@kentwillard We are! That's ordinary in our style representative democracy, where we elect representatives but reserve the right to weigh in continually despite being much less informed than those we've elected and the staff they hire. 1/

@kentwillard I have no insight into what Joe Biden the person knows or doesn't know. But the Biden Administration has so far behaved very rationally and competently ( except on Israel/Gaza, unless you buy something like the theory I invented to try to make sense of that https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/05/08/the-long-fistbump/index.html ). 2/

@kentwillard Whatever else you might think of Jill Biden, she does not seem addled, and she understands the stakes. I think there are grounds for some optimism this, like all the rest, will ultimately be handled competently, which doesn't necessarily mean what you and i might want, but does mean evaluating and if necessary negotiating a good alternative when they have staunched a public panic that renders them incapable of acting carefully and strategically as long as it continues. /fin

@djc Usually I'm on the other side of this. I hate it when people tell potential primary contenders to stay out because it would be "divisive". Given our terrible electoral system and the two-party oligopoly it yields, the primary system is the *only* outlet through which new ideas and ideologies can gain expression. My first choice would be to pick a better electoral system, but while we have this one, contesting primaries should always be encouraged IMHO. 1/

@djc But I don't think that holds now. What little legitimacy surrounds our usual, very flawed electoral process comes from the fact that the rules and contours are well-known in advance, and the public does have some ways to intervene in it. This process would lack that legitimacy. "Public opinion" would have its effect only through media and algorithmic social-media funhouse mirrors. Those are both antidemocratic antiprocedures. 2/

@djc And unless there is a very quick consolidation behind a ticket (what I think the outgoing administration stands responsible to engineer), all bets are off about whether Democrats will be able to present themselves as suitable to govern. (And of course interested actors — Republicans, maybe geopolitical interests that would prefer dealing with Trump administration — will act strategically to provoke an unflattering process if they can.) /fin

@djc it could! if it becomes sufficiently untenable for him to even pretend to go on, that might happen. but if there isn't any internal process, it will be hard to prevent ambitious politicians from contesting what institutionally would become an open convention. the point of a "position of strength" is the ability to "clear the field", to get consensus behind the ticket they endorse even from disappointed contenders. 1/

@djc the goal would be (and should be at this point in the cycle IMHO) to prevent a mediagenic quasi-"democratic" horse race during which negative campaigning intraparty would be difficult to prevent. instead of Biden, the choice is between Trump and what the publish perceives as chaotic, ambitious, backbiters and their rioting supporters outside the convention. 2/

@djc that may prove impossible! if the rebellion cannot be crushed, if there is sufficient pressure from democratic pols and public to drop out now now now, then they may feel they have no alternative than just calling quits (with or without some endorsement) and risking a chaotic, more-democratic-in-form-than-substance, "open convention". 3/

@djc That might work out! I mean, both Biden and Trump are absurdly unpopular candidates that only America's weird electoral institutions would have set up for a run-off. A kind of random quasidemocratic process might well do better! But it also might prove terrible. It would be wiser to prefer a better-managed and substantively more democratically legit process (the winner of the public election chooses his emergency successor), if that remains possible. /fin