Trump Should Stick With The Original Plan

Per AP:

Donald Trump says he is pulling out of a scheduled September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on ABC and wants them to face off on Fox News, making it increasingly unlikely that the candidates will confront each other on stage before the November election.

Harris is calling Trump chicken, which is neither unexpected nor unfair.

On the other hand, instead of "pulling out" of the ABC debate, Trump should have simply announced (and should issue a correction announcing) that he will happily take part in the scheduled ABC event, if his agreed opponent -- Joe Biden -- shows up.

If I schedule a game of tennis with you, I'm not agreeing to play against your next-door neighbor's nephew's girlfriend's cousin if you back out. Your next-door-neighbor's nephew's girlfriend's cousin is going to have to come to a different scheduling/venue agreement with me if she wants a game (no, I don't actually play tennis).

The Biden Updates Today Include ...

NBC News: Biden's family starts discussing his possible exit plan from the 2024 race

Members of President Joe Biden’s family have discussed what an exit from his campaign might look like, according to two people familiar with the discussions.  ... White House spokesman Andrew Bates denied that any such exit discussions are happening among the family.

New York Times: Vice President Kamala Harris to Speak With Major Democratic Donors

Vice President Kamala Harris is set to address a network of major Democratic donors on short notice Friday afternoon, according to two people invited to the call. ... It is unclear whether Ms. Harris plans to encourage the restive donor base to calm down or to deliver some other message. A campaign official who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter said Ms. Harris was joining the call at the request of the White House.

Are either of the stories true? I don't know. They're obviously leaked/planted, but the questions are by whom and for what purpose? They could be "official" leaks/plants, intended to pave the way for  and soften the blow of a drop-out, or they could be "unofficial" leaks/plants, intended to encourage a drop-out.

I strongly suspec the former. But as always, I could be wrong.

 

He Is Not A Fat Lady ...

... but WaPo reports he is singing:

Former president Barack Obama has told allies in recent days that President Biden’s path to victory has greatly diminished and he thinks the president needs to seriously consider the viability of his candidacy, according to multiple people briefed on his thinking. ... Behind the scenes, Obama has been deeply engaged in conversations about the future of Biden’s campaign, taking calls from many anxious Democrats, including former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and has shared his views about the president’s challenges, according to people with knowledge of the calls, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. A spokesperson for Obama declined to comment.

As I've previously stated, I think the maximum impact/benefit would come from Biden announcing his withdrawal/endorsement right about the time Donald Trump walks onto the Republican National Convention stage to accept the GOP presidential nomination this evening. But Friday, or even Saturday, would also be reasonable when it comes to minimizing or eliminating any post-convention "Trump bump" in the news cycle and in polling.

I've Got A Gut Feeling ...

... about this.

But my gut is unclear on the matter. Top two possibilities:

1. We will hear soon that, after a "meeting with advisors" under cover of the COVID-19 claim, Biden has reluctantly decided to withdraw from the presidential race; or
2. We will hear soon that Biden has tragically succumbed to COVID-19, which IMHO would more likely be the American equivalent of the Russian "accidental fall from a window" than the truth.

Wait ... "Only?"

Axios reports on an AP/NORC poll:

Overall, 70% of U.S. voters* want Biden to withdraw from the 2024 race, while only 57% want to see former President Trump withdraw.

Emphasis mine.

In what universe is 57% an "only" kind of number? I could see using "only" next to 5%, maybe even 10%, but not 57%.

* Contra the Axios reportage, the poll is not a poll of "voters." It's based on data collected from "a bi-monthly multi-client survey using NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population ... with adults aged 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia." Only (cough) 86% of the respondents claim to be registered to vote.

When You've Lost George Clooney ...

Per The Hill:

Last month, Clooney joined former President Obama and actor Julia Roberts for a buzzy and record-breaking Los Angeles fundraiser for Biden’s campaign. The event raised $30 million.

This month, though ...

It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe 'big F-ing deal' Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate .... We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won't win the House, and we're going to lose the Senate.

I just can't see anything coming up for Biden except his drop-out. And I expect it to come between July 15 and July 18, specifically to steal the spotlight from Trump and the Republican National Convention.

Election 2024: The Money's Already Moving Elsewhere

Per NYT:

After several days of quiet griping and hoping that President Biden would abandon his re-election campaign on his own, many wealthy Democratic donors are trying to take matters into their own hands. ... A group of them is working to raise as much as $100 million for a sort of escrow fund, called the Next Generation PAC, that would be used to support a replacement candidate. ... Other donors are threatening to withhold contributions not only from Mr. Biden but also from other Democratic groups unless Mr. Biden bows out.

The authors (Kenneth P. Vogel, Theodore Schleifer, & Lauren Hirsch) aren't just speculating. They have the receipts, actual quotes from actual big money donors saying "nope, not this time, not for that guy."

Bill Kristol, with whom I seldom agree on much, opens his Friday musings at The Bulwark with "When, a week from now, President Biden will have withdrawn as a candidate for reelection ..."

My take:

Biden's scheduled for an interview with George Stephanopoulos today, to air on ABC at 8pm Eastern. Quite a few people think (and I agree) that the interview is his "last stand."

I don't expect him to announce his retirement in that interview, but I won't be terribly surprised if he does so either.

I expect that he'll wait to see whether the interview plays well enough with the public to get him back in the game.

I also expect that it will not, and that Kristol is right ... but perhaps a little off on the timing.

The Democrats are holding an early "virtual nomination" instead of waiting until their formal national convention (August 19-22).

Fox News suggests July 21 as the magic date for that nomination vote to be held. Biden needs to do the dropout/endorsement before the vote.

The Republican National Convention is schedule for July 15-18.

If I was a DNC strategist, I'd arrange for Biden to "address the nation" with his dropout/endorsement about the time I expect Donald J. Trump to walk on stage to accept the GOP nomination.

That would give the DNC a couple of days to complete preparations for a virtual nomination vote that doesn't include Biden and does include his endorsed replacement.

It would give the Democrats a month to build up to a huge beauty pageant / rally for the replacement (if I was betting, my money would on Michelle Obama, but I'm FAR from certain enough to bet on it at all -- they might pull a gigantic brain fart and go for Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom) at the physical convention.

And it would steal a crap ton of thunder from the GOP in general and Trump in particular.

But, as always, I could be wrong.

It's Not Very Often I Get to Say Something Nice about Biden OR Trump, Let Alone Biden AND Trump ...

... so let us enjoy the rare occasion!

Per The Hill:

President Biden and former President Trump dealt a major blow to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) on Wednesday, calling into question the usefulness of the organization moving forward.

Biden’s campaign informed the commission it would work directly with news organizations to arrange two debates this summer with Trump, who quickly accepted his rival’s proposal. 

The development raised the possibility that the commission, which has handled presidential debates each cycle dating back to 1988, may fade into irrelevance after 2024. 

I'm not sure that whatever replaces the CPD will be any better about including non-duopoly candidates, but it isn't likely to be any worse. Great job, guys.

Election 2024: Two States That Are Going to Deserve Attention

In 2020, Donald Trump carried North Carolina ... barely. He pulled 49.93% of the vote to Joe Biden's 48.59%.

The third party, independent, and write-in vote totaled 1.48% of the vote, more or less "covering the spread" between the two.

Trump over-performed versus his polling.  In fact, every poll listed at 538 that collected data into November had Biden up by anywhere from 1% to 6%.

So, what's it look like for 2024?

Well, almost every poll listed at 538 (the last one was in December) has Trump up on Biden by a substantial margin, even with RFK Jr.  included.

BUT!

At the moment, it looks like RFK Jr. will be in the race -- North Carolina is one of the states where he's creating a "We the People" party for ballot access purposes (apparently it's easier to get on the ballot there with a party than as an independent).

Another of those states is Texas, which Trump carried by a larger margin than North Carolina, but a smaller margin than you might guess -- 5.58%, with the third party and write-in vote coming in at 1.46%, nowhere near "covering the spread."

If Kennedy does fairly well in those states -- even, say, 5% -- and if the polling indicating that more of his votes come from people who would support Trump than Biden in a two-way contest without Kennedy in the mix is correct, then Democrats have an excellent shot at North Carolina's 15 electoral votes and at least a plausible shot at Texas's 38 electoral votes.

Election 2016: Prediction Market Musings

As I mentioned awhile back (not worth looking up to link), I've invested a whopping $10 in the PredictIt "prediction market" on two sets of shares. I bought:

• 100 shares of "Joe Biden wins the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination" at five cents per share; and
• 250 shares of "Joe Biden wins the 2016 US presidential election" at two cents per share.

The price of those shares as reflected in trading at PredictIt has been swinging back and forth -- their prospective total sale value has been up or down by as much as $5 since buying them. As I write this, the most recent trade of Biden for the nomination was at eight cents per share, Biden for president at two cents.

For obvious reasons, I'll be watching those shares on Monday night.

Shares of "Hillary Clinton wins the Iowa caucus" are currently trading at 66 cents, "Bernie Sanders to win the Iowa caucus" at 40 cents. Biden's at one cent per share there and I wouldn't buy at that price.

If Clinton loses, or even just barely edges Sanders out, I expect a big boom on "Biden for  the nomination" shares and a smaller one on Biden in the general election. Especially so if "uncommitted" (which is not listed as a share option on PredictIt) does well.

I'm liking my chances pretty well on that proposition.  And at that point, it would be gut check time. I would have to decide whether to sell out or to hold on. If I keep those shares and Biden wins the nomination and the election, my $10 investment will have become $350. If I keep them and he wins neither, I lost ten bucks.

Of course, I could see both shares dip to effectively zero very early. For example, if Clinton unexpectedly routs Sanders really badly in Iowa, and manages to parlay that win into a New Hampshire comeback/upset. But I'm not expecting either of those things.

Election 2016: Is Biden (Not) in it ... to Win it?

Vice president Joe Biden declined to enter the race for his party's 2016 presidential nomination. But, as WaPo's James Hohmann points out, he remains a "factor" in that race. He's subtly supporting Bernie Sanders and not-so-subtly slamming Hillary Clinton.

Could he be the 2016 Democratic nominee after all? I think he could. His path is narrow, but it's not non-existent.

My understanding is that he doesn't have to declare his candidacy in order to receive support in the Iowa caucus. And even if he did have to, there's also the "uncommitted" option for caucus participants.

Now suppose that Biden -- or "uncommitted" -- performs competitively in the caucus.

And suppose that, while Biden is too late to get on most (maybe even all) primary ballots, he consents, "under pressure" from a Draft Biden campaign, to be a write-in option.

The Democrats use a proportional delegate allocation system. Biden wouldn't have to WIN any states to rack up delegates.

Furthermore, at present, 371 of the Democratic Party's 713 "super-delegates" remain uncommitted, and the rest are free to change their minds any time.  If my math is right, and I think it is, the "super-delegates" constitute about 16% of the total delegate count. And my guess is that Biden says "OK, OK, Hillary is a train wreck and Bernie can't win the general election, quit twisting my arm, I'll do it," he'll have most of THOSE delegates in his pocket.

Which means there's every chance that Biden could come to the 2016 Democratic national convention "undeclared," but with delegates, and that that convention could in fact have no candidate with a first-ballot majority in her or his grasp.

If the party establishment has to do the brokered convention thing, Biden's the odds-on favorite to come out of that convention as the Democratic nominee.

You may not have read that here first, but you did read it here.

Random Election 2016 Thoughts (Clinton and Bush)

Hillary's done for all intents and purposes. Once Biden jumps in, she will slide to a distant third place behind him and Sanders, and maybe even down into O'Malley/Webb/Chafee 1% territory.

But she's never gone gracefully, and never has Bill. Every scandal, they start by denying it, then grudgingly admit it but say there was nothing wrong with it, then say they "take responsibility" but still pretend they didn't really do anything wrong, then pout when there are consequences. Obama beat her in 11 straight primaries in 2008 and she still waited to concede while her gang talked up the possibility of breaking the Democratic national convention and pulling out a win. She'll drag it out, at the expense of her party's chances of holding the White House, taking back a Senate majority, and gaining seats in the House.

Her stubbornness in the face of defeat (not the possibility of defeat, actual defeat) is one of her problems. The other two are related:

• Nobody likes her; and
• Nobody trusts her.

At least nobody who hasn't been on her payroll forever. The left Democrats don't like her because she's a centrist. The conservative Democrats don't like her because she's a centrist. The centrist Democrats don't like her because she makes centrists look bad.

Nobody trusts her because she lies like a rug, thinks she's above the law, acts surprised when she's told that's not the case, and is sort of like Mitt Romney when it comes to actually taking a position on anything -- she is always saying whatever she thinks people want to hear, except when it means saying she was wrong or she's sorry.

Yes, she raised big money at the beginning of her campaign, but that was because the big money Democratic donors bought the trademark Clinton "inevitability" hype. Now they're noticing it was BS and looking for another horse to back; that's a fourth problem.

Which brings us to Jeb Bush, who has two of the same four problems.

Bush isn't really unlikable. Watch him some time. He's sort of modest, self-effacing, wonkish. Those qualities may not make for a great candidate when you've got a self-promoter like Donald Trump blocking your path to the White House, but he doesn't personally make my gorge rise like Clinton does.

Nor is he likely to prove as stubborn, to the detriment of his party, as Clinton. When and if he reaches a point where it's clear he isn't going to get the GOP's nomination, he'll pack it in, endorse another candidate, and soldier on for the party. I do predict that he won't do so until after the New Hampshire primary at the soonest, though, and then only if Kasich or Christie is the one pulling ahead, or likely to do so on the strength of his endorsement. If one of the "not a chance in hell of winning the general election" candidates (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, et. al) is still surging, he may stay in on the reasonable supposition that that is what's best for his party.

He does have a similar trust problem -- because of his last name, his brother's disastrous presidency and his father's tendency to go weak-kneed as president when pushed by Democrats in Congress.

And he does have the problem that the big money he raised as "inevitable" has probably dried up (3rd quarter FEC reports aren't due for nearly a month) based on him being back in the pack so far.

But his prospects are far better than Clinton's, because he at least has prospects. Hillary Clinton will never be president.

A Thought on Joe Biden's Presidential Announcement Timing

As mentioned elsewhere here at KN@PPSTER, I expected US vice-president Joe Biden to announce his candidacy for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination no later than mid-September. I still expect him to jump in, and so do others (as you'll find if you do a little Googling or keep an eye on memeorandum).

It just occurred to me why he may be waiting until "the last minute" (the end of this month or, at latest, early October):

Biden is described as a "devout Catholic," and he and his wife were on hand to greet Pope Francis, in their capacities as vice-president and "second lady," when he arrived for his visit this week. Since the vice-president also presides over the US Senate, Biden will presumably be a prominent figure as the Pope addresses a joint session of Congress (the first time a Pope has ever done so).

If he had announced his candidacy already, he would likely be seen as exploiting the Holy Father's visit as a  "campaign event." Similarly, he's unlikely to announce his candidacy while Pope Francis is still in the US, because that would look like he was using the Pope as a campaign kickoff prop. He would offend Catholics who felt like he was using them, and he would offend anti-Catholics who don't like the idea of Rome playing a part in US politics.

On the other hand, if he waits until the Pope leaves, he will largely avoid those two pitfalls AND he will be announcing right after a week in which he's been unusually prominent (for and as a veep) BECAUSE of the papal visit.

My First Major Election 2016 Prediction Flub?

On August 25th, I predicted that Joe Biden would announce his candidacy for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination on or before September 15th.

It's September 15th, and I haven't heard anything portending an announcement today, so it looks like I missed on that one.

On the other hand, Biden met with one of his boss's top campaign finance "bundlers" over the weekend, during a trip to New York City that looked a lot like a campaign outing. So I may not have been too far off the mark.

I still think he's going to go for it.

Election 2016 Prediction: Biden Throws In

Three predictions, actually:

• US Vice President Joe Biden will formally announce his intention to seek the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination no later than September 15, 2015.
• In terms of campaign strategy, his overt game plan will be to concentrate on the third contest, South Carolina. He's had a personal presence and cultivated many friendships there for a long time. At the moment, Hillary Clinton seems to have Iowa fairly well locked down, but Bernie Sanders will do fairly well there and may well pull a Eugene McCarthy type near-win versus, or even beat, Clinton in New Hampshire. Sanders won't play that well in the south. Biden will be a sitting vice president, up against a wild card (Sanders) and a wounded opponent (Clinton). He'll come out of South Carolina as the one to beat.
• BUT: All bets will be off well before the Iowa caucus. More, and more damaging, information will come out about Clinton's secret email server, mishandling of classified information, etc. before then. She's probably too stubborn to drop out (see the 2008 primaries for confirmation of that), but her campaign will effectively be over by some time in November at the latest. If Biden has the money and the organization, he'll have to decide whether to let Sanders gain momentum from whipping Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire or contest those races himself. Whatever else he may be, Biden is a smart politician, and he's already thinking this angle through.

Looks Like Biden's Running

From the New York Times last night:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

What does that have to do with whether or not Joe Biden intends to run for president?

Well, the relationship between the Obamas and the Clintons has always been -- to put it mildly -- strained.

There are all kinds of reasons why. The Clintons resent the righteous ass-whipping Obama handed Hillary in the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Obamas resent the fact that the Clintons remained enough of a force in the Democratic Party that they had to give her pretty much whatever she wanted, which turned out to be her train wreck tenure as Secretary of State. And so on, and so forth.

So anyway, it's comeuppance time. Obama has no intention of letting Clinton follow him as president. He doesn't want his fingerprints to be too visible on her downfall, but neither does he want to wait and let the Republicans take credit for pushing him into appointing a special prosecutor (especially to the extent that they would tie the whole thing into the Benghazi attack).

He also wants to avoid a mud-wrestling match between Clinton and his preferred candidate, but to keep things moving fast so that there's no time for someone else to move into "front-runner" position after Clinton goes down and before that preferred candidate announces. Biden is reportedly planning an announcement soon. The time to get this over with is right about now.

Enter the executive branch. The State Department and the "intelligence community" are asking for a criminal investigation. Shortly, the Department of Justice will, more in sorrow than anger, announce that it's conducting that investigation.

By the time Biden announces, Clinton will either have exited the stage or obviously be in the process of doing so (depending on just how much public humiliation she is willing to suffer in an attempt to remain relevant).

Elizabeth Warren Waxes Reasonably Shermanesque

"No. I'm not running and I’m not going to run."

I suppose there's a tiny sliver of a chance that she'll change her tune when it becomes obvious that Hillary Clinton isn't going to be the next president, or even the next Democratic nominee for president.

But I'd say that tiny sliver is very tiny, because the last couple of weeks would have been the perfect time for a prominent Democrat to display some leadership and say that out loud. Maybe she doesn't want to be the one to say it and is waiting for someone else to. But I'm guessing she just doesn't want to run this time.

So, who will the Democrats go with?

True, at this point, it looks like they could win with just about anyone other than Richard Milhous Nix ... er, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But things can change, and in a race that gets closer I just don't see the two big names getting thrown around other than Warren's -- vice-president Joe Biden and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley -- as strong candidates.

If I were the Democrats, I'd be looking at Jim Webb for president. And if I was Jim Webb, I'd be looking at Russ Feingold for veep.

Some of their best friends are gay

Quoth AllahPundit (hat tip -- Little Miss Attila):

What does a president get from a gay audience when he's publicly against gay marriage, unwilling to take bold action to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," and so terrified of the political consequences of challenging the Defense of Marriage Act that he'll actually defend it in court? Why, he gets "thunderous applause," of course — if he's a Democrat.

And his veep? Six figures for the DNC war chest, baby.

Question for my LGBTQ friends who keep voting for Democratic candidates and writing checks to the Democratic Party and waiting/hoping for the payoff: How's that working out for you?



There's a better way of going at this.

McCain: Good instincts, bad form, no cigar

If you're shaking your head in disbelief at the McCain campaign's feigned outrage over the Obama "lipstick on a pig" remark, I don't blame you. It's at least as desperate as it sounds, but not quite as stupid. Here's why:

Until right before the GOP convention, it was obvious that the only way John McCain could win this election was to relentlessly slag Barack Obama and hope like hell nobody looked too closely at John McCain.

Which, all in all, makes for a bummer of a campaign and a presidency that's busted from the beginning because it is -- much as I hate the word -- "polarizing." The new president comes into office with a large plurality, maybe even a majority, of Americans not just having voted for the other guy, but hating the new president's guts.

Whatever else you believe, believe this: McCain wants to be President of the United States, not President of the Republican Party Faithful. Like him or not -- like it or not (and sometimes it's an ugly marriage of the worst of both "major" parties) -- he actually does have a record of "reaching across the aisle." He actually does want to bring the country together. And he wants to continue that record as president instead of spending four or eight years burning in a George W. Bush style hell.

Obama was running the table, though. He had already pegged a McCain presidency as "eight more years of George W. Bush" and was pressing the theme effectively. The race, which had been leaning hard Democrat anyway, was quickly developing into a Reagan-Mondale 1984 scenario in partisan reverse.

So, time for Plan B. Sarah Palin was supposed to be a "game changer" for McCain. She was supposed to provide a point of positive focus so that McCain's campaign could safely, and at least partially, be about something, anything other than just slagging Barack Obama. She was supposed to bring the GOP's social conservative bloc and forlorn "libertarian" [sic] fringe into the circle of McCain's moderate happy dance.¹ And women ... she was supposed to be a candidate for whom Julia and Suzanne Sugarbaker could both swoon. And she was supposed to be able to get away with kicking Barack Obama in the nuts, because you don't slap a woman across the room even for that, at least not if you want to get elected president.

Unfortunately, Palin degenerated into a hot mess in record time. Her schtick was fun for about five minutes, and then pesky irrelevancies like her actual record started horning in and crushing the buzz. At this point, the only beneficiaries of her nomination are Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dan Quayle, who finally gets to hand off the "Stupidest Republican VP Idea Ever" tiara and retire.

Hint: The reason she's refusing interviews is that every interview she doesn't refuse will shave half a percentage point off of McCain's November 4th total.

So, McCain's back to Plan A: Slag Barack. And in the process, consign Palin to the role of pretty lil' thing tied to the railroad tracks ... and gagged, so she doesn't have any lines to blow.

Obviously a desperation move, and one that just ain't gonna work. By November, I'll be surprised if dragging out Dorothy Parker's old zinger² on Palin even raises an eyebrow.

-----
NOTES

1. Not that either faction needed to be dragged in. They've been looking for excuses to support McCain since he wrapped up the GOP nomination, and they'd have found those excuses before November without the Palin pick.

2. Sigh ... if you must know and are too lazy to Google it ... Querent: "Construct a sentence using the word 'horticulture.'" Parker: "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."