Bad idea all around. Biden is looking weak because of inflation and an unfair and relentless onslaught by the mainstream and right wing media about inflation (improving greatly) and his age (have you seem Trump lately, he makes Biden seem positive youthful). The NYT seems intent on making Trump win just like last time with Clinton’s “emails”. It’s irresponsibility at it’s highest. However, the economic good news is really quite amazing - proving that FDR-style policies make for a better economy than Reagan-style Voodoo trickle down policies. Unemployment is at a record low, lower income and AA citizens are doing better than for a long time. Eventually, this good news will influence approval ratings. We know Democrats and Biden over achieve at the polls based on the Mid-Terms, and they can hammer away at the freedom / abortion issue which the GOP seems intent on gifting them with a National Abortion Ban (which Trump secretly is in support of by latest reports). An open convention will pit Progressives against Moderates, sap the party unity and strength and potentially pit an untested candidate against Trump. I think the odds of Biden winning are far higher than most, if not all of the list of prospective contenders. Trump is only going to weaken as his legal woes increase and his obvious cognitive decline lead to more Hitler-style comments. Vermin anyone?
Combined with the “Age” attack, I can’t help but think this kind of talk of an open convention is like the “No-Labels” and RFK Jr efforts, designed to help Trump win. There certainly is a well funded GOP donor effort in that direction. “No Labels” and RFK Jr are basically GOP front operations as can be seen from the funding sources.
This is an excellent analysis, Angus. You might well be right. What Klein is proposing, and what I agree with, is very risky. If it were to happen, and the candidate loses, opinion would long be that it was a dreadful mistake and that Biden would've won… it's a hell of a difficult decision. But, from my perspective, it's valuable to do because it ALSO opens up a wide door to reform of the presidential nominating system that might well be emulated by the Republicans. They copied Democrats in the early 1970s. They MIGHT do it again. Our democracy needs checks and balances against demagogues and authoritarians. If we don't get them, it will keep slipping down the slope it's on.
The problem that you are solving for is (a) the 2016 primary when the moderate GOP vote was split amongst numerous candidates, so that Trump could squeak through on a narrow plurality of the votes and (b) 2024 when Trump acolytes front loaded the primaries (in predominately white population states) and made more of them winner take all. An open convention wouldn’t necessarily guard against these problems. Instead, I think far more consequential would be ranked-choice voting at the primary and general election level with some form of splitting of the primary/electoral college votes, and overriding the Electoral College with the inter-state compact so that all states counted and not a few. Combined these would lead to more moderate candidates that would have to appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans. We got away from smoke filled rooms for a reason - namely, a few power brokers could determine the candidate at the conventions.
I think it’s a good and obvious suggestion. The Republican Party has abandoned conservatism and liberalism for radicalism unless something incredibly unlikely happens. And even if something were to happen to Trump, the radicals remain in control and will only choose an even worse option. I say this as a conservative Republican who voted for Trump in 2020. The Republican establishment IS the radical base.
The Democrats have a different problem. Their electorate has repeatedly shown conservatism and when I say conservatism, I don’t mean Pat Buchanan or Sean Hannity politics. I mean that their electorate remains largely open to liberalism and moderation. They proved this when Joe Biden was nominated over numerous younger, sharper and more radical alternatives. Biden’s problems were clear then and yet they chose him.
It is the leadership of the party that has repeatedly chosen to pursue their own brand of radicalism rather than openly embrace moderates and independents - despite their very obvious interest. I think Ruy Teixeira has it right that Democrats believe they can agitate their base enough to defeat Trump and remain complacent.
I believe this is a mistake whomever they decide to nominate. They must move to the center and embrace sanity and sobriety over alarm and existential panic. Reject your own radical who are far less numerous than those on the right. And perhaps you’ll mind me saying so but “the most podcast he’s ever produced” is pretty emblematic of that panic.
Embrace sobriety, Democrats! Stop worrying about normalizing Trump (hint: he’s already normal) and find the center! The people want normal. Give it to them!
You sound like a republican who does not see himself as part of the radical base. I’d sincerely be interested in hearing your reasoning on why you voted for Trump in 2020. Even without January 6 having happened, trump’s firm establishment of himself as the leader of that radical base had long been cemented.
As someone who thinks Biden has been overall an historically excellent president, I also think Klein’s RBG analogy is a legitimate one—hearing the four-year-apart speeches is powerful. But, Eli, although the current primary and electoral college systems are incredibly flawed, can you explain to me why you would consider it a democratic solution for a few thousand citizens to choose the Democratic Party nominee? I am praying Joe drops out or at least wins and turns the reigns over to Kamala, but I don’t see how Ezra’s solution is democratic. Legal, perhaps, but democratic?
John, it's representative democracy. Think of the House of Representatives. There are 435 members. They are elected by the people. In the case of the convention, it will also be representatives, elected by the people of the party. I look forward to discussing with you more the fact that two layers of pure democracy leading to the White House is about the worst idea for democracy that I've ever heard of. It's time for reform, reform, reform.
Look forward to the conversation for sure! Seems to me that a rigorous exchange of options and ideas in a primary—that any of those you listed could have thrown in their hats for—and then allowing millions and not hundreds to choose makes for a more democratic process.
Btw, I fully realize you did not vote for trump. My other comment was to another commenter who said he voted for trump in 2020
Bad idea all around. Biden is looking weak because of inflation and an unfair and relentless onslaught by the mainstream and right wing media about inflation (improving greatly) and his age (have you seem Trump lately, he makes Biden seem positive youthful). The NYT seems intent on making Trump win just like last time with Clinton’s “emails”. It’s irresponsibility at it’s highest. However, the economic good news is really quite amazing - proving that FDR-style policies make for a better economy than Reagan-style Voodoo trickle down policies. Unemployment is at a record low, lower income and AA citizens are doing better than for a long time. Eventually, this good news will influence approval ratings. We know Democrats and Biden over achieve at the polls based on the Mid-Terms, and they can hammer away at the freedom / abortion issue which the GOP seems intent on gifting them with a National Abortion Ban (which Trump secretly is in support of by latest reports). An open convention will pit Progressives against Moderates, sap the party unity and strength and potentially pit an untested candidate against Trump. I think the odds of Biden winning are far higher than most, if not all of the list of prospective contenders. Trump is only going to weaken as his legal woes increase and his obvious cognitive decline lead to more Hitler-style comments. Vermin anyone?
Combined with the “Age” attack, I can’t help but think this kind of talk of an open convention is like the “No-Labels” and RFK Jr efforts, designed to help Trump win. There certainly is a well funded GOP donor effort in that direction. “No Labels” and RFK Jr are basically GOP front operations as can be seen from the funding sources.
This is an excellent analysis, Angus. You might well be right. What Klein is proposing, and what I agree with, is very risky. If it were to happen, and the candidate loses, opinion would long be that it was a dreadful mistake and that Biden would've won… it's a hell of a difficult decision. But, from my perspective, it's valuable to do because it ALSO opens up a wide door to reform of the presidential nominating system that might well be emulated by the Republicans. They copied Democrats in the early 1970s. They MIGHT do it again. Our democracy needs checks and balances against demagogues and authoritarians. If we don't get them, it will keep slipping down the slope it's on.
The problem that you are solving for is (a) the 2016 primary when the moderate GOP vote was split amongst numerous candidates, so that Trump could squeak through on a narrow plurality of the votes and (b) 2024 when Trump acolytes front loaded the primaries (in predominately white population states) and made more of them winner take all. An open convention wouldn’t necessarily guard against these problems. Instead, I think far more consequential would be ranked-choice voting at the primary and general election level with some form of splitting of the primary/electoral college votes, and overriding the Electoral College with the inter-state compact so that all states counted and not a few. Combined these would lead to more moderate candidates that would have to appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans. We got away from smoke filled rooms for a reason - namely, a few power brokers could determine the candidate at the conventions.
I believe in reform! And these are great ideas. I'm onboard, for sure.
I think it’s a good and obvious suggestion. The Republican Party has abandoned conservatism and liberalism for radicalism unless something incredibly unlikely happens. And even if something were to happen to Trump, the radicals remain in control and will only choose an even worse option. I say this as a conservative Republican who voted for Trump in 2020. The Republican establishment IS the radical base.
The Democrats have a different problem. Their electorate has repeatedly shown conservatism and when I say conservatism, I don’t mean Pat Buchanan or Sean Hannity politics. I mean that their electorate remains largely open to liberalism and moderation. They proved this when Joe Biden was nominated over numerous younger, sharper and more radical alternatives. Biden’s problems were clear then and yet they chose him.
It is the leadership of the party that has repeatedly chosen to pursue their own brand of radicalism rather than openly embrace moderates and independents - despite their very obvious interest. I think Ruy Teixeira has it right that Democrats believe they can agitate their base enough to defeat Trump and remain complacent.
I believe this is a mistake whomever they decide to nominate. They must move to the center and embrace sanity and sobriety over alarm and existential panic. Reject your own radical who are far less numerous than those on the right. And perhaps you’ll mind me saying so but “the most podcast he’s ever produced” is pretty emblematic of that panic.
Embrace sobriety, Democrats! Stop worrying about normalizing Trump (hint: he’s already normal) and find the center! The people want normal. Give it to them!
You sound like a republican who does not see himself as part of the radical base. I’d sincerely be interested in hearing your reasoning on why you voted for Trump in 2020. Even without January 6 having happened, trump’s firm establishment of himself as the leader of that radical base had long been cemented.
As someone who thinks Biden has been overall an historically excellent president, I also think Klein’s RBG analogy is a legitimate one—hearing the four-year-apart speeches is powerful. But, Eli, although the current primary and electoral college systems are incredibly flawed, can you explain to me why you would consider it a democratic solution for a few thousand citizens to choose the Democratic Party nominee? I am praying Joe drops out or at least wins and turns the reigns over to Kamala, but I don’t see how Ezra’s solution is democratic. Legal, perhaps, but democratic?
John, it's representative democracy. Think of the House of Representatives. There are 435 members. They are elected by the people. In the case of the convention, it will also be representatives, elected by the people of the party. I look forward to discussing with you more the fact that two layers of pure democracy leading to the White House is about the worst idea for democracy that I've ever heard of. It's time for reform, reform, reform.
Look forward to the conversation for sure! Seems to me that a rigorous exchange of options and ideas in a primary—that any of those you listed could have thrown in their hats for—and then allowing millions and not hundreds to choose makes for a more democratic process.
Btw, I fully realize you did not vote for trump. My other comment was to another commenter who said he voted for trump in 2020
Right 👍🏼 My bad. I then deleted it. Hope to see you soon in New England.