Ghost of LL

I mean, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Obama won in 2008 against a goddamned war hero. He won again against a very generic Republican. And both times, he won pretty handily. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 despite (1) having the distinct handicap of being Hillary Clinton, which is to say a person against whom a GOP rage machine had been pointed for the previous quarter-century (into which, it must be said, she played perfectly), (2) running a spectacularly bad campaign which saw her completely ignore the three states that everyone knew to be the tipping-point states in the EC, and (3) having Jim Comey announce the reopening of an FBI investigation without any real justification and in contravention of Bureau guidelines just ten days before election day. I'm not saying there aren't racists and misogynists in America. But I am saying that there's strong evidence that they aren't an electoral majority.

Donors play a part, of course. But it's not just them. It's volunteers. And it's local party officials. And they're all signaling that there is a massive enthusiasm gap. She's doing it because she has the best political instincts of any Democrat of her generation. And she sees an iceberg dead ahead. I think you're giving her far too little credit when you ascribe her political instincts to some donors.

Ok--so here's the thing: once again I think the NYT is doing us all a disservice, because this isn't really the story. And I infer that a fair amount of your frustration originates from this misleading NYT article. It's not "a handful of billionaires" who think Joe Biden should stand down. It's me. It's the majority of posters on this thread. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of Democratic voters. And on the night of the debate, it was you. And that demonstrates that it wasn't "a handful of billionaires" who caused 70% of Democratic voters and a whole bunch of Democratic officeholders to reach that conclusion. That was the immediate conclusion that both you and I separately reached that night. You have changed your mind on that; I haven't. But regardless--neither you nor I came to that thought based on any billionaire. The NYT speaks of elites because the NYT is elite and that's the only thing it can conceive of. But elite opinion immediately after the debate was 100% to rally around Biden and minimize that debate disaster. The shift since doesn't represent the hidden hand of some nefarious elites. It is a demonstration of the will of the Democratic grass roots.

First off--you're my friend and I love you. If my words are heated, I apologize. It's just this war and that lying sonofabitch Johnson. Second, I pulled the receipts to show that you yourself recognized that it was not merely "a bad debate performance," and you've never tried to cast it as such. Your suggested spin response of "look, I'm old, I get it and I've slowed some, . . ." acknowledged the catastrophic nature of the debate; it didn't try to minimize it. And I think it's very wrong to think that it could have been minimized as merely a bad debate performance. Anyone trying to do so would've lost credibility. Third, the rally-around-the-candidate idea goes both ways. And right now, somewhere around two-thirds to three-quarters of Democrats think Biden needs to drop out. It's time for Biden to hear the will of the people and for his supporters to rally around Kamala Harris. Only that is going to enable us to run an effective campaign against Donald Trump.

No, ma'am--don't bring me that shit. Because that's not what you were saying three weeks ago. During the debate, you were saying "we are in deep shit;" "Biden looks feeble." At one point that night, you wrote "come on Joe if you can’t win this you’re done." And then as the evening went on and it became clear that Biden wasn't going to win this, you wrote but yes Biden should drop out and Pete should be his replacement, 100% on board. It wasn't just "a bad debate performance." It was a catastrophic performance that indicated to everyone watching--including you--that Biden was not mentally capable of (1) being president or (2) beating Trump. To argue now that we should have rallied around Biden and just dismissed it as "a bad debate performance" when you yourself did precisely the opposite is the height of disingenuousness.

That is not at all what happened in 2015/16. And I'm really starting to get very pissed at Biden and his people for out-and-out lying about this shit. Biden didn't run in 2016 because he was sad about Beau's death. And I remember that, because a lot of us really wanted him to run because we knew Hillary was a flawed candidate. Fatally so, as it turned out. And when the country needed Joe to step in and run in 2016, he took a pass. So don't tell me know that he was "pushed aside." That's bullshit. And between that lie and the lies that Biden's people have been telling all of us for the past however-long about Biden's supposed continued mental acuity and the lies that anybody who even asked a question about it was guilty of "ageism," . . . you know--I just don't really trust these people anymore. And I think they ought to all leave the White House with a sense of embarrassment.

Your rage is entirely misplaced. You're raging at the media and at the Democratic Party. You should be raging at Biden and his advisors. Biden's advisors have seen him decline over the past however-many years. Yet they lied to us and said everything was fine. Worse--they accused anybody who raised any questions about Biden's mental acuity of "ageism. And then, as if their dishonesty wasn't enough, they put Joe Biden up on that debate stage--an act of political malpractice that is, I think, without parallel in modern American politics. Joe Biden has had the most successful administration in my lifetime. You and I agree on that front. But Joe Biden's second term would not be successful, because Joe Biden is barely mentally capable of being president today; there's no way he'll be mentally fit to be president in a year or two, much less four. And absolutely everybody sees that. And as a result, there's no point in speculating about the success of a second term, because there is no fucking way in hell that Joe Biden is going to win a second term. And the reason for this isn't the media. And it isn't the Democratic Party. It's the voters, who overwhelmingly say that Biden is not mentally fit to be president. And you can rage all day at the voters, but in the end, Principal Skinner--it is you whom is out of touch, not the children. I cannot stress this enough. The reason we are where we are is not because of the Democratic Party. It's not because of the media. And it's damned sure not because of the voters who saw a fragile old man on that debate stage who looked confused, feeble, and unable to articulate a coherent thought and decided that he should not be president. We are where we are entirely because Biden's inner circle thought they could cover up his mental decline through a fucking presidential campaign and skate through because his opponent is just noxious enough that it might not matter that their candidate couldn't effectively campaign. We could have been having this conversation a year ago. We should have been having this conversation a year ago. The reason we didn't is entirely because of Biden's inner circle. You know I love you, but you're dreadfully wrong. You and I would vote for Biden if he were in a fucking permanent vegetative state. But the problem is that we're not in the majority. If we rallied around Biden after that debate performance, Biden would still lose. But worse than that, the Senate and House candidates who rallied around him would lose credibility. They would be justifiably accused of putting party ahead of country. And they would lose. We would lose the House. We would lose the Senate. We would lose hundreds of state legislative seats. The Democratic Party would face an electoral catastrophe if we followed the rally-around-Biden strategy you suggest. And by the way--I have a very strong suspicion that a lot of this is driven by Hunter and his hope that his dad would issue a pardon in his second term. I very much think that if Hunter weren't in there pleading for Joe to stay in the race, that Joe would've stood down two weeks ago.

It's not just that. It's also that if you leapfrog Harris, there's no clear alternative. At least a half-dozen other candidates would be in the running. And with no clear path for picking one over the others, you'd have a complete clusterfuck that would actually sow more division than you have now. Harris is the only viable alternative. Anything other than Harris would probably be even worse than Biden. And I say that as someone who would, all other things being even, vastly prefer Gretchen Whitmer.

It's Shapiro. It makes the most sense. It seals Pennsylvania, and really helps with the other Upper-B1G states that are critical to a Democrat's election chances. Actually, this raises a good scenario that I hadn't previously thought of. If Biden announces he's not running for re-election, he can still spend the next five months campaigning. It'll be more in the vein of a valedictory tour, touting his administration's accomplishments (and there have been a lot). And a lot of ill will will evaporate. People who are double-haters--a critical block in this election--are primarily double haters because both Biden and Trump are running. But if you're not being asked to vote for Biden, aren't you a bit more inclined to actually listen to what he's saying? It's a very real phenomenon in American politics that a politician's best speech is his last one. It's both the best speech and it's the best received speech. See generally the farewell speeches by Obama and Reagan. Biden would get the opportunity to have a five-month farewell speech. And it could really move the needle.

I don't know what you're talking about. When Pelosi left, she was still very capable. But instead of staying on past her expiration date, she had groomed Jeffries as her successor. And when the time came, she handed the job over to him without any drama or rancor. It's time for Biden to do the same.

One has to remember that Schiff is a Pelosi protege. It's impossible to imagine that he would make this move without her express approval. And if that means that Nancy Pelosi is whipping pressure to get Biden out of the race--and I suspect it does--then Biden is done. Because there is no person better at whipping Democratic votes than Nancy Pelosi.

Boy, the job market really is tight if this is the only guy Hallmark can find to write its Mothers Day cards.

Yeah, and I'm sorry but if it ain't airside, it isn't worth shit.

Oh, Elron--you're going to love Downtown Austin.

So we're about to embark on a major renovation of our house. It'll basically be a gut-job. And we were planning to start construction the first week of October. But it suddenly occurs to me that this would be a fine way to make a few bucks just before construction actually commences. And fuck yeah I'll just pocket that cleaning fee.

Going back to this--did they protest? Because it's really weird that you could have interference with an automatic out. What's he interfering with? The runner could've tackled the infielder, and the outcome of the play would be no different--the batter would be out. If the rule book isn't clear on that, then it needs some clarity. Because that call is nonsensical.

This is where I am. I had a major thing for her in her 90210 days. And then Melrose Place came on the air, and I moved on from Shannen once Heather Locklear came back onto my radar.

Do you have any status on American? Because if so, then the security situation at AUS is just fine. I was there at the butt-crack of dawn Saturday morning, when the regular security line wound around the ticket counter area and was probably at least 45 minutes. But the premium line was deserted, and I was through in less than five minutes. Flying those kind of miles is going to get you status in a hurry, not to mention miles. Vonlane and RedCoach don't have a frequent-flyer program that is worth much of a shit. So for that reason, if you don't want to drive then I'd say fly American. I will say that while I was commuting between Austin and Dallas for nine months, I just drove. But I also wanted to have my car wherever I was, so the situation is slightly different.

I’m going to assume this is a good-faith query, which may be a mistake. It here goes. Texas has an open primary, which means that you can just show up to the primary and vote in whichever party’s primary you choose that day. You don’t “register” as a D or R in Texas. Other states have closed primaries, which means you have to register ahead of time as a D or R to participate. I assume Pennsylvania is one of those states, based on the media’s description of the guy as a “registered” Republican. But I don’t know. It makes sense that they would want to recruit disabled agents, since their protectees are mentally disabled. I mean, you want an agent who can understand the protected, right?

I found a good place from which to watch the Rangers beat the Astros. Ok—fair enough. Is there any bad place from which to watch the Rangers beat the Astros?

I’ve been just hanging out here in Boston this weekend watching the Rangers beat the Astros. I trust I didn’t miss anything that might impact the presidential race. Right?

I could see there being some limited amount of truth to the concept of Centerpoint having an "equity" office involved in the line work. Centerpoint doesn't want to have the narrative that all of its trucks are repairing lines in West University and River Oaks while Second Ward and South Houston don't see a truck until some time in August. So I suspect there is someone taking a look at distribution of resources to make sure they're not being unfairly focused on the rich white parts of town. The concept that there is a DEI officer overseeing every single work assignment that goes out, however, is fucking absurd.

I don't think this is a terrible hypothesis.