Proof once again that the right’s “intellectuals” are nothing but mediocre white men who have risen to prominence by dumb people who think that’s what smart people sound like.
Why does anyone think that Stephens is arguing in good faith here? That he actually cares about who the Democrats nominate? I am totally convinced that he would have no problem accepting another Trump term, his protests notwithstanding.
honestly I think that's a huge part of it. Forget absolutely everything else about the situation. Why on earth would the Democratic Party abandon the first female vice president in the first presidential election after Dobbs? Especially in favor of a southern white dude like Beshear?
It's notable that the "she's a cop" framing is the way white online lefties talk about her, but it is clearly not the way actual black voters feel about her
I think, at the very, very least, that's exactly the comms strategy the Trump campaign would use. "The Democratic Party doesn't care about you! Look at it, the first black vice president, and they kicked her to the curb!"
I'm working on a theory about this, I think Stephen's/the NYT's bizarre editorial board strategy is what you get if you (a) want a candidate younger than Biden but (b) know that any younger candidate who could mount a meaningful primary challenge would have to come from the left
So clear that Bouie’s skills and patience in dealing with trolls and fools on this site and elsewhere is at least partly from practice in dealing with Stephens.
Stephens is repeatedly unable to substantively respond to the specific points Jamelle is making and resorts to cliches like "there are no certainties in life, football or politics."
One of my main criticisms of e.g. Ezra Klein is that that camp behaves as if they have zero skin in the game and don't respect the choices of Biden, who has massive skin in the game. Haven't read this but if Stephens seems checked out that is very consistent with the "dump Biden" advocates thus far.
I think there's a general aversion to politics by a certain class of folks in the dem/liberal establishment. Politics requires coalition building and collective consensus, and I think's scary for some people because it's harder to control what demands come out of that process.
You should know you've lost when you have to appeal to anecdotes about taking the car keys away from Dad to explain the structure of a political coalition containing millions of people.
Just like when he had the “bedbug” tantrum, it must be very difficult for Bret to encounter someone who is younger, smarter and not submissively deferential to him
Biden chose not to run because his son died and he didn't feel up to running. He waited until almost the last minute to announce he wasn't running. Nobody placed any pressure on him to not run.
Even if he were pressured in some way to step aside, there was a democratic election! Clinton wasn’t just chosen as the nominee in some smoke-filled room! She even had a pretty persistent challenger. This is what voters saw. How can you replace the spectacle of a primary with a 19th c. nomination?
Don’t overlook this absurd conclusion from the the NYT deputy opinion editor, as if in private conversations and meetings, White House staff, Cabinet members, and others spew nonstop lies, insult Biden and his family, and he knows he has only two minutes to respond _and_ answer a policy question.
Why Democratic leaders don't think Harris can win is the same reason my grandma couldn't vote for Obama. "There's just something about him. I don't know what it is..."
That is not at all apparent in this article. She completely accepts a conservative framing of the debate and offers a solution with no democratic legitimacy that would wreck the party far beyond this election cycle.
I describe her as a reliable liberal based on her writing going back years. I disagree with her read of this situation, though those in agreeance run the gamut among Biden voters, from the left to the center-right.
(by the way I read your newsletter analysis of the situation and found it sobering and persuasive. Crossing my fingers that this was a momentary/trivial lapse.)
One single more cough, sneeze, or hiccup out of Biden and it's curtains. Trump landslide victory. And that is what the apologists don't get now. America will not stand for a frail and fragile president. It's not our DNA, for good or for bad. Act like democracy is at stake now. It is.
I like Michelle Goldberg, but Biden is "staring down near-certain defeat"? What the hell is she talking about? I think some of these otherwise smart pundits need to get out and talk to people not in their bubble.
They are DESPERATE for it to be a horse race! They saw a chance to attack Biden and took it.
Trump lost and hasn't increased his base. He's spending all his campaign funds (and thise for the rest of the party) on his legal expenses. He LIES constantly.
And this is really the main thing: it's a factual claim for which there's no evidence. Bracing coldblooded analysis from horserace experts is unpleasant but necessary sometimes (I hate Nate Cohn but love him, etc.) But this isn't rigorous; it's just takeslinging.
Anyway the right take here (I forget whom to credit) is that the convention as a democratic institution is too moribund to be used the way these doofs envision. Maybe if the party had evolved differently, the convention's choice could unify the coalition. But you go to war with the party you have.
I mean, the last time a sitting president was replaced as the candidate was LBJ, and he gave almost a year’s notice. Anyway, I don’t remember how things turned out for the Democrats that year but I’m just going to assume it went really, really well.
Though in 1968, the primary schedule was several weeks later than it was now, so when LBJ withdrew only 5 states had voted.
The Bobby Kennedy assassination probably contributed to convention chaos more than LBJ’s withdrawal, because Kennedy’s delegates had to choose between Humphrey and McCarthy.
Anyone who imagines this working hasn’t considered that *campaigns are run by people* many of whom don’t really like each other very much. People work together regardless as one must, but disruptions in norms escalate latent tensions and changes take time to socialize
Even normal transfers of power come with a lot of disruption and uncertainty as new staff, many of them taking over roles they have never been in before, acclimatize and integrate with other internal and external power structures. It’s not like leaders just slide in with nothing else changing.
Comments
Fly away from heeere…..
From this one star hotel room….
And the expense reports that you feeeeaaar…
When someone shows you who they are....
https://bsky.app/profile/cait.bsky.social/post/3kvdzgoc3ht2k
Kill him again.
shes a cop and all that but shes VP and you don’t do her like that
Or maybe it’s vice versa. 🤔
Biden chose not to run because his son died and he didn't feel up to running. He waited until almost the last minute to announce he wasn't running. Nobody placed any pressure on him to not run.
Trump lost and hasn't increased his base. He's spending all his campaign funds (and thise for the rest of the party) on his legal expenses. He LIES constantly.
He's a felon, and no one is happy with Dobbs
The Bobby Kennedy assassination probably contributed to convention chaos more than LBJ’s withdrawal, because Kennedy’s delegates had to choose between Humphrey and McCarthy.
Anyone who imagines this working hasn’t considered that *campaigns are run by people* many of whom don’t really like each other very much. People work together regardless as one must, but disruptions in norms escalate latent tensions and changes take time to socialize
You can spend those four months trying to coalesce around some mythical unicorn candidate and create a WHOLE NEW PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ...
Or you give a seasoned campaigner a chance to regroup and rebuild.
Which seems more possible?
All incumbents fumble the 1st debate. Biden obviously had a cold!
Attacking him is STUPID.