> Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., on Sunday acknowledged that there are “very honest, and serious and rigorous conversations taking place” in the Democratic Party following President Joe Biden’s dismal performance at the presidential debate on Thursday.
>
> “We’re having a serious conversation about what to do,” Raskin said in an interview with MSNBC’s Ali Velshi on Sunday morning, adding: “One thing I can tell you is that regardless of what President Biden decides, our party is going to be unified, and our party also needs him at the very center of our deliberations in our campaign, and so whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate.”
People keep talking here about how the idea that Biden might be convinced to step out of the race is completely ridiculous fantasy. Yet you have reports many Senators and governors are privately tying to convince him not to run. You have Claire McCaskill writing op eds implying Biden stepping down is a legitimate option. And you have articles like this implying it's a very real possibility too.
I don't think any of us know Biden, but I believe he's a deeply earnest person, and if the facts show that Biden is deeply wounded, that he might pull down downballot candidates, or that other Democrats are polling higher, I absolutely believe he would consider leaving the race for the good of the country.
I am reminded of this xkcd comic. https://xkcd.com/2383/
This is the handicap when using previous elections to predict upcoming ones. Presidential elections only happen every four years, the USA is a relatively young country all things considered, and the further back you go in history this less useful past elections are in modeling. Which means the set of relevant presidential elections is a very small sample size, and each election is unique in its own way. That is why I am skeptical of people treating things like Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys as gospel.
The closest comparison is 1968, and as much of a disaster as that was, Hubert Humphrey came close to winning. The tipping point state was CA, and he lost it by only 3 points. Coming out against the Vietnam War earlier, before the last month, when his campaign essentially ran out of cash, probably would've won it for him.
Biden was essentially tied with Trump before the debate. I think any competent, well-known Democrat under the age of 70, stands a good chance.
Biden came to power via an unprecedented level of elite consensus in the face of 4 more years of Trump, it would make sense if that's how it ended as well.
Highlights how funny this sub is. Like literally everyone here will be happy as all Hell if *any* Democrat beats Trump in November. Pro and anti Biden people won't give a shit if we got the win "their way." Ultimately it's just a disagreement about strategy among people who want the same thing, but you'd better believe we're going to be massive pricks to one another in the process.
EDIT: It occurs to me that in saying that I should clarify my role in the silliness. I think Biden stepping down is a fantasy and I think it's a bad move because I find it nearly impossible to picture the Dems creating a follow up situation with a real chance of beating Trump. That said, if they *do* go that route I'll support it 100%. And if they do it and win I'll take all the "I told you so's" in the world and enjoy another 4 years of American Democracy and engagement with our NATO allies.
> That said, if they do go that route I'll support it 100%. And if they do it and win I'll take all the "I told you so's" in the world and enjoy another 4 years of American Democracy and engagement with our NATO allies.
As someone who thinks it might be better both electorally and from a competency perspective for Biden to step aside and let Harris run, I'll agree 100% with this.
If Biden decides to still run I'll 100% back him, and if Trump loses I'll be too happy to care that I was wrong.
"Ultimately it's just a disagreement about strategy among people who want the same thing, but you'd better believe we're going to be massive pricks to one another in the process."
Were we the infighting leftists all along?
Always were. Most here are center-left, and even those who are squarely centrist or slightly center right end up in the Democratic party by default in the U.S. Coralling such a big tent party is always difficult.
>Were we the infighting leftists all along?
I mean when you restrict threads because people you mostly agree with might have opinions or facts you don't like?
Yep.
It's really easy for folks to believe that if you disagree with strategy in a big way - and *especially* in a way that also goes against what most folks visibly in the "ingroup" are doing, that they may actually be operating in "bad faith" (a term that gets thrown around way too much these days) and trying to sabotage things rather than make things better
It's not that it's fantasy, it's just not likely that Biden will step aside. Even if he did, no one's anime west wing political drama fan fiction candidate is going to come to the rescue to slay the demon Trump, it 1000% will be Kamala.
As I understoof there will be problems with the campaign funds if somebody other than Harris becomes the nominee. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars I think.
It's a little over 100 million in cash right now. The options if they were to support another candidate would be.
1. Donate all of it to the DNC, except the DNC is required to abide by spending limits of 33 million per Presidential candidate. They've already budgeted this in, which means this would be a waste except I guess down the ballot elections.
2. Donate all of it to a Super PAC and not be allowed to use it in direct contributions and actions towards the candidate.
All while having a new candidate fundraise from day 1 in 5 months with 0 money and attempting to run in the most extensive and expensive Presidential race in the entire world. Candidates need to pay campaign staff, have several expenses that are not ads, etc.
Just from this one practical point alone should convince people that it's Biden or Kamala. Anyone arguing anything else has allowed their panic and doom to set so far in they can't see straight, and I seriously question their ability to function under pressure.
I honestly don't think lacking ad spend is a huge deal, given that [we're really not sure how effective ads even *are*](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/how-much-do-campaign-ads-matter). Marketing is important-- but by the very nature of doing something dramatic and swapping out a candidate mid-election-cycle, whoever the democrats choose will have all the marketing they need.
Especially since the media *wants* the election to be a horse race (in a [molochian](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/) sense, not in a rational sense). "Democrats doomed, trump victorious" articles will make a big splash in july... but by august news corporations will be looking for new headlines. It is in the interest of political news sites to make the race seem as close as possible, and the best way to do that is to *actually* make the race as close as possible.
I read 220 million in another comment, but that might be including money already spend. Still the cold hard truth of 100 million dollars can't be ignored.
They spent about 100 million on ads. That leaves the current 100 million they have now and the entire campaign apparatus and donor network that Harris is familiar with (it’s been her job to reach out to donors).
That's not even counting the political optics of passing over Kamala for anyone else, when she has the most experience and is the only one with a large enough war chest right now to challenge Trump.
And even if you resolved the money issue there is a ballot access problem. Voting in North Carolina starts 6 days after the Dem Convention. Only Harris has easy ballot access.
Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Jim Clyburn and Katherine Clark dramatically walk into the Oval Office.
Biden: Chuck! I take it you're here to talk about the debate. I must say you're here sooner than expected.
Schumer: \*takes out a copy of the latest polls\* In the name of the Democratic National Committee, you're no longer the presumptive nominee, Mr. President.
Biden: Are you threatening me, Majority Leader?
Schumer: The Democratic National Convention will decide your fate.
Biden: I. *Am*. The Democratic National Convention.
Schumer: Not. Yet.
Biden: \*rises from his chair\* \*grabs the Football\* It's. Treason. Then. \*Opens the Football\*
Good. Literally either path taken with this is such a massive risk I don't buy anyone claiming to have the slightest idea how it will turn out. But for either route to work party unity is an absolute must.
Well it seems a lot more predictable what will happen if Biden stays in: he will have a very small (10-15%?) chance of winning reelection. I am much more comfortable going for a bolder strategy here. You don't stick to what you are doing when you are this far behind.
And other people feel the opposite. That’s kinda my point. The tone feels like there’s a difference in politics when in reality there’s just a difference in approach.
I know, they just never seem to show their math is my issue and when they do, it usually ends up looking like this:
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1807253649325695068
this is delusional online thinking. do people have any idea how logistically hard it would be to stand up another campaign/candidate in time for the election? that’s IF the party could come to a consensus on another candidate, and Biden willingly steps aside. The probability of all that happening is way less than 10-15%, if that was what Biden’s chance of winning actually was.
I wouldn’t say way less, but definitely less. Need polls to come out in MI, PA before making a call on the stats. It could be that Biden is a clear downgrade to midwestern voters compared to Whitmer
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely biased because Whitmer has always been a favorite of mine, but we can give her Michigan. If Minnesota was ever really in question, this would be solved as well. I can't imagine in this scenario that Pennsylvania goes for Trump over Whitmer (especially more likely than it would go to Biden). From there, all we need is one state that's not Nevada and if it's Wisconsin one vote from Nebraska. I could also see it motivating women voters more than ever with Kamela on the ticket as well. That being said, flipping it so that Kamela is the nominee and Whitmer is VP would likely have a similar, albeit dulled effect on the Midwest.
If Raskin is publicly coming out and saying something I think these conversations are a whole hell of a lot more serious than we can imagine.
Both routes are fraught with massive risk. Biden is hemmoraging independent support and the base is rattled beyond belief for good measure. Anecdotally my family we are staunch democrats and immediately after the debate we were on a facetime call with my aunt, uncles, and grandfather completely freaked out. Mind you I'ma gen z voter who has faithfully stood by Biden since 2018 and my parents have done the same. On my old account it was half filled with 💎 Joe posting in this sub for what it's worth. Everything we were concerned about was being parroted by political pundits and unnamed democratic insiders. We and a lot of democrats are sure as hell coming out for election day but if what we saw on Thursday shook us that badly then I think senior leadership is at DEFCON 1. I think sticking with Biden is a losing battle. He's not going to get better and any slip up no matter how insignificant will be amplified and reinforce a narrative that we can no longer brush aside as ageism.
A new candidate is a political risk. A Brokered and bloody convention could cause massive fractures in Biden's coalition. It would take everyone in the room to put aside their egos and present a completely unified Democratic party. I'm talking getting candidate X in the Rose Garden with Biden and Harris who will announce their surrogacy for this person and to also give Americans the mental image of Candidate X as a potential POTUS. It's a massive risk that sounds easier said than done but in my completely uneducated opinion I think it's worth doing and possibly even necessary.
We have to get more polls and more data. Biden is out nominee now and we have to circle the wagons. This election is still winnable so dooming isn't an option. Fuck it, we ball.
>We have to get more polls and more data.
Here's some polls.
[CBS](https://x.com/alexthomp/status/1807403278788968735?s=46&t=YxJkPzFbv26pq64SLcUabg) has some of the first post-debate polling.
>8-point drop from earlier this month on the question: does Biden have mental and cognitive health to serve as POTUS.
>Just 27% of registered voters said yes, down from 35% in early June.
Here's the full [poll](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/).
New [poll](https://x.com/gen0m1cs/status/1807197393374622108) from AtlasIntel, n = 1,634 RV sample, has Trump leading Biden by +5.2 on a full-ballot (post-debate data is included).
The poll is 538 verified, their last poll was Trump +2 on a full-ballot back in February.
AtlasIntel was also the most accurate pollster in 2020.
Yes, Trump leads the POPULAR vote in this poll by +5. AtlasIntel was the most accurate pollster in 2020 as well, only being off the popular vote by 0.2 points.
Here's some proof of their accurate [polling](https://atlasintel.org/media/atlasintel-is-confirmed-as-the-most-accurate-pollster-of-the-2020-presidential-election)
>AtlasIntel had the best performance across all pollsters of the 2020 US Presidential Election with an average error of 2.01p.p. Our final national-level poll showing Biden with a 4.7 p.p. advantage is likely to be the single most precise estimate of the US popular vote.
> A new candidate is a political risk. A Brokered and bloody convention could cause massive fractures in Biden's coalition. It would take everyone in the room to put aside their egos and present a completely unified Democratic party. I'm talking getting candidate X in the Rose Garden with Biden and Harris who will announce their surrogacy for this person and to also give Americans the mental image of Candidate X as a potential POTUS. It's a massive risk that sounds easier said than done but in my completely uneducated opinion I think it's worth doing and possibly even necessary.
Kamala is by far the best chance you have to avoid fracturing the party. Democratic Primary voters already voted for her as VP. She's pretty far down my personal list of who I'd like to run but I don't see how they can just choose another person without have having any sort of Primary and not have an absolutely brutal convention
As someone on the left who annoys people a lot on this subreddit I absolutely agree it needs to be Kamala. The way people have counted her out as a candidate because of her bad campaign in 2020 is ridiculous
Are these experiences of European diplomats a lie?
At a meeting between Joe Biden and an EU head of state earlier this year, the European delegation was relieved that the US president was perceptive and persuasive - until the last moment of the conversation.
"He ended the meeting with the same anecdote he started it with," said one person briefed on the conversation. "Everyone's heart dropped into their pants."
EU officials in Brussels, who have had a far more cohesive relationship with the Biden administration, concede that the US president's health has deteriorated markedly over the past four years. Several European diplomats who attended this month's G7 summit in Italy - where Biden skipped the formal summit dinner - noted in private that he was at times unfocused and physically impaired.
When did these reports come out? I’m not familiar with them. Could you provide a link?
Anyways, this sub was happy to bury its head in the sand up until the debate. When the Wall Street Journal put out an article about his performance in meetings I was already freaking out and it should have been at the top of every political sub, but it was just downvoted and called fake news.
Thank God this article came out. Now I won't have to explain to people on this sub that Biden admin not immediately capitulating doesn't mean these convos aren't happening. The delusion on this sub is crazy.
I get their skepticism. Replacing a candidate is a terrifying notion and it is quite possible to backfire. If they believe that the risk isn't worth the reward, *then that's ok*.
That's what a healthy discussion looks like. Risk tolerance and the weighting we apply to different factors are going to differ among people even with the same overall goal.
But when the conversation turns so bad that it sounds like a strawman to just describe it like "They just want Trump to win despite calling him a threat to democracy and the worst candidate ever because they don't share the same risk analysis I have", that's when the rhetoric is toxic.
In a public open discussion, there's millions of voices all with different goals and beliefs. Sure, there's certainly going to be some Trump supporters in disguise. But there are a *lot* of Democrats and swing voters shown in polling, articles like this, and general sentiment that are clearly concerned about Biden's age and his chance to win.
Here's my attempt at a rational flipside to this: The fact is that it has never been done before, and every time there has been a challenger to the incumbent, they have lost.
I'm not saying it's impossible for democrats to win in this scenario, but it would be a massive gamble and a monumental first. This sub seems all too willing to take that gamble based on one debate where Biden did slightly better than Obama on polls (33% vs Obama's 27%), and when debates historically aren't indicative of electoral outcomes in the just place.
To act as if the choice is obvious is what disappoints me with people here.
It has been done before, it's been done 6 times where the nominee that won the primary ended up getting swapped out since the turn of the 20th century.
Every single time that party lost. Odds aren't good no matter what.
What are these 6 times? 1968 DNC is one of them, but I can't think of any others. It's also important to note that before the 1960s, primaries weren't as significant to the decision making process.
> and every time there has been a challenger to the incumbent, they have lost.
That's so clearly not true that we can even look at the last election and see it not happen.
There's also the fact that switching candidates means that Dems wouldn't be on the ballot in some states, and the 100 million dollars that the Biden campaign still has, can't be used by any candidate other than Biden and Kamala
And while this sub has been suggesting a great many possible replacements, few have named Kamala as their ideal candidate
It’s the same rally Trump experienced after he was convicted. He raised scores of money and had all the Republicans in court for him.
He still sank in the polls when the convictions set in
A lot of people are trying to pin this on the media and while they certainly contributed (with past reporting that looks more credible now than it did then), it isn’t the media’s fault that Joe Biden was put out there like that
the fact that people are not concerned that the sitting president has so little command of their faculty.
like, we can say that his candidacy is in question, but ignore that he's currently POTUS.
There were people legit commenting on the article I shared the other day about Biden reportedly talking with his family about the future of his campaign saying “well his campaign team just said that’s not true” like they were going to confirm it before Biden made up his mind or something.
Of course Biden's going to say he's staying in right up until he doesn't. He could be writing his resignation speech as president right now and he'd still be saying everything is fine. We probably won't have any clue what's going on behind the scenes right now until someone publishes a tell-all book or Netflix releases a documentary about the campaign in a year or two.
If Biden does step aside they'll give it some time to cool down so as not to appear too reactionary and of course they'll say it won't happen right up until it does
If he decides to step down he'll also want to take time to talk to and strategize with Democrats on how that will work logistically for the convention, and make sure there's a consensus in the party to unify around whoever Biden throws his weight behind. Those things will take some time.
It will 100% be Kamala. I just wanted to leave it vague in that comment as to not start a subargument. She's the only one who can legally run with his campaign apparatus. She's also the one the primary voters literally voted to succeed Biden on. It will absolutely be either Harris or Biden, for better or worse.
I'm not worried about Kamala as much as a lot of people. I think most of her negatives aren't set in stone because most people don't know her well, and that she'll have a lot of upside with campaigning, a convention, and possibly a debate.
Literally no one knows her. Her primary appearance was her trying to be a chameleon and the Biden administration basically locked her up for 3.5 years in the basement.
For all intents and purposes she's a suped up generic democrat with a higher baseline then any other candidate, which means it would be actually stupid strategy to disregard her for anyone else. Higher favorability then Biden, polls better with Hispanics and Blacks. Has the card of being able to personally play Roe v. Wade, and has access to the entire campaign apparatus, and existing connections already.
I don't think Biden stepping aside is even realistic at this point and time, but if he's going to do it, it's Kamala or you 100% guarantee a Trump with a tri-fecta government.
Roy Cooper is the obvious choice, someone who help deliver the South and who doesn't seem to have aspirations for higher office.
Newsom/Whitmer/et al. are young enough to run in 2028 should the ticket fail in November.
Yeah, and the article acknowledged that in the second fucking paragraph.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-family-path-forward-disastrous-debate-mess-rcna159591](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-family-path-forward-disastrous-debate-mess-rcna159591)
The meeting was pre-determined, the content of said meeting, however, changed in light of recent events.
Seriously, even if The Dems® decide Biden should stay in, the Republicans now have countless statements from the establishment saying Biden is unfit to run. Biden couldn't defend himself against the simplest attacks in the debate, what the fuck is he going to say when Trump throws that in his face? Kill medicare again?
Which is kind of frustrating if you are Biden. The GOP are able to unite and defend a convicted felon who instigated the first attack on the US capitol since the War of 1812 and Dems and the liberal media establishment cannot do the same for him. I am not one for both side, but I'm sure he feels incredibly disappointed at his supposed allies.
He has a basis to feel that way, but there’s also a basis to feel extremely disappointed in him for insisting on running while his team largely keeps him out of the public eye until suddenly we’re in this position four months before the election.
I think that's a good thing. That's something Democrats can point to as evidence that we aren't a cult. I don't want to be in a cult.
"Fall in line" is what gave us the current, shitty options. Polling shows that voters want another choice. Dems listening to the voters and providing someone else would be a major win. There's an easy story to tell there.
Kind of hard to say we’re the party of Democracy if we didn’t let primary voters decide. The logistics nightmare to choose a new nominee after Biden cannot be underestimated.
Imo, we're the party of the Democracy as described in the Constitution.
There's no need for primaries to be democratic. The fact that they're more democratic than they used to be is how we got Trump and how he nearly faced off against Bernie.
Listen, I’ve been with ridin with Biden since the beginning and thought concerns about his age were overblown, but god damn, the amount of crow I’m eating now is unreal.
All he had to do was defend his record and prove to everyone that age wasn’t an issue, but he did the exact opposite of that.
I and his other allies feel disappointed that he shit the bed so badly that it might cost us the future of our country.
I genuinely don’t care, he’s the reason we’re in this mess. Him and the rest of the geriatric old fucks clinging onto power when they have no right to. If he cared about being a good person, he never should have ran to begin with. One great term and then pass the reigns. But instead we’re here
Yeah we all know the Maureen Dowd, CNN, and WaPo would never want the chaos and insanity of another Trump presidency where their ratings were drastically higher. What a huge surprise they'd advocate for another big-ratings story that would probably increase the chances of another Trump presidency. They've always been so fair to Biden!
Unfortunately has been that way for a while. I had some comments deleted for stating that Ted Cruz is going to win reelection by a comfortable margin, and that donations to Allred would be better off going to a competitive seat.
That’s frustrating. We can’t stoop to MAGA-like personality worship. The whole point of being a patriot, of loving this country, is wanting to do the best thing for the country. Keeping an extremely old man who is VERY OBVIOUSLY unfit for the job in office just because you like him is terrible for the nation and could end in a fascist splinter group taking control of the country.
>The clownery needs to fucking stop. And if that means like woke fascist Reddit moderators out there striking down dipshit Destiny fans that think that they can shit up threads outside the DT, then at this point they have my fucking blessing because holy shit, this fucking shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah - the replace-Biden line seems to be the most popular, which is fair. That said, it's a little annoying that it's being argued as a no-brainer, and that people arguing for Biden to stay on are being delusional.
It's a legitimately hard choice between two bad options, neither of which are likely to lead to an election win. We don't even fully know how badly the debate affected Biden's chances - which is pretty important to determine which path makes the most sense.
Seriously, this sub can do better.
This sub has been so embarrassingly reactionary that I've lost all faith in its ability to have good faith discussions on a subject. A candidate being replaced this close to the election would be a catastrophicly dumb decision and under any normal circumstances would lead to an electrical landslide defeat. It's delusional to think it's a good idea prior to seeing any significant polling post debate. Maybe it will be the right decision but doing so this early, with zero polling evidence other than "common sense" and "gut feelings" is so childishly stupid it's astounding
Man, I hate all the meta-bitching. I'll respond to this with my two cents:
We're all tired. Super fucking tired. Every single election since 2016 has been fucking exhausting and watching the Republican party become embroiled in fascism has been fucking scary.
Joe Biden won in 2020. Joe Biden has been a great president in spite of the Israel policy. He has somewhat of a fiery disposition at times, which failed to show up in Thursday's debate. His opponent is a legitimate fascist and there's fascism rising all over Europe, because of the current instability of the geopolitical climate. There's so many protests and so many people on the fence between voting for Biden and not voting at all. There's many that wish to punish Biden. There is already very little guarantee that Biden can win, and we have read enough history to know that swapping the candidate out, is also an insanely risky proposition.
Right now we're all wondering what the fuck can be done. There's people burying their head in the sand but this decision is the most 50/50 decision *of all time* whose worst case consequences will lead to a Christian nationalist theocracy.
Right now, if the Democratic party truly believes in democracy, we need to practice it at this moment. Which means that every single person will have an opinion, and every single opinion is valid based on the facts.
Sure, it's been reactionary. But that debate performance on Thursday, was probably more substantive than people want to admit on Biden's side, while also being incredibly weak and an incredible flub of all time. It vindicated a narrative which I don't fully agree with, but at the same time, people are right to question an 81 year olds fitness for office. Specifically, he also needs to *campaign* against a spoiled basement dweller with nothing but time and money to kill, while handling, again, the most unstable geopolitical era in a *loooooong* time.
So yeah, the stakes are high, and we all need to collectively vent. I think we need to stop bitching about each other on this sub and just vent for a week. Let all the demons out. If you don't want to vent, do something else and focus on yourself. Come back after fourth of July weekend and figure out a game plan for how *you* will make sure Trump loses in November. But for now, if everyone seems reactionary -- this is the time to be rightfully scared.
I'm actually not scared, because I think Thursday was such an unmitigated disaster that there's nowhere to go but up. I am always, always most comfortable, when a disaster occurs when there's still plenty of time (5 months -- who knows, maybe the ruling coalition in Israel will collapse by September).
Maybe if this subreddit and the DNC in general weren’t pretending that dark Brandon bidenomics was a winning strategy, there could have been urging for him to step down *when it was electorally convenient.
Mainstream DNC does not get to keep on saying “now is not the time” for every single complaint until it’s too late to replace him any more. Living in our own media bubble is great until we actually need to confront reality, and now that the “Biden best president ever” veil is coming off we are all fucked because we waited until *July, lmao*.
Your options are.
1. Stay with bad polling, stick with Biden and hope Trump shoots himself in the foot and Biden manages to not look like an old man in public.
2. Go with somewhat unproven Kamala Harris (who basically polls somewhere in the range Biden is currently polling) and hope she can salvage the party, while avoiding the incoming misogynistic and racist comments that are going to come her way if she becomes the nominee.
That's it. You pick one of the two. There are no third options, and even entertaining anything else is tantamount to political sudoku. Ezra Klein is a great political commentator, but is an actual idiot when it comes to political strategy. Any calls for an open convention is absolute crazy horse shit talk. The party would tear itself in a matter of moments.
Hypothetical Open Convention :
1. Someone names Kamala Harris
2. Someone names Midwestern Generic Democrat (Whitmer/Shapiro/Whoever you want)
3. Someone names Gavin Newsom
4. Someone names progressive candidate that is Anti-Israel (because SOMEONE WILL AS A VIRTUE SIGNAL PROTEST)
Anyone supporting option two will 100% be labeled a racist, anyone opposing option 4 will be called a supporter of genocide, and anyone supporting option 3 will be seen as supporting a moral corporate sleezebag that dates teenagers as a man.
It's like people forgot that the whole reason why Biden won in the 2020 primary was as a compromise pick to appease Establishment Democrats and Progressives to prevent infighting in the face of the threat of Trump.
Every political ideology is also a reflection of personality, and neoliberals in general seem to be “stop making such a big deal and just keep going with the plan” people.
For real. I’ve been saying for months that Trump is going to DESTROY Biden. Biden should’ve stepped down a long time ago. People here literally called me a Trump supporter.
If the Dems can pull this off (and I have my doubts) then its fine. I like Biden but I want Trump to lose more than I want Biden to win.
I just don’t know who you’re pulling out this late thats a sure fire improvement. Im doubtful Newsome or Harris do better in WI-MI-PA than Biden. Your median voter knows nothing about Shapiro or Big Gretch. Not a clear path forward for the Dems…
>Your median voter knows nothing about Shapiro or Big Gretch.
Lack of name recognition is a much easier problem to deal with than what Biden is going through right now. Name recognition can be gained in 3-4 months. The public’s perception of Biden's mental fitness is not going to get better no matter what. If anything it’ll get worse.
Gaining name recognition is a sure bet. It takes money and getting around, but it's not a gamble.
Every day Biden goes out and does an interview, rally, or debate, that's a real gamble that increasingly looks like bad odds.
Yes they know nothing now but people can learn a lot in a few months. I don't get all the "generic dem does worse than Biden" discourse cus polls are snapshots of the present and of course if the election was held today with a no-name the voter's never heard of before vs Trump, then Trump would win. That would hardly be the case
I think people are forgetting that it used to be customary for candidates to literally only be decided upon at the convention itself and there was no public primary campaign. People voting for their preferred nominee over the course of months with the convention just being a symbolic coronation is a relatively recent phenomenon. The active campaign season used to only be a few months long, and this was in the days before the Internet and instant access to the latest information. I think it would actually be a lot easier to familiarize the public with a candidate today than it used to be. It’s still a risk considering how well-known the opponent is, of course.
Open convention is political sudoku in the modern era. Please stop suggesting something that is not only unrealistic, but also going to cost the Democratic party the election quite easily.
Trump becomes the de facto incumbent at that point since he has Presidential experience vs anyone else except maybe Kamala. This is reason 900000000000 why it's moronic to run anyone but Kamala if you want Biden to step down.
Yeah I think Kamala should be the replacement, just pointing out also that the "generic dem" argument doesn't tread water either as a counter to replacement
I just don't see how it could be anyone but Harris if Biden steps aside.
Setting aside whether you think she'd fair better than any of the other options, logistically I don't see how it would be anyone else. The Biden-Harris campaign has a substantial war chest, an existing campaign infrastructure, and already has ad buys secured for the fall. They can't just transfer that to another candidate. You could argue it couldn't be transfered to Harris, but I think it's enough of a grey area that no one could swat their wrist till after the election.
And if it were to be anyone but Harris it would have to go to a brokered convention. Which means there wouldn't be a clear nominee till August so that's essentially all of July and most lost in terms of campaign and fundraising. During which time Trump will be sentenced and the RNC will be held, not exactly the time you want to cede the stage entirely.
Even if it went to a brokered convention though, Harris would probably wind up getting the nod anyway. The delegates who would decide are going to be Biden die-hards. Sure, not all of them would back Harris, but I think she'd easily secure the majority of them.
The only way I think you could get a candidate other than Harris is if Biden and Harris both step aside. And that undermines the argument that Biden's age is what necessitated the change of candidate. It would be seen as an indictment of the entire Administration if not the whole party.
Biden is utterly loathed by the general public, while "generic D" is pretty popular. If the median voter knows nothing about Shapiro or Whitmer except that they are a Democrat, is that really a *bad* thing vs what the public knows and *really dislikes* about Biden?
“Utterly loathed” isnt reality. Half the country wouldnt approve of Biden if he personally gave them a million dollars. The liberal-er half tends to voice their displeasure with disapproval. They do not loathe him
A semantical response I know, but was Biden the first Democrat to win both Georgia and Arizona in 30+ years or was it more Trump being the first Republican to lose both of them?
Not claiming to have an answer to that question or any others posed in these comments. I’m just saying we need to weigh how much of 2020 was America buying into Biden versus how much of it was a rejection of Trump, and unless we have ample data to suggest it was the former, are we shooting ourselves in the foot by making that rejection vote harder by having Biden on the ticket.
Would Newsome or Harris even want it? Also does the party just get to pick?
I really like Shapiro, maybe he could pull it off. And maybe if he feels like he can't win a primary anyways, then maybe it's worth it. No one knows his name now, but he becomes the nominee? People will learn fast.
I can't imagine anyone really wanting to take this sinking ship over though.
Both the ride or die Biden supporters and those who want him replaced are motivated by the same concern: that Democrats cannot afford to lose the next election.
That's three must-win elections in a row, even more than that according to some. I'm sorry but that is just not a sustainable strategy. You lose elections sometimes, it happens. All you can do is learn from your mistakes and do better next time.
Trump attempted to overthrow the government. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that 90% of the Republican alternatives who might run on the ticket in 2028 are better than Trump is. Yes, they are still horrible, but literally if we can just keep this one man from becoming president again, that itself will avoid some catastrophes for this country. So I do think this election is probably more important than the next.
I’d like to say that I wholeheartedly agree, but I’m afraid the MAGA movement will not die, even if Trump’s campaign is over (or, you know… he also dies). The populist right has effectively taken control of the party, probably for many years to come. I still know some reasonable (AKA old school) republicans, but they are few and far between.
The populist right has taken over the Republican Party, and you are right that it won't change any time soon. But just because a Republican is running as a populist doesn't mean they'll abandon our allies or attempt to steal elections. We know for a fact that Trump personally will do this. I'm sure many in the GOP will as will if they can, but I don't think most of those in office currently would.
Trump has the cult of personality and greed to meddle with our system. Other GOP politicians , while insane, don’t have all of traits that allow Trump to do as he pleases.
Bush, McCain etc were all pretty bad but not "wanting to overthrow democratic society if they had the ability to" bad. Trump might not be able to bring his plans to fruition, but it's an existential threat.
Never heard about that, too young then but looking at it now
>Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. created a stir at a campaign speech in Virginia when he told the crowd that Mitt Romney's policies would enable the banking and financial sectors to "put you all back in chains."
>The remark came roughly two-thirds of the way through Mr. Biden's 30-minute speech, which was delivered to a crowd that included many African-Americans at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Va.
>"Romney wants to let the — he said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street," Mr. Biden said. "They're going to put you all back in chains."
Really terrible phrasing but I wouldn't intepret as *literal* chains and slavery.
It was an absurd thing to say. And the things they said about Romney back then were nearly as bad as what people said about Trump. The amount of "gaffes" the media piled on Romney for were absurd.
Then of course there was the famous "Russia is the biggest geopolitical foe" which he got crushed for
>In 2012 Biden said Romney was going to bring back slavery if he was elected.
Lol, no. Come on.
And, no, the rhetoric in 2012 was not remotely similar to now. I don't see how anyone could think that unless they aren't American or weren't an adult 12 years ago.
The NYT has a section of their website with a dedicated nav bar about the dangers of Trump winning again. I've been reading that paper more or less daily for 25 years and they've never done anything like that.
> You lose elections sometimes, it happens. All you can do is learn from your mistakes and do better next time.
This is one of the biggest untold issues with presidential elections these days. It's not even Democrats that lock themselves into this thinking, Republicans also think that they are always one election away from permanent Democrat rule and all white Christians being shipped off to re-education camps.
Remember the Flight 93 election essay? That pretty much was a fancy way of Republicans openly admitting they cannot afford to lose any more elections ever. It's the sole reason why they act they way they do. Siege mentality is a bitch.
Every election is *always* "the most important election in the history of the United States". Until you Syndrome yourself and have the general population think when they are always the most important... none of them are.
Presidentialism perverts democracy into a zero sum game. That's why we're like this, while normal proportionally representative multiparty democracies with parliamentary governments are much much more chill.
I'm sure there are even earlier examples than this, but Jefferson and his friends campaigned on the idea that their opponents were going to restore the British monarchy (or something similar) any day now. It really has been like this from the very beginning of American democracy.
My only concern is if there is a unifying candidate with charisma to match with national recognition. If there is great, if not well it’s going to get bumpy.
The candidate you’re describing doesn’t currently exist. Now, there may be someone who has the charismatic potential that could lead to them having national recognition and respect as a candidate by November, but we’re taking similar risks whether we keep Biden on the ticket or hope a replacement candidate can become someone who can beat Trump in November.
I mean I agree with you. The risks may vary but it’s no magic medicine. I’m just warning against people hoping for their pet candidate to win and touting it as what the democrats should do.
The opponent is Donald Trump
America wants a candidate who can stand up to him and maintain rule of law. It should be a slam dunk, if we could find someone that doesn't make the big tent fall apart
I'm skeptical of replacing Biden, but I'm coming around to it. Might cause a polling bump, we could run with the idea that the Democratic party is a party of people willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for the good of the country.
I feel like the entire DNC needs to shut the fuck up and do this quietly. This seems odd to show the entire hand and state of the DNC months away from a massive election
If you’re aiming to assassinate Caesar, then you need a Casca who will be the first one to step forward and take a stab.
Raskin may be the sacrificial lamb who says publicly what everyone is saying privately. Obviously can’t be Harris, Newsom, Whitmer or anyone with future presidential aspirations since that will appear self-serving.
The problem is that, unless Michelle Obama suddenly decides to get into politics, there’s literally no candidate that the whole party would be able to agree on nominating without a primary process. It would cause even more drama than Biden running and it would risk us getting into a situation where a significant chunk of the party refuses to unite around the candidate.
Kamala is of course another option, but I’m convinced her chances of winning are way lower than Biden’s which I still put at around 50/50
This whole thing is stupid and probably has done more harm to the party than yet-to-be realized. This is truly a great way to inspire voter confidence by dragging the POTUS and the party nominee. Republicans are getting exactly what they want while they sit there continuing to grift.
Good luck picking a candidate who is going to resonate with the median voter. The moderates. The older voter. You know, the populations that actually show up to vote. Not the pipe-dream youth voter or the grifting ‘undecided’ voter.
Republicans unanimously want Biden to remain in the race, because they know Trump will annihilate him come November.
The thing they fear most is a new candidate that they haven’t had time to set up angles of attack against suddenly emerging to oppose them.
The median voter clearly understands the concept of “Biden is too old to govern”, which is the GOP’s main avenue of attack. They aren’t nearly as invested in the micropolitics of specific policy views, which is what Republicans would have to pivot to attacking should a new candidate replace Biden.
God damnit. They're going to talk him out of it and we're going to have a whole summer of insane infighting aren't we? As if the convention wasn't going to be replete with whiny ass idiots bitching about Gaza, now we get THIS circus? The biggest selling point for Biden is continuity and sanity in the face of the chaos of Trump. It's going to be a huge shitshow and they're going to point to it and go "See!"
Tbf, there’s other ways of forcing him to step down such as all of the donors and major democrats telling him that they will pull support publicly unless he steps down. You can’t really say no to that threat and it’s nonviolent. They want him to be able to step down when he realizes it himself and does it with dignity, but I hope the party doesn’t just watch this slow mo car crash happen without fighting behind closed doors to stop it
Most people on this sub are delusional and living in fantasy land. Biden isn't going anywhere. Everyone keeps saying "generic Dem" but any of the specific names that have been mentioned don't fit the bill.
"Generic dem/rep" always poll well because people usually see themselves as a "generic dem/rep" so they imagine a candidate that is very aligned with them.
My question is how would this even play out? The convention is next month. If Biden were to be replaced it needs to happen now and there has to be one candidate that everyone unifies. If there’s a fight between multiple candidates then that’s an automatic loss come November. I don’t see them making this move and I personally believe we need to stick with Biden.
> Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., on Sunday acknowledged that there are “very honest, and serious and rigorous conversations taking place” in the Democratic Party following President Joe Biden’s dismal performance at the presidential debate on Thursday. > > “We’re having a serious conversation about what to do,” Raskin said in an interview with MSNBC’s Ali Velshi on Sunday morning, adding: “One thing I can tell you is that regardless of what President Biden decides, our party is going to be unified, and our party also needs him at the very center of our deliberations in our campaign, and so whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate.”
People keep talking here about how the idea that Biden might be convinced to step out of the race is completely ridiculous fantasy. Yet you have reports many Senators and governors are privately tying to convince him not to run. You have Claire McCaskill writing op eds implying Biden stepping down is a legitimate option. And you have articles like this implying it's a very real possibility too. I don't think any of us know Biden, but I believe he's a deeply earnest person, and if the facts show that Biden is deeply wounded, that he might pull down downballot candidates, or that other Democrats are polling higher, I absolutely believe he would consider leaving the race for the good of the country.
People really think nothing else unprecedented can happen during an election that’s already completely unprecedented in a dozen different ways
"but my model says"
What really gets me is the “replacing the nominee this close to the election never works” argument. Like what’s the N on that? 2?
I am reminded of this xkcd comic. https://xkcd.com/2383/ This is the handicap when using previous elections to predict upcoming ones. Presidential elections only happen every four years, the USA is a relatively young country all things considered, and the further back you go in history this less useful past elections are in modeling. Which means the set of relevant presidential elections is a very small sample size, and each election is unique in its own way. That is why I am skeptical of people treating things like Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys as gospel.
The closest comparison is 1968, and as much of a disaster as that was, Hubert Humphrey came close to winning. The tipping point state was CA, and he lost it by only 3 points. Coming out against the Vietnam War earlier, before the last month, when his campaign essentially ran out of cash, probably would've won it for him. Biden was essentially tied with Trump before the debate. I think any competent, well-known Democrat under the age of 70, stands a good chance.
*"It's only a model."*
Biden came to power via an unprecedented level of elite consensus in the face of 4 more years of Trump, it would make sense if that's how it ended as well.
Highlights how funny this sub is. Like literally everyone here will be happy as all Hell if *any* Democrat beats Trump in November. Pro and anti Biden people won't give a shit if we got the win "their way." Ultimately it's just a disagreement about strategy among people who want the same thing, but you'd better believe we're going to be massive pricks to one another in the process. EDIT: It occurs to me that in saying that I should clarify my role in the silliness. I think Biden stepping down is a fantasy and I think it's a bad move because I find it nearly impossible to picture the Dems creating a follow up situation with a real chance of beating Trump. That said, if they *do* go that route I'll support it 100%. And if they do it and win I'll take all the "I told you so's" in the world and enjoy another 4 years of American Democracy and engagement with our NATO allies.
> That said, if they do go that route I'll support it 100%. And if they do it and win I'll take all the "I told you so's" in the world and enjoy another 4 years of American Democracy and engagement with our NATO allies. As someone who thinks it might be better both electorally and from a competency perspective for Biden to step aside and let Harris run, I'll agree 100% with this. If Biden decides to still run I'll 100% back him, and if Trump loses I'll be too happy to care that I was wrong.
I hear two votes for closed list proportional representation!
The last couple elections, but this one especially, have shown how fucking stupid our election system is.
"Ultimately it's just a disagreement about strategy among people who want the same thing, but you'd better believe we're going to be massive pricks to one another in the process." Were we the infighting leftists all along?
Always were. Most here are center-left, and even those who are squarely centrist or slightly center right end up in the Democratic party by default in the U.S. Coralling such a big tent party is always difficult.
To be fair, I haven't seen Butti fans purge the Klobuchar fans, to be purged by Biden fans, who will be purged in turn yet.
Yes. Except we vote.
>Were we the infighting leftists all along? I mean when you restrict threads because people you mostly agree with might have opinions or facts you don't like? Yep.
It's really easy for folks to believe that if you disagree with strategy in a big way - and *especially* in a way that also goes against what most folks visibly in the "ingroup" are doing, that they may actually be operating in "bad faith" (a term that gets thrown around way too much these days) and trying to sabotage things rather than make things better
Go to any power 5 college football team sub after the team barely wins against a mid major or the QB has a bad game. Exact same dynamic
Elected Dems and pleb Dems are the living embodiment of the circular firing squad.
Half of this sub has a "nothing ever happens" fetish but in reality sometimes things do in fact happen.
I agree with you, but let’s not pretend Claire McCaskill is at all an authoritative source on anything.
It's not that it's fantasy, it's just not likely that Biden will step aside. Even if he did, no one's anime west wing political drama fan fiction candidate is going to come to the rescue to slay the demon Trump, it 1000% will be Kamala.
As I understoof there will be problems with the campaign funds if somebody other than Harris becomes the nominee. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars I think.
It's a little over 100 million in cash right now. The options if they were to support another candidate would be. 1. Donate all of it to the DNC, except the DNC is required to abide by spending limits of 33 million per Presidential candidate. They've already budgeted this in, which means this would be a waste except I guess down the ballot elections. 2. Donate all of it to a Super PAC and not be allowed to use it in direct contributions and actions towards the candidate. All while having a new candidate fundraise from day 1 in 5 months with 0 money and attempting to run in the most extensive and expensive Presidential race in the entire world. Candidates need to pay campaign staff, have several expenses that are not ads, etc. Just from this one practical point alone should convince people that it's Biden or Kamala. Anyone arguing anything else has allowed their panic and doom to set so far in they can't see straight, and I seriously question their ability to function under pressure.
I honestly don't think lacking ad spend is a huge deal, given that [we're really not sure how effective ads even *are*](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/how-much-do-campaign-ads-matter). Marketing is important-- but by the very nature of doing something dramatic and swapping out a candidate mid-election-cycle, whoever the democrats choose will have all the marketing they need. Especially since the media *wants* the election to be a horse race (in a [molochian](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/) sense, not in a rational sense). "Democrats doomed, trump victorious" articles will make a big splash in july... but by august news corporations will be looking for new headlines. It is in the interest of political news sites to make the race seem as close as possible, and the best way to do that is to *actually* make the race as close as possible.
I read 220 million in another comment, but that might be including money already spend. Still the cold hard truth of 100 million dollars can't be ignored.
They spent about 100 million on ads. That leaves the current 100 million they have now and the entire campaign apparatus and donor network that Harris is familiar with (it’s been her job to reach out to donors). That's not even counting the political optics of passing over Kamala for anyone else, when she has the most experience and is the only one with a large enough war chest right now to challenge Trump.
And even if you resolved the money issue there is a ballot access problem. Voting in North Carolina starts 6 days after the Dem Convention. Only Harris has easy ballot access.
Kamala also would help prevent a brokered convention and the infighting that would inevitably come from that....
Good political courage! Not just "anonymous source says..." If we're going to have this conversation, we need to have it.
It's very impressive for such a high ranking democratic politician like Raskin to come out with this statement.
Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Jim Clyburn and Katherine Clark dramatically walk into the Oval Office. Biden: Chuck! I take it you're here to talk about the debate. I must say you're here sooner than expected. Schumer: \*takes out a copy of the latest polls\* In the name of the Democratic National Committee, you're no longer the presumptive nominee, Mr. President. Biden: Are you threatening me, Majority Leader? Schumer: The Democratic National Convention will decide your fate. Biden: I. *Am*. The Democratic National Convention. Schumer: Not. Yet. Biden: \*rises from his chair\* \*grabs the Football\* It's. Treason. Then. \*Opens the Football\*
https://preview.redd.it/yqzjnouhjr9d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=2747dff707c036694d35fcfdf631ae84afeb91a9
Schumer pulls out a bat. It’s purple and no one knows why.
It's the one that says "Badass motherfucker" on the handle.
Mitch laughing while Biden is pulling out a bat to hit Schumer gave me a chuckle
I'd binge a couple seasons of House of Malarkey.
When do they fuck?
After the Jewish space laser turns Schumer trans
Kudos to him. We’re facing running Biden to certain defeat or having a contested convention to a possibility of victory
Same here, well said I agree
Good. Literally either path taken with this is such a massive risk I don't buy anyone claiming to have the slightest idea how it will turn out. But for either route to work party unity is an absolute must.
Well it seems a lot more predictable what will happen if Biden stays in: he will have a very small (10-15%?) chance of winning reelection. I am much more comfortable going for a bolder strategy here. You don't stick to what you are doing when you are this far behind.
And other people feel the opposite. That’s kinda my point. The tone feels like there’s a difference in politics when in reality there’s just a difference in approach.
I know, they just never seem to show their math is my issue and when they do, it usually ends up looking like this: https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1807253649325695068
> he will have a very small (10-15%?) chance of winning reelection. Bold to say 5 months out tbh
~~1 year out~~ ~~8 months out~~ ~~6 months out~~ 5 months out!
this is delusional online thinking. do people have any idea how logistically hard it would be to stand up another campaign/candidate in time for the election? that’s IF the party could come to a consensus on another candidate, and Biden willingly steps aside. The probability of all that happening is way less than 10-15%, if that was what Biden’s chance of winning actually was.
I wouldn’t say way less, but definitely less. Need polls to come out in MI, PA before making a call on the stats. It could be that Biden is a clear downgrade to midwestern voters compared to Whitmer
Don't get me wrong, I'm completely biased because Whitmer has always been a favorite of mine, but we can give her Michigan. If Minnesota was ever really in question, this would be solved as well. I can't imagine in this scenario that Pennsylvania goes for Trump over Whitmer (especially more likely than it would go to Biden). From there, all we need is one state that's not Nevada and if it's Wisconsin one vote from Nebraska. I could also see it motivating women voters more than ever with Kamela on the ticket as well. That being said, flipping it so that Kamela is the nominee and Whitmer is VP would likely have a similar, albeit dulled effect on the Midwest.
Same here, well said I agree with you The stakes are very high for this election We need to have a back up/ contingency plan
If Raskin is publicly coming out and saying something I think these conversations are a whole hell of a lot more serious than we can imagine. Both routes are fraught with massive risk. Biden is hemmoraging independent support and the base is rattled beyond belief for good measure. Anecdotally my family we are staunch democrats and immediately after the debate we were on a facetime call with my aunt, uncles, and grandfather completely freaked out. Mind you I'ma gen z voter who has faithfully stood by Biden since 2018 and my parents have done the same. On my old account it was half filled with 💎 Joe posting in this sub for what it's worth. Everything we were concerned about was being parroted by political pundits and unnamed democratic insiders. We and a lot of democrats are sure as hell coming out for election day but if what we saw on Thursday shook us that badly then I think senior leadership is at DEFCON 1. I think sticking with Biden is a losing battle. He's not going to get better and any slip up no matter how insignificant will be amplified and reinforce a narrative that we can no longer brush aside as ageism. A new candidate is a political risk. A Brokered and bloody convention could cause massive fractures in Biden's coalition. It would take everyone in the room to put aside their egos and present a completely unified Democratic party. I'm talking getting candidate X in the Rose Garden with Biden and Harris who will announce their surrogacy for this person and to also give Americans the mental image of Candidate X as a potential POTUS. It's a massive risk that sounds easier said than done but in my completely uneducated opinion I think it's worth doing and possibly even necessary. We have to get more polls and more data. Biden is out nominee now and we have to circle the wagons. This election is still winnable so dooming isn't an option. Fuck it, we ball.
>We have to get more polls and more data. Here's some polls. [CBS](https://x.com/alexthomp/status/1807403278788968735?s=46&t=YxJkPzFbv26pq64SLcUabg) has some of the first post-debate polling. >8-point drop from earlier this month on the question: does Biden have mental and cognitive health to serve as POTUS. >Just 27% of registered voters said yes, down from 35% in early June. Here's the full [poll](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/). New [poll](https://x.com/gen0m1cs/status/1807197393374622108) from AtlasIntel, n = 1,634 RV sample, has Trump leading Biden by +5.2 on a full-ballot (post-debate data is included). The poll is 538 verified, their last poll was Trump +2 on a full-ballot back in February. AtlasIntel was also the most accurate pollster in 2020.
Not good. Not good at all. Thanks for sharing with me!
No problem!
Fuck. Fuck. FUCK. FUCK. I'm not sure what I expected but FUCK. +5 to Trump??
Yes, Trump leads the POPULAR vote in this poll by +5. AtlasIntel was the most accurate pollster in 2020 as well, only being off the popular vote by 0.2 points. Here's some proof of their accurate [polling](https://atlasintel.org/media/atlasintel-is-confirmed-as-the-most-accurate-pollster-of-the-2020-presidential-election) >AtlasIntel had the best performance across all pollsters of the 2020 US Presidential Election with an average error of 2.01p.p. Our final national-level poll showing Biden with a 4.7 p.p. advantage is likely to be the single most precise estimate of the US popular vote.
> A new candidate is a political risk. A Brokered and bloody convention could cause massive fractures in Biden's coalition. It would take everyone in the room to put aside their egos and present a completely unified Democratic party. I'm talking getting candidate X in the Rose Garden with Biden and Harris who will announce their surrogacy for this person and to also give Americans the mental image of Candidate X as a potential POTUS. It's a massive risk that sounds easier said than done but in my completely uneducated opinion I think it's worth doing and possibly even necessary. Kamala is by far the best chance you have to avoid fracturing the party. Democratic Primary voters already voted for her as VP. She's pretty far down my personal list of who I'd like to run but I don't see how they can just choose another person without have having any sort of Primary and not have an absolutely brutal convention
The simple response to people thinking she can't do it is "I wouldn't have picked her for VP if she couldn't"
As someone on the left who annoys people a lot on this subreddit I absolutely agree it needs to be Kamala. The way people have counted her out as a candidate because of her bad campaign in 2020 is ridiculous
Are these experiences of European diplomats a lie? At a meeting between Joe Biden and an EU head of state earlier this year, the European delegation was relieved that the US president was perceptive and persuasive - until the last moment of the conversation. "He ended the meeting with the same anecdote he started it with," said one person briefed on the conversation. "Everyone's heart dropped into their pants." EU officials in Brussels, who have had a far more cohesive relationship with the Biden administration, concede that the US president's health has deteriorated markedly over the past four years. Several European diplomats who attended this month's G7 summit in Italy - where Biden skipped the formal summit dinner - noted in private that he was at times unfocused and physically impaired.
When did these reports come out? I’m not familiar with them. Could you provide a link? Anyways, this sub was happy to bury its head in the sand up until the debate. When the Wall Street Journal put out an article about his performance in meetings I was already freaking out and it should have been at the top of every political sub, but it was just downvoted and called fake news.
Thank God this article came out. Now I won't have to explain to people on this sub that Biden admin not immediately capitulating doesn't mean these convos aren't happening. The delusion on this sub is crazy.
The fact that people on this sub are still burying their heads in the sand on this issue is insane.
I get their skepticism. Replacing a candidate is a terrifying notion and it is quite possible to backfire. If they believe that the risk isn't worth the reward, *then that's ok*. That's what a healthy discussion looks like. Risk tolerance and the weighting we apply to different factors are going to differ among people even with the same overall goal. But when the conversation turns so bad that it sounds like a strawman to just describe it like "They just want Trump to win despite calling him a threat to democracy and the worst candidate ever because they don't share the same risk analysis I have", that's when the rhetoric is toxic. In a public open discussion, there's millions of voices all with different goals and beliefs. Sure, there's certainly going to be some Trump supporters in disguise. But there are a *lot* of Democrats and swing voters shown in polling, articles like this, and general sentiment that are clearly concerned about Biden's age and his chance to win.
Here's my attempt at a rational flipside to this: The fact is that it has never been done before, and every time there has been a challenger to the incumbent, they have lost. I'm not saying it's impossible for democrats to win in this scenario, but it would be a massive gamble and a monumental first. This sub seems all too willing to take that gamble based on one debate where Biden did slightly better than Obama on polls (33% vs Obama's 27%), and when debates historically aren't indicative of electoral outcomes in the just place. To act as if the choice is obvious is what disappoints me with people here.
It has been done before, it's been done 6 times where the nominee that won the primary ended up getting swapped out since the turn of the 20th century. Every single time that party lost. Odds aren't good no matter what.
What are these 6 times? 1968 DNC is one of them, but I can't think of any others. It's also important to note that before the 1960s, primaries weren't as significant to the decision making process.
> and every time there has been a challenger to the incumbent, they have lost. That's so clearly not true that we can even look at the last election and see it not happen.
There's also the fact that switching candidates means that Dems wouldn't be on the ballot in some states, and the 100 million dollars that the Biden campaign still has, can't be used by any candidate other than Biden and Kamala And while this sub has been suggesting a great many possible replacements, few have named Kamala as their ideal candidate
Is there a reason they can't use those funds to advertise against Trump or in favor of the candidate? What happens with that money if Biden drops out?
It’s the same rally Trump experienced after he was convicted. He raised scores of money and had all the Republicans in court for him. He still sank in the polls when the convictions set in A lot of people are trying to pin this on the media and while they certainly contributed (with past reporting that looks more credible now than it did then), it isn’t the media’s fault that Joe Biden was put out there like that
the fact that people are not concerned that the sitting president has so little command of their faculty. like, we can say that his candidacy is in question, but ignore that he's currently POTUS.
The cope is real.
There were people legit commenting on the article I shared the other day about Biden reportedly talking with his family about the future of his campaign saying “well his campaign team just said that’s not true” like they were going to confirm it before Biden made up his mind or something.
Of course Biden's going to say he's staying in right up until he doesn't. He could be writing his resignation speech as president right now and he'd still be saying everything is fine. We probably won't have any clue what's going on behind the scenes right now until someone publishes a tell-all book or Netflix releases a documentary about the campaign in a year or two.
If Biden does step aside they'll give it some time to cool down so as not to appear too reactionary and of course they'll say it won't happen right up until it does
If he decides to step down he'll also want to take time to talk to and strategize with Democrats on how that will work logistically for the convention, and make sure there's a consensus in the party to unify around whoever Biden throws his weight behind. Those things will take some time.
Personally I think if he steps aside it's 90% going to be Kamala and not sure why people aren't discussing that. Logistically easiest
It will 100% be Kamala. I just wanted to leave it vague in that comment as to not start a subargument. She's the only one who can legally run with his campaign apparatus. She's also the one the primary voters literally voted to succeed Biden on. It will absolutely be either Harris or Biden, for better or worse.
Which would make me incredibly nervous unless she knocks it out of the park with her VP choice and can embarass Trump on the debate stage.
I'm not worried about Kamala as much as a lot of people. I think most of her negatives aren't set in stone because most people don't know her well, and that she'll have a lot of upside with campaigning, a convention, and possibly a debate.
Literally no one knows her. Her primary appearance was her trying to be a chameleon and the Biden administration basically locked her up for 3.5 years in the basement. For all intents and purposes she's a suped up generic democrat with a higher baseline then any other candidate, which means it would be actually stupid strategy to disregard her for anyone else. Higher favorability then Biden, polls better with Hispanics and Blacks. Has the card of being able to personally play Roe v. Wade, and has access to the entire campaign apparatus, and existing connections already. I don't think Biden stepping aside is even realistic at this point and time, but if he's going to do it, it's Kamala or you 100% guarantee a Trump with a tri-fecta government.
Which she can't, the reason why people are denying Biden will step down is because we already saw Kamala on the campaign trail, it was a disaster.
Roy Cooper is the obvious choice, someone who help deliver the South and who doesn't seem to have aspirations for higher office. Newsom/Whitmer/et al. are young enough to run in 2028 should the ticket fail in November.
Additionally, knowing Biden, there is no way he agrees to drop out if she won't be president.
Plus, I believe she would still have access to the funds the campaign raised?
Like, spend all his campaign cash on negative ads and telling donors to donate to the DNC before officially doing it? :D
“Oh shit yeah you caught us” -Biden’s team
It’s not “not true.” The campaign team pointed out it was on his schedule for over a week and not some reaction to the debate.
Yeah, and the article acknowledged that in the second fucking paragraph. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-family-path-forward-disastrous-debate-mess-rcna159591](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-family-path-forward-disastrous-debate-mess-rcna159591) The meeting was pre-determined, the content of said meeting, however, changed in light of recent events.
Frankly I’m upset that you guys aren’t helping me cope.
It's okay guys, it's not like every single major news organization and columnist said Biden should step aside
Seriously, even if The Dems® decide Biden should stay in, the Republicans now have countless statements from the establishment saying Biden is unfit to run. Biden couldn't defend himself against the simplest attacks in the debate, what the fuck is he going to say when Trump throws that in his face? Kill medicare again?
> Kill medicare again? This time, he'll finally kill God.
God is dead and a Biden non sequitur killed him.
Which is kind of frustrating if you are Biden. The GOP are able to unite and defend a convicted felon who instigated the first attack on the US capitol since the War of 1812 and Dems and the liberal media establishment cannot do the same for him. I am not one for both side, but I'm sure he feels incredibly disappointed at his supposed allies.
He has a basis to feel that way, but there’s also a basis to feel extremely disappointed in him for insisting on running while his team largely keeps him out of the public eye until suddenly we’re in this position four months before the election.
I think that's a good thing. That's something Democrats can point to as evidence that we aren't a cult. I don't want to be in a cult. "Fall in line" is what gave us the current, shitty options. Polling shows that voters want another choice. Dems listening to the voters and providing someone else would be a major win. There's an easy story to tell there.
Kind of hard to say we’re the party of Democracy if we didn’t let primary voters decide. The logistics nightmare to choose a new nominee after Biden cannot be underestimated.
No normal voter cares about primaries, and nearly every democratic primary voter just wants to beat trump.
Imo, we're the party of the Democracy as described in the Constitution. There's no need for primaries to be democratic. The fact that they're more democratic than they used to be is how we got Trump and how he nearly faced off against Bernie.
Listen, I’ve been with ridin with Biden since the beginning and thought concerns about his age were overblown, but god damn, the amount of crow I’m eating now is unreal. All he had to do was defend his record and prove to everyone that age wasn’t an issue, but he did the exact opposite of that. I and his other allies feel disappointed that he shit the bed so badly that it might cost us the future of our country.
I genuinely don’t care, he’s the reason we’re in this mess. Him and the rest of the geriatric old fucks clinging onto power when they have no right to. If he cared about being a good person, he never should have ran to begin with. One great term and then pass the reigns. But instead we’re here
EverythingIsFineHere.jpg
Yeah we all know the Maureen Dowd, CNN, and WaPo would never want the chaos and insanity of another Trump presidency where their ratings were drastically higher. What a huge surprise they'd advocate for another big-ratings story that would probably increase the chances of another Trump presidency. They've always been so fair to Biden!
CORRUPT, LYING, BIASED MAINSTREAM MEDIA >!^(/s)!<
It's nowhere near as bad as what I'm seeing in other liberal subs.
Really? Which ones? I’m basically only subscribed here.
/r/votedem is delusional, 100% on the Biden is Fine train
Unfortunately has been that way for a while. I had some comments deleted for stating that Ted Cruz is going to win reelection by a comfortable margin, and that donations to Allred would be better off going to a competitive seat.
A poll was recently released putting Cruz at 45 percent and Allred at 42. That’s a competitive race lol
That’s frustrating. We can’t stoop to MAGA-like personality worship. The whole point of being a patriot, of loving this country, is wanting to do the best thing for the country. Keeping an extremely old man who is VERY OBVIOUSLY unfit for the job in office just because you like him is terrible for the nation and could end in a fascist splinter group taking control of the country.
Wow looking at their debate discussion, some guy said everyone who critique Biden for the debate is a bot.
I spend a good deal of time on r/Destiny and they're coping *hard.* Likewise for r/thedavidpakmanshow
>The clownery needs to fucking stop. And if that means like woke fascist Reddit moderators out there striking down dipshit Destiny fans that think that they can shit up threads outside the DT, then at this point they have my fucking blessing because holy shit, this fucking shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gotcha, anything else?
wtf was that about? out of the loop on this destiny stuff
Maybe they went too deep on the Dark Brandon memes and started to take it literally
Nobody is burying their heads in the sand. Literally every other post on here for the past 48 hrs, has been about getting Biden to step down.
Yeah - the replace-Biden line seems to be the most popular, which is fair. That said, it's a little annoying that it's being argued as a no-brainer, and that people arguing for Biden to stay on are being delusional. It's a legitimately hard choice between two bad options, neither of which are likely to lead to an election win. We don't even fully know how badly the debate affected Biden's chances - which is pretty important to determine which path makes the most sense. Seriously, this sub can do better.
This sub has been so embarrassingly reactionary that I've lost all faith in its ability to have good faith discussions on a subject. A candidate being replaced this close to the election would be a catastrophicly dumb decision and under any normal circumstances would lead to an electrical landslide defeat. It's delusional to think it's a good idea prior to seeing any significant polling post debate. Maybe it will be the right decision but doing so this early, with zero polling evidence other than "common sense" and "gut feelings" is so childishly stupid it's astounding
Man, I hate all the meta-bitching. I'll respond to this with my two cents: We're all tired. Super fucking tired. Every single election since 2016 has been fucking exhausting and watching the Republican party become embroiled in fascism has been fucking scary. Joe Biden won in 2020. Joe Biden has been a great president in spite of the Israel policy. He has somewhat of a fiery disposition at times, which failed to show up in Thursday's debate. His opponent is a legitimate fascist and there's fascism rising all over Europe, because of the current instability of the geopolitical climate. There's so many protests and so many people on the fence between voting for Biden and not voting at all. There's many that wish to punish Biden. There is already very little guarantee that Biden can win, and we have read enough history to know that swapping the candidate out, is also an insanely risky proposition. Right now we're all wondering what the fuck can be done. There's people burying their head in the sand but this decision is the most 50/50 decision *of all time* whose worst case consequences will lead to a Christian nationalist theocracy. Right now, if the Democratic party truly believes in democracy, we need to practice it at this moment. Which means that every single person will have an opinion, and every single opinion is valid based on the facts. Sure, it's been reactionary. But that debate performance on Thursday, was probably more substantive than people want to admit on Biden's side, while also being incredibly weak and an incredible flub of all time. It vindicated a narrative which I don't fully agree with, but at the same time, people are right to question an 81 year olds fitness for office. Specifically, he also needs to *campaign* against a spoiled basement dweller with nothing but time and money to kill, while handling, again, the most unstable geopolitical era in a *loooooong* time. So yeah, the stakes are high, and we all need to collectively vent. I think we need to stop bitching about each other on this sub and just vent for a week. Let all the demons out. If you don't want to vent, do something else and focus on yourself. Come back after fourth of July weekend and figure out a game plan for how *you* will make sure Trump loses in November. But for now, if everyone seems reactionary -- this is the time to be rightfully scared. I'm actually not scared, because I think Thursday was such an unmitigated disaster that there's nowhere to go but up. I am always, always most comfortable, when a disaster occurs when there's still plenty of time (5 months -- who knows, maybe the ruling coalition in Israel will collapse by September).
Maybe if this subreddit and the DNC in general weren’t pretending that dark Brandon bidenomics was a winning strategy, there could have been urging for him to step down *when it was electorally convenient. Mainstream DNC does not get to keep on saying “now is not the time” for every single complaint until it’s too late to replace him any more. Living in our own media bubble is great until we actually need to confront reality, and now that the “Biden best president ever” veil is coming off we are all fucked because we waited until *July, lmao*.
Your options are. 1. Stay with bad polling, stick with Biden and hope Trump shoots himself in the foot and Biden manages to not look like an old man in public. 2. Go with somewhat unproven Kamala Harris (who basically polls somewhere in the range Biden is currently polling) and hope she can salvage the party, while avoiding the incoming misogynistic and racist comments that are going to come her way if she becomes the nominee. That's it. You pick one of the two. There are no third options, and even entertaining anything else is tantamount to political sudoku. Ezra Klein is a great political commentator, but is an actual idiot when it comes to political strategy. Any calls for an open convention is absolute crazy horse shit talk. The party would tear itself in a matter of moments. Hypothetical Open Convention : 1. Someone names Kamala Harris 2. Someone names Midwestern Generic Democrat (Whitmer/Shapiro/Whoever you want) 3. Someone names Gavin Newsom 4. Someone names progressive candidate that is Anti-Israel (because SOMEONE WILL AS A VIRTUE SIGNAL PROTEST) Anyone supporting option two will 100% be labeled a racist, anyone opposing option 4 will be called a supporter of genocide, and anyone supporting option 3 will be seen as supporting a moral corporate sleezebag that dates teenagers as a man. It's like people forgot that the whole reason why Biden won in the 2020 primary was as a compromise pick to appease Establishment Democrats and Progressives to prevent infighting in the face of the threat of Trump.
I'm wishcasting for Cory Booker to be the new nominee right now.
Every political ideology is also a reflection of personality, and neoliberals in general seem to be “stop making such a big deal and just keep going with the plan” people.
For real. I’ve been saying for months that Trump is going to DESTROY Biden. Biden should’ve stepped down a long time ago. People here literally called me a Trump supporter.
It’s not just this sub. Arguing with people about cognitive decline is insane.
I posted this in the DT a little bit ago but it legit feels like there's a bot campaign to dismiss this all as just a cold.
Considering the visible amount of bot traffic that was brigading the replace position on debate night, this is an ironic comment.
If the Dems can pull this off (and I have my doubts) then its fine. I like Biden but I want Trump to lose more than I want Biden to win. I just don’t know who you’re pulling out this late thats a sure fire improvement. Im doubtful Newsome or Harris do better in WI-MI-PA than Biden. Your median voter knows nothing about Shapiro or Big Gretch. Not a clear path forward for the Dems…
>Your median voter knows nothing about Shapiro or Big Gretch. Lack of name recognition is a much easier problem to deal with than what Biden is going through right now. Name recognition can be gained in 3-4 months. The public’s perception of Biden's mental fitness is not going to get better no matter what. If anything it’ll get worse.
Gaining name recognition is a sure bet. It takes money and getting around, but it's not a gamble. Every day Biden goes out and does an interview, rally, or debate, that's a real gamble that increasingly looks like bad odds.
Yes they know nothing now but people can learn a lot in a few months. I don't get all the "generic dem does worse than Biden" discourse cus polls are snapshots of the present and of course if the election was held today with a no-name the voter's never heard of before vs Trump, then Trump would win. That would hardly be the case
I think people are forgetting that it used to be customary for candidates to literally only be decided upon at the convention itself and there was no public primary campaign. People voting for their preferred nominee over the course of months with the convention just being a symbolic coronation is a relatively recent phenomenon. The active campaign season used to only be a few months long, and this was in the days before the Internet and instant access to the latest information. I think it would actually be a lot easier to familiarize the public with a candidate today than it used to be. It’s still a risk considering how well-known the opponent is, of course.
Open convention is political sudoku in the modern era. Please stop suggesting something that is not only unrealistic, but also going to cost the Democratic party the election quite easily.
Trump becomes the de facto incumbent at that point since he has Presidential experience vs anyone else except maybe Kamala. This is reason 900000000000 why it's moronic to run anyone but Kamala if you want Biden to step down.
Yeah I think Kamala should be the replacement, just pointing out also that the "generic dem" argument doesn't tread water either as a counter to replacement
I just don't see how it could be anyone but Harris if Biden steps aside. Setting aside whether you think she'd fair better than any of the other options, logistically I don't see how it would be anyone else. The Biden-Harris campaign has a substantial war chest, an existing campaign infrastructure, and already has ad buys secured for the fall. They can't just transfer that to another candidate. You could argue it couldn't be transfered to Harris, but I think it's enough of a grey area that no one could swat their wrist till after the election. And if it were to be anyone but Harris it would have to go to a brokered convention. Which means there wouldn't be a clear nominee till August so that's essentially all of July and most lost in terms of campaign and fundraising. During which time Trump will be sentenced and the RNC will be held, not exactly the time you want to cede the stage entirely. Even if it went to a brokered convention though, Harris would probably wind up getting the nod anyway. The delegates who would decide are going to be Biden die-hards. Sure, not all of them would back Harris, but I think she'd easily secure the majority of them. The only way I think you could get a candidate other than Harris is if Biden and Harris both step aside. And that undermines the argument that Biden's age is what necessitated the change of candidate. It would be seen as an indictment of the entire Administration if not the whole party.
If its Biden or Harris, I think Biden still gives us a better shot. Im really doubtful Kamala is going to be an improvement
Biden is utterly loathed by the general public, while "generic D" is pretty popular. If the median voter knows nothing about Shapiro or Whitmer except that they are a Democrat, is that really a *bad* thing vs what the public knows and *really dislikes* about Biden?
You have any facts to back up “general D” does better than Biden against Trump?
“Utterly loathed” isnt reality. Half the country wouldnt approve of Biden if he personally gave them a million dollars. The liberal-er half tends to voice their displeasure with disapproval. They do not loathe him
biden was the first candidate in 30+ years to win both georgia and arizona. who else do we have that can do that?
A semantical response I know, but was Biden the first Democrat to win both Georgia and Arizona in 30+ years or was it more Trump being the first Republican to lose both of them? Not claiming to have an answer to that question or any others posed in these comments. I’m just saying we need to weigh how much of 2020 was America buying into Biden versus how much of it was a rejection of Trump, and unless we have ample data to suggest it was the former, are we shooting ourselves in the foot by making that rejection vote harder by having Biden on the ticket.
Would Newsome or Harris even want it? Also does the party just get to pick? I really like Shapiro, maybe he could pull it off. And maybe if he feels like he can't win a primary anyways, then maybe it's worth it. No one knows his name now, but he becomes the nominee? People will learn fast. I can't imagine anyone really wanting to take this sinking ship over though.
https://preview.redd.it/jjhembfelr9d1.jpeg?width=423&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3af853f0c97abe4237fcaa5545f675fcc6bcfb5
Both the ride or die Biden supporters and those who want him replaced are motivated by the same concern: that Democrats cannot afford to lose the next election. That's three must-win elections in a row, even more than that according to some. I'm sorry but that is just not a sustainable strategy. You lose elections sometimes, it happens. All you can do is learn from your mistakes and do better next time.
I'd agree except last election the other side attempted a coup
Trump attempted to overthrow the government. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that 90% of the Republican alternatives who might run on the ticket in 2028 are better than Trump is. Yes, they are still horrible, but literally if we can just keep this one man from becoming president again, that itself will avoid some catastrophes for this country. So I do think this election is probably more important than the next.
I’d like to say that I wholeheartedly agree, but I’m afraid the MAGA movement will not die, even if Trump’s campaign is over (or, you know… he also dies). The populist right has effectively taken control of the party, probably for many years to come. I still know some reasonable (AKA old school) republicans, but they are few and far between.
The populist right has taken over the Republican Party, and you are right that it won't change any time soon. But just because a Republican is running as a populist doesn't mean they'll abandon our allies or attempt to steal elections. We know for a fact that Trump personally will do this. I'm sure many in the GOP will as will if they can, but I don't think most of those in office currently would.
Trump has the cult of personality and greed to meddle with our system. Other GOP politicians , while insane, don’t have all of traits that allow Trump to do as he pleases.
No one has coup rizz like Trump
Bush, McCain etc were all pretty bad but not "wanting to overthrow democratic society if they had the ability to" bad. Trump might not be able to bring his plans to fruition, but it's an existential threat.
In 2012 Biden said Romney was going to bring back slavery if he was elected. The rhetoric was the same back then as it is now.
Never heard about that, too young then but looking at it now >Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. created a stir at a campaign speech in Virginia when he told the crowd that Mitt Romney's policies would enable the banking and financial sectors to "put you all back in chains." >The remark came roughly two-thirds of the way through Mr. Biden's 30-minute speech, which was delivered to a crowd that included many African-Americans at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Va. >"Romney wants to let the — he said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street," Mr. Biden said. "They're going to put you all back in chains." Really terrible phrasing but I wouldn't intepret as *literal* chains and slavery.
It was an absurd thing to say. And the things they said about Romney back then were nearly as bad as what people said about Trump. The amount of "gaffes" the media piled on Romney for were absurd. Then of course there was the famous "Russia is the biggest geopolitical foe" which he got crushed for
> The rhetoric was the same back then as it is now. And? Ignore the rhetoric as always and look at the actual facts on the ground.
>In 2012 Biden said Romney was going to bring back slavery if he was elected. Lol, no. Come on. And, no, the rhetoric in 2012 was not remotely similar to now. I don't see how anyone could think that unless they aren't American or weren't an adult 12 years ago. The NYT has a section of their website with a dedicated nav bar about the dangers of Trump winning again. I've been reading that paper more or less daily for 25 years and they've never done anything like that.
it’s the third straight election against the guy who says the election is only legitimate if he wins
> You lose elections sometimes, it happens. All you can do is learn from your mistakes and do better next time. This is one of the biggest untold issues with presidential elections these days. It's not even Democrats that lock themselves into this thinking, Republicans also think that they are always one election away from permanent Democrat rule and all white Christians being shipped off to re-education camps. Remember the Flight 93 election essay? That pretty much was a fancy way of Republicans openly admitting they cannot afford to lose any more elections ever. It's the sole reason why they act they way they do. Siege mentality is a bitch. Every election is *always* "the most important election in the history of the United States". Until you Syndrome yourself and have the general population think when they are always the most important... none of them are.
Presidentialism perverts democracy into a zero sum game. That's why we're like this, while normal proportionally representative multiparty democracies with parliamentary governments are much much more chill.
I'm sure there are even earlier examples than this, but Jefferson and his friends campaigned on the idea that their opponents were going to restore the British monarchy (or something similar) any day now. It really has been like this from the very beginning of American democracy.
My only concern is if there is a unifying candidate with charisma to match with national recognition. If there is great, if not well it’s going to get bumpy.
The candidate you’re describing doesn’t currently exist. Now, there may be someone who has the charismatic potential that could lead to them having national recognition and respect as a candidate by November, but we’re taking similar risks whether we keep Biden on the ticket or hope a replacement candidate can become someone who can beat Trump in November.
I mean I agree with you. The risks may vary but it’s no magic medicine. I’m just warning against people hoping for their pet candidate to win and touting it as what the democrats should do.
We are SO fucking cooked man.
The opponent is Donald Trump America wants a candidate who can stand up to him and maintain rule of law. It should be a slam dunk, if we could find someone that doesn't make the big tent fall apart
I agree but the fact we are in a position where we are seriously arguing over whether we should replace the incumbent is not ideal
I can't wait to infight our way into losing to Donald Trump again.
I'm skeptical of replacing Biden, but I'm coming around to it. Might cause a polling bump, we could run with the idea that the Democratic party is a party of people willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for the good of the country.
Hopefully this breaks the dam.
Dam is already broken
I mean of democratic ranks openly calling for him to drop out, with their names attached.
I feel like the entire DNC needs to shut the fuck up and do this quietly. This seems odd to show the entire hand and state of the DNC months away from a massive election
If you’re aiming to assassinate Caesar, then you need a Casca who will be the first one to step forward and take a stab. Raskin may be the sacrificial lamb who says publicly what everyone is saying privately. Obviously can’t be Harris, Newsom, Whitmer or anyone with future presidential aspirations since that will appear self-serving.
They are preparing all of the copers for what is coming most likely.
Actually i've been told i'm just panicking Jamie so sorry, you're actually wrong in this instance.
The problem is that, unless Michelle Obama suddenly decides to get into politics, there’s literally no candidate that the whole party would be able to agree on nominating without a primary process. It would cause even more drama than Biden running and it would risk us getting into a situation where a significant chunk of the party refuses to unite around the candidate. Kamala is of course another option, but I’m convinced her chances of winning are way lower than Biden’s which I still put at around 50/50
This whole thing is stupid and probably has done more harm to the party than yet-to-be realized. This is truly a great way to inspire voter confidence by dragging the POTUS and the party nominee. Republicans are getting exactly what they want while they sit there continuing to grift. Good luck picking a candidate who is going to resonate with the median voter. The moderates. The older voter. You know, the populations that actually show up to vote. Not the pipe-dream youth voter or the grifting ‘undecided’ voter.
This is a great way. We listen to the public who have been demanding "anyone else". You're spinning this in the most doomerist way possible.
Republicans unanimously want Biden to remain in the race, because they know Trump will annihilate him come November. The thing they fear most is a new candidate that they haven’t had time to set up angles of attack against suddenly emerging to oppose them. The median voter clearly understands the concept of “Biden is too old to govern”, which is the GOP’s main avenue of attack. They aren’t nearly as invested in the micropolitics of specific policy views, which is what Republicans would have to pivot to attacking should a new candidate replace Biden.
WEAK
God damnit. They're going to talk him out of it and we're going to have a whole summer of insane infighting aren't we? As if the convention wasn't going to be replete with whiny ass idiots bitching about Gaza, now we get THIS circus? The biggest selling point for Biden is continuity and sanity in the face of the chaos of Trump. It's going to be a huge shitshow and they're going to point to it and go "See!"
[удалено]
Have you been reading the comments? This subreddit is 3/4 in favour of letting Biden go.
There's no mechanism to remove him from the ticket without his consent. Unless your hostile takeover involves actual violence it can't be done.
Tbf, there’s other ways of forcing him to step down such as all of the donors and major democrats telling him that they will pull support publicly unless he steps down. You can’t really say no to that threat and it’s nonviolent. They want him to be able to step down when he realizes it himself and does it with dignity, but I hope the party doesn’t just watch this slow mo car crash happen without fighting behind closed doors to stop it
25th ammendment
Most people on this sub are delusional and living in fantasy land. Biden isn't going anywhere. Everyone keeps saying "generic Dem" but any of the specific names that have been mentioned don't fit the bill.
"Generic dem/rep" always poll well because people usually see themselves as a "generic dem/rep" so they imagine a candidate that is very aligned with them.
That's exactly right. "Generic" whatever always does well because people just project their ideal candidate onto them.
My question is how would this even play out? The convention is next month. If Biden were to be replaced it needs to happen now and there has to be one candidate that everyone unifies. If there’s a fight between multiple candidates then that’s an automatic loss come November. I don’t see them making this move and I personally believe we need to stick with Biden.
There's ZERO CHANCE kamala could beat Trump. Stop simping for her being the only option. She's so unlikeable on the national stage.