ars predictions... does Biden get replaced before the convention
- Thread starter LTParis
- Start date
It's not even both-siderism. Traditional news media seems to wish it could regain the "relevance" (and the revenue) it held during the Trump years.
Of course you say you're not dropping out right up until the exact moment when you do. This means exactly zero. If he is going to drop out, he's going to throroughly discuss it with his staff, his family, and the party, and the party is going to want to work out a plan for how the next phase goes, so that can be announced at the exact same time as Biden announcing he's pulling out. IMHO the most likely day for this to happen is July 4. Would be a nice celebration of the vibrance and flexibility of democracy.
There's a lot of wrong in those two sentences.
- There were not reports of such allegations from credible sources.
- The media did note that Biden's less-than-credible opponents were making such claims going into the debates.
- Biden's debate performance undermines the narrative, rather than strengthening it. If Biden took an unspecified drug to deliver a strong SOU performance, there is little reason to think he would not have taken it for the debate.
The trick for Biden is that he just threw red meat to the rumor mongers who, up until now, had relatively flimsy justification for their tongue wagging.
Not really so true if you look at the numbers. Other than the most recent election (which had historically high turnout), the top vote getters in US elections are a black man (BHO, twice) and a white woman (HRC).
The trick with Harris is not so much that she's a woman of color, but rather that:
(a) she wasn't that popular in her own state to begin with, in part because she doesn't seem to clearly stand for anything, and had been very careerist and opportunistic
(b) her primary campaign in 2020 was a complete disaster in which she had to pull out without receiving a single vote, making her at best the third place female candidate in that primary
(c) Biden noted his plan to pick a black woman before he picked Harris - doing it in this way implies that rather than picking the best running mate, you're limiting yourself to a pool of about 7% of the population, and not considering the other 93% (which does statistically imply that you most likely didn't make the best choice)
(d) Harris just hasn't done that well as VP, she's made gaffes, failed to connect, and then become mostly invisible. She did do rather well in her post-debates comments on Thursday though IMHO.
I think the point is really that if Biden does decide to step down, what people are going to want to see is a process (say a series of debates starting with 4-6 candidates) for choosing who to put at the top of the ticket. It's fine if Harris is part of that process, but she needs to make the case on her own merits, not be anointed.
It's a combination of bothsiderism, profiteering, and echo chamber. The corporate media is strongly incentivized to keep up a perception of a close race, both for ratings and for campaign ad dollars. Meanwhile the precipitous decline of journalism over the last two decades means that most news is literally just reposting each others' stories. "Biden is old" is a trivially easy story to write. Actually going out and interviewing likely voters and conducting fair polls would take time and cost money so fuck that.
And then you have things like A.G. Sulzberger's personal jihad against Biden. It all adds up to an extremely hostile media landscape for the Democrats and for Biden specifically. Was there a huge outcry in the corporate media for Trump to step down after he was convicted of 34 felonies?
It is currently a close race. There is plenty of evidence to support that that's what it is. Not sure what you're implying about the media role in that, but it's in the nature of a 2 party system that races tend to be close much of the time.
There have been dozens of polls of voters, which showed quite consistently that voters did not want Biden to run for re-election, that they did want real choices in the D primary besides Biden and the fringe, and now that they prefer to have someone other than Biden on top of the D ticket (and that many feel the Trump v Biden choices are both so bad that they will refuse to vote for either).
There have been numerous mentions of the fact that Trump should never be president, and yes, those came out again after the felony convictions. But calling for him to voluntarily step down has exactly zero chance of succeeding and so is pretty pointless. Indeed what you're seeing here is what many think is the best way to make sure Trump (who should not become President) does not win the election, is to have Biden step down and have a coherent and competitive process for choosing a D nominee to oppose Trump.
This contradicts your implication that the media wants a close race, because the expectation is that picking a new D, via a competitive process, to take on Trump would change this election from a close race into a landslide win for Democrats (and for women's rights), one in which majorities in both houses might also be achieved such that real impactful policy changes could actually be made.
This whole thread is concern trolling and this is one of the best examples of concern trolling I've seen here. There should have been a poll option for that.
This post is totally content free, you can do much better than this. I have no idea which concern you're even talking about (Harris? The electability of women or minorities in the US?) or how in the world you think any of this has anything to do with trolling (trolling who about what?).
If it's not 100% clear I'll say it yet again, I would absolutely and wholeheartedly support Biden or Harris if either one of them is on the top of the ticket in November. I just think that the best path for reliably beating Trump (and carrying both houses) is the path where Biden steps out of race for the nomination (ideally on July 4, with a great speech about the importance and resilience of democracy), and a competitive process is held to determine the nominee.
If "every point" was "concern trolling" then surely you could provide an example. The list of points was providing some background on Harris and the 2020 primary from the perspective of a US person in her home state (responding to dio who I believe is European). Every bit I said was accurate and informative (from my perspective at least) and not in any way an attempt to "troll".
I explicitly stated the opposite of that. My point was exactly that that wasn't the primary concern and I provided several pieces of evidence for that (including the very strong election performance of BHO and HRC, who got the most votes of anyone in US history before 2020).
[Edit: What I see as happening here, Shavano, is that you are attempting to derail an important and interesting conversation with ridiculous accusations. Either participate in the conversation or don't but please cut it out with the attempted derails.]
Last edited:
I don’t even agree with fil, but his post lays out a cogent argument backed by reasoning and evidence. Repeatedly calling it “concern trolling” doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
Personally, I’m worried about Biden’s age-related decline becoming the focus of the campaign, rather than Trump’s endless evils. But I think replacing him with Harris or anyone else is likely to also keep the focus on Democrats instead of Trump. The media will zero in on the (necessarily at this point) undemocratic process used to select the replacement; racism and sexism if the nominee is Harris and outraged Black, women, and allied Democrats if it isn’t Harris; surprises that are sure to emerge about the hastily-vetted candidate; contentions from dissatisfied factions of the party that the new candidate is too liberal or not liberal enough (probably both for the same candidate); and overall Democratic disarray and fecklessness.
A million times this. Do we think that if we respond to the post-debate news narrative blitz by swapping out Biden, suddenly they'll start assessing the substance of what the candidates say and say "oh, this guy is making reasonable policy suggestions and Trump is lying a lot?" No, they won't do that, because it's not as exciting a tagline and it risks making them look partisan if they actually draw conclusions and critique stuff. They'll latch onto the next feels-based narrative they can find, and it will almost certainly be "Democratic party in disarray!"
While Harris’ ethnicity may be a problem for some voters (who, let’s face it, are overwhelmingly going to vote for Trump because of the racism anyway), there are some actual issues I’ve heard from liberal voters with her record.
The issues are usually summarized as “she’s basically a cop.”
Harris as a DA was much more of a centrist than what she branded herself as. In some circles this is considered a good thing, but it sits very poorly with minority voters and (at least) the Gen-Z one in my home.
The issues are usually summarized as “she’s basically a cop.”
Harris as a DA was much more of a centrist than what she branded herself as. In some circles this is considered a good thing, but it sits very poorly with minority voters and (at least) the Gen-Z one in my home.
The focus is already there. The "sleepy-Joe" narrative has been present for a long time, and whatever happens, it will look like Trump got one right as i doubt Biden will look 15 years younger going forward in the next rallies and debates.
If he steps down, Trump certainly will score a point, but if he doesn't and continue to under-perform, which he basically kind of admitted at his last rally that he is, due to age, Trump will score a point.
The damage is already done, so pretending it's not a problem is going to hurt more i think in the long run.
...""Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but ... I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job," he told the roaring crowd."..
abcnews.go.com
If he steps down, Trump certainly will score a point, but if he doesn't and continue to under-perform, which he basically kind of admitted at his last rally that he is, due to age, Trump will score a point.
The damage is already done, so pretending it's not a problem is going to hurt more i think in the long run.
...""Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but ... I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job," he told the roaring crowd."..
Biden addresses poor debate performance, attacks Trump at Raleigh rally
President Joe Biden addressed a crowd about his debate performance Friday, and vowed to get back up.
abcnews.go.com
There's a very interesting question surrounding just how democratic the process could be. I suppose one point would be that it's a pretty low bar to lay out a process that is more democratic than the one by which Biden (and most other incumbents) was nominated (a primary race in which there is an opportunity to vote but there is only one serious candidate on the ballot, so the outcome is pre-determined).
The situation right now is that 99% of the delegates are Biden delegates. If he releases them by stepping out of the race, he also has an opportunity to guide and influence them. I would suggest a process like this:
1) Biden steps out of the race, announces the process below, and guides his delegates to vote for the top performer in the process below at the convention in August.
2) The party quickly strong-arms (this is an important moment, need all hands on deck) and screens candidates (using criteria like established high level leadership role, doing better than an average D in elections, strong support etc), narrowing it down to a pool of about 5 candidates.
3) A two week series of debates and town halls (with intro speeches by all the candidates) is held. After that, extensive national polling is held, and the lowest performing candidate is eliminated, bringing the pool to 4.
4) A two week series of debates and town halls (with intro speeches by all the candidates) is held. After that, extensive national polling is held, and the lowest performing candidate is eliminated, bringing the pool to 3.
5) A two week series of debates and town halls (with intro speeches by all the candidates) is held. After that, extensive national polling is held, and the lowest performing candidate is eliminated, bringing the pool to 2.
6) Extensive national polling is held to find the favorite among the 2 remaining candidates
7) Biden speaks at the convention and guides his delegates of vote for the winner of the (6). Barring unexpected weirdness, the delegates vote overwhelmingly to nominate the winner of (6).
People have their say through the polling, people have real choices, and they effectively pick a winner). The process is much more constrained and controlled than the usual process, but in many ways this would be a good thing, as the result is going to be much more focussed on actual appeal to voters and much less on fundraising (all these events will be paid for by the party, and there won't be much time for other types of events or fundraising). The party and Biden could potentially fund ads at an equal funding level for each candidate etc.
You can get around the "hastily vetted" part to some extent by going with people who have been pretty extensively vetted in prior elections. We can debate about how big a deal the race/gender thing is (again I'd point to the record-setting, at the time, vote counts for BHO and HRC), but most people voting based on that are Trump voters anyway (though I wouldn't deny it can make a difference at the margins).
And yes, left-wing D's would probably complain, but they still end up with more choice via this process than they had with the previous one (primary with Biden as only serious candidate).
Last edited:
It's entirely possible for most potential Biden voters to have another top preference, with none of those individual preferences either matching or topping Biden's performance, either in the primary or the general election.
Biden looks unlikely to step down, so the calls for him to step down are arguably pointless, too. Also, it's a little rich to suggest that one poor performance should cook Biden's goose, but the Trump disaster should just warrant a shrug.
Wanting it doesn't make it so.
You hang a lot of your argument on polls. Can you point to one poll that where unspecified Democrat comes ahead of Trump? Can you point to one poll where a specific, named Democrat other than Biden comes out ahead of Trump?
I'm not a poll watcher, but reports from 2020 suggest that such polls were rare to non-existent. AFAIK, Trump would still win in polls against a generic unnamed Democrat, and I'm hard pressed to think of a Democrat with a sufficient well of recognition and support to trend significantly better in a little over four months to the election. Candidates trying to make enough of a splash in an initial, small state primary to get national recognition generally start their campaign at least six months ahead of time.
If Biden were to start underperforming generic, unnamed Democrat or a specific individual in poll matchups against Trump, there might be grist for discussion.
I'm just thinking about how many things would have to go right for Democrats to generally agree to such a scheme, and then to stick the landing each time without self-injury, and it makes my knees knock. I fear the impromptu chaos would make the orderly operation of a national pivot at this scale practically impossible and therefore a path only of last resort; while Biden's 90 minutes on stage were disappointing to say the least, I don't think they warrant desperation.
I don't know about that. Sure, there'd be some controversy over the 5 candidates and how they were picked, but that would quickly be drowned out by the events themselves. And the media focus, and effective free advertising, would be massively focused on Democrats the next 2 months. Can you imagine the media frenzy surrounding a primary where something new and dramatic is guaranteed to happen every 2 weeks? And the universal constants in all these high-profile events would be a huge amount of attention on democratic policies and how they can make the country better, as well as universal hammering on Trump by a vibrant and eloquent set of people. Trump would get hammered, over, and over, and over, and over again, by some of the best, brightest and most well-spoken D's out there, in events watched by millions of independents over and over and over again. Spotlight on Democrats and democratic policy, Trump only mentioned as a menace, a criminal, and a laughingstock. I think this would lead to a landslide win by the D's.
It's worth noting: this is currently untested. After all, that figure comes from before Trump refused to concede in an election, not to mention Jan 6th. And, I know that there are at least a few Republicans who, in spite of having voted for him twice, will hold that against him and vote for anyone else... It's really hard to say at this point how big that contingent is, but expect them to play a role.
”The DNC rigged the game by picking their preferred candidate! Since they unfairly excluded AOC, I’m not voting!”
During the Olympics and summer vacation, how many folks are going to watch?
Polling right now is terrible, with extremely low response rates. Polls would be susceptible to the equivalent of review-bombing by Republicans, probably won’t be representative, and would be suspected of being fixed.
We’re now up to 6 weeks of Democrats tearing into each other instead of focusing on Trump. Do you think the losers will withdraw gracefully, and their supporters will fall in line behind the eventual winners? Recent primaries have shown a lot of hard feelings that take quite a while to heal.
See concerns above.
When have Democrats not indulged in unexpected weirdness regarding the candidate selection process?
It’s just going to piss everybody off, and make the Democrats look ridiculous while Trump cruises along under the radar.
Barack Obama chairs the panel doing the picking. Barack Obama gives the speech announcing the candidates and the criteria that were used to select them. Yes, there'll be complaints, there always are, but they'll just add to the drama and bring attention to the process, and then they'll be drowned out by the process itself, which would make for some great TV.
A metric fTON. Olympics are in France so anything live is over before the time slots of interest, and non-live coverage can be timed appropriately.
Read the comments on any political thread: People are dying for a political process that doesn't involve just Biden and Trump, this would be ratings gold. Something big happens every two weeks (can already see the headlines about who gets kicked off the Island next
).I didn't mean "polling" in just the sense of opinion polls, but admittedly I'm not sure how exactly this would be made to work. Potentially D's could use the lists of eligible D and I voters and do a state by state process. Maybe even do official primaries again with mail-in only ballots (but that would be expensive).
This task needs some clever people assigned to it who understand in detail the constraints, and how voter registration info can be used etc, but I have high confidence that it can be made to work well enough.
Barack and co. picked these D's because they are eloquent, they are committed D's, and they know exactly how to tear into Trump. This would be a nonstop trashing Trump fest and it would positively drive Trump mad (one can only begin to imagine the insane stream of online nonsense it would trigger from him). Sure the candidates would have to differentiate themselves, but they would focus on policy to do that, which would highlight D policy and the benefits of it. And remember, what many voters will be looking for is who stands up best against Trump, who will perform best in a debate against Trump etc, and you win points on that for every good Trump takedown.
In this process there's no choice. They simply won't be included in next week's events or in next weeks polling. And they'd have to all agree to the process up front. And they be pre-screened to filter out the sort who would try to sabotage the process (I'm envisioning these folks are mostly D governors and senators etc, they're not going to want to fracture their relationship with the party)
. I think if Obama (and Biden) can be brought on board as the face of this process, it could be run reasonably smoothly and effectively. Not doubt there'd be some chaos and weirdness in places, but that would just drive up the ratings.I really don't think so. I think it'd be a powerful and intense burst of democracy that people would love, the ratings would be through the roof, Trump would get so completely trashed he'd be lucky to break 40%, etc. Obviously YMMV, but I think a little chaos and a big shakeup is exactly what D's need. Trump is vulnerable, but D's need to be able to draw attention to do the trashing (and Biden's campaign events just don't cut it).
Last edited:
I think there’s zero chance that Democrats can construct and adhere to both a narrative and a process that makes replacing Joe Biden not be a complete sh*tshow.
If that were possible, they’d already be able to control the narrative around his age or they would have been able to rally around avoiding this entire problem several months ago. It would be hard for the Republicans to pull off such a stunt, and they’re about 1,000x better at everything it would take to do it than Democrats are.
I strongly suspect the whole circus would be like the Democrats’ version of Republicans trying to pick a Speaker, except worse in almost every way imaginable.
This probably warrants its own thread, but as a practical matter the time to replace Biden (unless he just drops dead) passed quite some time ago, and given that Biden’s liabilities have a zero percent chance of getting better with time & stress (and will become markedly worse), then what folks should be doing is assuming a 2nd Trump Administration as a near inevitability and put their energy into figuring out how to handle that.
If that were possible, they’d already be able to control the narrative around his age or they would have been able to rally around avoiding this entire problem several months ago. It would be hard for the Republicans to pull off such a stunt, and they’re about 1,000x better at everything it would take to do it than Democrats are.
I strongly suspect the whole circus would be like the Democrats’ version of Republicans trying to pick a Speaker, except worse in almost every way imaginable.
This probably warrants its own thread, but as a practical matter the time to replace Biden (unless he just drops dead) passed quite some time ago, and given that Biden’s liabilities have a zero percent chance of getting better with time & stress (and will become markedly worse), then what folks should be doing is assuming a 2nd Trump Administration as a near inevitability and put their energy into figuring out how to handle that.
I’ll certainly give you credit for thinking it through, but alas I don’t share your optimism. I think TYaBoL nailed the likely outcome.Barack Obama chairs the panel doing the picking. Barack Obama gives the speech announcing the candidates and the criteria that were used to select them. Yes, there'll be complaints, there always are, but they'll just add to the drama and bring attention to the process, and then they'll be drowned out by the process itself, which would make for some great TV.
A metric fTON. Olympics are in France so anything live is over before the time slots of interest, and non-live coverage can be timed appropriately.
Read the comments on any political thread: People are dying for a political process that doesn't involve just Biden and Trump, this would be ratings gold. Something big happens every two weeks (can already see the headlines about who gets kicked off the Island next
I didn't mean "polling" in just the sense of opinion polls, but admittedly I'm not sure how exactly this would be made to work. Potentially D's could use the lists of eligible D and I voters and do a state by state process. Maybe even do official primaries again with mail-in only ballots (but that would be expensive).
This task needs some clever people assigned to it who understand in detail the constraints, and how voter registration info can be used etc, but I have high confidence that it can be made to work well enough.
Barack and co. picked these D's because they are eloquent, they are committed D's, and they know exactly how to tear into Trump. This would be a nonstop trashing Trump fest and it would positively drive Trump mad (one can only begin to imagine the insane stream of online nonsense it would trigger from him). Sure the candidates would have to differentiate themselves, but they would focus on policy to do that, which would highlight D policy and the benefits of it. And remember, what many voters will be looking for is who stands up best against Trump, who will perform best in a debate against Trump etc, and you win points on that for every good Trump takedown.
In this process there's no choice. They simply won't be included in next week's events or in next weeks polling. And they'd have to all agree to the process up front. And they be pre-screened to filter out the sort who would try to sabotage the process (I'm envisioning these folks are mostly D governors and senators etc, they're not going to want to fracture their relationship with the party)
I really don't think so. I think it'd be a powerful and intense burst of democracy that people would love, the ratings would be through the roof, Trump would get so completely trashed he'd be lucky to break 40%, etc. Obviously YMMV, but I think a little chaos and a big shakeup is exactly what D's need. Trump is vulnerable, but D's need to be able to draw attention to do the trashing (and Biden's campaign events just don't cut it).
I'm going to respond to this like it's a serious post from someone who critically thought about what they were responding to and was posting in good faith.
There are any number of non-white, non-male, or non-hetero candidates that would excite voters and have a decent chance against Trump if they were running for POTUS (although I'm suggesting someone for the VP slot). The 3 suggestions I made off the top of my head in the post that you're so thoughtfully responding to included Whitmer and Buttigieg. Booker and Castro can't be on a Biden ticket because of their attacks on his fitness during the 2020 primaries, but either of them would be great otherwise.
Harris has none of those qualities. She blew a nice head start and the goodwill of primary voters, and flamed out of the 2020 primaries polling under 3%. She is not charismatic, her speaking style grates on the nerves of most of America (compared to Castro, Booker, Buttgieg, Warren, Stacy Abrams, etc.), she hasn't done anything to make herself stand out or sell herself to voters during her time as VP, she has finger-in-the-wind policy swerves and no passion projects other than the personal aspiration of being POTUS.
You vote for Biden understanding that there is a decent chance Harris will be President by the end of the term. Most of America is not excited about Harris being President. There are plenty of candidates who aren't white hetero males that could be put in the VP slot (along with plenty of perfectly fine white hetero males too) to give Biden a fighting chance in November.
Last edited:
This seems more like a fantasy than anything that is actually likely to happen. Maybe Obama will fix everything, sure. He’s super smart and super charismatic but if he were able to just pick a candidate and then campaign for them, I guess he would have done it by now. Evidently identifying successors is his weak-spot given the situation his party finds itself in.Barack Obama chairs the panel doing the picking. Barack Obama gives the speech announcing the candidates and the criteria that were used to select them. Yes, there'll be complaints, there always are, but they'll just add to the drama and bring attention to the process, and then they'll be drowned out by the process itself, which would make for some great TV.
A metric fTON. Olympics are in France so anything live is over before the time slots of interest, and non-live coverage can be timed appropriately.
Read the comments on any political thread: People are dying for a political process that doesn't involve just Biden and Trump, this would be ratings gold. Something big happens every two weeks (can already see the headlines about who gets kicked off the Island next
I didn't mean "polling" in just the sense of opinion polls, but admittedly I'm not sure how exactly this would be made to work. Potentially D's could use the lists of eligible D and I voters and do a state by state process. Maybe even do official primaries again with mail-in only ballots (but that would be expensive).
This task needs some clever people assigned to it who understand in detail the constraints, and how voter registration info can be used etc, but I have high confidence that it can be made to work well enough.
Barack and co. picked these D's because they are eloquent, they are committed D's, and they know exactly how to tear into Trump. This would be a nonstop trashing Trump fest and it would positively drive Trump mad (one can only begin to imagine the insane stream of online nonsense it would trigger from him). Sure the candidates would have to differentiate themselves, but they would focus on policy to do that, which would highlight D policy and the benefits of it. And remember, what many voters will be looking for is who stands up best against Trump, who will perform best in a debate against Trump etc, and you win points on that for every good Trump takedown.
In this process there's no choice. They simply won't be included in next week's events or in next weeks polling. And they'd have to all agree to the process up front. And they be pre-screened to filter out the sort who would try to sabotage the process (I'm envisioning these folks are mostly D governors and senators etc, they're not going to want to fracture their relationship with the party)
I really don't think so. I think it'd be a powerful and intense burst of democracy that people would love, the ratings would be through the roof, Trump would get so completely trashed he'd be lucky to break 40%, etc. Obviously YMMV, but I think a little chaos and a big shakeup is exactly what D's need. Trump is vulnerable, but D's need to be able to draw attention to do the trashing (and Biden's campaign events just don't cut it).
The folks who love democracy enough for that to drive their vote are not voters that Biden would lose to Trump, despite Biden's debate performance.
Even if the replacement process were a model of democracy--news flash it absolutely not be--Trump and his allies would still denigrate it as anti-democratic. Hunter is the only Biden with legal issues, but that has not prevented the lie of the "Biden crime family" from becoming Republican boilerplate.
If Biden steps down, the only real option is to anoint Harris as his successor. The only exception would be for her to do likewise and join him in annointing the successor.
If it came down to that, the reasonable move would be to designated a Democratic governor from a swing state. It would be a small list to vet, at least.
That would be great. I've already said upthread in one of the three places we've been talking about this that I don't think Biden was the only option in 2020, and I still don't think that in 2024 that he's somehow magically the chosen one who is the only man who can get elected over Trump. I just don't think there's any significant chance of it playing out like that were replacing Biden attempted.
I mean, I certainly understand the skepticism. We all know and love that famous line, "I do not belong to an organized political party... I'm a Democrat." But I'd argue that we're actually in a period of relative strong party discipline, and relatively clear party leadership on the D side. Their discipline in the House, for example, has been in stark contrast to what's gone on on the R side. And no one seriously contests that Biden and Obama are the leaders of the party, and if they both stood up clearly for a process, no one who matters would stand against it in any meaningful way.
It's actually a remarkable show of party loyalty and discipline that they got themselves into this in the first place. Remember that the polling last year clearly showed that the voters prefer that Biden not run for re-election, and that if he did, they preferred a robust primary election with strong competition. But the party decided that wasn't going to happen and not one single Democrat who matters went against the party line. No one from the squad, no one from the left, no one from the center, no one at all. It was remarkable, for better or worse, as a show of party discipline the likes of which I hadn't seen from D's in many decades.
But yes, in retrospect it looks like that was a bad decision, and it's time for a similar bit of party unity to build up around a better solution. Yes, it has to happen quickly, and yes, Biden has to fight against his instincts to be scrappy and keep fighting, but there's nothing about it that's impossible.
Historically, yes. Right now? Trump has pretty much destroyed the old Republican party, it's a hive of chaos and sycophancy.
Why? Obama and party leadership aren't idiots. They could concoct a sensible plan to choose a nominee which strongly engages the public and takes place quickly. This isn't rocket science.
I would argue that replacing Biden right now, if it's done sensibly, shines a light on the Democrats at just the time when they need that spotlight to make effective attacks on Trump (who is highly vulnerable) and bring vibrancy to the race. Not to mention, great as Biden has been, there really is an underlying issue with men in their 80s who show the kind of signs of decline that he has. 4 years is a long time. Even the four months between now and the election may bring a noticeable degree of additional decline.
Edit: And it's worth noting that R's, including Trump himself, are worried or at least defensive about the prospect the D's might actually act here (eg https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/29/us/politics/trump-youngkin-virginia-rally.html). They are right to be scared. Trump's debate performance looks unhinged and ridiculous if the person on the other podium is a strong communicator who can address his nonsense, and express a vision.
Last edited:
Up until the morning after the debate I was someone who thought any and all "replace Biden" talk was stupid and ignorant. Now I'm someone who agrees with fil, modulo an important caveat or two.
On the timing side my first instinct was to say, if they didn't resolve to do this starting Monday, anything else would be too late. That's a little extreme, so I'll soften that by a week: Start making a big go of it no later than 8 July.
I absolutely agree with those who say Harris needs to agree to not being automatically on the new ticket: she can be one of the select few who have their hats thrown in the ring, but that's it. Amongst those most often mentioned on the short list I'm mostly in favor of Whitmer for the top of the ticket. I think a Whitmer-Buttigieg ticket would be pretty good but maybe there is a better running-mate. I sure as shit don't want to lose a D senate seat, so senators are out IMO. I do agree that a mini-campaign amongst select, anointed candidates, in the run-up to the convention, makes sense. But: quality candidates, including Whitmer, have to make themselves available. I'm against this if we're down to something like Harris and Newsom. (Nothing against either per se -- it's just that neither have evident appeal to the purple undecided voters, SFAICT.)
I don't know how the money works and my endorsement of this idea is contingent on all existing Biden-Harris funds being transferable to the new ticket.
My final and biggest caveat: The new ticket has to articulate and center a positive vision for the country. A narrative of where we are and where we need to go. I am so sick of pundits saying -- and they are saying it louder and more often then ever, after the debate -- that the Democrats need run "against Trump". Well, duh, cogently and repeatedly state his unfitness. But, fuck, what people want is to be part of the story about making a better future. So tell that story. Preferably a version where the voters are the heroes.
On the timing side my first instinct was to say, if they didn't resolve to do this starting Monday, anything else would be too late. That's a little extreme, so I'll soften that by a week: Start making a big go of it no later than 8 July.
I absolutely agree with those who say Harris needs to agree to not being automatically on the new ticket: she can be one of the select few who have their hats thrown in the ring, but that's it. Amongst those most often mentioned on the short list I'm mostly in favor of Whitmer for the top of the ticket. I think a Whitmer-Buttigieg ticket would be pretty good but maybe there is a better running-mate. I sure as shit don't want to lose a D senate seat, so senators are out IMO. I do agree that a mini-campaign amongst select, anointed candidates, in the run-up to the convention, makes sense. But: quality candidates, including Whitmer, have to make themselves available. I'm against this if we're down to something like Harris and Newsom. (Nothing against either per se -- it's just that neither have evident appeal to the purple undecided voters, SFAICT.)
I don't know how the money works and my endorsement of this idea is contingent on all existing Biden-Harris funds being transferable to the new ticket.
My final and biggest caveat: The new ticket has to articulate and center a positive vision for the country. A narrative of where we are and where we need to go. I am so sick of pundits saying -- and they are saying it louder and more often then ever, after the debate -- that the Democrats need run "against Trump". Well, duh, cogently and repeatedly state his unfitness. But, fuck, what people want is to be part of the story about making a better future. So tell that story. Preferably a version where the voters are the heroes.
Biden continues on because despite having some congestion he had a good (but not perfect) debate performance and actually answered the questions.
Trump got up there and LIED LIED LIED.
Border? Lied.
Russia? Lied.
Israel? Lied.
Healthcare? Lied.
Inflation? Lied.
Climate change? Couldn't think up a lie, so didn't answer the question. Lie by omission!
Golfing prowess? Cut the malarkey--who cares? But he probably lied!!!
Who do you want in charge when the next pandemic or World War 3 kicks off? The guy with 34 counts of fraud to cover up his rapes and sexcapades, or a lifetime civil servant who is so persuasive he convinced President Barack Obama to equalize marriage?
If anything Joe and Kamala have raised more funds than ever off this and it's a great opportunity to cancel your subscript to the Old Grey Maga Apologist and put that money into Joe's campaign.
joebiden.com
Trump got up there and LIED LIED LIED.
Border? Lied.
Russia? Lied.
Israel? Lied.
Healthcare? Lied.
Inflation? Lied.
Climate change? Couldn't think up a lie, so didn't answer the question. Lie by omission!
Golfing prowess? Cut the malarkey--who cares? But he probably lied!!!
Who do you want in charge when the next pandemic or World War 3 kicks off? The guy with 34 counts of fraud to cover up his rapes and sexcapades, or a lifetime civil servant who is so persuasive he convinced President Barack Obama to equalize marriage?
If anything Joe and Kamala have raised more funds than ever off this and it's a great opportunity to cancel your subscript to the Old Grey Maga Apologist and put that money into Joe's campaign.
Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
Together, we can finish the job for the American people. Are you with us? Join our campaign to re-elect Joe Biden today!
joebiden.com
Same here. I thought the State of the Union speech (as well as being quite effective doing the job) had put that issue to rest. But the debate was jarring, and frankly hard to watch. Pretty much every Democrat I know who watched it came to the same conclusion - that he should drop out of the race.
Yeah, my thinking here is similar. At first I was thinking sooner the better, but the right way to do this is to wait a bit, and for Biden to announce he's stepping out, and for the process for moving forward to select a new nominee to be announced at the same time (otherwise there would be a speculative media frenzy after the announcement). I would think back to back speeches by Biden and Obama on the 4th of July would be ideal (though it doesn't leave much time for sorting out the process).
I wasn't kidding when I said arms need to be twisted. These folks need to get phone calls from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, (if he can manage it) Jimmy Carter etc., and hear the whole spiel about how their country needs them because their country does need them. I would think they'd start with calling up folks like Whitmer, Kelly, Beshear, Wes Moore, Shapiro... put together a pool of 10 or so and narrow it down to 5 via vetting and internal test speeches and debates. Then march on quickly to the series of public debates and town halls.
I would think the winner of the series of debates and town halls would be a person who does just that very effectively (and there's a good chance the winner of this process would choose the 2nd or 3rd place finisher as VP, because they all would've just gotten a huge burst of free publicity).
I'd be good with Whitmer, but would caution against Buttigieg.
I really liked him on paper during the 2020 primary, but he's been Biden's Sec of Transportation. That means the recent Boeing fiascos have been on his watch. That's a train wreck that stated long before he took the position, but if you don't like the response--or worry that a dishonest opposition will try to put the prior weak regulation of Boeing on his back--look elsewhere.
So seeing as Obama and Bill Clinton are standing behind Biden who will be the one to apply this arm twisting to people now? Not to mention how exactly do you see this use of force to pressure people into being candidates is going to play out with those being pressured and within the party? Since I see it as only working to fracture the party even more especially if/when the various factions don't feel they are represented in this pool of candidates. And what about candidates that publicly come forward and want to participate in this. Say RFK Jr. or Manchin want to make a play do you keep them out giving ammunition to them and others to show how undemocratic the Democrats have become?
I also would be curious about how this nationwide polling is going to be accomplished. Many polls use a relatively small number of respondents (compared to the number that voted in the last primary) to create their results, but to do something similar for this kind of thing I feel would be disastrous. Then of course there would be a matter of who the pollsters would be contacting to even get results. Sure in some case you could use voter registration information, but what about in states with open primaries? In those cases shouldn't they also be contacting a similar number of registered Republicans as well since it's not impossible that some of them voted in the Democratic primaries. Granted it's hard to tell how many were doing it in good faith or not, but can certainly see some that could have been lining up behind Biden. I mean for all I know I could be one of them since I'm not sure what I'm currently registered as at this point since it doesn't matter in my state.
I also disagree that this thing would result in a lot of viewers at least not outside of the subset of people that watched the first debate and already follow politics. Maybe there would be an initial spike of interest but it'll soon drop off as people become tired of it. Probably similar to what happens during the regular primary where people just get tired of seeing ads on TV or getting junk mail from the candidates and just want it to be over. Yes this happens over a shorter time period, but once the novelty wears off I'd guess the majority of those that aren't political junkies will stop paying attention. I'd likely include myself in that group as well since I made my pick when I voted in the primary and I'm either voting for Biden or if not him then against Trump. Who this mythical candidate would be is of very little concern to me especially as I wouldn't have any hand in making the choice. So since my vote doesn't count for who that would be I don't have much interest in watching any of it and would basically just follow it by whatever is posted about it here.
I don't think it has to be Buttigieg, but I wouldn't discount him just because of a bullshit R attack line. The R's have an infinite supply of bullshit attack lines, which they gladly wield against any opponent in every circumstance. If there is an actual voter in America who thinks the Secretary of Transportation has anything to do with the clusterfuck that is Boeing, I'd like to see the interview.
Of course Obama and the Clintons will publicly support Biden right up until the very moment when (and if) a change in plans is publicly announced. That most certainly does not mean that they and others in D leadership are not working behind the scenes to explore other approaches. It won't be easy to talk Joe down, but that doesn't mean people aren't trying.
The scenario I'm referring to is one in which Biden voluntarily steps down and releases his delegates, so Obama, the Clintons and anyone else is available to make these phone calls.
I'm not talking about literal arm twisting here, just a bit of the figurative kind. This is going to take people by surprise, and if they go into that pool of candidates it's going to take a lot of time and hard work over the next couple months, and they're going to give up privacy (though people who are sitting governors or senators don't have much of that to begin with) get a spotlight on their families etc. So it's good to reach out and let them know how important this is, how the party will support them etc. But if they say no they say no. There won't be a problem getting to the 5 or so good (and willing) candidates for the pool.
Legally what this amounts to is an open convention, but instead of just inviting people to speak at the convention, have a series of speeches and debates in the weeks ahead, complete with voting/polling of the voters to assess them (as an input to the delegates).
Just as with any speech at an open convention, you have to be invited. Sorry RFJ Jr, not happening.
As I said, I don't mean polling in the sense of trying to do representative sampling, I mean it in the sense of trying to give the voting public a chance to weigh in directly (probably not via an actual mail-in election, but that is one possibility). As I said above, I don't (and can't, because I don't know all the relevant rules and constraints on accessing voter registries etc) know exactly how this would work, but I know we could put some smart people on the task and they could figure something out that would work well enough for this.
Have to agree to disagree about that one. Everything is on the line, and there'll be new drama every two weeks. This is perfect for TV, and people are longing to see anyone other than Trump/Biden on a meaningful political stage.
?? You'd get to vote on the candidates (every two weeks!), and there would be 5 (then 4,3..) high quality candidates to choose from in a highly meaningful election. I'd sure as heck watch, I don't actually know which of these folks would be best for this role, but I'm very interested in figuring it out.
(apologies again about the ambiguity of the term "polling" - I'm referring here to giving everyone, at least all registered Ds and Is, the chance to weigh in, though not sure exactly how best to the mechanics of this work)
Yes, I realize that, but how do you see that playing out? And I would be shocked if any of the people that have a real shot of making a run in 2028 or 2032 wanting to participate in this. As such you are likely losing out on all the people that have any kind of national name recognition which leaves you with people that might be known in their state but are unknowns to the rest of the country. And given the already low participation rates we have starting with someone without that is going to be a major uphill battle. Yes, you believe that this thing will be a ratings boon and people will care and pay attention, but as you said agree to disagree.
Also seeing as we have 7 weeks until the convention and likely nothing will be ready before after the holiday week you're looking at 6 weeks at best to find, vet, have debates and do voting. Is it impossible, perhaps not, but I'd certainly say it would be improbable with a high chance of it being a complete fiasco.
So you are going to put it on the states (since they are the ones that run elections) with running 4 elections in the next 6-7 weeks. Seeing as how big an effort it is for the states to do it now with known voting dates the idea that they can pull this off with next to zero notification is a fantasy. Not to mention I'm sure the Republican lead states will do everything they can to mess with the process which likely ensures voters in those states get no say in the matter. While I'm not a lawyer or an election official, but I think you'd have an issue limited these elections to only registered Democrats and Independents in states that have open primaries. And of course there's the burden on people to go and vote every 2 weeks which again is a major problem with well known election dates already due to issues with access to the polls. If you thought participation rates in the primaries was low I'd expect this process would generate record low numbers of people voting every 2 weeks.
If Biden isn’t being reluctantly ousted and is leaving of his own volition, then any top-tier national candidate would be stupid to think they’re ruining rather than making their career.
If they lose they always have the, “It was super tough circumstances.” card to play, and if they win they’ll be hailed as the Second Coming of Obama.
If they lose they always have the, “It was super tough circumstances.” card to play, and if they win they’ll be hailed as the Second Coming of Obama.
The leaks coming out are damnig.
AXIOS reports that according to aides, President Biden is 'dependably engaged' from 10am until 4pm, but 'outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued'.
The situation is moving quickly, change might happen fast….or not.
NBC News reports that President Biden is 'expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David' tomorrow
——-
and then the WH shoots back;
“The premise of the story is not accurate,” the official said.
On the travel to Camp David, “It was public in our guidance before the debate. It’s been on the schedule for weeks. There is nothing more to it.”
Officials said the Biden family is taking a family photo at Camp David.
AXIOS reports that according to aides, President Biden is 'dependably engaged' from 10am until 4pm, but 'outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued'.
The situation is moving quickly, change might happen fast….or not.
NBC News reports that President Biden is 'expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David' tomorrow
——-
and then the WH shoots back;
“The premise of the story is not accurate,” the official said.
On the travel to Camp David, “It was public in our guidance before the debate. It’s been on the schedule for weeks. There is nothing more to it.”
Officials said the Biden family is taking a family photo at Camp David.