On the forthcoming Republican victory
This diary is actually about Joe Biden.
Things are going really badly for Team Biden, especially in Ukraine, as Alex and Alexander point out. Moon of Alabama also says something about that:
How Will The Biden Administration Cope With Its Loss In Ukraine?
MoA concludes:
If he doesn't the neoconservatives around him will have a great incentive to move on China as fast as possible. As Biden will have difficulties in winning next year's election he needs some objective that can unify the country. A war that he can claim the U.S. will win is one. Some hostile naval exchanges with China will follow.
Of course, before concluding thusly, MoA already went over how the US would probably lose a war with China. Here one might reflect upon how decades of unrestrained "defense" spending has created an out of control military producing super-expensive gold-plated weapons which in sum are no match for Russia nor China. But that's a different issue. At any rate, I'm kind of expecting the coup de grace to the Biden juggernaut to be delivered by BRICS, which is becoming something of an oil cartel (having added Saudi Arabia and UAE), which will probably cut production and add to high gas prices. Maybe Joe can look really pathetic at some point, begging the Crown Prince for lower gas prices.
Oooh, so Biden is going to go belly-up, and the Dems are going to switch to another candidate, Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom, I hear you say. I'm sure there are plenty of Dems who would like to do that. However, the whole concept of doing the bait-and-switch is greatly hindered by several difficulties. Let's go over them:
1) Kamala Harris is the obvious choice to replace Biden as the candidate for 2024, seeing as she's Vice-President. Do you think they could prop her up sufficiently to make her in to a campaigner? Do you think she'd allow it? Remember that in the 2020 primaries Harris had to withdraw before the Iowa caucuses because she wasn't getting any traction.
2) The problem with Gavin Newsom will probably be one of "if we let him in will we also have to let RFK Jr. in?" After all, Gavin Newsom would come out of such a transaction out of the blue, while they've been ignoring RFK Jr. for some time now. They don't really want to do that. They've already threatened to charge RFK Jr. (what? Maybe a billion or two?) to cover the cost of the primaries, and so now all of a sudden they're going to let Newsom march to the finish line for free? That won't look good. They would, as Sabrina Salvati speculates, probably do it, though. Or here's a fun scenario: someone assassinates RFK Jr. because RFK Jr.'s squad has to "appeal to Joe Biden" for Secret Service protection, and Joe is busy cruising on Lorazepam. Later they pull the switcheroo. Yeah, that won't look good.
3) Jaime Harrison has already declared that Joe Biden is the Dems' nominee. I await his "I take it back" speech after all of the DNC's iron-fisted efforts.
4) The media and the shadow government, which has been employed to an unprecedented extent in this affair, are doubtless still lining ducks in a row for Joe Biden. They're all going to change their propaganda lines and sneaky activities on a dime?
5) The longer they wait, the more likely they'll be stuck with Gavin Newsom trying to overcome being unknown by large portions of America while the Democratic Party rank and file asks "why did you wait this long?"
We thus confront this likely scenario: 1) Joe Biden sticks it out until the end, by which time he'll have sadly forgotten how to perform a few basic bodily functions and nobody will be allowed to see him. 2) The Republican, complaining all the while that he's running against nobody, picks up votes in a vacuum. 3) The Republican ascends to the White House.
As for Cornel West, we can read all over the alt-media now complaints about "why'd he pick Peter Daou to be his campaign manager?" Likely scenario: If Peter Daou is the "professional" he says he is, he'll be kept busy with ballot access efforts while West hides from the public for fear that the rallies he OUGHT to be scheduling right now won't ever occur. A less timid campaign would have been nice. At any rate, as I've said in a previous comment, Green Party candidates typically run on no money because nobody donates to them. So Daou will not be working with a list of reliable donors who can be expected to cough up the money needed to pursue a conventional campaign -- unless Cornel West has one ready to hand.
Sabrina Salvati covers RFK Jr. again:
Lots of stuff there to make the Democratic Party look bad. But imagine you're an RFK Jr. donor. Are you going to donate to his campaign if he's still undecided as to whether his campaign will be pointless or not? (Insert gentle reminder here that successful independent campaigns take time to set up.)
It is in this way the Republicans will win by default. Sure, they're unpopular: nobody likes their demonizing the poor, nor their criminalization of pregnancy. But at least they'll come out of this with a viable candidate. The Democrats, on the other hand, give the appearance of "ridin' with Biden" which will persist long after the actual physical Joe Biden has forgotten how to ride. And the third party option? Has anyone yet paused to take stock of how daunting this option currently is, and has been for most of American history?
Comments
Apparently, Schumer has said that
money for Ukraine is "non-negotiable." As far as I can see, a majority of the public disagrees. Stop sending money to Ukraine is, I think, the primary issue that will elect a Republican president, but possibly not congress. Although, the Dem leadership, you should excuse the expression, does have a positive genius for selecting unelectable congressional candidates.
Mary Bennett
That is the Democrats' primary appeal.
"You have no choice." You have no choice, you see -- you must vote for Biden, because the Democrats will eliminate all alternatives (while at the same time claiming to be "saving democracy").
And what is their plan? Having Biden get out there in public to promote his plan to save the world from the presumed twin evils of Putin and climate change? It's so much easier, of course, to destroy the Nord Stream pipeline (causing a huge release of methane) while at the same time pressuring Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to endorse Biden and sending money better spent on Lahaina to Ukraine, where "counter-offensives" will make Putin stronger.
I have no idea, btw, what they plan to do with Biden when he meets with the UAW strikers. Maybe he will be allowed to mumble something incoherent after repeated coaching to stick to the words on the TelePrompTer.
Didn't the Democrats recently send great wads of money to try to elect a Trump Democrat in Ohio? Or was it Texas?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I’m now becoming convinced
that HRC will parachute herself in at the convention. I think that making Harris the gun czar telegraphs that move perfectly. That will make her sufficiently hated among the gun crowd that she’ll either a) be forced to withdraw as an unelectable liability or b) provide adequate cover when some “unforeseeable lone wolf” Arkancides her.
Yes, I’m that cynical, jaded, and disgusted. If it is HRC, I will be forced to vote repub. And that disgusts me most of all.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
I think it's well known at this point
that the public prefers actual salads to Kamala Harris' word salads.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
The hot potato is the economy.
The Russian sanctions package has turned into an own-goal for the US and it’s friends. Our economic future is looking increasingly bleak, what with BRICS and a multi polar global economy ascendant, USTreasuries losing their shine and our enormous national debt and fiat currency looking completely unsustainable. US Hegemony is toast.
Here at home, homelessness is ascendant. Home ownership is out of reach for most young working families, thanks to both inflation and institutional investors gobbling up large portfolios of single-family homes, driving home prices up far out of reach. Meanwhile, the WEF is promising all “useless eaters” that in their future they can look forward to “owning nothing and being HAPPY” in their planned dystopian nightmare.
Which party wants to be holding the hot potato when the music stops? Perhaps neither.
But the music will stop, regardless.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
1) Kamala:
You're the only person online or off wasting precious, expensive ink and time talking seriously about any Kamala scenario where she succeeds Biden from the vice presidency. No, she is not prop-upable. Yes, she is unliked by the public and disrespected by the elite and so no one outside her family will care when she is pushed aside or when she leaves office for good Jan '25. It was a mistake to put her on the ticket, and for the past 3 yrs she has not proven it wasn't a mistake. Just about everyone with a political pulse on either side of the Pecos River understands this.
If Biden goes or announces he's stepping aside, she goes with him. If she wants to find out up close and personal about her unpopularity, she can throw her hat in along with Newsom, Pritzker and Whitmer at the convention and watch as she finishes an embarrassing distant 4th place. Won't happen of course as she is on record as preferring to avoid great public embarrassments.
2) Newsom: the smartest, cleanest way to do this is for Biden to announce AFTER the primary season, but before the convention, that he is calling it quits after the one term, per a recent discussion with his doctor and family. It is a two-for for the undemocratic DNC as they would have been able to keep RFK Jr away from the nomination with their aggressive rigging in the primaries. But if Biden announces too soon, there would be some serious PR problems for the party trying to rig things against Kennedy, as we've both previously discussed.
4) The ok to question Biden running again has gone out from Deep State spokesman David Ignatius. We will hear more from other MSMers in the near future as polls continue to show even a majority of Ds think Joe is too old to run again. And since the convention is nearly a year away, it's not a matter of turning on a dime but rather turning on a quarter. Either a dime or a quarter, the MSM has shown it's no problem. As with the continually evolving storylines about masks and covid vaccines, or the MSM suddenly disappearing all talk of Ukraine as a corrupt nazi-ridden country. This is how severe propaganda works, as Orwell showed.
5) Newsom is far better known among the public than his obvious challengers, Pritzker and Whitmer. A week of NEWSOM at the convention, plus another week of mass media saturation, and he will become very well known. And there would still be 8 more weeks until Nov.
Your likely scenario for '24 doesn't seem too strong at this point. With Biden, as I've noted, he has the two ongoing problems of perception of old age/mental infirmity and the Hunter mess, which could develop in bad ways for him. Oh, a 3d ongoing problem of dismal polling numbers, which normally spell doom for an incumbent. Lyndon was politically astute enough to read the writing on the wall early on, in March (though apparently he wanted back in with a show of support at the Chicago convention but didn't get it). That was after only 6 months of dwindling Gallup support. Biden has been in the polling doldrums for a solid year.
No mention too of Trump's serious legal problems, with a couple of trials scheduled before the election. This is such a wildcard factor, so unprecedented, that it's very hard to make out what the R power broker reaction will be except to note nominating a convicted felon will be a major headache for the GOP. There is also the name on the ballot/14th Am problem, which is in its early stages now. Simply way too early to make any bold predictions for what looks to be a very turbulent 2024.
So according to such a plan --
they are going to retire Biden "after the primary season." The "primaries" will -- if they even bother -- be classic Soviet elections, with only one candidate on the ballot. Voters who want choice will be registering Republican. Better to save money and not have primaries at all. I suppose they could put RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson on the ballot just for giggles, and then award all of their delegates to Joe Biden. Democrats like farces, right? Meanwhile, throughout all of this non-spectacle, the Republicans and independents will all be running against Joe Biden, which shouldn't be difficult. The points that they score against Biden will not all suddenly vanish when the DNC pulls the switcheroo.
All of which begs the question of why
the Mouth of SauronDavid Ignatius is suggesting Biden's replacement at this time, so early in the season, and not later.As regards Trump, they'll probably convict on one or more counts. Someone very important wants Trump out of the way. The important fact is that the Republicans can campaign now, whereas the Democrats will need a switcheroo first. And the fact that they can't use the Vice-President for the switcheroo is not a point in their favor.
Anticipate a Republican victory.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Mouth of Sauron suggesting replacement of Biden.
Two possible reasons might be:
1. His health has taken a precipitous turn for the worst, such that he very likely won't be alive by convention time.
2. He might have balked, at yet more billions for Ukraine, this is getting to be every month now, and Ignatius has been assigned to deliver a warning that You can be replaced.
I expect several someones want Trump gone. That doesn't change the fact that he simply went too far clinging to the White House after the election. Americans don't like a sore loser. We can put up with vast amounts of cheating, that just shows you care, but once the refs have ruled, you are expected to be decent about it. Instead, Trump treated us to a two and a half month tantrum. I know Dems steal elections, see 2016 primary for example, but if the 2020 general was stolen, Trump had all the resources of the federal govt. at his command to prove it. He might have graciously conceded, and then given quiet orders to have a complete and detailed investigation. I suspect it is the phone call to the Georgia Sec of State that did Trump in, last straw wise. Big guy picking on the humble public servant and also made the (Republican) Gov. look bad. I doubt Ms. Willis faced any opposition from the Gov. Mansion during her investigation.
Sabrina Salvati seems unable to understand that Kennedy is not a progressive, Progressives all by themselves cannot win the presidency, and that, for an independent run to be taken seriously, Kennedy and his campaign manager have to show that We did everything possible. Otherwise, they are simply yet another bunch of wacky fringers. Everything possible includes writing letters, which can, if necessary, be made public to show how The Other Side ignored our entirely reasonable requests, etc. Sabrina might not be impressed by such things, but I can assure her that there are many times many voters who are. The kind of voters who like things to be nice, civilized, done according to polite forms; if Kennedy has any chance of becoming president he must convince those voters that he is no incendiary or revolutionary, but an ordinary, reasonable, regular guy who wants his country back.
Mary Bennett
RFK Jr
represents the Kennedy wing of the Kennedy family, more specifically the JFK/RFK wing of the Kennedy family, in contrast to the 75% of Kennedys sitting safely in the Obama/Biden wing. He's a progressive populist, imo, not a check-every-box type, someone willing to tell the hard truth even at political cost. Much like his father that way. Strong crossover appeal, like his father had, as he doesn't engage in rhetoric that's insulting to adherents of the other party or his main opponent. You won't hear him talk about deplorables or insult the other side's leader with words like fascist.
And you will hear him occasionally introduce some truly radical ideas like a major overhaul of the intel community, and his frequent calls to get Big $$$ out of our captured agencies. I can easily see him signing on to legislation limiting the jurisdiction and power of Scotus, whereas Biden just assigned a committee to look into that and then he ignored their findings and recs. Typical Traditionalist Status Quoer Joe.
As for Sabby, she strikes me as a progressive purist, although is weak/uninterested in/gives inadequate credit in some areas where RFK Jr leads in a boldly progressive way, and overall may be too committed to the Cornel candidacy, and to the vast majority of her audience who feel similarly, to see Kennedy's campaign clearly and credit him appropriately.
There are two reasons I don't consider Kennedy a progressive.
First, he has clearly stated he is not a socialist and does support what he calls "free markets" in concept. Second, he has been clear and unequivocal about his support for Israel and is unwilling to alter that position in order to placate leftist voters. AFAIK, no interviewer has asked just how much money he would be willing to expend in support of that one small country.
Sabby represents a strictly urban point of view and I don't say that POV is not important. But, I fear she is either uninterested in or ignorant of, for example, the fact that the companies which have captured regulatory agencies are widely hated across the country. I rather think she is still in Oh, but that's where jobs are mode with respect to big biz polluters and industrial scale farming.
Mary Bennett
It's not
necessary to be a confirmed socialist, or anti-capitalist, in order to be a true progressive, which I define as policies directed at using gov't to improve the lives of the most people possible, taking steps to maintain and strengthen our democratic processes including keeping gov't as corruption-free or unbought as possible, defending or strengthening the rights of traditionally scorned minority groups, and generally keeping the country out of unnecessary wars and other types of foreign entanglements.
Being pro-capitalist doesn't preclude holding capitalist entities to strict accountability, as RFK Jr has shown in his many legal efforts over the years in the environmental and health care areas.
Agree on Israel, but it's not high on my list of priorities, definitely not a red line issue, and is such a fraught issue for any candidate hinting at the slightest sign of doubt that it's almost axiomatic that to get elected on the national level in this country you have to show 100% commitment. Anything less will bring out the Israeli lobby in full force, and they are formidable. RFK Jr already has the Deep State against him. And some previous, unfair charges against him of antisemitism. So politically I can understand what he is doing. But it doesn't make him not progressive. It just shows he doesn't pass the progressive purity test.
@Nastarana
Trump did not have "all the resources of the federal government at his command". To talk about 'Trump's DOJ' is akin to talking about 'JFK's FBI' or 'Carter's CIA'. The Trump Administration was rife at all levels with people out to undermine him.
Beyond the timing itself - which will require, in the GA case, Trump's attendance in court at what would otherwise be the height of campaigning - he is rendered unable to communicate with many of his (co-defendant) top advisors and they with one another - with most of the allegations themselves claiming criminality for protected speech.
Possibly unpleasantly for Fanni Willis, there may well be opportunities in discovery for the defendants to present evidence that other courts have mostly refused to hear...
Speaking of speech - there is the that 'narrowly tailored' gag order that (DC case prosecutor) Jack Smith is trying to have imposed on Trump - Smith claiming that Trump will undermine confidence in the judiciary and election integrity (as if anyone but the terminally gullible still had any).
FYI - Anyone claiming that this is politically motivated is a dangerous conspiracy wacko and probable Russian asset...
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/17/gagging-donald-trump-why-smiths-na...
Trump as president had four years
to get his own people installed in govt. And to earn the loyalty of others, something he seems not to be able to do. Americans will tolerate vast amounts of venality, but, even now, most of us hate incompetence and we don't want to hear excuses. We want to see results, even if the person has to cut a few corners but we want things done and finished and not to have to be redone.
Mary Bennett
True enough,
and it wasn't a question of DJT having all the fed resources at his disposal, as that would be illegal or improper for a P to enlist such assets for personal ends. But the (alleged) billionaire P did have plenty of personal resources to hire (and only sometimes pay) a fair-sized team of dubious attorneys to press his case for a stolen election, but numerous attempts in various states and before many courts failed to convince anyone. Iow, he had his chance and many more chances to show substantial irregularities in the voting and counting, and failed to make his case. He got all the due process the system offers and any reasonable person could expect.
No excuses for him after the fact of his complete legal failure. It's just more Sore Loserism. His ego won't permit him to publicly acknowledge he lost, though we learn that privately he may have acknowledged such electoral defeat early on. And no whining from the cheap seats by Trumpeters who still can't accept that he lost fair and square. Even Nixon eventually acknowledged ... well, he at least he didn't try something stupid re staying in office, or stubbornly occupying the Oval, when he and the RNC quietly undertook a major effort at challenging the vote outcome in numerous states in 1960 (all challenges failed, and one state even switched its electoral college votes to Kennedy after a recount).
Trump acted disgracefully, undemocratically and should be barred under the 14th A from holding office again. The only question there is whether the biased and corrupt 5 or 6 majority on Scotus will once again decide on purely partisan terms, once again crafting a biased ruling wrapped in originalist pseudo legal scholarship.
I smell hypocrisy
It's so easy to slam DJT for two years and counting of sore-loserism, and it may or may not be fair. But what is NOT fair is not admitting that HRC has been a whining, pouting Sore Loser for SEVEN years and counting. And she has played just as dirty, or dirtier.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Huh?
Where did yours truly "not admit" the sore losery of HRC? She wasn't in the discussion. If she were, my posts would have to be 25% longer, and I've already spent too much precious ink in this thread ...
So, no hypocrisy on my part as I have never defended or implied an agreement with her dangerously Russophobic attitude based on a big lie post-2016.
But as to sore losers, there is an important difference when a loser is griping from the sidelines out of office, as with HRC, and someone sitting in the Oval snarling about a stolen election and scheming to stay in power, attempting to thwart our democratic processes. HRC had no official power, only a limited persuasive power in the COPO. Donald had the power of the fed gov't to attempt to manipulate in order to prevent an orderly transition. The Banana Republic actions of DJT are clearly the greater danger to democracy, what's left of it anyway.
Russiagate was ENTIRELY HRC
And if you don't think trying to subvert an incumbent President is a risk to democracy, I don't know what to say.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
And didn't
Donald try to subvert a presidency when for years during Obama he strongly suggested O wasn't a legitimately elected P because he wasn't born in the US? So we can go back and forth, round and round and it can get a bit tiresome and boring.
Politics has had many dirty players n/t
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
To be clear,
my scenario above is my cynical take on a DNC/Biden admin that has been nothing but cynical and brazen about eliminating opposition to his re-coronation (DNC would much prefer that characterization than "Soviet", which brings up commies and all that nasty CW stuff. Coronations are much more civilized and decent.)
In addition to the two-fer, the Ds would also spare Kamala the embarrassment of being compelled by tradition to offer her candidacy in a wide open primary season. And her failure to run in an open primary would be an equal embarrassment.
Re Ignatius, in politics you plant the seed in the late summer/early fall to produce fruit in the late spring/early summer. He's giving D loyalists permission to consider the possibility, and it gives them a few months to think it over. No one likes sudden surprises just before the convention. Iow, I can't get inside Ignatius' head, and I haven't been invited to any Deep State meetings lately, though I did attend a DS feeder school.
Though I could be wrong, it's doubtful Ukraine is the reason, as I would assume the DS still wants a lengthy conflict there. Good for business. No, I suspect the DSers are getting plenty worried about loyal Joe's prospects for reelect and they don't want to give power again to an unpredictable, mavericky, rough-hewn beast like Trump. For the DSers, he's like Nixon, only more so, which is too much.
Re the public, yes Rs can campaign now and will do so for the next 14 months against Biden. But for the most part the people don't tune in until convention time and early fall. They are busy trying to make ends meet paycheck to paycheck, if any. Smaller numbers of folks pay attention during the primaries, party loyalists mainly.
Mr. Shapiro, the Gov. of Pennsylvania, big state, battleground
state, has been featured in various MSM shows recently. It seems he has just pushed through automatic (at the DMV) voter registration, also he managed to get a collapsed major highway repaired within 12 days when the conventional wisdom, i.e., the usual suspects who won't move till they get their cut, said it would take a year. With union labor, he says proudly. I can't decide if he is viewed as a rising star who could replace Harris, or as an overachieving embarrassment to be kicked upstairs.
Mary Bennett
Perhaps looking closer to home...
Cassiodorus - you are in Oregon, no?
Maybe hasn't escaped your notice that (Oregon Senator) Jeff Merkley has been crafting his profile for years for a presidential run? Can't stand him myself, but he has done all he can to fill in all the progressive dots and decrying the fascist MAGA threat - while touting his small town blue collar background and trying to bill himself as other than urban snob, with some potential for crossover appeal.
I see him fidgeting over in the corner waiting to be 'discovered' (that is, selected) by the PTB and trotted out of relative obscurity Obama-style.
The Dem problem of trying to ignore RFK, Jr. interfering with their ability to bring out someone else before the primaries does kind of work against the above, though.
If there is no serious challenger to my RINO sellout 'Representative' (Lori Chavez-DeRemer OR CD-6) and RFK, Jr. is going to be on the OR primary ballot, I might have to re-register D for several microseconds to vote for him (in Oregon's closed primary).
And what about this: if it comes to a three-way race in November, in Blue states where Trump is destined to lose the general, what if Trump voters go instead for Kennedy? I'd certainly consider it in Oregon.
All in all, like my Vivek R. a whole lot (barring some of his more extreme immigration positions).
Here he is interviewed by James O'Keefe:
I had the impression
that Merkley wants eventually to be Senate Majority Leader. Did he not send word to Hillary in 2016 that he did not wish to be considered for VP? It seems like I read somewhere he had taken himself off the list. Maybe that for was for optics, not wanting to look like a loser? I take it you remain unimpressed by his having endorsed Bernie in 2016? I don't live in OR and have not followed Merkley's career.
Mary Bennett
The PTB will decide for the Democratic Party.
This, precisely, is what I've been trying to impress upon people. The Democratic Party currently behaves as a monolith. Some people may like the product it offers; others may dislike it. The point is that that's the only choice they're offered. A lot of people are still operating under the illusion that they can have a different Democratic Party than the one they're being offered. They can't. The operating principle here is that the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is a "private association," and so if said private association might happen upon occasion to invite ordinary folk to offer some input as regards their process, that's because the association feels comfortable doing so at that particular time. Right now the association doesn't want to hear from anyone.
Witness, for instance, Sabrina Salvati interviewing Christian Parenti about why Bernie Sanders and The Squad endorsed Joe Biden for President. Note Parenti's stumbling around on his answer to this question:
Note how he can't really figure it out. Honestly, I don't think Bernie or The Squad were granted any choice in the matter. To wit, this is why I've been arguing persistently for some sort of space outside of the Sacred Two-Party System in the US. Here's Cornelius Castoriadis, from Figures of the Thinkable:
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Well, Parenti
did at the very outset identify TDS as the main reason Bernie et al are caving to Biden, and is doubtful if Bernie & Co have gotten anything in return from Joe. And he goes on in the interview to hit some key points on Ukraine and the horrendous environmental disaster of the NordStream pipeline being blown up, so he's showing himself to be an effective communicator for progressive politics. Where has he been? I don't see him very often on indy-progressive podcasts.
(note: I might be confusing him w his father Michael, an outspoken progressive who was often heard in alternative media back in the day)
I understand
the Vivek appeal to some Rs, a fresh-faced, well-spoken, thoughtful and confident guy with a pleasing personality. I notice in the above interview he is far less of the slick, fast-talking used car salesman than he's shown in previous interviews. Good move to recalibrate, if this was intentional.
Of course he holds some wacky views, so typical of so many R office seekers. And of course he's only running for VP for Trump, or a good cabinet position. (Actually Donald will likely be choosing a woman for Veep this time, to soften his image for broader appeal in order to win the popular vote for the first time.) Credit Vivek for his rise in the horse race polls while DeSantis will likely continue to fall and the others fail to catch fire. And maybe he's also positioning himself as a Plan B candidate in case Trump ends up behind bars before the election.
Overall, pretty smart candidacy so far, aside from the several own-goal wacky positions. Of course, he also might just be the GOP Flavor of the Month, as that party has a recent history of elevating some obscure and dubious names in the early going.
Back on the
subject of this thread, Biden, and my contention that Joe is not certain to be renominated: the latest Politics War Room podcast w James Carville and Al Hunt, both DNC insiders and D loyalists to the core. Carville mentions several times in the podcast how Biden's poor polling numbers, which have been present for quite a while now, do not bode well for a D victory in Nov, assuming Donald is the opponent.
Carville cites a polling number showing nearly 3/4 of overall voters think he is too old to serve a 2d term. As I recall, just under 70% of Ds agreed with that. Carville says these are very concerning numbers, and something Biden can't recover from. Both of these completely loyal D backers say, directly and in so many words, that Biden should step aside as (their view) the most successful one-term P in history.
If we are hearing such grumbling and fretting from two of the most reliably pro-D, pro-DNC public voices, we can be sure Ignatius was being truthful in relating how widespread is the nervousness and discontent with Biden among loyal Beltway Ds.
Relevant portion begins about 10' mark, then again towards the end of the podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/2024-election-prospects-with-elain...