2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

Bernie mounted a very effective challenge to HRC, he won about 40% of the delegates. I can't think of anyone else at the time who could have mounted that effective a challenge other than Biden, and Biden had personal issues at the time. HRC's dire shittiness as a candidate dominates our thought now through the clarity of 20-20 hindsight. But at the time she declared, she had a record as a popular Senator from New York, and a reputation as a tough and flinty Secretary of State.  I don't think anyone else wins that primary, and had someone else come in from the moderate wing, the only likely alternative result would be Bernie winning.

Otto is certainly right that someone like Beshear would probably beat Trump in a cakewalk and he's also right that there is little chance that someone like him would ever win a Dem primary.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf:

I do agree people can choose based on criteria other than will they win.  For example I suspect many people supported Hillary because she was a woman.  But the desirability of this type of thinking has nothing at all to do with whether they are The Democrats or whether they are a Democrat.  Third party voters almost by definition vote for someone they think will not win.  Blame them all or blame none of them.  For the record I have no recollection of a anyone saying "it's her turn."  If anything it wasn't her turn.  She was a one term senator after being first lady.  That doesn't shoot her to the top of the seniority list.  But that's besides the point.

An invisible primary didn't shut down opposition to Hillary.  Hillary's obvious popularity shut down opposition to Hillary.  Harris' obvious popularity is shutting down opposition to Harris.  The way to fight massive popularity is to make the case for someone else, not whine about The Democrats picking badly for you.

[grumbler]

I think Kamala is pretty much a carbon copy of Hillary.  Kamala as veep is sort of a default if we don't agree on anyone else.  She has overwhelming support and a huge organizational and fundraising advantage.  Endorsements have piled in.  She's polling well.  Exactly like Hillary, why would anyone in their right mind run against her?  You're guaranteed to lose.

In terms of "process" the only concrete step I could see taking is not automatically handing over the Biden organization and funds to Harris.  Which is maybe not a terrible thing to do. 

The Biden organization and funds are the Biden-Harris organization and funds.  Harris inherits them automatically.

While there are things that the Biden campaign could do to get those funds back into play had there been a non-Harris candidate, those would almost certainly have led to legal challenges which, while almost certainly unsuccessful, would have tied up that money at an awkward time.

Harris is not the optimal candidate but she's the only practical one.

[Zoupa]

Harris has nowhere near the level of hate/baggage that HRC had. When she ran in 2016, the right wing tv and radio had been poisoning their audience for over 2 decades about how she was the devil incarnate.

You also had the Kremlin, who had a personal distaste of her, flooding social media for years with disinfo.

Harris has no real skeletons in her closet, as all I can see so far from GOPtards are racism & misogyny. The dog-whistles about her laugh (loud black woman) are cringeworthy. That's all you got folks?

russia also didn't seem to have planned for the Harris candidacy, and their usual mouthpieces are relaying low-level efforts like "IS BIDEN DEAD? WHERE IS HE?" and "this is not legal!!!!".

We're 3 months out. I predict 300+ EV victory for Harris, with +10 million votes minimum.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Democrats are not the only party with difficulties picking the most electorally optimal candidate. The GOP has selected Donald Trump as a candidate three times in a row despite ample evidence that he is the electoral equivalent of skunk shit.

[jimmy olsen]

Average net rating for a VP after the convention is +19

Vance has a net rating of -6

https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1815905253793095967

JD Vance is making history as the least liked VP nominee (non-incumbent) since 1980 following his/her party's convention. He's the first to have a net negative favorable rating.

Not surprising given how weak he ran in Ohio in 2022. Far worse than the average Ohio Republican.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not impressed with the cat lady line of attack.  GOP already has one prominent governor who murdered her dog; not smart to alienate the cat people too.  I don't think there are enough hamster owners to win a national election.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I did have a laugh this morning when the crowd was shouting 'lock him up' at what I guess was the first rally.

[Josquius]

The attack on Harris and buttigieg for being childless does carry a big whiff of the Elon musk school of "thinking" fascist. The only valid kids are your genetic off spring. A true man spreads his seed as far and wide as possible.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Democrats are not the only party with difficulties picking the most electorally optimal candidate. The GOP has selected Donald Trump as a candidate three times in a row despite ample evidence that he is the electoral equivalent of skunk shit.

Is he though?
He did win against Clinton. He does have a unique ability to appeal to idiots in swing states.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Maybe - I don't think I'm discounting that as much as reading the risk differently. Or, perhaps, being a bit more worried based about Harris as candidate based on 2020 which could be totally unfair as she'll be different, have a better team, maybe a clearer message etc. As I say I think the NYT podcast was far more negative than I would be, but also flagging real concerns.

I suppose my thing - not to put a dampener on everyone's mood - is that I think lots of people are quite excited, there's lots of stanning (which I get). But clinching the nomination and the convention are probably the best news cycles a candidate will get. There will be moments of adversity in the campaign. It all feels a little bit swingy/sugar-rushy and brittle at the minute - hopefully it'll balance. We don't have much more (at a national level) than 2020 or her role as VP to go on. I think people are maybe not considering that risk enough.

I get people's point that it would be difficult and you'd be inventing a parachute as you're jumping. But I think it is absolutely do-able, as Obama suggested. Had other leaders taken Obama's approach of praising Joe, but not immediately endorsing we'd already be having the "process" (as I say I think the technicalities of how you do it don't really matter, you work something out because you need to) - that was also open with Biden's first message which didn't have an endorsement. Biden then updating that to endorse Harris, other leaders doing an endorsement in their message praising Biden's decision foreclosed that avenue that Obama suggested. I hope we don't regret it.

And while I absolutely think that the legitimacy stuff is nonsense and only coming from the right. But I could see it becoming a bit of an issue when there are those moments of adversity in the campaign - and they may themselves regret not having some form of legitimating "process".

Bernie mounted a very effective challenge to HRC, he won about 40% of the delegates. I can't think of anyone else at the time who could have mounted that effective a challenge other than Biden, and Biden had personal issues at the time. HRC's dire shittiness as a candidate dominates our thought now through the clarity of 20-20 hindsight. But at the time she declared, she had a record as a popular Senator from New York, and a reputation as a tough and flinty Secretary of State.  I don't think anyone else wins that primary, and had someone else come in from the moderate wing, the only likely alternative result would be Bernie winning.

I read that slightly differently.

The fact that even someone like Bernie could win about 40% of the delegates indicates that there were plenty of people looking for any alternative and that her shittiness as a candidate was kind of a known quantity - both the case in 2008. I'm sure a chunk were keen for a candidate of the left but I think a chunk were probably just looking for someone, anyone, other than Clinton. Sadly Martin O'Malley was a disappointment who let us all down.

I get that Yi disagrees but I think without the Clinton machine (especially with Obama's side not contesting it, which I think was negotiated) you would have had many more candidates. It was an open field coming at the end of a relatively popular two-term presidency when the VP wasn't running. I don't think it was her overwhelming personal popularity, but her effectiveness at politics and the Clinton team around her. The exact stuff they tried and failed to do in 2008, they were able to do in 2016. And it was a huge mistake.

[Josquius]

I suppose my thing - not to put a dampener on everyone's mood - is that I think lots of people are quite excited, there's lots of stanning (which I get). But clinching the nomination and the convention are probably the best news cycles a candidate will get. There will be moments of adversity in the campaign. It all feels a little bit swingy/sugar-rushy and brittle at the minute - hopefully it'll balance. We don't have much more (at a national level) than 2020 or her role as VP to go on. I think people are maybe not considering that risk enough.

Possible advantage to her campaign starting so late?

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, if Labour had a public leadership contest with candidates tearing into Starmer and each other a few months before the GE, do you think that would had improved or hurt Labour's chances?

[garbon]

Sheilbh, I think you are overreading Obama's one mention of a process.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe you're right but I think the lack of endorsement is the key point. You raised it in Biden's first post because I think it changes the situation.

There's been lots of people here challenging on process and I think that's the heart of the periphery. It doesn't matter what it looks like or how it works formally. What matters is do we need to endorse ASAP or do we indicate we'll take a look - and once you're on either of those tracks they'll take their own course.

On the other hand I suppose either of them would be decisive for Harris. Quick endorsements from across party leadership closes down the opportunity to assess other candidates. And while I take JR's point that in order to create a level playing field you'd have to re-jig things. It might not even have mattered or got to that stage if basically all the party leadership are deliberately withholding their endorsement from the VP in this scenario. That feels like it would be a huge blow/vote of no confidence for her.

[Solmyr]

So, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?