… according to two people with direct knowledge of the effort

So, he hasn’t gone public, at all.

He has gone public? Because he hasn’t said anything about this.

All I see are secondhand reports from anonymous sources, which is kind of the opposite of going public.

Boebert is not a millionaire.

Her most recent disclosure, filed on Aug. 13, 2022, lists seven assets worth $1,001 to $15,000 and five worth $1,000 or less. Even if each asset was at the high end of that range, that totals just over $100,000.

Her previous work experience was as an Assistant Manager at a McDonald’s.

Or possibly an assistant to the manager.

Democrats only need 4 more seats to retake the House. If they win the presidency, there will likely be more than that riding on the coattails.

There are significant risks to nominating Harris.

Because the most popular alternative is Kamala Harris, but there is no evidence she would do better against Trump.

We’d be trading concerns over Biden for concerns over Harris. If there is no improvement in performance, why bother?

It does what it means to do.

This system is only meant to predict the general election. It ignores any primary candidates who were not nominated.

The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.

Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.

However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a victorious military leader or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.

The system is currently meant to predict the electoral college winner, not the popular vote winner.

His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.

The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn’t throw that advantage away.

Brand new data shows that no Democrat outperforms Biden against Trump.

Also, when asked who should replace Biden the clear favorite was Kamala Harris. So be careful what you wish for.

Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.

The UK uses Freedom units too, but they are called Imperial units.

The DNC can rewrite the rules before the convention and nominate anyone they want.

The DNC does not control the Biden/Harris 2024 campaign org, the Biden/Harris ground ops teams including 30 Biden/Harris campaign offices in Michigan alone, the Biden/Harris war chest containing over $100 million, or the Biden/Harris Super PACS.

Biden/Harris can take their ball and go home. And that’s why the DNC won’t replace Biden unless he willingly steps down.

any replacement shares the most important quality Dem voters want that Biden actually meets.

Apart from money and a functioning campaign organization. But who needs that if you’re young, right?

And yet it’s better then takes based on vibes

The very act of campaigning tends to drag candidates down as their flaws are identified and hammered over and over.

That’s what happened to Dukakis, Gore, McCain, Clinton, etc. Even Obama, who in 2008 went from “inspirational DNC orator” to “inexperienced community activist”.

And that’s what’s happening to Biden.

Why would it?

If anything, the opposite would occur. As soon as someone announces they are running against Trump, the personal attacks start and they become an object of constant public ridicule. Just ask Ron DeSantis.

Biden’s polls have been fairly static or even slightly improved over time.

The other Democrats have done nothing to win over new voters, so there is no reason to think they would poll better against Trump today.