forgetting that the house has to weigh in on this (and adding it as a one-off after the fact without noting it) is a pretty fucking critical omission, man, it is not a small thing, it changes the entire scope of outcomes.
That was added in the last 20 minutes. The next sentence for me (on the copy of the page I loaded before writing that comment) changes topics entirely.
if i were under the impression that the senate and only the senate had to confirm a new VP for harris were biden to resign, i might be more amenable to the argument, but that isn’t the case, and that makes the entire case *significantly* weaker
the biden should not only step aside, but resign, seems somehow even weirder to me. like why on earth do you think biden is going to be willing to do both of those things. and why is that now your marker?
i like sewer and find him usually clear headed but man oh man
there’s a consistent logic that if he’s unable to campaign, he’s unable to lead — i legit think that’s a better faith argument than most are making. but, boy, to just handwave away the house entirely and blithely mention that you can bypass the filibuster in the senate is something else.
yeah I mean I think that's a tortured logic, if not in bad faith, but like if you think that a complete change of power and a campaign in a couple months time is gonna work idk man idk.
it’s either sophism or it’s sloppiness, either way, damage is done, both in terms of whatever atlantic reader believes it (and doesn’t think too hard about the process) and in terms of my opinion of a writer who i genuinely have had a good deal of respect for, even when i’ve disagreed with him
The fact that he's willing to write this makes me think the tone in those high flown circles must be at "standing next to a jet engine" levels. A freakout to end all freakouts.
this is where a lot of my "Kamala should be the nominee now" instinct comes from
the institutional freakout might be ridiculous but it's clearly real, and it's coming from everywhere including people I respect
I don't think Biden can campaign without tamping down the freakout level - and can he?
If he doesn't do anything to feed it, he can hope to tamp it down. If he withdraws, it'll be a different freakout & there will be no way out of it, as Kamala being the unelected nominee will be an unresolvable problem. If Biden can leg it out to the convention, he maybe can force their hands.
the problem is that inaction feeds it - it's something he has to actively combat, not just "not feed"
like, there's a lot of stuff out today about how his slow response to the debate and failure to reassure allies has caused increased concern among Dem lawmakers
He's done rally appearances, he's doing interviews, he just finished a huddle with all the Democratic governors where they came out & said he's still got what it takes. I feel like the stuff out today is mostly feeding on itself. If he keeps that going without botching it, the noise will abate.
I think the Stephanopoulos interview is the big test, if he does really well there and people start to get back on board it's probably recoverable
if he does poorly or if he does well and the freakout doesn't abate at all, that may be it
