Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Oy vey. Just what we need, right?

Axios has been one of the most hysterical of all media outlets over Joe Biden’s debate debacle so I’m loathe to put much stock in their gossip reporting. However, this is actually informative:

If President Biden steps aside, Vice President Harris would be almost impossible to beat for the nomination, thanks to endorsements, money, optics  and 2028 politics, top officials tell us. 

All Harris needs is Biden’s backing. If she gets it, the Obamas and Clintons likely would follow, making any challenge an affront to the sitting president and two former presidents. 

If she gets Biden’s endorsement, the only way a top-tier Democrat could challenge her would be to risk their future by saying “not your turn” to the first woman vice president, first Black American vice president and first South Asian vice president.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chaired the House Jan. 6 committee, told Axios’ Hans Nichols that Harris is “incredibly strong … You can’t say Biden has done a good job without saying she’s done a good job.” For her to be pushed aside from consideration, he said, “would be the kiss of death for the party.”

Of course, all this may take a while. Biden stunned — and annoyed — lots of powerful Democrats on Wednesday by digging in ahead of his interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos (now being shown as a prime-time special at 8pm ET Friday).

I think you have to give the man a little bit of time to absorb what’s happened. He’s human. He’s probably terribly embarrassed. Give him a minute.

They report that Biden and his advisers don’t think much of Harris but that sounds like more gossip to me. Maybe they don’t. But it’s irrelevant. She’s polling better than Biden and any other candidates so with this short window, it would very likely be her, as I’ve been saying since last Friday.

I agree with this analysis of the likely best next steps:

Biden’s private worries wouldn’t necessarily keep him from endorsing her publicly. It’s called politics. Biden would push to pair her with a moderate Democratic governor like Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro (51), Kentucky’s Andy Beshear (age 46), North Carolina’s Roy Cooper (67) or Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker (59).

We gamed out potential scenarios with some of the nation’s most experienced Democratic operatives. Most feel strongly that for both political and practical reasons, Harris looks all but unbeatable.

If Biden “got there” on deciding to throw in the towel, top Democrats expect he would announce he was endorsing Harris — his running mate in 2020, and partner in governing for the past three years. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during her briefing Wednesday that one of the reasons Biden picked her back in 2020 “is because she is, indeed, the future of the party.”

One reason to go that route is to avoid the mayhem of a wide-open convention in Chicago beginning Aug. 19. That would take Democrats’ focus off Trump while they scrambled, knifed and preened.

Harris as nominee, or perhaps president, would become part of Biden’s legacy, which matters a lot to him — a proud, stubborn man who’s been in public life for 50+ years.

Then there’s the practicality: If you’re eyeing the 2028 nomination, you’re thinking about the base. Do you really want to torpedo Harris’ chance to become the first woman president of color? What are your real chances of defeating Harris and her formidable apparatus (White House, DNC, Biden-Harris campaign) when you’re less well-known nationally than she is — then beating the Trump machine, with its huge head start, in the 75 days between the Democratic convention and Election Day?

I don’t think there’s enough time to do anything else and the reality is that the Democratic base has something to say about this too.

They gamed out some of the other possibilities being mentioned:

• Let’s say Biden didn’t endorse, or Democratic leaders insisted on a process. At the highest levels of the party, there’s talk of a series of, say, five regional debates before the convention. The candidates would debate live before the Democratic delegates, gathered in cities throughout the country (e.g., New York, Baltimore, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and L.A.).
  
• It’d all be televised. Then when the convention opened in Chicago on Aug. 19, delegates would have seen the field in action. There are a few problems with this, including determining who gets to debate. And you’d be trying to do something really complicated, in basically no time. “We can’t organize a two-car parade at the moment,” said one veteran of presidential campaigns who’s knee-deep in possible Plan Bs.
  
• What if Biden gets out too late for that, or the debates never come together? Then you could have an old-school frenzy in Chicago of candidates racing among delegation breakfasts to make their case.
  
•  Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a Biden campaign co-chair, said in response to a question from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that he’d support Harris if Biden dropped out, although he wants the ticket to continue to be Biden-Harris. “This party should not, in any way, do any thing to work around Ms. Harris,” he said. “We should do everything we can to bolster her.”
  
• On CNN on Wednesday, Clyburn said you “can actually fashion the process that’s already in place to make it a mini-primary, and I would support that. … I think that Kamala Harris would acquit herself very well in that kind of a process. But then it would be fair to everybody.” A Clyburn aide later clarified that he was just explaining the existing process.

Again, I think the convention needs to be very buttoned up because outside are going to be quite a few protesters. They need to keep the circus under control.

Clyburn has heavyweight clout with Black constituents and has been pretty clear on the fact that he’s behind Harris if Biden drops — and he seems to be warming to that idea. He did say he thought there could be a “mini-primary” but I’d guess that he’s just saying that to not appear to be putting his thumb too hard on the scale for her. She’s obviously his choice.

They say that some “party elders” think replacing Biden would electrify the Democratic base and that may be right. I don’t know. But it would probably stop the bleeding. And as the tiresome Village elder Jonathan Martin tweeted out today, Trump’s inevitable racist and sexist attacks on Harris might very well turn off some of those swing voters, especially women so there is that grotesque up side.

And:

Top Democrats tell us that after a possibly contentious public fight, they’d end with a ticket featuring two faces much younger than Trump (78), probably a man and a woman, getting massive free public attention — then a surge of donations.

One would hope.

The math is simple for a new ticket to win: Both parties agree the winner will be decided by a few hundred thousand voters in seven states — Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

Trump enjoys a small lead in most. So the new ticket would merely need to keep Biden’s vote, plus pick up a few undecided voters or current Trump-leaning “double haters” — voters who dislike both, but will hold their nose and pick one. Do this, Democrats win.

Given the amount of convention and post-convention free media — the world would be transfixed by this spectacle — the new ticket would simply need enough money to flood those seven states for 10-ish weeks. That’s a lifetime in politics.

Is this for real? Who knows? It’s risky either way. But with the Biden chum in the water the media sharks aren’t going to let up . The right’s been fairly quiet but the minute they see that Biden’s staying in they will unleash hell. I worry. A lot.

(Unless this country gets it shit together)

I’m not looking forward to the Harris slut-shame fest that may be coming. But he clearly won’t be able to help himself.

There are two huge elections taking place in Europe right now, one in the UK and one in France. Most of you no doubt understand that various electoral systems but it is rather complicated, especially in France, so in case you have some questions I thought I’d direct you to an excellent guide by Daniel Nichanian at Bolts.com. Here’s the intro:

Two major elections are taking place this week, within days of one another. The United Kingdom votes on Thursday to elect its members of parliament for the first time since 2019. France then heads to the polls on Sunday for runoffs that will decide the make-up of its National Assembly.

The timing of both elections are major surprises. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called them in late May, while French President Emmanuel Macron shocked his country on June 9 by announcing that he was dissolving the National Assembly and organizing elections within a month.

Each election will decide who governs the country, using rules that often differ from U.S. norms. The modes of government vary, of course, but so do policies, gerrymandering, voter registration, voting in or after prison, voter ID, tabulations, and much more. 

At Bolts, we’re always interested in varying models of democracy, and what lessons they teach us. And we suspected that our readers have many questions as well. 

As part of our ongoing “Ask Bolts” series, we asked you to let us know what you’re thinking—and you delivered. We narrowed down your questions (with great difficulty) and had fun answering them below.  

We’ve organized your questions under five themes—explore at your leisure:

Why is this happening right now?

How do these parliamentary elections even work?

So, how do you vote?

How are districts drawn?

Who can vote?

Read on to learn how people vote in France and the U.K., why snap elections are a thing, what constraints exist on gerrymandering, and much more. 

It looks pretty good for labor in the UK where people are sick of the Tories after 14 years and have deep regrets about Brexit. (Who could have predicted?) France is a lot more dicey with the far right poised to potentially take over and the best case probably being a hung parliament. Check out the Bolts piece for more info.

A friend sent this, which I’d never heard of:

Gödel’s Loophole is a supposed “inner contradiction” in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit the American democracy to be legally turned into a dictatorship. Gödel told his friend Oskar Morgenstern about the existence of the flaw and Morgenstern told Albert Einstein about it at the time, but Morgenstern, in his recollection of the incident in 1971, never mentioned the exact problem as Gödel saw it. This has led to speculation about the precise nature of what has come to be called “Gödel’s Loophole”. It has been called “one of the great unsolved problems of constitutional law” by F. E. Guerra-Pujol.

When Gödel was studying to take his American citizenship test in 1947, he came across what he described as an “inner contradiction” in the U.S. Constitution. At the time, he was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was good friends with Albert Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern. Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the United States to legally become a fascist state. Morgenstern tried to convince Gödel that this was very unlikely to happen, but Gödel remained very concerned about it. He was an Austrian by birth and, having lived through the 1933 coup d’état and escaped from Nazi Germany after the Anschluss, had reason to be concerned about living in a fascist dictatorship. Morgenstern had a number of discussions with Gödel about his concerns, and also told Einstein about them.

When the date of the examination came some months later, Gödel was being driven to the courthouse in Trenton, New Jersey, by Morgenstern and Einstein, who were to be his witnesses. Both had already taken the citizenship test and become naturalized United States citizens. At one point during the drive, Einstein, in the front seat, turned to Gödel in the back and asked – knowing about Gödel’s concerns – “Now, Gödel, are you really well prepared for this examination?” According to Morgenstern, Einstein’s purpose in asking this was to rattle Gödel, whose reaction amused him.

At the courthouse, witnesses would normally remain outside of the room during a citizenship examination, but because Einstein, a celebrity, was involved, and because the judge, Phillip Forman, had administered the oath of citizenship to Einstein, all three men were invited in. In the course of the examination, Forman asked Gödel what the government of Austria was, to which he replied: “It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship.” The judge commented that this could not happen in the U.S., and Gödel responded “Oh, yes, I can prove it”, but the judge declined to pursue the matter.

Since the exact nature of Gödel’s Loophole has never been published, what it is, precisely, is not known. In a 2012 paper, “Gödel’s Loophole”, F. E. Guerra-Pujol speculates that the problem involves Article V, which describes the process by which the Constitution can be amended. The loophole is that Article V’s procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a “downward” direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future. So even if, as is now the case, amending the Constitution is difficult to bring about, once Article V is downwardly amended, the next attempt to do so will be easier, and the one after that easier still

Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other aspects of the Constitution in mind as well, including the abuse of gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and the presidential pardon.

I don’t know if it qualifies, but a rogue Supreme Court giving the president immunity from prosecution so he can order the military to kill or jail his opponents and then pardon the perpetrators seems like quite a loophole to me.

Sitting next to his son Barron, Donald Trump claims that President Biden is “quitting the race."

"Now we have Kamala. She’s so f—king bad.”

Unfit for office. pic.twitter.com/U9c3fV2jCA

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 4, 2024

He seems depressed. Meanwhile, here’s more of the GOPs ballot rigging:

President Joe Biden’s Democratic allies could get a boost to keep him on the ticket from some unlikely partners: Republicans.

Led by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, Republicans are currently looking to guarantee that Biden will be the Democratic nominee — and to make it so that, if Biden withdraws, it won’t be easy to replace him on ballots.

While Biden’s campaign insists he has no plans to drop out, Republicans are gearing up for any and all possibilities. They’ve been preparing for this moment for quite some time.

About four months ago, after special counsel Robert Hur’s report raised more concerns about Biden’s health, staffers at Heritage’s Oversight Project started researching laws in states across the country for replacing a nominee. They laid out just how difficult it would be for Democrats to replace Biden in key swing states in a memo that was compiled in early April and released last week ahead of the debate.

“If the Biden family decides that President Biden will not run for re-election, the mechanisms for replacing him on ballots vary by state,” reads the memo. “There is the potential for pre-election litigation in some states that would make the process difficult and perhaps unsuccessful.”

The upshot was that replacing Biden on the ticket would be “extraordinarily difficult” and that “we would make it extraordinarily difficult,” Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell, who authored the memo, told NOTUS this week.

These are the people who scream “election interference” at every turn.

I don’t doubt they will do this and I assume the Democrats are holding all nighters in every state to determine if it’s possible.

We had some progress. We’re going backwards.

“Democrats have no spine”

A month ago, I asked, “Who would you rather have watching your back, lackadaisical voter? Dick Durbin or Rocky Balboa?” When Democrats panic at the first sign of trouble, Ms. or Mr. Independent has got to question whether they have what it takes to lead the country.

Granted, Republicans still scare-monger about communists and Marxists, etc., decades after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Ms. or Mr. Independent might insist that if they want to lead this country in the 21st century they might first try living in it.

That said, steadfastness is not one of Democrats’ strong points. Hell, I don’t have warm fuzzies about voting for us right now. And I’m not the only one to observe that Democrats running around with their hair on fire over Joe Biden’s debate performance last week is a lousy advertisement for any of their candidates.

Self-doubts and timidity are not confidence-inspiring. One need not be particularly savvy to know that. Stuart Stevens made the case to MSNBC that Democrats need to start projecting strength and quit the public second-guessing.

.@stuartpstevens argues that numerous Republicans have won their races because of the timidity of the Democratic Party. The American public support President Biden and his commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and it's time to for Democrats to act with confidence. pic.twitter.com/IE345950RZ

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) July 3, 2024

American University’s Allan Lichtman tells CNN, “Debates are not predictors of outcomes.”

Lichtman continues, “The same pundits and pollsters who led us down the primrose path in 2016 are giving Democrats horrible advice.” Which leads him to observe, “Republicans have no principles, Democrats have no spine.”

American University's @AllanLichtman: "Debates are not predictors of outcomes."
"the same pundits and pollsters who led us down the primrose path in 2016 are giving Democrats bad advice."
"Republicans have no principles, Democrats have no spine." pic.twitter.com/x6ioaywuVZ

— Resolute Square (@ResoluteSquare) July 3, 2024

Biden’s debate performance may not matter anymore. I missed the Axios post-debate reporting (based on anonymous White House sources) that Biden is “dependably engaged” principally between 10am and 4pm. He might not be able to fight both Trump and this rabid media, as well as his own easily shaken party members.

Even as the Biden campaign and the DNC insist that there is no alternative to Biden, NBC reports that “as the party’s rules stand now, according to three people who are familiar with them and the DNC’s 2022 document outlining procedures for the convention, there is a process for replacing Biden if he voluntarily chooses to step aside after the convention ends on Aug. 22.”

Multiple pundits suggest that the only viable alternative is Kamala Harris. Marcy Wheeler dismisses for multiple reasons the idea of Biden resigning and making Harris the 47th president. (I admit the idea that it would immediately render obsolete all the MAGA merch with 47 on it makes me gleeful.) A Republican-controlled House might refuse to confirm a replacement VP for President Harris. And then?

Harris as sitting VP

…may not have a big portfolio on most days. But she does on [January 6] that, recent history warns us, is a fragile moment of our democracy. Certainly, it’s possible Democrats could convince Republicans to let Patty Murray do that job, as Chuck Grassley was prepared to do back in 2021.

But the bigger problem is the target you would put on Kamala Harris’ back if she became a President, running for re-election, without a Vice President as her designated successor. Trump has already made it clear he plans to return to power by any means necessary. Trump has already spent years frothing up his followers to a frenzy that could (and has) tipped into violence with little notice. 

But all the “can’t win” speculation takes focus away from the truly horrifying SCOTUS decision favoring a man-child who would be king. And it’s a sorry advertisement for Democrat’s ability to lead. Biden seems determined to weather the storm or else to run out the clock on his stepping aside.

Frankly, I’ll take Biden over Trump even if I get him only between 10am and 4pm. But campaigning hours run longer. Much longer.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address

March 4, 1865:

“Fellow countrymen: at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends is as well known to the public as to myself and it is I trust reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

“On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it ~ all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place devoted altogether to saving the Union without war insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war ~ seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’

“With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Eleven years ago at Crooks & Liars:

The Republican Party is acting out one of those dreary murder ballads with America. You know the ones, where the rejected suitor declares, “If I can’t have you, then no one can!” Then he murders the woman to put her out of his misery.

Lincoln knew the type.

For all their patriotic bluster, the tea party dresses like colonists and acts like royalists. They’re more Tory than tea party. And they vote that way.

Historians estimate that perhaps only 20 percent of the King’s loyal supporters emigrated from the United States after the British lost the war. The rest stayed.

Two hundred-plus years later, their children are still with us. They have found a home in the Republican Party. It’s where corporations can order custom-tailored legislation and where a tradesman can dream that if he emulates his betters – or wins the lottery – he might find acceptance among them. Or failing that, maybe touch the hem of their garments as they pass.

As Lincoln observed of the slave states in his 1860 Cooper Union Address, the royalist faction will not be satisfied. Democratic coexistence is no longer enough. They want to rule. These Americans(?), Christian royalists, pine for an aristocracy and for a king — an earthly one now, seeing Jesus is 2,000 years tardy. Thus, the Roberts Court’s conservative majority on Monday granted them an imperial presidency. They declare their intent to destroy the republic without war in a “second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless” so long as Americans still dedicated to the proposition that all persons are created equal do not resist.

Resist the f#&k up.

On Independence Day 2024, God save these United States.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Montage of 33 clips of the stupidest, most vile, insane, weirdest, addled dementia-ridden, psychotic statements made by Trump over the past two weeks. pic.twitter.com/iCbt5PtzBX

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 30, 2023

Perhaps this deserved to be higher up than the 20th paragraph of the lede story in @nytimes: pic.twitter.com/LXBMNePB01

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) July 2, 2024

Aaaaand this from someone who has been leading the piranha press pack:

That’s where we are right now folks. I just don’t think Biden in his weakened condition can fight both Trump and this rabid media and win. One hope now is that if he drops out that the press will feel at least slightly chagrined and will turn the same laser focus on Trump’s unfitness. I’m not holding my breath.

They are applying “the cackle” to Kamala Harris already. It was a common description of Hillary Clinton. And it wasn’t Republicans who came up with it.

From 2008:

This just in: Hillary Clinton has been laughing a lot lately. Yes, it’s true — a candidate long accused of being cold and unappealing has taken to emitting a hearty chuckle in public, and on the airwaves. We hope you were sitting down for that one.

Actually, in this highly-monitored campaign, the decisions of its most-disciplined and most-focus-grouped candidate are news, and the Hillary Laugh Tactic has been noticeable. Jon Stewart picked up on it in earlier this week, splicing laugh segments together (in a way that, let’s be honest, would make anyone appear manic), but it certainly set up the punchline: Jon fixing the camera with an intense, humorless gaze and saying “I’M JOYFUL.” Frank Rich noted it too: “Now Mrs. Clinton is erupting in a laugh with all the spontaneity of an alarm clock buzzer.” And then, of course, there was The Cackle.

NYT reporter Patrick Healy is an expert on The Cackle. He’s been observing it carefully since January 2005, he tells us right off the bat. In the middle of heated press questioning, “suddenly it happened: Mrs. Clinton let loose a hearty belly laugh that lasted a few seconds…This was my first close encounter with Senator Clinton, and with The Cackle.” This reads with all the slow-building horror of a B-movie Professor explaining to his save-the-world student how he first came face to face with Evil, and learned to name it.

“Friends of hers told a different story,” says Healy, that she actually had a “fantastic sense of humor.” (Well, they would say that, but Healy can see through them.) Then there’s this:

Mrs. Clinton goes for the lowest-common-denominator display of her funny bone: She shows that she can laugh, and that her laugh has a fullness and depth.

Oh, you — you with your laugh of fullness and depth — we’re on to you. Go back to the gutter you crawled out of, lowlife.

Seriously. What IS this? This article was deemed significant enough by the NYT to publish not once, but twice, under two separate headlines and two separate dates (Sept. 28th on the web, graduating to Sept.30th in the paper). But when I look at it, I see a hit piece masquerading as analysis. Why? “The Cackle.”

If Harris becomes the nominee or is simply seen as the shadow president going forward since the concerns about Biden are so acute this is the type of thing that’s going to happen to her. Trump will do it, of course. But the media will help.