've been, back in the day, and we could assume that every state Democratic Party would be motivated to put the pedal to the metal. I don't think it would (have to) be as much of a trainwreck as the GOP.

 

[Core Imposter]

Ezra's take on this is very odd; what made party conventions work in the pre-primary era was networks of patronage that simply no longer exist. A party convention without those webs of mutual obligation would be likely to devolve into chaos not unlike what the GOP House majority has been displaying.

Very smart comment, and I am sure you would agree, we need to reestablish the system of patronage so that our politics will work again.

 

[Lexicus]

Very smart comment, and I am sure you would agree, we need to reestablish the system of patronage so that our politics will work again.

I think we need to scrap the current constitution and replace it with one designed for a majority-rule democracy on a one-person one-vote basis.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Right. At one point he rattled off 8 or 10 names of people who could replace Biden, just to show that the Democrats do not lack for potential candidates. But the proverbial "clown car" is exactly what they don't need, now. A 'debate' with a dozen people onstage wouldn't help anything. Somehow they would have to narrow the field to a couple of the most serious candidates, pretty much immediately. Klein never said who he thought would be the best, or most likely, candidates. He did acknowledge that whoever it was would need a national network already in place, there wouldn't be a lot of time to build one between now and the convention. Although with modern communications and travel, it might be more possible than it would've been, back in the day, and we could assume that every state Democratic Party would be motivated to put the pedal to the metal. I don't think it would (have to) be as much of a trainwreck as the GOP.

You know what could resolve that? Joe Biden himself encouraging someone to succeed him and saying "I'm not fit to go on, this person can". However I don't think that's in his character; he's a career politician who was a senator like ~12-15 years before I was even born -_-

 

[Farm Boy]

I think we need to scrap the current constitution and replace it with one designed for a majority-rule democracy on a one-person one-vote basis.

Given what your are complaining about, that would do exactly nothing.

It might further concentrate political clout where economic clout already is. So there is that, for democratic interest.

 

[Lexicus]

Given what your are complaining about, that would do exactly nothing.

It might further concentrate political clout where economic clout already is. So there is that, for democratic interest.

What was I complaining about now?

 

[Farm Boy]

Lack of patronage systems and functional parties attempting to enact the will of the people, I presumed. That could certainly be corrected!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Some professions don't really do that. To be fair.

Retirement kinda seems a bouge concept. For everyone else, there is door greetering and part time work.

Not bougie necessarily, I mean assembly line workers and military and teachers and cops and teachers retire... its definitely the case though that retirement isn't for everyone... and by "for" I mean lots of people can't retire, because they can't afford it... dying on the shield is a real thing... lot's of follks have to work until literally the day they die.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This explains a lot.

Are you surprised that I watch MSNBC?

 

[EgonSpengler]

You know what could resolve that? Joe Biden himself encouraging someone to succeed him and saying "I'm not fit to go on, this person can". However I don't think that's in his character; he's a career politician who was a senator like ~12-15 years before I was even born -_-

Right, as I say, I don't think it could happen without Biden stepping down voluntarily and endorsing the process. But while I think it'd be necessary, I don't think it would be sufficient. I don't know if I'd want him simply appointing his successor (I don't know if he would even have the ability to do that).

 

[Lexicus]

Lack of patronage systems and functional parties attempting to enact the will of the people, I presumed. That could certainly be corrected!

The original context of what I was saying was that Ezra Klein suggested that Brandon can't swing it as the Dem nominee, and proposed a party convention to choose his replacement on the ticket. I was simply noting that I don't think a party convention could work absent those patronage networks.

Core Imposter was the one who brought up the connection between patronage and government functioning.

 

[Sommerswerd]

some inbred purebred euro-wannabe noble.

I've got one of those... not German, but Portuguese... the Portuguese version of the German Shepherd... their "K-9" police dog breed.

 

[Farm Boy]

And I'll choose to trust in the environment.

Still don't like dog breeders as it works out much. Too many big dogs that need destroyed every year.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right. At one point he rattled off 8 or 10 names of people who could replace Biden, just to show that the Democrats do not lack for potential candidates. But the proverbial "clown car" is exactly what they don't need, now. A 'debate' with a dozen people onstage wouldn't help anything. Somehow they would have to narrow the field to a couple of the most serious candidates, pretty much immediately. Klein never said who he thought would be the best, or most likely, candidates. He did acknowledge that whoever it was would need a national network already in place, there wouldn't be a lot of time to build one between now and the convention. Although with modern communications and travel, it might be more possible than it would've been, back in the day, and we could assume that every state Democratic Party would be motivated to put the pedal to the metal. I don't think it would (have to) be as much of a trainwreck as the GOP.

O'Donnell's segment that I linked addresses exactly these issues directly, specifically the points you raise that we don't need and can't afford a clown-car right now. If the Democrats were replacing Biden, we would need to know the exact person who would be replacing him... and no such consensus candidate exists. Harris and Newsom are the only candidates that have any serious national polling against Trump. Harris polls about even with Biden against Trump, while Newsom polls 10 points behind Trump.

Then on a related point about the campaign funds, O'Donnell pointed out that Newsome has zero funds for a Presidential campaign, because its illegal for him to use his Gubernatorial funds for a POTUS race. The only Democrats with campaign funds are Biden and Harris, because they have a shared POTUS campaign-chest.

The bottom line about O'Donnell's segment, was that I've already heard all the arguments to push Biden aside, ad nauseum. Nothing Ezra Klein is saying is anything different from what we've been hearing for years. The O'Donnell segment was intriguing because it systematically went through and rebut/addressed all that stuff we've been hearing about switching candidates.