It appears that the democratic nomination contest is wrapped up. People are voting with their wallets. Pelosi and Obama at one point appeared to favor some kind of competitive process, but Pelosi has evidently thrown her support behind Harris. Potential rivals are all standing down. Ezra Klein is still making the case for an abbreviated nomination contest. His strongest points are that we will learn something about Harris by having her compete for the nomination, and that the Democrats can get a couple of weeks of all-consuming press coverage focused on how awful Trump is. Even rivals who have endorsed Harris could participate, perhaps as VP candidates. I made similar points myself, but I’m not at all sure a mini-primary makes sense now.
Topics:
Eric Kramer considers the following as important: Kamela Harris, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Exploring Voter Turnout by Income
NewDealdemocrat writes Jobless claims: all good news
Joel Eissenberg writes A history of xenophobia in America
Angry Bear writes The political season, a (one-sided) return to sanity, and the need for a landslide
It appears that the democratic nomination contest is wrapped up. People are voting with their wallets. Pelosi and Obama at one point appeared to favor some kind of competitive process, but Pelosi has evidently thrown her support behind Harris. Potential rivals are all standing down.
Ezra Klein is still making the case for an abbreviated nomination contest. His strongest points are that we will learn something about Harris by having her compete for the nomination, and that the Democrats can get a couple of weeks of all-consuming press coverage focused on how awful Trump is. Even rivals who have endorsed Harris could participate, perhaps as VP candidates.
I made similar points myself, but I’m not at all sure a mini-primary makes sense now. For one thing, there is always a risk that a Democratic face-off will devolve into a circular firing squad. If this happens, there will not be much time for hurt feelings to be soothed. If the most promising contenders refuse to participate there is little upside to the process – Harris may be damaged, but there may not be anyone ready to step into her shoes. Perhaps even more important, it is not clear that anyone but Harris can get a campaign up and running in time for fall campaign. If this is right, it seems conclusive.
There has been a good deal of speculation about how the process will affect perceptions of legitimacy and voter enthusiasm. Republicans, naturally, have been impugning the democratic bona fides of the nomination process in the aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal. Shumer and Jeffries and some rich donors have delayed endorsing Harris to avoid the perception of a coronation.
Perhaps this makes sense. But there are no perfect options here, and little reason to think that perceptions of legitimacy should be decisive. A run-off that damaged the eventual nominee would be a net negative, even if it was perceived as appropriately democratic. More fundamentally, it is difficult to know what counts as a legitimate process when a process is being chosen mid-stream. In competitions, an important element of legitimacy is simply having rules laid out clearly in advance and enforced in an even-handed manner. There is no such thing as a legitimate game of Calvin Ball. But the democratic nomination process is now, inevitably, in make-it-up-as-you-go-along mode. We all just need to live with this. In all likelihood, it won’t matter.