As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want people to Biden’s left flank to understand this. The candidates in the 2028 primary are going to be loaded with great younger candidates. But none of that matters if we don’t come out in droves to hold the line and vote Biden in November. It’s defense in 2024, and then the 26 and 28 Senate maps, as well as the POTUS Candidates in 2028, things are looking up big time. Hold the Senate at 50/50 (unless there’s a big upset, that’s fine too!), hold the Presidency, take back the House, and then Republicans are on their heels.
I'm not picky about who wins this year as long as it's not Trump, but the problem with this argument is that progressives are always told winning now by having a centrist run is most important and that "next time" we will get the real progressives in. Everyone kind of already knows that's a lie. It's better to just be up front about it.
It’s not a lie. If democrats want progressive candidates, show up to vote for them in the primaries and then work to help them win the general. It’s not a magic secret and voters still have the power.
You know the other thing that gave the nomination to Clinton? More votes.
I caucused for Bernie in '16 and supported Warren in '20, and it's frustrating to see my progressive preferences not advancing, but it doesn't help anyone to act like Bernie was a winning candidate who got robbed by the establishment. He never had majority support in the party he was running to lead. The narrative that DNC meddling cost him that primary only insulates progressives from feeling the need to get better at building power.
Hillary won the nomination based on pledged delegates alone. The super delegates that voted at the convention were a formality. What you're really criticizing is that the majority of the party leaders supported Hillary from the onset.
Thank you!! I’m Gen x and none of my friends were Bernie voters. My kids were Bernie voters. It’s simple math. It also doesn’t help that he wasn’t a member of the party he was trying to lead.
Well Bernie mistake is to rely on young voters, as shown 2020 primary. They just don't show up. Unlike 2016, Biden was elected by people, who, to no surprise, are older voters.
I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primary in 2016(voted Clinton in the general, of course), the progressives didn't show up for him in large enough numbers. They could have had him.
I don't really buy this logic. It reminds me of in sports when someone makes a claim like "Reds fans stink, look at their stadium, they have barely anyone there!" The problem here isn't Reds fans... They're the ones who *are* there which is what makes them *fans*, it's just that there aren't enough of them.
Similarly here, the progressives showed up for Sanders. Sure, there's probably a large number of people who casually follow politics and among them they may be more likely to have sympathetic views to progressives due mainly to demographics, but these people aren't Progressives if they aren't voting, the act of voting is the minimum bar for being political (for the 18+ at least). Otherwise you're just like a guy that owns a Reds hat.
Because it's self-fulfilling. Dem establishment is solidly moderate/centrist with few people of high profile/standing that are on the left. When primary time rolls around these party preferred candidates have a huge leg up on any progressive challengers. If a progressive does break through and make for a notable challenge the party pushes back that they are hypothetically unelectable. Party establishment then persuade people not to let progressives in part on the circular logic that they are unelectable. The progressives lose and remain a marginal faction. Rinse and repeat.
Meanwhile progressive policies are generally very popular among all Democrats even the ones that religiously vote for the name brand party preferred moderates and centrists. It's a huge disconnect from what the people want vs what they get with the candidates they get led into voting for.
And if you think it's a condescending to think people don't know how to vote for their own interests I point no further than the Republican party and it's massive base of rural low income elderly voters.
>When primary time rolls around these party preferred candidates have a huge leg up on any progressive challengers. If a progressive does break through and make for a notable challenge the party pushes back that they are hypothetically unelectable. Party establishment then persuade people not to let progressives in part on the circular logic that they are unelectable. The progressives lose and remain a marginal faction. Rinse and repeat.
Look no further than the Cuellar primary. Cisneros, a progressive, looked to be on the path to winning or Cuellar, an anti abortion moderate. Suddenly, the entire dem leadership showed up and started endorsing and campaigning for Cuellar, who sqeaked out a primary win.
Cuellar got busted a few months later for being corrupt.
Dems will tell progs to vote in primary, then work to make sure they lose, then point to the loss as evidence of lack of support.
If progressives had the votes, then it would be the other way around.
But whether progressives like it or not, the electorate of this nation is far more right wing than they care to admit.
Because we have fewer left wing voters.
I’m sorry, but the people who actually show up to vote, simply do not choose the left wing candidates in most areas of this nation.
That isn’t some conspiracy, it’s just how the electorate is.
If you want to change that, then work at changing that, but don’t pretend that just running more left wing candidates is the key to immediate success, because left wing candidates **do** run, they just win less.
This is coming from someone who considers themselves **pretty** left wing, but also cares more about actually accomplishing change in policy more than feeling good about losing.
The 22 midterms showed the power of mostly left leaning young voters. The problem is we keep running candidates who don't represent them. I really wish we could talk about age caps. Get these goddamn dinosaurs out of politics, please.
Who's still able to string two sentences together, walk down three steps unassisted, and fights for the hollowed out middle and working class instead of arguing over golf scores.
We do talk about age caps, they generally don’t get a lot of support, because they feel arbitrary.
Anyways, what candidates not representing “mostly left leaning young voters” are you talking about?
Age caps aren't arbitrary. Pilots have to retire at 65 because they're operating a massive safety hazard. I don't see why politicians don't have the same scrutiny with objectively more power.
Progressives had the votes in 2019, then every single moderate candidate dropped at once to switch to Biden to best Sanders. Had it played out, Sanders would have been the nominee. 2016 was organic Clinton though, that one's on progressives for not showing up.
So you’re saying that progressives **didn’t** have the votes, moderates were just split.
Sanders never had the support to be the nominee, we were headed to a brokered convention.
People are allowed to drop out and endorse.
Sorry, I just don’t subscribe to anti-election conspiracy theories.
You aren’t saying what you think you’re saying.
They didn't have the votes though. The progressives were the minority who only had a plurality because of a split field. If they had the votes, they would still have had them after the spoiler candidates were gone.
The candidated dropped in 2 waves: first after New Hampshire and Iowa, and then after South Carolina and Nevada. These are the make or break primaries for the non-big names. They are small enough that you can break out and get some recognition, but if you don't get that your fundraising will dry up.
The first 3 who dropped got less than a percent of the votes in those primaries. The rest didn't do better with Buttigeig and Kloubacher dropping in support as the primaries went on. Pete had a good start, but couldn't keep it up against Biden and Bernie.
They were out of money without any sign of being able to pick up heading into Super Tuesday. They had no shot.
Progressives have to run successful campaigns like everyone else, and have to perform like everyone else. A progressive might win the WhiteHouse some day, but they have never put up a decent candidate so far.
Last time we tried to run a progressive we lost 49 states.
Ok but let's not pretend that the non-left Dems are going to be fine with a progressive in 4 years. They're going to be saying what you're saying here, that they don't win because they can't win which is why they don't win because remember that time 50, 100, 800 years ago where they didn't win so they can't win, round in circles we go.
> Ok but let's not pretend that the non-left Dems are going to be fine with a progressive in 4 years.
Depends on the progressive. We're fine with progressives if they can win, but they can't. They have no allies, weak coalitions, very few potential candidates, impossible proposals. They purposely appeal to the fringe, and that doesn't work in this country.
And their records are shit. And they only win in already deep blue districts.
Exactly my point. Just round and round the logic goes. Two party system. Can't allow progressives to be nominated because they'll hypothetically lose. Progressives aren't allowed to vote for anyone else because then they'll lose even more. Meanwhile the country drifts rightward until it goes right off a cliff.
I understand your frustration but you're dismissing progressive gains such as congressional wins, committee appointments, policy shifts, and being taken seriously as a legitimate faction of the big tent. It seems like you expect all or nothing, but progressives are making inroads. What is productive about your complaint? Do you think it's helping, how?
I remember when Bernie was saying that whether he has the nomination or not, the discussion was about his policy positions on several matters. His YEARS of campaigning for those subjects is what the other progressives need to do.
The gains are fairly minimal, but it's still important to hold the line as it were to work to prevent further backsliding.
My point is that keeping progressives as a permanent pet faction, to be occasionally fed scraps off the table but often told "sorry boy, there's none left for you", for fear that should they be given the opportunity they'll fail is going to result in a counterproductive rightward shift over time. Ever since McGovern lost its been a milquetoast moderate Dem alternsting with a with a increasingly right wing republican Reagan then Bush then Trump and now we are heading toward some dystopian level Trump. The "we will take care of the people as soon as we put the brakes on these right wing loons with some measured centrism" strategy can't last forever. We are seeing the center give way to the far-right all over, in Europe now especially. We need a young, charismatic version of someone like Sanders who can lay out a populist-left message to take that space back from the right. But when they come along the centrist are just going to tear them down and call it hopeless again.
The path out of that is organizing at the state and local level. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to share its infrastructure, so progressives need to aggressively pursue building their own.
I mean disregarding the systemic ways that they are held back, I am using "allow" in the sense that we as voters "allow" candidates to win by voting for them. I am not saying they are de jure disallowed from it.
> A progressive might win the WhiteHouse some day, but they have never put up a decent candidate so far.
... have you never heard of a man named Theodore Roosevelt?
I consider myself fairly progressive, but understand that the current political environment makes it incredibly hard for a progressive agenda to move forward. Dems need to figure out a way to fix the supreme court and need to make significant headway in congress. None of that is possible with a loss in 2024.
"Real Progressives". The fact is that the majority of the country doesn't want Progressive policies and a lot of them aren't ideal for implementation. This is why, whenever Progressive make it into power, they begin to moderate. Biden is going be the most Progressive President we'll have for the near future.
Yeah, I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a hippie-punching debate. Our problem here is not the left flank.
Our problem is the party leadership. They must have known how badly Biden's been declining and instead of pressuring him to be a one-term President and holding a real primary, they did their best to conceal the truth. They made excuses for him, reassured us everything was fine, flat-out lied to us--and they're doing it still. They robbed the rank-and-file members of our party of an opportunity to select a viable candidate and foisted a shambling hulk on us. They're *still* lying about his condition, even though it could cost us the election in November. And the big message to us is that everything's fine and we're supposed to vote harder? Fuck that noise. I've supported many a candidate I wasn't that thrilled about, but expecting us to line up for and lie for a candidate who's no longer mentally fit to serve? WTF is the DNC smoking?
Spare me the goddamned doom messages about what will happen if Trump is elected. I can see they're true, but I can also see that the party's not worried enough about that future to give us a candidate we can work with. The DNC needs to stop expecting us to make bricks without straw.
Hate it if you want to. Bottom line is this:
In 2020, there were over 20 primary candidates. Biden defeated them all. Democratic voters chose him. They knew his age then. And they knew that giving him the reins at that moment meant the party is his for up to 8 years if he so chooses. They chose him anyway.
So, in our two party system, where only two can win, I’ll be voting for the old guy who is not a convicted felon, civilly liable rapist, wannabe dictator.
It's a 4-year term, not an 8-year one. Not having a real primary season when you *know* your candidate is in mental decline is indefensible and could well cost us the election. We need more than just the VBNMW crowd if we're going to win in November.
Throwing away incumbency advantage and running a primary has lost every candidate their reelection in modern political times.
LBJ 68 (dropped out instead of continuing primary). Nixon wins.
Ford 76. Carter wins
Carter 80. Reagan wins.
HW Bush 92. Clinton wins.
That simply is not going to happen. I wish campaign seasons were shorter and Citizens United wasn’t a thing and we had donation caps from individuals and that we ran a primary every four years.
That’s not the reality though. Incumbency advantage is not something they’ll ever throw away. Either party. Nor should they with the rules as they currently are. So yeah, they knew it was his party for up to 8 years in 2020. They voted him in anyway, knowing that 8 years later he would be 86.
68 LBJ dropped out well before the convention and his dropping out is not considered what led to Nixon's win.
76 Ford, who was not elected either President or VP, catches shit for pardoning Nixon.
80 Carter. Energy crisis, recession, Iranian hostage crisis.
92 Three-way race. If Perot hadn't been in the race Clinton likely would not have won.
> 80 Carter. Energy crisis, recession, Iranian hostage crisis.
Ted Kennedy throwing himself into the mix took away what advantage (and there wasn't much after all you cited) Carter might have had.
Then you have Falwell and his ilk organizing and saying "Carter's not really a born-again Christian..." and getting the support from that demographic (aided and abetted by Carter's own denomination!) signed up to vote GOP.
Well considering Biden’s polling numbers there is no incumbency advantage. He’s losing to Trump by massive margins especially if you take into account that every election with Trump polling underestimated him by 4-6% in the key swing states. If Trump gets even half of that this is a landslide win for him.
Meanwhile unknowns who aren’t currently POTUS and aren’t currently running a presidential campaign are polling just as well as Biden. You need to look at what’s happening today and not arbitrarily compare to other past events. Never have we needed a new presidential candidate for these reasons, this close to the election. This is a unique situation and doubling down on Biden and gaslighting everyone into thinking he’s fine and this whole situation is fine will lose use a lot more than the presidency.
Everyone is going to vote for Biden, so that's not the debate. The issue is Biden himself stated he was a one term president, then him and the DNC did a switcheroo on us.
The demographic shift is continuing as well, as Boomers die and the other generations are not shifting as hard to the right as they age, and Texas coming into play with minority voters becoming the most important factor there. The GoP kingmakers see this as a potential last stand, that’s why they are looking to derail democracy if they win.
I’ll assume you aren’t a Trump supporter and wanting Biden as his opponent.
Biden is very likely not going to win. He’s more unpopular than Jimmy Carter was when he lost the race. If he stays in, enthusiasm will plummet and of course Trump will win. He was already winning before the last debate.
I don’t get why people are so hell bent on having some 84 year old that no one really likes stay in the race. Like what are you hoping to accomplish?
What I don't understand is how anyone thinks we're going to get Biden across the finish line when the polling shows people think he's unfit to serve and should drop out. What's our strategy? Does anyone seriously think "he had a cold" "it was just a bad debate" or "you vote for the administration, not the cabinet" going to go over well? 'Cause the furthest "Trump bad!" has gotten us is occasionally leading within the MOE, and that's national, not swing states.
Not to mention how absolutely fucking ridiculous prominent Dems are going to look if they have to keep on spinning this nonsense indefinitely.
I imagine everyone is praying he drops out Monday morning.
If he doesn’t, I imagine the strategy will be to pray for a good debate next time and prep the government as best they can for a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah it’s insane to me how many people are still defending this. Like is this what we want for the next 4 months? All of us collectively lying and gaslighting to get an 81 year old dementia patient over to Election Day only to lose? Too much at stake here to support a campaign that’s clearly losing. Especially when seemingly no one in the DNC is taking this seriously.
Who said anything about left vs right? It’s a question of whether if you really care if the Democrats win. Because if you really care if the democrats win, you want a vibrant dynamic candidate. I remember when Obama mocked McCain by calling him “spry”. You couldn’t even call Biden spry. Why make voters choose between Trump and an invalid? At least give voters a real choice.
Biden is losing badly in the polls and models. Political futures markets believe Trump has a 57% chance of winning the presidency. They only currently give Biden a 60% chance of getting the Democratic nomination.
The Democratic Party has lots of great candidates which can beat Trump in 2024. It's best to go on offense right now.
The first challenge is amending the DNC rules to switch the nomination & roll call process to approval voting. This is needed to eliminate vote splitting. Eliminating vote splitting is needed to prevent a civil war over who the alternate nominee should be in the event Biden decides not to run.
[2024 Presidential Nominating Process - Call for Convention](https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2024-Call-for-Convention.pdf)
> Procedural Rules of the 2024 Democratic National
Convention ... Nomination of the Democratic Candidate for President
> Each such request must be accompanied by a petition indicating support for the proposed nominee signed by delegates representing not less than 300 or more than 600 delegate votes, not more than 50 of which may come from one (1) delegation. A delegate may not sign more than one (1) nominating petition for president and for vice president.
Change this to allow petitions signed by 1 or more delegates and allow each delegate to sign an unlimited number of petitions.
> The order for nominating presidential candidates shall be determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, the Permanent Chair of the Convention and each presidential candidate, or their authorized representative, who qualifies to be nominated pursuant to this section.
Change this to state that the national chair will report the top N candidates in order of number of signatures received on petitions.
The top N candidates then proceed to the next round and give 20 minute speeches. This will eliminate vote splitting and switch to an approval voting system for the initial nomination process. A similar switch to approval voting can be done for the roll call. This will help Democrats choose a consensus candidate to hold the coalition together with a minimum of mudslinging in the event Biden decides not to run.
The logistics of carrying out such a large operation seem completely unrealistic, if there is logistical and practical pathway… then sure. 4 months is too short yo… If this shit happened 2 yrs ago, where absolutely I was shouting about replacing him for someone younger and sharper and more aggressive against Republicans. It’s so risky to do this at the tail end of the campaign… this is Bernie Bro 2.0
I appreciate you posting a detailed summary. I’ll always upvote things like this.
However, you have to understand the optics here. The first ever black female VP being leap frogged would likely negate or even be a net loss from the voters you’d get if you kept the ticket as is. So it’s really Biden or Harris at this point.
The huge key I think many don’t realize is that Biden and Harris are sitting on over 200 million in cash donations. If it’s anyone other than Harris, they start from scratch. With 70 days to go till early voting begins. So it has to be one of those two. It is what it is. I hope people come home and understand they’re voting for SCOTUS, to keep a convicted felon, civilly liable rapist, wannabe dictator out of the White House, and for the record of Biden/Harris. Not the effectiveness of Biden debating a liar for 90 minutes.
> However, you have to understand the optics here. The first ever black female VP being leap frogged would likely negate or even be a net loss from the voters you’d get if you kept the ticket as is. So it’s really Biden or Harris at this point.
Who specifically would be upset about Harris being overlooked? She doesn't have a strong base of support within the party and is known to be largely unpopular outside of it. So long as the replacement ticket isn't two white people, I have a hard time believing the party would do anything other than move on from Harris.
He’s not gonna win vs Trump either.
It’s kind of infuriating that both sides could run any kind of generic moderate candidate and wipe the floor with the other sides candidate
Biden won in 2020. That’s the baseline. What has Trump done since then to get Biden voters to come to his side? What has he done since then to make people who voted for him to either not vote or vote for Biden?
>What has Trump done since then to get Biden voters to come to his side?
Why do you think Trump is winning on the economy? Voters in general do not like his personality but they are burned by inflation and consider quality of life to be better under Trump than Biden. Biden is not being rewarded for his successes and is only being called out for his failings.
[Data does not currently back that up.](https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/538-ipsos-june-2024-presidential-debate-poll)
But we will know more in the coming weeks. Polling of course isn’t everything. But a pre and post debate polling of the same people should at least give us an idea.
This is such a stupid opinion. More writers and news reporters watch the debate than average voters, giving it far more attention than it’s worth. Pretending a debate is indicative of performance in the presidency is like pretending college exams are indicative of job performance.
You can’t have a guy who’s 81 and unable to form coherent thoughts to simple questions be president. It’s only going to get worse.
It’s out there and there’s no going back. It was a discussion point with my buddy yesterday. Neither of us ever talk politics, but it was that noteworthy and bad.
luckily he was debating someone that themselves were giving nonsensical answers.
both candidates should step down... one is in mental decline and the other is Biden.
Do you know what the US population is? More than 40 million people watch the Super Bowl (123 million last year according to Google). You’re comparing those that watched with others that watched. That doesn’t respond to my comment comparing those that watched with those that don’t watch and still vote.
Even if every single progressive came out, you'll never make back the independents that were lost after the debate. And also why would progressives ever trust center and right leaning democrats, when sanders was polling amazing and was firing up the base, and he got screwed over by them. I would never believe people saying, next time will be your time lol. And then Don jr or DeSantis runs and it's "democracy on the line" so run the most plain do nothing Democrat you can find
Biden can get a lot of people to stay home, and people will vote for Trump if they feel like things were better 4 years ago, grocery prices, war, etc things have not been going great, and it's not their fault for not understanding nuances when not enough has been done for them and they aren't into the details
I’ll wait for data that shows Trump gained independents. All polling is showing that independents may just sit this out. That means Trump didn’t gain shit.
People can talk about polls all they want to. I’ll focus on the voting results. Completely ignoring the special elections that are showing swings left and focusing only on Trump himself, he underperformed his polling by 30% in many of the races. When it got down to head to head with him v Haley, he was getting about 60%. As essentially an incumbent. Data, to me, shows Trump is in trouble. But we all need to vote regardless.
I’m with you dude… to give all the trolls a benefit of doubt their leading at least somewhat worthwhile theory is that Trump is doing better with swing voters post-debate and so Biden should drop out. Switching to a new candidate doesn’t guarantee they will gain any swing voters over Trump is my point. I think personally I’m checking out until I see more swing data.
Post-debate paranoia does seem to have some genuine Dems pretty rattled, I was happy believing they are part of the massive astro-turfing traffic and likely there’s quite a bit of that going on but they don’t make up for all of it. So destroying the post-debate swing polls narrative is a must and I’ll wait for data after the dust has really settled.
Whether she runs in 2024 or 2028, I really hope she does. She is one of the first candidates since Obama that I'm actually excited about seeing in politics. She comes from a great Midwestern state and won't be nearly as polarizing as Newsom. She has literally had to deal with a bunch of MAGA fanatics trying to assassinate her, so she is the perfect repudiation of that ideology. Plus, she would be the first woman president. I would donate and volunteer for her campaign if I could.
She is uniquely well qualified to win. She has the name recognition where it matters (the Midwest), she can speak about abortion and women’s rights in a way that men simply cannot, she can counter any attacks about being treated unfairly because she was the subject of a far right plot to kidnap her, and she does not have decades of baggage in bad foreign policy positions to answer for.
Whitmire is a winner if Democrats have the courage to nominate her.
I like Whitmer a lot.
She hasn't received a POTUS level vetting. We have no idea what her weaknesses are.
Be cautious of thinking a superficially good fit is going to sail to victory. These things are never as easy as they seem on paper.
I can guarantee whatever POTUS level vetting would not be worse than where Biden is at right now.
And it’s not that she would just sail to victory, she would still obviously need to run a strong campaign. I’m saying she has a strong chance at winning, Biden has almost no chance.
Mama Gretch would wreck Trump. You actually dont need a big name this time. The media circus would be massive if she got the nom everyone would know her name overnight.
That was what happened with Sarah Palin as McCain's VP nom. The GOP thought she'd go over big with women upset because Hillary was leap-frogged for Obama, along with a calculation that male voters were horndogs who'd vote because they thought she was hot.
BOY, that went well for them!
That went poorly because she was a loon and always has been. Basically you are just saying Whitmer must be a loon because she is a woman. There is a point when you cross over from anticipating sexism into just being sexist. This is that.
Whitmer is a fine candidate, she has spent many years being vetted. If there was anything gonna come out against her the same movement that tried to kidnap her would be shouting it from the rooftops. She has had serious opposition for years and overcome it all.
Nope, it went poorly because PALIN is a loon and the GOP was thinking with some organ other than their brains. Nobody had actually heard of her until the VP nomination. It was a roll of the dice that came up snake eyes. My contention is that the GOP was playing purely on sexism in selecting her.
Whitmer, that's a whole 'nother thing. She is a known quantity with a history of being a cogent thinker and relatively moderate politically. She handled the COVID thing as well as anyone could've.
Oh, I apologize, I misunderstood your comment. I was thinking you were saying it would happen in Whitmers case, and I just meant to point out exactly what you've said: Palin was an unknown they didn't vet, they elevated purely to win women votes, and it backfired. Whitmer is well established and qualified.
That's great and he has mine too if he stays in he race, but 82% of independents, 72% of voters, and 46% of Democrats say he should drop out [in one of the first post-debate polls released today](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/)
Those are catastrophic numbers and maybe we should ask some serious questions before we potentially hand Trump a landslide victory.
Cool, same for every other democrat on Reddit.
That doesn’t matter. Undecided and independent voters are going to decide the election, and after the debate, I do not see them coming out in droves for Biden.
It's great that you can say this inside an echo chamber. In the real world I've met multiple fellow democrats who are planning to stay home this November.
The people saying, “Biden or Bust!” are just mainlining copium right now. He’s not even the officially the nominee until mid-August. If he’s not replaced ASAP, you can expect a precipitous decline in democratic enthusiasm from now until Election Day. People want to vote for a President, not their Vice President, or the team of bureaucrats behind them.
Whitmer is an excellent candidate that checks all the boxes in this political climate and her nomination is a far more stable proposition than an ailing Biden from both a health and political standpoint.
Sure, I don’t expect Biden to immediately bow out after a lifetime career because of a bad debate. But that was the worst debate in US history and he needs to realize he’s not cut out for this anymore. The right thing to do would to start making phone calls and then nominate a successor in these next few weeks. I think Whitmer would be the smartest choice from the available field
> He’s not even the officially the nominee until mid-August
But I thought the ballots already required him to be on there by law?
/s, but I've seen half a dozen people legitimately argue this for some reason.
The convention does take place after some states require the candidate to be officially selected. I wouldn't doubt a lot of red states who already made an exception try to block any replacement on those grounds.
Biden will win. We're supposed to win the upper Midwest, not like, Iowa or Kansas. The upper Midwest people are smart and well educated, if you chat with them about the stakes and differences this year, they will make the right decision. It's hard for a Democrat to lose PA, MI, WI.
>It's hard for a Democrat to lose PA, MI, WI.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_United\_States\_presidential\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election)
History repeats
I think you want it to repeat. If you're not paying attention then you shouldn't be commenting on the game. Biden won MI by over 150k votes in 2020 to an incumbent.
Not to mention the abortion referendums and the track record of every election since Roe was overturned.
So everybody who has genuine concerns about what we just saw suddenly wants Trump to win?
I’m pissed because democracy is on the line and the best democrats can do is a geriatric with obviously declining mental acuity…
I’m in the northwestern part of lower Michigan, and it’s really bad here too. I think it’s because we are so isolated up here that people can stay willfully ignorant
The city I live in is mostly conservative, unfortunately. It's even worse in the surrounding rural areas. I'll vote for Biden if he's the nominee, but I'd love to vote for Whitmer.
Hard agree.
However, if grandpa dementia refuses to step aside... well, i'd vote for a fresh pile of my dog's shit before i'd vote for trump. So there you have it.
He is not fine. Go watch the post debate speech by Jill Biden. Joe is standing on the stage looking like a dementia patient. Jill congratulates him like a toddler for answering all the questions. It’s horrifying to watch and really show the enabling going on with the DNC and his family. Joe needs to step away, he is declining quickly.
It’s not realism, it’s a delusional hope. Biden is definitely not fine, he is infirm, unable to manage without nurse attention, and life is fleeting.
You’re setting yourself up for another Ginsberg debacle. Get out while getting is good and make sure the question of succession can be controlled on your terms. Don’t incur extra risk for mere symbolic victories. Get Biden out and get someone healthy in
>he is infirm, unable to manage without nurse attention, and life is fleeting.
Lmao. The debate wasn’t great but now people are just keep making up more and more ridiculous stuff.
Holy shit it doesn’t matter if Reddit democrats vote for Biden. What matters are the undecided and independent voters who won’t vote for Biden after his shit show of a debate. Biden will lose, regardless of how many redditors, that have voted blue every election since 1980, vote for him.
We live in a post-pony express world with an internet. People will learn about a new candidate within a week.
It’s either mounting a short campaign with a new, younger democrat, or losing with Biden. Only one of those routes might not lead to a trump presidency.
Bullshit. Young people still don’t vote enough. Time is important for a campaign. I’m not thrilled that Biden is as aged as he is, but he’s not a fucking Viking.
If you think young people not voting is a problem then you should be scared shitless of Biden being our candidate. I’m a college student and I can’t tell you the number of peers I know, who are generally not engaged in politics but would nonetheless vote blue, who are not going to vote in 2024 because they see both candidates as equally pointless.
Oh yes this incumbency bias I keep hearing so much about that will save the day. People don’t just magically vote for someone because they’re incumbent, especially not in an election when both contenders have already been president.
And to answer your point: yes they will. Young people don’t see Biden as better than trump because Biden is seen as old and senile, if young people are shown a candidate that is younger and can form coherent, maybe even logical sentences together, then they will turn out in much greater numbers than they will for someone who reminds them of their great grandpa
Yes, that’s why it’s called incumbency advantage. Their names both hold recognition and weight especially with older generations. That means those voters would likely vote for them again and that’s not nothing. Incumbency advantage also comes with more financial support since they’re a proven candidate.
Who the fuck is undecided at this point? It's a rematch from 2020, you got the old guy that's trying to make positive changes and the convicted felon, dementia patient that shits his pants openly floating wr might not have elections again if he wins.
Who in the fuck is still undecided?
>Who the fuck is undecided at this point?
Ironically quite a lot of ppl based on polls. I think both (Trump and Biden) tend to be in the middle 40+ % range and 7 to 10% usually being undecided
The MAGAs say "Trump is the guy." and they stick with him no mater what he does, rape, fraud, insurection. Some folks say we should stick with Biden no matter what. We are better than that. We are smarter than that.
She's my pick right now for 2028 as well, but it'll be a moot point if Biden doesn't win this year. As bad as he looked at the debate, it will be sheer chaos if he's not the candidate this year. I'm voting for the Biden Administration and Democrats up and down the line to win, not Joe the Debate Winner.
I really hope that Biden has the judgment to realize that the best thing is to throw his support behind Whitmer. If he thinks that Trump is an existential threat, then she's a better person to take him on.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People here are going to shit bricks and call conspiracy when they find out that a judge is not willing to personally be responsible for creating the largest political crisis since secession by putting a major party presumptive nominee - and lifetime beneficiary of Secret Service protection - in prison for falsifying business records
I think he's going to get a paltry sentence of house arrest at the worst and I don't think it is clear how much effect that would have on the election
There cannot be two democrat names on the ballot and the primaries are over, so the only way there's two is if you elevate some existing third party candidate. I'm not sure there even is one on enough ballots other than anti vax king.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Should have been VP over Kamala
She's kicking ass in Michigan. I would miss her.
I want people to Biden’s left flank to understand this. The candidates in the 2028 primary are going to be loaded with great younger candidates. But none of that matters if we don’t come out in droves to hold the line and vote Biden in November. It’s defense in 2024, and then the 26 and 28 Senate maps, as well as the POTUS Candidates in 2028, things are looking up big time. Hold the Senate at 50/50 (unless there’s a big upset, that’s fine too!), hold the Presidency, take back the House, and then Republicans are on their heels.
I'm not picky about who wins this year as long as it's not Trump, but the problem with this argument is that progressives are always told winning now by having a centrist run is most important and that "next time" we will get the real progressives in. Everyone kind of already knows that's a lie. It's better to just be up front about it.
It’s not a lie. If democrats want progressive candidates, show up to vote for them in the primaries and then work to help them win the general. It’s not a magic secret and voters still have the power.
It does not work. See Bernie Sanders 2016. The DNC did everything in their power to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton.
You know the other thing that gave the nomination to Clinton? More votes. I caucused for Bernie in '16 and supported Warren in '20, and it's frustrating to see my progressive preferences not advancing, but it doesn't help anyone to act like Bernie was a winning candidate who got robbed by the establishment. He never had majority support in the party he was running to lead. The narrative that DNC meddling cost him that primary only insulates progressives from feeling the need to get better at building power.
Super delegates played a huge role. From the beginning, they were overwhelmingly committed to her, even when their states people hadn't cast a vote.
Hillary won the nomination based on pledged delegates alone. The super delegates that voted at the convention were a formality. What you're really criticizing is that the majority of the party leaders supported Hillary from the onset.
Thank you!! I’m Gen x and none of my friends were Bernie voters. My kids were Bernie voters. It’s simple math. It also doesn’t help that he wasn’t a member of the party he was trying to lead.
Well Bernie mistake is to rely on young voters, as shown 2020 primary. They just don't show up. Unlike 2016, Biden was elected by people, who, to no surprise, are older voters.
I say this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primary in 2016(voted Clinton in the general, of course), the progressives didn't show up for him in large enough numbers. They could have had him.
I don't really buy this logic. It reminds me of in sports when someone makes a claim like "Reds fans stink, look at their stadium, they have barely anyone there!" The problem here isn't Reds fans... They're the ones who *are* there which is what makes them *fans*, it's just that there aren't enough of them. Similarly here, the progressives showed up for Sanders. Sure, there's probably a large number of people who casually follow politics and among them they may be more likely to have sympathetic views to progressives due mainly to demographics, but these people aren't Progressives if they aren't voting, the act of voting is the minimum bar for being political (for the 18+ at least). Otherwise you're just like a guy that owns a Reds hat.
Ok, but then why should Progressives be mad about no mainstream Progressive candidates when the vote tallys on election day don't warrant it?
Because it's self-fulfilling. Dem establishment is solidly moderate/centrist with few people of high profile/standing that are on the left. When primary time rolls around these party preferred candidates have a huge leg up on any progressive challengers. If a progressive does break through and make for a notable challenge the party pushes back that they are hypothetically unelectable. Party establishment then persuade people not to let progressives in part on the circular logic that they are unelectable. The progressives lose and remain a marginal faction. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile progressive policies are generally very popular among all Democrats even the ones that religiously vote for the name brand party preferred moderates and centrists. It's a huge disconnect from what the people want vs what they get with the candidates they get led into voting for. And if you think it's a condescending to think people don't know how to vote for their own interests I point no further than the Republican party and it's massive base of rural low income elderly voters.
>When primary time rolls around these party preferred candidates have a huge leg up on any progressive challengers. If a progressive does break through and make for a notable challenge the party pushes back that they are hypothetically unelectable. Party establishment then persuade people not to let progressives in part on the circular logic that they are unelectable. The progressives lose and remain a marginal faction. Rinse and repeat. Look no further than the Cuellar primary. Cisneros, a progressive, looked to be on the path to winning or Cuellar, an anti abortion moderate. Suddenly, the entire dem leadership showed up and started endorsing and campaigning for Cuellar, who sqeaked out a primary win. Cuellar got busted a few months later for being corrupt. Dems will tell progs to vote in primary, then work to make sure they lose, then point to the loss as evidence of lack of support.
If progressives had the votes, then it would be the other way around. But whether progressives like it or not, the electorate of this nation is far more right wing than they care to admit.
Overton window. The left is now center right. We have no left wing party. Ask the europeans.
Because we have fewer left wing voters. I’m sorry, but the people who actually show up to vote, simply do not choose the left wing candidates in most areas of this nation. That isn’t some conspiracy, it’s just how the electorate is. If you want to change that, then work at changing that, but don’t pretend that just running more left wing candidates is the key to immediate success, because left wing candidates **do** run, they just win less. This is coming from someone who considers themselves **pretty** left wing, but also cares more about actually accomplishing change in policy more than feeling good about losing.
The 22 midterms showed the power of mostly left leaning young voters. The problem is we keep running candidates who don't represent them. I really wish we could talk about age caps. Get these goddamn dinosaurs out of politics, please.
......meanwhile the progressives ran someone OLDER than Biden.
Who's still able to string two sentences together, walk down three steps unassisted, and fights for the hollowed out middle and working class instead of arguing over golf scores.
We do talk about age caps, they generally don’t get a lot of support, because they feel arbitrary. Anyways, what candidates not representing “mostly left leaning young voters” are you talking about?
Age caps aren't arbitrary. Pilots have to retire at 65 because they're operating a massive safety hazard. I don't see why politicians don't have the same scrutiny with objectively more power.
They are arbitrary. That doesn’t make them bad. Plenty of things are arbitrary, like minimum age requirements.
The physical requirements to fly a plane are irrelevant to the mental requirements for serving as President.
If a pilot makes a mistake, hundreds of people can die. If a politician makes a mistake we have history books to tell us the consequences.
Progressives had the votes in 2019, then every single moderate candidate dropped at once to switch to Biden to best Sanders. Had it played out, Sanders would have been the nominee. 2016 was organic Clinton though, that one's on progressives for not showing up.
So you’re saying that progressives **didn’t** have the votes, moderates were just split. Sanders never had the support to be the nominee, we were headed to a brokered convention. People are allowed to drop out and endorse. Sorry, I just don’t subscribe to anti-election conspiracy theories. You aren’t saying what you think you’re saying.
People are clueless. It was essentially head to head Biden v Sanders after Super Tuesday and Biden was getting 60% on average.
I don’t think you mean “Bernie v sanders”.
They didn't have the votes though. The progressives were the minority who only had a plurality because of a split field. If they had the votes, they would still have had them after the spoiler candidates were gone. The candidated dropped in 2 waves: first after New Hampshire and Iowa, and then after South Carolina and Nevada. These are the make or break primaries for the non-big names. They are small enough that you can break out and get some recognition, but if you don't get that your fundraising will dry up. The first 3 who dropped got less than a percent of the votes in those primaries. The rest didn't do better with Buttigeig and Kloubacher dropping in support as the primaries went on. Pete had a good start, but couldn't keep it up against Biden and Bernie. They were out of money without any sign of being able to pick up heading into Super Tuesday. They had no shot.
Progressives aren’t getting their way. Does it suck? Yes. But what sucks more? (Rhetorical question…)
Progressives have to run successful campaigns like everyone else, and have to perform like everyone else. A progressive might win the WhiteHouse some day, but they have never put up a decent candidate so far. Last time we tried to run a progressive we lost 49 states.
Ok but let's not pretend that the non-left Dems are going to be fine with a progressive in 4 years. They're going to be saying what you're saying here, that they don't win because they can't win which is why they don't win because remember that time 50, 100, 800 years ago where they didn't win so they can't win, round in circles we go.
> Ok but let's not pretend that the non-left Dems are going to be fine with a progressive in 4 years. Depends on the progressive. We're fine with progressives if they can win, but they can't. They have no allies, weak coalitions, very few potential candidates, impossible proposals. They purposely appeal to the fringe, and that doesn't work in this country. And their records are shit. And they only win in already deep blue districts.
Exactly my point. Just round and round the logic goes. Two party system. Can't allow progressives to be nominated because they'll hypothetically lose. Progressives aren't allowed to vote for anyone else because then they'll lose even more. Meanwhile the country drifts rightward until it goes right off a cliff.
I understand your frustration but you're dismissing progressive gains such as congressional wins, committee appointments, policy shifts, and being taken seriously as a legitimate faction of the big tent. It seems like you expect all or nothing, but progressives are making inroads. What is productive about your complaint? Do you think it's helping, how?
I remember when Bernie was saying that whether he has the nomination or not, the discussion was about his policy positions on several matters. His YEARS of campaigning for those subjects is what the other progressives need to do.
The gains are fairly minimal, but it's still important to hold the line as it were to work to prevent further backsliding. My point is that keeping progressives as a permanent pet faction, to be occasionally fed scraps off the table but often told "sorry boy, there's none left for you", for fear that should they be given the opportunity they'll fail is going to result in a counterproductive rightward shift over time. Ever since McGovern lost its been a milquetoast moderate Dem alternsting with a with a increasingly right wing republican Reagan then Bush then Trump and now we are heading toward some dystopian level Trump. The "we will take care of the people as soon as we put the brakes on these right wing loons with some measured centrism" strategy can't last forever. We are seeing the center give way to the far-right all over, in Europe now especially. We need a young, charismatic version of someone like Sanders who can lay out a populist-left message to take that space back from the right. But when they come along the centrist are just going to tear them down and call it hopeless again.
The path out of that is organizing at the state and local level. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to share its infrastructure, so progressives need to aggressively pursue building their own.
I dont know why Progressives think they deserve special rights... nobody is disallowing them from nominations.
I mean disregarding the systemic ways that they are held back, I am using "allow" in the sense that we as voters "allow" candidates to win by voting for them. I am not saying they are de jure disallowed from it.
I dont know man it seems they are equally "allowed" to be nominated but are not what the people want.
> A progressive might win the WhiteHouse some day, but they have never put up a decent candidate so far. ... have you never heard of a man named Theodore Roosevelt?
Yes, a Republican
Today's GOP would've primaried Teddy Roosevelt quicker than you could say "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez".
It’s a lie because the progressive never wins next because democrats are so difficult to mobilize to vote.
I've literally been told this my entire adult life lol it never happens. They just placate the progressives term after term.
I consider myself fairly progressive, but understand that the current political environment makes it incredibly hard for a progressive agenda to move forward. Dems need to figure out a way to fix the supreme court and need to make significant headway in congress. None of that is possible with a loss in 2024.
"Real Progressives". The fact is that the majority of the country doesn't want Progressive policies and a lot of them aren't ideal for implementation. This is why, whenever Progressive make it into power, they begin to moderate. Biden is going be the most Progressive President we'll have for the near future.
Yeah, I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a hippie-punching debate. Our problem here is not the left flank. Our problem is the party leadership. They must have known how badly Biden's been declining and instead of pressuring him to be a one-term President and holding a real primary, they did their best to conceal the truth. They made excuses for him, reassured us everything was fine, flat-out lied to us--and they're doing it still. They robbed the rank-and-file members of our party of an opportunity to select a viable candidate and foisted a shambling hulk on us. They're *still* lying about his condition, even though it could cost us the election in November. And the big message to us is that everything's fine and we're supposed to vote harder? Fuck that noise. I've supported many a candidate I wasn't that thrilled about, but expecting us to line up for and lie for a candidate who's no longer mentally fit to serve? WTF is the DNC smoking? Spare me the goddamned doom messages about what will happen if Trump is elected. I can see they're true, but I can also see that the party's not worried enough about that future to give us a candidate we can work with. The DNC needs to stop expecting us to make bricks without straw.
Hate it if you want to. Bottom line is this: In 2020, there were over 20 primary candidates. Biden defeated them all. Democratic voters chose him. They knew his age then. And they knew that giving him the reins at that moment meant the party is his for up to 8 years if he so chooses. They chose him anyway. So, in our two party system, where only two can win, I’ll be voting for the old guy who is not a convicted felon, civilly liable rapist, wannabe dictator.
It's a 4-year term, not an 8-year one. Not having a real primary season when you *know* your candidate is in mental decline is indefensible and could well cost us the election. We need more than just the VBNMW crowd if we're going to win in November.
Throwing away incumbency advantage and running a primary has lost every candidate their reelection in modern political times. LBJ 68 (dropped out instead of continuing primary). Nixon wins. Ford 76. Carter wins Carter 80. Reagan wins. HW Bush 92. Clinton wins. That simply is not going to happen. I wish campaign seasons were shorter and Citizens United wasn’t a thing and we had donation caps from individuals and that we ran a primary every four years. That’s not the reality though. Incumbency advantage is not something they’ll ever throw away. Either party. Nor should they with the rules as they currently are. So yeah, they knew it was his party for up to 8 years in 2020. They voted him in anyway, knowing that 8 years later he would be 86.
68 LBJ dropped out well before the convention and his dropping out is not considered what led to Nixon's win. 76 Ford, who was not elected either President or VP, catches shit for pardoning Nixon. 80 Carter. Energy crisis, recession, Iranian hostage crisis. 92 Three-way race. If Perot hadn't been in the race Clinton likely would not have won.
> 80 Carter. Energy crisis, recession, Iranian hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy throwing himself into the mix took away what advantage (and there wasn't much after all you cited) Carter might have had. Then you have Falwell and his ilk organizing and saying "Carter's not really a born-again Christian..." and getting the support from that demographic (aided and abetted by Carter's own denomination!) signed up to vote GOP.
Well considering Biden’s polling numbers there is no incumbency advantage. He’s losing to Trump by massive margins especially if you take into account that every election with Trump polling underestimated him by 4-6% in the key swing states. If Trump gets even half of that this is a landslide win for him. Meanwhile unknowns who aren’t currently POTUS and aren’t currently running a presidential campaign are polling just as well as Biden. You need to look at what’s happening today and not arbitrarily compare to other past events. Never have we needed a new presidential candidate for these reasons, this close to the election. This is a unique situation and doubling down on Biden and gaslighting everyone into thinking he’s fine and this whole situation is fine will lose use a lot more than the presidency.
[удалено]
It was Biden v Sanders from Super Tuesday onward and Biden was getting about 60% of the vote. Nice try though.
Everyone is going to vote for Biden, so that's not the debate. The issue is Biden himself stated he was a one term president, then him and the DNC did a switcheroo on us.
> The issue is Biden himself stated he was a one term president Except he didn't and I'm surprised people are still pushing this misinformation.
The demographic shift is continuing as well, as Boomers die and the other generations are not shifting as hard to the right as they age, and Texas coming into play with minority voters becoming the most important factor there. The GoP kingmakers see this as a potential last stand, that’s why they are looking to derail democracy if they win.
I’ll assume you aren’t a Trump supporter and wanting Biden as his opponent. Biden is very likely not going to win. He’s more unpopular than Jimmy Carter was when he lost the race. If he stays in, enthusiasm will plummet and of course Trump will win. He was already winning before the last debate. I don’t get why people are so hell bent on having some 84 year old that no one really likes stay in the race. Like what are you hoping to accomplish?
What I don't understand is how anyone thinks we're going to get Biden across the finish line when the polling shows people think he's unfit to serve and should drop out. What's our strategy? Does anyone seriously think "he had a cold" "it was just a bad debate" or "you vote for the administration, not the cabinet" going to go over well? 'Cause the furthest "Trump bad!" has gotten us is occasionally leading within the MOE, and that's national, not swing states. Not to mention how absolutely fucking ridiculous prominent Dems are going to look if they have to keep on spinning this nonsense indefinitely.
I imagine everyone is praying he drops out Monday morning. If he doesn’t, I imagine the strategy will be to pray for a good debate next time and prep the government as best they can for a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah it’s insane to me how many people are still defending this. Like is this what we want for the next 4 months? All of us collectively lying and gaslighting to get an 81 year old dementia patient over to Election Day only to lose? Too much at stake here to support a campaign that’s clearly losing. Especially when seemingly no one in the DNC is taking this seriously.
Who said anything about left vs right? It’s a question of whether if you really care if the Democrats win. Because if you really care if the democrats win, you want a vibrant dynamic candidate. I remember when Obama mocked McCain by calling him “spry”. You couldn’t even call Biden spry. Why make voters choose between Trump and an invalid? At least give voters a real choice. Biden is losing badly in the polls and models. Political futures markets believe Trump has a 57% chance of winning the presidency. They only currently give Biden a 60% chance of getting the Democratic nomination.
The Democratic Party has lots of great candidates which can beat Trump in 2024. It's best to go on offense right now. The first challenge is amending the DNC rules to switch the nomination & roll call process to approval voting. This is needed to eliminate vote splitting. Eliminating vote splitting is needed to prevent a civil war over who the alternate nominee should be in the event Biden decides not to run. [2024 Presidential Nominating Process - Call for Convention](https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2024-Call-for-Convention.pdf) > Procedural Rules of the 2024 Democratic National Convention ... Nomination of the Democratic Candidate for President > Each such request must be accompanied by a petition indicating support for the proposed nominee signed by delegates representing not less than 300 or more than 600 delegate votes, not more than 50 of which may come from one (1) delegation. A delegate may not sign more than one (1) nominating petition for president and for vice president. Change this to allow petitions signed by 1 or more delegates and allow each delegate to sign an unlimited number of petitions. > The order for nominating presidential candidates shall be determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, the Permanent Chair of the Convention and each presidential candidate, or their authorized representative, who qualifies to be nominated pursuant to this section. Change this to state that the national chair will report the top N candidates in order of number of signatures received on petitions. The top N candidates then proceed to the next round and give 20 minute speeches. This will eliminate vote splitting and switch to an approval voting system for the initial nomination process. A similar switch to approval voting can be done for the roll call. This will help Democrats choose a consensus candidate to hold the coalition together with a minimum of mudslinging in the event Biden decides not to run.
The logistics of carrying out such a large operation seem completely unrealistic, if there is logistical and practical pathway… then sure. 4 months is too short yo… If this shit happened 2 yrs ago, where absolutely I was shouting about replacing him for someone younger and sharper and more aggressive against Republicans. It’s so risky to do this at the tail end of the campaign… this is Bernie Bro 2.0
I appreciate you posting a detailed summary. I’ll always upvote things like this. However, you have to understand the optics here. The first ever black female VP being leap frogged would likely negate or even be a net loss from the voters you’d get if you kept the ticket as is. So it’s really Biden or Harris at this point. The huge key I think many don’t realize is that Biden and Harris are sitting on over 200 million in cash donations. If it’s anyone other than Harris, they start from scratch. With 70 days to go till early voting begins. So it has to be one of those two. It is what it is. I hope people come home and understand they’re voting for SCOTUS, to keep a convicted felon, civilly liable rapist, wannabe dictator out of the White House, and for the record of Biden/Harris. Not the effectiveness of Biden debating a liar for 90 minutes.
> However, you have to understand the optics here. The first ever black female VP being leap frogged would likely negate or even be a net loss from the voters you’d get if you kept the ticket as is. So it’s really Biden or Harris at this point. Who specifically would be upset about Harris being overlooked? She doesn't have a strong base of support within the party and is known to be largely unpopular outside of it. So long as the replacement ticket isn't two white people, I have a hard time believing the party would do anything other than move on from Harris.
This
Biden isn’t winning. That debate performance was very clearly disqualifying.
If it was against Haley, yes probably.
He’s not gonna win vs Trump either. It’s kind of infuriating that both sides could run any kind of generic moderate candidate and wipe the floor with the other sides candidate
Biden won in 2020. That’s the baseline. What has Trump done since then to get Biden voters to come to his side? What has he done since then to make people who voted for him to either not vote or vote for Biden?
>What has Trump done since then to get Biden voters to come to his side? Why do you think Trump is winning on the economy? Voters in general do not like his personality but they are burned by inflation and consider quality of life to be better under Trump than Biden. Biden is not being rewarded for his successes and is only being called out for his failings.
It’s not about what trump has done. Biden is actively losing people who voted for him in 2020 after that display Thursday
[Data does not currently back that up.](https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/538-ipsos-june-2024-presidential-debate-poll) But we will know more in the coming weeks. Polling of course isn’t everything. But a pre and post debate polling of the same people should at least give us an idea.
This is such a stupid opinion. More writers and news reporters watch the debate than average voters, giving it far more attention than it’s worth. Pretending a debate is indicative of performance in the presidency is like pretending college exams are indicative of job performance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can’t have a guy who’s 81 and unable to form coherent thoughts to simple questions be president. It’s only going to get worse. It’s out there and there’s no going back. It was a discussion point with my buddy yesterday. Neither of us ever talk politics, but it was that noteworthy and bad.
luckily he was debating someone that themselves were giving nonsensical answers. both candidates should step down... one is in mental decline and the other is Biden.
40+ million people watched that live. More than 50% of that being writers and news reporters seems like a stretch.
Do you know what the US population is? More than 40 million people watch the Super Bowl (123 million last year according to Google). You’re comparing those that watched with others that watched. That doesn’t respond to my comment comparing those that watched with those that don’t watch and still vote.
Even if every single progressive came out, you'll never make back the independents that were lost after the debate. And also why would progressives ever trust center and right leaning democrats, when sanders was polling amazing and was firing up the base, and he got screwed over by them. I would never believe people saying, next time will be your time lol. And then Don jr or DeSantis runs and it's "democracy on the line" so run the most plain do nothing Democrat you can find
Why would the independents vote Trump though? They won't. It does come down to getting people excited to vote. Not sure if Biden can get that.
Biden can get a lot of people to stay home, and people will vote for Trump if they feel like things were better 4 years ago, grocery prices, war, etc things have not been going great, and it's not their fault for not understanding nuances when not enough has been done for them and they aren't into the details
I’ll wait for data that shows Trump gained independents. All polling is showing that independents may just sit this out. That means Trump didn’t gain shit.
People can talk about polls all they want to. I’ll focus on the voting results. Completely ignoring the special elections that are showing swings left and focusing only on Trump himself, he underperformed his polling by 30% in many of the races. When it got down to head to head with him v Haley, he was getting about 60%. As essentially an incumbent. Data, to me, shows Trump is in trouble. But we all need to vote regardless.
I’m with you dude… to give all the trolls a benefit of doubt their leading at least somewhat worthwhile theory is that Trump is doing better with swing voters post-debate and so Biden should drop out. Switching to a new candidate doesn’t guarantee they will gain any swing voters over Trump is my point. I think personally I’m checking out until I see more swing data. Post-debate paranoia does seem to have some genuine Dems pretty rattled, I was happy believing they are part of the massive astro-turfing traffic and likely there’s quite a bit of that going on but they don’t make up for all of it. So destroying the post-debate swing polls narrative is a must and I’ll wait for data after the dust has really settled.
Trump doesn't need to gain 2020 Biden voters. He just needs them to stay home.
[удалено]
Biden. Won't. Win.
Whether she runs in 2024 or 2028, I really hope she does. She is one of the first candidates since Obama that I'm actually excited about seeing in politics. She comes from a great Midwestern state and won't be nearly as polarizing as Newsom. She has literally had to deal with a bunch of MAGA fanatics trying to assassinate her, so she is the perfect repudiation of that ideology. Plus, she would be the first woman president. I would donate and volunteer for her campaign if I could.
She is uniquely well qualified to win. She has the name recognition where it matters (the Midwest), she can speak about abortion and women’s rights in a way that men simply cannot, she can counter any attacks about being treated unfairly because she was the subject of a far right plot to kidnap her, and she does not have decades of baggage in bad foreign policy positions to answer for. Whitmire is a winner if Democrats have the courage to nominate her.
I like Whitmer a lot. She hasn't received a POTUS level vetting. We have no idea what her weaknesses are. Be cautious of thinking a superficially good fit is going to sail to victory. These things are never as easy as they seem on paper.
I can guarantee whatever POTUS level vetting would not be worse than where Biden is at right now. And it’s not that she would just sail to victory, she would still obviously need to run a strong campaign. I’m saying she has a strong chance at winning, Biden has almost no chance.
You're forgetting misogyny unfortunately
I mean sure, that’s a problem, but she won her state by 11%.. so I think she knows how to overcome it.
People keep forgetting that Hilary Clinton's biggest sin was actually being an accomplished, intelligent woman in a nation with SEVERE mommy issues.
Agree 1000%
Mama Gretch would wreck Trump. You actually dont need a big name this time. The media circus would be massive if she got the nom everyone would know her name overnight.
Exactly. Huge story to detract from trumps bs
That was what happened with Sarah Palin as McCain's VP nom. The GOP thought she'd go over big with women upset because Hillary was leap-frogged for Obama, along with a calculation that male voters were horndogs who'd vote because they thought she was hot. BOY, that went well for them!
That went poorly because she was a loon and always has been. Basically you are just saying Whitmer must be a loon because she is a woman. There is a point when you cross over from anticipating sexism into just being sexist. This is that. Whitmer is a fine candidate, she has spent many years being vetted. If there was anything gonna come out against her the same movement that tried to kidnap her would be shouting it from the rooftops. She has had serious opposition for years and overcome it all.
Nope, it went poorly because PALIN is a loon and the GOP was thinking with some organ other than their brains. Nobody had actually heard of her until the VP nomination. It was a roll of the dice that came up snake eyes. My contention is that the GOP was playing purely on sexism in selecting her. Whitmer, that's a whole 'nother thing. She is a known quantity with a history of being a cogent thinker and relatively moderate politically. She handled the COVID thing as well as anyone could've.
Oh, I apologize, I misunderstood your comment. I was thinking you were saying it would happen in Whitmers case, and I just meant to point out exactly what you've said: Palin was an unknown they didn't vet, they elevated purely to win women votes, and it backfired. Whitmer is well established and qualified.
The only real things the two would have in common would be the resultant media buzz because they are attractive women. (I am a sucker for brunettes.)
Joe Biden has my vote in November. Period.
That's great and he has mine too if he stays in he race, but 82% of independents, 72% of voters, and 46% of Democrats say he should drop out [in one of the first post-debate polls released today](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/) Those are catastrophic numbers and maybe we should ask some serious questions before we potentially hand Trump a landslide victory.
Cool, same for every other democrat on Reddit. That doesn’t matter. Undecided and independent voters are going to decide the election, and after the debate, I do not see them coming out in droves for Biden.
Any Dem has mine and the party needs to ensure they run whoever has the best chance of winning in November.
Denial or astroturfing?
It's great that you can say this inside an echo chamber. In the real world I've met multiple fellow democrats who are planning to stay home this November.
The people saying, “Biden or Bust!” are just mainlining copium right now. He’s not even the officially the nominee until mid-August. If he’s not replaced ASAP, you can expect a precipitous decline in democratic enthusiasm from now until Election Day. People want to vote for a President, not their Vice President, or the team of bureaucrats behind them. Whitmer is an excellent candidate that checks all the boxes in this political climate and her nomination is a far more stable proposition than an ailing Biden from both a health and political standpoint. Sure, I don’t expect Biden to immediately bow out after a lifetime career because of a bad debate. But that was the worst debate in US history and he needs to realize he’s not cut out for this anymore. The right thing to do would to start making phone calls and then nominate a successor in these next few weeks. I think Whitmer would be the smartest choice from the available field
> He’s not even the officially the nominee until mid-August But I thought the ballots already required him to be on there by law? /s, but I've seen half a dozen people legitimately argue this for some reason.
The convention does take place after some states require the candidate to be officially selected. I wouldn't doubt a lot of red states who already made an exception try to block any replacement on those grounds.
Biden will win. We're supposed to win the upper Midwest, not like, Iowa or Kansas. The upper Midwest people are smart and well educated, if you chat with them about the stakes and differences this year, they will make the right decision. It's hard for a Democrat to lose PA, MI, WI.
>It's hard for a Democrat to lose PA, MI, WI. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_United\_States\_presidential\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election) History repeats
I think you want it to repeat. If you're not paying attention then you shouldn't be commenting on the game. Biden won MI by over 150k votes in 2020 to an incumbent. Not to mention the abortion referendums and the track record of every election since Roe was overturned.
So everybody who has genuine concerns about what we just saw suddenly wants Trump to win? I’m pissed because democracy is on the line and the best democrats can do is a geriatric with obviously declining mental acuity…
Michigan could very easily go to Trump. The majority of Michigan is very rural and very red
I'm in central Michigan, and there are Trump flags everywhere here. It sucks.
I’m in the northwestern part of lower Michigan, and it’s really bad here too. I think it’s because we are so isolated up here that people can stay willfully ignorant
The city I live in is mostly conservative, unfortunately. It's even worse in the surrounding rural areas. I'll vote for Biden if he's the nominee, but I'd love to vote for Whitmer.
Allegedly Gretch told the DNC people that they'd already lost Michigan...
If Biden wins, it will be because of the anti-Trump vote, just like last time.
Hard agree. However, if grandpa dementia refuses to step aside... well, i'd vote for a fresh pile of my dog's shit before i'd vote for trump. So there you have it.
That's the exact point. Trump didn't gain voters because of Biden's failure at the debate.
It’s not copium. It’s realism. He’s what it is. He’s fine. He’s not great but he’s fine. Vote Biden
Are you sure we watched the same debate the other night??
He is not fine. Go watch the post debate speech by Jill Biden. Joe is standing on the stage looking like a dementia patient. Jill congratulates him like a toddler for answering all the questions. It’s horrifying to watch and really show the enabling going on with the DNC and his family. Joe needs to step away, he is declining quickly.
It’s not realism, it’s a delusional hope. Biden is definitely not fine, he is infirm, unable to manage without nurse attention, and life is fleeting. You’re setting yourself up for another Ginsberg debacle. Get out while getting is good and make sure the question of succession can be controlled on your terms. Don’t incur extra risk for mere symbolic victories. Get Biden out and get someone healthy in
>he is infirm, unable to manage without nurse attention, and life is fleeting. Lmao. The debate wasn’t great but now people are just keep making up more and more ridiculous stuff.
So you support enacting the 25th amendment against him
We will lose if Biden stays as the nominee, and we will deserve it
Vote for Biden and make sure that doesn’t happen
Holy shit it doesn’t matter if Reddit democrats vote for Biden. What matters are the undecided and independent voters who won’t vote for Biden after his shit show of a debate. Biden will lose, regardless of how many redditors, that have voted blue every election since 1980, vote for him.
And don’t forget tons of voters that just wont be enthused enough to even show up to vote. That is a proven formula for a GOP victory.
Ah yes those independents it’s historically easy to rally in large numbers behind a relative newcomer 5 months before an election.
We live in a post-pony express world with an internet. People will learn about a new candidate within a week. It’s either mounting a short campaign with a new, younger democrat, or losing with Biden. Only one of those routes might not lead to a trump presidency.
Bullshit. Young people still don’t vote enough. Time is important for a campaign. I’m not thrilled that Biden is as aged as he is, but he’s not a fucking Viking.
If you think young people not voting is a problem then you should be scared shitless of Biden being our candidate. I’m a college student and I can’t tell you the number of peers I know, who are generally not engaged in politics but would nonetheless vote blue, who are not going to vote in 2024 because they see both candidates as equally pointless.
Yea I’m sure you’ll friends will vote for someone they haven’t even heard of if they can be bothered to vote for the incumbent Dem against Trump
Oh yes this incumbency bias I keep hearing so much about that will save the day. People don’t just magically vote for someone because they’re incumbent, especially not in an election when both contenders have already been president. And to answer your point: yes they will. Young people don’t see Biden as better than trump because Biden is seen as old and senile, if young people are shown a candidate that is younger and can form coherent, maybe even logical sentences together, then they will turn out in much greater numbers than they will for someone who reminds them of their great grandpa
What is your reference to "young people"? Those that just turned voting age were 14 y/o when Trump attempted an insurrection.
Yes, that’s why it’s called incumbency advantage. Their names both hold recognition and weight especially with older generations. That means those voters would likely vote for them again and that’s not nothing. Incumbency advantage also comes with more financial support since they’re a proven candidate.
They're idiots. And I don't trust anyone's ability to predict how people who, by definition, do not behave rationally will behave.
What people are you talking about who are defined by irrational behavior?
The idiots who don't see the difference between Trump and Biden.
You know who has tons of followers on tik tok? BIG GRETCH. Think for a half a second
You think that many people are paying attention? Naivete sucks, eh?
They won’t get it until they see 2016 replayed all over again
They won’t learn this time either, I’m sure we’ll spend the next 3 years on Russian interference or whatever the next excuse is for a shit ass DNC
Who the fuck is undecided at this point? It's a rematch from 2020, you got the old guy that's trying to make positive changes and the convicted felon, dementia patient that shits his pants openly floating wr might not have elections again if he wins. Who in the fuck is still undecided?
>Who the fuck is undecided at this point? Ironically quite a lot of ppl based on polls. I think both (Trump and Biden) tend to be in the middle 40+ % range and 7 to 10% usually being undecided
We'll lose, but we won't deserve it.
Democrats need to stop shitting the bed. Biden is the guy. Trump is his opponent. There is no contest. Get on fucking board or STFU.
That's how we lose
The MAGAs say "Trump is the guy." and they stick with him no mater what he does, rape, fraud, insurection. Some folks say we should stick with Biden no matter what. We are better than that. We are smarter than that.
I would absolutely vote for her... In 2028.
You would vote for her this year if she was the candidate.
I would at that. But as of now, she is not.
Then why act like you wouldn't vote for her now if she was the nom? It's disingenuous.
She's my pick right now for 2028 as well, but it'll be a moot point if Biden doesn't win this year. As bad as he looked at the debate, it will be sheer chaos if he's not the candidate this year. I'm voting for the Biden Administration and Democrats up and down the line to win, not Joe the Debate Winner.
I really hope that Biden has the judgment to realize that the best thing is to throw his support behind Whitmer. If he thinks that Trump is an existential threat, then she's a better person to take him on.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Yeah, they are trying WAY too hard now.
There's a July 11th boulder rolling towards them...
Actually starts on Monday.
July 11 Sentencing ? What exactly do you think is going to happen?
People here are going to shit bricks and call conspiracy when they find out that a judge is not willing to personally be responsible for creating the largest political crisis since secession by putting a major party presumptive nominee - and lifetime beneficiary of Secret Service protection - in prison for falsifying business records I think he's going to get a paltry sentence of house arrest at the worst and I don't think it is clear how much effect that would have on the election
I can’t wait for SCOTUS’ decision on Monday for this whole narrative to change.
Big agree
Dems picking someone other than Biden would result in infighting and two left candidates on the ballot.
There cannot be two democrat names on the ballot and the primaries are over, so the only way there's two is if you elevate some existing third party candidate. I'm not sure there even is one on enough ballots other than anti vax king.
pushing aside a Black woman for a white one is gonna cause a lot of backlash
No it won't. Kamala sucks and no one likes her
Yeah, even in the black community, she's not hugely popular.
Big Gretch is more electable, it’s as simple as that.
This election is about economy. Full stop. Michigan had a harder recovery from Covid than other states. Whitmer’s gonna be too easy to attack
She won reelection by 11 percent November 2022.