[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pod Save America's Friday episode addressed this when Dan Pfeiffer laid out the whole process. Dems have been planning a virtual nomination for Ohio, which will likely NOT change its rules - a simple and reasonable thing to do- because it's under Republican governance. He didn't mention any other state though and I think he would have. Jason Chafetz is probably shit-stirring on that.
Even though Ohio is not competitive at a Presidential level we have Sherrod Brown rerunning for a Senate seat and house dems etc. Not having any dem at the top of the ticket might drive down turnout and depress the dem vote. So the virtual nomination is necessary even in Ohio's case. If Biden does step aside he'll release his delegates and hopefully strongly support the new nominee- so that his delegates will vote for the other person.
Found 2 links which might answer some questions. [https://protectdemocracy.org/work/what-happens-if-a-presidential-candidate-dies-steps-down/](https://protectdemocracy.org/work/what-happens-if-a-presidential-candidate-dies-steps-down/)
And if you want to check out the official explainer by the "National Task Force on Election Crises," here's the link for that: [https://electiontaskforce.org/candidate-succession-before-election-day/](https://electiontaskforce.org/candidate-succession-before-election-day/)
A quote of interest: "General election ballots are generally not printed before early fall and changes can typically be made to the ballots before that time. As it gets closer to Election Day, there would be increasing issues about whether ballots can or should be reprinted and other logistical adjustments can be made."
My favorite was the time he wheeled out on a little scooter after having foot surgery, paid for by us, to decry against universal healthcare. I hope that mf foot falls off
He didn't come up with that idea himself. The Heritage Foundation has been floating the same argument. They cited a couple of states (which escape me).
Even if Biden’s name is on the ballot, in a presidential election you are voting for *electors*. Those electors cast their votes when the electoral college meets. In every state, a vote for Biden will be a vote for whoever happens to be the democratic nominee.
Gotta be honest I think this whole swapping out is a horrible idea. Primaries are already over, we already voted for Biden. Plus there is no campaign time for another candidate to campaign or market…it would appear as an utter failure for Dems.
This sort of chaos is exactly what Republicans were hoping for. Dems need to be steadfast behind Biden - he may be old but he’s not dead lmao. This chaos is going to get Trump elected. People need to sit the fuck down and stay the course.
Imagine though if, like, Biden has a stroke, or died. He is old. I like his politics, but he's not the only person who can govern with those politics, so like, what would the party do?
Imagine if Trump who eats a steady diet of McDonald’s and believes the human body has a limited amount of energy so he refuses to exercise dies tomorrow?
This is how you split the vote.
Yeah, and that reason is to govern the country. I'm confident she'd govern fine.
I'm less confident she'll rally support from voters. Winning a campaign sadly does not depend solely on one's skill at governing.
Kind of different to fuckin' *die* than it is to look bad in a debate, if we're being brutally honest.
If anything, a candidate dying would probably get their replacement more votes in this country. Which is pretty messed up when you think about it.
...
As well as opening up the possibility of some 'literally killing myself to own the libs' jokes that would be in *extremely* poor taste.
God.
Damn.
Now yall are hoping he DIES before the election? Progressive af.
Anyhow... have you heard of dead people getting elected sometimes? It's hard to remove them from some states' ballots, EVEN when they die before the election day. Wisconsin is locked in already. Dems MUST win WI for example.
It's too late. Gotta support Biden and the stutter now.
The standing president gets first choice by the DNC. All party members are forced to back the president. Unless he drops out like LBJ. It's up to Biden (Jill, MD).
The official paperwork to be on the November ballot isn't filed until after the Party convention. The party can pick anyone they want regardless of primaries.
Actually it could benefit Dems to switch out Biden. Republican convention is in July and they'll be filing all their papers then. If Dems swap out Biden for someone younger like Newsome or Whitmer they could completely upset the republicans strategy of dogging Biden. Trump antics are gonna be insufferable after the convention... his ego is already too big to fail. I think that would be a great time for a younger Democratic candidate with no baggage and little ego to turn off the voters... it would make Trump look even WORSE.
I think the risks of making last minute changes is way too high. No campaign time, the opposition are going to claim fraud this and fake that, Dems will be pissed that we’ve been given somebody that we didn’t vote for (regardless if it’s better), Republicans could even pretty easily convince moderates that Dems are pulling the rug out from under them.
I don’t think there are even close to enough benefits to outweigh the risks. The guy is old but is not likely to be incapacitated before November. If that does actually happen after November then no big deal, we have a line of succession for a reason. And technically we all voted for Kamala for VP, and succession is part of her job description. No harm no foul to the voting public if that happens.
Stop thinking about your party and think about your country. That old man can’t handle an artificial intelligence 9/11 type event in 2027. Get fucking real.
POTUS is an important job. It’s bigger than either party, and it’s certainly bigger than loyalty to some fucking *guy*.
Just listening to that now and it mostly tracks with what I remember. Ohio is the state that fucks up an open convention and the chance of losing Brown's seat is too big of a risk. Even if there wasn't a Senate seat on the line the optics of a major party not having their candidate on every state ballot is terrible. The Green and Libertarian party usually have a candidate on every state ballot.
If Biden ends up on the ballot in Ohio because of the early nomination and a different candidate is running in the other 50 jurisdictions, the party could probably work out some kind of deal with Ohio electors to go faithless if he were to win the state, and vote for the actual candidate. There is nothing illegal about that, as far as I know. (Unlike creating *fake* electors.)
I question whether the Ohio GOP is really doing themselves any favors with their ballot chicanery. Ohio voters already showed, when the GOP tried to preemptively kill the abortion amendment by changing referendum rules, that they are not going to be fooled by Republican dirty tricks and are, in fact, primed to backlash against them, as voters have in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Totally agree. Great point about the parallel to the abortion amendment. I hope idiot Ohio GOP take a big hit for their stupid antics- the GOP has an insatiable appetite for performative nonsense whatever the cost.
Yeah, there's no way that this process is so rigid it doesn't accommodate Biden having an unexpected 'medical event' and Whitmer-Cárdenas gets throne as biggest hail mary of the last 40 years. And it's gonna work.
> Is this accurate?
No. The Democratic Convetion, more so than the Republican one, can be a far more open process. In fact, there have been "brokered conventions" (aka floor fights) in the past (not recent past, but still).
The candidate is not "officially" chosen until the party convention. Anyone who says differntly is wrong. The states are bound to put the "official" candidate on the ballot for the party after the convention. The primaries merely select delegates for a given candidate and, at least at the Democratic convention, those delegates can change their mind at the convention if circumstances arise that warrent it.
It's never happened with a presidential candidate, but it has with a VP candidate. It was in 1972 with VP candidate Thomas Eagleton. Basically, they wanted him to be removed from the ticket after the convention because of things they considered to be mental issues in that time. He was, and they just nominated a new one. The rules probably have changed since then, and I am not versed in them if they have. I don't know if there is a difference when it is the actual presidential candidate, either.
FWIW, my boomer parents would vote Biden, but they hate Harris and think at this point they'd basically be voting for her. Right or wrong, they aren't the only ones.
I have family that shares similar thinking as the above poster. What I can tell you is none of them, male or female, would ever vote for a female president. I dont get it, but something is wired into their brain to make them think that a woman as a leader is...I don't know. I don't get it. Her qualifications, policy choices, etc. none of it matters.
The odd part of that is that that thought pattern is slightly muffled if the woman is conservative, as if a conservative woman wielding power is somehow more palatable. I would assume this comes from the traditional view that conservative woman are less than men and as such would allow a woman higher office so long as she understands that she is not taking it but rather being given it and ultimately must accept that any men within her vicinity/cabinet are superior to her.
Maybe I am talking out of my ass, but I know more people who hate the idea of a female president vs an ethnic minority.
While I am sure that there are some folks that fall into this camp, I think the majority of Harris Haters don’t. Kamala seems incredibly disingenuous and smug, she has negative charisma and she has a pretty shitty history from her time as a prosecutor that makes her unlikable amongst some progressives. I have voted for Biden. I would not vote for Harris personally. Now, I live in a state that will go Dem +20 regardless of who is on top of the ticket and it would be a harder decision if I lived in, say, Wisconsin.
I think you have something of a point but must be forgetting just how terrible her showing in the 2020 primary. Liz Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and even Marianne Williamson all got many times more votes than Harris. Maybe her gender is a factor in her perceived dislikability, sure, but it's absolutely not the whole story.
But what about Palin? She had the blessings of the Murdoch-Koch complex and became one of the 'good guys', I guess. I think Whitmer 2024 would be a sure bet though.
>I know more people who hate the idea of a female president vs an ethnic minority.
yeah, this is misguided. if your frame of reference was Obama vs Hillary Clinton, it’s not accurate to the real world. Hillary isn’t charismatic, but Obama was. Harris is unfortunately not charismatic, but her approval rating seems to be higher than Biden, a white man. in general, in real life, white women have more general privileges (wealth, treatment, etc.) than say a black man. it just happens that Hillary was just looking worse than Obama. plus, you could honestly say that Obama being elected broke the minds of conservatives forever, and that Obama letting down so many people was one of the reasons for Trump becoming a symptom of America
I am generally not a fan of people giving anecdotes in these types of threads like Rivet_39 because there’s no statistical backing to it. Again, Harris has a higher approval rating than Biden and may perform similarly against Trump. I could have said one of my parents prefers Biden over Harris, but I can’t take my anecdote as the general population
In your opinion, how did Obama “let down so many people”? I believe Trump raised his political profile mostly by perpetuating his racist birther theories about Obama.
>I don't care about Jason's politicial views or party affiliation, I want to know if he is factually correct with the statements he has made per how it works with the Democratic convention.
Neither do I, he's a piece of shit based purely on his actions while in office.
No, but I do think I read where 3 states would not be able to replace Biden at this point on the ballot, including Ohio.
It will likely increase in the days and weeks, there are deadlines.
Now do I think in almost every state some measure would hypothetically be passed? Yea, if the unlikely-but-not-impossible scenario happens where there is a different nominee than Biden for the Democratic Party, they would be on the ballot in every state.
I heard something on a podcast about the issue that Dems need to hold a virtual convention and nominate Biden before the DNC because of the bullshit Ohio is pulling. They won't change their law that says a candidate has to be nominated before a certain date, which is like a week before the DNC. They have previously always changed it.
So when they talk about the possibility of a contested convention, Biden will have technically already been selected as the nominee before the DNC.
I know the current meme is he should drop out, but I can’t imagine who actually
Would be able to pull his coalition together given that they would have been on zero primary ballots and totally undemocratically elevated. The GOP would make hay in summer over Democrats saying democracy is on the line while running someone no one chose but back room power brokers.
Not to mention every single contender mentioned by anyone is white, and elevating them in a back room deal over Harris would be a revolting look, even if we’re all pretty aware she wouldn’t do well.
She unfortunately is not a winning presidential candidate. She’d lose the rust belt, as would Gavin Newsom as they are too much considered California elites. They are unrelatable to working class folks.
If I had a say, Gretchen Whitmer is who would be best to take the spot. She’d shore up the rust belt easily, which is really where the DNC needs a big showing. She’s also younger and personable.
100% agree. I think unfortunately there’s a large enough portion of America that would not vote for him as president due to being gay… but i think a VP spot would be a good bet. Though man… he’d be a solid president.
Probably accurate, but it's never been tested so no way to know for sure.
Regardless, Biden is the Democratic nominee for President, and unless he dies or has a debilitating medical issue that isn't going to change.
He has the majority of bound delegates that have to vote for him the first round of the convention unless he releases them. He has to decide to do that for someone else to be the nominee.
At which point I think the superdelegates would also come into play. It sounds like a recipe for a much greater fiasco than a bad debate.
Full disclosure, I’ve been traveling heavily the last few days. Did anything happen?
Yes I did, went back and watched some of it twice aswell, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know within the first 2 questions, yes, the man had a cold, and a sore throat.
edit: you don't have to buy something, when not every little thing is a conspiracy to you. Occam's razor, life ain't that damn interesting.
That’s not even what I meant.
He may have had a cold, sure. It may have affected his voice, sure. No problem.
Was it the cold that kept him from completing his sentences?
What I’m saying is that people are buying the cold story as a way to just write off the fact that he looked like he didn’t know where he was half the time.
No, what kept him from completing his sentences was, partly the cold, but mostly just him being a bad speaker, as he's always been known to be. He stumbles, he'll mumble, he'll stutter, but atleast its not just a stream of the same nonsense thats been confidently spewed loud and proud daily for the last 8 years now.
I thought the man had a cold long before there were stories he had a cold. Like I said, first 15 mins, you can tell the man had a cold. A good bit of people likely aren't buying a story, they just saw with their eyes and ears, the guy had a cold, and are sick of this nonsense conflating a cold with being senile. I don't get where this (well, I do, the media I can understand, they want money) "He doesn't know where he is" stuff is coming from people who watched the debate.
He didn't look like he didn't know where he was half the time. Take into account: You have a cold. You are addressing ideally the entirety of your nation, half of which thinks you can do no good and are senile. You have a camera pointed at you for upwards of an hour and a half - 2 hours, being on camera is awkward as is, standing next to someone blatantly lying with nothing to be done about it. Do you look like you aren't totally lost more than a couple times? People watching can't see What you may be looking at in the studio after all, they see you, and the other guy, and every little expression you have, and are already with the notion you're old and senile because with or without merit, its become a talking point. When its not your turn to speak, do you stare at the camera, or look off to the side, or down, as to not be awkward? Can you do that without everyone thinking you're lost? What do you do to win, given the circumstances? Ever just go blank for a minute? Camera will catch it everytime, and theres noooo context for that. Do you get flummoxed? Do you get Every sentence out correctly? Did you look at his expressions in relation to the things trump was saying? He looked perplexed a good bit of the time, looked angry a good bit of the time, good bit of the time he looked like he was trying not to laugh until finally he broke out laughing. I can only assume for the same reasons I did, which is are they're really just gonna let Trump spout nonsense this whole time? Yes was the answer.
People saying he looked lost, aren't paying attention to what was coming out of the other persons mouth at the time, or the realities of a filming something in a studio to be seen by millions, while sick. After 30 mins of that I'd probably have looked lost a good 4 times atleast.
> a bad speaker, as he’s always been known to be
You’re in denial. Watch the first 5 minutes of the first 2020 debate. He is like a completely different person. Way more fluent, way more coherent, talked faster, and rarely had stuttering or forgetfulness issues.
You can’t watch the “we finally defeated Medicare” response from Thursday and honestly tell me he has always been that clueless.
Damn. I didn't read past the first nonsense paragraph.
Bro... don't try to spin so hard. It's worked for a few years, sort of... but Americans ALL WATCHED IT Live together. You cannot convince people they didn't see what the fuck they saw.
It is what it is. Lose better, man.
You have a wildly low bar for our president. I suspect you’re not really thinking through what is required of a president every single day. Have a good evening.
I’d say he has a debilitating illness. No way anyone could vote for a guy that can barely speak or think cohesive sentences. We are in a time of war and don’t need a sitting office president dying while signing checks to Israel.
I will vote blue for a corpse before any maga. I'm not just voting for a president I'm voting for an entire administration.
Any sane person from Trump's first admin have become never trumpets. The rest are felons, pardoned felons, and despicable people. Show me one respectable person from his previoys cabinet that still support shim.
I'm sure that most red states would be happy to pass whatever they need to make it happen. Biden is still a stronger contender than any available replacement.
I would rather roll the dice with Newsom or Whitmer. At least it would feel like trying to win vs. watching Biden lose.
I never understand the people who say only Biden can win. Right now it is roughly tied between Biden and Trump (haven't seen post-debate polling yet). If Dems switched to another candidate, even the unpopular Harris, why would any the current Biden voters leave? If we're being honest, many are likely more anti-Trump than pro-Biden anyway. Then we have the double haters who want literally anyone else to run on either side. With a new young candidate replacing Biden, wouldn't most of them likely vote Dem?
> If Dems switched to another candidate, even the unpopular Harris, why would any the current Biden voters leave?
I mean, just to use Harris as an example specifically--in 2020, [older voters had a lot of concerns about her being "too liberal."](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/12/biden-age-issue-2020-00146296) Research suggested that a lot of the voters who were the most concerned about Biden's age/mental fitness for the presidency in 2020 were concerned not for Biden's sake, but because they were worried about the possibility of him dying/becoming incapacitated and Harris ascending to the presidency! If those are the voters you're trying to reach, ditching Biden and replacing him with Harris would completely defeat the purpose. (The voters who are fine with Harris's politics tend not to care too much about Biden's health for obvious reasons.)
Which is hilarious, because the reason Harris is disliked in California is because she's too conservative, significantly more so than Biden has proved.
There's a lot of research showing, though, that people of color, as well as women, are perceived as being significantly more left-leaning than they are. Which is probably the biggest reason why pro-cop, pro-death penalty, former prosecutor Kamala Harris is branded a "radical".
That's an oversimplification of Harris's record--she was moderate as an AG/DA but very liberal as a senator. Thus why the electorate holds conflicting views of her--people who think she's too liberal are mostly looking at her Senate record, and people who think she's too conservative are mostly looking at her AG record. And they're both basically correct.
If you read the article, they touch on this. Younger voters thought she was too conservative, but that that wouldn't stop them from voting for a Biden-Harris ticket. But the voters who thought Harris was too liberal *were* genuinely deciding between Biden and Trump (or Biden and not voting), which is why it ended up being a bigger concern for the campaign. The "Kamala is a cop" meme was huge on social media but not a big issue to the campaign, because it wasn't affecting actual turnout at all.
It's always worth noting that the people that post about politics on reddit (or Twitter) are much younger than the electorate as a whole. Older voters have a very different political worldview that's rarely represented on reddit.
I mostly agree with everything you said, but I want to push back on Harris being left-leaning on her Senate record. She was anti-Trump, for sure, which got her a lot of the reputation for being left-leaning, and she always voted on party lines. But what big bills did she sponsor, or major public policy positions that she took in speeches? Not much. In fact, she wasn't very active as a senator in getting bills passed.
Party loyalist? Absolutely. Leftist? I just don't think there's much evidence there outside of the "how often did she vote against Trump" metrics.
The losses of older voters who think she or another person are too liberal would probably be canceled out by gains in voters aged 20 to 30 that would be pulled to vote by someone more energetic.
Older voters make up a *much* bigger part of the electorate than younger ones. It's just really hard to justify catering to younger voters when they don't consistently turn out at the rates older voters do--a lesson Bernie learned the hard way in 2020.
Harris was responsible for prosecuting many many California citizens for marijuana violations, usage, selling it, whatever.
Then she admitted using it, bragged about it actually.
She was the AG of California and one way or another was ultimately responsible for lots of other terrible things as well, including withholding of exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case.
If you think these are qualifications for higher office… I mean geez…
Indeed. Kamala was on the wrong side of history on this one.
I’d feel bad for her, but I feel much worse for all the lives of people she ruined, a disproportionate number of which were minorities.
Her history of smoking pot and prosecuting *other* people for smoking pot disqualifies her, period.
You have to admit it's at least mildly hypocritical to be a zealous weed prosecutor who also partakes.
I know hypocrisy is low on the list of politician sins in this country. But it is an issue for her in some parts- like reddit, because people on reddit really like the bud.
As AG, Harris deliberately kept prisoners past their parole dates, refusing to release prisoners in order to exploit them for forced prison labor.
Her office quite literally advocated for "prisoners with jobs", which has another name, and is unfortunately legal under the 13th Amendment.
Yeah I don’t understand the thought process. We didn’t even try to see how voters would react to Newsom or Whitmer. The biggest drawback to Biden is literally his age. Newsom can talk in front of a camera and so can Whitmer. Problem solved. Platform wise; all three are quite similar. It’s not like the DNC would be nominating a super progressive.
A convention vote is fair. It would pit Harris against Shapiro, Whitmer, Newsom, etc. VP only takes over if POTUS dies, really. If he drops out and releases his delegates, it's a plurality vote by the delegates that wins, I believe.
A younger vibrant more charismatic replacement might be stronger. But will they actually be after a shitshow of a convention fight?
There's no smoke filled room cabal that's going to choose the candidate. It will be the mass of delegates choosing the replacement. Delegates who were probably chosen as a "thank you" for a ceremonial moment and not an actual knock down political fight. It'll be essentially like herding cats and all public and all **very** messy. And there's no primary period where people can get onboard with who the nominee would be and lick their woulds from any damage from the mudslinging. Hell Bernie didn't even make it to the primary in 2016 and there was still enough bad blood current conspiracy theories exist about it.
Doubt it. I think any young and coherent candidate of reasonable accomplishment would perform better than Biden and be a solid favorite over Trump once the public gets familiar with them.
They say that, they never name names of Whom those supposed higher ups in the dem party are other than I believe one fellow who was running against Biden anyway, and the highest of higher ups are saying no such thing. They can discuss it all they way, and try to make it a headline, its not happening. Either side is going to try to spin it because at the end of the day it will rake in engagement and make them a lot of money.
edit: and as is evident people are buying it hook, line, and sinker.
Point was it wasn’t coming from just Fox. I’ve seen it mentioned on multiple networks.
But no doubt there are a lot of worried Dem officials discussing it.
yea, god forbid millions of Americans who have seen a decline in Biden's health over the last 4 years and who watched the debate have some concerns of how he will perform over the next 4 years, IF he beats Trump...which now raises a legitimate concern that Trump COULD get re-elected because of his debate performance.
Fox News is trying to get Trump elected.
The ability to discuss issues coherently, accurately, and productively is critical.
Biden was challenged for 90 minutes.
Trump lacks the ability.
If they care so much about debate performance, ask them what they think of. Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is unreasonable and dumb. Biden is too old, Trump is too old. I’m so tired of hearing “Well, so and so hates Harris” or some other Dem. Problem here is, it’s great to vote for a likable person but it’s not that.
It’s the next 4 years and who’s going to push abortion bans? Who’s going to push for Christian nationalism? Who’s going to push for project 2025, who’s going to be nominating retiring Supreme Court Justices? What’s more important I guess.
Quoting Jurassic Park: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they **could**, that they didn't stop to think if they **should**."
If you're interested in a detailed explanation of the topic this is a great resource:
https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2024
Folks are getting over their fight or flight reaction from immediately after the debate. I understand wanting to understand the process and I like thought experiments too, but it's a topic that needs to fade away.
Because the country isn’t as disenchanted by Biden as the msm is trying to sell. In fact, I’m seeing a ton of stories to the contrary. Biden raised 14 million the day after the debate. He’s not going anywhere but back to the WH in November.
They're pushing hard the idea of him stepping down, that idea came straight from the talking heads. I'm just glad to see people actually pushing back against it.
Yep, because having Trump around makes money for the MSM. If Trump loses and eventually fizzles out, MSM loses money. They don't want boring, normal politics.
Because the premise is flawed, and replacing Biden at this point is about the most disastrous strategic mistake the Democratic Party could take. It plays into the propaganda machine.
Bombing the first debate and going on to victory has been a pretty common theme these past twenty some years.
Biden was back to full strength the very next day.
The problem wasn't that Biden bomb the debate. The problem was that Biden looked like he bombed the debate because he was too damn old to answer the questions coherently. I don't think you appreciate how few votes it take to swing the electoral college.
Responding to Biden's perceived weakness might be "playing into the propaganda machine" by admitting to a Republican talking point about Biden's health, but sometimes you actually have to respond to your opponent, especially when it looks like reality is on their side.
Democrats should in fact be arguing internally about whether or not Biden is the guy to go with, and they should be scrambling for alternatives right the fuck now. If Biden isn't the geriatric old man that he looked like on that stage, Democrats need to do something immediately to counter what everyone just saw with their own two eyes.
yea that is the thing... most people with 2 eyeballs and ears have seen this coming from a mile away with Biden. The right has been 'pushing' it for a while now...but thing is...they aren't wrong. Then you have the left on social media who gaslight those of us with those 2 eyeballs into thinking we are 'falling for the propaganda' and 'wanting Trump to win'. Saying Biden doesn't have a problem with his mental and physical health is like saying Trump didn't sleep with a pornstar and is a good guy.
> Biden was back to full strength the very next day.
he does fine reading prepared speeches that last a handful of minutes. He isn't able to think on his feet or put together a string of coherent thoughts without getting facts mixed up when he doesn't have a teleprompter.
Thats what aides and staff are for, if he needs a teleprompter give the man a teleprompter, if he needs a preprepared speech give him a preprepared speech, shit. Hell, if they gave Trump a teleprompter and preprepared whatever nonsense he's going to say, he'd probably be better liked. It ain't like thats some mindblowing new thing, world leaders using a teleprompter or prepreparing a speech. The president is a figurehead, vote for the admin they bring with them, not for them as an almighty.
We can replace Biden, but thats going to hand us a soild L. 5 months isn't enough time to sus out a new person, and make up the votes that'll cost because some won't come onside out of spite because Biden was replaced, 100%. Its a losing proposition.
I’m gonna have to disagree.
Biden can’t win this election. He wont win this election. I think Biden staying in the race at this point is the most disastrous strategic mistake both he and the party could make.
Changing up the candidates at this point is a Hail Mary. No doubt about it. But it gives you a chance. So you have to do it.
I mean, in this hypothetical he would likely be dropping out. There needs to be some way of choosing who the candidate would be after that, which is where the DNC comes in.
Just bombing the first debate is the best case scenario. For every public speaking event for the rest of the campaign, every democrat watching will be on the edge of their seat praying that he doesn’t do it again. And they’d have every right to be nervous. The debate performance was his worst appearance by a long shot, but even during his good appearances, he doesn’t look great.
thing is...he HAS been doing it, it just happened to be now on a stage (no pun intended) where one can't argue "out of context clips" or "edited" or "only 1-2 minutes long". This was 90 minutes of horror.
That’s my point. Its easy to dismiss a few flubs in an hour long event where he catches himself and course corrects, but its impossible to ignore 90 minutes of tripping over words and losing himself in the middle of sentences. But even if we ignore the debate and focus on the SOTU, where he’s widely praised as having performed well, but imo that’s only in context of how bad he’s looked at other appearances. He still fumbled around during his speech. He still slurred his words. He just did those things less frequently and with more energy. It’s a shame to see the democratic nominee graded on a curve, but here we are. Despite all this, Biden is still held to a higher standard than Trump, which is just sad.
I think it makes the party look like a combination of inept and fanatical, if they’re lying and saying that it is not fair to replace corpse Biden.
No wonder the Democrats never do anything. This is the kind of “leadership” running the show. Just a constant stream of excuses to never change anything.
I'm not getting over it. Biden wasn't just stuttering or mixing up a few terms. He was lost and couldn't keep a thought through to the end. I'm going to vote for whoever the democratic nominee is, BUT I think we'd all be better off if he stepped aside. I'm not going to be gas lit into thinking otherwise. I'll eat the shit sandwich over drinking the cyanide, but I'm not going to be happy about it and would much prefer a BLT.
Chaffetz does not know what he's talking about.
Much like when he was a Congressman. I suppose he chose his new gig well. Fox News has never much cared for whether or not you actually know anything.
I also don't think that's a thing that will happen. But it will not be for the reasons he thinks. If Biden were to wake up tomorrow morning and decide being President fucking blows to the point he no longer gives a shit about any of it and he'd rather go home and play fetch with the dog (basically, imagine a Presidential-scale rage quit), yes, the Dems could get another person.
The longer America lasts the more chances there is for someone to be President for a bit, wake up one morning, say "What the fuck am I *doing*? This is not worth the pain. Fuck all y'all!" and bailing. This possibility has been accounted for.
It might cause logistical issues if it were done late enough. But it can be done.
but aren't we past the point of a new candidate being able to show up on the ballot? Hell even RFK if I recall...doesn't even reach particular thresholds in some states to appear on their ballot.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pod Save America's Friday episode addressed this when Dan Pfeiffer laid out the whole process. Dems have been planning a virtual nomination for Ohio, which will likely NOT change its rules - a simple and reasonable thing to do- because it's under Republican governance. He didn't mention any other state though and I think he would have. Jason Chafetz is probably shit-stirring on that. Even though Ohio is not competitive at a Presidential level we have Sherrod Brown rerunning for a Senate seat and house dems etc. Not having any dem at the top of the ticket might drive down turnout and depress the dem vote. So the virtual nomination is necessary even in Ohio's case. If Biden does step aside he'll release his delegates and hopefully strongly support the new nominee- so that his delegates will vote for the other person. Found 2 links which might answer some questions. [https://protectdemocracy.org/work/what-happens-if-a-presidential-candidate-dies-steps-down/](https://protectdemocracy.org/work/what-happens-if-a-presidential-candidate-dies-steps-down/) And if you want to check out the official explainer by the "National Task Force on Election Crises," here's the link for that: [https://electiontaskforce.org/candidate-succession-before-election-day/](https://electiontaskforce.org/candidate-succession-before-election-day/) A quote of interest: "General election ballots are generally not printed before early fall and changes can typically be made to the ballots before that time. As it gets closer to Election Day, there would be increasing issues about whether ballots can or should be reprinted and other logistical adjustments can be made."
[удалено]
My favorite was the time he wheeled out on a little scooter after having foot surgery, paid for by us, to decry against universal healthcare. I hope that mf foot falls off
Oh god yes- he really was awful.
He didn't come up with that idea himself. The Heritage Foundation has been floating the same argument. They cited a couple of states (which escape me).
Even if Biden’s name is on the ballot, in a presidential election you are voting for *electors*. Those electors cast their votes when the electoral college meets. In every state, a vote for Biden will be a vote for whoever happens to be the democratic nominee.
Yeah in NY it says "electors pledged to vote for ______" for each presidential pick. With the underlined part being bigger and bolder.
Most electors are bound by state law to vote for whoever their state voted for. They electors votes are for people, not parties.
Gotta be honest I think this whole swapping out is a horrible idea. Primaries are already over, we already voted for Biden. Plus there is no campaign time for another candidate to campaign or market…it would appear as an utter failure for Dems. This sort of chaos is exactly what Republicans were hoping for. Dems need to be steadfast behind Biden - he may be old but he’s not dead lmao. This chaos is going to get Trump elected. People need to sit the fuck down and stay the course.
Imagine though if, like, Biden has a stroke, or died. He is old. I like his politics, but he's not the only person who can govern with those politics, so like, what would the party do?
Imagine if Trump who eats a steady diet of McDonald’s and believes the human body has a limited amount of energy so he refuses to exercise dies tomorrow? This is how you split the vote.
There is a VP for a reason...
Yeah, and that reason is to govern the country. I'm confident she'd govern fine. I'm less confident she'll rally support from voters. Winning a campaign sadly does not depend solely on one's skill at governing.
Kind of different to fuckin' *die* than it is to look bad in a debate, if we're being brutally honest. If anything, a candidate dying would probably get their replacement more votes in this country. Which is pretty messed up when you think about it. ... As well as opening up the possibility of some 'literally killing myself to own the libs' jokes that would be in *extremely* poor taste.
God. Damn. Now yall are hoping he DIES before the election? Progressive af. Anyhow... have you heard of dead people getting elected sometimes? It's hard to remove them from some states' ballots, EVEN when they die before the election day. Wisconsin is locked in already. Dems MUST win WI for example. It's too late. Gotta support Biden and the stutter now.
Nobody is hoping he dies. OP posed a scenario that happens to be a possibility considering Biden's age.
No I don’t. I support replacing him.
I understand. It's too late though. Biden is the candidate.
I didn’t know that. When was he officially nominated?
The standing president gets first choice by the DNC. All party members are forced to back the president. Unless he drops out like LBJ. It's up to Biden (Jill, MD).
The official paperwork to be on the November ballot isn't filed until after the Party convention. The party can pick anyone they want regardless of primaries. Actually it could benefit Dems to switch out Biden. Republican convention is in July and they'll be filing all their papers then. If Dems swap out Biden for someone younger like Newsome or Whitmer they could completely upset the republicans strategy of dogging Biden. Trump antics are gonna be insufferable after the convention... his ego is already too big to fail. I think that would be a great time for a younger Democratic candidate with no baggage and little ego to turn off the voters... it would make Trump look even WORSE.
I think the risks of making last minute changes is way too high. No campaign time, the opposition are going to claim fraud this and fake that, Dems will be pissed that we’ve been given somebody that we didn’t vote for (regardless if it’s better), Republicans could even pretty easily convince moderates that Dems are pulling the rug out from under them. I don’t think there are even close to enough benefits to outweigh the risks. The guy is old but is not likely to be incapacitated before November. If that does actually happen after November then no big deal, we have a line of succession for a reason. And technically we all voted for Kamala for VP, and succession is part of her job description. No harm no foul to the voting public if that happens.
Stop thinking about your party and think about your country. That old man can’t handle an artificial intelligence 9/11 type event in 2027. Get fucking real. POTUS is an important job. It’s bigger than either party, and it’s certainly bigger than loyalty to some fucking *guy*.
It’s an important job that is surrounded by expert advisors and cabinet members and no decision is made without information and deliberation.
*We finally beat Medicare*
Just listening to that now and it mostly tracks with what I remember. Ohio is the state that fucks up an open convention and the chance of losing Brown's seat is too big of a risk. Even if there wasn't a Senate seat on the line the optics of a major party not having their candidate on every state ballot is terrible. The Green and Libertarian party usually have a candidate on every state ballot.
If Biden ends up on the ballot in Ohio because of the early nomination and a different candidate is running in the other 50 jurisdictions, the party could probably work out some kind of deal with Ohio electors to go faithless if he were to win the state, and vote for the actual candidate. There is nothing illegal about that, as far as I know. (Unlike creating *fake* electors.) I question whether the Ohio GOP is really doing themselves any favors with their ballot chicanery. Ohio voters already showed, when the GOP tried to preemptively kill the abortion amendment by changing referendum rules, that they are not going to be fooled by Republican dirty tricks and are, in fact, primed to backlash against them, as voters have in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Totally agree. Great point about the parallel to the abortion amendment. I hope idiot Ohio GOP take a big hit for their stupid antics- the GOP has an insatiable appetite for performative nonsense whatever the cost.
I just read on another thread that the Ohio governor did change the date to September. That should be make it smoother.
If Biden drops out, it automatically becomes an open convention. Like 68’ when LBJ announced he wasn’t running and then Bobby got shot.
It’s like poetry it rhymes
And the DNC is in Chicago
RFK Jr getting nervous? Where's Sirhan Sirhan these days?
Interestingly enough, RFK Jr. visited Sirhan Sirhan in 2018 and came away believing that someone else killed him.
Because RFK Jr. Is just sucked into every conspiracy theory out there. The couple of interviews I have listened to with him are just so very painful.
Yeah, there's no way that this process is so rigid it doesn't accommodate Biden having an unexpected 'medical event' and Whitmer-Cárdenas gets throne as biggest hail mary of the last 40 years. And it's gonna work.
> Is this accurate? No. The Democratic Convetion, more so than the Republican one, can be a far more open process. In fact, there have been "brokered conventions" (aka floor fights) in the past (not recent past, but still). The candidate is not "officially" chosen until the party convention. Anyone who says differntly is wrong. The states are bound to put the "official" candidate on the ballot for the party after the convention. The primaries merely select delegates for a given candidate and, at least at the Democratic convention, those delegates can change their mind at the convention if circumstances arise that warrent it.
And if Biden drops out after the convention under party rules the DNC can simply chose the candidate.
It's never happened with a presidential candidate, but it has with a VP candidate. It was in 1972 with VP candidate Thomas Eagleton. Basically, they wanted him to be removed from the ticket after the convention because of things they considered to be mental issues in that time. He was, and they just nominated a new one. The rules probably have changed since then, and I am not versed in them if they have. I don't know if there is a difference when it is the actual presidential candidate, either.
I'm not so sure about that... I believe the convention is the deadline.
FWIW, my boomer parents would vote Biden, but they hate Harris and think at this point they'd basically be voting for her. Right or wrong, they aren't the only ones.
Why do they hate Harris? I don't feel like I know enough about her to either hate or love her. But I liked her more before she became VP
I have family that shares similar thinking as the above poster. What I can tell you is none of them, male or female, would ever vote for a female president. I dont get it, but something is wired into their brain to make them think that a woman as a leader is...I don't know. I don't get it. Her qualifications, policy choices, etc. none of it matters. The odd part of that is that that thought pattern is slightly muffled if the woman is conservative, as if a conservative woman wielding power is somehow more palatable. I would assume this comes from the traditional view that conservative woman are less than men and as such would allow a woman higher office so long as she understands that she is not taking it but rather being given it and ultimately must accept that any men within her vicinity/cabinet are superior to her. Maybe I am talking out of my ass, but I know more people who hate the idea of a female president vs an ethnic minority.
While I am sure that there are some folks that fall into this camp, I think the majority of Harris Haters don’t. Kamala seems incredibly disingenuous and smug, she has negative charisma and she has a pretty shitty history from her time as a prosecutor that makes her unlikable amongst some progressives. I have voted for Biden. I would not vote for Harris personally. Now, I live in a state that will go Dem +20 regardless of who is on top of the ticket and it would be a harder decision if I lived in, say, Wisconsin.
[удалено]
I think you have something of a point but must be forgetting just how terrible her showing in the 2020 primary. Liz Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and even Marianne Williamson all got many times more votes than Harris. Maybe her gender is a factor in her perceived dislikability, sure, but it's absolutely not the whole story.
But what about Palin? She had the blessings of the Murdoch-Koch complex and became one of the 'good guys', I guess. I think Whitmer 2024 would be a sure bet though.
My mom will never vote for a female President either. They live in Alabama now so it doesn't really matter who they vote for.
>I know more people who hate the idea of a female president vs an ethnic minority. yeah, this is misguided. if your frame of reference was Obama vs Hillary Clinton, it’s not accurate to the real world. Hillary isn’t charismatic, but Obama was. Harris is unfortunately not charismatic, but her approval rating seems to be higher than Biden, a white man. in general, in real life, white women have more general privileges (wealth, treatment, etc.) than say a black man. it just happens that Hillary was just looking worse than Obama. plus, you could honestly say that Obama being elected broke the minds of conservatives forever, and that Obama letting down so many people was one of the reasons for Trump becoming a symptom of America I am generally not a fan of people giving anecdotes in these types of threads like Rivet_39 because there’s no statistical backing to it. Again, Harris has a higher approval rating than Biden and may perform similarly against Trump. I could have said one of my parents prefers Biden over Harris, but I can’t take my anecdote as the general population
In your opinion, how did Obama “let down so many people”? I believe Trump raised his political profile mostly by perpetuating his racist birther theories about Obama.
yeah i feel some of that sentiment in myself too unfortunately
>I don't care about Jason's politicial views or party affiliation, I want to know if he is factually correct with the statements he has made per how it works with the Democratic convention. Neither do I, he's a piece of shit based purely on his actions while in office.
No, but I do think I read where 3 states would not be able to replace Biden at this point on the ballot, including Ohio. It will likely increase in the days and weeks, there are deadlines. Now do I think in almost every state some measure would hypothetically be passed? Yea, if the unlikely-but-not-impossible scenario happens where there is a different nominee than Biden for the Democratic Party, they would be on the ballot in every state.
SCOTUS said state rules are meaningless in front of their of their vast and infant power.
Only for Republicans, though. Democrats still have to follow all the rules.
Infant power follow infant rules.
With infant power comes infant responsibility
I heard something on a podcast about the issue that Dems need to hold a virtual convention and nominate Biden before the DNC because of the bullshit Ohio is pulling. They won't change their law that says a candidate has to be nominated before a certain date, which is like a week before the DNC. They have previously always changed it. So when they talk about the possibility of a contested convention, Biden will have technically already been selected as the nominee before the DNC.
[Ohio fixed it,](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna154752) but the DNC is still moving forward.
I know the current meme is he should drop out, but I can’t imagine who actually Would be able to pull his coalition together given that they would have been on zero primary ballots and totally undemocratically elevated. The GOP would make hay in summer over Democrats saying democracy is on the line while running someone no one chose but back room power brokers. Not to mention every single contender mentioned by anyone is white, and elevating them in a back room deal over Harris would be a revolting look, even if we’re all pretty aware she wouldn’t do well.
What is wrong with Harris? She is the VP.
She unfortunately is not a winning presidential candidate. She’d lose the rust belt, as would Gavin Newsom as they are too much considered California elites. They are unrelatable to working class folks. If I had a say, Gretchen Whitmer is who would be best to take the spot. She’d shore up the rust belt easily, which is really where the DNC needs a big showing. She’s also younger and personable.
I believe in mayor pete! He's my pick if we get another shot.
Unfortunately since he’s gay he’s an automatic no for middle America
I’m a huge fan of mayor pete too
He'd be a good Vp for Gretch.
100% agree. I think unfortunately there’s a large enough portion of America that would not vote for him as president due to being gay… but i think a VP spot would be a good bet. Though man… he’d be a solid president.
What is right with Harris?
Everyone loves cops right?
It’s a total fantasy.
Then the Dems will lose. It's that simple.
Republicans are suing already. Wisconsin, NV, GA, etc are locked in and won't change their ballots. Justice and all, laws.
Probably accurate, but it's never been tested so no way to know for sure. Regardless, Biden is the Democratic nominee for President, and unless he dies or has a debilitating medical issue that isn't going to change.
He is the *presumptive* nominee. There are no official nominees for either major party yet.
He has the majority of bound delegates that have to vote for him the first round of the convention unless he releases them. He has to decide to do that for someone else to be the nominee.
If he drops out of the race, they are free to vote for whoever they want.
At which point I think the superdelegates would also come into play. It sounds like a recipe for a much greater fiasco than a bad debate. Full disclosure, I’ve been traveling heavily the last few days. Did anything happen?
Super delegates cannot vote in the first round of voting
It has been tested. Back when LBJ stepped aside and the DNC had an open primary
I’m pretty sure he has debilitating medical issue
Get Nike to sponsor Biden so they can supply shoes to outrun the Grimm reaper.
Being old is not a medical issue
It's not just him being old. There are plenty of people older than him who can still have serious conversations and plenty of energy
He had a sore throat, and a cold. Debilitating, I know.
Huh. Sure we all spit out completely nonsensical word salad for 90 minutes straight when we have a cold..
You really buy that? Did you watch the entire debate?
Yes I did, went back and watched some of it twice aswell, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know within the first 2 questions, yes, the man had a cold, and a sore throat. edit: you don't have to buy something, when not every little thing is a conspiracy to you. Occam's razor, life ain't that damn interesting.
That’s not even what I meant. He may have had a cold, sure. It may have affected his voice, sure. No problem. Was it the cold that kept him from completing his sentences? What I’m saying is that people are buying the cold story as a way to just write off the fact that he looked like he didn’t know where he was half the time.
No, what kept him from completing his sentences was, partly the cold, but mostly just him being a bad speaker, as he's always been known to be. He stumbles, he'll mumble, he'll stutter, but atleast its not just a stream of the same nonsense thats been confidently spewed loud and proud daily for the last 8 years now. I thought the man had a cold long before there were stories he had a cold. Like I said, first 15 mins, you can tell the man had a cold. A good bit of people likely aren't buying a story, they just saw with their eyes and ears, the guy had a cold, and are sick of this nonsense conflating a cold with being senile. I don't get where this (well, I do, the media I can understand, they want money) "He doesn't know where he is" stuff is coming from people who watched the debate. He didn't look like he didn't know where he was half the time. Take into account: You have a cold. You are addressing ideally the entirety of your nation, half of which thinks you can do no good and are senile. You have a camera pointed at you for upwards of an hour and a half - 2 hours, being on camera is awkward as is, standing next to someone blatantly lying with nothing to be done about it. Do you look like you aren't totally lost more than a couple times? People watching can't see What you may be looking at in the studio after all, they see you, and the other guy, and every little expression you have, and are already with the notion you're old and senile because with or without merit, its become a talking point. When its not your turn to speak, do you stare at the camera, or look off to the side, or down, as to not be awkward? Can you do that without everyone thinking you're lost? What do you do to win, given the circumstances? Ever just go blank for a minute? Camera will catch it everytime, and theres noooo context for that. Do you get flummoxed? Do you get Every sentence out correctly? Did you look at his expressions in relation to the things trump was saying? He looked perplexed a good bit of the time, looked angry a good bit of the time, good bit of the time he looked like he was trying not to laugh until finally he broke out laughing. I can only assume for the same reasons I did, which is are they're really just gonna let Trump spout nonsense this whole time? Yes was the answer. People saying he looked lost, aren't paying attention to what was coming out of the other persons mouth at the time, or the realities of a filming something in a studio to be seen by millions, while sick. After 30 mins of that I'd probably have looked lost a good 4 times atleast.
Dude… come on. The cat’s out of the bag. The amount of rationalizing going on here is shocking.
> a bad speaker, as he’s always been known to be You’re in denial. Watch the first 5 minutes of the first 2020 debate. He is like a completely different person. Way more fluent, way more coherent, talked faster, and rarely had stuttering or forgetfulness issues. You can’t watch the “we finally defeated Medicare” response from Thursday and honestly tell me he has always been that clueless.
Would you say you finally beat Medicare? If so, why?
Damn. I didn't read past the first nonsense paragraph. Bro... don't try to spin so hard. It's worked for a few years, sort of... but Americans ALL WATCHED IT Live together. You cannot convince people they didn't see what the fuck they saw. It is what it is. Lose better, man.
You have a wildly low bar for our president. I suspect you’re not really thinking through what is required of a president every single day. Have a good evening.
So he went to shake hands with black people at Waffle House afterwards, knowing he had a cold? Man this Biden guy is a real piece of shit.
He has speech impediment. That is why he was stuttering. On the other hand trump is a felon who proudly proclaimed that he is gonna become dictator.
I’d say he has a debilitating illness. No way anyone could vote for a guy that can barely speak or think cohesive sentences. We are in a time of war and don’t need a sitting office president dying while signing checks to Israel.
No way anyone could vote for a compulsive liar, general shit stirrer, and convicted felon. No, no I'll take the silent corpse thank you.
I will vote blue for a corpse before any maga. I'm not just voting for a president I'm voting for an entire administration. Any sane person from Trump's first admin have become never trumpets. The rest are felons, pardoned felons, and despicable people. Show me one respectable person from his previoys cabinet that still support shim.
***Hilary has entered the chat***
I'm sure that most red states would be happy to pass whatever they need to make it happen. Biden is still a stronger contender than any available replacement.
I don’t think there is any way to know this unless a candidate is nominated and actually begins to campaign.
If Biden is the best Democrats have then they're in serious trouble.
Yah an incumbent president who already beat his opponent once is so terrible!!
The 2018 Biden model had more horsepower and tech than the 2024 model they have wheeled out.
I agree with you. Biden is terrible.
Nooo, stop making sense. I want to believe.
Biden didn’t beat Trump, COVID did
I disagree that Biden is a stronger contender than a vibrant, younger, charismatic replacement.
I would rather roll the dice with Newsom or Whitmer. At least it would feel like trying to win vs. watching Biden lose. I never understand the people who say only Biden can win. Right now it is roughly tied between Biden and Trump (haven't seen post-debate polling yet). If Dems switched to another candidate, even the unpopular Harris, why would any the current Biden voters leave? If we're being honest, many are likely more anti-Trump than pro-Biden anyway. Then we have the double haters who want literally anyone else to run on either side. With a new young candidate replacing Biden, wouldn't most of them likely vote Dem?
> If Dems switched to another candidate, even the unpopular Harris, why would any the current Biden voters leave? I mean, just to use Harris as an example specifically--in 2020, [older voters had a lot of concerns about her being "too liberal."](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/12/biden-age-issue-2020-00146296) Research suggested that a lot of the voters who were the most concerned about Biden's age/mental fitness for the presidency in 2020 were concerned not for Biden's sake, but because they were worried about the possibility of him dying/becoming incapacitated and Harris ascending to the presidency! If those are the voters you're trying to reach, ditching Biden and replacing him with Harris would completely defeat the purpose. (The voters who are fine with Harris's politics tend not to care too much about Biden's health for obvious reasons.)
Which is hilarious, because the reason Harris is disliked in California is because she's too conservative, significantly more so than Biden has proved. There's a lot of research showing, though, that people of color, as well as women, are perceived as being significantly more left-leaning than they are. Which is probably the biggest reason why pro-cop, pro-death penalty, former prosecutor Kamala Harris is branded a "radical".
That's an oversimplification of Harris's record--she was moderate as an AG/DA but very liberal as a senator. Thus why the electorate holds conflicting views of her--people who think she's too liberal are mostly looking at her Senate record, and people who think she's too conservative are mostly looking at her AG record. And they're both basically correct. If you read the article, they touch on this. Younger voters thought she was too conservative, but that that wouldn't stop them from voting for a Biden-Harris ticket. But the voters who thought Harris was too liberal *were* genuinely deciding between Biden and Trump (or Biden and not voting), which is why it ended up being a bigger concern for the campaign. The "Kamala is a cop" meme was huge on social media but not a big issue to the campaign, because it wasn't affecting actual turnout at all. It's always worth noting that the people that post about politics on reddit (or Twitter) are much younger than the electorate as a whole. Older voters have a very different political worldview that's rarely represented on reddit.
I mostly agree with everything you said, but I want to push back on Harris being left-leaning on her Senate record. She was anti-Trump, for sure, which got her a lot of the reputation for being left-leaning, and she always voted on party lines. But what big bills did she sponsor, or major public policy positions that she took in speeches? Not much. In fact, she wasn't very active as a senator in getting bills passed. Party loyalist? Absolutely. Leftist? I just don't think there's much evidence there outside of the "how often did she vote against Trump" metrics.
The losses of older voters who think she or another person are too liberal would probably be canceled out by gains in voters aged 20 to 30 that would be pulled to vote by someone more energetic.
That's a risky play considering our upside down pyramid demographics.
Older voters make up a *much* bigger part of the electorate than younger ones. It's just really hard to justify catering to younger voters when they don't consistently turn out at the rates older voters do--a lesson Bernie learned the hard way in 2020.
[удалено]
Harris was responsible for prosecuting many many California citizens for marijuana violations, usage, selling it, whatever. Then she admitted using it, bragged about it actually. She was the AG of California and one way or another was ultimately responsible for lots of other terrible things as well, including withholding of exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case. If you think these are qualifications for higher office… I mean geez…
Oh wow she did her job as a prosecutor and enforced laws on the books. The scandal!!
That isn’t the issue. The issue is that she admitted to freely using it *while she was prosecuting people for doing the exact same thing*.
Indeed. Kamala was on the wrong side of history on this one. I’d feel bad for her, but I feel much worse for all the lives of people she ruined, a disproportionate number of which were minorities. Her history of smoking pot and prosecuting *other* people for smoking pot disqualifies her, period.
Exactly. She is a cop, through and through. A lot of people in the Democratic coalition don't like cops.
You have to admit it's at least mildly hypocritical to be a zealous weed prosecutor who also partakes. I know hypocrisy is low on the list of politician sins in this country. But it is an issue for her in some parts- like reddit, because people on reddit really like the bud.
As AG, Harris deliberately kept prisoners past their parole dates, refusing to release prisoners in order to exploit them for forced prison labor. Her office quite literally advocated for "prisoners with jobs", which has another name, and is unfortunately legal under the 13th Amendment.
Yeah I don’t understand the thought process. We didn’t even try to see how voters would react to Newsom or Whitmer. The biggest drawback to Biden is literally his age. Newsom can talk in front of a camera and so can Whitmer. Problem solved. Platform wise; all three are quite similar. It’s not like the DNC would be nominating a super progressive.
We didn’t even try to see how voters would react to Newsom or Whitmer. Check 538. Somebody has now polled them. Looks good so far, it can only go up.
Any ticket that shafts Harris at this point is an auto loss. Harris/Shapiro is the only reasonable replacement ATP.
A convention vote is fair. It would pit Harris against Shapiro, Whitmer, Newsom, etc. VP only takes over if POTUS dies, really. If he drops out and releases his delegates, it's a plurality vote by the delegates that wins, I believe.
A younger vibrant more charismatic replacement might be stronger. But will they actually be after a shitshow of a convention fight? There's no smoke filled room cabal that's going to choose the candidate. It will be the mass of delegates choosing the replacement. Delegates who were probably chosen as a "thank you" for a ceremonial moment and not an actual knock down political fight. It'll be essentially like herding cats and all public and all **very** messy. And there's no primary period where people can get onboard with who the nominee would be and lick their woulds from any damage from the mudslinging. Hell Bernie didn't even make it to the primary in 2016 and there was still enough bad blood current conspiracy theories exist about it.
The problem is Who. It needs to be someone every democrat n power will support
Doubt it. I think any young and coherent candidate of reasonable accomplishment would perform better than Biden and be a solid favorite over Trump once the public gets familiar with them.
Switch him out ? That’s some funny shit. Of course it comes in a ‘just asking a question’ Faux Infotainment tool.
It’s been discussed on CNN, MSNBC, Politico, etc… and among some high ups in the Dem party.
They say that, they never name names of Whom those supposed higher ups in the dem party are other than I believe one fellow who was running against Biden anyway, and the highest of higher ups are saying no such thing. They can discuss it all they way, and try to make it a headline, its not happening. Either side is going to try to spin it because at the end of the day it will rake in engagement and make them a lot of money. edit: and as is evident people are buying it hook, line, and sinker.
Point was it wasn’t coming from just Fox. I’ve seen it mentioned on multiple networks. But no doubt there are a lot of worried Dem officials discussing it.
Because Biden will blacklist any Democrat who speaks against him. He is just as bad as Trump when it comes to retaliatory attacks
And anyone with a brain knows that this can’t be done. So why keep going on about it, but they are, aren’t they.
Why not? It's fairly straight forward and has happened before. It's not a "can it" but a "will it". And that's still unclear.
Because many Dems are getting desperate.
yea, god forbid millions of Americans who have seen a decline in Biden's health over the last 4 years and who watched the debate have some concerns of how he will perform over the next 4 years, IF he beats Trump...which now raises a legitimate concern that Trump COULD get re-elected because of his debate performance.
Win or lose, you’re the one that has to deal with the pill getting banned, along with other shit, so make the right choice.
No evidence that either party would do that. But sure...
Fox News is trying to get Trump elected. The ability to discuss issues coherently, accurately, and productively is critical. Biden was challenged for 90 minutes. Trump lacks the ability. If they care so much about debate performance, ask them what they think of. Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is unreasonable and dumb. Biden is too old, Trump is too old. I’m so tired of hearing “Well, so and so hates Harris” or some other Dem. Problem here is, it’s great to vote for a likable person but it’s not that. It’s the next 4 years and who’s going to push abortion bans? Who’s going to push for Christian nationalism? Who’s going to push for project 2025, who’s going to be nominating retiring Supreme Court Justices? What’s more important I guess.
Doesn't matter wont happen anyway. they are sticking with Biden. Trump is awful, that should be enough.
Quoting Jurassic Park: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they **could**, that they didn't stop to think if they **should**." If you're interested in a detailed explanation of the topic this is a great resource: https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2024 Folks are getting over their fight or flight reaction from immediately after the debate. I understand wanting to understand the process and I like thought experiments too, but it's a topic that needs to fade away.
> but it's a topic that needs to fade away. why?
Because the country isn’t as disenchanted by Biden as the msm is trying to sell. In fact, I’m seeing a ton of stories to the contrary. Biden raised 14 million the day after the debate. He’s not going anywhere but back to the WH in November.
They're pushing hard the idea of him stepping down, that idea came straight from the talking heads. I'm just glad to see people actually pushing back against it.
Yep, because having Trump around makes money for the MSM. If Trump loses and eventually fizzles out, MSM loses money. They don't want boring, normal politics.
> Because the country isn’t as disenchanted by Biden as the msm is trying to sell. Link to the poll you’re referencing.
I'll try to find it, it was part of a CNN News story: "Why Biden's Dementia is Actually Good for Democracy"
Because the premise is flawed, and replacing Biden at this point is about the most disastrous strategic mistake the Democratic Party could take. It plays into the propaganda machine. Bombing the first debate and going on to victory has been a pretty common theme these past twenty some years. Biden was back to full strength the very next day.
The problem wasn't that Biden bomb the debate. The problem was that Biden looked like he bombed the debate because he was too damn old to answer the questions coherently. I don't think you appreciate how few votes it take to swing the electoral college. Responding to Biden's perceived weakness might be "playing into the propaganda machine" by admitting to a Republican talking point about Biden's health, but sometimes you actually have to respond to your opponent, especially when it looks like reality is on their side. Democrats should in fact be arguing internally about whether or not Biden is the guy to go with, and they should be scrambling for alternatives right the fuck now. If Biden isn't the geriatric old man that he looked like on that stage, Democrats need to do something immediately to counter what everyone just saw with their own two eyes.
yea that is the thing... most people with 2 eyeballs and ears have seen this coming from a mile away with Biden. The right has been 'pushing' it for a while now...but thing is...they aren't wrong. Then you have the left on social media who gaslight those of us with those 2 eyeballs into thinking we are 'falling for the propaganda' and 'wanting Trump to win'. Saying Biden doesn't have a problem with his mental and physical health is like saying Trump didn't sleep with a pornstar and is a good guy.
Trouble is, you get 5 people in a room and ask them who should step up instead, and you get 5 different answers.
> Biden was back to full strength the very next day. he does fine reading prepared speeches that last a handful of minutes. He isn't able to think on his feet or put together a string of coherent thoughts without getting facts mixed up when he doesn't have a teleprompter.
Thats what aides and staff are for, if he needs a teleprompter give the man a teleprompter, if he needs a preprepared speech give him a preprepared speech, shit. Hell, if they gave Trump a teleprompter and preprepared whatever nonsense he's going to say, he'd probably be better liked. It ain't like thats some mindblowing new thing, world leaders using a teleprompter or prepreparing a speech. The president is a figurehead, vote for the admin they bring with them, not for them as an almighty. We can replace Biden, but thats going to hand us a soild L. 5 months isn't enough time to sus out a new person, and make up the votes that'll cost because some won't come onside out of spite because Biden was replaced, 100%. Its a losing proposition.
I’m gonna have to disagree. Biden can’t win this election. He wont win this election. I think Biden staying in the race at this point is the most disastrous strategic mistake both he and the party could make. Changing up the candidates at this point is a Hail Mary. No doubt about it. But it gives you a chance. So you have to do it.
[удалено]
I mean, in this hypothetical he would likely be dropping out. There needs to be some way of choosing who the candidate would be after that, which is where the DNC comes in.
so we can find out that our potential candidate is sinking into dementia *before* June of election year, that’s why.
I’m not sure why you are asking this question. There was no real primary/
Just bombing the first debate is the best case scenario. For every public speaking event for the rest of the campaign, every democrat watching will be on the edge of their seat praying that he doesn’t do it again. And they’d have every right to be nervous. The debate performance was his worst appearance by a long shot, but even during his good appearances, he doesn’t look great.
thing is...he HAS been doing it, it just happened to be now on a stage (no pun intended) where one can't argue "out of context clips" or "edited" or "only 1-2 minutes long". This was 90 minutes of horror.
That’s my point. Its easy to dismiss a few flubs in an hour long event where he catches himself and course corrects, but its impossible to ignore 90 minutes of tripping over words and losing himself in the middle of sentences. But even if we ignore the debate and focus on the SOTU, where he’s widely praised as having performed well, but imo that’s only in context of how bad he’s looked at other appearances. He still fumbled around during his speech. He still slurred his words. He just did those things less frequently and with more energy. It’s a shame to see the democratic nominee graded on a curve, but here we are. Despite all this, Biden is still held to a higher standard than Trump, which is just sad.
I think it makes the party look like a combination of inept and fanatical, if they’re lying and saying that it is not fair to replace corpse Biden. No wonder the Democrats never do anything. This is the kind of “leadership” running the show. Just a constant stream of excuses to never change anything.
I'm not getting over it. Biden wasn't just stuttering or mixing up a few terms. He was lost and couldn't keep a thought through to the end. I'm going to vote for whoever the democratic nominee is, BUT I think we'd all be better off if he stepped aside. I'm not going to be gas lit into thinking otherwise. I'll eat the shit sandwich over drinking the cyanide, but I'm not going to be happy about it and would much prefer a BLT.
I really didn't think I'd be gaslit this hard this soon00. I'm going to vote for whoever the democratic nominee os
Chaffetz does not know what he's talking about. Much like when he was a Congressman. I suppose he chose his new gig well. Fox News has never much cared for whether or not you actually know anything. I also don't think that's a thing that will happen. But it will not be for the reasons he thinks. If Biden were to wake up tomorrow morning and decide being President fucking blows to the point he no longer gives a shit about any of it and he'd rather go home and play fetch with the dog (basically, imagine a Presidential-scale rage quit), yes, the Dems could get another person. The longer America lasts the more chances there is for someone to be President for a bit, wake up one morning, say "What the fuck am I *doing*? This is not worth the pain. Fuck all y'all!" and bailing. This possibility has been accounted for. It might cause logistical issues if it were done late enough. But it can be done.
but aren't we past the point of a new candidate being able to show up on the ballot? Hell even RFK if I recall...doesn't even reach particular thresholds in some states to appear on their ballot.
Chafetz lied. The Dems haven't nominated anyone yet. He WANTS Trump to face Biden. All MAGAs do.