Enthusiasm Gap

 Last night, Harris apparently blew the roof off her rally in Georgia. Certainly she's crushing the Online Primary and the Vibe Election. She's playing the role of Happy Warrior to perfection, while the online trolling of MAGA has been incredibly successful. Calling them "weird" has completely unmoored them. They really weren't prepared for an opponent who could campaign with energy and focus.

What's more, I think there is a growing number of women who see this as an opportunity to re-do 2016. It's time for a woman president, and it's pretty clear that the GOP isn't able to find a message that works to attack her without being weird. Frankly, some of this might be a product of Trump driving most of the effective professionals out of the GOP. 

We are hearing comparisons now to Obama in 2008. I remember talking to a Black colleague who was pretty cynical when it came to Obama's chances, and he was stunned when "they let him win." It was hardly surprising to to White folks, because the guy was just a transcendent political talent. I wonder if we will see the same thing as momentum builds for Harris, that maybe we CAN elect a woman. Maybe the problem in 2016 was that  Clinton was the target of a quarter century of negative attacks. Harris also does joy in a way Clinton struggled with. Clinton would've been a phenomenal prime minister, but president proved trickier - even as she won the popular vote.

The past month has been an eventful year. We should expect further momentum swings. However, there's another possibility that Harris catalyzes enthusiasm and people simply reject the idea of returning power to Trump. He was never popular.

Yes, there is 27% of the population that have devoted their lives to that charlatan. However, there's a majority that simply wants to move on from him. Perhaps a large majority. If Harris can build momentum over the next month, maybe we can go into election month/day on fire.

Olympics

 I went into these games with low expectations and enthusiasm, because unlike twenty years ago, our sports viewing options are so much more varied. It used to be that the Olympics were unique and the only opportunity to see something besides the Big Three sports.

Still, the games have been compelling. What I've loved have been things like the two moments the other day, where Pommel Horse Guy helped the US win Bronze and then the US women's rugby team won as time expired for their Bronze. I love that we are celebrating Bronze medals, especially in sports that we don't dominate. If we took Bronze in basket ball, that's a disappointment, but when it's rugby? Awesome!

Walz

 I'm totally on board with Minnesota governor Tim Walz for the Veep pick. Mistermix lays out all the reasons here.

To summarize: Walz is a bright, accomplished man who was as far from the Ivy Tower elitism that has typically defined our politics. Trump "went" to Wharton and brags about his uncle at MIT. Vance is a perfect creature of Yale Law. Walz punctures that elite/populist pairing effortlessly. What's more, he's not a lawyer, he's a teacher and as a teacher, the ability to explain things clearly is the job. Buttigieg is better at this, but in a way that appeals to college educated voters; Walz will appeal to non-college folks.

He was a non-commissioned office, not an office. He routinely won a very conservative district, yet has a progressive voting record. He has experience in both the legislative and executive branches of government.

What's more, he's just the epitome of Big Dad Energy.

You can make a strong argument for Shapiro, in that it's a tough road to 270 without Pennsylvania. However, I think Walz helps you there, too. He's going to keep some of those union members who support Biden but might have reservations about Harris. As good as Kelly's biography is, I think Walz actually matches it, in that it's less "impressive" but more telling in who he is and what Democrats stand for.

The guy has rizz, and I think he is the safest choice, in the same way that Biden was a great choice for Obama as the first Black candidate and president.

He Does Not Deserve Any Benefit Of The Doubt

 Trump spoke to his cultists in the Talibangelical movement and said the following: You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore.. In four years, you won’t have to vote again.

Now, there is a perfectly plausible explanation for this: Trump is a fucking moron who can't articulate a coherent thought properly. He meant that he would "fix everything" and America would be so great that Talibangelicals could go back to not voting, the way many of them didn't vote prior to 2016.

However...

Donald Trump has never conceded publicly that he lost the 2020 election. He conspired to overthrow the results of that election. He incited a mob to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes that made Joe Biden the president. He has not said that he will abide by the results of the 2024 election.

So anyone trying to scrub Trump's comments and give them the most sanitary spin can pound sand. Unless Trump comes forward and says that he lost in 2020 and will abide by the result in 2024, unless Trump comes forward and disowns his "I will be a dictator in day one" comment, you do not get to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's an authoritarian goon. He's a tycoon, because he inherited a bunch of money and managed not to lose it all. That has made him indifferent to other people and democratic processes. He's never had a Board of Directors to answer to and he denies the ability of others to check his power.

He does not and should not get any benefit of the doubt.

JD Vance Did WHAT?

 The internet can occasionally be fun. At some point, someone on Twitter suggested that somewhere in Hillbilly Elegy there is a passage where Vance talks about putting a latex glove between couch cushions and using it for successful masturbatory practice. This did not happen, but it was funny. Ever since, Twitter and social media have been awash in "JD Vance fucks couches" memes. That is until someone found a post of Vance's where he appears to look up "woman sex with dolphin" and post it online without clearing his search history. Does Vance regularly look up dolphin porn? Almost certainly not! Still, combined with the couch stuff, it's been a hilarious week on Twitter. 

The best part was when the AP ran a fact check story denying that Vance had fucked his couch, but then had to take it down because there is no clear evidence that he didn't fuck his couch.

There's a secondary question of "is this fair?" 

To which I reply: Who cares.

The reason this attack works is that Vance is a remarkably off-putting person, full of the combination of Trumpian grievance and Alt-Right sexual and cultural hang ups. He attacked "childless women with cats" and then apologized TO CATS.  There's a credible argument that his VP roll out is the worst of all time, including Sarah Palin. With Trump being old and unhealthy, Vance's repellent persona is absolutely fair game, given his potential to become president.

What's more, Josh Marshall, early in our sojourn in Trumpistan, coined the idea of "dominance politics" (originally "bitch slap politics, which he changed for obvious reasons). Trump's primary political skills are reflecting his crowd's grievances and asserting dominance over his opponents - especially in the 2016 GOP primary. Trump belittles his opponents as a matter of course. He's trying out a lot of nicknames on Harris, seeming to settle on Cackling Kamala. 

I'm sure there are a host of concern-troll op-eds being written about the ceaseless lampooning of Vance. That's a ridiculous double standard from the media, but one we should expect. They will fact check Vance's couch fucking but not Trump's debate performance.

The Harris campaign's primary attack angle on Trump-Vance is "They are just weird." The fact that some Zennial just threw out a random couch fucking meme and now it's gotten to the point where people are taking odds on whether Trump throws Vance off the ticket is simply Democrats giving the GOP a taste of their own medicine. 

I'm so here for it.

The Permission Structure of the Media

 I think Joe Biden is an excellent president and a bad candidate. Concerns about his fitness for four more years were legitimate, if ironic since Harris was the heir either way. His stutter, in particular, has gotten noticeably worse and made him an ineffective opponent to a man who lies with the strength and volume of a firehose.

Another reason Biden had to step away was that the media were never going to move on from the Biden Is Old story. That narrative had begun at the Times and the debate cemented it in every reporter's mind. Biden's eloquent address on Wednesday has done two things that are really going to help this fall, and they both revolve around the Biden Administration as a whole.

First, Biden's selflessness stands in such stark contrast to Trump's selfishness. Biden was the nominee. There was almost no way to change that. He made a decision based on what was best for himself and his party to voluntarily give up a chance at re-election, and he did so to have a better shot at preserving democracy. This makes him the perfect foil for Trump's coup plotting ways.

Second, as I said, Biden has been an excellent president. However, the Biden Is Old narrative crowded that story out. By withdrawing, Biden has set himself up for more laudatory coverage. This includes covering the economic goods news. We've even seen some improved coverage already. I want to go through some charts to show what that good news looks like.

One significant departure from Obama to Biden has been what we might loosely call "industrial policy". Biden has embraced bills like the CHIPS act to on-shore manufacturing. There is a LOT of manufacturing coming back to America. For all his economic nationalist rhetoric, Trump didn't do that; Biden did. Next let's look at wages:

(Not sure why there's a huge gap there.)

These wages are by state in comparison to other OECD countries, and they are adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity. Wage growth is absolutely real in America right now, even if inflation has eaten into that. 

This leads to the final chart, and the most important:

This one is tough to read but it's Consumer Sentiment. Few metrics are more important to a president's re-election campaign. The red line connects the beginning of the pandemic with today. One of the metrics that has benefited Trump has been (undeserved) credit for the economy. Trump inherited a growing economy, juiced it with a tax cut and then saw the economy collapse during the pandemic. Biden has slowly resurrected the economy (that was the point of the first two charts) and now people are finally "seeing" or perhaps realizing that improvement.

The "vibes shift" among Democrats since Sunday has been amazing. A nervous, depressed party is re-invigorated. However, the key for Harris will be to consolidate the Biden 2020 voters and add the post-January 6th/Dobbs voters who have finally had enough of Trump. The Harris campaign is settling on an optimistic, forward looking vision and also an attack line of "Why are they so weird?"

If the media start to report on the actual good news in the economy and people start to feel better - not just about their own economic status, but the country's - then that's a massive shift that could tilt some Trump-leaning independents to Harris.

That was simply never going to happen with Biden as the nominee. Partisans can lament that fact and decry the bullshit coverage of Biden being old without balancing it with Trump's obvious cognitive decline, but it's a reality.

Joe Biden deserves to go out with hagiographic coverage of a remarkably successful presidency, and that coverage will accrue to Harris' benefit.

UPDATE: This is just wrong. Harris does not need a policy agenda separate from Biden's. The rhetoric and perhaps focus will change, but the policies are popular and good. The policies have always been popular and good. If people voted on policies, Democrats would never lose an election.

Screw These Guys

 There are so many ways the internet and social media have broken our brains, but the last month's slow deliberation by Joe Biden to leave the race exemplifies all of them. Take this bullshit take by Mark Leibovich. Biden does something almost unprecedented in American history: turn down a nomination he had fairly won. The rightful praise for the speech and the decision Leibovich dismisses as "fawning at times" because Biden took...a few weeks to announce the decision.

A few thoughts on why this just demonstrates that so-called pundits have no conception of how politics actually works.

First, we simply don't know when Biden made his decision. It could very well have been a week or two ago. Letting the Republican Convention spend all week attacking him as an old man and then dropping out is brilliant and hilarious. It also follows the old practice of "going dark" during the other side's convention as a courtesy. 

Second, this is a remarkable decision by Biden. There are maybe a few comparisons. LBJ was running then stopped once the opposition to his Vietnam policies threatened to split the party. There have been presidents who choose not to run again (Polk, Hayes) and a few accidental presidents (Tyler, Arthur) whom their parties moved on from. Otherwise this really seems unprecedented, and remarkably selfless from a man who spent his whole life overcoming the doubts and underestimation of others.

However, for a certain class of journalists - like junkies craving their next hit - the need for drama has left them with delirium tremens. They desperately wanted their Thunderdome Convention. It would be exciting! Their next rush of chaos injected into their burnt out veins. 

Biden came to his decision slowly by one timeline and quickly by another. In the constant firehose of the 24 hour news cycle, this was slow; by the movement of history it was fast. Biden has always seemed to have one eye on history. That is the privilege of age and wisdom. Not to mention that Biden had to process his own Kubler-Ross process as he made this unprecedented decision.

Thomas Jefferson once said he would rather have newspapers and no republic rather than a republic and no newspapers, but I don't think he would have felt that way if he had been subjected to the torrent of hot takes and unreasoned judgment from today's press corpse.

The Emerging Themes of Harris '24

 Campaigns need narratives. Too often Democrats get mired in a narrative wrapped around specific policy proposals which do not constitute an actual story about a vision of America, though they have been getting better at that. Trump's message is clear: America is a dystopian wasteland that only he can redeem like a Mad Max Jesus.

Harris is already trying out two themes that look really strong. The first was her line the other day "We will not go back." This hits on something I've been saying about the contemporary GOP; they aren't conservative, they're reactionary. Trump's fiscal plan? William McKinley's! Vance's views of women? Antediluvian! 

Which brings us to their attack narrative that Governor Walz was hitting the other day: These guys are weird. When you start digging into a lot of their narrative, it comes across as deeply weird to those who aren't in Cult 45. When you start railing against sharks but praising the late great Hannibal Lecter, I think you may have lost the plot. But when you start talking about monitoring women's menstrual cycles, you have moved into profoundly weird-o territory.

The GOP's first line of attack on Harris was her laugh (which my son said he didn't like, but whatever). That laugh, though, stands in stark contrast with Trump's scowling anger. Last night's speech by Biden put forth a vision of an America that is, in fact, a great country. Harris can build on that buoyant optimism that Biden's age makes it difficult to convey through a screen. Harris can pull of "optimistic about a better future" in comparison to the weird and dark vibes coming from Trumpistan.

Lots of people are noting the "vibe shift" since Sunday. Biden's selfless act is earning him some goodwill amongst the chattering class who might now, finally, admit that Biden's America is a pretty good place with some pretty good outcomes. 

Prior to Sunday, the two campaigns were competing narratives of doom. Trump's obviously, but even Biden was reduced to "vote for me or democracy will end." I think that negative partisanship is a perfectly fine GOTV strategy but Democrats need to be inspired and the idea of having "America's cool Auntie" going against Darth Donald has created the sort of enthusiasm that could shift this race.

But I'm still worried about Pennsylvania....

Also: Biden's speech was really moving and hit on these themes, too. His withdrawal allows him to become the perfect symbol of anti-dictatorial politics.

Kamala vs Hillary

 There are two potential liabilities that Harris faces. It seems that she is already being seen as distinct from Biden's inflation problem which is interesting. The switch from Biden to Harris might allow people to re-boot their estimations of the economy just as it starts to register that the economy is pretty good.

No, the two liabilities are "California" and "woman". The first is going to be interesting as I think the Trump campaign will try and tar and feather Harris over every crime - real or imagined - that occurs or occurred in California. Painting her as a radical leftist Californian is going to be their best bet. However, as we've seen, they won't be able to help themselves from going full racist/sexist. We are back to the scorpion and the frog, it's simply in their nature.

Will misogyny sink Harris the way it sunk Hillary Clinton?

The first reason to think it won't is the Dobbs decision, the E.Jean Carroll verdict and Trump's decision to pick Vance as his running mate. There's really an extraordinary amount of outright misogyny from the Republican ticket right now, of the kind that I think even White Dudes can see and get angry about. Vance's line about Harris being an "childless cat lady" is not going to motivate voters who weren't already voting for Trump. 

(Of course, that's the central flaw of Vance: he brings no voters with him. I saw someone - maybe Walz - say that a landlord and a venture capitalist don't make good champions for the working class.)

The other thing is the simple lesson of 2016. "Everyone" knew Clinton was going to win. There's no way that Trump could beat someone as accomplished as Hillary Clinton! And yet... 

The final thing that I think works in Harris' favor is the other lesson from 2016. Clinton took control of a badly divided party after Bernie Sanders picked the worst people in the world left of Attila the Hun to run his campaign and crash and burn party unity at the convention. (I don't think Sanders himself was directly responsible, but the people around him? Sheesh.)

Harris looks to be moving towards an extremely unified and excited party, one that wants to symbolically overthrow the stench of 2016.

Will that be enough to hold the Blue Wall? Let's freaking hope so.

Vibe Shift

 Ever since the debate, I felt like I was living in free fall. My blood pressure was up and I felt nauseous a lot of the time. Only vigorous exercise could alleviate it (I guess that's an upside).

After Biden's announcement, I've started to feel a little better - not perfect, but better. I am going to try really hard not to look at polls for about a week, because they are unlikely to mean much until the Democratic convention.

However, it seems clear that Democrats as a whole felt like I did. We would crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, even if that meant voting for a frail old man. When the debate happened, my feeling was that Biden "let the side down" because we wanted a champion; we wanted someone to finally slay the dragon. He failed at that, profoundly. If anything it fed the dragon. 

Harris is going to be able to prosecute a vigorous case against Trump. She is a much better spokesperson for Roe; her past as a prosecutor was a bit of liability in the 2020 primary, but it will look good against Trump (the cop v the criminal).

The freak out in GOP circles has been really interesting to see. They predicated their whole race on Biden's age and infirmity. Now, they are trying to figure out a new line of attack, and I'd say the odds are pretty good it's going to be sexist and racist as hell. (They are already dusting off birtherism for another spin.)

It's very tempting to look at 2016 and wonder if a woman can win the presidency at all. Hillary Clinton was arguably as qualified a candidate to be president as anyone who ever ran, and she lost to a reality TV star who had been caught on a hot mic bragging about sexual assault. At lot has happened since then, though. Hillary has been proven right again and again. If the GOP goes full sexist pigs against Harris, at some point there has to be a revulsion against that - even by the sort of man who thinks sexism isn't really a big deal. You can only rub people's faces in something for so long before they can't ignore it.

Harris has given grimly determined Democrats some hope. She has done masterfully well in locking up the nomination so quickly. Will Rogers old joke of "I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat" no longer holds true. The money she has raised...holy crap!

This race is far from over. If anything, I think we can reasonably expect three or four more unprecedented events. (Trump is talking about dumping Vance, hilariously.) I would expect Trump to dodge his debate with Harris, to whatever effect that might have on the race. 

Still, hopeful is good. I think we all needed some "hopium" at this point.

Two Thoughts

 As we all sort of process this news, I was and am struck by how deftly Kamala Harris handled the last month. Biden's debate performance and the subsequent media obsessiveness that overwhelmed all other narratives meant that there was a perverse spotlight on Harris. She managed to do everything right in supporting Biden and being the good soldier and not letting anyone push her to the fore as an alternative. Now, some of that latter point might be that quite a few of the voices wanting to push Biden aside were not arguing in good faith; they wanted drama; they wanted to feel important. But for those of us who desperately want a champion to defeat Trump (again), she nailed it.

On Biden himself, he already has an impressive portfolio of legislation and executive actions to his name. I think his main priority over the coming months - aside from helping Harris and other Democrats win - will be trying to bring about some lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians. If he can pull that off he has an argument for being among our very best presidents. His decision to step aside for the good of the country has echoes in Washington's decision to step aside after two terms.

Biden was never a great "candidate", he was always a better person and better legislative operator. I don't think it will take a Bill Clinton/Barack Obama level politician to beat Trump; I think a "replacement level" Democrat can do it. I think Harris has shown she can be at least that, and Joe Biden will hopefully hand things off to her next January and go down in history as both a consequential and beloved figure.

Veepstakes

 If I'm right - and sometimes that happens - then the next 48 hours will see every major figure in the Democratic Party unify around Kamala Harris. That had to have been the plan when Biden made this decision, which I think he made about a week ago. Let the RNC have their moment wearing Maxipads on their ears, then upend the race a few days later. Meanwhile, lock in support for Harris so the party doesn't tear itself apart.

So, who should Harris pick, presuming that's true?

First, it needs to be a white guy, because let's be honest here. Second, it probably shouldn't be a Senator, unless it's from a deep Blue state with a Democratic governor. Hell, I'd throw Chris Murphy in as a dark horse, but I don't think he wants the job. (Whitmer has bowed out, I think.)

Here are some names being thrown about:

Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania. He's VERY new to the scene, but PA is a critical state this cycle. If Harris wins PA, I think she wins the whole thing. But who is this guy? He's barely got a term as governor. What makes him ready to be president?

Andy Beshear, governor of Kentucky. Term limited, moderate, good relationship with Harris. You aren't winning Kentucky, but he does give off that safe Midwestern vibe.

Mark Kelly, Senator from Arizona. While his replacement would be picked by a Democratic governor, and the Arizona GOP is self-immolating in MAGAdom, I'd worry about losing the seat in the special election. He's got a great biography, but he's pretty boring in person.

Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation. Brilliant guy, the Women/Gay Guy ticket would make MAGA heads explode. Midwestern and I think arguably the best salesmen for the Democratic platform. 

Roy Cooper, Governor of North Carolina. He's old and white! He's not an heir apparent, but a reassuring old white moderate. I think there's the thought that Harris might actually be stronger in some purple states down South - Georgia and North Carolina - than in the Blue Wall. Still, I think this one's a reach.

Beshear was an Attorney General, so presumably he can argue a case, but is he ready for prime time? I think the one guy who can say he's ready for the spotlight is Buttigieg. 

There's an argument that running a Harris/Buttigieg ticket will bring out the absolute worst in MAGA bigotry. Would that help or hurt in November?

Wow, OK

 I think I just want to cut and paste Josh Marshall's post, because - as usual - he hits everything I feel: 

I will just add a personal note here: This breaks my heart, even as I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the right and really only path now possible for the country, for the Democratic Party and for Biden’s legacy. Joe Biden has been an extraordinary President under the most difficult of circumstances, managing to pass multiple pieces of historic legislation with what amounts to a tie Congress. There are comparable accomplishments abroad which I don’t have time in this brief note to enumerate. I also believe Biden’s a deeply good man. And I don’t think the two verdicts are unrelated. Terrible that his political career ends with this dismal, horrible three and a half weeks. But there’s time to see the larger arc of the story which remains a powerful one and a consistent one, and one that will need to be crafted and captured to find a campaign victory in November.

I don't know what comes next. Ideally they have a plan to circle the wagons around Harris over the next 48 hours, even as Trump goes full racist/sexist asshole on her. I don't want a Thunderdome convention. People on social media are already sharpening their knives over what they see as the betrayal of Biden and the bullying by a media intent on forcing novelty and narratives on us. 

But Joe is indeed really old and is showing it. So it Trump. 

Will the media begin to turn their attention to Trump's age and manifest unfitness? Or will they engage in character attacks on Harris - or someone else in the unlikely event that it doesn't go to her? Anyone counting on the media doing a credible job of holding Trump accountable must have been asleep the last 8 years.

I'm a big man, a burly guy, with tears in my eyes, thanking Joe Biden for the job he has done and the legacy he leaves behind.

Comeback Kid

 Who the hell knows what Biden is going to do. Maybe he mounts a ferocious comeback? Maybe he drops out? Maybe he resigns altogether?

I do know that at some point the chattering classes that have been all over him about his age will need to turn their attention to Trump's obvious decline, and, yes, stepping aside makes that easier to do.

Chris Hayes appears to be leading the way.

Called It

 A few days ago, I posited that the young man who shot at Trump had more in common with school shooters than ideological political assassins. 

Seems that's looking more and more like the case.

Make It Stop

 After the reminder on Thursday that Trump is not a transcendent political force, I felt "not awful" for the first time in weeks. However, the subsequent days have been filled with all sorts of contradictory bullshit about Biden's state of mind regarding his continued presence in the race. Is Pelosi behind it? Is it a groundswell against Biden? Is he digging in out of stubbornness? Is he simply waiting for the right moment?

Argh! I want a nominee. I want a stronger Biden than we've seen or I want Harris. I do not want some "thunderdome" scenario out of a bad Aaron Sorkin movie. I want the party to unify around someone, so we can get busy with the job of beating a very beatable candidate.

The Democratic Party is threatening to consume itself in speculation over things outside its control. 

The Scorpion To The Frog

 There's a Russian fable about a scorpion that wants to cross a river and asks a frog to carry him over. The frog is skeptical, because it worries the scorpion will sting it to death. The scorpion replies that if he stings the frog they will both drown. The frog agrees and reluctantly begins to carry the frog across, when - halfway across the river - the scorpion stings the frog. The frogs before it dies looks at the scorpion and asks, Why? The scorpion replies, "It is in my nature."

That fable represents Trump and the credulous national media.

Many in the media have been breathlessly awaiting Trump's "pivot". Execrable commentator Van Jones is famous for various iterations of "this is the day Trump became president" whenever he sticks reasonably close to the text someone else wrote for him. After the shooting attempt, these same hacks breathlessly promised a "new Trump" and I confess to be worried that against all odds, he might stick to some anodyne prepared remarks.

Nope.

Trump's nature is to harp on grievance and revenge. His nature is to play to the crowd. However, he is also very old. Last night's rambling fiasco of a speech should - in a sane world - provide the same impetus for a discussion of Trump's age and mental capacity among the media that Biden's debate fiasco did. In fact, I think the (perhaps) growing consensus among Democrats that Biden needs to drop out is that any "replacement level" Democrat could wipe the floor with a clearly addled and confused Trump. 

There was no new kinder Trump. There never will be and any pundit or reporter who suggests that there will be should be summarily fired in the spot.

UPDATE: I meant to add: It's pretty clear why the Trump campaign scheduled his acceptance speech from 10:30-12:00 at night. They aren't angling to win the Pacific Coast; they wanted to limit the amount of people who saw his rambling speech live, and count on bullshit bothsides coverage from the media, based on his prepared remarks rather than his actual speech.

I Think The Floor Is Collapsing Under Biden

 I am uncertain how the attempted assassination will impact the election. I think every candidate gets a convention bounce. However, this race has been largely static. There are rumors, though, of internal polling showing the floor falling out under Biden. 

That's largely unsurprising, as the overwhelming number of stories about Biden's age are themselves a story. The debate was really bad, because it confirmed everyone's fears about Biden's age. The stories about the debate seem to have thrown gasoline on those concerns. What is sure to be a polling bump for Trump is going to set off all the fire alarms.

Matt Yglesias was not a fan of Kamala Harris, for reasons that go to his "centrist" predilections. He makes the case, today, for her candidacy, and I think there's some merit here. One thing he doesn't say, but I think is true, is that a Harris-Trump matchup might...MIGHT...focus more on the issues that favor Democrats. Yglesias notes that being a former prosecutor was a liability for Harris in the climate of 2020, but it might work in her favor in 2024, as she attempts to moderate her image. Being a prosecutor would also draw a contrast with the convicted felon she is running against.

My issue is that Yglesias sort of waves away concerns about misogyny. (I'm less concerned with racism, actually, since we've already crossed that bridge once.) Hillary Clinton was arguably the most qualified person to ever run for president, yet she lost because "there's something about her I just don't like." That is the bridge Harris must cross. Combined with Dobbs, the memories of the chaos of Trumpistan and the chance to not repeat the mistake of 2016, I think we can be hopeful that the slight edge Harris has over Biden could grow.

Next week would the time to make this move. It would suck the wind out of Trump's shooting/convention bounce and shake the race up in ways that I think it's becoming clear need to happen.

JD Vance

 I don't think Vance helps Trump electorally. I suppose you could argue that he helps in Appalachia, except Trump will already sweep Appalachia and Vance's book shits all over people from there. He's a hedge fund guy who has embraced Trump's culture wars. The former part isn't really popular. He is, in short, a choad.

The rumor I heard was that Trump was circling around Borgum, but his sons convinced him to go with Vance. That could be true. A lot has - and should have - been made about Vance's earlier comments about Trump. What is telling about both Vance's journey and Trump's selection of him is that it represents the craven collapse of the Republican Party into a cult of personality around a con artist and career criminal. At one point, Vance saw Trump accurately, but it became in his interest to change his position. Josh Marshall calls these figures dignity wraiths, as their dignity is slow leached from them until they become shadows of their former selves.

Vance's youth and inexperience should also weigh against him. He is, however, more intelligent than most members of the Trump family, and so he is primed to carry on this crypto-fascist political movement even if they should lose in November. Vance, though, is one of those mini-mes that spring up around Trump who know the words, but can't play the music. He's perhaps more charismatic than Ron DeSantis, but so is a fresh coil of shit.

I think Kamala Harris should make short work of him in the debate. What's more the ages of both Trump and Biden should focus more attention on the VPs, and Vance will become the poster boy for extreme MAGA positions on abortion. He's seriously in the weeds here, including calling for a national ban.

If - and this is a huge, huge if - this campaign ever pivots to the issues and not the personality of Trump and the age of Biden, Democrats should waltz to victory on the back of a strong economy, the right's embrace of Putin and the GOP's repellent position on reproductive rights. 

Anyone think we will be so lucky?

Have We "Moved On"?

 Paul Campos ponders whether we have simply moved on from the shooting in Pennsylvania because frankly everything surrounding Trump is always so unhinged, so scripted from pro wrestling forms, that we all sort of looked at that, went "holy shit" and then went back to our lives.

Trump has always been a chaos agent. That has been part of his appeal to a certain nihilistic person (usually male) who just wants to watch the world burn, because they lack the imagination to think about warmth. Like many a neurasthenic Democrat, I wondered if the photo of him raising a fist to the crowd was the final nail in the coffin of America's long experiment in democratic governance.

However, I'm not so sure. (Hell, I'm not so sure about anything anymore.) I do wonder if the swirling chaos around this man will inure people to this recent event, especially since the shooter seems to be cut from the same cloth as Dylan Klebold or Adam Lanza rathe than John Wilkes Booth or Gavrilo Princip. 

Maybe I'm wrong (again, I feel unmoored from decades of study of this shit by the uniqueness of this moment, these moments), but I my gut says that whatever bump Trump gets from being shot at will be indistinguishable from the same bump he might get from the convention.

Yes, he should build a bit more of a lead after the convention (unless it becomes the MAGA freakshow), but whose mind - again - was changed who had voted for Biden in 2020? Who looks at the chaos that swirls around Trump and wants to return to that?

The Luckiest Man Alive

 It now looks about 95% certain that the young man who shot Trump was another disaffected loner, bullied at school and looking to commit suicide in a way that would write his name in the history books. In other words, this was not a politically motivated assassination attempt, but rather an act of the same mental illness that leads to school shootings.

The "turn down the temperature" remarks are, of course, accurate. Things have gotten way out of whack. However, Trump and Trumpism represent a unique threat to American governance and civil society. In four years, he could erase over a century of improvements in governance and destroy the framework that America put in place during the Cold War to insure world peace or something close to it.

Now, however, every time a Democrat mentions that Trump does represent a threat, that January 6th was a coup attempt, that Dobbs was an assault on basic rights, they will be accused of raising the temperature. 

Meanwhile, Trump has had one effective legal counsel in his many trials, and that is Judge Aileen Cannon. Her ruling stands in contravention of just about every precedent over the past 30 years. However, I'm sure she feels like the Supreme Court will rule in her favor, should it get that far.

Trump was born into wealth and then proceeded to squander much of it in a lavish playboy lifestyle devoid of substance or merit. When he was near insolvency, he was rescued by Mark Burnett to play a faux business savant on The Apprentice. He then rode a wave of ennui, misogyny and the structural insanity of the Electoral College to a minority win in 2016. Since then, his associates have gone to prison and his party has routinely lost seats in the Congress.

Through all this, he himself has remained, ahem, bulletproof. The New York case seems to hang in the balance.

The real question, of course, is twofold.

- Will the Republicans suddenly stop being MAGA at their convention this week?
- Is negative polarization enough?

If the Republican convention descends into the fever swamps to vengeance and oaths of violence, then I think the race could shift back in the Democrat's direction. If they somehow find message discipline, I think we are screwed. 

A discussion on the merits of policy benefits Democrats. If we enter another "vibes election" we are counting on a WWE showman making a mistake, because Biden (and most Democrats) aren't able to compete with the LOLs that Trump brings to a certain segment of Americans and the promise of retribution to others.

Everything sucks right now. Hopefully, MAGA remains true to what MAGA is and the RNC is a freakshow. Right now, that's the best hope to change the trajectory of the race.

A History Of Violence

 Paul Campos noted a few things that I was thinking about when it comes to political violence in America. The last serious attempt in a president or presidential candidate was the 1981 attack on Ronald Reagan, However, starting with JFK's assassination, we have the assassinations of his brother Robert and Martin Luther King within a few months of each other. We also have the attempts on the lives of George Wallace and two attempts on Gerald Ford by members of the Manson Family. 

From 1981 2008, there have been roughly three major acts of political violence that I can think of. There was the Oklahoma City bombing, the attempt on Gabby Gifford's life and the shooting at the House Republican softball game. You could plausibly include the man who broke into Nancy Pelosi's house and beat her husband with a hammer.

In other words, from 1963-1981 we had a LOT of political violence in this country and around the world. I think there were multiple attempts - successful and not - on American ambassadors during that period, too. Hijackings were common, and most of them had political motives.

Going further back, FDR was shot at and nearly killed in the period between his election and inauguration in 1933. His cousin Teddy was shot on the way to giving a speech and Teddy himself had become president because of an assassin's bullet. McKinley as the third president to die at an assassin's hand from 1865 through 1901, joining Lincoln and Garfield. 

So this has been a period where political violence has been unusually rare in American history. We did have the anthrax scare after 9/11 and there were a few Trumpist figures who were planning things like pipe bombings.

The biggest act of political violence since Oklahoma City and yesterday was January 6th.

Historically speaking, I think we have to look at that attempt to overthrow the 2020 election as the beginning of a cycle of violence that we are in the midst of but has no clear endpoint or consistent theme. Hell, yesterday's shooter's motive might not even have been purely political. It might have been a dramatic suicide-by-cop whereby your death is invested with meaning because you killed a famous person - a sort of John Hinckley dynamic.

In a sane world, Biden and Trump would meet in the next few days and record a message asking for calm and pledging to resolve our differences via the ballot not the bullet. Of course, Trump won't do that, and it's unclear whether his reluctance will be noted, but perhaps nearly getting shot in the head will make him re-think his embrace of violence as a political tool to play with casually. 

I'm not holding my breath that a new more sober Trump will emerge from this, but I am holding my breath for whatever the gods of chaos have in store for us next.

UPDATE: I forgot Charlottesville, the man killed trying to attack an FBI office in Cincinnati and the plan to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer. But, again, this trend toward political violence has been a feature of the rise of Donald Trump.

We Shouldn't Pretend We Know What Will Happen

 When I saw the image of Trump, blood trickling down his face raising a fist to the crowd, my first thought was: "Fuck. He's going to win." Why I thought this was because there is no logical reason for Trump to even be close to winning since January 6th and Dobbs.  My default position is that politics for that critical slice of the electorate that swings back and forth is informed by irrational things, and that picture couldn't have been staged any better from the Authoritarian Populist Playbook.

Then, I did myself a favor and logged off and didn't watch the news. My blood pressure has been high since that fucking debate and I didn't need to doomscroll my way into a heart attack.

After reflection, I think a few things are true.

- This, along with the convention next week, will give Trump a polling bump.
- However, there's equally a chance that next week devolves into "American carnage" and the Cult of Personality around Trump that people will be turned off by. My worry about the convention was that it wouldn't be a freakshow, but I don't see how it can be anything other than one now.
- It's a long way to the election.

Events have certainly conspired against those of us who wish to avoid a second Trump Administration bent on vengeance and suckling at the dark heart of his perpetual grievances. The debate, the debate about the debate and now this. As soon as polls started returning to baseline and giving Biden a shot at winning again (he held the slimmest of edges in 538's model on Friday), something happens to throw everything up in the air.

However...

I'm uncertain how getting shot at helps Trump win over voters who didn't vote for him in 2020. I will say that I'm relieved that the shooter is almost certainly some marginalized young man with incoherent political views and a likely death wish. I am also relieved that more people weren't killed, given the weaponry the man had. 

The obvious parallel here is less John F. Kennedy and more any of the school shootings that plague our land. If he was - as it initially appears - someone motivated by a nihilistic vision of his own extinction; if he was is an Adam Lanza with a different target; then the discussions around this could very quickly change.

I was struck by how quickly Democrats all said exactly the right thing about political violence (more on that in another post) and how Republicans want to use this to quash criticism of Trump. I really don't think that will work. Democrats will, likely, go somewhat dark during the convention, unless something really nutso happens worthy of jumping on. 

If I was advising Democrats, I would urge them to introduce an Assassination Prevention Bill that would ban AR style weapons. Then, watch as Republicans filibuster it or let it die in the House. 

The thing about Trump is that he brings the crazy with him. He is a summoner of dark spirits. I have to wonder if this really helps him, but time will tell.

If, by November, we have returned to the idea that a presidential campaign is a job interview rather than a WWE cage match, I can't see how "getting shot at" is a positive bullet point.

Not Sure I Agree Here

 I've long enjoyed Martin Longman's analysis, but I think he's wrong here. 

He has been one of the commentariat who has taken great umbrage at what he sees as Biden's dishonesty about his health. I'm disappointed in what has transpired but I also don't think Biden is in cognitive decline, which Longman clearly believes. I think Biden is frail, physically, but I can recall seeing him in 2019 in a coffee shop on Nantucket and he looked frail then, too. Stiff legged.

Anyway,  Longman's point seems to be that Biden cannot possibly serve the next four years, based on George Stephanopolous' comment to that effect. What's more, if you believe that Biden is currently suffering from cognitive decline, then the next four years will be simply chaotic as various factions try and determine whether the senile old man can be removed from office.

Now, we know that Reagan was suffering from dementia during a fraught period of the Cold War. We know that FDR was re-elected in 1944 despite being in obviously worse health than Biden is now. JFK was suffering from a whole basketful of illnesses. This is not to say we should recommend that as best practices, but just to note that we have all sorts of ways to compensate if that should come to pass.

What's more - and I keep coming back to this point - if Biden gets re-elected and then it turns out he does have Parkinson's (it can take months to properly diagnose it) - and he becomes physically unable to do the job by the summer of 2025, then Kamala Harris becomes president. If Biden steps aside now, then Kamala Harris becomes the nominee. 

If you're afraid of Biden being unable to complete a second term, then you are afraid of Kamala Harris.  

Biden has made some "show don't tell" improvements over the past week, but he is obviously not out of the woods and away from the braying hounds. However, we are approaching a point where Biden is the nominee and the circular firing squads need to stop. 

What that means in practice is being OK with a potential Harris presidency. If you're not OK with that, please explain why. If it's because "I dunno, there's something about her" I suggest you re-evaluate how you are thinking about women.

Keeping The Lights On

 There are some core competencies that define effective governance. One of them is keeping the literal lights on. Texas is failing at that. And it's not a one-off. Texas' decision to maintain their own power grid is a terrible idea executed terribly. Power outages hit Texas all the time from everything from hurricanes to ice storms, but their grid is too small and fragile to function at scale. What's more, Abbott has been out of the state (Ted Cruz could not be reached for comment) during the crisis.

So, on a basic level Republican governance of Texas is bad. Yes, throw in restricting abortions and giving ready access to guns...there's a lot to choose from, but they do a poor job.

The problem is it doesn't matter. There's this pundit's fallacy that voters will vote their interests; they will make reasoned choices based on preferable outcomes. Well, Abbott and Republicans routinely plunge their state into actual darkness and yet voters will line up in November and vote for Republicans.

Since everything has to be tied back to Biden's age, I suppose I come at it this way. We have a new poll from NBC/Marist that has Biden up 2, and the 538 Model has him winning just enough electoral votes to win. The question is clearly not exactly "Who was a better president" because Trump's presidency was terrible and Biden's has been remarkably successful. Still, people think Trump's economic stewardship ended in December 2019 and Biden was responsible for Covid. People don't care about data.

The question that I keep coming back to is this one: Who is a Biden->Trump voter? Who voted for Biden i 2020, looked at January 6th and Dobbs and then decided to switch their vote to Trump? I can't imagine that, but I can't imagine someone voting to return Greg Abbott to the Texas governor's mansion, but they clearly will. Is that because they voted for him once? Or because nothing really matters?

Be Gentle With Each Other

 One thing I've noticed in the debate over Biden's age and status in the race is that we are starting to reach the absolute worst outcome: civil war. When you read posts like this, you see people who are terrified of Trump's return to power begin to take it out on people who are arguing that Biden might not, in fact, be toast. 

What's happening is that people are taking a position. "Biden will be responsible for the end of American democracy if he doesn't drop out." "I'm ridin' with Biden. I'm not going to let the Times destroy one of the most successful presidents of my lifetime." One of those positions will - by definition - lose the argument. 

The problem then becomes re-unifying the party around whatever turns out to be the final position. 

This is EXACTLY what we saw in 2016 at the Democratic Convention.

This is also EXACTLY why Ezra Klein's fantasies of an open convention would be a bigger disaster than simply keeping Biden on the ticket. You think the arguments are heated now? (They are.) Imagine what the convention would be like.

I am disgusted with the uneven treatment Biden and Trump are getting right now. Large majorities of voters think both men are too old and Trump is pretty clearly non compos mentis. As a campaign issue, the age of both men - the mental acuity of both men - should be a topic of debate. It is not, however, as Trump is largely getting a pass. Would Harris allow the coverage to come back into balance? I have very substantial doubts that it would.

Basically, I think the media is covering an important story but terribly. I think the Democratic Party needs to have this debate now, but it has to avoid creating entrenched divisions that will be hard to repair once the final decision is made. Hell, there are "people close to Biden" who are blaming Obama for things like George Clooney's op-ed. That sort of stuff is worse than his debate performance, in my opinion.

As Heather Cox Richardson points out, the test of whether Biden is up for the job is whether he can do the job. He is very much doing the job. He's a good president. We got good economic news again this morning. However, there seems to be real substantive questions about his ability to campaign.

Weirdly, Biden's argument for staying in is his "electability" as the calm old White Dude. The argument for him dropping out is his un-electability as a man in visible physical decline. How do you square that circle without tearing the party apart?

Perpetual Waiting

 I felt after the debate debacle that Biden needed a week or so to show that A) the debate was a fluke and B) it didn't cripple his campaign.

As far as A goes, the press has entered a feeding frenzy that Josh Marshall accurately compares to the Clinton-Lewinsky revelations in 1998 and the Al Franken frenzy. It's worth thinking about those, as Clinton and Democrats eventually saw a bounce back in the fall elections because of Republican overreach. We knew Clinton was a scoundrel, just as we know Biden is old. Biden's subsequent appearances have been....fine. 

The bigger question is B. Because we've entered the feeding frenzy stage, the question of his fitness to campaign is very much alive. In fact, Biden has been out campaigning quite a bit. This is not really registering with the press, however. That's troubling. If he's doing what he "needs to do" and no one notices, how is that helpful? With the media in full blown jihad mode, how can Biden even truly refocus attention on Trump's manifest unfitness for office. As Heather Cox Richardson points out: the reason we know Biden can "do the job: is because he is, at the moment, doing the job.

What's so frustrating is that we have SOOOO many pieces about whether or not Biden will step down...all while Biden is repeatedly and emphatically saying he won't. WTF?

It's incredibly hard to poll over the summer, too. So, if Biden's campaign if fatally wounded, we won't be able to accurately gauge that.

Finally, there are a few prominent voices who have raised questions within the Democratic caucus. The most important one to keep an eye on is Pelosi. She's about as smart and ruthless a political analyst as Democrats have. If there is a break with Biden that causes him to drop out, it will start with her (not Michael Bennett, though that's significant).

Finally, if Biden were to step aside, it would make sense to do it after the NATO summit. After that, the clock starts ticking down to the convention. 

Curious

 So I think we all know the biggest story in American politics right now. Biden's decision to stay in the race is obviously nerve wracking, as I think his decision to step aside for Harris would be. If you're deathly afraid of Trump's return to power, then this two weeks has sucked.

What I find interesting is that we haven't seen a flood of polling. We have a few, and if anything they tell a story of a lost opportunity for Biden in the debate rather than a collapse in support. I felt, prior to the debate, that Biden was winning despite polls showing a statistical tie. Now, I do think he's losing despite polls showing a statistical tie. 

There is obviously the Times/Sienna poll, which has always been rough for Biden, even before the debate. However, there are a bunch more polls that show Biden down by about a point of even slightly ahead. The conventional wisdom is that Biden needs to win by at least two points in the popular vote to overcome the structural advantage that Trump enjoys in the electoral college. 

What's interesting to me, in deliberating over Biden's future, is that Trump's support in a lot of polls seems capped in the low 40s.  That feels right. That's also why I keep coming back to the recent results in Britain and France and how their electoral systems led to the results we saw.

In Britain, the Right splintered and split the vote. In France, the anti-Right united and voted tactically to prevent the Right from winning.

Structurally, I do think that Trump's ceiling is around 44%. He got around 46% in both 2016 and 2020. In the interim we've had January 6th and Dobbs. I don't think he's discovering new voters at this point.

The worry - and it was my worry before the debate - was how many people are going to split off and vote for Brainworms or Cornell West or some other spoiler. The debate was Biden's chance to win over those who won't vote for Trump but might not vote for him. And he failed utterly to do that. 

Would that sliver of the electorate be more enthusiastic about Harris? We aren't talking about Democratic voters. Everyone I know who is appalled by Biden's age will still vote for him. It's that sliver of the electorate that can get him to about 47-48%. 

So, I'm curious why we aren't seeing more public polling. That would seem to be an important set of data points.

Biden/Harris

Dana Houle, who knows more about campaign law than you or I do, notes that the alternative to Biden is Harris and only Harris. Campaigns are entities that don't simply change hands like Pokemon cards. Biden could probably transfer everything to Harris, because she's part of the current campaign, but Johnny Unbeatable would need to start from scratch in ways that would be just as - if not more -  catastrophic than running the old guy (unless the old guy is genuinely impaired, in which case we are back to Harris).

There also seems to be some spine growing among Democratic voters and politicians about Biden. Yes...this sucks, and the debate proved that Biden (like Mueller and the Senate and Garland and Jack Smith) isn't going to save us. 

We are.

On Election Day.

Britain, France, Iran

 Lots of elections!  I wrote about the British election and how the splintering of the right into Conservatives and Reform UK/Brexit led to historic margins for Labour.

Today, we have the second round of French parliamentary elections. Very much the opposite happened in France. If in Britain, the first-past-the-post system can disproportionately reward a party like Labour when the other side has a schism, in France, the two round system means that everyone votes their heart in round one, and then makes a cool political calculation in round two. So, you might go to the polls in round one and vote for the centrist candidate, but if that candidate doesn't make the second round, you might shift to the leftist, if that means defeating Le Pen's National Rally.

Sadly, our system does not accommodate this two rounds of voting except in a few states like Maine and Georgia, where the candidate has to get 50%+1 to win the election. If we had, say, a national popular vote where there were two rounds, I doubt very much that Trump would have won in 2016. In fact, his reasonable showing might've shocked people into voting for Hillary in round two.

Meanwhile, in Iran, democracy is very much a constrained, withered, stunted thing, but it does survive barely. The death of President Raisi led to a new election. Typically, the Guardian Council of religious figures bans reformist candidates or anyone who might shake the status quo. For whatever reason, they agreed to let Masoud Pezeshkian run...and he won. Given that real authority in Iran remains with the Supreme Leader, other clerics and the Revolutionary Guard, it's unlikely that Iran will suddenly open to the West. It's not impossible though, that this could thaw relations and speed a resolution in Gaza.

Taken together, we are seeing in Britain, France and Iran the limits of right wing populism on a global scale. Even in Iran there seems to be a ceiling for this shit.

Are you listening America?

Man, I Don't Know

 These last ten days have been just awful, right?

On the critical question of the day, I keep going back and forth. On the one hand, Biden has been a good - actually very good - president. He is also a bad candidate. He was likely a bad candidate in 2020 in many ways, but Covid restrictions likely hampered that. On the other other hand, Biden won precisely because he was Biden: loved by Black voters and deemed safe by White ones.

Is Biden non compos mentis? I really don't think so. The transcripts of the debate read just fine. 

Is Biden able to fulfill the president's role as voice of the country? I really don't think so. His stutter has left his mouth mushy and indistinct.

There is a long, long history of Democrats freaking out over their candidates. They freaked out over Clinton, they freaked out over Obama. It's a hallmark of Democratic Party politics: second guessing and requiring that their candidate be absolutely perfect in every way, of they will lose. It's understandable to be gun shy, given that Democrats have won the popular vote in every election but one since 1988, yet they've also lost in 2000 and 2016 (with disastrous implications). The stakes are so incredibly, incredibly high in November, that it's natural for Democrats to want some mythical savior to alleviate their worries. Biden's debate debacle feeds into precisely that worry.

Then there's the media. It's a feeding frenzy at the moment. To give an example, Stephanopolous asked about Senator Warner's efforts to get Biden to drop out. Biden chuckled that Warner was a failed presidential candidate himself. A few reporters suggested that this was a sign of dementia on Biden's part. In fact, Warner conducted an exploratory campaign in 2006 - all the trips to Iowa and New Hampshire - before failing to find traction and dropping out. If anything, this shows the acuity of Biden's memory...yet it is being spun as further signs of Biden's mental decay.

But then...if you give in to the media frenzy and Biden drops out - frankly if he does that, he should resign so that Harris gets the boost of incumbency - then the media will sharpen their knives for Harris. I 100% guarantee that they will be like sharks with blood in the water. They are nihilists with no apparent beliefs in the safety and future of the American experiment. 

It's incredibly easy to compare Biden's age to Trump's manifest unfitness for office. Yes, I'm concerned about Biden's age; I'm terrified of everything surrounding Trump. I will crawl over broken glass to vote for anyone over Trump, including the old guy. I don't care that Biden talks like he has a mouth full of oatmeal.

I wind up worrying though that many people do. However, I can also see people voting for the boring old man over the chaos of Trump, and some of those people are uncomfortable voting for Harris.

Then there is 2016. The fucking Times helped scuttle Clinton's candidacy by overblowing the email "scandal" at a time when Trump was floundering after the Access Hollywood tape. They are going to do the same goddamned thing to Harris. (And it will 100% be Harris if it is not Biden. Stop thinking there are any other alternatives.)

This horrible limbo from now until election day feels like being in free fall. In some ways, I just want the issue of Biden's candidacy resolved so I can panic about the next thing. Here's what I see happening, Biden is going to stay in the race unless:

- the Democratic establishment convinces him he's doomed.
- he has a health issue that forces him off the trail.

There are some rumors that Biden exhibits signs of Parkinson's or a similar condition. I can say that I saw him in a coffee shop in 2019 (maybe 2018) and he looked stiff and frail then, too. His movements are really poor. If it is a Parkinson's type illness, then he can back off his candidacy and resign with grace.

However, Biden is a guy who has been underestimated and sneered at his whole life. He's a fighter and this is the fight of his life. Does he understand how he's perceived, though, by his friends? Does he know there are other fighters?

Every day talking about Biden's age is a day wasted from attacking Trump's rank criminality and horrifying plans for his presidency. Hell, there are new Epstein documents that put Trump at the heart of that horror show, and no one is talking about it.

Biden has shown enough this week to get another week, but...time is running out in many ways.

I really, really do not know what to think.

Duverger's Law Is Undefeated

 The Labour victory yesterday in Britain is absolutely astounding. Not that they won, but that they seemed to have blown by even the most optimistic predictions. 

Now, there's a weird quirk in the British electoral system. There are a TON of districts (650) for a country that size. The person with the most votes wins. In most districts, there are a ton of candidates running so it's unlikely that there are a lot of candidates who get over 50% of the vote.

In fact, Labour have won at least 412 seats out of 650 with only 33.7% of the vote.

That's only an increase of 1.6% in the popular vote overall (as of this morning).

So what the hell happened? 

The Conservatives lost about 20% of their share of the popular vote. Why? Reform UK - the anti-European party - increased their vote share by 12.3%. 

In other words, Duverger's Law came for the Tories. With an even farther Right party drawing away from some of their voters in one direction, Labour and the Lib Dems were able to win seats without really increasing their support substantially.

It was the fracturing of the Right into Conservatives and Reform that helped Labour regain their seats in the the Midlands, the North of England and Scotland. Meanwhile the Lib Dems cleaned up in the south and west of England.

There was a repudiation of the Conservatives in every direction. There was only a slight move to Labour and Lib Dems, but the strength of Reform UK in swing districts made all the difference.

The reason this matters to America is that we could have a similar dynamic this fall. Neither Biden (nor Harris) nor Trump is popular. This opens the door for a third party candidate, with Brain Worms being the leading candidate at the moment.

Whomever Brain Worms draws more from will decide the election. It would seem almost impossible for either candidate to get over 50% in this landscape, so keeping an eye on Kennedy's support will be critical.

If You Believe In Omens...

 The harbinger of Trump was Brexit, idiocy fueled by the same sort of ethnonationalism that fuels Trump.

Britain has given us a very different omen this time.

The Tories have gone from having 365 seats in a 650 seat House of Commons to what looks like around 130. The Liberal Democrats will have around 60 seats, which is an amazing total for them.

Labour will have more than 400 seats (if the exit polls are accurate).

I guess July 4th is Independence Day in Britain this year, too.

The Declaration Of Independence

 The Declaration is an odd document. The first two paragraphs are about a stirring as an example of political rhetoric as one can find. The bulk of the document, however, is an indictment of George III that is prosaic, to the point of boredom. It begins thusly:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

I guess I'm an originalist now.

Polling And The Next Week

 At the moment, Biden is going to stick it out. The literally unbelievable SCOTUS ruling has both pushed off Trump's sentencing and given Biden a powerful campaign issue. Non-partisans do trust Biden more on basic decency than the One Man Crime Wave.

However, Biden and senior Democrats (as opposed to Senior Democrats...heh heh...) will need to see how badly the debate damaged him. The early polling has not shown that it has.

The problem, of course, is that polling has been notoriously fickle for the past few years. Response rates are abysmal; do you pick up calls from strange numbers? So even measuring the impact of the debate has go to be tough.

Secondly, the debate was a debacle, but how much will the coverage of the debate matter more? How much have voters basically baked Biden's age into their calculations already? The immediate polling was basically status quo, but perhaps the non-stop coverage of the debate and the calls for Biden to drop out will add an impact we aren't seeing yet. Or, have voters simply priced in Biden's age and Trump's personality?

There is a whiff of polling suggesting that Harris might be stronger than Biden against Trump. The second impact that polling needs to accommodate is the SCOTUS Six removing legal consequences for a lawless president...like Trump. There could be some people who are uncomfortable with both Biden's age and Trump's character but could talk themselves into "it wasn't so bad last time" and this decision could give them pause.

There's some evidence that the Biden team is dropping opposition info on RFK, Jr. this week that could be a realization that they don't want to lose the overall dissatisfied voter who REALLY doesn't want Trump but also thinks Biden is too old. 

Biden is doing an interview on Friday. The fact is - despite media claims to the contrary - Biden actually does do sit down interviews. He just has contempt for the Times. If he does a good job on Friday, though, I don't really see that having a massive impact on the media voices calling for him to drop out. Many of them - Nate Silver, Ezra Klein - have been calling for his replacement for months. They aren't changing their minds if he nails the interview with Stephanopolous. However, if he has another "bad moment" then you could see the next firewall break. 

It would be clarifying if we can have clear evidence that we could be confident in about whether people were as appalled by the debate as the media and those who follow politics compulsively. I'm not sure we can be confident in anything right now. 

Perhaps that's why it feels like election night 2016. We are staring into the void right now.

The Loaded Gun

 Man, after sitting with the SCOTUS decision yesterday for a while, it's pretty clear that they have taken upon themselves powers that are far beyond what any Court has claimed. Combined with the Chevron reversal, the Supreme Court is basically taking away the ability of the Executive and Legislative branches ability to govern without their consent...without saying what they will consent to.

As for the broad immunity that SCOTUS granted, it's pretty clear that that will only apply to Republican presidents. Trump can launch an autogolpe, but Hunter Biden's laptop is a criminal offense, etc.

One thing that I don't think the Federalist Six have considered is that they have handed Biden a very, very powerful campaign issue. The first is the simple partisan lawlessness of the Court itself. The legitimacy of the Court is pretty much in the toilet right now, with even moderate Senators raising the idea of expanding the Court. The most important reform - term limits - is impossible without a Constitutional Amendment, but there are ways to limit or dilute the Court's powers and that is absolutely on the table now.

The better issue, though, is the one Biden raised last night: this SCOTUS ruling makes the character of the president more important than ever. By removing most legal constraints on presidential action, they have put a premium on the president himself restraining himself from doing outrageous things.

There was some desperate/sardonic suggestions that Biden use his new found powers to assassinate the judges or Trump as national security threats. Biden, of course, won't do that, and THAT is the campaign issue he can run on. 

The whole "Democracy is on the ballot" thing is both true but abstract. This ruling is a loaded gun aimed at the heart of American liberty from monarchical power. Whose hand do you want on the trigger?

No One Is Coming To Save Us

 So, The Federalist Six on the SCOTUS decided what they likely decided a month or more ago: presidents enjoy immunity from official acts but not from private ones. This will push the decision back to the lower courts and drag out the time before the trial. Sadly, this ruling - combined with Aileen Cannon acting as a de facto defense attorney in the open-and-shut documents case - means that Trump's legal peril before the election is greatly, greatly reduced. I think this outcome was what we all expected when SCOTUS agreed to take up the issue on the timeline that they did. 

We have a corrupt partisan court. That much is obvious. 

It also looks like - for the moment - Biden won't step aside. I think there is still data that needs to be accounted for, but there is no Johnny Unbeatable waiting in the wings to save us.

We are voting in November for either a man that is likely too old to be the president we need or a felon and congenital liar who would be a dictator if he could. I can argue - and will - that we elect administrations not individuals, and Biden's administration has been very, very impressive. He is, clearly, an inferior candidate at this point, but he does have a compelling record.

So, Trump v Biden is our choice and that means we have to save ourselves in November. That's job one. If we do, then the legal cases against him will come due and maybe...just maybe...we can have our moment of accountability for a man who has used his wealth to escape it (for the most part) so far.

Not liking the situation does not change it.

UPDATE: Everything...EVERYTHING...Josh Marshall said.