Of course if everyone’s operating under the assumption that Biden is the guy, they’re gonna look a little unlikely, but that’s not a foregone conclusion even at this late stage.
I take it seriously enough that I watched the whole thing. Quick reactions point by point:
Difficulty of replacing Biden and who would replace him - Yeah. 100% agreed. I have no idea about the procedures. I’m just saying as a non political expert how I see things. Part of what I keep asking about this is, is there anything actually productive I can do at this stage as a Democratic voter.
1968 - This is the one element of what he says that bugs the hell out of me. My copy of “Playing With Fire” is less than 10 feet from me as I write this. I know how seriously Lessig takes this. But his take on it here is wrong. The DNC’s original sin in 1968, which they repeated in 2016 with Bernie Sanders, was not “well we can’t let these people in the door, because if we do they won’t shut up and we’ll have to break the rules to keep them in line, and that’ll be messy and lose us their support.” I’m not saying that’s Lessig’s point precisely, but it’s not wholly at odds with how he’s extrapolating from 1968 to the present day, either.
The DNC keeps insisting on center-right policies. In 1968 it was Vietnam, in 2016 it was economic justice, and now it’s Gaza. And then, when this massive groundswell of left wing activism that would be otherwise be theirs for the taking gets mad at them, they can’t figure out why that happened, or why they’re now in a dead heat with the world’s worst person for president. And their solution is to turn their back on the activism.
Like I say I’m not a political pro. I don’t know that a contested convention wouldn’t be a bad idea for all the reasons Lessig lists, and I definitely can respect his insight on the realities and his point that it’s uncharted territory. But I think it’s also fair to point out that with the advent of Trump we’re in pretty much uncharted territory anyway, so we might as well start trying to do what seems right and not just what we’ve traditionally done before.
The important work isn’t televised - John Stewart actually dealt with this pretty head-on. I agree, by any metric, Biden’s actually done a great job with what was handed to him. Stewart’s point was, Biden’s job is not just to be a great president, but also to win the November election, and significant weaknesses he has on that score are worth talking about.
I’m not trying to take any kind of rabid anti-Biden stance on it; I’m planning on voting for the Democrat regardless in November, because Trump winning will mean hell comes to earth. I’ve also spent a decent length of time arguing with anti-Biden trolls so far. But I have to say that Ezra Klein and John Stewart actually did convince me to a certain extent that this is worth talking about.
Sure if Newsom or Whitmer would have wanted to run against Biden they could have announced their candidacy when the others did (I.e. Biden and the GOP contenders). In that case it would have been a scandal for the DNC not to run an open primary. The fact is they didn’t, for the obvious reason that you can’t run against an incumbent.
Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, there are a handful of others.
Of course if everyone’s operating under the assumption that Biden is the guy, they’re gonna look a little unlikely, but that’s not a foregone conclusion even at this late stage.
@mozz @bobs_monkey @Eatspancakes84 Watch:
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-what-they-don-t-tell-you-about-the-dump-biden-fantasy-204684869613
I take it seriously enough that I watched the whole thing. Quick reactions point by point:
Difficulty of replacing Biden and who would replace him - Yeah. 100% agreed. I have no idea about the procedures. I’m just saying as a non political expert how I see things. Part of what I keep asking about this is, is there anything actually productive I can do at this stage as a Democratic voter.
1968 - This is the one element of what he says that bugs the hell out of me. My copy of “Playing With Fire” is less than 10 feet from me as I write this. I know how seriously Lessig takes this. But his take on it here is wrong. The DNC’s original sin in 1968, which they repeated in 2016 with Bernie Sanders, was not “well we can’t let these people in the door, because if we do they won’t shut up and we’ll have to break the rules to keep them in line, and that’ll be messy and lose us their support.” I’m not saying that’s Lessig’s point precisely, but it’s not wholly at odds with how he’s extrapolating from 1968 to the present day, either.
The DNC keeps insisting on center-right policies. In 1968 it was Vietnam, in 2016 it was economic justice, and now it’s Gaza. And then, when this massive groundswell of left wing activism that would be otherwise be theirs for the taking gets mad at them, they can’t figure out why that happened, or why they’re now in a dead heat with the world’s worst person for president. And their solution is to turn their back on the activism.
Like I say I’m not a political pro. I don’t know that a contested convention wouldn’t be a bad idea for all the reasons Lessig lists, and I definitely can respect his insight on the realities and his point that it’s uncharted territory. But I think it’s also fair to point out that with the advent of Trump we’re in pretty much uncharted territory anyway, so we might as well start trying to do what seems right and not just what we’ve traditionally done before.
I’m not trying to take any kind of rabid anti-Biden stance on it; I’m planning on voting for the Democrat regardless in November, because Trump winning will mean hell comes to earth. I’ve also spent a decent length of time arguing with anti-Biden trolls so far. But I have to say that Ezra Klein and John Stewart actually did convince me to a certain extent that this is worth talking about.
Sure if Newsom or Whitmer would have wanted to run against Biden they could have announced their candidacy when the others did (I.e. Biden and the GOP contenders). In that case it would have been a scandal for the DNC not to run an open primary. The fact is they didn’t, for the obvious reason that you can’t run against an incumbent.