MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
Harris's problem with Biden: In our view, Jonathan Chait is right as rain.
After that, he's wrong! So it goes in his latest post for New York magazine.
Chait starts by challenging a fairly typical, thumb-sucker piece by the New York Times. As he starts his post, he offers good sound advice:
Kamala Harris Should Cut Joe Biden Loose
Kamala Harris is navigating a tricky dilemma, according to the New York Times. She “will try to promote herself as a change candidate without criticizing President Biden.” The story quotes numerous Democrats, inside and outside the administration, as to precisely how Harris should manage the delicate balance between her loyalty to Biden and the public’s clamoring for change during her debate with Donald Trump.
I have no reason to doubt that this accurately conveys the calculus within the Harris campaign. That struggle was apparent in Harris’s interview with CNN, when she responded to a question about turning the page buy contrasting herself exclusively against Donald Trump, rather than her current boss. My question is: Why is this a struggle? Why not directly repudiate unpopular Biden positions?
[...]
Rather than trying to balance loyalty to Biden against catering to the desires of the electorate, Harris’s strategy should focus entirely on catering to the public with no attention whatsoever to Biden’s feelings.
"There is no rule requiring Harris to own every action Biden has taken," Chait says. In that assessment, it seems to us that he's right as rain.
For the record, Candidate Harris is badly compromised by an array of bad performances by President Biden. In Ingmar Bergman's iconic 1957 film, The Seventh Seal, a group of medieval characters bemoan the silence of God.
Disastrously, so it has been with President Biden during the bulk of his term:
He refused to explain his border policy, no matter how unseemly the whole mishegoss became in his first years in office.
Additionally, he never bothered to address the increases in the cost of living which have—rightly or wrongly, fairly or otherwise—turned many voters against Biden himself, and now against Candidate Harris. His long-time permissive behavior toward his unruly son created a further mess.
The silences—the refusal to speak—may be explained by some loss of cognitive function. But Candidate Harris is badly compromised by this otherwise inexcusable array of failures to perform.
Some Democrats want to put President Biden on Mount Rushmore. In our view, there's none so blind as those who will not see.
Alas! As the essay in question turns, that almost seems to include Chait himself! He's right in saying that Candidate Harris should go ahead and voice disagreements with actions by. and policies of, President Biden. But we think he's way wrong when he heads down this road:
Exactly why Biden has proven so toxic has confounded Democrats. I sympathize with their bewilderment. The economy is excellent, and people should be crediting Biden’s management rather than blaming him for an inflation surge that was mostly beyond his control and has almost entirely receded.
At this point, alas, public opinion is what it is. And I fear that Democrats have allowed their sentiment that Biden has gotten an unfair rap to cloud their judgment.
"The economy is excellent," Chait says. The inflation surge "was mostly beyond [President Biden's] control."
As far as we know, that second statement is accurate. As far as we know, the first statement is also accurate when we compare the American post-Covid economy to the post-Covid economies of pretty much everyone else.
Why, then, has President Biden "proven [to be] so toxic?" Here again, chalk it up, at least in part, to his refused to address these topics—to his refusal to sit down and explain the world to us, the American people.
He didn't offer fireside chats or explainers from the Oval. It may be that he was simply unable to perform those basic functions. That said, he failed to perform those basic duties to a stunning degree.
It's stunning to us that so many Democrats are "confounded" by this state of affairs—and are unable to see the problem this has caused for Candidate Harris.
In our view, Chait is right as rain about that key first point. Candidate Harris should feel free to disagree with the policies and the performance of President Biden, where doing so seems to make sense.
That said, the general dumbness of our national discourse makes that a difficult move. What isn't hard to see is the array of failures by President Biden—an array of failures with which Candidate Harris is now saddled.
Sadly for those confounded / bewildered Democrats, those chains of love are making it hard to keep Trump out of the Oval.
The consensus on other left-leaning sites is that Chait is mansplaining and Harris doesn’t need him to tell her how to do what she already knows how to do. Typical that it wouldn’t occur to Somerby to react that way.
ReplyDeleteIt Also seems mean-spirited to bash Biden on his way out. Harris will create animosity if she appears disloyal to those who consider Biden an excellent president. That doesn’t seem to include Somerby.
"...Chait is mansplaining and Harris doesn’t need him to tell her how to do what she already knows how to do."
DeleteAre there any conditions under which a male pundit can criticize the strategy of a female candidate without committing the sin of mansplaining?
If he (1) had election experience himself, such as Clinton or Obama, and (2) had something to suggest that isn’t obvious to anyone with a brain, and (3) the suggestion was something she isn’t already doing, and (4) it is something her own staff doesn’t know, then maybe. In the end, it is her campaign and her decision no matter what an asshole like Chait thinks.
DeleteOtherwise, the explaining implies she isn’t competent, which is insulting because her background, experience, track record, and ability have all demonstrated she is highly competent.
Men who don’t understand what mansplaining is might do some soul-searching because it is obvious to most women. Not all, obviously, since there are still a few women supporting Trump or married to miscreants like Vance or DeSantis. Maybe they are hoping to change them.
We've reached peak irony. A Somerby-hating termagant who womansplains multiple times a day about what Somerby should and shouldn't say on his blog is complaining about mansplaining. That's rich.
DeleteYou can laugh about the treatment of women all the way to the polls, where women will make the difference in who wins and loses, just as they did in 2022.
DeleteIn this article, Chait writes the following:
ReplyDelete"But there is no rule requiring Harris to own every action Biden has taken. She can even say that she disagreed with him. Her role as vice-president was to give the president candid advice in private and support him in public, but now that she is running for his job, she can advocate her own ideas."
The only problem is that when she did that in 2020, she had to leave the Presidential race before a single vote was cast.
I would expect the same here, but the Dems can't replace her now. lol
Harris left the race because of fund-raising. With all of the many democrats running, there weren't enough donors to go around. She is not having any trouble with fundraising now.
DeleteDavid in Cal already explained why the public has a low opinion of Biden. It's the liberal media pounding on Biden by repeating Right-wing nonsense about the border, inflation, and his age.
ReplyDeleteThe media was also butt-hurt by Biden pulling out of the forever war in Afghanistan, thus compromising their stock portfolios larded with defense contractors.
DeleteDonors drove Biden out of the race because he was proposing a 28% income tax on the wealthy (over $100 million). They did it via a press campaign that portrayed him as hopelessly elderly. We are seeing the remains of that in polling about Biden's popularity. I don't see anything wrong with his presidency and Harris doesn't have to worry about her age.
Deleteanons above - you seem to have your heads deeply buried in the sand. donor's may have backed out, and no wonder. Most dems, i would assume almost all of them, were aghast by the disastrous performance by Biden in the debate. The red side had a major narrative going before that debate that Biden was incompetent because of his age - the blue side's response was mostly he "was sharp as a tack." It was Biden's responsibility to prove the reds wrong, but he failed miserably, and it was perceived trump would win if Biden remained in the race [he still might] - not an irrational perception.
DeleteDems were split over biden. The NY Times pushed him out, coupled with donor threats to stop funding him. Other Dems were loyal, including Harris.
Delete"In a Gallup poll conducted almost entirely before he announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race on Sunday, President Joe Biden received a 36% job approval rating from the American people"
DeleteWas this poll result because so many people read and are influenced by the New York Times?
"The dems were split over Biden" Certainly may be true but that split was at least 80/20 in favor of him dropping out after a disastrous debate performance in which he appeared impaired, at a time when he was trailing in the polls against a ridiculously unfit candidate. Anyone rummaging through archives of videos 4 years ago could only conclude that he had deteriorated during his tenure and there was no telling what the slope of the trajectory over the next four years might be except to say downhill. The same can be said for Trump, who cannot stay on point when
Deletewill suffer dearly for their neglect.
".. cannot stay on point when confronted with a simple interview question, his meandering pronouncements commonly devolving into gibberish..."
Delete"Most dems, i would assume almost all of them, were aghast by the disastrous performance by Biden in the debate. "
DeleteOn the other hand, most Reps, I would assume all of them, were elated by Trump's bigotry at the debate, and doubled down on their thinking the rapist is the best Presidential candidate they've ever had.
IMO Harris can’t cut Biden loose. When she comes out for different policies, she sounds fake and unconvincing and not truly committed.
ReplyDeleteWell, to a total asshat like you David.
Delete@5:17 Do you really believe Harris is now strongly committed to a border wall?
DeleteAbove comment @5:58 from me
DeleteTrump wasn’t committed to it. Harris knows more about the border than Trump, due to her recent experience.
DeleteIf she talks about building a wall and does as little as Trump did in executing her plan, that will more than suffice for me. Likewise, if Trump were to never make good on the promise of an economic plan that is scored at raising the national debt by 5 trillion dollars, that would be fine. But he has already shown the proclivity for such a disaster, raising the national debt by 8 trillion his first term. So I have a choice here between voting for a candidate who may never make good on a plan I don't care about and a candidate who may very well make good on a plan that would single handedly make him responsible for adding 13 trillion dollars to the national debt. I think I'll take the wall that hopefully won't be built any more so than Trump accomplished. Which is not much.
DeleteMaybe Bob should explain what was “unseemly” about Biden’s boarder policy because I don’t know what he is talking about and I don’t think he does either. Bob’s lack of comment on Trump’s policy, now that is unseemly.
ReplyDeleteThe reason you don't know what Somerby is talking about is because, as Somerby told us, the Blue media avoided discussions about the topic. But the reality is that there was a large surge in illegal immigration during Biden's presidency. Somerby believes that Biden never adequately explained why the surge occurred and what he did to bring it under control.
ReplyDelete"Somerby believes that Biden never adequately explained why the surge occurred and what he did to bring it under control"
DeleteLink, please.
Personally, I think the main reason for the surge was the comparative strength of the US economy. Illegal immigration surges when a smoking US economy pulls in workers from outside the country.
Delete5:35 - "He refused to explain his border policy, no matter how unseemly the whole mishegoss became in his first years in office."
Delete"He didn't offer fireside chats or explainers from the Oval. It may be that he was simply unable to perform those basic functions. That said, he failed to perform those basic duties to a stunning degree."
Actually, studies of immigration show that the numbers coming to our border depend on events in the donor countries, not in the US. Your theory makes sense intuitively but doesn't hold up when you try to correlate the surges with fluctuations in the US economy. The last time this was discussed, I linked to sources from the folks who study immigration trends. Work is cited as a reason to come to the US (by immigrants) but it takes a lot for someone to uproot themselves and leave their home country, so it is not work that causes people to ultimately leave. It is conditions in their home countries that drive them to leave and that create surges.
DeleteFDR held fireside chats because the nation was in a depression followed by a world war. Biden was busy doing the work of the presidency. No other president has been required to hold fireside chats as part of the job, as Somerby demands. This is a stupid complaint, in my opinion, manufactured because Somerby is looking for a reason to complain about him, not because Biden neglected his job.
Delete5:43 - Obviously both factors - a strong US economy pulling in people, and bad conditions in other countries driving out people - effect the illegal immigration rate. The last time we all discussed the matter, I was persuaded by a Drum post that the pull of a strong US economy was the predominant factor in this latest surge. But what do I know?
DeleteDrum doesn’t do lit searches. He makes graphs correlating things and showing trend lines. That isn’t good for studying causality.
Delete5:45 - I personally think Biden was a spectacular president, especially considering the composition of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court during his term. But - I agree with Somerby that Biden has not done a good job with the bully pulpit, which is why his favorability ratings are so under water despite his impressive performance.
DeleteI imagine there were various reasons people flocked to the US. Bad conditions in their countries undoubtedly was a major factor - though I wonder if in prior years there might have also been bad conditions, without a comparable surge. I tend to think another reason is that there was a perception migrants had that they could enter the US, claim they were seeking asylum, that the US would give them free housing, food and medical care, plus ESL education for their children, that the asylum clams would take years to resolve, that they could get employment in the meantime, and hoped they could stay indefinitely. Most people don't know what the standards are for being granted asylum after the migrant finally gets a hearing - just because there is a lack of jobs in their home countries, or that the economy is bad there, isn't a ground to be granted asylum - but once they claim asylum, under existing law, they are entitled to a hearing, for which there is a humungous backlog.
DeletePresident Trump cleared up a point this week which long confused some of us. When Trump constantly referred to the fictional character Hannibal Lector, he was staying that this fictional character related to the average illegal who had made it into the United States. Trump found this both amusing and illuminating to the problem as he saw it.
DeleteThis was the counterpoint Bob was demanding Biden satisfy. Is it unfair to assume this is also the level of seriousness Bob actually takes this problem, in his desperation to throw a bone to his good friends and neighbors who are getting ready to vote Trump again? When Trump killed the immigration Bill the White House had carved out with conservatives, since he is already dictator of the Republican Party, Bob’s reponse to Democrats who bring that up is to jeer at Democrats who bring that up. There is no reason to assume that is not still Bob’s position.
There are long periods of American history, including the 20th century, where immigration was welcomed and not controlled. There were migrant workers residing permanently in Mexico but traveling to the US as seasonal workers, which no one minded. That’s why we don’t have workable sustems when somone like Trump decides to demagogue the issue.
DeleteHarris’s effort to reduce the influx by working with donor countries was successful, in the longer term, suggesting the influx was not just job related. With turmoil in other countries, the need for asylum is real. Trump’s joke about Hannibal Lecter (based on a double meaning for the word asylum) is cruel. Needless to say, migrants don’t get a bunch of freebies. Those seeking asylum don’t have the right to work. Biden is making them apply from their original countries, not come here to apply. The numbers at the border now are greatly reduced. It isn’t clear whether Somerby knows that.
Until 1965, there were no limits on migrating Mexicans coming into the US.
DeleteOver 1.6 million Americans live permanently in Mexico (not counting snowbirds) seeking a lower cost of living, better climate and higher quality of life. How would Americans feel if Mexico started treating us like we do our immigrants, calling us rapists and murderers? There was that Hollywood director who killed his wife in Cancun. Pearls Before Swine comic strip illustrated this idea with the Canadian border in last Sunday’s strip. These are real people Trump is maligning, and I am ashamed at how he wants to trat our neighbors. That is why many of us worry how we citizens may be treated by our own govt if Trump is voted in.
Delete"When Trump killed the immigration Bill...Bob’s reponse to Democrats who bring that up is to jeer at Democrats who bring that up."
DeleteThis may have happened in your disordered mind but not in the real world,
I guess you are not a regular reader, but it happened it what is now the Daily Howler archives. Which alas, stupid, if a sad corner of the real world.
DeleteIt seems so odd to me that Somerby keeps harping on border issues when he has lived mainly in Baltimore, nowhere near any border.
DeleteHe emphasizes it because it is a big issue nationally.
DeleteWell, Bob had immigration and Hunter. The hunt for Hunter has become an ugly embarrassment, leaving Bob a one trick pony.
DeleteAC/ MA,
DeleteThose refugees from Central and South America heard the Right reply to BLM with "All Lives Matter", and thought they were making a good faith argument*, so they rushed to our border. Who wouldn't want to move to a nation that cares for everyone, especially those struggling financially?
*which shows these immigrants are already prepared to replace our political reporters, for minimum wage.
4:13,
DeleteWhere in the United States Constitution does it say Republicans have to lie in the beds they make?
"there was a perception migrants had that they could enter the US, claim they were seeking asylum, that the US would give them free housing, food and medical care, plus ESL education for their children, that the asylum clams would take years to resolve, that they could get employment in the meantime, and hoped they could stay indefinitely."
DeleteI'd say it sounds like these immigrants are getting their "news" from Fox, except there is no mention of free college education and that it's being funded by taking benefits from veterans.
Political pudits ought to be prohibited from using the word "should." Sportwriters too, while we're at it.
ReplyDeleteThey "ought" to be prohibited from using "should"? "Ought" is synonymous with "should." So you're allowed to use a synonym of a term that others aren't allowed to use?
DeleteFine. I'll put it more simply. I am tired of reading know-it-all opinion writers who tell other people how to do their jobs.
DeleteNote: No, I am NOT telling the opinion writers how to do THEIR jobs, only that I am sick of them.
No More Mister Nice Blog describes the way the press has been both-sidesing incidents of partisan intimidation aimed by Trump supporters at their Democratic neighbors:
ReplyDeletehttps://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2024/09/both-sides-dont-do-it-but-media-never.html?m=1
Why does Somerby never talk about this? I believe most blue voters who live in red districts encounter this kind of bullying. I did, before moving to urban CO.
I know many Dems who are afraid to bumper sticker their car or put out a sign. It was not always this way, obviously.
DeleteThat is pretty embarrassing. Somerby may choose not talk about that article because it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. The term "pitted against each other" only indicates a state of conflict, not necessarily that both sides are equally engaged in similar behaviors. The word "pitted" is interpreted as equivalency, when by definition, learned in about 6th grade by most, it only suggests opposition. That is a really embarrassing blunder for a so-called "writer" to misunderstand a definition so basic. My God.
DeleteThe garbage they feed you.
DeleteThe garbage they feed you.
The article clearly suggests both sides are in conflict when it is the right bullying the left out of expressing their views, using fear of violence. One football team is pitted against another. It is the wrong word in this situation, chosen by a journalist, who suggests both sides are doing what only one is. That makes it the journalist’s mistake and a good example of bothsidesing.
DeleteRead the article.
DeleteWhen both sides are in conflict, it does not mean both sides are equally engaged in similar behaviors. You're just as stupid as the fool who wrote that blog post.
DeleteOne football team is opposing the another, they are in conflict with each other. Democrats in the Butler are opposed to Republicans, the Democrats are in conflict with Republicans. One of the two sides in the conflict with the other resorts to bullying. The bullying is described in detail in an article. The other of two sides in the conflict does not resort to bullying and accordingly, none is mentioned in the article. The two sides are still in opposition. They are still pitted against each other. But that doesn't mean (to people with high school educations) that both sides are equally engaged in bullying. You should be embarrassed. That blogger is of extremely low quality and obviously very limited intellect. His post is pure trash.
DeleteSo we’ve moved beyond the talking point that it is unquestionably asinine to ask a VP to account for her/his administration since they aren’t POTUS, to arguing that they should be overtly distancing themselves from the Big Guy.
ReplyDeleteWhat a difference is made by a week and the leftwing memory hole.
Chait isn’t the left wing.
DeleteCecelia,
DeleteI haven't seen people reverse their opinion like that, since David in Cal's "Liberal media" went from being horrified by server protocols and the use of unsecured phones by the executive branch from early January to November 8, 2016, to never mentioning it ever again.
It was longer than a week, when Republicans went from being concerned by Hillary's coziness with Wall Street, to cheering along Trump's HUGE tax break for corporations.
Delete“Chait was a supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteOn January 27, 2015, Chait wrote an article for New York magazine on political correctness, which he labeled "a system of left-wing ideological repression" and cited examples from academia and social media
In February 2016, Chait wrote a piece for New York magazine titled "Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination," in which he predicted that a Trump presidency would develop similarly to the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California
Chait has written extensively in support of charter schools. He even married a charter school advocate
Doesn't seem very liberal to me.”
Spoken by a commenter at Mediate. Others there are ragging on Chait for mentioning no unpopular Biden positions.
The GOP would like to re-litigate errors of the past? Oh, pleeease don't go there! We'd just hate it if we had to bring up Trump's recent history.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the Dick Cheney candidate can stop her slide in the polls with a strong debate performance. It's not looking good for her though.
ReplyDeleteI hope Kamala will come out foursquare in favor of electric boats. With big batteries.
ReplyDeleteSchwarzenegger did promise to eliminate waste in government, and then slashed funding for children's mental health, so I can see why Chait predicted that a Trump presidency would develop similarly to the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.
ReplyDeleteI hope Harris can remain in the pocket of corporations, hoping to crush workers, while also being the most Communist Presidential candidate ever, by shutting down Wall Street and giving our tax money to poor people whether they deserve it or not.
ReplyDeleteIt's looking good so far.
Yes, she’ll crash the stock market like Biden did.
DeleteBut will she give the thugs on Wall Street a HUGE tax break, like Trump did?
DeleteThis morning there are 12 articles about Trump in the New York Times compared to 3 articles comparing the positions of both candidates and 1 saying that Harris could lose.
ReplyDeleteBoth:
DeleteHarris-Trump Debate: 90 High-Stakes Minutes in Rush to Election Day
Where They Stand on the Issues
‘It’s Not Pandering When You Tell the Truth’: Five Columnists Game Out the Debate
Articles about Trump:
Our reporter explains how Donald Trump is preparing for the debate (video)
Trump Mocks Harris’s Height. But Her Fans See a Certain Stature.
Trump Steps Up Threats to Imprison Those He Sees as Foes
For Trump, Tariffs Are the Solution to Almost Any Problem
What Polls Say About a Key Group: Begrudging Trump Voters
Donald Trump on the Dollar, in His Own Words
Donald Trump and the Meaning of a Raised Fist
Trump Makes No Sense and Is Full of Meaning
Why Trump Can Afford to Disrespect His Anti-Abortion Voters
Former Project 2025 Leader Accuses Trump Campaign Advisers of ‘Malpractice’
Trump Wants to Shut Down the Department of Education? Is That Possible?
With Trump Media Stock Cratering, Donald Trump Has a Decision to Make
Articles about Harris:
A Clear Choice on the Issue Voters Care About Most (Not sure about this one -- it is behind a paywall)
Kamala Harris Could be in Trouble
----------------------------
Hillary Clinton had trouble in 2016 because she couldn't get the press to cover her policy issues. It appears Harris is encountering the same bias, not that the articles about Trump are about issues. How does a candidate have a fair chance when one candidate consumes all of the oxygen in the room?
What is wrong with the NY Times? Yes, some of the Trump articles are negative and discuss things that may not reflect well on him, but they are talking about him, and that may be enough to boost him (given the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity). His name is all over today's headlines.
Lawrence O'Donnell takes the New York Times to task last night:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxOauQfwzdc
What publication friendly to Harris has adequately covered her policy issues?
Delete"A Clear Choice on the Issue Voters Care About Most" This is an editorial by Liz Cheney commending Harris for her proposed plans to help American families afford necessities, while criticizing Trump for offering bad ideas and promises he can't keep.
DeleteHarris will win if she supports Trump's "stop and frisk" program, but only on Wall Street.
ReplyDelete