Harris 2024

[Some Schmo]

I get why it is that Demos get upset when the word coup is used by MAGAsters regarding the risky and precipitous removal of the man millions of Democrats voted in the primaries to have as their candidate for president: Joe Biden. At the same time, the risky and precipitous removal of the man that millions of Democrats voted to be their candidate for the president is, well, kind of a coup within the party. I hope that coup works out, and I plan to vote for the beneficiary of that coup. But, I feel no compunction to use kinder words to describe it. If powerful Democrats, of whom I am not one, want to play it in their party as they want, that's their business.

It's ridiculous to call it a coup because there was no sudden violent overthrow of a world government. Biden is still the President. He stepped aside from running again under pressure, sure, but political pressure didn't guarantee he'd go through with it and subsequently endorse his successor. There's nothing coup-ish about it.

The only reason anyone would call it a coup is to draw a false comparison between Biden stepping aside and Trump encouraging his followers to violently storm the Capital. It's pathetic rationalization. Hell, they may even be dumb enough to think those things are the same.

[Kishkumen]

It's ridiculous to call it a coup because there was no sudden violent overthrow of a world government. Biden is still the President. He stepped aside from running again under pressure, sure, but political pressure didn't guarantee he'd go through with it and subsequently endorse his successor. There's nothing coup-ish about it.

The only reason anyone would call it a coup is to draw a false comparison between Biden stepping aside and Trump encouraging his followers to violently storm the Capital. It's pathetic rationalization. Hell, they may even be dumb enough to think those things are the same.

No, it is not “ridiculous.” In fact, Harris is increasingly stepping into a presidential role in the run-up to the election—something we have not seen before. But “coup,” in any case, is a reasonable description of the deposition of a sitting president in favor of his #2, who fills a role that is often seen as ceremonial and has not reliably led to a presidential term. You have, I hope, heard of the term “bloodless coup,” which is, after all, still a kind of coup.

But, hey, I GET IT. We all need to intone the right formulas and charms to invoke the peaceful transition of power from Magus Biden to Magus Harris, lest Evil Magus Trump seize power. Count me sold on the voting part of that sacred rite. But, sorry, I don’t forbid myself from using the word coup to describe the internal process whereby Hollywood and media elites threw Biden to the curb because, much like some of my friends here, unless someone is loved by the camera they deem him incompetent to fill the job of president.

[Marcus]

I don't think there was a coup.

Could the Democrats choose a new presidential candidate?

In a 'New York Times' essay, Johns Hopkins political scientist Daniel Schlozman explains how the Democratic Party's charter allows for changing candidates.

ByHub staff report / Published Jul 16

The Democratic Party's rules for its national convention in Chicago next month clearly provide a path for selecting a candidate to replace President Joe Biden as the party's nominee to run in the Nov. 5 election against Donald Trump,

according to a New York Times essay by Johns Hopkins University political science professor Daniel Schlozman.

Democrats, Schlozman writes, "need to grasp a critical point: Joe Biden is not yet the nominee of the Democratic Party."

The path to selecting an alternative nominee at the Democratic Party National Convention that starts Aug. 19 "remains open," he writes. "And a look at party rules, and the reasons for their adoption, offers a road map to how such a shift could happen."

A convention is not supposed to be a "coronation," Schlozman writes. "The point of a nomination process is to choose the best nominee for November."

The 3,934 delegates who are pledged to Biden based on the results of Democratic Party primary elections are not "bound" to cast their convention votes to nominate the president. The delegates and party leaders "are there to protect the party's broader interests rather than the narrow interests of any single candidate."

Schlozman quotes the party's charter, which states, "The national convention shall be the highest authority of the Democratic Party."

"Under party rules," he writes, "a nominee must win an absolute majority of delegates on a given presidential ballot at the convention. Now, with democracy in the balance, the convention can return to its old role of actually choosing the nominee. The party can still decide."

Schlozman also explains how the convention will also feature 739 "superdelegates," who are party leaders and elected officials who will "have to suffer the consequences if a flawed nominee drags down the ticket."

"They are there to protect the party's broader interests rather than the narrow interests of any single candidate," Schlozman writes. "If needed, the convention can work its will, and Democrats can still control their destiny. Country and party now require the delegates to use the power that is theirs."
https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/07/16/democrat ... ace-biden/

[Bolding added]

[Kishkumen]

I agree that the party can do what it wants, ALWAYS HAVE, TOO. If the votes of its members can be swept aside, then I choose not to belong to it. I reason similarly about the LDS Church. If my membership is a one-way street, then I don’t want to be a member. Sweeping aside votes cast is, by my reckoning, which matters to ME, as I decide where I want to participate, a kind of coup. I would be happy to read the procedure whereby those votes are set aside, but that does not make me want to participate in such a rigged process.

You all are free to be satisfied with a small group of elites picking your candidates from one party or the other. I would like to see the two party system destroyed. In the meantime, I will, as an Independent, vote for the lesser of two evils from that inferior, elitist process.

[Marcus]

I see. I thought you were using coup more conventionally, as an illegal act to take over, not something that personally feels like a coup.

And saying "you all" is really inappropriate here. Your sweeping generalizations don't match my thought processes.

[Moksha]

It's ridiculous to call it a coup because there was no sudden violent overthrow of a world government.

It''s not like yahoos smashed their way into the White House, pooped in the Oval Office, and sought to hang Mike Pence.

Anyway, Trump intends to free similar yahoos and award them the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

[Kishkumen]

I see. I thought you were using coup more conventionally, as an illegal act to take over, not something that personally feels like a coup.

And saying "you all" is really inappropriate here. Your sweeping generalizations don't match my thought processes.

Marcus, I get that metaphor has never been your strong suit. And I know you will keep reminding me of this every time you presume to lecture me after taking my use of metaphor literally. Here's one more thing: I don't have to speak to your personal thought processes whenever I make a comment on this board, even in a comment that does partly respond to something you wrote. And, yes, I was not just responding to you alone.

Yes, it is so fun to have the grimly serious brigades of both the GOP and DNC insist on reducing language to its narrowest, most literal sense so they beat each other up with it.

"Someone called it a coup! We must take this literally if we can get some mileage out of it!"

"How dare you call it a coup! It was not an illegal take over of our democratic system! You can only use the word literally and when it fits in that literal sense. Otherwise, do not use the word!"

Me: "Eff off and chill out."

[Some Schmo]

Sure, you can call it anything you want, but it's not helpful to our current political discourse, because it's only accurate in the narrowest of senses (not to mention the fact that an actual coup by MAGA was recently attempted, and we don't need people making this a both-sides issue).

[Moksha]

Netflix saw a dramatic spike in cancelations after its co-founder Reed Hastings revealed he donated $7 million to Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, according to a report.

However, stock in United Pesticides and Grits rose after Cornpone T. Willywaker revealed he gave even more money to Trump.

[Moksha]

It would be nice if someone could watch this report by Rachel Maddow on JD Vance and comment on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeVhHNSe9Ks

Someone with greater gravitas and respectability than myself (which means anyone).