I think it is really important to acknowledge that the situation right now is much more uncertain than it’s ever been
swapping out a candidate at this stage has never been done
we are flying completely blind and even our guesses are less informed than ever, which comes with high downside risk
Big hat tip to @jbouie.bsky.social for treating uncertainties as uncertain, with both downside and upside potential, rather than what many pundits are doing: imagine a positive scenario and act as if things will smoothly go that way if only people try it.
Doesn't seem like a high bar. And yet...
people are getting caught up in the fact that sticking with the status quo seems untenable, and indeed it might be
the downside risks there are clear and obvious and well understood
but even if you decide that means it’s worth the risk of switching you have to acknowledge how risky it is too
I refuse to believe that actual adults are seriously arguing that swapping out candidates 4 months before an election isn't the equivalent of buying an ad in every constituency that says "we have no idea what the fuck we're doing "
The entire point of a modern convention is a 4 day infomercial for your nominee. They’re not designed to be the place where the nominee gets decided! It would be a disaster
I think that picture is the reality regardless after last night's debate. Having a candidate be propped up for four years only to have him completely implode on the biggest stage is an awful look for the party, and I can't see how swapping out Biden for Harris makes things any worse
Bouie made a good point that I think sticks, that any replacement would essentially be a standard bearer, so there might not be as much risk as we think, though obviously that's not for sure
A group of intrepid 2024 journalists time travel to June 1936. Upon "discovering" that FDR is indeed paralyzed, they make short work of getting him to bow out of the election. Henry Skillman Breckinridge replaces him. Alf Landon wins in a landslide.
I refuse to believe that actual adults are seriously arguing that swapping out candidates 4 months before an election isn't the equivalent of buying an ad in every constituency that says "we have no idea what the fuck we're doing "
the sole reason why Bret Stephens isnt a thing on the right is because his whole brand of concern trolling is completely useless when presented to ppl who are like "so fucking what" every time someone passive aggressively clears their throat at them but work great on those obsessed with happy vibes
ideologically Bret is closer to the GOP than the Dems. Functionally his work is more for the GOP than Dems. But the one thing republicans do have when it comes to media is an understanding of who gets to talk and who listens in the current climate and Dems give him an importance he gets nowhere else
there’s this desperate need for a Reasonable Republican, a Principled Opposition with which we can disagree in good faith
Trump is so crass that he broke the illusion, so the Never Trumpers like Bret were elevated even though they aren’t that either because it doesn’t exist
I don't know that they necessarily don't exist at all, but I don't think there's a single one at national level Republican politics. And the ones that exist at state/local levels are both vanishingly rare and enable the Unreasonable Republicans, so they're still part of the problem.
This: It's not that the people don't exist, but it's structurally impossible for them to wield any influence, especially now, so they can't be found.
I miss the days when I still believed they could be found, but that was well and truly dead for me by 2008.
There’s a weekly segment on The PBS NewsHour in which David Brooks has a permanent seat as the token Republican (opposite Jonathan Capeheart) and there’s absolutely no reason for it but DC-brained media and US bothsidesism
the sensible thing would be to treat the left like the principled opposition they have to compromise with, and treat the republicans like their political enemies that they need to defeat
Stephens, and Brooks and others like him, have no place in conservative media. They are a product of the liberal media - the reasonable opposition who uses our language and makes us feel noble and enlightened for giving them an ear.
Why would a conservative publication even need that voice?
conservatives don’t want a principled opposition
or really any opposition at all, except the one they make up so they have something to rail against in their speeches
“Conservatives” are literally those who already have everything. The born random privileged lottery system. Or the ones who “gamed the system” through random chance. Just another form of legal criminality.
This may just be my hobby horse, but a lot of the Democrats' problems trace back to trying to capture alleged swing voters rather than appealing to the leftists who would love to vote for candidates who actually represent their values.
It’s useful to trace this approach back through Clinton to Scoop Jackson.
It was always, at heart, the ideology of Southern governors who wanted the party to get more racist again before the post-Nixon realignment wiped out their power bases.
Did well one time nationally under Clinton, that’s it.
Yeah, and the Dems have been trying to recapture that victory ever since. I think we're both right about what that means. "Centrist" dem voters is a euphemism for "still pretty fuckin' racist," especially in the south.
Strangely enough, MSNBC just went to break promising a discussion of the "Black Jobs" comment when they come back; Joy Reid discussed it extensively last night, as did Alex Wagner.
What do you mean? We were *this* close to getting Governor Eric Baker at the convention but then delegates turned and did a floor vote for Matt Santos, and he still beat Arnie Vinick.
And nobody said anything about that suggesting the Democrats were disorganized.
Sorry. Just thought I’d reference the scenario that’s in their minds for how that would play out.
The take away from Veep is that corruption & incompetence is killing us all
The take away from West Wing is as long as you acknowledge bad things you don’t have to actually use your power to try to fix them because it’s hard
The biggest difference is the Veep people would agree with my assessment
Given the last week, I'm just desperately waiting for the part of the episode where all the problems work themselves out.
At this point I'm thinking it's episode 1 of a multi-episode finale and we're still in the middle of the tension building part of the plot
To be fair I dont think anyone in a position to do it is considering or advocating for it. I think the media and some former dems turned pundits are loudly proclaiming its the only way. Particularly the nyt and a specific group of really salty former staffers/ would be staffers.
to be fair, they have no idea what the fuck they are doing (other than hating leftists, they have that down and that is their entire organizing principle atp)
Having grown up witnessing the endless campaign structure of american politics but not being able to participate (canadian), it boggles the mind that anyone is considering this as a reasonable or positive idea.
Canadian politics legally limit campaigns yet we know it's suicide to act so rashly.
Like, I cannot imagine a canadian political party, knowing they only have 90-ish days of legally allowed campaigning before an election deciding to introduce an untested leader and think they'd have any chance of winning.
In the land of perpetual campaigns, how is that not political suicide?
