It's certainly possible that Kamala will become the nominee. And if she is, I will certainly support her.
But as someone who was actually a supporter of hers during the first half of 2019 (I'm from California, thought she had a good record as the DA and had done reasonably well as a Senator, and I liked the fact that she was married to a Jewish guy), I am very skeptical that she is the best candidate to defeat Trump.
In 2019, she ended up running away from her record as DA, was miserable at persuading voters to support her, and then her campaign pretty much imploded. And then, when she was selected to be VP in 20202 (which I was happy about), I found her somewhat off putting in both speeches and the debate.
There definitely needs to be a process over the next month where candidates prove themselves on the campaign trail and demonstrate that they can attract votes. If during that process Kamala demonstrates she is now the best candidate to beat Trump, I'll be fully on board. But I think it would be a huge mistake to simply coronate her. Partly because I suspect she is far from the best candidate. And partly because that process itself is a great way to get folks excited about the Democratic candidate.
I don't feel as if I know a lot about her. The observation in this podcast that most concerned me was that when her staffers disagreed about some decision, Harris didn't make the decision herself. I am left wondering whether, in some high-stakes situation in which a decision must be made quickly, she might simply freeze. (I don't mean to sound unsympathetic; I would probably freeze too, in that position. But I'm not running for President.)
You said it, friend! I feel like this is likely the case for (hopefully) most of our politicians, to be honest. Really hoping our representatives on the hill can collectively learn to take a step back from the Wonderland world of social media and consider the value of cross-party coalition-building more deeply.
"But today’s decision to resign his candidacy guarantees that [Biden] will be remembered as a genuine statesman, someone who took a selfless call, even if it took him a few weeks too long to do so."
Huh. I think it took him a year too long to do so.
This is the biggest political rip-off that I've experienced in my 50 years of voting. Joe was supposed to be one term. Democrats deserved a primary, not an anointment. Joe's racist selection of Kamala Harris according to her skin color was disgusting. Now we're supposed to be stuck with her? Yuck.
Thank you for speaking up about the biological realities of women. We can be open hearted Liberals on transgender folks and their rights but we also need to be in reality about women’s spaces and keeping competitive sports separated by sex. Listen to Serena or Martina on this subject. And remember, it’s not a left vs. right issue.
With the Republican convention now old news, the Democrats have an opportunity over the next six weeks to monopolize media coverage. This assumes of course an exciting sprint to the nomination and not a leisurely carriage ride to a coronation.
In addition, the Democrats must keep the action within the convention and not allow protests and counter protests outside the convention to dominate media coverage. Some of us are old enough to remember the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention that, at least in my opinion, gave us the election of Richard Nixon (twice!) and a longer Viet Nam war.
I agree, but think outside demonstrations are uncontrollable. In '68 there were about 10,000 demonstrators, 12,000 Chicago police, 6,000 members of the national guard, 6,000 US army, 1,000 each CIA and FBI, plus a lot in reserve. And the demonstrators were peaceful -- it was a police riot.
However, I don't think either the police or the demonstrators will be as problematic this time. The one thing I recommend is that the Dems not cater to the protestors at all. Watching on TV in '68, as they chanted "The whole word is watching," I was sure the whole world would side with us against the police. Years later, I learned that polling showed the world had sided with the working class police.
Not coincidently that election was the beginning of the end of unconditional working class/blue collar support for the Democratic party. Now we likely will have two children of privilege, albeit different kinds of privilege, Trump and Harris, nominated for president.
The winning strategy in the newly shuffled deck of American politics may be for Democrats to take the opportunity to move beyond identity politics, and the tradition of building coalitions by appealing to separate vocal interests groups by promising to address their specific aspirations. An appeal to principles of good government would go far toward dispelling voter cynicism, while pricking the balloon of GOP anti DEI sentiment and the growing movement of the broad electorate against progressive overreach. There is a predominant feeling that politicians are in it for themselves and will say only what their patrons want to hear. Bribery is done for the most part legally with no visible strings when interests are able to concentrate very large amounts of money for their causes.
In the past their existed statesmen for whom honor and public interest were the medium of their personal ambition. A healthy community is a society of persons each exercising their individual causality in pursuit of their own needs and ambitions in ways consistent with the wellbeing of the community, all striving to ‘do the right thing’. Government is established to provide for the common good, and those who would serve in government are obliged to that mission. Political theory precedent to the Constitution, distinguished between ambition, or the love of power, useful as it may be to the aims of the community—think Adam Smith and capitalism, that society benefits from the pursuit of individual interests—and “love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds” (Hamilton, Federalist #72), by which, in contradistinction to celebrity, ambitious persons pursue the transgenerational regard of their communities, thereby the distinction between the petty politician and the statesman.
If we are to transcend universal and personal decline we need act unilaterally and collectively to restore the health of the body politic. Individual causality is the first mover but can do but little of constructive purpose without support of likeminded persons. Nor can causes or the interests of groups be advanced except the consensus of the larger community be developed.
A government in the model of a democratic republic will find it difficult to function effectively if its institutions are not perceived to represent and to act in the interest of the collective will of the people, to express some overarching consensus of the balance of competing interests, rather than being in the thrall of certain of those interests. Absent the perception of legitimacy people will be inclined to disregard the laws or to support government policies only when they are seen to promote their parochial interests. Absent governmental efficiency and public safety, person’s, aware of their own inadequacies and having lost faith in reality, will succumb to fantasy, be receptive to conspiracy theories, will look for strong leadership offering simplistic solutions, and be especially vulnerable to demagogic figures promising collective empowerment and redress of perceived indignities.
It is telling that in consideration of possible candidates to replace Biden on the ticket, pros and cons seem largely those of appeal to interest: a black woman versus a white male, etc., or that of cosmetic celebrity. It seems not to have occurred to many pundits that voters, though long trained to consider first what’s in it for them, might be open to the promise of sacrifice for the common weal, realizing that their own interest is wrapped up with the health and continuity of the larger community.
The reluctance of many to see Biden step down was that it was too late to change horses, even that maintenance of the status quo was more important than defeating the orange menace. But if this is not the moment to plainly address the concerns of the nation, then when? And is a return to first principles often not the proper reset?
I'm in complete agreement, especially with Democrats should "stage a genuinely open competition for who should oppose Trump." He took this position earlier than anyone else--right after the disastrous debate. I took that to heart and on July 1, started a petition to that effect. http://change.org/BidenPlanB .
But I also agree that "that course of action may not be likely." And, I don't have much reach, so as of right now I have only 156 signatures, but I'd appreciate a few more before I have to send it to the DNC, which might need to be tomorrow.
I heard that too. But (as one would expect) it's not true. She was trying to help Joe because she and Bernie Sanders have been having some success lately with pushing some of their ideas on him.
Fascinating. Harris is a prosecutor. In office she would need a much broader skill set. In terms of leadership she seems weak and is a very poor orator. She has to decide whether to be a supporter of job quotas or whether to champion all social groups and classes. Vance will go for her on this. It could be key because Biden never invited the party to have that debate.
The convention should be a real test for her. Will Biden attend and support her? That could be the last thing she needs.
Harris may swing to the center in talking about what she’ll do in order to appeal to moderates and independents like me, but why should I believe her? She doesn’t seem to have any core beliefs. I do not trust her. Even Biden was swinging further left.
It is quickly seeming like the nomination is a foregone conclusion. If so, though I’m certainly not planning on voting for Trump, but I’m not sure I could force myself to vote for Harris.
@Amri - So called "fusion" tickets have had little traction in our national politics. The closest we've come, I think, was 2008. After being Gore's running mate in 2000 and losing his own bid for the Democratic nomination for President in '04, he was effectively expelled from his party and defeated in the primary in '06 when seeking reelection. It's hard to say why he was so ostracized - for supporting Israel or for favoring a strong defense or for his position on the overthrow of the blood-drenched tyrant Saddam Hussein. In '08, he gave a very well received speech at the GOP national convention and was mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain. More recently, he was prominent in the No Labels movement reflecting the wide unhappiness with a rerun of a Biden v. Trump election. It's a history that doesn't give much encouragement to any outreach to Cheney (or Kinzinger) even though both seem reconciled to the end of their careers in GOP politics.
While the technical party "rules" may not be a real impediment to a strong consensus-driven process, what do they say anyway? According to The Hill, his delegates are released and free. Apparently a candidate needs 2000 to win the nomination and Harris has already gotten "pledges" of 500 or so. IDK if those pledges are binding - I kind of doubt it. And one needs 300 delegate votes to be nominated for consideration. I would love to see two or three tickets compete at the convention and I'd very much like to see Harris' proposed running mate and hopefully centrist and sane platform/agenda. The convention begins in three weeks with a week to shake out perhaps we could even have a debate before the convention among the would be candidates. And I agree with Mr. Johnson's comment previously, that a never-trump republican running mate would make a real national unity statement and hopefully take enough votes from Trump to make a difference. Vice President Romney? Amash? Meijer?
Let's not have a revival of the slogan reportedly considered by Hillary Clinton's campaign advisers: "Because it's her turn."
Nor is this any time to be thinking of the record books (first South Asian president, etc.) Democrats who are thinking that way are Democrats who do not, after all, believe that the fate of democracy hangs in the balance. If we believe that it does, we'll set aside special considerations and focus on broad appeal and known competence.
The important thing is not whether one likes to picture Kamala Harris in the president's office, but whether one wants to make sure someone other than Donald Trump actually occupies it.
It's certainly possible that Kamala will become the nominee. And if she is, I will certainly support her.
But as someone who was actually a supporter of hers during the first half of 2019 (I'm from California, thought she had a good record as the DA and had done reasonably well as a Senator, and I liked the fact that she was married to a Jewish guy), I am very skeptical that she is the best candidate to defeat Trump.
In 2019, she ended up running away from her record as DA, was miserable at persuading voters to support her, and then her campaign pretty much imploded. And then, when she was selected to be VP in 20202 (which I was happy about), I found her somewhat off putting in both speeches and the debate.
There definitely needs to be a process over the next month where candidates prove themselves on the campaign trail and demonstrate that they can attract votes. If during that process Kamala demonstrates she is now the best candidate to beat Trump, I'll be fully on board. But I think it would be a huge mistake to simply coronate her. Partly because I suspect she is far from the best candidate. And partly because that process itself is a great way to get folks excited about the Democratic candidate.
Ezra Klein did a podcast about her recently, which I recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvaxlKuOuE
I don't feel as if I know a lot about her. The observation in this podcast that most concerned me was that when her staffers disagreed about some decision, Harris didn't make the decision herself. I am left wondering whether, in some high-stakes situation in which a decision must be made quickly, she might simply freeze. (I don't mean to sound unsympathetic; I would probably freeze too, in that position. But I'm not running for President.)
Harris does not have to move to the center. She has always been a centrist. What she needs is to not be afraid to assert herself as she really is.
You said it, friend! I feel like this is likely the case for (hopefully) most of our politicians, to be honest. Really hoping our representatives on the hill can collectively learn to take a step back from the Wonderland world of social media and consider the value of cross-party coalition-building more deeply.
"But today’s decision to resign his candidacy guarantees that [Biden] will be remembered as a genuine statesman, someone who took a selfless call, even if it took him a few weeks too long to do so."
Huh. I think it took him a year too long to do so.
Fair!
This is the biggest political rip-off that I've experienced in my 50 years of voting. Joe was supposed to be one term. Democrats deserved a primary, not an anointment. Joe's racist selection of Kamala Harris according to her skin color was disgusting. Now we're supposed to be stuck with her? Yuck.
Thank you for speaking up about the biological realities of women. We can be open hearted Liberals on transgender folks and their rights but we also need to be in reality about women’s spaces and keeping competitive sports separated by sex. Listen to Serena or Martina on this subject. And remember, it’s not a left vs. right issue.
With the Republican convention now old news, the Democrats have an opportunity over the next six weeks to monopolize media coverage. This assumes of course an exciting sprint to the nomination and not a leisurely carriage ride to a coronation.
In addition, the Democrats must keep the action within the convention and not allow protests and counter protests outside the convention to dominate media coverage. Some of us are old enough to remember the chaos of the 1968 Democratic convention that, at least in my opinion, gave us the election of Richard Nixon (twice!) and a longer Viet Nam war.
I agree, but think outside demonstrations are uncontrollable. In '68 there were about 10,000 demonstrators, 12,000 Chicago police, 6,000 members of the national guard, 6,000 US army, 1,000 each CIA and FBI, plus a lot in reserve. And the demonstrators were peaceful -- it was a police riot.
However, I don't think either the police or the demonstrators will be as problematic this time. The one thing I recommend is that the Dems not cater to the protestors at all. Watching on TV in '68, as they chanted "The whole word is watching," I was sure the whole world would side with us against the police. Years later, I learned that polling showed the world had sided with the working class police.
Not coincidently that election was the beginning of the end of unconditional working class/blue collar support for the Democratic party. Now we likely will have two children of privilege, albeit different kinds of privilege, Trump and Harris, nominated for president.
I wonder if Dems would ever do something way out there. What would a Liz Cheney v Trump ticket look like?
Yes, I know she’s a Republican. And, yes, I know who her father is. And, perhaps she might run in 2028. She’d be 61.
And, she would become the turn to a non-binary electorate even if she ran as an independent and got Dems support at their convention.
It’s wild but if people want an open process and a viable candidate to face what occurs as a forgone conclusion, why not?
The debates between them would be amazing!
Biden out, now what?
The winning strategy in the newly shuffled deck of American politics may be for Democrats to take the opportunity to move beyond identity politics, and the tradition of building coalitions by appealing to separate vocal interests groups by promising to address their specific aspirations. An appeal to principles of good government would go far toward dispelling voter cynicism, while pricking the balloon of GOP anti DEI sentiment and the growing movement of the broad electorate against progressive overreach. There is a predominant feeling that politicians are in it for themselves and will say only what their patrons want to hear. Bribery is done for the most part legally with no visible strings when interests are able to concentrate very large amounts of money for their causes.
In the past their existed statesmen for whom honor and public interest were the medium of their personal ambition. A healthy community is a society of persons each exercising their individual causality in pursuit of their own needs and ambitions in ways consistent with the wellbeing of the community, all striving to ‘do the right thing’. Government is established to provide for the common good, and those who would serve in government are obliged to that mission. Political theory precedent to the Constitution, distinguished between ambition, or the love of power, useful as it may be to the aims of the community—think Adam Smith and capitalism, that society benefits from the pursuit of individual interests—and “love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds” (Hamilton, Federalist #72), by which, in contradistinction to celebrity, ambitious persons pursue the transgenerational regard of their communities, thereby the distinction between the petty politician and the statesman.
If we are to transcend universal and personal decline we need act unilaterally and collectively to restore the health of the body politic. Individual causality is the first mover but can do but little of constructive purpose without support of likeminded persons. Nor can causes or the interests of groups be advanced except the consensus of the larger community be developed.
A government in the model of a democratic republic will find it difficult to function effectively if its institutions are not perceived to represent and to act in the interest of the collective will of the people, to express some overarching consensus of the balance of competing interests, rather than being in the thrall of certain of those interests. Absent the perception of legitimacy people will be inclined to disregard the laws or to support government policies only when they are seen to promote their parochial interests. Absent governmental efficiency and public safety, person’s, aware of their own inadequacies and having lost faith in reality, will succumb to fantasy, be receptive to conspiracy theories, will look for strong leadership offering simplistic solutions, and be especially vulnerable to demagogic figures promising collective empowerment and redress of perceived indignities.
It is telling that in consideration of possible candidates to replace Biden on the ticket, pros and cons seem largely those of appeal to interest: a black woman versus a white male, etc., or that of cosmetic celebrity. It seems not to have occurred to many pundits that voters, though long trained to consider first what’s in it for them, might be open to the promise of sacrifice for the common weal, realizing that their own interest is wrapped up with the health and continuity of the larger community.
The reluctance of many to see Biden step down was that it was too late to change horses, even that maintenance of the status quo was more important than defeating the orange menace. But if this is not the moment to plainly address the concerns of the nation, then when? And is a return to first principles often not the proper reset?
I'm in complete agreement, especially with Democrats should "stage a genuinely open competition for who should oppose Trump." He took this position earlier than anyone else--right after the disastrous debate. I took that to heart and on July 1, started a petition to that effect. http://change.org/BidenPlanB .
But I also agree that "that course of action may not be likely." And, I don't have much reach, so as of right now I have only 156 signatures, but I'd appreciate a few more before I have to send it to the DNC, which might need to be tomorrow.
A few days ago, AOC said it would be impossible to transfer Biden's campaign fund to any candidate other than K.H.
I heard that too. But (as one would expect) it's not true. She was trying to help Joe because she and Bernie Sanders have been having some success lately with pushing some of their ideas on him.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9l41vgOAGj/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
Is it just me or is there no one who actually wants Kamala to be the successor, just people who fear that passing over her will upset other people?
Fascinating. Harris is a prosecutor. In office she would need a much broader skill set. In terms of leadership she seems weak and is a very poor orator. She has to decide whether to be a supporter of job quotas or whether to champion all social groups and classes. Vance will go for her on this. It could be key because Biden never invited the party to have that debate.
The convention should be a real test for her. Will Biden attend and support her? That could be the last thing she needs.
Harris may swing to the center in talking about what she’ll do in order to appeal to moderates and independents like me, but why should I believe her? She doesn’t seem to have any core beliefs. I do not trust her. Even Biden was swinging further left.
It is quickly seeming like the nomination is a foregone conclusion. If so, though I’m certainly not planning on voting for Trump, but I’m not sure I could force myself to vote for Harris.
Hope I'm wrong, but a day after the announcement, Harris is starting to rhyme with Mondale and McGovern.
@Amri - So called "fusion" tickets have had little traction in our national politics. The closest we've come, I think, was 2008. After being Gore's running mate in 2000 and losing his own bid for the Democratic nomination for President in '04, he was effectively expelled from his party and defeated in the primary in '06 when seeking reelection. It's hard to say why he was so ostracized - for supporting Israel or for favoring a strong defense or for his position on the overthrow of the blood-drenched tyrant Saddam Hussein. In '08, he gave a very well received speech at the GOP national convention and was mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain. More recently, he was prominent in the No Labels movement reflecting the wide unhappiness with a rerun of a Biden v. Trump election. It's a history that doesn't give much encouragement to any outreach to Cheney (or Kinzinger) even though both seem reconciled to the end of their careers in GOP politics.
While the technical party "rules" may not be a real impediment to a strong consensus-driven process, what do they say anyway? According to The Hill, his delegates are released and free. Apparently a candidate needs 2000 to win the nomination and Harris has already gotten "pledges" of 500 or so. IDK if those pledges are binding - I kind of doubt it. And one needs 300 delegate votes to be nominated for consideration. I would love to see two or three tickets compete at the convention and I'd very much like to see Harris' proposed running mate and hopefully centrist and sane platform/agenda. The convention begins in three weeks with a week to shake out perhaps we could even have a debate before the convention among the would be candidates. And I agree with Mr. Johnson's comment previously, that a never-trump republican running mate would make a real national unity statement and hopefully take enough votes from Trump to make a difference. Vice President Romney? Amash? Meijer?
Let's not have a revival of the slogan reportedly considered by Hillary Clinton's campaign advisers: "Because it's her turn."
Nor is this any time to be thinking of the record books (first South Asian president, etc.) Democrats who are thinking that way are Democrats who do not, after all, believe that the fate of democracy hangs in the balance. If we believe that it does, we'll set aside special considerations and focus on broad appeal and known competence.
The important thing is not whether one likes to picture Kamala Harris in the president's office, but whether one wants to make sure someone other than Donald Trump actually occupies it.