Well, I am the first to admit I got it wrong. I expected Biden to stay in the race. In saying this I didn't think he was actually up to the job and have repeatedly, like others, noted his serious cognitive decline. However, that he had the near unilateral backing of thousands of Democratic delegates, a substantial war chest of money (which doesn’t simply transfer to the new candidate), and with so few days left to his Democratic Convention I thought he would hold on. There was also the reality – that will now play out – that for him to step down leaves major questions to be answered and a Party in disarray. Put simply it appeared to be his decision to stay or quit, and he and his team were unambiguous around his intention to stay.
Yet the extraordinary events of the last few hours show us that, in many ways, it was not fully his decision. For me this is illustrated by one very simple reality - there are no photos or videos of him signing his resignation letter. This may seem like a trifling thing but to me it is symbolically very significant in both a presidential and social media world. This is a very historically significant decision. Not since Lyndon B. Johnson has a President stood down from re-election and certainly not so close to an election. Yet for now, there is no visual record nor address to the nation.
What I think we are seeing is a small but influential group within the Democratic Party that have applied pressure on Biden to step aside. We all know what the key influencers within the Democratic Party think – be this senior elected members, the likes of the Clinton family and Obama, or celebrity donors like George Clooney. But these are not the ordinary Democratic voters. I don’t think we can escape the fact that up until a few hours ago, the man who held all the cards to become the official Democratic nominee for President (and potentially a second term as President) chose to step aside wholly, or in part, because of the pressure from a few.
Naturally the Democrats will be desperate to form a face of unity. This makes complete sense. The Party hierarchy is likely to rally around Kamala Harris and we are already seeing the work to make this happen. But it is not without its risks including grassroots Democratic voters and donors who are not keen on a manufactured solution to what has been a slow-evolving problem.
It is hard to tell whether the Republicans see this as a victory or a concern. It is probably a mixture of both. That Biden could step down and Harris take over will have been anticipated. We no longer have a battle between two old foes (in both senses of the word!) but a somewhat new face in Kamala Harris. As we have seen here in New Zealand, sometimes a change of leadership leads to disintegration whereas other times it leads to new impetus and energy. Time will tell as too will election day in November!
The heir presumptive, Kamala Harris, comes with significant baggage alongside strengths. Her main claim of competency will be based around identity politics. This will likely solidify – and perhaps galvanise – the existing Democratic base who had begun to despair. It is unlikely to draw in new voters but this may not matter; if she gets Democratic voters out in key swing states, then it could make all the difference.
However, there are several significant weaknesses. The most critical is that she knew full well the situation of Joe Biden’s health and has worked tirelessly to cover it up along with others in the administration and mainstream media. Put another way, she has led the gaslighting and many will not forget this.
There is also the very pertinent question of how President Biden can remove himself from the ticket yet remain as President. While this query now takes on partisan qualities, it is a valid question. It is one that the Democratic Party and it’s new presidential candidate are now going to have to answer publicly.
There is also the question of what Democratic voters on the ground think and do. As I write, the same power brokers that have encouraged Biden to leave are coalescing around Harris. They are a minority; small in number but powerful. But they are not the tens of thousands of hard workers on the ground who up to a few hours ago were working for Biden. These people are likely to fall into line but there could well be a number who feel, rightly, disenfranchised from a process to select their candidate. Whether Democrat or Republican, those joining political parties believe in the value of democracy and democratic processes. What is unfolding is not.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
What I think we are seeing is a small but influential group within the Democratic Party that have applied pressure on Biden to step aside. We all know what the key influencers within the Democratic Party think – be this senior elected members, the likes of the Clinton family and Obama, or celebrity donors like George Clooney. But these are not the ordinary Democratic voters. I don’t think we can escape the fact that up until a few hours ago, the man who held all the cards to become the official Democratic nominee for President (and potentially a second term as President) chose to step aside wholly, or in part, because of the pressure from a few.
Naturally the Democrats will be desperate to form a face of unity. This makes complete sense. The Party hierarchy is likely to rally around Kamala Harris and we are already seeing the work to make this happen. But it is not without its risks including grassroots Democratic voters and donors who are not keen on a manufactured solution to what has been a slow-evolving problem.
It is hard to tell whether the Republicans see this as a victory or a concern. It is probably a mixture of both. That Biden could step down and Harris take over will have been anticipated. We no longer have a battle between two old foes (in both senses of the word!) but a somewhat new face in Kamala Harris. As we have seen here in New Zealand, sometimes a change of leadership leads to disintegration whereas other times it leads to new impetus and energy. Time will tell as too will election day in November!
The heir presumptive, Kamala Harris, comes with significant baggage alongside strengths. Her main claim of competency will be based around identity politics. This will likely solidify – and perhaps galvanise – the existing Democratic base who had begun to despair. It is unlikely to draw in new voters but this may not matter; if she gets Democratic voters out in key swing states, then it could make all the difference.
However, there are several significant weaknesses. The most critical is that she knew full well the situation of Joe Biden’s health and has worked tirelessly to cover it up along with others in the administration and mainstream media. Put another way, she has led the gaslighting and many will not forget this.
There is also the very pertinent question of how President Biden can remove himself from the ticket yet remain as President. While this query now takes on partisan qualities, it is a valid question. It is one that the Democratic Party and it’s new presidential candidate are now going to have to answer publicly.
There is also the question of what Democratic voters on the ground think and do. As I write, the same power brokers that have encouraged Biden to leave are coalescing around Harris. They are a minority; small in number but powerful. But they are not the tens of thousands of hard workers on the ground who up to a few hours ago were working for Biden. These people are likely to fall into line but there could well be a number who feel, rightly, disenfranchised from a process to select their candidate. Whether Democrat or Republican, those joining political parties believe in the value of democracy and democratic processes. What is unfolding is not.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
It is terrifying that a bloke with a finger near if not on the nuclear button should have judgement so addled that he cannot recognise his own decline despite the graphic display. I recognise my own decline although (apart from eyesight induced spelling) would not be apparent to a stranger.
Can I draw other readers of this article to the comment (quote) - "However, that he had the near unilateral backing of thousands of Democratic delegates, a substantial war chest of money (which doesn’t simply transfer to the new candidate), and with so few days left to his Democratic Convention I thought he would hold on"(end quote).
Now for the New Zealand reader, this "war chest" is in the vicinity of "Millions of $$$"". In the type of election process, we are witnessing, this is not an unusual amount - BUT - what is/ or was it - being and/or going to be spent on?
Once Ms Harris was "nominated by Joe B" her "war chest (US$$)"was recorded (after 24 hours) as being $50 million $$! Same question here as above.
Please note MS Harris, when she speaks, has the "same bumbling verbal rhetoric and pronunciation" as Dear Joe B did, oft referred to by American Media as -"word salad" and she is supposed to be a Lawyer?
In 2019 it was interesting to watch Tulsi Gabbard - former Representative, Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District, "verbally undo Kamala", in a TV debate, that involved Democrat Presidential Nominees - verbal statements that led to Kamala "withdrawing from contention".
Strange she ended up as Joe B's VP, for which it is recorded she has been the most lack luster VP of modern times.
Along with the rest of the World - we now watch the electoral antics over the next few months.
Post a Comment