> But the truth is that influential actors in the Democratic Party not only were warned that Biden’s age was an electoral liability, they believed the warnings.
It would be nice to get more information on that. When / where / how were they warned? Especially in light of the claim that there really are no party bigwigs pulling the strings behind the curtain. For this group of people, after having been warned, how do you know they agreed?
My interpretation of “the exception that proves the rule" is that _the fact that the former is an exception shows that the latter is generally the way it goes_. If you say A is the rule and I say, "what about B"? You can reply that it is an exception and the argument could be settled. But if I retort, "no, B happens all the time", then A is not really the rule.
The way to handle the age issue is to have a great running mate. Kamala Harris is weak. My suggestion is have someone like Gavin Newsom be the running mate. Then people wouldn't worry so much about Biden dying. It's psychological. Newsom would also be a great campaigner, which is sorely needed. So change running mates!
Wellll - Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer are totally unvetted and untested on the national stage - I think the caucus might take a moment and go through the exact same thought process that brings us to Joe Biden. There is not much basis for a rational decision to choose an unknown Governor and stick that person on the ballot out of the blue. I'm not sure the caucus would do that, even on a secret ballot.
The state-by-state, spread-out-over-months primary schedule is the problem. The primaries keep being won or lost in the first three or four states, after which most or all of the losers drop out. Living in Wisconsin, I have had one meaningful primary vote: Obama vs. Clinton. It was notable, because Obama learned the messed-up caucus rules of the individual states in the middle of the calendar, and was thus able to rack up enough delegates to keep it going. The Clinton campaign accused them not of cheating exactly, but of exploiting archaic and undemocratic rules, that they ought to have been good enough sports to not exploit.
It's hard to say you're defending democracy, if you're then limiting the people's democratic ability to choose who they're gonig to vote for.
Yes, I know, Europe, but in most European countries, you can somewhat easily create a new party, and it doesn't cost a billion dollars to run a party nationally.
You can have two things - a high barrier for a party to be viable _or_ strong party control over nominees. If you have both, you're basically disenfranchising large parts of the population.
"That’s especially true because “his age is an electoral liability,” though true, is an awfully weak rationale for a presidential campaign."
I think this is the weakest point of the article. If two or three major figures in the party had jumped in for this reason, it would have made it sufficiently substantive.
edit - They would need to make a point of it not just being an electoral liability, but that there is a serious risk that Biden's age causes decline and makes him a unable to fulfill presidential duties as well as they could.
Right. Now get rid of Citizens United and start rebuilding two Parties. As you said, the work of the Parties was done by people who volunteered and those who personally contributed to a campaign. Instead of working the phones for $$,congressmen & Senators got out and visited high schools to find students eager to volunteer.
The interesting question is whether the party system has failed more than the entire Constitutional structure. When popular vote consistently runs one way but only inconsistently translates into electoral success, the system is pretty broke. Hey Mission Control, we got a problem -- except there is no Mission Control ....
I think that the primary process is the biggest problem here. Before the Democrats reordered their primaries, the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina picked the 1-2 Democrats and 1-2 Republicans who would be the sole option set for the entire rest of the country in the presidential election. Not only that, but a minority of general election voters participate in the primary.
So you basically have the entire country saddled with a small number of options picked for them by 40% of the electorate in three states with less than 3% of the U.S. population.
Who are these people in smoke filled rooms? What do they want? Why do we think they'd do a better job picking nominees? Matt sort of implies that Klobuchar or Bullock could have gotten the nod in 2020, but it seems just as likely to me that it would have been Warren.
Matt’s point about the Biden-era Dems not setting priorities on policy is spot on. But effective “messaging” and persuasive political rhetoric (like Kamala did years ago about crime, but is *mute* on today) isn’t something that Manchin or Roberts control. Who controls the Dem narratives? The ivy-league donor $$ class, activist journalists with Harvard degrees, and the Penny Pritzkers?
And who sets Republican priorities? It’s the Fox News constellation of MAGA media outlets, online weirdos like Tucker, Michael Flynn, insane Evangelical grifters and Trump. Many of the sane Republicans, like Romney, are “retiring” quitting.
> But the truth is that influential actors in the Democratic Party not only were warned that Biden’s age was an electoral liability, they believed the warnings.
It would be nice to get more information on that. When / where / how were they warned? Especially in light of the claim that there really are no party bigwigs pulling the strings behind the curtain. For this group of people, after having been warned, how do you know they agreed?
My interpretation of “the exception that proves the rule" is that _the fact that the former is an exception shows that the latter is generally the way it goes_. If you say A is the rule and I say, "what about B"? You can reply that it is an exception and the argument could be settled. But if I retort, "no, B happens all the time", then A is not really the rule.
The way to handle the age issue is to have a great running mate. Kamala Harris is weak. My suggestion is have someone like Gavin Newsom be the running mate. Then people wouldn't worry so much about Biden dying. It's psychological. Newsom would also be a great campaigner, which is sorely needed. So change running mates!
Wellll - Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer are totally unvetted and untested on the national stage - I think the caucus might take a moment and go through the exact same thought process that brings us to Joe Biden. There is not much basis for a rational decision to choose an unknown Governor and stick that person on the ballot out of the blue. I'm not sure the caucus would do that, even on a secret ballot.
The state-by-state, spread-out-over-months primary schedule is the problem. The primaries keep being won or lost in the first three or four states, after which most or all of the losers drop out. Living in Wisconsin, I have had one meaningful primary vote: Obama vs. Clinton. It was notable, because Obama learned the messed-up caucus rules of the individual states in the middle of the calendar, and was thus able to rack up enough delegates to keep it going. The Clinton campaign accused them not of cheating exactly, but of exploiting archaic and undemocratic rules, that they ought to have been good enough sports to not exploit.
It's hard to say you're defending democracy, if you're then limiting the people's democratic ability to choose who they're gonig to vote for.
Yes, I know, Europe, but in most European countries, you can somewhat easily create a new party, and it doesn't cost a billion dollars to run a party nationally.
You can have two things - a high barrier for a party to be viable _or_ strong party control over nominees. If you have both, you're basically disenfranchising large parts of the population.
Part of the premise of this article is incorrect (that Biden is unpopular and that Democrats don't want him as their nominee).
If this were true, Biden would not have raised $97 million in Q4. https://themessenger.com/politics/biden-money-haul-nearly-100-million-raised-most-ever-by-a-democrat-at-this-point
"That’s especially true because “his age is an electoral liability,” though true, is an awfully weak rationale for a presidential campaign."
I think this is the weakest point of the article. If two or three major figures in the party had jumped in for this reason, it would have made it sufficiently substantive.
edit - They would need to make a point of it not just being an electoral liability, but that there is a serious risk that Biden's age causes decline and makes him a unable to fulfill presidential duties as well as they could.
So we all basically complained about partisanship, and as a result, we ended up with weak parties and a future led by authoritarian-esque demagogues.
If only Sherrod Brown would agree to run.
Right. Now get rid of Citizens United and start rebuilding two Parties. As you said, the work of the Parties was done by people who volunteered and those who personally contributed to a campaign. Instead of working the phones for $$,congressmen & Senators got out and visited high schools to find students eager to volunteer.
The interesting question is whether the party system has failed more than the entire Constitutional structure. When popular vote consistently runs one way but only inconsistently translates into electoral success, the system is pretty broke. Hey Mission Control, we got a problem -- except there is no Mission Control ....
I think that the primary process is the biggest problem here. Before the Democrats reordered their primaries, the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina picked the 1-2 Democrats and 1-2 Republicans who would be the sole option set for the entire rest of the country in the presidential election. Not only that, but a minority of general election voters participate in the primary.
So you basically have the entire country saddled with a small number of options picked for them by 40% of the electorate in three states with less than 3% of the U.S. population.
Who are these people in smoke filled rooms? What do they want? Why do we think they'd do a better job picking nominees? Matt sort of implies that Klobuchar or Bullock could have gotten the nod in 2020, but it seems just as likely to me that it would have been Warren.
Matt’s point about the Biden-era Dems not setting priorities on policy is spot on. But effective “messaging” and persuasive political rhetoric (like Kamala did years ago about crime, but is *mute* on today) isn’t something that Manchin or Roberts control. Who controls the Dem narratives? The ivy-league donor $$ class, activist journalists with Harvard degrees, and the Penny Pritzkers?
And who sets Republican priorities? It’s the Fox News constellation of MAGA media outlets, online weirdos like Tucker, Michael Flynn, insane Evangelical grifters and Trump. Many of the sane Republicans, like Romney, are “retiring” quitting.
D'accord!