I think he's walking a pretty thin line to simply lying in any direction he needs to rally support for his preferred preferences... when you keep score about all the times he advocates lying to one group or another.
Sure... if there's an argument to be had, I think it has to do with what Harris' role as a candidate will be.
Is it to electrify the leftiest part of the base and win by overwhelming Trump's low ceiling?
-or-
Is it to keep the left on board but in a box while winning the middle and giving Trump skeptics a reason to stay home?
There are three types of voters...
Given the reality of the electoral college profile, I'd argue #2 is a no-brainer... but #1 sure is more fun. Ironically, Biden was supposed to be #2 but he never really managed the left wing of the party. Will Harris do better?
Interestingly, MattY compared/contrasted Dem/Repub attempts at 'moderation' in a way that I think is positively horrifying when you unpack the logic (that I don't think he realizes he put out there).
---
9. To win, Harris needs to find ways to moderate her image, and critically, she is going to have to be allowed to do that by her supporters.
10. Donald Trump is in many ways a bad politicians and a bad candidate. His numbers are terrible, his manner is off-putting, and his record is plagued with scandal. But his “be allowed to do that” score is off the charts. If it’s convenient for him to start saying nicer things about electric cars in exchange for Elon Musk’s money, he does that. If it’s convenient for him to pretend the Republican Party isn’t deeply committed to banning abortion, he does that.
11. Every progressive I know recognizes that these Trumpian stabs at moderation are good for Trump, and that it’s good for the left to try to expose them as lies. The progressives who recognize that need to see the symmetry here.
It wasn't that shouts rang out from nowhere... it was that shots rang out from that guy, the guy on the roof people were pointing out, the guy with the rangefinder... on the roof that was both sloped and hot.
This was a fun primer on the 'Democratic Bench' ... given the consolidation around Harris,* wonder if the bench changes much for VP? Most of the responders addressed many as potential VP targets... are there others sleepers.
*I'm sure the Electability Chart will be scrubbed in the near future.
On the side debate of whether Biden should resign the office since he's 'admitting' he's too old to run for office... let me be clear, there's no reason at all that he should have to do that. It's perfectly reasonable to realize that he's running for a 4-yr term and all he's got left in the tank is 4-months. End of story.
However, if I'm thinking about Candidate Harris, I think (suspect? know?) that she will have trouble connecting with voters given her body of work, and that Doing Presidential Things Presidentially would be much better than her normal retail politics. Thinking that the Vice Presidency will free her up to do all the campaigny things that the President is partially constrained from doing by virtue of his other duties? Not sure that's a win for her. So on purely those grounds, if I were leading the Dem Change Committee, I'd see if we could buy-out Joe's retirement with a better offer so that Harris could partially shield herself with the Presidential Office.
The only democratic vote is the one that happens in November.
Parties are non-Profit clubs. I believe they can be sued by their donors if they violate their bylaws; but the bylaws are written by the club for the club. 100% sure there's a bylaw that allows them to bypass a presumptive nominee who refuses the nomination.
The fact that we enable states to run statewide 'elections' for parties is a mistake that gives the impression that parties are more than just clubs. The fact that 'voters' think that Primaries are anything other than holding a finger in the wind to lend the club an air of consensus for their pick? That's just on us for bad civics education.
There's nothing the republicans or states can do as long as the correct forms are filed by authorized representatives of the club/party.
Heh no, despite your nostalgia for all things soviet, I don't really think US reporters reporting from US sources on obvious topics that are obvious with public utterances from politicians about the matter is much akin to Sovietology.
I think this is an interesting observation. I'd suggest that his new progressive persona is not really what people voted for, and further I'd suggest that it reflects that his 'administration' is Progressive and that he personally isn't driving the bus in a way he would have 10-yrs ago.
So, I kinda dig how the progressives have kept their knives sheathed in this episode, but I really do think that it's a leitmotif on why the Biden Presidency is punching below its weight. A non-Bidenesque combination of a progressivism he doesn't represent coupled with a subtle affirmation that he's too old to manage his Team and is instead being managed by them. Not the Revolt of the Elites Lasch predicted, The Revolt of the Interns*.
If the Internal Polling numbers were good, you could trust Pelosi and Schiff, good solid dems not prone to panic or bad motives, NOT to call for Biden to step down.
That's not what the article is about... it's the exact same data.
"The pollsters made different decisions in adjusting the sample and identifying likely voters. The result was four different electorates, and four different results."
This is the current 'discussion' around 538... they are weighting 'fundamentals' such that they offset the actual polls. So, you're getting raw polling data, but your model offsets the data with other assumptions.
Fine... but if your model is doing an 'all things being normal' set of assumptions, your model might need updating with new known unknowns.
I dunno about this... every normie liberal I see says basically this: It would be best for the party if Biden were to step down; Harris is the path of least resistance and would be better than Biden; if Biden does step down, are we sure we just want to take the path of least resistance; maybe yes, maybe no.
I mean, I could imagine a similar sort of handwringing if HW had suffered rapid mental decline in the run-up to the election (heh, he was *only* 68 in 1992) and people were insisting that Dan Quayle was the only possible option given the timing and FEC bylaws.
Yeah, the biggest mistake IMO has been the constant framing as cost savings... I think people intuit that there's no cost saving going to happen -- or, if that's the goal it will come at the expense of your coverage/service. So everyone is risk averse.
No one I know *likes* the way healthcare works... if we got out of the 70s-80s-90s mode of talking about healthcare costs and instead said we were going to do everything *better* and it will cost a bit more -- averaged out among the population -- and just called it, say, National Coverage. Well, maybe the needle starts to move a bit.
On “Democrats in Array as Harris Consolidates Support”
One hopes.
I think he's walking a pretty thin line to simply lying in any direction he needs to rally support for his preferred preferences... when you keep score about all the times he advocates lying to one group or another.
"
To be clear, I'll saunter over my exurban school linoleum, Starbucks in hand, to vote third party.
"
Sure... if there's an argument to be had, I think it has to do with what Harris' role as a candidate will be.
Is it to electrify the leftiest part of the base and win by overwhelming Trump's low ceiling?
-or-
Is it to keep the left on board but in a box while winning the middle and giving Trump skeptics a reason to stay home?
There are three types of voters...
Given the reality of the electoral college profile, I'd argue #2 is a no-brainer... but #1 sure is more fun. Ironically, Biden was supposed to be #2 but he never really managed the left wing of the party. Will Harris do better?
Interestingly, MattY compared/contrasted Dem/Repub attempts at 'moderation' in a way that I think is positively horrifying when you unpack the logic (that I don't think he realizes he put out there).
---
9. To win, Harris needs to find ways to moderate her image, and critically, she is going to have to be allowed to do that by her supporters.
10. Donald Trump is in many ways a bad politicians and a bad candidate. His numbers are terrible, his manner is off-putting, and his record is plagued with scandal. But his “be allowed to do that” score is off the charts. If it’s convenient for him to start saying nicer things about electric cars in exchange for Elon Musk’s money, he does that. If it’s convenient for him to pretend the Republican Party isn’t deeply committed to banning abortion, he does that.
11. Every progressive I know recognizes that these Trumpian stabs at moderation are good for Trump, and that it’s good for the left to try to expose them as lies. The progressives who recognize that need to see the symmetry here.
"
No one around here, save maybe Koz, thinks they should vote for Trump.
You'll need to brave other comment sections for that type of fight.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/22/2024”
It wasn't that shouts rang out from nowhere... it was that shots rang out from that guy, the guy on the roof people were pointing out, the guy with the rangefinder... on the roof that was both sloped and hot.
"
This was a fun primer on the 'Democratic Bench' ... given the consolidation around Harris,* wonder if the bench changes much for VP? Most of the responders addressed many as potential VP targets... are there others sleepers.
*I'm sure the Electability Chart will be scrubbed in the near future.
On “Joe Biden Announces that he is not Running for Re-election”
On the side debate of whether Biden should resign the office since he's 'admitting' he's too old to run for office... let me be clear, there's no reason at all that he should have to do that. It's perfectly reasonable to realize that he's running for a 4-yr term and all he's got left in the tank is 4-months. End of story.
However, if I'm thinking about Candidate Harris, I think (suspect? know?) that she will have trouble connecting with voters given her body of work, and that Doing Presidential Things Presidentially would be much better than her normal retail politics. Thinking that the Vice Presidency will free her up to do all the campaigny things that the President is partially constrained from doing by virtue of his other duties? Not sure that's a win for her. So on purely those grounds, if I were leading the Dem Change Committee, I'd see if we could buy-out Joe's retirement with a better offer so that Harris could partially shield herself with the Presidential Office.
"
Well I'm pretty sure JB doesn't post his more outlandish ones thinking that maybe Marchmaine and Pinky will bite...
"
I think you could maybe vette the 'interesting' observations from 'idiot on the internet' for us, though.
"
The only democratic vote is the one that happens in November.
Parties are non-Profit clubs. I believe they can be sued by their donors if they violate their bylaws; but the bylaws are written by the club for the club. 100% sure there's a bylaw that allows them to bypass a presumptive nominee who refuses the nomination.
The fact that we enable states to run statewide 'elections' for parties is a mistake that gives the impression that parties are more than just clubs. The fact that 'voters' think that Primaries are anything other than holding a finger in the wind to lend the club an air of consensus for their pick? That's just on us for bad civics education.
There's nothing the republicans or states can do as long as the correct forms are filed by authorized representatives of the club/party.
On “From The Los Angeles Times: Schiff calls on Biden to drop out, citing ‘serious concerns’ he can’t win”
Regarding 538 which is the source for the Newsweek article, Nate Silver published his take on the current 538 models.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-i-dont-buy-538s-new-election
He reminds people that 538 is a new thing with new models... he owns the 'old 538' models and is using them for his Silver Bullet projections.
"
Heh no, despite your nostalgia for all things soviet, I don't really think US reporters reporting from US sources on obvious topics that are obvious with public utterances from politicians about the matter is much akin to Sovietology.
"
On the bright side, I'm confident that no matter what, the Dem Candidate should get at least 72-75M votes. Maybe that'll be enough...
"
"Turns out he is pretty progressive."
I think this is an interesting observation. I'd suggest that his new progressive persona is not really what people voted for, and further I'd suggest that it reflects that his 'administration' is Progressive and that he personally isn't driving the bus in a way he would have 10-yrs ago.
So, I kinda dig how the progressives have kept their knives sheathed in this episode, but I really do think that it's a leitmotif on why the Biden Presidency is punching below its weight. A non-Bidenesque combination of a progressivism he doesn't represent coupled with a subtle affirmation that he's too old to manage his Team and is instead being managed by them. Not the Revolt of the Elites Lasch predicted, The Revolt of the Interns*.
*note, not actually interns.
"
I'd flip your weird skepticism thus:
If the Internal Polling numbers were good, you could trust Pelosi and Schiff, good solid dems not prone to panic or bad motives, NOT to call for Biden to step down.
"
Fine to say that polling is tricky... but what I'm reading is that the *internal* Democratic polling is not showing a dead heat.
"
That's not what the article is about... it's the exact same data.
"The pollsters made different decisions in adjusting the sample and identifying likely voters. The result was four different electorates, and four different results."
This is the current 'discussion' around 538... they are weighting 'fundamentals' such that they offset the actual polls. So, you're getting raw polling data, but your model offsets the data with other assumptions.
Fine... but if your model is doing an 'all things being normal' set of assumptions, your model might need updating with new known unknowns.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/15/2024”
Honestly not sure if that's left or right coded anymore.
"
Hulk Hogan, the former Governor of Minnesota?
Oh wait, wrong guy. Now I want to know why Jesse Ventura isn't doing it?
On “From The Los Angeles Times: Schiff calls on Biden to drop out, citing ‘serious concerns’ he can’t win”
On the eking it out thing... I get it; but I think that's a very 'insiderish' view.
Political Junkie: All Biden has to do is hold on till Nov. 5, then we can reset the clock and deal with it.
Ordinary Folks: We're voting for the *next* 4 years... Biden ain't gonna make it.
"
I dunno about this... every normie liberal I see says basically this: It would be best for the party if Biden were to step down; Harris is the path of least resistance and would be better than Biden; if Biden does step down, are we sure we just want to take the path of least resistance; maybe yes, maybe no.
I mean, I could imagine a similar sort of handwringing if HW had suffered rapid mental decline in the run-up to the election (heh, he was *only* 68 in 1992) and people were insisting that Dan Quayle was the only possible option given the timing and FEC bylaws.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/15/2024”
The New 538 is the Sam Wang of Nate Silvers.
On “Struggling For Normal”
Appreciated the post; not much to add by way of experience or lessons learned. Just encouragement on the never ending adventure of raising children...
"
Yeah, the biggest mistake IMO has been the constant framing as cost savings... I think people intuit that there's no cost saving going to happen -- or, if that's the goal it will come at the expense of your coverage/service. So everyone is risk averse.
No one I know *likes* the way healthcare works... if we got out of the 70s-80s-90s mode of talking about healthcare costs and instead said we were going to do everything *better* and it will cost a bit more -- averaged out among the population -- and just called it, say, National Coverage. Well, maybe the needle starts to move a bit.
On “Trump was just shot at a rally. He appears to be fine.”
I agree... I think the timing *is* important to the question of what happened and what might have happened.