The worst part is that now - for a while, at least - we'll have to hear the endless, off-the-charts praise of Joe's courage and statesmanship from those in politics and the media who are relieved at this decision, and all the absurdly inflated praise from those who wanted to coax and flatter Joe out of office has been one of the hardest things to bear over the last few weeks. People have painted Joe Biden (Joe Biden!!) as some kind of supernatural blend of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Captain Marvel, when in reality, as president he was what he always was before he was in the Oval Office: a go-along-to-get-along, fundamentally mediocre career politician.
It's not a knock on Joe Biden to say that he was mediocre; how could you be a successful politician for fifty years and be anything else? Chance takers or people who say what they really think or who rock the boat with bold ideas don't stick around as long or get as far as Joe did. And really, in a healthy, well-oiled, smoothly-operating political system, you don't need brilliant statesmen; fairly competent, well-meaning mediocrities will do just fine.
Umm... we do not have a healthy, well-oiled, smoothly-running political system at the moment, do we? One more reason it's probably best for Joe to go, not that there are anything but more mediocrities lined up behind him. Well, at least they're younger, though I can't say anything about their golf games; we'll find out about that in the next debate, I guess.
I really want to believe the "charitable read." I do think it's entirely possible that Mr. Biden's decline has been pretty quick--that as recently as the last state of the union, he was mostly doing okay but that in the months since, he's declined sharply. I can imagine a staff compensating for such a decline while only half realizing that was what they were doing.
Of course, just because I want to believe that doesn't mean it's true.
The party will continue to treat "everyone who planned to vote for him" like trash until those voters grow a spine and stand up to the party. That means, first of all, not giving away the vote for nothing.
100% this Noah. And while you have made the principled case for why simply coronating Kamala is wrong, I think there is a pragmatic reason against it as well. I strongly fear that Kamala isn't the best candidate.
And I say that 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 AG, had done reasonably well as a Senator, and I liked the fact that she was married to a Jewish guy.
But in 2019 she ended up running away from her record as DA/AG, 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 2020 (which I was happy about), I found her somewhat off putting in both speeches and the debate.
The Democrats need a process over the next month where candidates can 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.
To put it in terms that will make sense to fellow Bay Area sports fans, I'm afraid Kamala is the James Wiseman/Trey Lance of Democratic nominees: someone who has all the tools and checks all the boxes on paper but doesn't actually help you win. My gut take is that Kamala instead of Biden doubles the Democrats chance of winning but only from under 5% to under 10%. I think someone who voters actually positively respond to could raise that to 40-60% depending on how good they turn out to be.
The worst part is that now - for a while, at least - we'll have to hear the endless, off-the-charts praise of Joe's courage and statesmanship from those in politics and the media who are relieved at this decision, and all the absurdly inflated praise from those who wanted to coax and flatter Joe out of office has been one of the hardest things to bear over the last few weeks. People have painted Joe Biden (Joe Biden!!) as some kind of supernatural blend of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Captain Marvel, when in reality, as president he was what he always was before he was in the Oval Office: a go-along-to-get-along, fundamentally mediocre career politician.
It's not a knock on Joe Biden to say that he was mediocre; how could you be a successful politician for fifty years and be anything else? Chance takers or people who say what they really think or who rock the boat with bold ideas don't stick around as long or get as far as Joe did. And really, in a healthy, well-oiled, smoothly-operating political system, you don't need brilliant statesmen; fairly competent, well-meaning mediocrities will do just fine.
Umm... we do not have a healthy, well-oiled, smoothly-running political system at the moment, do we? One more reason it's probably best for Joe to go, not that there are anything but more mediocrities lined up behind him. Well, at least they're younger, though I can't say anything about their golf games; we'll find out about that in the next debate, I guess.
I really want to believe the "charitable read." I do think it's entirely possible that Mr. Biden's decline has been pretty quick--that as recently as the last state of the union, he was mostly doing okay but that in the months since, he's declined sharply. I can imagine a staff compensating for such a decline while only half realizing that was what they were doing.
Of course, just because I want to believe that doesn't mean it's true.
The party will continue to treat "everyone who planned to vote for him" like trash until those voters grow a spine and stand up to the party. That means, first of all, not giving away the vote for nothing.
100% this Noah. And while you have made the principled case for why simply coronating Kamala is wrong, I think there is a pragmatic reason against it as well. I strongly fear that Kamala isn't the best candidate.
And I say that 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 AG, had done reasonably well as a Senator, and I liked the fact that she was married to a Jewish guy.
But in 2019 she ended up running away from her record as DA/AG, 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 2020 (which I was happy about), I found her somewhat off putting in both speeches and the debate.
The Democrats need a process over the next month where candidates can 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.
To put it in terms that will make sense to fellow Bay Area sports fans, I'm afraid Kamala is the James Wiseman/Trey Lance of Democratic nominees: someone who has all the tools and checks all the boxes on paper but doesn't actually help you win. My gut take is that Kamala instead of Biden doubles the Democrats chance of winning but only from under 5% to under 10%. I think someone who voters actually positively respond to could raise that to 40-60% depending on how good they turn out to be.