Louisa: Slightly flawed metric anyway given that no one seriously ran as a challenger but you know, too late now

The reason pundits like the contested convention thing is that it plays to their vanities: what if the smart people made a meritocratic decision about who’s best? This is driven, in part, by being mostly isolated from negative reactions to their opinions over the years.

I can’t imagine asserting with unwavering confidence that I knew who was or wasn’t the best candidate against Trump.

I see— important that the candidate has “the confidence of the party elite.” Not the base.

When asked to vote for Biden-Harris in the primaries, 90% of Dems said yes. That’s 90% more than anyone else being offered.

Not to quibble over maths, but it's over 800% more than anyone else.

Slightly flawed metric anyway given that no one seriously ran as a challenger but you know, too late now

Nobody of serious mind wanted to walk face-first into the buzzsaw of offering a primary challenge to a successful President who was widely popular in his own party. That's not an argument /against/ Biden's strength as a candidate.

Right those VIPs could have absolutely tried “for the good of the country” to win a primary but they cba or dgaf If only they’d known last year if he was old. Or 4 years ago or 8.

There was an organized campaign around uncommitted, and it got ~10%, basically the same as Obama faced in 2012 when there wasn’t an organized campaign.

Post