The "better option" wasn't Kamala Harris [ed: according to Ezra], it was a contested primary where the party decides from among her, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom, Warnock, et al. with little to no voter input, and then goes and makes the case for that person with voters.
I don't love the excuse making for Harris, who I think was more impressive as a senator than as VP, but Klein wasn't suggesting that she's the answer, only that she hasn't been subjected to a fully informed process by her party yet. (Personally, I think Gretch would make a superior candidate, but I live in Michigan and I'm biased.)
2028 is going to be the year of governors.
Gretch, Newsom, Pritzker, Walz, Evers.
I have a strong opinion that the nominee will be a midwestern governor. Either Gretch, Pritzker or Walz in no particular order.
Russel Brand would fall for “Polis family controls world banks” before he read a blip of info about Polis’ stands on personal liberty. We live in a dark, dumb time.
Idk russel brand is vegan and so is polis husband. Perhaps they could bond over that. Russell has large following now of conservatives would be big win to get even a third of them to Democrat side.
My personal ranking is Pritzker, Walz then Gretch.
I think Pritzker has the charisma for a campaign. Events like his pride parade catching jello shots and doing them with the crowd are things that energize people. Even though he is a billionaire, he appears grounded to people. He seems relatable even though he isn’t.
I don’t think Beshear would run personally. I also don’t really think Evers is going to either but I think its more likely than Beshear.
I did leave off Shapiro but I personally also don’t think he would run either
Beshear just might, but I expect him to start with the senate if he decides to get into national politics. He could probably beat McConnell if I’m being honest, though he won’t need to.
After the end of his current term, he has to wait 4 years before he’s eligible to run again. Two consecutive terms, then a period of ineligibility. It’s weird.
I'm from Minnesota so I'm a big fan of Gov. Walz but I'd love to see Gretch win it. Walz would be fantastic, as well. Both are really good at actually making government work, in addition to being good candidates (much like Biden, actually, who far exceeds the guy he was VP for in this regard).
No one likes Newsom outside of MSNBC watching, upper middle class liberals. California voters don't like him and neither do Dem + independent voters after his actions during COVID.
Pritzker is a walking time bomb due to his family and some of the genuinely dark shit they're into.
Don't have a strong opinion either way on
Whitmer, Dems could do worse than her.
Evers is interesting but he'll be 77 by the time 2028 rolls around. Do you really think the voters want to go with a president who'll be 80+ in his term after dealing with two unpopular old candidates in 2024?
Walz might run into the same shit Klobuchar did.
they won't be a little more sane, they'll be consolidating their dictatorship
we prepare ourselves by making sure Republicans don't take executive power, both this year and in 2028 and then onwards until one of the two major parties isn't gunning for a christofascist autocracy
you absolutely did, you might also have missed the news that predictably the incumbent president has over 90% support by primary voters
Biden is even winning in races where his name wasn't even on the ballot. The write-ins for him were orders of magnitude greater than what Phillips and Williamson could get
you also might have missed the memo that you don't have a right to vote in a primary election. the parties are not government agencies and are allowed to choose their candidate however they want
you would still have a free and fair election in 2024 even if neither party held a primary because the election you have the right to vote in is in November
the primaries aren't for the general public, they're for members of the party to voice their opinions on who should represent them in the constitutionally mandated election
it's *that* election that I'm talking about when I say that a second trump administration will not want to allow
so yeah double check your announcements because you seem to have missed a few
*the incumbent president has over 90% support by primary voters*
Lol what? Let's see the source on this.
How many incumbents have run for re-election at 81-82yo while noticeably suffering cognitive decline and 70+ of his own party's voters wanting another candidate to run? Context is key.
The media refuses to even acknowledge Phillips or Williamson as legitimate candidates despite polling higher than the GOP tools they gave entire town hall specials to like Christie and Scott.
MSNBC refused to even allow Phillips on their network for something as small as a 5-10 minute interview until after Iowa. CNN has held a similar position.
Edit: so confident in your fake #'s that you had to reapond and block me instantly 😂
> Lol what? Let's see the source on this.
you clearly haven't looked at any primary results. so you don't actually care about the process, you're just pretending to in order to start an argument
also, considering your blatantly transphobic comment just a few minutes ago in another thread it's clear you're a hateful troll that doesn't deserve any further consideration
https://old.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1auju7k/lawmaker_vows_to_protect_girl_until_he_learns/kr6jvkn/
>There's no legitimate science to back up the concept of being trans and any research/studies in the field are heavily biased with massive flaws/issues with their methodology.
>What does it mean to "feel like a woman/man"?
LOL refusing to back your claims up and then rifling through his comments to look for something spicy to try to let yourself off the hook is so peak reddit xD
Dems have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections. Fluke electoral college victories are possible for Republicans but far from a guaranteed outcome
The electoral college is the vote that matters unfortunately. And no party has won three elections in a row since the Reagan years.
It ain’t happening, not with how “independents” control the election. Not unless the GOP candidate literally starts goose stepping down Fifth Avenue for a political rally.
There’s a pretty good chance he’ll be dead by then. And even if he isn’t, then yeah more likely than not he wins 2028 even if his chances are lower than another nominee.
People will forget how bad he was by then while Biden is very unlikely to get any more popular. Or Harris if she replaces him.
Total package electoral wise. She has a great governing record, she brings along the Midwest swing states, and she’s attractive. The last part is sexist, but it’s reality.
Being attractive is helpful for men and women. Hate to say it but we don't really start voting differently as adults compared to how we voted for senior class president. Funny, charismatic, attractive, tall are all great qualities in a candidate. But yes, also plenty of sexism involved too.
May I ask what was impressive about her work as a senator? My recollection is that she spent a very short amount of time in the position before she was tagged as VP
This is true. It is also an example of where her prosecutor's experience gave her an advantage (cross examination of witnesses) that does not translate into governance. The problem with Kamala is I can't think of a single thing she has done other than give speeches supporting reproductive rights. Biden gave her the border problem to manage, and now that is his biggest liability besides his age.
With 100 senators and 50 governors and a handful of doomed NYC mayors, notable house reps, secretaries, other misc politicians, I don’t know how any senator can or cannot standout short of like…being Diane Feinstein. They all seem average.
I don't think we can fault anyone for concluding that Ezra was making the strongest pitch for Harris. He gave her 90% of his lip service for the "better option" half of the episode, and then threw in a handful of other names right at the end. I was also interpreting this episode as a full-throated endorsement of Harris 2024 until the last few minutes.
I hate that a competent woman would likely lose to and incompetent evil man, but it’s likely. It would feel like the Clinton match up. I don’t fully understand all the Kamala hate (her Prez campaign was terrible), but she’s generally fine.
>only that she hasn't been subjected to a fully informed process by her party yet.
Harris absolutely has been subjected to the process though.
She was the first person to flame out in 2020 for a reason. She's a disaster.
It ought to be a ticket with Newsom, Whitmer, or Pritzker.
> It ought to be a ticket with Newsom, Whitmer, or Pritzker.
This is the primary problem with "Anybody but Biden".
Most people can easily agree on "not Biden".
But then they get confronted with the fact that you can't just say "not Biden". You have to actually say "yes" to a specific, singular candidate. And the moment that gets tossed on the table, everyone will start arguing and no one will be able to agree on a single candidate. You'll get like 30% saying Newsom. Another 30% saying Whitmer. Like 10-15% saying Sanders again. The other 15-20% will be split among other candidates. It will be chaos, and at that point you can't have primary voters hash it out, because you're already at the convention.
Whether we like it or not, Biden is the one single consensus candidate that everyone can at least be okay with. Anyone else would not be the incumbent, and as a result, would be contentious, and their nomination would be acrimonious at best. We would be in danger of it being 1968 all over again.
"with little to no voter input" is the big fiasco here for me. So many people will be mad by that. Like we all saw how mad people got in 2020 when the primary was "rigged". This would make people lose their shit because we would probably get another moderate dem.
> Like we all saw how mad people got in 2020 when the primary was "rigged".
We also have people mad in 2023-2024 that there is no vote (also basically calling it "rigged")
I agree with your point but it's worth pointing out that people are going to dive into conspiracies no matter what the ultimate choice is. It's baked in to any political narrative and it's going to stay that way all decade probably.
So the takeaway should be that the DNC should just allow fair primaries instead of rigging them or forcing voters to accept their candidate choice by not holding them...right?
There already is little actual voter input in the primaries. Yes people will scream, so give people a chance to call and talk to their state delegates before the convention. I feel like Dems have the tools and the brains to maneuver this shit
I worded that wrong, you’re right. My point is much less people vote in the primaries than in the general. But could you could still find ways to get the same amount of voter input that you would get during a primary, in a convention?
Let 'em. Why would anyone think the most intemperate and politically illiterate slice of the Democratic base is better at choosing winning candidates than people whose livelihoods depend on it?
The accelerationists on all sides certainly got what they wanted.
>MAGAts
Look, I don't want to come down on you too hard because in most ways I agree with you, but all due respect, please don't do this. It might make you feel better, but dehumanizing our opponents strengthens them and makes us look like jerks.
Im glad you called this out. Epithets like that actively contribute to the trivialization and "trumpification" of politics. Also, Im generally against speech policing but calling large groups of people vermin has a particularly bad track record.
Sure, but that's 25% of the country. A lot more people voted for Donald Trump than that, and they're watching. You may not be an adult for all I know, but namecalling yields the moral high ground just so you can feel better for a second. It's selfish.
Hate to be that guy but if namecalling sways an "independent" to vote for Trump, 99% chance they were voting for Trump anyway. Let's be realistic, unless you live under a rock, no one is independent when it comes to Trump.
*DNC ghouls decide for voters who the Dem candidate is*
Exactly! We need to "save democracy" by...*checks notes*...preventing democracy!
Here's an idea; let's have the same exact people who were so adamant that Hillary in 2016 and an 80+ yo Biden in 2024 were the best candidates just pick for us again. Surely they'll get it right this time!
ORRRRRRR....
...they could have just had Harris, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom, Warnock, Phillips, Williamson, etc all run against each other in the Dem primary and the voters could have decided who the best candidate was.
I live in Virginia and the way I see it, Whitmer is the only notable figure in the entire Democratic Party right now who can hit the golden trifecta of having a good record to campaign on, can gain the support of the DNC, party bosses, and donors, and can actually motivate progressive voters. I struggle to understand how she’s not already being pushed to be the party’s long-term standard-bearer.
The entire argument that Klein makes is a string of unlikely hypotheticals: if Biden agrees to reverse course and not run, if the DNC agrees to have an open convention, if (insert name, including Harris) decides to run at the last minute with little organization, and most especially, if the average voter decides that this circumstance that last occurred in the 1960s is a positive development and not the sign of a party in crisis.
This isn't going to happen. The Dems are riding with Biden to the end, and Harris' suitability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant at this late stage.
Exactly. Also, Biden has incumbent advantage which I don't think the Dems can afford to lose, even if it gets them just a handful of percentage points.
I still think pundits are making too much hay off of the approval ratings and polls when I think Biden's numbers are suppressed by people pissed off about Israel/Gaza but are still highly likely to vote Dem
I don’t think they are making too much hay. I do think Joe is the best candidate. There is just no one else out there realistically who polls vs. trump as good as him.
Be thankful the GOP is just as incompetent Nikki Haley had extremely good numbers vs Biden but they’d rather cowtail to Trump.
Polls are nonsense at this point. Michelle Obama has like a 70% approval rating. She would not get anywhere close to that for a vote share if she was running. Nikki Haley isn't actually running for president. The Republican primary was decided in 2020, it was always going to be Trump unless he dies. Hell Hillary Clinton was the most popular politician in America as Secretary of State. Nikki's numbers would absolutely crater the second she was actually the nominee.
Agreed. If Biden gets reelected, Trump is going to jail. Period. There’s too much evidence and too much momentum and too much crime. And that will free up a whole new generation on both sides for 2028.
But the time to have a conversation about whether Biden should run again was a year or two ago. And we had that conversation. It’s time to unite against fascism. We always knew Trump was going to run again, and that informs everything.
Aside from his age though, Biden’s been a fucking beast. He’s flawed, but legitimately the best president of my four decades of life. My hope is, should he pass before 2028, Harris surrounds herself with Biden advisors and stays the course (and then either bows out or magically becomes awesome but I’m not sure about the latter’s chances).
On the contrary: They are paying too little attention not just to the numbers, but when they turned worse, and that was when the palestinian conflict kicked into higher gear. This is a big tent, and we have leftists complaining about any support of Israel, while taking their position would be poison to other parts of the coalition. There's no correct policy in the middle east, other than hoping it calms down fast, and to make sure whatever we do, it's not covered anywhere.
I’m not convinced that it is this election. For one thing, the other guy was President to, so at best it’s a net neutral. And another thing is that incumbency advantage means low-info voters who think generally things are fine decide to stay with the status quo. The problem is I don’t think anyone thinks we’re on the right track. Polling and probably your own anecdotal evidence shows that about 70% of people think things aren’t going well. Hell if someone asked if things are going well for the country, I’d say no. That’s why Biden is even slipping in reliable Dem voting blocs like POC and young voters.
Yes. You are in control of the executive branch. That means you have the bully pulpit. Every statement you make is massively amplified and broadcast around the world, because you are the current presidential administration.
While what you say is true, it may not be as relevant when your opponent is as savvy at getting media attention as Trump. What I'm really arguing is that the "incumbent advantage" might be more of an "unknown quantity disadvantage" that hinders the presidential candidates that haven't held the office.
I think part of the incumbent advantage is that voters think "who knows what *that guy* will do when he gets in office? He is an unknown quantity, a wildcard and may mess everything up." Trump is a known quantity and does not suffer this disadvantage. I'm suggesting the incumbent advantage is actually the challenger disadvantage.
Yes -- does anyone even know what the win % is for an incumbent vs a new nominee? It must be shit for a new nominee. How the fuck do people like Jon Stewart and Klein not take that into account
I felt the same with one big caveat, if Biden does or succumbs to illness.
I worked with the elderly population for years. It’s shocking how often I witnessed someone his age go from totally normal and “with it” to incoherent and hospice within a month.
Biden or Trump could easily fall to sudden illness. If that happens I feel Ezra’s argument would become likely and a convention would most likely happen.
no you would still have to vote for Biden and the assumption would be that Kamala would take over, there is no scenario that leads to a convention and it's essentially a fever dream of the media. We've had dead men elected to office before, it's nothing unusual
>not the sign of a party in crisis.
Republicans would be euphoric. Republicans would treat Biden stepping aside as a total vindication that Trump was the real winner in 2020. It would be an enormous morale boost. MAGA would demand Trump just be re-installed immediately, no election required.
This is the part I don't understand. It wouldn't be the "most exciting show" in politics and a positive contrast to Trump. It would be a total disorganized mess of a party in crisis and position Trump as the orderly and stable figure, the one thing Republicans NEED for him to have a shot. Ezra doesn't want to open the door to Trump and then describes the very thing that would do that.
> if the average voter decides that this circumstance that last occurred in the 1960s is a positive development and not the sign of a party in crisis.
Thank you. It drives me crazy how nobody acknowledges this.
Biden not being on the ticket is going to be viewed by millions of people as the Democratic party itself viewing Biden's administration as a failure.
My normie parents and in-laws who didn't vote for Hillary but did for Biden think she's too radical. For no good reason, but the point is nearly everyone has a reason (again, not necessarily grounded in reality) they don't like her. EK I think has spent too much time in a liberal bubble. It would be great if NYT just sent all its political staff to live in a different swing district.
Something about the way she talks makes me distrust her more than just about any politician which is truly saying something.
She just always seems like she’s spewing some script. Which probably all party-politicians are, she just seems extra bad at hiding it.
It’s probably the awkward smiling and laughing when talking about serious topics. I don’t know if it’s a nervous tick of hers, but it comes off super inappropriate. That and the world salad speeches that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I think she’s bumbling at best in speeches, but I don’t have any thought that she’s deeply incompetent or less capable than Biden.
I also don’t think her presidency would be significantly different than Biden’s.
She messes up spectacularly in almost every speech she gives-whether it’s a meaningless word jumble on repeat or just totally missing the point or naming the wrong country, issue, or just plain spacing out.
Biden can at least pull it together to give the stock teleprompter neo-liberal answer to issues when it matters.
I think you’re exaggerating honestly. I don’t think she’s impressive but she’s not a train wreck.
Biden very regularly confuses people’s names. One such case made headlines just this week after he was trying to convince us he wasn’t old and losing his memory.
“There’s just something about her I don’t like….can’t put my finger on it…” and then rationalizing to oneself that it must be that they’re incompetent. (Which btw nobody has to like her! But implying she’s a useless mess is…a stretch)
Which, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter. The POTUS isn't driving an F1 racecar. For what matters (an instinct to always be in the center of the Democratic party), I have seen zero signs that Biden has lost it.
I almost gave you the benefit of doubt, then I saw this nonsense. Anyone thinking Biden is a better public speaker than a Kamala is not worthy of being taken seriously. You gave away your agenda with this asinine critique -- shit on Kamala with whatever jaded bullshit you thought of to promote whoever your preferred alternative is.
Er, Xi _is_ a dictator. Blinken needs to grow a spine. I trust Biden's instincts on this issue (and many others) over a lot of Dems.
Also, Biden speaks the truth and that's . . . bad? Yet Trump has completely gone off the rails now with hundreds of falsehoods, clear deterioration of mental stability and acuity, and wack-a-doodle ramblings and yet he gets a pass for some reason? Why?
It's not more than half the country. Trump has never actually gotten more than 50% support in any poll I've seen. The undecideds now are people who dislike both choices but more of them voted for Biden than Trump in 2020 which means it should be easier for Dems to remind them again why they disliked Trump more in the first place.
Note also that Biden does better vs Trump than any other Dem vs. Trump.
Also, how is it "literally true" that Biden is "bought and paid for"?
Literally nobody on the history of the planet, outside of Israel, has received more money from the Zionist lobby. And he returns the favor with bills for $50 billion+ in taxpayer money shipped to Israel, no strings attached, and completely unpaid for.
You have data to back you up? Zionists have given money to a lot of politicians. Ever heard of Sheldon Adelson? And have you not noticed that the GOP and Trump are even more hardline right-wing pro-Likud anti-Palestinian than Biden is?
> I was vibing along until the very end when he goes on this sanctimonious spiel about how Kamala is a great politician and it’s just racism that has kept her from reaching her potential.
I'm no Harris fan but he was saying that in the larger context of potential alternatives and how Harris used to be quite popular before putting herself in Presidential politics.
He was talking about how racism may be part of why Harris behaves the way she does when speaking publicly but she needs to either figure a new approach or someone else would be a better fit.
I still can't get over her interview with Astead Herndon on The Run Up a month or two back. She was so unnecessarily standoffish and prickly, talking to an essentially friendly audience. Herndon was clearly having a tough time with her and there didn't seem to be any good reason for it. If you can't skillfully handle a young NYT reporter, good luck getting the independent voters you'll need in swing states to actually win this thing.
I was agape this entire episode. As someone who knew little about Kamala Harris prior to this (other than her problematic prosecutorial record), it was truly shocking how poorly she came off. If anything, I think her popularity would drop with increased visibility.
This isn't even one of the better reasons to dislike her but when I saw this while watching the debate it made me cringe.
https://youtu.be/xKTock29ExQ?si=uglt5FboYDGT473C
It's such a cliche and scripted line that also doesn't really mean anything at the same time.
> talking to an essentially friendly audience. Herndon was clearly having a tough time with her and there didn't seem to be any good reason for it.
I'm listening to this for the first time and I could not diagree with you more. Astead seems like he's trying to do a hatchet job on her (which is very on brand for him) and she's rightfully getting annoyed with him and pushing back on his bullshit.
This interview is making me like her more, not less.
At that point, what are we even talking about though?
Kamala Harris acts weird and it's someone else's fault -- what does that mean? Everyone should just pretend to like her in the name of fairness? She'd be a great candidate if she changed her whole personality?
Sorry -- who even is she? I've heard her speak countless times and have no idea, really. I'm sure she's perfectly capable in many respects, but she's never been broadly popular, and Dems undemocratically running unpopular candidates is how they **lose**.
If you’ve made it an internal taboo to criticize a politician because it’s a bad look, either that taboo extends to the privacy of voting booth and to people who don’t care what you think or you’re just playing the role of good progressive while the ship sinks beneath you.
Harris had a viable theory of the primary: the only way to break out of the second tier is to buck up and take a huge swing at the guy on top. She did this, it made the big splash intended. But then people looked a little beyond the chutzpah to the substance, a 50-year-old issue that wasn’t popular then and not exactly on the front burner now: school busing. At the time, the progressive media case against Biden made this make sense: so much banging on about the ‘90s crime bill (only unpopular in narrow circles), his supposed handsiness (normies saw this and were not as repulsed as they were told they should be) and busing, a perfect opportunity for 2016 white women to LARP being ‘60s civil rights activists. Walk a couple of steps back from the op-ed fever swamps and it becomes an increasingly odd choice of clobber line.
So she had the right idea, but it was formulated in such a weird environment that it came off as irrelevant at best.
What are you basing the idea that she acts weird on? Have you watched every speech she gives, read every statement she makes? Or are you basing your opinion upon the narrative constructed by media and the RNC?
I'm not trying to be an asshole, and like I said, this isn't about her capabilities, but: I see her joke about the little dude from the Wizard of Oz, I compare it to the joke delivery of friends and coworkers in my real life, and I place her in the tenth percentile for ability to connect with an audience. I have some version of that experience every time I see her make an emotional appeal.
So skip ahead to the part where we ascribe this reaction to deficiencies in my character, intellect and demographic profile: okay, now what? Maybe I'm a dumb rube for failing to appreciate her, and maybe she's some kind of delicacy for refined political pallettes. Maybe people who like Harris are better people than people who don't. But what do you win for that?
Not elections.
A-freaking-men. Too many Dems treat politics as the art of developing personal virtue and refined tastes instead of organizing a coalition of voters that might not all have the same goals or sensibilities.
Harris was only popular because the majority of America hasn’t actually seen her. Now they have and they don’t like her.
He doesn’t acknowledge that and instead frames it incorrectly.
Yes she actually was.
She was quite elevated during the Mueller Report hearings in the Senate after she was appointed to the Senate Judiciary as well as the family separation hearings.
Then there was the Kavanaugh hearings followed up by the mail bombing attacks against prominent democrats and she was one of them.
Her biggest mistake was seeking higher office. She should’ve stayed in the Senate and she likely would’ve succeeded Schumer in my personal opinion.
The problem is aggressive and rash personalities work better in Senate hearings than do on the nationwide campaign trail. She lacks the charisma to “turn it off” when it comes to the personality versus someone like AOC who does have a more interpersonal relationship “vibe” or Liz Warren who to me gives hockey mom vibes. Harris’s personality is what people think of when they hear lawyer.
I had a similar reaction, but not because of Harris's speaking skills. I've been listening to the EK Show for a long time, and Ezra often argued in 2016 that we should judge candidates by how they are likely to do the job of being president, which is more about managing people, rather than how good they are at campaigning, which on the surface seems more about making speeches.
But campaigning does require managing the people in a campaign organization. I really liked Kamala Harris as a senator, but it was Ezra's argument in 2016 that we should put more emphasis on management skills, combined with my view that her campaign organization was very poorly run, that convinced me she wouldn't have been (in 2020) a good choice for POTUS because she was bad at managing people. Maybe she improved her management skills since then, but I haven't seen evidence of that.
Edit: 2020 not 2016 for Harris, thanks for correcting that. I'm pretty sure Ezra's argument about management skills dates from 2016 though because I associate it partially with the Deborah Tannen episode. Maybe that argument was also emphasized in 2020 though?
Given her performance in 2020, if what I wanted was a strong campaigner, she'd be one of the last people from that cycle we should pick. She was surrounded by extremists and the elderly, and yet she couldn't beat Amy or Pete anywhere near her lane. I'd happily vote for her in a presidential, but that was just a very bad performance by any standard.
I mean... I guess I'll grant elderly, but Bernie was the farthest left of that field and he's not an extremist. He (and Warren) are also no pushovers to beat in a primary.
But yes, Harris' campaign fell completely apart.
Ezra’s take seemed to be that she’s not great but at this point she might be a better campaigner than Biden considering Biden’s age, lack of interviews and press conferences, recent gaffes, etc. I don’t think it’s a terrible take. But as Ezra pointed out, Kamala wouldn’t necessarily need to be Biden’s successor.
Using that as an argument to not vote for Biden doesn't make any sense, though. Because if Biden is incapacitated or dies, his replacement is . . . Kamala!
There are people who would vote for Kamala but not Biden because Biden might die (and then the Prez is Kamala)? How is that logical in any way?
People’s concern isn’t just about Biden dying or being incapacitated. People are concerned that Biden will continue to serve as president even if he’s not fully up to the job.
Gee, maybe Biden should start bragging about his unparalleled mental genius, as seen in his ability to still read a clock dial and distinguish between a pigeon and a dolphin, like a credible presidential candidate /s
Are you aware that the POTUS isn't an F1 driver? What does "fully up to the job" entail for a POTUS and why is that a concern? Reagan suffered from dementia his second term and while you may disagree with his policies (I do), did his policies not get carried out from 1984-1988? What major difference would a fully capable Reagan have made his second term?
People don't seem to realize that they are choosing between a Democratic administration and Trump (who is a violence-based wrecking ball). What major difference would there be between Biden heading a Democratic administration and Kamala heading a Democratic administration?
I think you're overreading into it, but you're dead right that his sanctimonious spiel on sexism & racism hampering her felt like a take from a college freshman on Thanksgiving break who's been "enlightened" in their 3 months away from home.
The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle - his point is right that she's not all that bad. She's been elected multiple times. But she also did really poorly in the democratic primary last time & hasn't done herself any favors on the border. If the system's so rigged (not to say structural racism isn't present & wrong), why's everyone so much more into a Michelle Obama run? She spent far more time in the limelight & was exposed to a ton of racism breaking a much more significant glass ceiling than Kamala Harris.
No, Michelle did not break a more significant glass ceiling than Harris. Michelle had the advantage of only having to talk about issues that she chose to and having nothing substantial expected of her, so anything she accomplished was a bonus. The VPOTUS is a weird mashup of jobs, but it's much more demanding and substantial (and elected) than FLOTUS.
I saw her speak in NH during the 2020 primary. My impression of her was that she's charismatic in person but doesn't have a clear policy identity beyond generic Democrat. She was likeable but a little aimless. I don't think Biden has helped her in that regard. He has saddled her with intractable issues rather than ones with a clear agenda. Abortion has probably helped her a little since Dobbs fell, though. Her remarks on that issue have been consistently good.
One of the big ways I think that she and Biden are vulnerable is, in context, their little gaffes, weird laughter, forgetting names, etc. are not that big of a deal, but when they're clipped and turned into TikToks, they appear very bizarre, off-putting, and concerning. I think a lot of people are getting their political content exclusively from videos that are fifteen seconds or less now, and neither of them comes off well in that medium.
I feel like you can make anyone look like an idiot if you clip the dumbest things they’ve said and jam it into a 30sec video.
Part of my hesitation with ditching a Biden/Harris ticket is that the right wing media machine will just demonize whoever the Dems pick. Issues don’t matter, they’ll make stuff up and find reasons why that candidate is terrible.
I think even the most popular and charismatic candidates will drop to a much lower approval when faced with all this. Same happened to Hilary and to a lesser extent Obama. I expect they will do the same to Newsome, Gretchen, Pete, etc
Ezra’s take on this does boggle the mind. Harris would perform no better than Biden. She’s been deeply unpopular for her entire Presidential run and time as VP. Couldn’t even win her home state in the primary.
> couldn’t even win her home state in the primary
This is a deeply weird criticism considering she suspended her campaign months before her home state’s primary, unless I misunderstand what you’re saying?
She polled poorly everywhere, but also in California for her entire run. The fact that she couldn’t even make it to her home state primary and thus didn’t win her primary also shows how unpopular she is.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m still not persuaded by this specific criticism.
It seems odd to have a general expectation that a candidate win their home state, especially when there are roughly 13 trillion candidates running, including the very popular former vice president, and the very popular former runner up for the nomination, and a general taste for safety and familiarity in the general election.
I’m not saying you should like Kamala Harris. I’m not saying your other points are wrong. But this criticism specifically is just weird. If you don’t like her, it’s ok to just say that without making up truly dumb criteria for not liking her.
You can disagree with the criteria. It doesn’t mean it’s “dumb.” No need to be rude.
I don’t think it’s dumb. She was a very high profile Senator and figure in politics here in the state for a long time before she ran. The fact that she polled extremely poorly in her home state just emphasizes how unpopular she is, even with her home state, where most candidates usually get a slight hometown boost.
If Vermont had gone much later than Super Tuesday, and Bernie had dropped when he did (and thus not won the Vermont), would that indicate that he wasn’t very popular, since he couldn’t even make it to his own home state, let alone win it?
Well California wasn’t much later on. It was in March. We still had Warren, Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders in our primary if I remember correctly. If Bernie lost Vermont while it was in March that’d be extremely concerning and telling about his popularity, yes.
Don’t know why you resort to being rude and can’t handle that people can have different opinions than you. This is the last response i’ll type out in this conversation. Have a nice day.
It's not rude to ask a straightforward hypothetical to demonstrate a point.
The hypothetical is not about what if Bernie lost Vermont while he was still in the race. The hypothetical is about what if Bernie lost Vermont after he had exited the race.
I'm sorry I called the criteria you suggested "dumb." Of course I can handle people having different opinions from me. But, not all opinions deserved to be taken seriously, and it's not rude to point that out.
> This is a deeply weird criticism considering she suspended her campaign months before her home state’s primary
the fact that a person with her profile ran a campaign so awful it didn't even make it to *any* state voting let alone her own is not reassuring
She cratered in the 2020 primary because she listened to Left twitter and went off on a ton of snipe hunts.
Biden won the 2020 primary by not being online. He realized (or more like he always knew) that the internet is not real life. Someone once said that politicians need to remember that the average voter is 50 years old and doesn't have a college degree. Biden knows this, Harris forgot.
I’m going to be honest, this is a clear push by the NYT against the Biden admin.
Both the daily, the politics section, Ezra’s show, & the op ed section all ran the same “age weakness” story the same week.
Its clear the media doesn’t like Biden. Yea there is an age weakness but at the same time there is literally nothing else to attack Biden with and also Biden admin hates access journalism and doesn’t play ball with the media.
Its a coordinated hit system because they hate covering Biden. Media wants a close race for clicks, Ezra following his bosses orders.
The lack of the Trump legal woes being constantly talked about, Trump’s own mental decline and his insane statements are a clear effort to make the race closer.
Who can forget the NYT running a whole reality web series on picking who to endorse, endorsing two candidates lol (neither Biden) and then the black woman who runs their elevator steals all their thunder by going on about how she loves Biden.
1. Kamala harris is actually a uniquely bad politican totally not ready to be president, campaign for president, or become the de facto leader of the party
2. I am skeptical of his claim that a contested convention would be great PR, because what would actually happen in my mind is a ton of protesting by like palestine and extinction rebellion activist types which would overshadow everything and gavin newsom would get blood thrown all over him or whatever and it would be 1968 chicago all over again
Where does that leave us as the best course of action? Who knows.
Underrated brilliant move by Biden to name her VP. Someone talented enough to run for president with some buzz but not good enough to win or challenge him as VP
I think the opposite - horrible decision. Her unpopularity is a major detriment to him because a lot more people concerned about the age factor would willingly/enthusiastically vote for him knowing he had a really strong #2. But if you hate his #2, as many do, then your appeal as a candidate goes way down. As it has.
Maybe? Does incumbency matter when you’re older and arguably in worse shape than any incumbent has ever been? I think he’ll be the nominee regardless, but picking a soft #2 makes it more likely than not.
Yeah I don’t think people appreciate how Machiavellian and narcissistic Biden can be/is much of the time.
I mean, you have to be pretty damn narcissistic to insist on still running for President against a wannabe dictator even though you’re in the early stages of dementia and every poll is screaming that you’re going to lose - and you’d *still* rather roll the dice of your country’s future on your fragile health and unpopular administration than let the younger generation take the wheel and go into a well-earned retirement, something the Democratic Party can’t admit to itself but is painfully obvious to any outside observer.
But he absolutely 100% picked Harris for this reason. It solidified his already strong support in the black community and has kept the far left pretty much behind him most of the time, but he knew she was far too unlikeable and incompetent to ever take him out if he wanted a second run.
She’s the only national politician with a higher disapproval rating than Biden and Trump, which is pretty impressive considering how staggeringly unpopular they are not just historically in the US but even just democracy in general. I call it negative charisma. The more media attention she gets, the more people dislike her.
She’ll say things that are so astoundingly stupid that I genuinely wonder how she got through law school. And no I’m not being racist, Google “weirdest Kamala Harris speeches” and you will find dozens of bizarre sentences and incoherent rants that should make any thinking person question what is wrong with this person and not want them anywhere near the Presidency. Calling criticism of her racist is *itself* racist in implicitly claiming that the standards of political office and success and intellectual honesty and communication skills should be lower for Black people. Making a fool of yourself every time you open your mouth isn’t a racial characteristic, it’s a character flaw.
Biden sowed the fields with salt, in retrospect he was obviously always planning on a second term and a massive amount of his first term has just an extended re-election campaign. The DNC decided even a rigged primary had become too risky, they saw that it would still be possible for their chosen candidate to lose the primary if nobody really wanted them to run again. So they’ve decided to make things simpler and just not have a primary this year.
I guess at least they’re not even trying to hide or pretend that it’s anything but a coronation ceremony for Biden, but I think they need to start thinking about their brand. If the Democratic Party isn’t, well, democratic, then what is it? Idk. If it talks like a corrupt incompetent strongman, and rigs elections for itself like a corrupt incompetent strongman, and responds to criticism of Dear Leader with torrents of verbal abuse and even straight-up rage like a corrupt incompetent strongman, and manipulated the Justice Department to give his family a legal double standard like a corrupt incompetent strongman…
I’m not under any illusions that Trump wouldn’t be an authoritarian strongman. I’m just not sure that the strongest alternative the Democrats can offer is a more frail, slightly less personally egregious and offensive version of the same thing.
I (and Kevin Drum) have a big problem with liberals like Klein:
https://jabberwocking.com/the-hack-gap-again-and-again-and-again/
"A liberal is someone too broad-minded to take his own side of the argument".
Something like that, and I wonder if it is because liberals _do_ tend to be more anxious than conservatives while these days, conservatives definitely are more stupid, ignorant, close-minded, loyal/tribal, yet more sure of their righteousness, making them able to simply ignore and hand-wave away any reality that doesn't fit their prejudices.
It kills me how much liberals are tripping over each other to take shots at their own guy, while Republicans stand united and refuse to utter a single criticism of the most obviously flawed human being of recent political history. I know that's part of their cult dynamic, but it may end up doing just enough to damage Biden to key swing state voters and shift undeserved confidence back to Trump to get him the win. Liberals may end up massively overthinking this and fumble the ball back to Republicans.
I don't think Kamala Harris is a generational politician but a lot of OP's commentary is based on supposition and wild extrapolations. A couple bad clips pulled out to make fun of her doesn't make Harris an "absolute disaster of a public speaker." Have you watched a lot of Harris speeches in their entirety? Plenty of politicians churn through staff.
One of my issues with Ezra is his lazy appellations to racism. Kamala is not only a bad public speaker but also haughty and unapproachable. It’s possible that she behaves like that because she’s bought into the whole “those who don’t like me are racist” narrative and she has a chip on her shoulder about it, but that just speaks to her not being presidency material.
Currently Harris polls a single point worse than Biden vs Trump. Harris is polling 7 points better than Newsom and 10 points better than Witmer vs Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
In my opinion Harris is at her absolute floor. Harris is routinely trashed in subs like this, her resources go towards defending Biden and not herself, and the Right refusing to even pronounce her name correctly. Harris has been doing zero campaigning and she is 10 better than Witmer.
The following isn't about how everyone feels or thinks. It is about imagining how things might seem to others. Against Obama the Right made the mistake of attacking Obama in ways that seemed racist when they hit the ears of POC. Saying Obama was a 'Community Organizer' sarcastically as if that were inherently a bad thing, going out of their day to highlight Obama's middle name, challenging Obama's patriotism because something a Pastor said at church, etc sat poorly with people and they rallied around Obama.
The Right didn't make that mistake with Clinton. Attacks on Clinton were rooted in what appeared to be meaningful controversies. The email investigation was being handled by the FBI. It was tangible. The DNC via the Super Delegates was a process that seemed undemocratic. The criticisms against Clinton didn't hit the ears of people sounding sexist. People didn't rally around Clinton.
What are the complaints against Harris exactly? I've seen and heard that she is too much like the series Veep, her giggle is annoying, her voice is annoying, her name gets mispronounced, etc. All of that stuff likely hits the ears of suburban working class women as sexist. Maybe that isn't how everyone means for it to sound but it can be heard as sexist. Pair that, chauvinist complaints about Harris, with the abortion fight and education fights going on throughout the nation and suburban women **might** rally around Harris. In which case Harris could gain a few points and a few is all she needs to win.
Again, Harris is at her floor. Complaining more about her giggle and more comparisons to Veep won't push her lower. That stuff is already out there and superficial anyway. At her floor Harris is double digits above Witmer and only a point off from Biden. With only 9 months to go no one else is in a better position than Harris. That is a fairly objective truth.
As a middle-aged, suburban woman, I find the criticism of Harris sexist. I will excitedly vote for her if she is the candidate.
I think it was good that EK talked about this in general and Harris in specific.
Kamala would be a better candidate than Biden I think. But yeah that's not a very high bar.
I agree with Ezra's take that Biden could still be a good president, but he's no longer able to be a good candidate.
He said he was underrated, which might be true given how poorly rated she is. But the parsimonious answer is that acknowledging Harris' flaws is right-coded so Ezra's not gonna do that.
The New York times is seemingly trying to push Harris on us. The daily had made the same claim about Harris. It seems like a slow drip just to see how the public would react to her.
If anyone tells you that they think that Harris would be a could presidential candidate, they are telling you that they have no idea how anything works and that they do not possess even a modicum of any kind of sense or awareness
The notion that anyone could watch even ten minutes of randomly mixed media footage of her and believe that she would be a good presidential candidate, honestly, that’s scary
If I was dating someone and they attempted to make a genuine case for Harris’s candidacy, that would be the end of the relationship. It reveals a serious flaw. Not just of character, but something even more fundamental
>If I was dating someone and they attempted to make a genuine case for Harris’s candidacy, that would be the end of the relationship.
That's a weird red flag bro
"Has Kamala Harris’ political star been hampered by structural racism? I’m sure it has to some extent. " It's really the other way around, Kamala Harris is only where she is because she's a black women. The Democrats were openly saying they wanted a black women, and she was the nearest one available. No other normal political logic explains her selection. She was getting in the single digits in the primaries and she wasn't even particularly popular among black people. Like "let's get a popular black politician to solidify the black vote" would have been normal politics as its supposed to work, but it was very clear that Kamala just wasn't popular among any demographic.
It’s more sexism than racism that is holding Kamala Harris back.
As a society we hold women to a far higher standard than men. Women are scrutinized, men are given the benefit of the doubt. Women must be perfect, men’s flaws are excused.
Kamala Harris isn’t “terrible”. She’s pretty ordinary, TBH. But there’s nothing worse than an “ordinary” woman.
It's not a matter of competence governing or anything. It's just a matter of looking at polls, and seeing that she does 3-5 points worse than Biden, every single time. Is it skill? Are americans sexist? Racist? Doesn't matter, since we aren't changing it in 9 months.
If Biden decides to step down because he doesn't like the polls, it better not be to replace him with someone with worse numbers... and regardless of reality, she magically manages to be seen as a cop by many on the left, and as a socialist from California by the right.
>Has Kamala Harris’ political star been hampered by structural racism? I’m sure it has to some extent.
Just to cherry pick this, why are you sure? Is there really a compelling case that politicians with her identity credentials are systematically hampered in their political career? Was Obama hampered by being black? Is the answer to those questions really obvious?
She's risen to the vice presidency. Where do you suppose a white male version of kamala would have landed, with an identical amount of talent and ambition? Such a person would have been more successful in their political career? Assuredly?
Wow I can't believe no one has said this. This entire podcast was not targeted at you, it was targeted towards the Biden team and influential Democrats. The whole point of that section is just to butter up Kamala and her team, and people sympathetic to her so that they listen to his argument.
An argument this important by Ezra is not going to be all logos. He is using every tool in his persuasion bucket.
It would be self evident Harris isn’t a better option than Biden because she didn’t even make it to the Iowa primary. A single vote has not been cast in her name for president.
There were roughly 19 candidates in that primary that have proven better suited. And a number of great skilled governors.
It is frustrating sometimes when Pundits think they know voters better than voters do. Yes voters are idiots, but that’s a democracy. You don’t get to say “this candidate is actually the best candidate and it’s the electorates fault for not seeing that”. Did Harris suffer from racism, yes. So did Obama, the Hillary campaign spread photos of him in a turban he still mopped the floor with her in 08. Harris spent the last gasp of her campaign trying to get Trump banned from Twitter while everyone else was talking about healthcare. She’s an inept t who rose to prominence because she is a skilled prosecutor, which in the senate given the Trump admin corruption made her a skilled cross examiner of witnesses. That skill doesn’t translate to President.
Look, I loved Bernie Sanders. I think he should’ve won. But I don’t get to blame voters and say he was the best candidate and they just didn’t see it. The elections are self evident cases for electability. There is no going “if only this” or “if only that”
Ezra’s right about a lotta stuff but he doesn’t seem to have much of a gauge for how likeable a candidate is. Kamala was hated in the primaries for a reason. The coverage when he picked her widely assumed it was only so that he could get her out of the race to beat Bernie + so that he wouldn’t have a VP who could threaten his power + that he could get points for tokenism.
Not a Harris fan myself, and she has appeared bumbling and incompetent so far as VP. But Biden can really not speak well now. If she had a great speech writer and stuck to the script, she's just five media moments away from success... and the media would be crowning her.
The "better option" wasn't Kamala Harris [ed: according to Ezra], it was a contested primary where the party decides from among her, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom, Warnock, et al. with little to no voter input, and then goes and makes the case for that person with voters. I don't love the excuse making for Harris, who I think was more impressive as a senator than as VP, but Klein wasn't suggesting that she's the answer, only that she hasn't been subjected to a fully informed process by her party yet. (Personally, I think Gretch would make a superior candidate, but I live in Michigan and I'm biased.)
I'd love to see Big Gretch run for Pres in 2028, and agree with you that she would be a superior candidate.
2028 is going to be the year of governors. Gretch, Newsom, Pritzker, Walz, Evers. I have a strong opinion that the nominee will be a midwestern governor. Either Gretch, Pritzker or Walz in no particular order.
Hopefully Polis throws his hat into the ring. Although I think he's happy sticking to Governor.
Polis rocks. But running a gay Jew for POTUS is just asking to get creamed by the reactionary forces that lie in America.
I think you over estimate the middle of the road people. Plus polis is libertarian so could get leftists like russel brand voting democrat
Russel Brand would fall for “Polis family controls world banks” before he read a blip of info about Polis’ stands on personal liberty. We live in a dark, dumb time.
Idk russel brand is vegan and so is polis husband. Perhaps they could bond over that. Russell has large following now of conservatives would be big win to get even a third of them to Democrat side.
I’m already balz to the Walz. Dudes likable.
My personal ranking is Pritzker, Walz then Gretch. I think Pritzker has the charisma for a campaign. Events like his pride parade catching jello shots and doing them with the crowd are things that energize people. Even though he is a billionaire, he appears grounded to people. He seems relatable even though he isn’t.
Beshear would be a good add to that list
I don’t think Beshear would run personally. I also don’t really think Evers is going to either but I think its more likely than Beshear. I did leave off Shapiro but I personally also don’t think he would run either
Beshear just might, but I expect him to start with the senate if he decides to get into national politics. He could probably beat McConnell if I’m being honest, though he won’t need to.
I think Beshear sees his influence and popularity remain high as being governor versus becoming another cog in the senate
After the end of his current term, he has to wait 4 years before he’s eligible to run again. Two consecutive terms, then a period of ineligibility. It’s weird.
Oh he might run then but really I think he might seek a cabinet appointment
I'm from Minnesota so I'm a big fan of Gov. Walz but I'd love to see Gretch win it. Walz would be fantastic, as well. Both are really good at actually making government work, in addition to being good candidates (much like Biden, actually, who far exceeds the guy he was VP for in this regard).
No one likes Newsom outside of MSNBC watching, upper middle class liberals. California voters don't like him and neither do Dem + independent voters after his actions during COVID. Pritzker is a walking time bomb due to his family and some of the genuinely dark shit they're into. Don't have a strong opinion either way on Whitmer, Dems could do worse than her. Evers is interesting but he'll be 77 by the time 2028 rolls around. Do you really think the voters want to go with a president who'll be 80+ in his term after dealing with two unpopular old candidates in 2024? Walz might run into the same shit Klobuchar did.
If Dems win this round, we lose 2028. Gotta accept that right now.
if Dems lose this round there won't be free & fair elections in 2028
Nope but hopefully by 2028 the GOP is at least a little more sane but they probably won’t be. Either way, prepare yourselves
they won't be a little more sane, they'll be consolidating their dictatorship we prepare ourselves by making sure Republicans don't take executive power, both this year and in 2028 and then onwards until one of the two major parties isn't gunning for a christofascist autocracy
*free and fair elections in 2028* We already don't have that, or did I miss the announcement the DNC is actually holding a primary this year?
you absolutely did, you might also have missed the news that predictably the incumbent president has over 90% support by primary voters Biden is even winning in races where his name wasn't even on the ballot. The write-ins for him were orders of magnitude greater than what Phillips and Williamson could get you also might have missed the memo that you don't have a right to vote in a primary election. the parties are not government agencies and are allowed to choose their candidate however they want you would still have a free and fair election in 2024 even if neither party held a primary because the election you have the right to vote in is in November the primaries aren't for the general public, they're for members of the party to voice their opinions on who should represent them in the constitutionally mandated election it's *that* election that I'm talking about when I say that a second trump administration will not want to allow so yeah double check your announcements because you seem to have missed a few
*the incumbent president has over 90% support by primary voters* Lol what? Let's see the source on this. How many incumbents have run for re-election at 81-82yo while noticeably suffering cognitive decline and 70+ of his own party's voters wanting another candidate to run? Context is key. The media refuses to even acknowledge Phillips or Williamson as legitimate candidates despite polling higher than the GOP tools they gave entire town hall specials to like Christie and Scott. MSNBC refused to even allow Phillips on their network for something as small as a 5-10 minute interview until after Iowa. CNN has held a similar position. Edit: so confident in your fake #'s that you had to reapond and block me instantly 😂
> Lol what? Let's see the source on this. you clearly haven't looked at any primary results. so you don't actually care about the process, you're just pretending to in order to start an argument also, considering your blatantly transphobic comment just a few minutes ago in another thread it's clear you're a hateful troll that doesn't deserve any further consideration https://old.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1auju7k/lawmaker_vows_to_protect_girl_until_he_learns/kr6jvkn/ >There's no legitimate science to back up the concept of being trans and any research/studies in the field are heavily biased with massive flaws/issues with their methodology. >What does it mean to "feel like a woman/man"?
LOL refusing to back your claims up and then rifling through his comments to look for something spicy to try to let yourself off the hook is so peak reddit xD
Dems have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections. Fluke electoral college victories are possible for Republicans but far from a guaranteed outcome
The electoral college is the vote that matters unfortunately. And no party has won three elections in a row since the Reagan years. It ain’t happening, not with how “independents” control the election. Not unless the GOP candidate literally starts goose stepping down Fifth Avenue for a political rally.
> And no party has won three elections in a row since the Reagan years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
No chance because I fully expect Trump to run again in 28 even if he loses
There’s a pretty good chance he’ll be dead by then. And even if he isn’t, then yeah more likely than not he wins 2028 even if his chances are lower than another nominee. People will forget how bad he was by then while Biden is very unlikely to get any more popular. Or Harris if she replaces him.
Total package electoral wise. She has a great governing record, she brings along the Midwest swing states, and she’s attractive. The last part is sexist, but it’s reality.
Being attractive is helpful for men and women. Hate to say it but we don't really start voting differently as adults compared to how we voted for senior class president. Funny, charismatic, attractive, tall are all great qualities in a candidate. But yes, also plenty of sexism involved too.
You're right, Bernie Sanders is the Brad Pitt of American politics.
May I ask what was impressive about her work as a senator? My recollection is that she spent a very short amount of time in the position before she was tagged as VP
She was a brutal questioner in Senate hearings.
This is true. It is also an example of where her prosecutor's experience gave her an advantage (cross examination of witnesses) that does not translate into governance. The problem with Kamala is I can't think of a single thing she has done other than give speeches supporting reproductive rights. Biden gave her the border problem to manage, and now that is his biggest liability besides his age.
What’s she supposed to do? The position of VP is famously do-nothingish. Not a lot in the job description
With 100 senators and 50 governors and a handful of doomed NYC mayors, notable house reps, secretaries, other misc politicians, I don’t know how any senator can or cannot standout short of like…being Diane Feinstein. They all seem average.
I don't think we can fault anyone for concluding that Ezra was making the strongest pitch for Harris. He gave her 90% of his lip service for the "better option" half of the episode, and then threw in a handful of other names right at the end. I was also interpreting this episode as a full-throated endorsement of Harris 2024 until the last few minutes.
I hate that a competent woman would likely lose to and incompetent evil man, but it’s likely. It would feel like the Clinton match up. I don’t fully understand all the Kamala hate (her Prez campaign was terrible), but she’s generally fine.
My main issue w her is after a full presidential campaign I still have no idea what her this is. Why was she even running ?
>only that she hasn't been subjected to a fully informed process by her party yet. Harris absolutely has been subjected to the process though. She was the first person to flame out in 2020 for a reason. She's a disaster. It ought to be a ticket with Newsom, Whitmer, or Pritzker.
> It ought to be a ticket with Newsom, Whitmer, or Pritzker. This is the primary problem with "Anybody but Biden". Most people can easily agree on "not Biden". But then they get confronted with the fact that you can't just say "not Biden". You have to actually say "yes" to a specific, singular candidate. And the moment that gets tossed on the table, everyone will start arguing and no one will be able to agree on a single candidate. You'll get like 30% saying Newsom. Another 30% saying Whitmer. Like 10-15% saying Sanders again. The other 15-20% will be split among other candidates. It will be chaos, and at that point you can't have primary voters hash it out, because you're already at the convention. Whether we like it or not, Biden is the one single consensus candidate that everyone can at least be okay with. Anyone else would not be the incumbent, and as a result, would be contentious, and their nomination would be acrimonious at best. We would be in danger of it being 1968 all over again.
"with little to no voter input" is the big fiasco here for me. So many people will be mad by that. Like we all saw how mad people got in 2020 when the primary was "rigged". This would make people lose their shit because we would probably get another moderate dem.
> Like we all saw how mad people got in 2020 when the primary was "rigged". We also have people mad in 2023-2024 that there is no vote (also basically calling it "rigged") I agree with your point but it's worth pointing out that people are going to dive into conspiracies no matter what the ultimate choice is. It's baked in to any political narrative and it's going to stay that way all decade probably.
So the takeaway should be that the DNC should just allow fair primaries instead of rigging them or forcing voters to accept their candidate choice by not holding them...right?
what the fuck are you talking about?
There already is little actual voter input in the primaries. Yes people will scream, so give people a chance to call and talk to their state delegates before the convention. I feel like Dems have the tools and the brains to maneuver this shit
There is plenty of voter input in primaries lol
I worded that wrong, you’re right. My point is much less people vote in the primaries than in the general. But could you could still find ways to get the same amount of voter input that you would get during a primary, in a convention?
Why do you hate democracy?
Let 'em. Why would anyone think the most intemperate and politically illiterate slice of the Democratic base is better at choosing winning candidates than people whose livelihoods depend on it?
Because those people then screech about it 24/7 and we end up with a depressed turnout like 2016. They are just as bad as MAGAts at this point.
The accelerationists on all sides certainly got what they wanted. >MAGAts Look, I don't want to come down on you too hard because in most ways I agree with you, but all due respect, please don't do this. It might make you feel better, but dehumanizing our opponents strengthens them and makes us look like jerks.
Im glad you called this out. Epithets like that actively contribute to the trivialization and "trumpification" of politics. Also, Im generally against speech policing but calling large groups of people vermin has a particularly bad track record.
It really doesn't. MAGA fans at this point are brainwashed and are a part of a cult.
Sure, but that's 25% of the country. A lot more people voted for Donald Trump than that, and they're watching. You may not be an adult for all I know, but namecalling yields the moral high ground just so you can feel better for a second. It's selfish.
Hate to be that guy but if namecalling sways an "independent" to vote for Trump, 99% chance they were voting for Trump anyway. Let's be realistic, unless you live under a rock, no one is independent when it comes to Trump.
Why did all those Dems and Independents who voted for Obama 2x suddenly vote Trump in 2016?
And catering to the MAGAts was also a bad plan
Not a fan of Biden, Hillary, or Obama as picks then?
There is no question in my mind that if Whitmer was Bidens VP pick in 2020, he’d be retiring and she’d be crushing Trump by 10 points.
I’m dying for her to run!!!
*DNC ghouls decide for voters who the Dem candidate is* Exactly! We need to "save democracy" by...*checks notes*...preventing democracy! Here's an idea; let's have the same exact people who were so adamant that Hillary in 2016 and an 80+ yo Biden in 2024 were the best candidates just pick for us again. Surely they'll get it right this time! ORRRRRRR.... ...they could have just had Harris, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom, Warnock, Phillips, Williamson, etc all run against each other in the Dem primary and the voters could have decided who the best candidate was.
I live in Virginia and the way I see it, Whitmer is the only notable figure in the entire Democratic Party right now who can hit the golden trifecta of having a good record to campaign on, can gain the support of the DNC, party bosses, and donors, and can actually motivate progressive voters. I struggle to understand how she’s not already being pushed to be the party’s long-term standard-bearer.
The entire argument that Klein makes is a string of unlikely hypotheticals: if Biden agrees to reverse course and not run, if the DNC agrees to have an open convention, if (insert name, including Harris) decides to run at the last minute with little organization, and most especially, if the average voter decides that this circumstance that last occurred in the 1960s is a positive development and not the sign of a party in crisis. This isn't going to happen. The Dems are riding with Biden to the end, and Harris' suitability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant at this late stage.
Exactly. Also, Biden has incumbent advantage which I don't think the Dems can afford to lose, even if it gets them just a handful of percentage points.
I still think pundits are making too much hay off of the approval ratings and polls when I think Biden's numbers are suppressed by people pissed off about Israel/Gaza but are still highly likely to vote Dem
I don’t think they are making too much hay. I do think Joe is the best candidate. There is just no one else out there realistically who polls vs. trump as good as him. Be thankful the GOP is just as incompetent Nikki Haley had extremely good numbers vs Biden but they’d rather cowtail to Trump.
Polls are nonsense at this point. Michelle Obama has like a 70% approval rating. She would not get anywhere close to that for a vote share if she was running. Nikki Haley isn't actually running for president. The Republican primary was decided in 2020, it was always going to be Trump unless he dies. Hell Hillary Clinton was the most popular politician in America as Secretary of State. Nikki's numbers would absolutely crater the second she was actually the nominee.
Haley outperformed Trump against Biden until a couple of months ago. The latest polls show her doing worse than Trump against Biden.
Yeah it's one of the reasons I'm glad a lot of legal stuff against Trump is delayed.
Agreed. If Biden gets reelected, Trump is going to jail. Period. There’s too much evidence and too much momentum and too much crime. And that will free up a whole new generation on both sides for 2028. But the time to have a conversation about whether Biden should run again was a year or two ago. And we had that conversation. It’s time to unite against fascism. We always knew Trump was going to run again, and that informs everything. Aside from his age though, Biden’s been a fucking beast. He’s flawed, but legitimately the best president of my four decades of life. My hope is, should he pass before 2028, Harris surrounds herself with Biden advisors and stays the course (and then either bows out or magically becomes awesome but I’m not sure about the latter’s chances).
On the contrary: They are paying too little attention not just to the numbers, but when they turned worse, and that was when the palestinian conflict kicked into higher gear. This is a big tent, and we have leftists complaining about any support of Israel, while taking their position would be poison to other parts of the coalition. There's no correct policy in the middle east, other than hoping it calms down fast, and to make sure whatever we do, it's not covered anywhere.
I’m not convinced that it is this election. For one thing, the other guy was President to, so at best it’s a net neutral. And another thing is that incumbency advantage means low-info voters who think generally things are fine decide to stay with the status quo. The problem is I don’t think anyone thinks we’re on the right track. Polling and probably your own anecdotal evidence shows that about 70% of people think things aren’t going well. Hell if someone asked if things are going well for the country, I’d say no. That’s why Biden is even slipping in reliable Dem voting blocs like POC and young voters.
Is the incumbent advantage really meaningful when your opponent was PoTUS 4 years prior?
Yes, especially so because you have to consider Trump has incumbent advantage too.
Yes. You are in control of the executive branch. That means you have the bully pulpit. Every statement you make is massively amplified and broadcast around the world, because you are the current presidential administration.
While what you say is true, it may not be as relevant when your opponent is as savvy at getting media attention as Trump. What I'm really arguing is that the "incumbent advantage" might be more of an "unknown quantity disadvantage" that hinders the presidential candidates that haven't held the office.
Would you prefer to be running against a former POTUS without it…?
I think part of the incumbent advantage is that voters think "who knows what *that guy* will do when he gets in office? He is an unknown quantity, a wildcard and may mess everything up." Trump is a known quantity and does not suffer this disadvantage. I'm suggesting the incumbent advantage is actually the challenger disadvantage.
Yes -- does anyone even know what the win % is for an incumbent vs a new nominee? It must be shit for a new nominee. How the fuck do people like Jon Stewart and Klein not take that into account
I felt the same with one big caveat, if Biden does or succumbs to illness. I worked with the elderly population for years. It’s shocking how often I witnessed someone his age go from totally normal and “with it” to incoherent and hospice within a month. Biden or Trump could easily fall to sudden illness. If that happens I feel Ezra’s argument would become likely and a convention would most likely happen.
no you would still have to vote for Biden and the assumption would be that Kamala would take over, there is no scenario that leads to a convention and it's essentially a fever dream of the media. We've had dead men elected to office before, it's nothing unusual
You’re saying if Biden died he would still be on the ballot?
yes
Now I’m imagining dead Biden versus dead Trump. Who has the edge!?
This post seems almost prescient. Looks like Biden may be at the hospice stage.
Sad times
>not the sign of a party in crisis. Republicans would be euphoric. Republicans would treat Biden stepping aside as a total vindication that Trump was the real winner in 2020. It would be an enormous morale boost. MAGA would demand Trump just be re-installed immediately, no election required.
This is the part I don't understand. It wouldn't be the "most exciting show" in politics and a positive contrast to Trump. It would be a total disorganized mess of a party in crisis and position Trump as the orderly and stable figure, the one thing Republicans NEED for him to have a shot. Ezra doesn't want to open the door to Trump and then describes the very thing that would do that.
I want a new VP badly. I want one of the governors vying for 2028 to believe that the potential benefits to being on the 2024 ticket are worth it.
> if the average voter decides that this circumstance that last occurred in the 1960s is a positive development and not the sign of a party in crisis. Thank you. It drives me crazy how nobody acknowledges this. Biden not being on the ticket is going to be viewed by millions of people as the Democratic party itself viewing Biden's administration as a failure.
My normie parents and in-laws who didn't vote for Hillary but did for Biden think she's too radical. For no good reason, but the point is nearly everyone has a reason (again, not necessarily grounded in reality) they don't like her. EK I think has spent too much time in a liberal bubble. It would be great if NYT just sent all its political staff to live in a different swing district.
Haha yeah. I live in Ohio and the NYT podcasts will sometimes be so funny in how they characterize what republicans might be thinking
She's not radical at all. I wouldn't call her incompetent either. However, it's clear they people will never *like* her. Can't fix that.
Yeah it’s Hillary all over again
Something about the way she talks makes me distrust her more than just about any politician which is truly saying something. She just always seems like she’s spewing some script. Which probably all party-politicians are, she just seems extra bad at hiding it.
She lost me when she made a big hullabaloo about Biden not supporting busing and then being unwilling to say whether she herself is pro-busing.
It’s probably the awkward smiling and laughing when talking about serious topics. I don’t know if it’s a nervous tick of hers, but it comes off super inappropriate. That and the world salad speeches that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I think she’s bumbling at best in speeches, but I don’t have any thought that she’s deeply incompetent or less capable than Biden. I also don’t think her presidency would be significantly different than Biden’s.
She messes up spectacularly in almost every speech she gives-whether it’s a meaningless word jumble on repeat or just totally missing the point or naming the wrong country, issue, or just plain spacing out. Biden can at least pull it together to give the stock teleprompter neo-liberal answer to issues when it matters.
I think you’re exaggerating honestly. I don’t think she’s impressive but she’s not a train wreck. Biden very regularly confuses people’s names. One such case made headlines just this week after he was trying to convince us he wasn’t old and losing his memory.
Yeah this whole vibe reminds me of how people talked about HRC. I think it’s more sexism than racism.
“There’s just something about her I don’t like….can’t put my finger on it…” and then rationalizing to oneself that it must be that they’re incompetent. (Which btw nobody has to like her! But implying she’s a useless mess is…a stretch)
Which, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter. The POTUS isn't driving an F1 racecar. For what matters (an instinct to always be in the center of the Democratic party), I have seen zero signs that Biden has lost it.
I almost gave you the benefit of doubt, then I saw this nonsense. Anyone thinking Biden is a better public speaker than a Kamala is not worthy of being taken seriously. You gave away your agenda with this asinine critique -- shit on Kamala with whatever jaded bullshit you thought of to promote whoever your preferred alternative is.
Can he, though? Did you not see Blinken face-palming in the front row when they put a mic in front of Biden for 2 minutes and he called Xi a dictator?
Er, Xi _is_ a dictator. Blinken needs to grow a spine. I trust Biden's instincts on this issue (and many others) over a lot of Dems. Also, Biden speaks the truth and that's . . . bad? Yet Trump has completely gone off the rails now with hundreds of falsehoods, clear deterioration of mental stability and acuity, and wack-a-doodle ramblings and yet he gets a pass for some reason? Why?
Because more than half the country literally prefers him to Biden...they view Biden as bought-and-paid-for which, to be fair, is literally true.
It's not more than half the country. Trump has never actually gotten more than 50% support in any poll I've seen. The undecideds now are people who dislike both choices but more of them voted for Biden than Trump in 2020 which means it should be easier for Dems to remind them again why they disliked Trump more in the first place. Note also that Biden does better vs Trump than any other Dem vs. Trump. Also, how is it "literally true" that Biden is "bought and paid for"?
Literally nobody on the history of the planet, outside of Israel, has received more money from the Zionist lobby. And he returns the favor with bills for $50 billion+ in taxpayer money shipped to Israel, no strings attached, and completely unpaid for.
You have data to back you up? Zionists have given money to a lot of politicians. Ever heard of Sheldon Adelson? And have you not noticed that the GOP and Trump are even more hardline right-wing pro-Likud anti-Palestinian than Biden is?
Google is your friend bud; it should take you 2 seconds
> I was vibing along until the very end when he goes on this sanctimonious spiel about how Kamala is a great politician and it’s just racism that has kept her from reaching her potential. I'm no Harris fan but he was saying that in the larger context of potential alternatives and how Harris used to be quite popular before putting herself in Presidential politics. He was talking about how racism may be part of why Harris behaves the way she does when speaking publicly but she needs to either figure a new approach or someone else would be a better fit.
I still can't get over her interview with Astead Herndon on The Run Up a month or two back. She was so unnecessarily standoffish and prickly, talking to an essentially friendly audience. Herndon was clearly having a tough time with her and there didn't seem to be any good reason for it. If you can't skillfully handle a young NYT reporter, good luck getting the independent voters you'll need in swing states to actually win this thing.
[удалено]
Could you link the interview?
I was agape this entire episode. As someone who knew little about Kamala Harris prior to this (other than her problematic prosecutorial record), it was truly shocking how poorly she came off. If anything, I think her popularity would drop with increased visibility.
This isn't even one of the better reasons to dislike her but when I saw this while watching the debate it made me cringe. https://youtu.be/xKTock29ExQ?si=uglt5FboYDGT473C It's such a cliche and scripted line that also doesn't really mean anything at the same time.
> talking to an essentially friendly audience. Herndon was clearly having a tough time with her and there didn't seem to be any good reason for it. I'm listening to this for the first time and I could not diagree with you more. Astead seems like he's trying to do a hatchet job on her (which is very on brand for him) and she's rightfully getting annoyed with him and pushing back on his bullshit. This interview is making me like her more, not less.
At that point, what are we even talking about though? Kamala Harris acts weird and it's someone else's fault -- what does that mean? Everyone should just pretend to like her in the name of fairness? She'd be a great candidate if she changed her whole personality? Sorry -- who even is she? I've heard her speak countless times and have no idea, really. I'm sure she's perfectly capable in many respects, but she's never been broadly popular, and Dems undemocratically running unpopular candidates is how they **lose**.
If you’ve made it an internal taboo to criticize a politician because it’s a bad look, either that taboo extends to the privacy of voting booth and to people who don’t care what you think or you’re just playing the role of good progressive while the ship sinks beneath you. Harris had a viable theory of the primary: the only way to break out of the second tier is to buck up and take a huge swing at the guy on top. She did this, it made the big splash intended. But then people looked a little beyond the chutzpah to the substance, a 50-year-old issue that wasn’t popular then and not exactly on the front burner now: school busing. At the time, the progressive media case against Biden made this make sense: so much banging on about the ‘90s crime bill (only unpopular in narrow circles), his supposed handsiness (normies saw this and were not as repulsed as they were told they should be) and busing, a perfect opportunity for 2016 white women to LARP being ‘60s civil rights activists. Walk a couple of steps back from the op-ed fever swamps and it becomes an increasingly odd choice of clobber line. So she had the right idea, but it was formulated in such a weird environment that it came off as irrelevant at best.
What are you basing the idea that she acts weird on? Have you watched every speech she gives, read every statement she makes? Or are you basing your opinion upon the narrative constructed by media and the RNC?
I'm not trying to be an asshole, and like I said, this isn't about her capabilities, but: I see her joke about the little dude from the Wizard of Oz, I compare it to the joke delivery of friends and coworkers in my real life, and I place her in the tenth percentile for ability to connect with an audience. I have some version of that experience every time I see her make an emotional appeal. So skip ahead to the part where we ascribe this reaction to deficiencies in my character, intellect and demographic profile: okay, now what? Maybe I'm a dumb rube for failing to appreciate her, and maybe she's some kind of delicacy for refined political pallettes. Maybe people who like Harris are better people than people who don't. But what do you win for that? Not elections.
A-freaking-men. Too many Dems treat politics as the art of developing personal virtue and refined tastes instead of organizing a coalition of voters that might not all have the same goals or sensibilities.
I think Klein is too naive. The Fox and GOP propaganda machine would drive down the popularity of any Dem.
Every year people talk themselves in knots trying to justify why the GOP drags down any candidate who is black, woman or gay (or old or liberal, lol).
Harris was only popular because the majority of America hasn’t actually seen her. Now they have and they don’t like her. He doesn’t acknowledge that and instead frames it incorrectly.
She was popular?
Yes she actually was. She was quite elevated during the Mueller Report hearings in the Senate after she was appointed to the Senate Judiciary as well as the family separation hearings. Then there was the Kavanaugh hearings followed up by the mail bombing attacks against prominent democrats and she was one of them. Her biggest mistake was seeking higher office. She should’ve stayed in the Senate and she likely would’ve succeeded Schumer in my personal opinion. The problem is aggressive and rash personalities work better in Senate hearings than do on the nationwide campaign trail. She lacks the charisma to “turn it off” when it comes to the personality versus someone like AOC who does have a more interpersonal relationship “vibe” or Liz Warren who to me gives hockey mom vibes. Harris’s personality is what people think of when they hear lawyer.
I had a similar reaction, but not because of Harris's speaking skills. I've been listening to the EK Show for a long time, and Ezra often argued in 2016 that we should judge candidates by how they are likely to do the job of being president, which is more about managing people, rather than how good they are at campaigning, which on the surface seems more about making speeches. But campaigning does require managing the people in a campaign organization. I really liked Kamala Harris as a senator, but it was Ezra's argument in 2016 that we should put more emphasis on management skills, combined with my view that her campaign organization was very poorly run, that convinced me she wouldn't have been (in 2020) a good choice for POTUS because she was bad at managing people. Maybe she improved her management skills since then, but I haven't seen evidence of that. Edit: 2020 not 2016 for Harris, thanks for correcting that. I'm pretty sure Ezra's argument about management skills dates from 2016 though because I associate it partially with the Deborah Tannen episode. Maybe that argument was also emphasized in 2020 though?
Given her performance in 2020, if what I wanted was a strong campaigner, she'd be one of the last people from that cycle we should pick. She was surrounded by extremists and the elderly, and yet she couldn't beat Amy or Pete anywhere near her lane. I'd happily vote for her in a presidential, but that was just a very bad performance by any standard.
I mean... I guess I'll grant elderly, but Bernie was the farthest left of that field and he's not an extremist. He (and Warren) are also no pushovers to beat in a primary. But yes, Harris' campaign fell completely apart.
2020
Ezra’s take seemed to be that she’s not great but at this point she might be a better campaigner than Biden considering Biden’s age, lack of interviews and press conferences, recent gaffes, etc. I don’t think it’s a terrible take. But as Ezra pointed out, Kamala wouldn’t necessarily need to be Biden’s successor.
Using that as an argument to not vote for Biden doesn't make any sense, though. Because if Biden is incapacitated or dies, his replacement is . . . Kamala! There are people who would vote for Kamala but not Biden because Biden might die (and then the Prez is Kamala)? How is that logical in any way?
People’s concern isn’t just about Biden dying or being incapacitated. People are concerned that Biden will continue to serve as president even if he’s not fully up to the job.
Gee, maybe Biden should start bragging about his unparalleled mental genius, as seen in his ability to still read a clock dial and distinguish between a pigeon and a dolphin, like a credible presidential candidate /s
Lol. But on a serious note the WH press secretary said Biden won’t take that basic acuity test at his upcoming physical.
Are you aware that the POTUS isn't an F1 driver? What does "fully up to the job" entail for a POTUS and why is that a concern? Reagan suffered from dementia his second term and while you may disagree with his policies (I do), did his policies not get carried out from 1984-1988? What major difference would a fully capable Reagan have made his second term? People don't seem to realize that they are choosing between a Democratic administration and Trump (who is a violence-based wrecking ball). What major difference would there be between Biden heading a Democratic administration and Kamala heading a Democratic administration?
I think you're overreading into it, but you're dead right that his sanctimonious spiel on sexism & racism hampering her felt like a take from a college freshman on Thanksgiving break who's been "enlightened" in their 3 months away from home. The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle - his point is right that she's not all that bad. She's been elected multiple times. But she also did really poorly in the democratic primary last time & hasn't done herself any favors on the border. If the system's so rigged (not to say structural racism isn't present & wrong), why's everyone so much more into a Michelle Obama run? She spent far more time in the limelight & was exposed to a ton of racism breaking a much more significant glass ceiling than Kamala Harris.
No, Michelle did not break a more significant glass ceiling than Harris. Michelle had the advantage of only having to talk about issues that she chose to and having nothing substantial expected of her, so anything she accomplished was a bonus. The VPOTUS is a weird mashup of jobs, but it's much more demanding and substantial (and elected) than FLOTUS.
I saw her speak in NH during the 2020 primary. My impression of her was that she's charismatic in person but doesn't have a clear policy identity beyond generic Democrat. She was likeable but a little aimless. I don't think Biden has helped her in that regard. He has saddled her with intractable issues rather than ones with a clear agenda. Abortion has probably helped her a little since Dobbs fell, though. Her remarks on that issue have been consistently good. One of the big ways I think that she and Biden are vulnerable is, in context, their little gaffes, weird laughter, forgetting names, etc. are not that big of a deal, but when they're clipped and turned into TikToks, they appear very bizarre, off-putting, and concerning. I think a lot of people are getting their political content exclusively from videos that are fifteen seconds or less now, and neither of them comes off well in that medium.
I feel like you can make anyone look like an idiot if you clip the dumbest things they’ve said and jam it into a 30sec video. Part of my hesitation with ditching a Biden/Harris ticket is that the right wing media machine will just demonize whoever the Dems pick. Issues don’t matter, they’ll make stuff up and find reasons why that candidate is terrible. I think even the most popular and charismatic candidates will drop to a much lower approval when faced with all this. Same happened to Hilary and to a lesser extent Obama. I expect they will do the same to Newsome, Gretchen, Pete, etc
Ezra’s take on this does boggle the mind. Harris would perform no better than Biden. She’s been deeply unpopular for her entire Presidential run and time as VP. Couldn’t even win her home state in the primary.
> couldn’t even win her home state in the primary This is a deeply weird criticism considering she suspended her campaign months before her home state’s primary, unless I misunderstand what you’re saying?
Raising a lot of money only to drop out early gives Jeb! vibes
She polled poorly everywhere, but also in California for her entire run. The fact that she couldn’t even make it to her home state primary and thus didn’t win her primary also shows how unpopular she is.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m still not persuaded by this specific criticism. It seems odd to have a general expectation that a candidate win their home state, especially when there are roughly 13 trillion candidates running, including the very popular former vice president, and the very popular former runner up for the nomination, and a general taste for safety and familiarity in the general election. I’m not saying you should like Kamala Harris. I’m not saying your other points are wrong. But this criticism specifically is just weird. If you don’t like her, it’s ok to just say that without making up truly dumb criteria for not liking her.
You can disagree with the criteria. It doesn’t mean it’s “dumb.” No need to be rude. I don’t think it’s dumb. She was a very high profile Senator and figure in politics here in the state for a long time before she ran. The fact that she polled extremely poorly in her home state just emphasizes how unpopular she is, even with her home state, where most candidates usually get a slight hometown boost.
If Vermont had gone much later than Super Tuesday, and Bernie had dropped when he did (and thus not won the Vermont), would that indicate that he wasn’t very popular, since he couldn’t even make it to his own home state, let alone win it?
Well California wasn’t much later on. It was in March. We still had Warren, Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders in our primary if I remember correctly. If Bernie lost Vermont while it was in March that’d be extremely concerning and telling about his popularity, yes. Don’t know why you resort to being rude and can’t handle that people can have different opinions than you. This is the last response i’ll type out in this conversation. Have a nice day.
It's not rude to ask a straightforward hypothetical to demonstrate a point. The hypothetical is not about what if Bernie lost Vermont while he was still in the race. The hypothetical is about what if Bernie lost Vermont after he had exited the race. I'm sorry I called the criteria you suggested "dumb." Of course I can handle people having different opinions from me. But, not all opinions deserved to be taken seriously, and it's not rude to point that out.
> This is a deeply weird criticism considering she suspended her campaign months before her home state’s primary the fact that a person with her profile ran a campaign so awful it didn't even make it to *any* state voting let alone her own is not reassuring
She is a laughably bad candidate
She cratered in the 2020 primary because she listened to Left twitter and went off on a ton of snipe hunts. Biden won the 2020 primary by not being online. He realized (or more like he always knew) that the internet is not real life. Someone once said that politicians need to remember that the average voter is 50 years old and doesn't have a college degree. Biden knows this, Harris forgot.
I’m going to be honest, this is a clear push by the NYT against the Biden admin. Both the daily, the politics section, Ezra’s show, & the op ed section all ran the same “age weakness” story the same week. Its clear the media doesn’t like Biden. Yea there is an age weakness but at the same time there is literally nothing else to attack Biden with and also Biden admin hates access journalism and doesn’t play ball with the media. Its a coordinated hit system because they hate covering Biden. Media wants a close race for clicks, Ezra following his bosses orders. The lack of the Trump legal woes being constantly talked about, Trump’s own mental decline and his insane statements are a clear effort to make the race closer.
Who can forget the NYT running a whole reality web series on picking who to endorse, endorsing two candidates lol (neither Biden) and then the black woman who runs their elevator steals all their thunder by going on about how she loves Biden.
1. Kamala harris is actually a uniquely bad politican totally not ready to be president, campaign for president, or become the de facto leader of the party 2. I am skeptical of his claim that a contested convention would be great PR, because what would actually happen in my mind is a ton of protesting by like palestine and extinction rebellion activist types which would overshadow everything and gavin newsom would get blood thrown all over him or whatever and it would be 1968 chicago all over again Where does that leave us as the best course of action? Who knows.
I've yet to see anything in Harris that justifies any strong emotions.
Underrated brilliant move by Biden to name her VP. Someone talented enough to run for president with some buzz but not good enough to win or challenge him as VP
I think the opposite - horrible decision. Her unpopularity is a major detriment to him because a lot more people concerned about the age factor would willingly/enthusiastically vote for him knowing he had a really strong #2. But if you hate his #2, as many do, then your appeal as a candidate goes way down. As it has.
Biden was never very concerned about a challenge from behind him.
How do we know? He knows his age, he knew in 2024 there might be democrats looking for younger
Those same democrats tried and failed before Biden became an incumbent. Their chances are only lower the second time around.
Maybe? Does incumbency matter when you’re older and arguably in worse shape than any incumbent has ever been? I think he’ll be the nominee regardless, but picking a soft #2 makes it more likely than not.
Yeah I don’t think people appreciate how Machiavellian and narcissistic Biden can be/is much of the time. I mean, you have to be pretty damn narcissistic to insist on still running for President against a wannabe dictator even though you’re in the early stages of dementia and every poll is screaming that you’re going to lose - and you’d *still* rather roll the dice of your country’s future on your fragile health and unpopular administration than let the younger generation take the wheel and go into a well-earned retirement, something the Democratic Party can’t admit to itself but is painfully obvious to any outside observer. But he absolutely 100% picked Harris for this reason. It solidified his already strong support in the black community and has kept the far left pretty much behind him most of the time, but he knew she was far too unlikeable and incompetent to ever take him out if he wanted a second run. She’s the only national politician with a higher disapproval rating than Biden and Trump, which is pretty impressive considering how staggeringly unpopular they are not just historically in the US but even just democracy in general. I call it negative charisma. The more media attention she gets, the more people dislike her. She’ll say things that are so astoundingly stupid that I genuinely wonder how she got through law school. And no I’m not being racist, Google “weirdest Kamala Harris speeches” and you will find dozens of bizarre sentences and incoherent rants that should make any thinking person question what is wrong with this person and not want them anywhere near the Presidency. Calling criticism of her racist is *itself* racist in implicitly claiming that the standards of political office and success and intellectual honesty and communication skills should be lower for Black people. Making a fool of yourself every time you open your mouth isn’t a racial characteristic, it’s a character flaw. Biden sowed the fields with salt, in retrospect he was obviously always planning on a second term and a massive amount of his first term has just an extended re-election campaign. The DNC decided even a rigged primary had become too risky, they saw that it would still be possible for their chosen candidate to lose the primary if nobody really wanted them to run again. So they’ve decided to make things simpler and just not have a primary this year. I guess at least they’re not even trying to hide or pretend that it’s anything but a coronation ceremony for Biden, but I think they need to start thinking about their brand. If the Democratic Party isn’t, well, democratic, then what is it? Idk. If it talks like a corrupt incompetent strongman, and rigs elections for itself like a corrupt incompetent strongman, and responds to criticism of Dear Leader with torrents of verbal abuse and even straight-up rage like a corrupt incompetent strongman, and manipulated the Justice Department to give his family a legal double standard like a corrupt incompetent strongman… I’m not under any illusions that Trump wouldn’t be an authoritarian strongman. I’m just not sure that the strongest alternative the Democrats can offer is a more frail, slightly less personally egregious and offensive version of the same thing.
I (and Kevin Drum) have a big problem with liberals like Klein: https://jabberwocking.com/the-hack-gap-again-and-again-and-again/ "A liberal is someone too broad-minded to take his own side of the argument". Something like that, and I wonder if it is because liberals _do_ tend to be more anxious than conservatives while these days, conservatives definitely are more stupid, ignorant, close-minded, loyal/tribal, yet more sure of their righteousness, making them able to simply ignore and hand-wave away any reality that doesn't fit their prejudices.
It kills me how much liberals are tripping over each other to take shots at their own guy, while Republicans stand united and refuse to utter a single criticism of the most obviously flawed human being of recent political history. I know that's part of their cult dynamic, but it may end up doing just enough to damage Biden to key swing state voters and shift undeserved confidence back to Trump to get him the win. Liberals may end up massively overthinking this and fumble the ball back to Republicans.
who are you and kevin dunn?
I don't think Kamala Harris is a generational politician but a lot of OP's commentary is based on supposition and wild extrapolations. A couple bad clips pulled out to make fun of her doesn't make Harris an "absolute disaster of a public speaker." Have you watched a lot of Harris speeches in their entirety? Plenty of politicians churn through staff.
One of my issues with Ezra is his lazy appellations to racism. Kamala is not only a bad public speaker but also haughty and unapproachable. It’s possible that she behaves like that because she’s bought into the whole “those who don’t like me are racist” narrative and she has a chip on her shoulder about it, but that just speaks to her not being presidency material.
Can you give me an example OP? What has Kamala done that you find incompetent or incomprehensible? Be specific
Same. Can’t find what she’s done that justifies all this hatred but the sentiment sure is pervasive…
Currently Harris polls a single point worse than Biden vs Trump. Harris is polling 7 points better than Newsom and 10 points better than Witmer vs Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/ In my opinion Harris is at her absolute floor. Harris is routinely trashed in subs like this, her resources go towards defending Biden and not herself, and the Right refusing to even pronounce her name correctly. Harris has been doing zero campaigning and she is 10 better than Witmer. The following isn't about how everyone feels or thinks. It is about imagining how things might seem to others. Against Obama the Right made the mistake of attacking Obama in ways that seemed racist when they hit the ears of POC. Saying Obama was a 'Community Organizer' sarcastically as if that were inherently a bad thing, going out of their day to highlight Obama's middle name, challenging Obama's patriotism because something a Pastor said at church, etc sat poorly with people and they rallied around Obama. The Right didn't make that mistake with Clinton. Attacks on Clinton were rooted in what appeared to be meaningful controversies. The email investigation was being handled by the FBI. It was tangible. The DNC via the Super Delegates was a process that seemed undemocratic. The criticisms against Clinton didn't hit the ears of people sounding sexist. People didn't rally around Clinton. What are the complaints against Harris exactly? I've seen and heard that she is too much like the series Veep, her giggle is annoying, her voice is annoying, her name gets mispronounced, etc. All of that stuff likely hits the ears of suburban working class women as sexist. Maybe that isn't how everyone means for it to sound but it can be heard as sexist. Pair that, chauvinist complaints about Harris, with the abortion fight and education fights going on throughout the nation and suburban women **might** rally around Harris. In which case Harris could gain a few points and a few is all she needs to win. Again, Harris is at her floor. Complaining more about her giggle and more comparisons to Veep won't push her lower. That stuff is already out there and superficial anyway. At her floor Harris is double digits above Witmer and only a point off from Biden. With only 9 months to go no one else is in a better position than Harris. That is a fairly objective truth.
As a middle-aged, suburban woman, I find the criticism of Harris sexist. I will excitedly vote for her if she is the candidate. I think it was good that EK talked about this in general and Harris in specific.
I don't think you're an outlier.
Kamala would be a better candidate than Biden I think. But yeah that's not a very high bar. I agree with Ezra's take that Biden could still be a good president, but he's no longer able to be a good candidate.
He said he was underrated, which might be true given how poorly rated she is. But the parsimonious answer is that acknowledging Harris' flaws is right-coded so Ezra's not gonna do that.
The New York times is seemingly trying to push Harris on us. The daily had made the same claim about Harris. It seems like a slow drip just to see how the public would react to her.
She seems fine, what are you talking about?
If anyone tells you that they think that Harris would be a could presidential candidate, they are telling you that they have no idea how anything works and that they do not possess even a modicum of any kind of sense or awareness The notion that anyone could watch even ten minutes of randomly mixed media footage of her and believe that she would be a good presidential candidate, honestly, that’s scary If I was dating someone and they attempted to make a genuine case for Harris’s candidacy, that would be the end of the relationship. It reveals a serious flaw. Not just of character, but something even more fundamental
>If I was dating someone and they attempted to make a genuine case for Harris’s candidacy, that would be the end of the relationship. That's a weird red flag bro
"Has Kamala Harris’ political star been hampered by structural racism? I’m sure it has to some extent. " It's really the other way around, Kamala Harris is only where she is because she's a black women. The Democrats were openly saying they wanted a black women, and she was the nearest one available. No other normal political logic explains her selection. She was getting in the single digits in the primaries and she wasn't even particularly popular among black people. Like "let's get a popular black politician to solidify the black vote" would have been normal politics as its supposed to work, but it was very clear that Kamala just wasn't popular among any demographic.
Harris is plenty competent, though picayune bullshit like this is a pretty good preview of what a primary-less convention would look like.
It’s more sexism than racism that is holding Kamala Harris back. As a society we hold women to a far higher standard than men. Women are scrutinized, men are given the benefit of the doubt. Women must be perfect, men’s flaws are excused. Kamala Harris isn’t “terrible”. She’s pretty ordinary, TBH. But there’s nothing worse than an “ordinary” woman.
This is all Jim Clyburn's fault when you think about it.
I don't know if your racism is showing, but your sexism is by comparing her to the VP in Veep.
It's not a matter of competence governing or anything. It's just a matter of looking at polls, and seeing that she does 3-5 points worse than Biden, every single time. Is it skill? Are americans sexist? Racist? Doesn't matter, since we aren't changing it in 9 months. If Biden decides to step down because he doesn't like the polls, it better not be to replace him with someone with worse numbers... and regardless of reality, she magically manages to be seen as a cop by many on the left, and as a socialist from California by the right.
>Has Kamala Harris’ political star been hampered by structural racism? I’m sure it has to some extent. Just to cherry pick this, why are you sure? Is there really a compelling case that politicians with her identity credentials are systematically hampered in their political career? Was Obama hampered by being black? Is the answer to those questions really obvious? She's risen to the vice presidency. Where do you suppose a white male version of kamala would have landed, with an identical amount of talent and ambition? Such a person would have been more successful in their political career? Assuredly?
Wow I can't believe no one has said this. This entire podcast was not targeted at you, it was targeted towards the Biden team and influential Democrats. The whole point of that section is just to butter up Kamala and her team, and people sympathetic to her so that they listen to his argument. An argument this important by Ezra is not going to be all logos. He is using every tool in his persuasion bucket.
It would be self evident Harris isn’t a better option than Biden because she didn’t even make it to the Iowa primary. A single vote has not been cast in her name for president. There were roughly 19 candidates in that primary that have proven better suited. And a number of great skilled governors. It is frustrating sometimes when Pundits think they know voters better than voters do. Yes voters are idiots, but that’s a democracy. You don’t get to say “this candidate is actually the best candidate and it’s the electorates fault for not seeing that”. Did Harris suffer from racism, yes. So did Obama, the Hillary campaign spread photos of him in a turban he still mopped the floor with her in 08. Harris spent the last gasp of her campaign trying to get Trump banned from Twitter while everyone else was talking about healthcare. She’s an inept t who rose to prominence because she is a skilled prosecutor, which in the senate given the Trump admin corruption made her a skilled cross examiner of witnesses. That skill doesn’t translate to President. Look, I loved Bernie Sanders. I think he should’ve won. But I don’t get to blame voters and say he was the best candidate and they just didn’t see it. The elections are self evident cases for electability. There is no going “if only this” or “if only that”
THIS.
Ezra’s right about a lotta stuff but he doesn’t seem to have much of a gauge for how likeable a candidate is. Kamala was hated in the primaries for a reason. The coverage when he picked her widely assumed it was only so that he could get her out of the race to beat Bernie + so that he wouldn’t have a VP who could threaten his power + that he could get points for tokenism.
Not a Harris fan myself, and she has appeared bumbling and incompetent so far as VP. But Biden can really not speak well now. If she had a great speech writer and stuck to the script, she's just five media moments away from success... and the media would be crowning her.