So, an attempted Presidential assassination, and now Biden has stepped down as nominee.
My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.
Primary pressure seems to have been funneled thru Nancy Pelosi.
The most important thing is that the election is no longer in the bag for Trump. There was no way, minus a deus ex machina that Trump would lose against Biden, but it’s not so sure with another candidate.
Those who would never vote for Biden, mostly because of genocide, are now in play if the nominee can keep from bowing too deep to AIPAC and Netanyahu. After all, Trump spends all his time talking about how he’d have done more to genocide than even Biden did. And Biden not stepping down is helping with this: the nominee can pretend they’re less of a psychopathic mass murderer than Biden or Trump without having to actually walk the walk.
In general this is an opportunity for the nominee to run populist and gut Trump’s appeal.
Odds are the candidate will be Kamala Harris, especially as she can draw on the fund raising already done for Trump/Harris and no one else can, but we’ll see if a viable alternative arises. Drama in the nomination process would keep attention on Democrats and off Trump.
Kamala is a bad candidate, but so is Trump. He was a very unpopular president, and looks good only compared to Biden, who was even more unpopular.
No predictions as to who wins, but the election is back in play.
NR
Some random thoughts about this:
– Expect the media to stop talking about the candidates’ ages now that Trump is the oldest one in the race.
– Harris is collecting a lot of endorsements quickly so the Dems may be able to avoid a contested convention.
– This may bring some voters back who were put off by the candidates’ ages, especially younger voters. I heard from one young person who’s not very engaged politically “Well she’s under 70, that’s a good start.”
– Here’s what I think this will ultimately come down to: Harris has an opportunity that’s pretty rare in politics in that she has the chance to start basically from scratch only four months out from the election. If she can put some distance between herself and the bad parts of the Biden administration (of which there were many) and position herself as someone who will address the fundamental problems with the country, I think she can win comfortably. If she decides to hew to Democratic establishment orthodoxy and basically say “Our policies are fine, just look at how good the economic numbers are!” I think the election is a tossup or maybe even a slight edge to Trump.
– Finally, Harris was a pretty bad campaigner in 2020, but I’ve heard she’s gotten better since then. We’ll soon see.
Mark Level
I agree with the first part of the headline, but not the last.
I would dispute that the election’s “no longer in the bag” for DJT. I was aware of Kamala’s record & character since the Burton “progressive” (sic, at one time decades before Kamala came in by sexually servicing the 3 decades older Willie Brown) machine in California selected her as a black face to oust the actual progressive SF DA, Terence Hallinan. Covering up Catholic pedophilia rapists for church votes, keeping (mostly) black prisoners in jail beyond their terms to force them to fight fires, etc. (So basically black chattel slavery in the 20th century). Now I’ll grant you voters are stupid and may not research her actual “accomplishments” but there are problems beyond that.
She is clearly a sociopath & can only simulate normal human behavior, speech, etc. and tends to cackle insanely at things that are not in the least funny, which puts off many Normies. If the Dems had wanted to win (it’s evident they don’t really care) they could’ve thrown Joe under the bus just a few days earlier hours before Trump’s Convention speech to deny the (R)s so much air, in the wake of T narrowly surviving an assassination attempt & reacting bravely. No, I’m no MAGA member or fan, but generally speaking given the false “choice” offered to voters, Something will beat Nothing. Biden’s presidency was a complete Nothing, just more failed wars, massive inflation (reduced from 13%, way above Trump’s term, to 10 or 11% by the fake Inflation Reduction Act.) NO debt relief for college borrowers (except the very oldest who’ve been trying to pay it off for 2 decades+), no actual Policy actions (beyond the Wars) beyond feel good proclamations, the Dems offered NADA to ordinary voters since Obama’s ACA, have no interest in doing anything but failing to block the R’s once in office.
I’ll grant that the demographics nationally support a level of unthinking Shit Libs around 35- low 40s percent, older wealthy Boomers & complacent suburbanite PMC, but I doubt RFK will change the equation, the R’s are becoming “the working class party” (which Trump putting Jamie Dimon in charge of the Fed or Treasury might certainly challenge in the future), the Dems are just the Lesser Evil Crew that can’t shoot straight.
Add in the widespread poverty & misery in all the old Midwestern Rust Belt states & the electoral college & I don’t see the Dems remotely crossing the line. How are they going to congeal an actually attractive message in such a short time? I don’t see it happening. Ironically I live in Minnesota currently & I see a small chance that that could be one state which will switch back to the Dems IF Kamala at least rhetorically breaks from full throated support for the Palestine Genocide, some (kayfabe) claims about pushing back against the corporations, etc. But I doubt she will be allowed to do that, or even do so in a credible way if given the liberty to do so.
People will vote for Something, even a bad Something, rather than Nothing. Nature abhors a vacuum. The Dems are nothing, stand for nothing. They don’t legislate, the only thing they kinda used to be good at, fundraising during the Obama years, they’re now losing due to a split in the Zionist funders, with the bigger ones going to Trump & open extermination rather than the half-hearted (rhetorically, not actually) Dimmie spin on the 100% support for our Settler-Colonial Apartheid State.
Even if a 2nd attempt at assassinating Trump succeeds, I think the R’s have the Presidency. The only difference Kamala might make is helping Congressional & Senate candidates down ballot marginally. Many Trump voters don’t support the insanity viz abortion rights, etc. & the Dems may do better there, they may even get majorities in the Senate (probably not in the House) to pretend to resist the R’s a bit when Trump is in. But they are an impotent party, deliberately, in a perpetual death spiral just like their senile Leader was until just hours ago. They’re as irrelevant as the Whigs were in the 1850s, apart from a very disciplined Media propaganda sector on old-line media (Cable news, TV, the NPR set) which people are abandoning in droves.
Oakchair
(Trump victory) but it’s not so sure with another candidate.
—–
Harris and other Dem establishment candidates still lose handily to Trump in polls. They are behind in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin. Of course this can change, but becoming the nominee without winning a primary is not a good start to changing those numbers.
RFK Jr. is the only candidate who outpolls Trump, but the Dem establishment just like in 2016 would rather Trump win then oppose a section of the oligarch class.
—–
Those who would never vote for Biden, mostly because of genocide, are now in play if the nominee bowing too deep to AIPAC and Netanyahu
—–
I’d put better odds on China developed free energy within 8 years and solving every energy problem in the world.
Willy
While the Dems are mostly all in with Big Donor, the GOP is all in with anything involving cash regardless of how nefarious the origins are. I’d think that a good leftist always does whatever they can to try and reveal, then sever those connections. And every other little bit helps, even on the most mundane of cultural levels.
Big money has been wildly successful at ratcheting the Overton window to the right, pushing one party then the other. Click, click, click. As for attacking the left from the left, I seriously doubt that makes much difference if those leftists aren’t also constantly reminding us that it’s the right which leads the way. We’re all aware, ad nauseum, of the failings of the party D. But by now we’d rather listen to a broken record.
It’d be foolish to ignore that something did happen with Biden who helped along “the most progressive policies since FDR”, such as they were. The leftist blogosphere and sometimes even the MSM allowed themselves to occasionally focus on the working poor and progressive causes, between the usual shiny new object diversions and far too many corporate product advertisements.
As for not sucking on the diseased cock of AIPAC… well yeah, obviously. But AIPAC is powerful. And skilled at the art of manipulating the low information moron voter (who’ve never even heard of them) and who now make all the difference in elections. They proved that with their big money they know exactly how and where to strike at progressive candidates who dare speak against Zionism and its Netanyahoos.
I ask for ideas from our own leftists about what Jamaal Bowman could have done differently in his battle against AIPAC. Such lessons might apply to Harris and/or others.
Bill H.
“…she can draw on the fund raising already done for Trump/Harris and no one else can,” Almost entirely not the case. Much of the money was donated to the DNC and can be used by anyone they present as a candidate. Most of the rest of it, donated directly to Biden, can be released by him to anyone he selects to replace him.
Ian Welsh
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-campaign-money-kamala-harris-rcna159850
91.2 million.
somecomputerguy
I mostly agree with negative assessments of Biden’s record.
But there is one glaring exception; anti-trust. Biden’s anti-trust policy runs counter to everything Biden and the modern Democratic Party stand for. If it remains in place, it could mend 30% of the things wrong in this society. From health care to news media, it touches everything.
Where the hell did Biden’s anti-trust policy come from?
Harris’s awfulness wasn’t an issue in 2020, and Joe Biden had way worse baggage. I mean, Biden helped create the student loan crisis.
Biden alternatives have been performing roughly equal with Biden against Trump without even being in the race. Once they start actually running, that should change.
Harris’s biggest asset is her heretofore invisibility; that gives her the option of being the change candidate.
Cenk Uygur at TYT has been saying that Biden couldn’t win for roughly a year. Immediately after the debate, he predicted that Biden would not be the nominee.
someofparts
Donations at Act Blue spiked big time when Biden resigned. Went from under 5K to over 35K within the first six hours after the announcement.
Meanwhile, Biden and the Clintons have come out in support of Harris, but Obama has made it clear that he wants to consider other candidates. Pelosi has also not come out for Harris as yet. So it sounds like intra-party squabbling over who the candidate will be is now underway.
GrimJim
Hmm… Let’s see…
Utterly Incompetent Narcissistic Psychopathic Fascist Genocidal Racist Misogynist Homophobe Rapist Child Molester Slumlord Opportunist Maniacal Bloviating Bag of Rotting Burnt Steak and Ketchup versus…
Anything Else Up Against Trump that is Not Biden.
Choices, choices…
I’ll take Anything Else Up Against Trump that is Not Biden, thank you.
They will actually get my vote this time around.
If the MAGAts don’t decide to block urban voting with barricades and guns, that is. I think that’s now on the table. They are prepping his followers to believe even holding an election without Biden as the nominee is illegal…
Not sure on the odds of it happening, but they sure are getting better.
Things are spinning out of control even faster now. The best we can hope for is that it stops getting worse less than more.
It won’t get better. Ever.
thermobarbaric
Re this sentence in the third to last para: “Odds are the candidate will be Kamala Harris, especially as she can draw on the fund raising already done for Trump/Harris and no one else can, but we’ll see if a viable alternative arises.”
Shouldn’t it read “Biden/Harris”?
different clue
So Obama wants ” someone else”? Considering what a prize Obama gave us in Biden, one wonders what other prize Obama has in store for us now. Maybe the Inner Democrats for Harris can unite to destroy Obama’s influence, and Pelosi’s too.
Oji
Our very gracious and generous host likes predictions. Here was one of mine, on this very site, back on Jan 2, 2023:
“Biden will not run in 2024, or drop out due to health reasons. The Dems will instead attempt to shove a Harris-Buttigieg ticket down the throat of the electorate.”
https://www.ianwelsh.net/obvious-predictions-for-2023/#comments
Looking back at those, did pretty well, even got the David Bowie archive discovery correct, as well as the El Nino, the annual 1.5 temp, Feinstein dying, etc.. and the Lula assassination/overthrow attempt happened the very next day! Some of the financial and economic stuff hasn’t yet happened, but still looks likely. And all the long-term enviro and econ. forecasts look to be on track, but that’s low-hanging fruit once you internalize ecological overshoot and all its consequences.
Stormcrow
Mark Level: you forgot Biden’s total inaction on Covid.He simply replaced Robert Redfield with his own incompetent, Rochelle Walensky, while making Jeff Zients, who was if anything even more incompetent, the new Covid czar. Then he just dropped the whole business.I could use many more electrons to limn his utter and complete disregard for a catastrophe in progress, but there isn’t much point at the moment.That was what compelled me to decide to sit out the 2024 election. The root motive was essentially the same as my decision to sit out the 2012 election: I will not vote a second time for somebody who has betrayed me the first.From a personal perspective, Biden’s recusal simplifies my position. I was NOT happy about sitting out 2024, since Trump will be running and the thought of even indirectly aiding his campaign was almost enough to make me vomit.Now that burden is off of my conscience.I understand the issues enumerated by earlier commenters about Kamala Harris, and I expect she will manage to botch the job if she’s elected. But she’s not full-out fascism on a plate. Donald Trump is, and he makes no secret of the fact. Worse, he’s an incompetent fascist. And his galloping dementia hammers his mentation so badly that Biden’s mental issues fade into comparative insignificance, which is saying something.I fully expect Harris to screw up badly enough to make me sit out 2028, if I’m still around that long. But that’s a problem for the next election cycle, assuming we have one.
mago
A corrupt former California prosecutor who broke the law and screwed over many while sucking up to power rises to the top, like cream and scum seem to do.
Oh, she’s a woman, a colored woman who speaks in tongues and tosses a mean word salad.
Bubble bubble toil and trouble.
Anyway you look at it we lose.
bruce wilder
I was told on Thursday night when Biden would be out. I am watching someone’s plan unfold. I do not know whose plan. It feels strange.
Mary Bennet
I am convinced timing of the Biden announcement was this weekend in order to divert attention away from the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling or opinion or whatever it was against Israel. You will notice the lack of media coverage. Also, the Biden withdrawal needed to happen before Netanyahoo’s self-invited speech to Congress, so that Bibi can have a sit down with the new (putative) nominee and issue instructions.
Oji
@Ian
I posted earlier today, but it seems to have disappeared? Do you know what happened? It was regarding the fact I predicted Biden’s exit on this very blog– the posted dated Jan 2, 2023, on predictions.
Thank you.
Ian Welsh
Oji,
your comment was just in “pending review” as are all comments these days. Sometimes I’m AFK for 12 or more hours and comments have to wait.
For most of this blog’s existence there was no review, but a few commenters who couldn’t be trusted (as teachers always love to say) ruined it for everyone else.
somecomputerguy
My question about Biden’s anti-trust policy stands.
Pretty much everything else that I can think of; only passing 15% of BBB, Minimum wage increase, etc. were deliberate, but really heroic fakes.
Joe Biden can erase federal student loan debt completely at any time, with a gesture; that is how they wrote New Deal laws. He ran out the clock for the first two years by commissioning a study to see if he had the power, and then suppressing that study. Then he designed the most trivial relief program that could still be called relief, and instead of just implementing it, he waited for the court challenges.
Medicare drug prices, same thing; pretend reform.
But people who have writing about this for many years (Matt Stoller) say that Biden’s anti-trust policy is the real thing.
It is as though Elizabeth Warren were President, for this on policy area.
Who got Joe Biden to do the right thing, and how did they do it?
Ian Welsh
Yes, Joe is good on anti-trust. Best in 3 generations. Doesn’t make up for a genocide, but he deserves credit and I’ve given it at times.
Purple Library Guy
I definitely get the feeling that things are more in doubt now, and there are actually two factors involved. Biden leaving is of course one of them–Harris is an uninspiring candidate firmly in the Democratic mainstream, but she is not incapable of campaigning. That alone seems to have energized the mainstream Democrats. And the fact that, while she probably would have done the exact same stuff on Gaza if she’d been in Biden’s place, and probably will in the future, she hasn’t ACTUALLY already done it yet, is probably making some of the more progressive types more willing to hold their nose.
The other factor is J.D. Vance. Dude is scary. A lot of the US left and progressive types who basically believe Trump is a fascist, deep in their gut still don’t take the man seriously. It’s hard to. Most of what he says is a lie, much of what he’s ever said about what he would do has turned out to be lies, and there’s something about his blowhard mannerisms that lets him say seriously scary things and somewhere deep down people just think, “Ah, it’s just Trump murfling. I don’t really need to vote for some horrible Democrat just because of him.” But Vance–he’s intelligent, smooth, apparently sane, probably competent, and yet pushes a ton of stuff that is scary as fuck. I feel progressives have been giving this guy a look and suddenly thinking “Whoa. This guy would REALLY DO all the stuff. And if Trump picked him, maybe he’d really do it too, after all.” So a lot of people who might have sat out the election because the lesser of two evils is still evil and dammit, you’d think to qualify as lesser an evil would have to AT LEAST not be aiding genocide, and all that totally valid stuff . . . suddenly they’re scared. And Kamala not yet being totally guilty gives them an out. I think a lot of people who might have stayed at home will be more motivated because of Vance, and less completely fed up because Biden’s gone.
NR
Interesting to see that the rats are starting to desert Trump’s ship:
https://www.mediaite.com/news/elon-musk-reverses-course-on-pledge-to-donate-45-million-a-month-to-pro-trump-pac/
different clue
I listened to Trump’s speech on radio. He was entertaining as always. He also announced some policy preferrences and ” to-do’s” well worth rejecting.
It has been suggested that the amount of carbon sky-flooding and global surfacesphere warming has already reached the point where natural positive feedback processes will kick in and stay kicked in. So the question arises . . . if America reduced its amount of carbon skyflooding and increased its amount of skycarbon re-suckdown and bio-sequestering ( in soils, wetlands, etc.), would that make future warming a little less worse than it will be if America increases its rate of carbon skyflooding and does not increase its rate of skycarbon re-suckdown and bio-sequestering? Or would America reducing its carbon skyflooding and increasing its skycarbon suckdowning make zero difference anymore anyway to the further warming we will experience?
Because if taking either approach will have zero impact on warming getting more worse anyway, then the political calculation about how or whether to vote is differenct than if taking either approach will make a difference between worse and even more worser.
If increasing America’s rate of carbon skyflooding would make things even more worser than they will already get anyway, then should we vote against the candidate who promises to increase America’s rate of carbon skyflooding?
Trump has promised to increase the rate of America’s carbon skyflooding. I heard him say the energy policy will be ” drill baby drill!” meaning everywhere. And also frack everywhere frackable. ” When I am elected, America will not just be energy independent. America will become energy dominant.” That will be achieved by as much more increased coal, gas and oil use as is physically findable and possible.
If you think that would be a worse outcome for future survivability than “more of the BidenSame under Kamala” would be, then you might well vote for global warming to get merely worse with Kamala than to get even more worser with Trump.
( Parenthetically, more carbon skyflooding will also mean more ocean acidation, which will mean the acid-water death of all edible seafood life in the ocean sooner. And certainly much more certain. So to avoid that effect of even more carbon skyflooding, as well as the climate effects, I will vote against Trump in the most effective way I know. And that is by voting for whatever the Democrats run (( which thankfully isn not Biden now)). )
different clue
I hope I was not one of the commenters who forced pre-moderation into existence. If I was, let’s look on the bright side. Pre-moderation has made comments much better in general. People get a sense of what kind of comment will not be published and either stop writing that sort of comment or just stop commenting altogether.
Neat that Matt Stoller would comment here. It goes to show that he reads here. I remember one time years ago when the modestly famous left-edge-of-tolerated-establishment economist commented on Riverdaughter’s The Confluence blog. I remember thinking how nice that Dean Baker would come there to comment and if his comment had been treated respectfully, he might have commented more. And so might other modestly well-known economists. But Riverdaughter decided to be nasty to him, calling him “jagoff” ( a beloved Pittsburgh-style insult) and other things.
So of course he never came back.
https://cepr.net/staff-member/dean-baker/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker
different clue
” left-edge-of-tolerated-establishment economist” of course referring to Dean Baker.