She'd never agree to it. She hates politics and has a very nice life outside of it: expensive mansions, celebrity friends, annual Hawaiian Christmas vacations:
Why would she give that up for a high-demand job she hates and is unqualified for? The only reason DJT ran the first time was as a publicity stunt, and afterwards to stay out of prison, and ahead of his creditors.
If you actually believe this horseshit, you're too young to be posting on Substack. He's been running for president as a publicity stunt for decades before '16, hence why he had no speech prepared for when he won. He never expected to need one.
He never expected to win?? That’s why he went on exhausting tour of country trying to get every vote possible in early November 2016. TDS is very real. Grow up.
Because he wanted to get a jillion-dollar TV deal from Fox or whoever else would pay him a lot of money for being a political TV star. He'd gotten more attention running for president than anything he'd ever done. He figured he'd be the biggest star on TV. Not stuck in a real job with actual responsibilities. Hence why, and Trumptards have yet to rebut this, HE HAD NO ACCEPTANCE SPEECH PREPARED FOR HIS VICTORY. Howard Stern wasn't bullshitting. Trump wanted Hillary to win and himself to be a TV star. It was the Bialistock scam in real life, and it failed the same way.
It's not gonna be Michelle. She has one of the nicest lives of anybody in the country, and has always hated politics. There's a better chance the Dems'll nominate Kid Rock.
Steve has mentioned in the past that Michelle has always been struggling to seem more feminine. She could've been a WNBA player and has a manly physique. The presidency would make it harder to seem like a lady with the pantsuits and all.
Right, Michelle comes from a family of giants. Her power forward brother was Ivy League Player of the Year twice. So she wound up with the family shoulders, but she definitely feels like a girl on the inside.
Michelle Obama has never once indicated that she has any interest in the presidency or politics in general. She is remarkably thin skinned, and has basically never had a job. There's some kind of weird obsession with her being the president among those on the right that is borne more out of an enduring hatred of Barack than anything having to do with reality.
I'd explain it this way: Barack Obama himself was highly implausible in the 2000s, given what people thought they knew about the USA. The entire Barack Obama phenomenon felt lifted from some movie-script, surreal, not plausible. The Michelle Obama "conspiracy" carries over that same energy.
The implausibility of Obama, a complete non-entity, being ushered up to the presidency out of nowhere, also explains the "birth certificate movement." (I I often like to remind people, is how Donald Trump got his start in active politics, when he came out in favor of the "birth certificate is fraudulent" side in 2011; previously no one had thought Trump at all a political-commentator, sporadic barstool-type remarks notwithstanding. To a larger extent, the Trump phenomenon could be called an indirect product of the Obama phenomenon.)
By the way ---- this summer is twenty years past the debut of Barack Obama himself on the national stage. It was arranged for him, a no-name nobody people thought was an immigrant Wunderkind out of Egypt, based on his looks, to give the DNC keynote address, late-July 2004. Within about two years, Barack was actively campaigning for president.
When that anniversary comes around, we hope that Steve Sailer delivers some fitting retrospective: "Twenty Years of Obama: Sailer's synopsis."
Barack was an extremely plausible candidate. An improbable candidate? Sure! How many other Luo, Hawaiian-born prep-school attendees with Indonesian stepfathers even exist? But he was:
* Tall
* Dark
* Handsome
* Black
* High IQ
* Harvard graduate, magna cum laude
* Senator
* No big public scandal with his personal life
The moment he ran, the only question was whether he picked too early, not whether he'd be PotUS. He had as many variables working in his favor, in his era, to be president as any candidate we've had. So much so the media was happy to confine any examination of the more sordid parts of his politics to right-wing safespaces, like the fact that his parents and his most important intellectual mentor legitimately were reactionary socialists who hated the United States and wanted the Soviets to win the Cold War. (Exactly what Obama himself believes is unclear, as he's long known many of his views are unpopular and talks and writes in a way as to maintain ambiguity, as well as also outright lying about his beliefs, like when he pretended to be against gay marriage to win elections, which worked so well it made him senator and president.)
Biden must go but Kamala Harris who is a vacuous, word salad spouting, DEI picked loser who will help the sociopath Trump be re-elected must leave as well.
The tragedy here is that Kamala is the only reason Biden decided to run for reelection. Everyone knew that she would have run and given that she’s VP and is a Sacred Black Woman no other candidate of quality would have challenged her or in the small chance they did and succeeded in beating her they would have a divided party with the woke element crying “dey wuz robbed by da racyss” and then staying home in states like GA and MI. So either way it was a no win situation. Unfortunately Biden is too senile now for the gambit to work. But the original sin here was caving to pressure in 2020 by picking this useless low IQ affirmative action Vice President instead of say Gretchen Whitmer who could have cruised to victory this year had she been the VP.
For the most part pundits either seem to think no one will mind their passing over Kamala that much because she didn’t energize Democrats or, broadly, African-Americans last time; or those who do worry about it fantasize that she can be offered a Supreme Court seat, preferably Thomas’s. I think this is true, but …
An older black woman I met when we were poll workers together, dressed to the nines every day of voting but on Election Day showed up in a decidedly pink and green outfit, including a hat with letters on it and sparkly pink and green sequined tennis shoes.
She was sweet and friendly and clearly wanted to talk about her outfit but also seemed a little pre-emptively defensive that it was “okay” for her to wear this “because there were no words on it”. (This was to my initial puzzlement, as I didn’t care what she wore and had no foreboding there was political significance to it, merely assuming she liked pink and green, Preppy handbook style.)
It emerged that she had dressed this way because these were her sorority colors - and KH she explained, had been in that same sorority.
It became obvious that this sorority generally and the fact of KH having been a member, was *really* important to her. Moreover, the fact of their both having attended an HBCU where I think many people were in Greek organizations - I see there’s a book about it, “The Divine Nine” - I believe has a significance much beyond, say, my own mother, say, having an opportunity to vote for a Pi Phi (now a DAR member lady candidate would probably earn her fanatical devotion).
Yes, this is maybe a matter of indifference to black voters generally, and to younger ones - but it has a social valence with older women who may have more influence than the media realizes. “Greeks” generally being on the wrong side of their scheme, probably renders the media oblivious or at least neglectful of this facet of black American life.
I think I saw this view expressed by Josh Barro but am not able to check that right now. It accords with a certain muscular political pragmatism, which prioritizes “reliable lefty vote“ over legal brainy-ness of the Scalia/RBG/Thomas sort. (Or fill in your preferred names - I’m not a court watcher, nor a fan of the American legal system.)
Kamala is very popular with the black women who put Biden over the top in 2020. I agree that dumping her would be politically difficult.
The elite white blabbering class that does the heavy lifting for the Democrats is not actually a very big voting bloc. Their preferences are no longer dominant like they were 20 years ago.
Actually, I think "class" is exactly the right term for them. The US is essentially fracturing into different nations while white Democrats remain a mere class. For better or for worse, Trump represents an emerging white nation. Kamala, naturally, is aligned with the black nation (despite, like Obama, not being a real African American).
Without a coherent class ideology like Orthodox Marxism, the class is subordinate to the nation. White Democrats don't even have a faith in common with their non-white fellow Democrats. They merely have a temporary alignment of interests.
This is something Republicans would be wise to ruthlessly exploit. Wherever white Democrats' class interests come into conflict with black or Hispanic national interests, Republicans should side with the blacks and Hispanics whenever politically possible. Guys like JD Vance get this. Old guard Republicans like Romney do the opposite, which only politically weakens Republicans (collectively that is; I'm sure individuals can profit from this).
The reason Republicans should side with Hispanics and blacks against the white elite class is that ultimately we can come to an understanding with other nations, but a hostile class will always seek to dominate, exploit and repress us.
For now this hostile class can collaborate with other nations to despoil heritage America, but we could easily turn the tables on them by offering more attractive arrangements to their current allies. In the long run, it may turn out that having not just a multicultural, but multinational America will finally free us to pursue our own interests again.
"The elite white blabbering class...is not actually a very big voting bloc"
See: "High-Low Coalition." Not sure if that is a Sailerism, exactly, but it has often been a subject of his writing. "High-low tag-team against the middle" is a way he's put it, with analogy to pro-wrestling.
Here is one way he put it ("Alexander Hamilton: Honorary Nonwhite," by Steve Sailer, TAKI's MAGAZINE, Feb 2016):
"A simple model that helps make much about the modern world easier to comprehend is that of a high-low tag team against the middle. As part of a time-tested strategy of divide and rule, the rich tend to push for policies and attitudes that increase identity-politics divisiveness, more immigration, more Black Lives Matter rioting, more transgender agitation, and so forth, which makes it harder for the nonrich to team up politically to promote their mutual economic interests."
Right, it's a marriage of convenience, but I think it's important to point out that it isn't a marriage of equals. At this point white Democrats are the junior partner, or very soon to be so.
Yeah I remember checking out your blog during the lockdowns. I liked it. I've thought about blogging again but this Substack setup is growing on me. It's got just enough social media functionality to serve that purpose, but it doesn't bombard you with content from narcissistic assholes like Twitter/X.
Also, Google has been putting its thumb on the scale since at least 2010. I got demonetized for something ridiculous in the run up to the midterms that year, and I know the same happened to lots of others.
I think good old personal networking is the way to go. I mean who knows who that person behind some handle is anyway? I'd rather get to know people.
Interesting takes on this subject and worthwhile reads.
My own experience (former Californians know KH and her rather time honored method of ascension within the Democrat Party) leads to the conclusion that she should make the perfect vessel for them to control.
Human hubris, always a danger when flying this close to the Sun, remains a danger worth watching.
Didn't Ford drop Rockefeller at the time mainly to shore up the GOP conservative base? I don't think people used the term RINO back in 1976, but the same dynamic was already there. Ford was seen as too moderate to the right base, and Ford barely survived a last-minute convention challenge to his nomination by the right's champion, Ronald Reagan. Dole was seen, at the time, as being solidly conservate. Rockefeller, of course, was even more suspect than Ford to the right.
That’s my recollection as well. Furthermore, most pundits later credited Dole with helping Ford *almost* win the election against incredible odds. Ford’s approval ratings were in the tank because of the Nixon pardon and a recession, and Carter was riding high after getting the nomination.
"Joe can have a good day at the second (and final) scheduled Presidential debate [in September 2024]"
Quite a lot of chatter now has it that "there will be NO second debate." The June 2024 debate was (seen as) so disastrous for Biden that there is no incentive for the Trump people to agree to the second debate at all.
There is no law requiring any debates, of course. Any performance in a hypothetical Sept 2024 debate -- short of collapsing on stage, begging for Trump's help to pull him back up from the floor, and crying on Trump's shoulder live on the air -- would benefit Biden. So, the chatter goes, Trump will refuse the second debate and let the June 2024 debate hang in the collective memory. But Trump is a narcissist and, in a mosquito-towards-the-light sense, may be unable to resist the temptation of a second debate.
If Trump does refuse a second debate, might the Biden people arrange a bold gambit of debating Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the same time-slot? Is that too wild a suggestion?
SAILER: "Gerald Ford let Nelson Rockefeller go and picked Bob Dole as his running mate in 1976"
It's interesting to recall the later appearance of Bob Dole on a presidential 'ticket,' the 1996 campaign. Bob Dole (b. July 1923) was widely seen as hopelessly old, something of a fuddy-duddy candidate. He turned 73 during that 1996 campaign. He would've been age 73-77 during his presidency. His age and his generation (of age to be in uniform for WWII) hurt him, as did 1990s prosperity, as did a vague sense that he was boring (parodied on The Simpsons 'Halloween' episode 1996, airing a week before the election, in which sinister space-aliens Kang and Kodos turn out to be using the two candidates Clinton and Dole as skin-suits in a plan to enslave humanity. Cut to near future: Homer, in a slave-gang: "Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!").
The mood in the 1990s was still that someone in his mid-70s was, no two ways about it, "old." The generational-signals at the added to this. But a big story of the following twenty or so years is that mid-seventies was no longer considered "old," more like "normal age for people in power." The Clintons aged into about the same age as Bob Dole had been in 1996, but were not derided as old (a two-term Hillary Clinton would've been president at ages 69-77; recall Bob Dole was 73 in 1996).
Joe Biden is NOT a uniquely villainous figure for demanding to hold onto power in his late-seventies and eighties, as if some aging third-world despot. He was, rather, just going with the flow.
As I wrote on Peak Stupidity recently:
____________________
"There is a "gerontocracy"-like feeling to a lot of the USA now, and not just in the presidency. A skilled observer who is effective at capturing details, like a Tom Wolfe, could really "go to town" on the subject. It's everywhere.
As if to prove my points here, Nancy Pelosi has come out in defense of Biden, when few others are doing so. Says Pelosi: "I think Joe's still got it. I mean, I'm even older than him, and look at me!" (paraphrased).
Nancy Pelosi, born March 1940 (Fauci was also b.1940); Pelosi is still a U.S. Congress member, as of today; stepped down as Speaker of the House, January 2023 (near 83rd birthday); her retirement as Speaker of the House (but not from Congress) was after twenty-or-more years at or near the top (Speaker, or Minority Leader, or like roles). Pelosi is in a safe-seat encompassing the city of San Francisco. She will be elected again in November 2024 easily. If the next one is her last term, she'll retire from Congress in January 2027, soon thereafter turning 87...
If Joe Biden is reelected, he would be 86 when he finishes his second term.
(EDIT: advances in nutrition and healthcare and other factors DO imply something like "75 is the new 60," in personal-fitness terms for most rich-country people who take care of themselves. But generationally or psychologically-politically, they're existing within far-outdated frames from the time they were age 10 to 25 or so; see Biden's occasional uses of phrases like 'segregation'.")
This is exactly spot on. Dems are worrying that previous (limited) polls have Kamala losing to Trump worse than Biden. True enough. But no longer today almost certainly. She is a better bet NOW than he is, and I don't think it's close.
The Dems should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. All of the pundits who are currently wetting their pants will immediately sing the praises of Brave Kamala, thrust into the spotlight, annointed as the Reluctant Hero for Truth and Democracy.
She may be a vapid and mediocre politician, but she will have the whole weight of the establishment pushing her over the top. The palpable relief of Dems no longer having to pretend that Biden is mentale competent will result in an outpouring of newfound admiration for Kamala and even the First Hubby (neutralizing the anti-Israeli gambit).
Draft Mischelle Obama so Barack can complete his fourth term?
She'd never agree to it. She hates politics and has a very nice life outside of it: expensive mansions, celebrity friends, annual Hawaiian Christmas vacations:
https://people.com/politics/obamas-vacation-in-hawaii-for-the-holiday/
Why would she give that up for a high-demand job she hates and is unqualified for? The only reason DJT ran the first time was as a publicity stunt, and afterwards to stay out of prison, and ahead of his creditors.
Yep. The word "draft" is appropriate here - she's not doing that of her own free will
Huh? DJT ran because he wanted to make America great again. Stop lying.
If you actually believe this horseshit, you're too young to be posting on Substack. He's been running for president as a publicity stunt for decades before '16, hence why he had no speech prepared for when he won. He never expected to need one.
He never expected to win?? That’s why he went on exhausting tour of country trying to get every vote possible in early November 2016. TDS is very real. Grow up.
Because he wanted to get a jillion-dollar TV deal from Fox or whoever else would pay him a lot of money for being a political TV star. He'd gotten more attention running for president than anything he'd ever done. He figured he'd be the biggest star on TV. Not stuck in a real job with actual responsibilities. Hence why, and Trumptards have yet to rebut this, HE HAD NO ACCEPTANCE SPEECH PREPARED FOR HIS VICTORY. Howard Stern wasn't bullshitting. Trump wanted Hillary to win and himself to be a TV star. It was the Bialistock scam in real life, and it failed the same way.
That’s also why he’s running again. You’re not very smart. Or you’re duplicitous. And Stern is a degenerate.
You skipped over Michelle
It's not gonna be Michelle. She has one of the nicest lives of anybody in the country, and has always hated politics. There's a better chance the Dems'll nominate Kid Rock.
🤭
Steve has mentioned in the past that Michelle has always been struggling to seem more feminine. She could've been a WNBA player and has a manly physique. The presidency would make it harder to seem like a lady with the pantsuits and all.
Right, Michelle comes from a family of giants. Her power forward brother was Ivy League Player of the Year twice. So she wound up with the family shoulders, but she definitely feels like a girl on the inside.
I'm sympathetic to her plight.
Michelle Obama has never once indicated that she has any interest in the presidency or politics in general. She is remarkably thin skinned, and has basically never had a job. There's some kind of weird obsession with her being the president among those on the right that is borne more out of an enduring hatred of Barack than anything having to do with reality.
You're right, Mr. Samiz.
I'd explain it this way: Barack Obama himself was highly implausible in the 2000s, given what people thought they knew about the USA. The entire Barack Obama phenomenon felt lifted from some movie-script, surreal, not plausible. The Michelle Obama "conspiracy" carries over that same energy.
The implausibility of Obama, a complete non-entity, being ushered up to the presidency out of nowhere, also explains the "birth certificate movement." (I I often like to remind people, is how Donald Trump got his start in active politics, when he came out in favor of the "birth certificate is fraudulent" side in 2011; previously no one had thought Trump at all a political-commentator, sporadic barstool-type remarks notwithstanding. To a larger extent, the Trump phenomenon could be called an indirect product of the Obama phenomenon.)
By the way ---- this summer is twenty years past the debut of Barack Obama himself on the national stage. It was arranged for him, a no-name nobody people thought was an immigrant Wunderkind out of Egypt, based on his looks, to give the DNC keynote address, late-July 2004. Within about two years, Barack was actively campaigning for president.
When that anniversary comes around, we hope that Steve Sailer delivers some fitting retrospective: "Twenty Years of Obama: Sailer's synopsis."
Barack was an extremely plausible candidate. An improbable candidate? Sure! How many other Luo, Hawaiian-born prep-school attendees with Indonesian stepfathers even exist? But he was:
* Tall
* Dark
* Handsome
* Black
* High IQ
* Harvard graduate, magna cum laude
* Senator
* No big public scandal with his personal life
The moment he ran, the only question was whether he picked too early, not whether he'd be PotUS. He had as many variables working in his favor, in his era, to be president as any candidate we've had. So much so the media was happy to confine any examination of the more sordid parts of his politics to right-wing safespaces, like the fact that his parents and his most important intellectual mentor legitimately were reactionary socialists who hated the United States and wanted the Soviets to win the Cold War. (Exactly what Obama himself believes is unclear, as he's long known many of his views are unpopular and talks and writes in a way as to maintain ambiguity, as well as also outright lying about his beliefs, like when he pretended to be against gay marriage to win elections, which worked so well it made him senator and president.)
There's people in the Democratic camp actually pushing her. It's just that she's not interested and has no reason to
Michelle likes girlish things. Right now, she has exactly the life she wanted at this point in her life.
It would be a big sacrifice for her.
Biden must go but Kamala Harris who is a vacuous, word salad spouting, DEI picked loser who will help the sociopath Trump be re-elected must leave as well.
https://860amtheanswer.com/columnists/officer-tatum/video/6617fc1de9fefd00017d08bb
The tragedy here is that Kamala is the only reason Biden decided to run for reelection. Everyone knew that she would have run and given that she’s VP and is a Sacred Black Woman no other candidate of quality would have challenged her or in the small chance they did and succeeded in beating her they would have a divided party with the woke element crying “dey wuz robbed by da racyss” and then staying home in states like GA and MI. So either way it was a no win situation. Unfortunately Biden is too senile now for the gambit to work. But the original sin here was caving to pressure in 2020 by picking this useless low IQ affirmative action Vice President instead of say Gretchen Whitmer who could have cruised to victory this year had she been the VP.
MARCVS: An excellent analysis. 👍
Despite the fact that she doesn’t look black at all.
For the most part pundits either seem to think no one will mind their passing over Kamala that much because she didn’t energize Democrats or, broadly, African-Americans last time; or those who do worry about it fantasize that she can be offered a Supreme Court seat, preferably Thomas’s. I think this is true, but …
An older black woman I met when we were poll workers together, dressed to the nines every day of voting but on Election Day showed up in a decidedly pink and green outfit, including a hat with letters on it and sparkly pink and green sequined tennis shoes.
She was sweet and friendly and clearly wanted to talk about her outfit but also seemed a little pre-emptively defensive that it was “okay” for her to wear this “because there were no words on it”. (This was to my initial puzzlement, as I didn’t care what she wore and had no foreboding there was political significance to it, merely assuming she liked pink and green, Preppy handbook style.)
It emerged that she had dressed this way because these were her sorority colors - and KH she explained, had been in that same sorority.
It became obvious that this sorority generally and the fact of KH having been a member, was *really* important to her. Moreover, the fact of their both having attended an HBCU where I think many people were in Greek organizations - I see there’s a book about it, “The Divine Nine” - I believe has a significance much beyond, say, my own mother, say, having an opportunity to vote for a Pi Phi (now a DAR member lady candidate would probably earn her fanatical devotion).
Yes, this is maybe a matter of indifference to black voters generally, and to younger ones - but it has a social valence with older women who may have more influence than the media realizes. “Greeks” generally being on the wrong side of their scheme, probably renders the media oblivious or at least neglectful of this facet of black American life.
Is there any Blue-teamer out there serious about Kamala Harris on the Supreme Court?
I think I saw this view expressed by Josh Barro but am not able to check that right now. It accords with a certain muscular political pragmatism, which prioritizes “reliable lefty vote“ over legal brainy-ness of the Scalia/RBG/Thomas sort. (Or fill in your preferred names - I’m not a court watcher, nor a fan of the American legal system.)
Kamala is very popular with the black women who put Biden over the top in 2020. I agree that dumping her would be politically difficult.
The elite white blabbering class that does the heavy lifting for the Democrats is not actually a very big voting bloc. Their preferences are no longer dominant like they were 20 years ago.
Actually, I think "class" is exactly the right term for them. The US is essentially fracturing into different nations while white Democrats remain a mere class. For better or for worse, Trump represents an emerging white nation. Kamala, naturally, is aligned with the black nation (despite, like Obama, not being a real African American).
Without a coherent class ideology like Orthodox Marxism, the class is subordinate to the nation. White Democrats don't even have a faith in common with their non-white fellow Democrats. They merely have a temporary alignment of interests.
This is something Republicans would be wise to ruthlessly exploit. Wherever white Democrats' class interests come into conflict with black or Hispanic national interests, Republicans should side with the blacks and Hispanics whenever politically possible. Guys like JD Vance get this. Old guard Republicans like Romney do the opposite, which only politically weakens Republicans (collectively that is; I'm sure individuals can profit from this).
The reason Republicans should side with Hispanics and blacks against the white elite class is that ultimately we can come to an understanding with other nations, but a hostile class will always seek to dominate, exploit and repress us.
For now this hostile class can collaborate with other nations to despoil heritage America, but we could easily turn the tables on them by offering more attractive arrangements to their current allies. In the long run, it may turn out that having not just a multicultural, but multinational America will finally free us to pursue our own interests again.
"The elite white blabbering class...is not actually a very big voting bloc"
See: "High-Low Coalition." Not sure if that is a Sailerism, exactly, but it has often been a subject of his writing. "High-low tag-team against the middle" is a way he's put it, with analogy to pro-wrestling.
Here is one way he put it ("Alexander Hamilton: Honorary Nonwhite," by Steve Sailer, TAKI's MAGAZINE, Feb 2016):
"A simple model that helps make much about the modern world easier to comprehend is that of a high-low tag team against the middle. As part of a time-tested strategy of divide and rule, the rich tend to push for policies and attitudes that increase identity-politics divisiveness, more immigration, more Black Lives Matter rioting, more transgender agitation, and so forth, which makes it harder for the nonrich to team up politically to promote their mutual economic interests."
My website is usually blanked-out by Google (I get about as much traffic from Yandex now), but Google does pick up a time I used the "high-low tagteam" phrase, too: https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/reflections-on-the-2010s-political/
Right, it's a marriage of convenience, but I think it's important to point out that it isn't a marriage of equals. At this point white Democrats are the junior partner, or very soon to be so.
Yeah I remember checking out your blog during the lockdowns. I liked it. I've thought about blogging again but this Substack setup is growing on me. It's got just enough social media functionality to serve that purpose, but it doesn't bombard you with content from narcissistic assholes like Twitter/X.
Also, Google has been putting its thumb on the scale since at least 2010. I got demonetized for something ridiculous in the run up to the midterms that year, and I know the same happened to lots of others.
I think good old personal networking is the way to go. I mean who knows who that person behind some handle is anyway? I'd rather get to know people.
Interesting takes on this subject and worthwhile reads.
My own experience (former Californians know KH and her rather time honored method of ascension within the Democrat Party) leads to the conclusion that she should make the perfect vessel for them to control.
Human hubris, always a danger when flying this close to the Sun, remains a danger worth watching.
Didn't Ford drop Rockefeller at the time mainly to shore up the GOP conservative base? I don't think people used the term RINO back in 1976, but the same dynamic was already there. Ford was seen as too moderate to the right base, and Ford barely survived a last-minute convention challenge to his nomination by the right's champion, Ronald Reagan. Dole was seen, at the time, as being solidly conservate. Rockefeller, of course, was even more suspect than Ford to the right.
That’s my recollection as well. Furthermore, most pundits later credited Dole with helping Ford *almost* win the election against incredible odds. Ford’s approval ratings were in the tank because of the Nixon pardon and a recession, and Carter was riding high after getting the nomination.
"Joe can have a good day at the second (and final) scheduled Presidential debate [in September 2024]"
Quite a lot of chatter now has it that "there will be NO second debate." The June 2024 debate was (seen as) so disastrous for Biden that there is no incentive for the Trump people to agree to the second debate at all.
There is no law requiring any debates, of course. Any performance in a hypothetical Sept 2024 debate -- short of collapsing on stage, begging for Trump's help to pull him back up from the floor, and crying on Trump's shoulder live on the air -- would benefit Biden. So, the chatter goes, Trump will refuse the second debate and let the June 2024 debate hang in the collective memory. But Trump is a narcissist and, in a mosquito-towards-the-light sense, may be unable to resist the temptation of a second debate.
If Trump does refuse a second debate, might the Biden people arrange a bold gambit of debating Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the same time-slot? Is that too wild a suggestion?
SAILER: "Gerald Ford let Nelson Rockefeller go and picked Bob Dole as his running mate in 1976"
It's interesting to recall the later appearance of Bob Dole on a presidential 'ticket,' the 1996 campaign. Bob Dole (b. July 1923) was widely seen as hopelessly old, something of a fuddy-duddy candidate. He turned 73 during that 1996 campaign. He would've been age 73-77 during his presidency. His age and his generation (of age to be in uniform for WWII) hurt him, as did 1990s prosperity, as did a vague sense that he was boring (parodied on The Simpsons 'Halloween' episode 1996, airing a week before the election, in which sinister space-aliens Kang and Kodos turn out to be using the two candidates Clinton and Dole as skin-suits in a plan to enslave humanity. Cut to near future: Homer, in a slave-gang: "Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!").
The mood in the 1990s was still that someone in his mid-70s was, no two ways about it, "old." The generational-signals at the added to this. But a big story of the following twenty or so years is that mid-seventies was no longer considered "old," more like "normal age for people in power." The Clintons aged into about the same age as Bob Dole had been in 1996, but were not derided as old (a two-term Hillary Clinton would've been president at ages 69-77; recall Bob Dole was 73 in 1996).
Joe Biden is NOT a uniquely villainous figure for demanding to hold onto power in his late-seventies and eighties, as if some aging third-world despot. He was, rather, just going with the flow.
As I wrote on Peak Stupidity recently:
____________________
"There is a "gerontocracy"-like feeling to a lot of the USA now, and not just in the presidency. A skilled observer who is effective at capturing details, like a Tom Wolfe, could really "go to town" on the subject. It's everywhere.
As if to prove my points here, Nancy Pelosi has come out in defense of Biden, when few others are doing so. Says Pelosi: "I think Joe's still got it. I mean, I'm even older than him, and look at me!" (paraphrased).
Nancy Pelosi, born March 1940 (Fauci was also b.1940); Pelosi is still a U.S. Congress member, as of today; stepped down as Speaker of the House, January 2023 (near 83rd birthday); her retirement as Speaker of the House (but not from Congress) was after twenty-or-more years at or near the top (Speaker, or Minority Leader, or like roles). Pelosi is in a safe-seat encompassing the city of San Francisco. She will be elected again in November 2024 easily. If the next one is her last term, she'll retire from Congress in January 2027, soon thereafter turning 87...
If Joe Biden is reelected, he would be 86 when he finishes his second term.
__________________
https://peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=3035
(EDIT: advances in nutrition and healthcare and other factors DO imply something like "75 is the new 60," in personal-fitness terms for most rich-country people who take care of themselves. But generationally or psychologically-politically, they're existing within far-outdated frames from the time they were age 10 to 25 or so; see Biden's occasional uses of phrases like 'segregation'.")
SAILER: "For the Democrats to get rid of a black woman in 2024 would alienate a lot of blacks and women."
Would foisting a "President Kamala Harris" upon the USA not alienate a lot of whites and men?
This is exactly spot on. Dems are worrying that previous (limited) polls have Kamala losing to Trump worse than Biden. True enough. But no longer today almost certainly. She is a better bet NOW than he is, and I don't think it's close.
The Dems should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. All of the pundits who are currently wetting their pants will immediately sing the praises of Brave Kamala, thrust into the spotlight, annointed as the Reluctant Hero for Truth and Democracy.
She may be a vapid and mediocre politician, but she will have the whole weight of the establishment pushing her over the top. The palpable relief of Dems no longer having to pretend that Biden is mentale competent will result in an outpouring of newfound admiration for Kamala and even the First Hubby (neutralizing the anti-Israeli gambit).
I'd give her straight up even odds