The Washington Times reports that the Democratic National Committee today will vote to change party rules so the party can quietly nominate Joe Biden via Zoom before its convention. Not only will this maneuver supposedly enure that an early ballot filing deadline in Ohio won’t keep Biden off the ballot there ( Gov. Mike DeWine has already signed a law to extend the filing deadline to make sure Biden is on the ballot, so the party’s claim that the virtual nomination is necessary for that reason is hooey), it will “eliminate any realistic chance disgruntled party members will try to replace Mr. Biden on the ballot with a more desirable candidate amid alarming poll numbers that show him trailing former President Donald Trump both nationally and in the critical battleground states.”
You know: can’t let that democracy thingy get in the way of The Party’s anointment of its Leader.
“Once President Biden is virtually nominated, then that will be it. He will be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party and only death or incapacitation will prevent that moving forward,” said Josh Putnam, party rules expert and founder of FHQ Strategies LLC, a non-partisan political consulting venture. “There will be no substitutes.”
Nominating Biden ahead of the convention also has the advantage of minimizing the bad optics of the anticipated convention protests by several groups who believe Biden has betrayed their interests. It also will ensure that the convention, and thus the “mostly peaceful” protests get as little TV airtime as possible. A coalition of organizations under the banner “March on The DNC” announced they plan to “bring our demands” to the Democratic National Convention. They want permits to demonstrate near the convention center “to bring the people’s agenda to within sight and sound of the Democratic Party leadership.” Oh, can’t have that! To re-phrase a memorable line from “Dr. Strangelove”: “You can’t have a political demonstration here! This is the Democratic Party Convention!”
“Mr. Biden could also face strife from convention delegates who want to see a younger, more politically viable candidate at the top of the ballot and could push for a brokered convention,” the Times says. “Polls show many voters don’t want to see Mr. Biden on the ballot in November and the president’s stale poll numbers in battleground states, where he consistently trails Mr. Trump, has the party in panic mode….nearly half of all likely U.S. voters, including a majority of Democratic voters, would ‘approve of Democrats finding another candidate’ to replace Mr. Biden, who, at 81, has presided over an economic downturn and has increasingly shown a decline in mental acuity.”
The Washington Times story concludes with the analysis of Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, who says that virtually nominating Mr. Biden ahead of the convention “takes away from the drama…It also reduces the probability that there’ll be disruptions at the nominating part of the convention.”
Ah. That “too much democracy” problem again. Funny, though: I thought a brokered convention would be good for the Democrats and the country, and that Biden was sure to drop out for the benefit of both…
(I fully acknowledge that the last is a cheap shot.)
Ethics Alarms 
Has not the Democratic Party demonstrated for years now that, if they don’t get what they want or it doesn’t appear they will get what they want, they will change the rules to make it so?
Rules? What rules?
Makes it look more and more that the behind the scenes cabal governing through Biden doesn’t want to lose control.
And if they’re so confident despite the polls then they must be reasonably confident in the midnight vote dump plans this go around.
Also, way down here in Alabama the convention as scheduled would go beyond the legislated time period, thus disallowing his name on the ballot. The DNC have been notified by our Alabama Secretary of State. I have yet ot read theri response.
Rules, what rules. Apparantly rules at the DNC are written on ice. Is this not a mirror of what they did in 2020?
ALERT! Bob Ghery is hereby banned. He is now free to hang out with “A Friend,” “Chris,” Ablative Meatshield, Liberal Dan and the rest bitching in the Last Comment Saloon.
Below is my final reply to him prompted by his latest obnoxious ad, as usual, wrong comment:
“Funny how “everything in the post was wrong” but the only thing you could point out was verifiably true.
You know what, Bob? You’re not worth the trouble. You’re just a troll; you contribute nothing of substance or value, you’re not witty or clever or perceptive and you’re an asshole to boot. Life’s too short to work to hard to try to do this job to get harassed and insulted by a close-minded jerk.
That’s your last comment. I hope it was worth it.”
**********************************************************************
Mostly everything about this post is wrong. You shouldn’t get your info from the Washington Times. Who doesn’t source any of their info.
For instance, “Gov. Mike DeWine has already signed a law to extend the filing deadline to make sure Biden is on the ballot” is not true.
Both US News and NBC have reported that Gov. DeWine signed a measure to ensure that President Biden appears on the ballot.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752
I did have that in the post.
It’s a waste of time to give Bob facts: that only confuses him.
Addendum: I really hate banning commenters. This is the first banning in 2024: 2023 was a bumper crop. It really should be that hard to avoid being banned: 1) Don’t ban yourself 2) Don’t threaten to quit “unless” 3) Don’t troll or sealion 4) Stay on topic 5) follow the commenting guidelines 6) don’t insult the host, and remember that you’re my guest. Why is that so hard?
Bob Ghery had 120 comments here since October of last year. Not one was positive, and a typical Bob argument was in his very first batch, commenting on a post where I described pre-emptive banning of certain individuals from owning guns absent felony convictions as “pre-crime.” Bob wrote, “It has nothing to do with “pre crime” but about regulations disarming dangerous individuals.” But disarming those who the state deems dangerous individuals before they have done anything criminal is, in fact, what pre-crime is.
I think I deserve a hand for putting up with such crap for 8 months.
I completely agree with a commenter’s right to disagree. I wish we had more of it because it’s healthy for discussion and it’s educational. But I do NOT understand the need to call the host names or accuse him of “bloviating.” Why not stick to the topic at hand and not make it personal? We have people of a more liberal bent here and they remain respectful even during strong contention. Why couldn’t Bob – and so many of the others before him/her – just do that?
<clap> <clap> <clap>, I don’t always agree with Jack or others here, but discussion, even argument is healthy and good for the soul. Mine and the countries.