Excellent summary, Seth. I’m sending to my students.
I agree about how stunning it is to see so many people so certain of unknowable things. That said, any estimates of how much damage a late contentions primary/convention does to a party’s chances? I keep thinking it’s a negative all in its own right because its admission of party fallibility.
Also, what’s with the largely white donor class/ pundit position that it’s okay to pass over Harris in favor of the promise of a conversion-produced (white, likely male) savior. Are they nuts? Missing the politics gene? Just convince women, esp Black women, will overlook the insult and fall in line?
I think citing Sorkin is a bit of a straw man here. If you want an an example of "Angry anti-Trump Dem party white guy who wants Biden replaced" party actor Yglesias is a much better example:
"After watching the debate, I think it’s clear that Harris would be better.
Will she rise to the occasion and become a great politician? I hope so. But I wouldn’t count on it. Would she deliver replacement-level performance? I’m quite sure she would. She wouldn’t say “we finally beat Medicare” when she meant “we finally beat the prescription drug companies and let Medicare bargain for lower prices.” She wouldn’t let her opponent repeatedly — and falsely — claim that immigrants are undermining Social Security’s finances when the exact opposite is true. She wouldn’t discuss crime while forgetting to mention that the murder rate is lower now than it was when Trump left office.
I have a lot of ideas about how Harris could be a better politician and a lot of opinions about which politicians would be better than Harris. But she’s a replacement-level Democrat, and at this point, Biden is clearly below that." https://www.slowboring.com/p/honor-demands-joe-biden-step-aside
Or to put it another way Biden is clearly losing in the national and swing state polls. In order to turn that around he needed to 1. Demonstrate during the debate to doubters that he could still do the job 2. Run a vigorous campaign that would generate lots of earned media about why Trump is bad 3. Embrace moderate positions to win back moderates who are open to voting Trump but don't like him.
Biden clearly failed at number one (and his actions after the debate compounded this problem), he doesn't seem capable of two (hence him still running a "rose garden strategy") and in making deals with people like AOC to try to hold on to the nomination that make three impossible.
And I think that's the core DB argument: not that it's impossible Biden can win (elections are weird and anything's possible) but that the Dems chances would improve somewhat with a new nominee that could actually be capable doing those three things I outlined above.
To be blunt: I think that seeing legitimacy in nominations as coming solely from from primaries and voting is both a thin view or parties and democracy and also kind of nonsensical in terms of American history and in terms of almost every other democracy in the world.
I am glad that I read this earlier, before Biden's withdrawal announcement. It does't lessen my sadness at how this has played out, but it adds a bit more context to the tensions that have been so challenging. I have no clue how this will all end, but I suspect that it will at least rally the base and fortify Democrats. Unless it tears us apart first. Uneasy times, and appreciate your insights.
I'm an older left D (75 WM). I've spent a lot of the last ten years writing for various platforms on the intersection of law, current events, and public policy. At heart, I'm probably a policy-demander first (aligned primarily with women and POC and their policy interests, plus environmental protection) and an electability-demander second.
For the least several election cycles, I've reversed my priorities, probably making me in effect (but not intention or preference) a relative incrementalist on policy. I've done that because the GOP has moved so far to the nihilist-authoritarian end of the spectrum that I'm a modern-day Yellow-Dog D.
To me, the current chaos in the D party seems greater than is historically typical, but not completely alien to the ways of the party. I tip back and forth over whether Biden is more likely to withdraw. The election is still almost four months away, which suggests that all the hot takes are just that for now.
I'm ignoring the polls, writing postcards and letters to swing voters in swing states, and comforting my self with the duty-free versions of the Serenity Prayer. Head down and onward.
Insightful read. Remember 2008, many Black Democrats initially supported Hillary Clinton. This was unsurprising as they were more familiar with her and believed she had a better chance of winning. However, when Barack Obama began winning primary elections, it became clear that a Black candidate could succeed. This shift made it possible to envision him winning the presidency. I predict this will be an abrupt recreation of that. The momentum has already shifted.
This is an interesting piece, but re: the points at the end there are some of us (I'm some guy, not a party insider, but whatever) who want Biden to step aside not because he will lose to Trump, but because he has mentally slipped enough that he probably should not be president and definitely should not be president in the year 2028. I would rather have a 25% chance of Harris than a 25% chance of Biden, despite "liking" Biden more, on this basis alone.
I also think party insiders who think as I do are more likely to say things like "defeating Trump is the most important thing and so Biden should step aside, even though I love him" rather than "omg, the guy has dementia and should not be president." Hence, we don't know how prevalent my view is.
You note that you're surprised that everyone is so confident with who is most electable. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone is that confident, as the vast majority of people believe the most electable candidate is also the one who aligns with their own faction. This is deeply suspicious, to the point that you wonder whether the electability argument is what they actually believe in, or whether they support one candidate over another for ideological reasons and electability is just the argument they think might persuade people in other factions.
On one hand, the democratic party has a long record and built up trust with most of the constituencies I can think of. The best predictor of future success is past success, so why would they abandon the party now over any particular candidate? On the other hand, the current candidate has lost much trust by hiding his cognitive decline. In summary, the party has not lost trust because of its policies, but the candidate has lost trust because of his actions.
So, I think that people who put a lot of weight in the value of ``trust'' tend to be more persuaded by and confident about the two bullet points.
And, we do have polls that, at the very least, support the first bullet point, i.e. that age/cognitive ability are Biden's biggest issues. Now, one could ignore this and run the real world experiment anyway, at which point it will be too late.
As a final thought experiment, WWMD (what would Macron do)?
He never his cognitive decline - that’s a RW narrative. 56% of Dems approved him staying in, mostly bc of the mess that is about to occur. Dems have a lot of problems unifying the front bc there’s so many groups in the tent , unlike GOP. Any change so late is extremely problematic
Excellent summary, Seth. I’m sending to my students.
I agree about how stunning it is to see so many people so certain of unknowable things. That said, any estimates of how much damage a late contentions primary/convention does to a party’s chances? I keep thinking it’s a negative all in its own right because its admission of party fallibility.
Also, what’s with the largely white donor class/ pundit position that it’s okay to pass over Harris in favor of the promise of a conversion-produced (white, likely male) savior. Are they nuts? Missing the politics gene? Just convince women, esp Black women, will overlook the insult and fall in line?
I think citing Sorkin is a bit of a straw man here. If you want an an example of "Angry anti-Trump Dem party white guy who wants Biden replaced" party actor Yglesias is a much better example:
"After watching the debate, I think it’s clear that Harris would be better.
Will she rise to the occasion and become a great politician? I hope so. But I wouldn’t count on it. Would she deliver replacement-level performance? I’m quite sure she would. She wouldn’t say “we finally beat Medicare” when she meant “we finally beat the prescription drug companies and let Medicare bargain for lower prices.” She wouldn’t let her opponent repeatedly — and falsely — claim that immigrants are undermining Social Security’s finances when the exact opposite is true. She wouldn’t discuss crime while forgetting to mention that the murder rate is lower now than it was when Trump left office.
I have a lot of ideas about how Harris could be a better politician and a lot of opinions about which politicians would be better than Harris. But she’s a replacement-level Democrat, and at this point, Biden is clearly below that." https://www.slowboring.com/p/honor-demands-joe-biden-step-aside
Or to put it another way Biden is clearly losing in the national and swing state polls. In order to turn that around he needed to 1. Demonstrate during the debate to doubters that he could still do the job 2. Run a vigorous campaign that would generate lots of earned media about why Trump is bad 3. Embrace moderate positions to win back moderates who are open to voting Trump but don't like him.
Biden clearly failed at number one (and his actions after the debate compounded this problem), he doesn't seem capable of two (hence him still running a "rose garden strategy") and in making deals with people like AOC to try to hold on to the nomination that make three impossible.
And I think that's the core DB argument: not that it's impossible Biden can win (elections are weird and anything's possible) but that the Dems chances would improve somewhat with a new nominee that could actually be capable doing those three things I outlined above.
LOL glad we got this all in before this afternoon! Anyway onward Kamala Soldiers!
interesting to think we're all going to go with Kamala after our primary votes were callously ignored.
To be blunt: I think that seeing legitimacy in nominations as coming solely from from primaries and voting is both a thin view or parties and democracy and also kind of nonsensical in terms of American history and in terms of almost every other democracy in the world.
I am glad that I read this earlier, before Biden's withdrawal announcement. It does't lessen my sadness at how this has played out, but it adds a bit more context to the tensions that have been so challenging. I have no clue how this will all end, but I suspect that it will at least rally the base and fortify Democrats. Unless it tears us apart first. Uneasy times, and appreciate your insights.
Well said.
I'm an older left D (75 WM). I've spent a lot of the last ten years writing for various platforms on the intersection of law, current events, and public policy. At heart, I'm probably a policy-demander first (aligned primarily with women and POC and their policy interests, plus environmental protection) and an electability-demander second.
For the least several election cycles, I've reversed my priorities, probably making me in effect (but not intention or preference) a relative incrementalist on policy. I've done that because the GOP has moved so far to the nihilist-authoritarian end of the spectrum that I'm a modern-day Yellow-Dog D.
To me, the current chaos in the D party seems greater than is historically typical, but not completely alien to the ways of the party. I tip back and forth over whether Biden is more likely to withdraw. The election is still almost four months away, which suggests that all the hot takes are just that for now.
I'm ignoring the polls, writing postcards and letters to swing voters in swing states, and comforting my self with the duty-free versions of the Serenity Prayer. Head down and onward.
Insightful read. Remember 2008, many Black Democrats initially supported Hillary Clinton. This was unsurprising as they were more familiar with her and believed she had a better chance of winning. However, when Barack Obama began winning primary elections, it became clear that a Black candidate could succeed. This shift made it possible to envision him winning the presidency. I predict this will be an abrupt recreation of that. The momentum has already shifted.
This is an interesting piece, but re: the points at the end there are some of us (I'm some guy, not a party insider, but whatever) who want Biden to step aside not because he will lose to Trump, but because he has mentally slipped enough that he probably should not be president and definitely should not be president in the year 2028. I would rather have a 25% chance of Harris than a 25% chance of Biden, despite "liking" Biden more, on this basis alone.
I also think party insiders who think as I do are more likely to say things like "defeating Trump is the most important thing and so Biden should step aside, even though I love him" rather than "omg, the guy has dementia and should not be president." Hence, we don't know how prevalent my view is.
What alternative universe does this guy live in??
You note that you're surprised that everyone is so confident with who is most electable. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone is that confident, as the vast majority of people believe the most electable candidate is also the one who aligns with their own faction. This is deeply suspicious, to the point that you wonder whether the electability argument is what they actually believe in, or whether they support one candidate over another for ideological reasons and electability is just the argument they think might persuade people in other factions.
Well, he’s gone now. And we can hope the party will coalesce around Kamala.
On your two bullet points:
On one hand, the democratic party has a long record and built up trust with most of the constituencies I can think of. The best predictor of future success is past success, so why would they abandon the party now over any particular candidate? On the other hand, the current candidate has lost much trust by hiding his cognitive decline. In summary, the party has not lost trust because of its policies, but the candidate has lost trust because of his actions.
So, I think that people who put a lot of weight in the value of ``trust'' tend to be more persuaded by and confident about the two bullet points.
And, we do have polls that, at the very least, support the first bullet point, i.e. that age/cognitive ability are Biden's biggest issues. Now, one could ignore this and run the real world experiment anyway, at which point it will be too late.
As a final thought experiment, WWMD (what would Macron do)?
He never his cognitive decline - that’s a RW narrative. 56% of Dems approved him staying in, mostly bc of the mess that is about to occur. Dems have a lot of problems unifying the front bc there’s so many groups in the tent , unlike GOP. Any change so late is extremely problematic