2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Sheilbh]

Why?  What is wrong with the delegates who have already been elected making their choice?  And if those delegates decide to back Harris based on what is already known, why should there be a need for anything more?

Your argument is sounding a lot like wanting more process for its own sake.

I think delegates are following their leaders - I think more than selection in 50 years this a "party decides" moment. Had those leaders gone the Obama route and talked about a process to select an outstanding candidate, I think we'd have other candidates declaring an interest and it would be worked out at or by the convention.

I think the actual mechanics for doing that would basically just be a formality - as designed by party leaders.

Yeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.

I disagree I think you can run a truncated primary style campaign of campaign events and debates in a month (I'm fairly certain at least Newsome had things set up to run ). You won't get a long-shot candidate who needs to build momentum, but you can at least work out who is the best of the possible candidates.

And I think there's been stories about the risk of convention chaos (particularly for the Democrats) in every open election I can remember. My view is that absent the ressurrection of Richard J Daley the negatives of navel gazing and pre-convention "narratives" are vastly lower than getting the candidate wrong - in the debates, in the three months of campaigning afterwards etc.

It's been a choice not to do that and I think it's a risk that I really hope we don't regret.

My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"

And that is my worry - that that's exactly what's happened.

[Admiral Yi]

And that is my worry - that that's exactly what's happened.

So you want a process in which you can say which candidate would be better and in which candidates themselves say they would be better, but Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney and the delegates and survey respondents are not allowed to say which candidate would be better.

[Sophie Scholl]

Everything is far, far, far easier if Harris is the nominee legally. If they try to force in another primary, it would be an absolute disaster legally and, I think, politically. The Republicans are already looking for any loopholes or means to get Biden back or force a primary which, once again to me, shows how bad those options are.

[Valmy]

I mean we haven't had the convention yet. Biden was not yet the nominee.

[Sheilbh]

So you want a process in which you can say which candidate would be better and in which candidates themselves say they would be better, but Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney and the delegates and survey respondents are not allowed to say which candidate would be better.

We can all have opinions regardless

I think party leaders will make the decision in this sort of scenario regardless - so it would be like the "invisible primary" before the primaries except instead of the primaries. The choice was do it quickly rallying behind Harris as the VP to avoid division and project unity, or take that risk and, for want of a better word, have a job interview.

But I think it was a choice not an inevitability (any technicality could have been worked out). Both sides have risk - my view is simply that they went for the riskier one and I just hope we don't regret it.

Edit: I should add that I think the GOP reaction to her is really unpleasant in a way that I think people will notice. Trump is often funny with his insults, it's why they work. "Childless cat lady" isn't funny - it's just mean and misogynist. And I think this does show why it was right for Biden to step aside as the sheer energy and sharpness she can already bring on the campaign trail is what a non-Biden (non-octogenarian) candidate brings that Biden couldn't.

[Sophie Scholl]

I mean we haven't had the convention yet. Biden was not yet the nominee.

Legal Eagle did a video on it. He definitely makes it sound like Biden is not officially locked in, but he was on the ballots of all of the primaries already held. As such, anyone not on those ballots invites a host of potential issues to arise. Harris *also* being on those same ballots makes it far easier, smoother, and less of a nightmare to have her take over as opposed to any other option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPt-4Eqr35I&t=870s&ab_channel=LegalEagle

[Admiral Yi]

We can all have opinions regardless

I think party leaders will make the decision in this sort of scenario regardless - so it would be like the "invisible primary" before the primaries except instead of the primaries. The choice was do it quickly rallying behind Harris as the VP to avoid division and project unity, or take that risk and, for want of a better word, have a job interview.

Unless too many people have the same opinion, as with Hillary, in which case it is squashing and hurting the country.

"The Choice?"  It's that kind of thing that leads me to call your thinking quasi conspiratorial.  There was no single choice.  The Trilateral Commission did not meet in secret holy conclave, give the secret handshake then decide it will be handled quickly.  Nancy Pelosi made a choice to give an early endorsement.  A large number of delegates made a choice to express support for Harris early.  Any possible alternate candidate made a choice not to contest at this point.

Similarly with "the Democrats."  There are registered Democratic voters.  There are Democratic leaning voters.  There is the DNC.  There are Democratic elected officials and ex officials.  None of them can give orders to anyone else.

[Sheilbh]

Unless too many people have the same opinion, as with Hillary, in which case it is squashing and hurting the country.

"The Choice?"  It's that kind of thing that leads me to call your thinking quasi conspiratorial.  There was no single choice.  The Trilateral Commission did not meet in secret holy conclave, give the secret handshake then decide it will be handled quickly.  Nancy Pelosi made a choice to give an early endorsement.  A large number of delegates made a choice to express support for Harris early.  Any possible alternate candidate made a choice not to contest at this point.

I mean a choice as opposed to an inevitability - that there was agency here and options.

But also I think of all people in the world politicians are political animals. They talk, strategise, plan, get aligned, read the room etc. I imagine they have not stopped talking to each other since they were informed that Biden was planning to step aside (which some would have known in advance) and that includes talking to other potential candidates over whether it's the right time, they're willing to support them or if they should sit back and get behind Harris. And, always looking over each other's shoulders, sometimes they'll just join the herd because they don't want to get left behind.

I think the leaders of the party, from the second Biden stepped down (and I think in advance for at least the Clintons, Obama - I'd imagine Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries etc), have been trying to work out how to handle this in the best interests of the party and, in their view, the best odds to beat Trump. And I think this is their shared, collective conclusion.

I don't think that's bad or evil or a conspiracy - I think it's how most organisations work but particularly political parties. I just worry they've reached the wrong decision.

[crazy canuck]

Why?  What is wrong with the delegates who have already been elected making their choice?  And if those delegates decide to back Harris based on what is already known, why should there be a need for anything more?

Your argument is sounding a lot like wanting more process for its own sake.

I think delegates are following their leaders - I think more than selection in 50 years this a "party decides" moment. Had those leaders gone the Obama route and talked about a process to select an outstanding candidate, I think we'd have other candidates declaring an interest and it would be worked out at or by the convention.

I think the actual mechanics for doing that would basically just be a formality - as designed by party leaders.

Yeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.

I disagree I think you can run a truncated primary style campaign of campaign events and debates in a month (I'm fairly certain at least Newsome had things set up to run ). You won't get a long-shot candidate who needs to build momentum, but you can at least work out who is the best of the possible candidates.

And I think there's been stories about the risk of convention chaos (particularly for the Democrats) in every open election I can remember. My view is that absent the ressurrection of Richard J Daley the negatives of navel gazing and pre-convention "narratives" are vastly lower than getting the candidate wrong - in the debates, in the three months of campaigning afterwards etc.

It's been a choice not to do that and I think it's a risk that I really hope we don't regret.

My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"

And that is my worry - that that's exactly what's happened.

I just don't see the upside with what you are proposing.

The reason primaries are held so far in advance of an election is to give the eventual winner time to recover from all the attacks that were made on them during the primaries.

It would be lunacy to hold a primary competition this close to an election.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheilbh the problem with your proposal is that there already is a process in place.  There were elections to select delegates and those delegates have been selected. There is an existing process in place by which they officially register their choice. That process unquestionably favors Harris given that the vast majority of delegates were already pledged to support her for VP and given that the guy they were pledged to support for President endorsed her.

To do what you would like to see happen and make it effective - i.e. to create a sufficiently level playing field this late in the game to entice competitors in - there would have to be a massive change to the rules.  And to do that would understandably infuriate the Harris supporters.  It would amount to changing the rules at the last minute for the specific purpose of lowering Harris' chances.

The root problem is that the time for alternative Democratic candidates to get into the race isn't now and it wasn't two days ago.  It was about a year ago, enough time to prepare for and contest Iowa, NH, etc. We knew back them that Biden was a compromised candidate, based on the numbers alone if nothing else.  But nothing happened because of the move along, nothing to see hear attitude of the party and because none of the potential challengers wanted to take the onus of being the first to stick the knife in. That reticence leads inevitably to where we are now.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh the problem with your proposal is that there already is a process in place.  There were elections to select delegates and those delegates have been selected. There is an existing process in place by which they officially register their choice. That process unquestionably favors Harris given that the vast majority of delegates were already pledged to support her for VP and given that the guy they were pledged to support for President endorsed her.

To do what you would like to see happen and make it effective - i.e. to create a sufficiently level playing field this late in the game to entice competitors in - there would have to be a massive change to the rules.  And to do that would understandably infuriate the Harris supporters.  It would amount to changing the rules at the last minute for the specific purpose of lowering Harris' chances.

I think that's probably fair - and there almost certainly has been an invisible primary going on in the last three weeks because I think Biden going was inevitable. And I certainly think some of the alternatives were doing their best efforts to audition while appearing loyal (Newsom ). Although practically many people - as suggested on the NYT podcast (far, far more negative on Harris than I would be) - may have actually just thought that in this context it's not the time and would hurt the party with key voters they need this autumn to challenge a Black woman who is VP so it is "her turn". I accept that unless it's done by Biden and Harris, the optics would be very bad.

Especially because, as I say, the Trumpy candidates have lost in every election since 2016 - so the attitude should be this should be winnable (without Biden).

The actual blitz primary suggestion was mad. But without the mad elements, that would basically be my "process" - I don't know what Obama had in mind when he said "I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges". This is not the scenario imagined when those primary voters were voting. So have people launch campaigns, make a pitch, do some forums and debates and then delegates vote (but the top brass would basically be shaping that convention).

The root problem is that the time for alternative Democratic candidates to get into the race isn't now and it wasn't two days ago.  It was about a year ago, enough time to prepare for and contest Iowa, NH, etc. We knew back them that Biden was a compromised candidate, based on the numbers alone if nothing else.  But nothing happened because of the move along, nothing to see hear attitude of the party and because none of the potential challengers wanted to take the onus of being the first to stick the knife in. That reticence leads inevitably to where we are now.

Yeah I totally agree with this.

Although the Democrats more broadly () tried to fiddle with the primary calendar broadly to help avoid challenges/strengthen Biden and closed their eyes to problems with his campaign.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'd need to see Kamala come out strongly in favor of Israel and against Hamas to consider voting for her instead of Trump; but I do think the Democrats increased their chances by putting her in over Biden.

Do I think she was the best theoretical Democratic candidate to beat Trump? Nope.

But she is the best possible one--because it would be nearly impossible to have skipped over her due to how our convention process works and the fact all the delegates are selected already and they aren't a neutral group of people they were people selected by the Biden campaign.

Any mechanism one could dream up to push her aside would be incredibly damaging to party cohesion. And given virtually every element--from the Clintonian old guard, the Congressional leadership, the "rabble rousers" like the far lefties in the Squad, the Bernie people etc have coalesced behind her I think the positives of trying to bypass her are low. None of the major constituencies are mad she has been selected. All but certainly a couple of the major constituencies would be furious if they engineered a way to dump her.

So while I think a candidate like Andy Beshear probably comfortably beats Trump, while Kamala IMO is not > 50% likely to win, there has never been a good mechanism for a guy like Beshear to become the nominee. Even if Biden had announced he wasn't running a year ago and there had been an open primary, people like Beshear wouldn't survive the Democratic primary process. Most likely the primary process, as it stands today, would produce a less electable person further to the left, so while there are better theoretical Democrats than Kamala, none that I can imagine who would have won the primaries, frankly. The Democratic primaries came very close to pushing a loser back in 2020, and I am not sure Jim Clyburn could save them from themselves again in 2024.

[Admiral Yi]

I just worry they've reached the wrong decision.

Is this your way of saying there is another (non) candidate who has a better chance of beating Trump?

Back to the Hillary case, there was a full blown primary, process up the wazoo, and she lost.  So process by itself does not guarantee winning.

[Sheilbh]

Is this your way of saying there is another (non) candidate who has a better chance of beating Trump?

No. I genuinely don't know - and my worry is I'm not sure anyone else does. I'm relatively sympathetic to Harris and I felt they were far too harsh on her prospects but the NYT podcast today did slightly concern me.

I think as Tamas said, with Hillary too many people in the party basically went "well it's her turn. And it's Trump. Job done" and closed their eyes to her flaws. I think a similar process happened around Biden deciding to run again - closed their eyes, criticism hurts the campaign, mentioning his age is right-wing misinformation, get behind the candidate.

I really want the Democrats to beat Trump. And I think there's a risk they're repeating mistakes they've made before - it might be the best strategy at this moment because of where they are and she might well be the best candidate. It's a judgement call and I'm unsure - maybe take the risk of party disunity just to triple check that her 2020 primary campaign isn't her ceiling as a national politician.

Back to the Hillary case, there was a full blown primary, process up the wazoo, and she lost.  So process by itself does not guarantee winning.

But again - I know you think this is conspiracy-mongering - but I think the invisible primary before the primary shutting down other candidates was very effective for Hillary and disastrous for the party/country/world.

[Jacob]

I think Otto's analysis is sound - that Kamela may be the best actually possible candidate.

Sheilbh, you're talking about what is missed about not doing the process - but you're completely discounting the risk of kicking over the hornet's nest that it is "yeah Kamela is the heir apparent, but fuck her we'll see if there's someone better out there... excuse me, what I mean it's only fair we have a process to see if she's actually the best" there could be some constituencies who'll be really upset, Bernie Bros style.

You're making the argument that "a process" would produce a "better candidate" (or even "the best"). That may or may not be true (because the correlation between "more process" and "therefore better" is not ironclad), but even if it's true it's a whole different thing to get everyone to agree to that.