There won't be any ousting -- he steps aside or doesn't, and if not then nothing more happens on this score.
FWIW I'm not in favor of pre-convention public voting. Most analysts I'm reading aren't prescribing it. Should Biden bow out, the time between then and the convention would be spent on campaigning, both for public support and delegate support. But there wouldn't be elections. That would burdensome and both chaotic and annoying.
www.nbcnews.com
Wow. You could have literally linked the NBC article or the Axios one...and you decided for a fucking Twitter unfurl.
Mate I have no idea what Trump disaster you're talking about, Its not because I'm blind to his lies or whatever its just that he is just a serious of walking disasters. He could strangle kittens on TV and his electability goes up! The reality is that this evil mofo is such an aberration to past norms(*).
What do you think the odds of Bernie winning in an election this fall vs Trump compared to Biden?
The later. As you allude to, we have to deal with the world as it is, including the poor performance of the media.
The debate was a disaster, hands down. However, was it a foreseeable disaster based on public information?
But the point of whatever kind of campaigning they have (and I would think it should be a systematic series of planned speeches, town halls and debates with all candidates in the same room) would be to build public support and do public vetting. There isn't time for serious fundraising and frankly the donors would be best off sitting on the sidelines for a few weeks and being ready to support whoever comes out on top. Doing some kind of polling so the delegates who have to do the actual voting can be in touch with the public makes a lot of sense to me, but yes, logistics can be tricky and I agree whatever happens it wouldn't be a true election - the only election left to happen is when the delegates pick the nominee at the convention.
The best indication of that may be his Senate record. All sentiments of political leanings aside, what has he managed to get passed, or shown leadership on? Sure, it's easy to make all sorts of promises, but following through is a whole other matter.
He did not cite Warren, Sanders, and Yang as viable or appropriate replacements for Biden. He cited them as examples of 2020 candidates who had more passionate followers than Biden at that time. He used them to make the point that in 2020 the Democratic party somehow found it in itself to do the smart thing, and nominate the candidate with the best chance in that cycle of beating Trump.
Exactly. Sanders is older and in worse health than Biden, and is not a Democrat, let alone a Democrat with a broad base of support outside his lane. Anyone mentioning Sanders in this context is not to be taken seriously.
His point was that the Democratic primary field in 2020 had numerous middle of the road milquetoast candidates, and Biden wasn’t even close to being the front-runner in the overall race. The only reason that happened at all was the more establishment Democrats dropped out of the race to consolidate the milquetoast vote behind Biden.
The fact that there's a 5.4% there for Obama who is legally term limited should tell you the worth of this prediction.
Which is just about equally ludicrous as betting on Barack Obama, seeing as Michelle Obama has never sought, held, or expressed interest in any political office, much less the presidency.I think that's Michelle Obama.
That's essentially what the GOP does, and their candidate has much more serious issues facing him than Biden does.
Why not both?
Freezing up, and inaction when urgent action is needed is a pretty typical panic response.
Watch it again. There's no recovering from this. It's going to be an issue in every single public appearance he makes, and there's a good chance it will get noticeably worse across the next 4 months before the election.
If a precipitous drop in polling doesn't arise (and it's not very clear in early polls, but these things typically take a while to get fully accounted for since polls are not instantaneous), it will be yet another indictment of Trump, and not a comment on Biden's disastrous performance.
There is a 100% chance the media will obsess about this at every single opportunity, and there's nearly a 100% chance that between now and November Biden will have an even worse day than he did last Thursday.
There's too much at stake not to look reality in the face and do what needs to be done. Paralyzed inaction may seem comforting, but it's a path to disaster (well at least a 50% chance of disaster
).ToMAYto, ToMAHto; I wouldn’t characterize giving the situation a little time to develop as “freezing up.”
I watched it live; it was quite upsetting. But it remains to be seen whether he can recover. If, say, he’s able to do a bunch of live interviews on all the mainstream networks and present as alert and cogent, this debate could be a quickly forgotten blip.
Sure, but so what? If Biden is able to maintain or improve his position despite a bad debate, then there isn’t urgency for him to drop out.
I’ve been panicking about Trump potentially winning for quite some time now; it’s why I’m literally fleeing the country next month. But I’m not convinced that replacing Biden will improve the odds. Instead, I think it’s markedly more likely to make matters even worse.
Lacking a crystal ball, I can’t confirm this. Nor can I confirm that they won’t find something equal or worse to obsess about for whoever the replacement candidate is.
Sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing. Replacing Biden would be a spectacularly risky move that shouldn’t be done unless it’s clear that there is no viable alternative. I don’t think we’re there at this time.There's too much at stake not to look reality in the face and do what needs to be done. Paralyzed inaction may seem comforting, but it's a path to disaster (well at least a 50% chance of disaster
Given that roughly half of the voters are going to vote for Trump it was never not going to be a close race in regards to the electoral college. It won't matter what he says or what legal situations he ends up in those people were always going to vote for him. There's a house that still has Trump 2020 and FJB signs up in their yard. Another recently put up a Trump 2024 sign and I expect to see more in the future at places that were supporting him in 2016 and 2020. So nothing that has happened to Trump has had any impact on these people to dissuade them from supporting him. There will undoubtably be some that will decide to not vote for him, but they'd have to be in some key states for it to have any actual impact. So the fact that he has a 50% chance of winning shouldn't be a surprise at all.
At the end of the day, I guess, this is where we differ. I think a 6 week nomination contest, followed by a 2.5 month general election campaign is a great fit for the public's attention span (and actually long compared to what most parliamentary democracies do). I think that 6 week nominating process, with a series of debates and speeches from the rising stars of the democratic party would not only skewer Trump, but it would dramatically raise the profile of Democrats' vision for the future, which Biden has done a very poor job of communicating. It could be transformational not just for this election, but for future ones. It could obliterate Trump so badly that R's would actually go back to the drawing board and maybe try to turn their party back into something civilized and consistent with democratic governance. Maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy
.
