mtutiger

She would have inherited the office, ala Ford, so I suspect that unless she did very well and / or had high approval ratings, she'd probably draw some legit competition.

Agreed, unironically.

Yup. I take no joy in delivering this dose of reality to folks, I'm just not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that there's absolutely zero cost to some world where installing the favorite candidates of the pundit class is absolutely bloodless.

Exactly. People act like this is the party calling the shots, but the incentive structures for the candidates that pundits dream about do not align with or without Biden running this cycle. It's not like you can force Whitmer or Shapiro or whoever to get into an open primary, they would have to want to do it and see a realistic path. And consider things like fundraising as well, I might add. Because, believe it or not, money matters a lot when you run for office. It's not "plug and play"

Are you sure other candidates would jump in if Biden dropped out? Do you think Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, JB Pritzker, etc. are going to want to burn political capital fighting out a bloody primary with an incumbent VP who would likely be endorsed by Biden and would have the support of the most important demographic in the party? And in all likelihood lose? It's not the party, it's the voters and it's the incentives for alternative candidates. You don't have to like it, I'm just engaging in reality here.

I don't have a particular proclivity toward Harris, but it gets really frustrating to see people act like there's absolutely no cost to going around her status as incumbent VP in this current situation we find ourselves in. Frankly, it's delusional

If Biden were to drop out today, Kamala Harris would be the nominee. Because the most important demographic in the party (ie. AA voters) would be firmly in her camp. Just as it was these same voters (along with those in the Iowa Caucus) who made it so for Obama. Nobody wants to admit this, but it's true. And, for whatever reason, if he were to drop out today and the party, to the extent that they could even control who ends up the nominee to begin with, were to force her to the side to run Whitmer or others, people either do not understand or are engaging in magical thinking about the **** show that would ensue. To the extent that incumbency advantage exists, that evaporates, and you'd likely ignite a civil war in the party.

I'd really like to see someone address this. My biggest problem whenever this stuff comes up is that we treat it like fantasy baseball and just say, "oh, i'll drop Biden from my team and add Whitmer", and it's really not at all that straightforward. Whatever you may believe on whether he should or shouldn't run again.

In the abstract, there are quite a few decent candidates that could run on the D side. Whitmer and Shapiro from PA are the cream of the crop if you ask me. It's the "how do you get there from here" question that kinda derails the whole thought exercise. The reality is that if you do not want Biden to run, you have to come to terms with Kamala Harris being the nominee. And unsurprisingly, many of the same people (at least in media) who have complained about Biden running the most (Bill Kristol, Nate Silver, others come to mind), would ***** and moan about her being the nominee as well. I'm not saying he should run at this point, I've been concerned about his age and running for reelection for a while.... but lets not pretend that they could easily and bloodlessly meander their way to Candidate Whitmer.... that's a fairy tale.

Amazing

Amazing

All valid questions, and to be honest, there's context here (such as the interview being immediately after the October 7 attacks) that may be factor as well. None of that really solves the political problem, IMO. His age was always a liability, and it's one thing that can never be solved... literally no one gets younger. The same can be said of Trump as well, given he's pretty damn old and under indictment

The Krassenstein brother really buried the lede in his post.... the comment about being an old man with a poor memory is cheap as hell, but it's gonna hurt.

I was pretty agnostic on this one overall, but it shouldn't be surprising. And I'm not sure I love the precedent set if they did see it through. The ruling yesterday on immunity, to the extent that the law is a factor going forward, is gonna be where the rubber meets the road. I suspect that SCOTUS will not take that one up and there *will* be a trial on the DC Case prior to the election.

Would be surprised if it wasn't unanimous... I do think that if they even hear the immunity case though, it's going to be a different story. At least outside of Thomas and Alito

Today on Days of our Congress...

Lol, heaven forbid we do any legislating during an election year.

Damn

To Eric's point:

What a ridiculous question

Totally, I get it.

As much as we laugh about this stuff as well, it's pretty frustrating to know that Ukrainians are currently suffering real world consequences while these guys are busy with their performative dumb***ery.

It later came out that Scalise will not be coming back tomorrow.... we'll see if Mike Johnson notices lol