I read a Thomas Friedman column this week that really required a smackdown. So I supplied one at New York:
How much political capital should Democrats invest in a probably doomed effort to save the political career of Liz Cheney? Earlier this week, Never Trump Republican Linda Chavez penned a column urging Wyoming Democrats to take a dive this November in order to give the incumbent a chance to survive as an independent, assuming (as it safe) that Cheney will be purged in her own party’s primary. And now, in an apparent coincidence, in comes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggesting a far more radical step by Democrats to align themselves with the small slice of Republicans who follow Cheney’s example in repudiating Donald Trump. He wrote:
“Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination.”
Friedman phrases this as a question, but clearly he thinks it’s a good idea given the “existential moment” America would face if Trump is allowed to regain the presidency in 2024. It’s a bit of a loaded question, too, since it postulates that nothing short of a previously unimaginable “sacrifice” by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans alike can stop Trump — and that it would, in fact, succeed in stopping Trump.
I certainly agree that Democrats dumping Kamala Harris to give their vice-presidential nomination to a conservative Republican who opposes legalized abortion and is a militarist by conviction and heredity would be a “sacrifice,” to put it very mildly. It would also be very, very weird. Friedman cites the recent establishment of a mind-bending coalition government in Israel to thwart Bibi Netanyahu as a development comparable to what he is suggesting. But as he acknowledges, Israel has a parliamentary system in which multiparty coalitions are the rule rather than the exception. A presidential system in which parties invariably run separate tickets for the top job is another thing altogether.
The U.S. has had exactly one example of multiparty fusionism in a presidential election. In 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Republicans nominated Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee — then serving as U.S. military governor of Tennessee — to run with Lincoln on a “Union” ticket. The experiment did not turn out well, beginning with Johnson’s drunken inaugural address in 1865 and continuing with the racist solidarity he exhibited toward ex-Confederates after Lincoln’s assassination, culminating in his impeachment and near removal from office. There are important reasons politicians sort themselves out into major parties, which should be apparent in an era of polarization over issues other than the scofflaw behavior of Donald Trump.
Is the threat of Trump’s return to the White House the equivalent of the U.S. Civil War? Not in itself, I would contend, though that horrific development could lead eventually to grave conditions comparable if not equal to a civil war. The premise that a Biden-Cheney fusion ticket would uniquely doom Trump to failure is even more dubious. There has never been much evidence of a mass following for Never Trump Republicans, and such as it is, it is mostly composed of people who would (and did in 2020) gladly vote for Biden and Harris. The baleful effect that replacing Harris with Cheney on the ticket would have on Democratic turnout could easily offset or exceed the alleged benefits of bipartisan and trans-ideological fusion.
So Democrats should say thanks, but no thanks, to Friedman for the idea of submitting their party to some sort of unwieldy and unnatural coalition of national salvation, so long as there is the slightest possibility of beating Trump the old-fashioned way. Liz Cheney deserves great respect for the courage she has shown in defying Trump at the expense of her own career, and if Biden is reelected with her support, perhaps she deserves an ambassadorship, a minor Cabinet post, or a major sub-Cabinet position. But she has no business being at the top of the line of succession to a Democratic president.
Fellow donkeys,
If the good news from this DCorps poll isn’t enough to boost your spirits, I strongly recommend heading over to democracycorps.com and checking out their Public Polling chart (right column, about halfway down), which provides a superb summary of the state of the polls right now, both nationally and at the state level (and it includes our favorite statistic: the D/R split). In it you will find that the average of polls for this past several days has GWB with 47% support. Not only that, but the number has been remarkably static close to a month now. By contrast, JFK’s support has risen gradually and steadily, from 43-44% pre-debates, to 45% after debate #1, 46% after #2, and 47% after number 3. This really confirms what all of us thought must be the case all along: the majority of the country is pretty unhappy with Bush, and was just waiting all along to be convinced that Kerry was the right man to replace him. Most of them have now been convinced, and them who haven’t will be on November 2nd.
We all know that Bush at 47% is toast — but if you’re still pessimistic, consider the following:
1. The polls summarized by DCorps are all for LVs — if it were RVs then Kerry would be doing even better, as has been the case in almost every poll during the entire campaign season.
2. We have had positive documentation from the NY Times that the Dems kicked some serious a** in new vote registration — so much that even the pachyderm’s shredding forms & denying applications won’t be enough to counteract it.
3. With Kerry poised to win this race 51-47, we really don’t even have to sweat the Electoral College, but in case you want to do that, DCorps’ report has similar summaries for all the state polls, showing — shock of all shocks — Bush’s support running at 47% or lower in essentially EVERY battleground state that is still being seriously contested: PA, OH, FL, MI, MN, IA, WI, NH, NV, CO. Right now, Kerry stands poised to win EVERY ONE of these states!! Even if Jeb & Co. steal FL, we got room to spare.
The absolutely stability of Bush’s 47% is actually very good news — it means that nothing he’s done for the last month has garnered him any extra support. This race appears to have entered a static phase, and may change very little over the next 2 weeks. So rejoice! We are hurtling toward victory!
Now prepare for a very late night on November 2nd — to see if we take back the Senate!
Most interesting question in the survery:
“In last election, did you vote for Bush or Gore?”
Respondents said they voted for Bush by 50-44.
If the respondents are reporting accurately (a big ‘if’), then this describes the polling bias. If the polling bias is +6 for Bush, we can expect good things in 2 weeks.
I think that one of the most telling aspects of this poll is that it is based on a polling population that voted 55 for Bush to 44 for Gore in 2000 and now favors Kerry by 50 Kerry and 47 for Bush.