Here's a scratchpad thought: it is really, really not a good look for a bunch of 30-something to 40-ish white male pundits who claim to be reality-based spinning alternate Democratic candidate scenarios in which every suggested candidate is not the sitting Vice-President of the United States.
Even putting aside all other considerations, Harris is the only person who can access the funds Biden has raised (north of $200 million). It would be criminal to waste that.
The whole incident reveals the stark difference between Ds and Rs. Where the Rs coalesce around Trump despite far more concerns than Biden has, the Ds freak at any problem. This is no way to win elections -- the Rs are terrible on policy, but they manage politics very well and the Ds need to learn some lessons there.
I for 1 am unconvinced that R's "manage politics".. All the putative R's supposedly in charge loathed Trump and doubtless still do, but were unable to "manage" anything. To my view, what we see is that R-voters were all along not at all what R-managers thought they were, and it is the R-managers that have been managed. And they have almost all taken a knee and kissed the _your_euphemism_here.
I think this is right, at least these days. But the result is basically the same either way: whether the pros influence the voters or vice versa, standing by their man is what they do.
Have a food fight on the floor of an open convention. If Harris doesn't make it onto the ticket, this will be no different than the process in days of yore. The Democratic Party will be invigorated and have two months to rally behind the result whoever it is.
The African-American community makes up ~18% of the base a Democratic candidate needs to win the Presidency. I don't think they are going to see a "food fight" to shunt aside a Black woman who has served loyally as Vice-President to be invigorating or legitimate.
Why would it necessarily shunt aside a Black woman? The danger would be if she isn't given an equal chance. But if she is outvoted by convention delegates (or loses in Jim Clyburn's "mini-primary" scenario) then bumping the winners to give her a place on the ticket anyway, would be far more fatal to Democratic chances
Last night Noah wrote that inflation is running at 3.5 to 4.0% (I assume core PCE). That was true for Q1 and April, but the previous 2 quarters were 2.0%, and May was even less. We can pick our time period to make our point. Noah argued that a big reason stubborn high inflation was the large fiscal deficit, therefore we need to slash the deficit.
That sounds sensible, but what if Q1's 3.7% inflation was a blip, and longer term it is 2%, and then we cut deficit spending severely - do we end up back at zero inflation ... and possibly zero interest rates?
And across the pond, Italy's annual inflation rate has been sub-1%. The rest of the countries approaching 2% rapidly (which ought not to be a threshold for monetary policy action). And, we received a hawkish policy rate cut from the ECB. Enough with this school marm type of policy behavior. But I may not understand why that is the proper way to behave.
Immediately upon Biden stepping down in favor of Harris the NYT will lead (and the WaPo will follow) a two-pronged attack:
1) Dems in disarray - can't do the basic job of selecting a candidate - not capable of Governing(tm) - need a strong Daddy figure - don't worry about what Trump says, he's been chastened and in any case will be under the control of the wiser heads of the Republican Party - what is the Federalist Society? Never heard of it
2) The time is right for a woman as President but, doncha know, Harris isn't That Woman(tm) - stiff - unlikable - not a good politician (psssst: you do know she is [small font] black [/small font] right? And a, you know, woman?
Not sure how that would be any better than a diminished Ronald Reagan, I mean Joe Biden as the candidate.
Here's a scratchpad thought: it is really, really not a good look for a bunch of 30-something to 40-ish white male pundits who claim to be reality-based spinning alternate Democratic candidate scenarios in which every suggested candidate is not the sitting Vice-President of the United States.
Even putting aside all other considerations, Harris is the only person who can access the funds Biden has raised (north of $200 million). It would be criminal to waste that.
The whole incident reveals the stark difference between Ds and Rs. Where the Rs coalesce around Trump despite far more concerns than Biden has, the Ds freak at any problem. This is no way to win elections -- the Rs are terrible on policy, but they manage politics very well and the Ds need to learn some lessons there.
I for 1 am unconvinced that R's "manage politics".. All the putative R's supposedly in charge loathed Trump and doubtless still do, but were unable to "manage" anything. To my view, what we see is that R-voters were all along not at all what R-managers thought they were, and it is the R-managers that have been managed. And they have almost all taken a knee and kissed the _your_euphemism_here.
I think this is right, at least these days. But the result is basically the same either way: whether the pros influence the voters or vice versa, standing by their man is what they do.
Have a food fight on the floor of an open convention. If Harris doesn't make it onto the ticket, this will be no different than the process in days of yore. The Democratic Party will be invigorated and have two months to rally behind the result whoever it is.
The African-American community makes up ~18% of the base a Democratic candidate needs to win the Presidency. I don't think they are going to see a "food fight" to shunt aside a Black woman who has served loyally as Vice-President to be invigorating or legitimate.
Why would it necessarily shunt aside a Black woman? The danger would be if she isn't given an equal chance. But if she is outvoted by convention delegates (or loses in Jim Clyburn's "mini-primary" scenario) then bumping the winners to give her a place on the ticket anyway, would be far more fatal to Democratic chances
Last night Noah wrote that inflation is running at 3.5 to 4.0% (I assume core PCE). That was true for Q1 and April, but the previous 2 quarters were 2.0%, and May was even less. We can pick our time period to make our point. Noah argued that a big reason stubborn high inflation was the large fiscal deficit, therefore we need to slash the deficit.
That sounds sensible, but what if Q1's 3.7% inflation was a blip, and longer term it is 2%, and then we cut deficit spending severely - do we end up back at zero inflation ... and possibly zero interest rates?
And across the pond, Italy's annual inflation rate has been sub-1%. The rest of the countries approaching 2% rapidly (which ought not to be a threshold for monetary policy action). And, we received a hawkish policy rate cut from the ECB. Enough with this school marm type of policy behavior. But I may not understand why that is the proper way to behave.
Immediately upon Biden stepping down in favor of Harris the NYT will lead (and the WaPo will follow) a two-pronged attack:
1) Dems in disarray - can't do the basic job of selecting a candidate - not capable of Governing(tm) - need a strong Daddy figure - don't worry about what Trump says, he's been chastened and in any case will be under the control of the wiser heads of the Republican Party - what is the Federalist Society? Never heard of it
2) The time is right for a woman as President but, doncha know, Harris isn't That Woman(tm) - stiff - unlikable - not a good politician (psssst: you do know she is [small font] black [/small font] right? And a, you know, woman?
Not sure how that would be any better than a diminished Ronald Reagan, I mean Joe Biden as the candidate.