Post New

He says what I’ve said, only with humor: Column in today’s Times:

Gift link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/opinion/bill-ma...

On the other hand, no one ever increased sausage sales by giving out tours of the sausage factory.

Maher's vision of what happens in an open convention rests on a very lofty idea of what would happen at the convention. A notion that the convention will be a high-minded, vigorous, and most of all entertaining competition where candidates are evaluated on their strengths and ideas and policy platforms and the like. Which would be lovely, and might indeed improve the Democratic brand and entice people to the party.

The flip side, though, is that an open convention might instead be a grubby, venal (twice in two posts!), cynical, nasty, dispiriting affair filled with things that will repulse voters. Deal-making, trading support for votes or positions or clearing out "lanes" in future elections for favored allies of delegates. Bitter accusations of racism, sexism, classism, elitism - vile rhetoric and mudslinging. True believers who think that their issue (climate change, Palestine, voting rights, what have you) is too important to be bound by the rules, and engage in disruptive and/or disgusting behavior that normies will recoil from. Where the only respite from the unpleasantness could be the tedium of endless delegate polling as the body tries to grind down from potentially a score of candidates to get to a nominee.

An entire building full of political flacks, hacks, and diehard partisans locked in a room screaming all the quiet parts out loud to each other in a naked free-for-all seeking power within the party and the country - not in a smoke-filled back room, but out in the open where everyone's got a cell phone and a social media account.

Bill Maher makes his living off of politically-leaning comedy content, so even that second possibility would be fantastic for him. Whether that results in anything good for the Democrats or their eventual nominee is another thing entirely.

" Whether that results in anything good for the Democrats or their eventual nominee is another thing entirely."

Whose fault is that ? For over a year those of us who predicted Joe would not be the nominee were called conspiracy nuts, idiots, and much worse on various media sites. The msm, the Biden family, and Dem insiders have, acted in concert, to bamboozle us, mislead us, and pull off the great con. Several very influential players have been very quiet I hope they have a plan. They should be begging Jamie Dimon to say, if asked, I will serve my country for four years and give the American's hope for better times and a future. IF the DNC self dealing inside grifters turned that offer down ,the GOP wins a landslide and we deserve four more years of trump and friends.

An entire building full of political flacks, hacks, and diehard partisans locked in a room screaming all the quiet parts out loud to each other in a naked free-for-all seeking power within the party and the country - not in a smoke-filled back room, but out in the open where everyone's got a cell phone and a social media account.

And that, my friend, is why this idea of Biden stepping aside is irrational. It will lead to an open convention that will damage the entire party, including the down ballot races.

Sticking with Biden, being honest about his shortcomings, but selling those as being far less of a problem that Trump's shortcomings at least gives a fighting chance.

Bill Maher makes his living off of politically-leaning comedy content, so even that second possibility would be fantastic for him.

Until a thin-skinned, autocratic-leaning President decides to make life miserable for comedians that make fun of him.

--Peter

And that, my friend, is why this idea of Biden stepping aside is irrational. It will lead to an open convention that will damage the entire party, including the down ballot races.

The latter being true doesn't make the former true. An open convention might indeed be very damaging to the party....and still might be better than proceeding with Biden.

There are no good options for Democrats. There may no longer be any winning options for Democrats. The fact that one option is terrible doesn't necessarily mean that another option is therefore the better choice, because the Democrats are going to have to pick a terrible option.

Right now, the best option may be for Biden to step aside in favor of a full-throated coronation of Harris if he gets commitments from the other potential major options (Newsom, Whitmer, etc.) that they won't challenge her. It may be that sticking with Biden is better than a fully-open convention - Democrats would still lose but might salvage some down-ballot races - but I'm not sure it's better than giving Harris at least a chance to win this thing. And sparing every single down-ballot Democrat the problem of having to defend the party's choice of a senescent nominee, undermining the effectiveness of downballot candidates running against Trump.

Sticking with Biden, being honest about his shortcomings, but selling those as being far less of a problem that Trump's shortcomings at least gives a fighting chance.

No, it doesn't. There's no "selling" this. There's no more "fighting chance" for Biden. Biden was already losing to Trump in the national polls by a few points, and losing by more in the swing state polls. The entire theory of his candidacy is that he would be able to overcome voter doubts about his age over the course of the campaign. That's gone now. It won't show up as a sharp drop in the polls quickly - debates themselves just aren't that heavily watched. Instead, it will hit as a hard ceiling that prevents Biden from making up ground on Trump - and it will show up in the polls over time as Biden losing further ground as the attack ads scale up in the fall.

Right now, the best option may be for Biden to step aside in favor of a full-throated coronation of Harris if he gets commitments from the other potential major options (Newsom, Whitmer, etc.

Once again, disagree. The appointment, or rather annointment of Harris would be viewed as “politics as usual”; talk about “smoke filled rooms!”

And open convention would be messy, and yes, there’s a possibility that it could be worse than sticking with a losing candidate, but there’s also a chance it *could* be better. For the record, Harris has no national constituency (neither does Newsom, Buttegieg, etc) so other than “I was appointed by Joe and we won” I’m not sure she carries as lot of heft into the campaign.

She is also not a charismatic figure as Obama was, and her approvals show it. She’s had a single (unremarkable) term as Senator and scant executive experience. She might or might not be a good candidate on the stump, if so we haven’t seen it yet. This is not to slam her, just to point out that I see no practical reason she should be handed the nomination any more than any other potential candidate.

The people who go to political conventions are generally people involved in the process and at least somewhat knowledgable about the affairs of the country. I’m sure there are some “political tourists”, too, but overall I’d expect most of them to *actually care* about the candidate they select. (Does that mean there wouldn't be horse trading and all the other folderol of politics? Of course not.)

And imagine the unifying atmosphere if Harris actually won! Sure, there’s a risk to an open convention. I’d put it slower on the list than 1) Joe runs, 2) Kamala is handed the nomination or 3) Democrats choose a new candidate, as they did for 200 years prior.

PS: The unspoken in all of this, or at least I haven’t seen it anywhere, is the effect of Biden’s CinemaScope wide-view stumble will have on RFK’s candidacy. I suspect there are at least a few Democrats who will look to lodge a protest vote, and it can’t be for Trump. Is there any other place to mark the ballot than the 2nd craziest candidate available?

Deal-making, trading support for votes or positions or clearing out "lanes" in future elections for favored allies of delegates. Bitter accusations of racism, sexism, classism, elitism - vile rhetoric and mudslinging. True believers who think that their issue (climate change, Palestine, voting rights, what have you) is too important to be bound by the rules, and engage in disruptive and/or disgusting behavior that normies will recoil from. Where the only respite from the unpleasantness could be the tedium of endless delegate polling as the body tries to grind down from potentially a score of candidates to get to a nominee.

An entire building full of political flacks, hacks, and diehard partisans locked in a room screaming all the quiet parts out loud to each other in a naked free-for-all seeking power within the party and the country - not in a smoke-filled back room, but out in the open where everyone's got a cell phone and a social media account.

That would be almost worth seeing if the upshot in the end weren't that Trump is voted in. OK, taking everything into account, who do we think could pull off knocking off Trump?

Harris
Kinzinger
Newsom
Cheny
Manchin
Michelle O.

More names and then we run a poll?

Once again, disagree. The appointment, or rather annointment of Harris would be viewed as “politics as usual”; talk about “smoke filled rooms!”

Of course it would be. Any convention nominee would be. Conventions are where political deals are brokered by party insiders in hotel rooms and conference calls and restaurant bars. Candidate surrogates cutting deals with delegates as they shuttle from hotel to hotel, the lobbies and bathrooms and side chambers and any other private place in the convention hall. They're not populist referenda where candidates are weighed on their merits out in the open sunshine.

The problem with an open convention isn't that the optics of it will be worse (although that's certainly on the cards). It's that there's a very high probability that a significant faction of the party will come out of it feeling like they were treated unjustly - that the other side "cheated" in some way. That bitter feeling sometimes happens even in primaries, when the selection criterion (the person who gets the most votes wins!) and the selection process (we had an election to see who got the most votes!) are about as agreed-upon and fair as they can be. In a convention, where there is no selection criteria and the selection process is far more opaque and less regulated, the odds are really good that you end up with a significant faction coming out thinking the game was unfairly rigged against them.

IMHO, that's almost certain to happen with a wide-open convention. Might it happen with a Harris coronation? Maybe, but I think there's at least a chance it can be avoided - especially since I don't think that Biden anoints Harris unless the other likely contenders agree to back her. She's the only one that anyone could approach the top alternatives with that pitch. Whitmer's not stepping aside for Newsom (or vice versa), since none of them have any plausible claim being ahead of all the equals - but they might for Harris, since she's the Veep.

No, it doesn't. There's no "selling" this. There's no more "fighting chance" for Biden. Biden was already losing to Trump in the national polls by a few points, and losing by more in the swing state polls. The entire theory of his candidacy is that he would be able to overcome voter doubts about his age over the course of the campaign. That's gone now. It won't show up as a sharp drop in the polls quickly - debates themselves just aren't that heavily watched. Instead, it will hit as a hard ceiling that prevents Biden from making up ground on Trump - and it will show up in the polls over time as Biden losing further ground as the attack ads scale up in the fall.

Aye, and that's the rub. I think the most chance is with Harris. Maybe Cory Booker as VP. We either win, or go down in flames well is what I'm thinking now.

Well...

"In a Biden-Trump matchup, the poll found 45 percent of voters would back Biden, while 48 percent would choose Trump. Harris would perform the same in a head-to-head matchup against the Republican, according to the poll.

Other,<b< lesser-known candidates would perform worse, although more voters would indicate they are "not sure" when it came to those matchups.

Whitmer would garner 44 percent of the vote, while Trump would get 46 percent in a head-to-head matchup, according to the poll. About 9 percent say they are not sure who they would vote for.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg would get 44 percent of the vote, compared to Trump's 47 percent. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey would ask get 44 percent of the vote, while the Republican would get 46 percent—California Governor Gavin Newsom would get 44 percent to the former president's 47 percent.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro would each get 43 percent of the vote, compared to Trump's 46 percent, the poll found.

"The fact that other Democrats fare similarly to Biden against Trump suggests that this election is ultimately a referendum on Trump," Thomas Gift, an associate professor of political science and director of the Centre on U.S. Politics at University College London, told Newsweek."

We have this from Newsweek, but it's only one poll.