4 ms·

(No intend for this to be a controversial statement) I only want to express my opinion that he (and the Democratic party) took a while to make this decision, t

(No intend for this to be a controversial statement) I only want to express my opinion that he (and the Democratic party) took a while to make this decision, to their detriment. Interesting to see who their new candidate is going to be.

caminante 2y ago
The gamble paid off in 2020. His steering committee (including the DNC) was vested in him continuing until he imploded at the debate.
nailer 2y ago
The rules allow the DNC to have an open convention. They just haven’t had one for more than half a century. the interesting thing is apparently if they do that its available to all candidates. So it’s possible that somebody that is well liked by the public, but not by the DNC becomes the leader ie Bernie sanders. The tough thing though is that money donated to Biden doesn’t transfer to other candidates. The daily wire did an Extensive breakdown of each scenario a few days ago: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5vmeGPmDP0nopAlOwDZIV6 https://open.spotify.com/episode/5vmeGPmDP0nopAlOwDZIV6 This particular scenario is covered at 0:30
- echelon 2y ago
  > money donated to Biden doesn’t transfer to other candidates. That's wild and should be fixed.
  - caminante 2y ago
    Kamala can access the funds now. The challenge is transferring to someone not named Kamala. [0] You need some campaign finance oversight with accounts, etc., and refunding and transferring to a "new" candidate would take time and jeopardize tying up ~$100 million in funds. [0] https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/biden-harris-2024-campaign-money-what-could-happen/507-561fa64c-d806-42ec-b99b-b4b30fee523d# https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/biden-harris-...
  - ngetchell 2y ago
    That is because nobody donates to the party anymore. They donate to the candidate. The idea that the DNC has any power to steer the party is a joke. That is a mental model that is at least 20 years dead.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      Yup, this is exactly why I wrote "to their detriment". Kamala is not a strong candidate, let's see what happens.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    That's the way it should be? Donations to a candidate's reelection committee are for the benefit of that candidate and severely limited by law ($3300 per donor per candidate per election). Treating inter-committee transfers as something other than donations would allow trivial circumvention of the 'per candidate' restriction - just run a bunch of nobodies, fill their coffers, and then have them drop and transfer to a single candidate I'll admit this is a bit silly in light of PAC/SuperPAC spending now, but we did have election spending rules at one point and this was one of them.
- caminante 2y ago
  Add to your comment, I believe that Kamala can access the campaign funds, which favors her.
- senkora 2y ago
  Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260?i=1000662783383 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/i...
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Ben Shapiro is ... perhaps not an unbiased source on this topic.
  - nailer 2y ago
    is there something specific about this extensive breakdown of the laws around a candidate stepping down that you find incorrect? Is there any news source you have found that isn’t biased in someway?
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      I'm guessing the person actually just meant that Ben Shapiro is extremely annoying. That's why I avoided clicking at least. I've found people use negative modifiers more or less randomly to signal disgust as opposed to thinking through what each word means
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
To their detriment? I'm not sure. They just had the Republican convention. At that convention, they took a lot of shots at Biden. Now the Democrats say "Wrong target, suckers!" They take over the news cycle from the Republican convention, and they neutralize a huge amount of the talking points from the convention. That could be pretty brilliant. (I mean, it would have been better for Biden to clearly not be running last year at this time, and let the primary process do its thing. But dropping out right now might be pretty decent timing.)
- ofcourseyoudo 2y ago
  This is actually huge. The Dems now get several cycles of genuine organic interest... Kamala as nominee, then "who will she pick as VP" and the convention will get a lot of natural attention, all getting earned screentime (while pundits and pollsters have a field day of pageviews and engagement). The media class now has months of things to talk about wrt the Dems. The less screentime Trump gets the better, and his convention is already over and spent zero time attacking the actual candidate.
- heisenzombie 2y ago
  Yeah, it certainly /can/ work. For example in New Zealand in 2017: The labor party (our big centre-left party) had an unpopular/uninspiring leader and was polling terribly. The existing leader stepped down and Jacinda Ardern took over just seven weeks before the election, and rolled to a win. YMMV, we have very different political systems and cultures, etc. etc.
reducesuffering 2y ago
Nate Silver was already a Cassandra months ago about this issue and was proven right, better than the entire Democrat establishment. The internet is quite the dichotomy. There are easily available sources to the common man that are more right than the most powerful people in the world (Ivy League SAT removal fiasco, Alperovitch on Russian invasion, etc.). But, most people don't listen to them and instead regurgitate brainrot.

caminante 2y ago

The gamble paid off in 2020. His steering committee (including the DNC) was vested in him continuing until he imploded at the debate.

nailer 2y ago

The rules allow the DNC to have an open convention. They just haven’t had one for more than half a century. the interesting thing is apparently if they do that its available to all candidates. So it’s possible that somebody that is well liked by the public, but not by the DNC becomes the leader ie Bernie sanders. The tough thing though is that money donated to Biden doesn’t transfer to other candidates. The daily wire did an Extensive breakdown of each scenario a few days ago: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5vmeGPmDP0nopAlOwDZIV6 https://open.spotify.com/episode/5vmeGPmDP0nopAlOwDZIV6 This particular scenario is covered at 0:30

echelon 2y ago
> money donated to Biden doesn’t transfer to other candidates. That's wild and should be fixed.
- caminante 2y ago
  Kamala can access the funds now. The challenge is transferring to someone not named Kamala. [0] You need some campaign finance oversight with accounts, etc., and refunding and transferring to a "new" candidate would take time and jeopardize tying up ~$100 million in funds. [0] https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/biden-harris-2024-campaign-money-what-could-happen/507-561fa64c-d806-42ec-b99b-b4b30fee523d# https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/biden-harris-...
- ngetchell 2y ago
  That is because nobody donates to the party anymore. They donate to the candidate. The idea that the DNC has any power to steer the party is a joke. That is a mental model that is at least 20 years dead.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    Yup, this is exactly why I wrote "to their detriment". Kamala is not a strong candidate, let's see what happens.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  That's the way it should be? Donations to a candidate's reelection committee are for the benefit of that candidate and severely limited by law ($3300 per donor per candidate per election). Treating inter-committee transfers as something other than donations would allow trivial circumvention of the 'per candidate' restriction - just run a bunch of nobodies, fill their coffers, and then have them drop and transfer to a single candidate I'll admit this is a bit silly in light of PAC/SuperPAC spending now, but we did have election spending rules at one point and this was one of them.
caminante 2y ago
Add to your comment, I believe that Kamala can access the campaign funds, which favors her.
senkora 2y ago
Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260?i=1000662783383 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/i...
kristjansson 2y ago
Ben Shapiro is ... perhaps not an unbiased source on this topic.
- nailer 2y ago
  is there something specific about this extensive breakdown of the laws around a candidate stepping down that you find incorrect? Is there any news source you have found that isn’t biased in someway?
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    I'm guessing the person actually just meant that Ben Shapiro is extremely annoying. That's why I avoided clicking at least. I've found people use negative modifiers more or less randomly to signal disgust as opposed to thinking through what each word means

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

To their detriment? I'm not sure. They just had the Republican convention. At that convention, they took a lot of shots at Biden. Now the Democrats say "Wrong target, suckers!" They take over the news cycle from the Republican convention, and they neutralize a huge amount of the talking points from the convention. That could be pretty brilliant. (I mean, it would have been better for Biden to clearly not be running last year at this time, and let the primary process do its thing. But dropping out right now might be pretty decent timing.)

ofcourseyoudo 2y ago
This is actually huge. The Dems now get several cycles of genuine organic interest... Kamala as nominee, then "who will she pick as VP" and the convention will get a lot of natural attention, all getting earned screentime (while pundits and pollsters have a field day of pageviews and engagement). The media class now has months of things to talk about wrt the Dems. The less screentime Trump gets the better, and his convention is already over and spent zero time attacking the actual candidate.
heisenzombie 2y ago
Yeah, it certainly /can/ work. For example in New Zealand in 2017: The labor party (our big centre-left party) had an unpopular/uninspiring leader and was polling terribly. The existing leader stepped down and Jacinda Ardern took over just seven weeks before the election, and rolled to a win. YMMV, we have very different political systems and cultures, etc. etc.

reducesuffering 2y ago

Nate Silver was already a Cassandra months ago about this issue and was proven right, better than the entire Democrat establishment. The internet is quite the dichotomy. There are easily available sources to the common man that are more right than the most powerful people in the world (Ivy League SAT removal fiasco, Alperovitch on Russian invasion, etc.). But, most people don't listen to them and instead regurgitate brainrot.