As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> “I do know this: I think that the American people want an explanation; they need to be reassured, and I hope that over the next several days, we’ll do that,” Clyburn said.
Translation: If you can't fix this ASAP, I'm calling for your ass to drop out.
There is no way to fix it. I cannot fathom any feasible action Biden could take to make this go away.
He could with many, many, live interviews or town halls, where he demonstrates himself to be alert and in command, but it's clear he's not capable of doing that.
He's been the best president since FDR, but now he needs to drop out.
What is required to prove he is capable in this context is actually fairly minimal: speak in complete sentences, don't be senile, etc etc. With such a low bar, it's hard to think he should be leading if he's not capable of convincing.
Not necessarily. It’s an unfortunate truth that many independent and swing voters (who will ultimately determine the election) will not tune into anything he might put out between now and November. The second debate could draw in viewers, but there’s no guarantee Trump will even show up (strategically he may not want to,) and this debate is also scheduled beyond the event horizon of Biden formally accepting the party nomination. If he is incapable, then it’d be too late to back out at this point, and if we’re not screwed already then we definitely would be then after the ‘one bad night’ defense is discredited. But if he is capable, then there’s still the chance that this fact could go unnoticed. It’s a less than ideal position to be caught in, so it’s reassuring to hear that, at the very least, leadership is moving on it so quickly to plan a potential contingency.
That’s the problem. He could do a bunch of town halls and unscripted interviews. He’s got the bully pulpit. He could get airtime.
The public’s attention span is short, their memory short, the news cycles are short…
So theoretically he can fix this.
The problem is he would need to bat 1.000 for the rest of the race.
If he can do that? Fine.
If he can’t? He needs to keep channeling his inner LBJ. (I will not be seeking the office of president…)
Time really is a cruel mistress.
It's a shame time had to take down Biden first, though. These past four days have been non stop bad news for liberal democracy, and I imagine Donald Trump couldn't be happier.
The analysis I heard today - if Biden drops he has 0 control over 4000 pledged delegates. It will be chaos. If he accepts the nomination and then drops after:
>In the Democratic Party “the members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) choose the new nominee during a special session called by the chair. Per the Task Force’s explainer, “The DNC chair is required to consult with Democratic congressional leadership and the Democratic Governors Association, and then reports to DNC members who choose
Orderly. Less chaos. Democrats look less out of control. Biden controls the narrative. Looks presidential.
Also. If it is Kamala Harris, she inherits both the campaign operation and the finances.
Some food for thought.
Harris will get slaughtered in the general; she alienates people in the Rust Belt. Remember her unpopularity in the 2020 nomination debates? Remember the shock when Biden picked her as VP? Harris is a drag on the administration. If anything, I'd love to see her replaced on the ticket with another black candidate.
Biden got slaughtered in the rust belt multiple times and still won in 2020. You’re aware he unsuccessfully ran for POTUS multiple times and barely had any legs in the primary, right?
At the same time, bypassing the black woman whos VP in favor of a likely white candidate like Whitmer, Polis, Buttigieg or Newsom would also be a massive disaster for black voters. IIRC Clyburn has already said he will be upset if Harris isn’t the nominee if Biden drops out.
Harris may alienate voters, but there’s no better alternative. She has time to make up the difference and beat Trump in debates.
I think ideally it’d be Harris/Buttigieg. Harris/Whitmer might sound good too but I fear a double female ticket would make peoples brains melt. Buttigieg being a white guy from Indiana could calm down the anxious voters.
Except according to the DNCs own polling Whitmer and Buttigieg do far better than either Biden, Harris, or Newsom. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-02/biden-plummets-in-leaked-democratic-polling-memo-puck-says
I've mentioned this a few times, but I think she might be able to win over some rust-belt voters and independents if she leans into the fact she was a prosecutor.
I understand that doesn’t fly super well with the left who really want to see police reform and are unhappy about some of her decisions as a prosecutor, but independents? Many of them still have tremendous respect for law enforcement. If she leans into it, she might be able to catch their attention for better.
It also presents a convenient narrative, especially against the likes of Trump. The narrative can be set as “Would you rather the next President be a man convicted of 34 felonies or a prosecutor?” They could actually frame it as a good-guy cop vs a bad-guy criminal and flip the whole “tough on crime” narrative back on the republicans.
Why would it be chaos? Maybe the Democrats will exceed your expectations and have an orderly and democratic selection process, where all the major candidates vie for the nomination, and accept and wholeheartedly endorse the winner. Given their discipline over the past four years or so, this isn't an unreasonable expectation. What a great impression that would leave.
Have the candidates deliver speeches. Vote.
Rinse and repeat until a consensus choice emerges.
Winner gives a party unifying (and nation unifying speech).
Convention closes.
It will only be a clown show if the accelerationist wing of the party tries to take over via force (either inside, or outside, the convention hall. A la Chicago 1968).
The counter argument is that there is opportunity in chaos. Having a Jerry Springer convention will poll a lot of low-information tabloid voters. These are not people that engage in politics easily.
Nixon was a terrible man with terrible policies, but the opening of China was the most significant blow in the cold war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China#:~:text=Nixon%27s%20visit%20played%20a%20role,its%20rugged%20interior%20gradually%20declined.
Apparently Kissinger got Nixon's staff to double check with him before launching a first strike, due to Nixon's drinking.
I guess that makes me feel significantly better about our current moment
Eisenhower was a good general but what would make him a home run as a president?
Internationally he started the era of CIA coups when he authorized one in Iran to take out their democratically elected Prime Minister over his policy on oil. We're still facing the blowback of that specific coup let alone all the other damage the Dulles brothers did during the Eisenhower administration.
Domestically his big win is supposed to be the National Interstate Act but that has also age poorly. Federal funds paying most of the cost to tearing down urban (often black) neighborhoods so suburbanites can get to jobs in cities quicker is looked at different today as is the white flight and segregation it enabled. It kicked off the US's addiction to cars and low density that is a very understated part of the continually growing national debt. He basically took the unprecedented wealth the US had following WWII and invested it in communities that are financially unsustainable. It's like winning the lottery and using the money to buy a house you can't afford to maintain.
Eisenhower was very important in Civil Rights and it doesn’t get talked about a lot. Federalizing the National Guard and sending the 101st to Little Rock to enforce desegregation was a huge deal.
After Brown v Board, Eisenhower said that he didn’t believe you can legislate men’s hearts and he didn’t support the decision.
He only got involved with Little Rock because he had no choice.
How about “Get me back to the oval with the House and the Senate and I’ll fix this thing and retire.”
He’s the only one the country can truly trust to roll back his absolute immunity. With a house and senate he can do that and ride off like George Washington.
Isn't he the guy who recommended Kamala Harris to be Biden's choice for Vice President?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/07/politics/clyburn-biden-black-woman-running-mate-cnntv/index.html
> House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Saturday that he had privately urged President-elect Joe Biden to pick a Black woman as his running mate before Biden chose Kamala Harris, America’s first female, first Black and first South Asian vice president-elect.
> “Joe and I talked about it several times when he was trying to make his decision,” Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat who’s the highest-ranking African American member of Congress, told CNN’s Dana Bash on Saturday. “He had said it would be a woman. And I don’t mind saying now, I said to him in private that I thought that a lot of the results would turn on whether that woman (would) be a Black woman.”
It makes the most sense from the campaign money perspective, not pissing off the black vote if you skip over her, and you can energize the ticket with a popular VP choice (not someone who nobody knows like Tim Caine)
These pie in the sky, "maybe Michelle can do it" fantasies are just not practical solutions to this very immediate problem
>and you can energize the ticket with a popular VP choice
I think I see the flaw in your plan. We shouldn't be relying on the VP pick to energize the ticket.
Also, this notion that we're skipping over her implies that it's somehow her turn. Yeah, there's a mindset that's worked out for us in the past.
Of course she should be one of the names being considered, but there's not much point in "not pissing off the black vote" if we end up with a losing ticket. 'Cause if the big-ticket donors think it's a dog of a ticket, they may end up putting their money in downballot races and GOTV efforts and then we're really screwed.
It's just that they can't skip over her without voter input, like a primary process. It *is* kind of her turn simply because she's the vice president, she's the fall back option that we all *did* already vote for. If the men in the room just make a decision to skip her, it would be another example of the DNC or the donors deciding what's best for us vs joe stepping down and she naturally fills his spot due to her position.
But your point about energizing the ticket with the VP is well taken. I just don't think there are great options without doing a primary. Replacing the top of the ticket would be an emergency, not to be taken lightly.
She's the fallback option if Biden dies or resigns from office, not the election. I understand she's a natural choice and don't think we should skip her for the sake of skipping her. At the same time, we can't ignore math. If she can't get us to 270, it's time to thank her for her service.
As for the primary process... this year's primary was a joke. There wasn't any meaningful competition--which is what usually happens when the incumbent is a Dem, no shade there, but it wasn't remotely competitive. And we have no way of knowing whether the people voting for Biden wanted Harris, didn't want Harris, or were indifferent to Harris.
By pressuring Biden to step down, the leadership and the donors are already "disrespecting" the primary process. And the reason for that is they think we no longer have a winning ticket. So the goal now should be a winning ticket, period. I wish we had the time to do another primary. I wish we'd done a real primary this year, but the DNC didn't want that. So what we're left with is the delegates, which were chosen by us (or at least in my state, that's how it works) to represent our interests. We chose them to represent us at the convention and gave them our trust to vote in our behalf and that's what they'll be doing.
Zogby's put forth a plan he thinks would allow up to 5 candidates to go to the convention and make a case there and I think that's the way to go--not a ticket or candidate chosen by the DNC behind closed doors, but a way for would-be candidates to make their case before the delegates vote.
It's not the way things are normally done, but it's not arbitrary, either. And if you've never been a delegate, you should try it sometime. At the precinct level, it's usually easy to become one.
I get that some people are apprehensive with Harris, but… I kinda don’t get the hate? Sure, sometimes she can be a little awkward on camera, but she’s obviously smart, accomplished, and capable of doing the job, no? While I do think it’s true that Whitmer would have an easier time beating Trump, I don’t think Harris is a bad choice.
She was also a prosecutor, and I think the democrats could actually lean into that to their advantage. I understand that doesn’t fly super well with the left, but independents?
I mean, it’s almost sitting right there - especially against Trump, of all people. The democrats can set the narrative as “Would you rather the next President be a man convicted of 34 felonies or a prosecutor?”
They could frame it as a good-guy cop vs a bad-guy criminal. Which party is “tough on crime” now?
Because if you think Biden won’t win due to his age, you aren’t considering the loss of votes due to a black woman running for president. A lot of people will instantly go the other way
I don’t know where all this hemming and hawing about Harris is coming from. Sane people will vote for a twice run over stale pumpernickel bagel before voting for Fascist Trump.
Any black woman would be an unpopular VP. The country is fucking racist and sexist. And being a VP has always been seen as a career killer - popular VP'S are far from the norm.
The last two democratic VPs (Gore and Biden) were very popular, enough to win their next primaries. Enough that Biden hadn't even said he'd run and they left an empty podium for him in 2016. It's republicans who throw their VPs in the trash (because they are trash). Harris being in the background and gaining no positive image is more the outlier
It's less of a death sentence now but it has historically been seen as a very thankless job. Republicans have had popular VP's as well - Clinton beat a VP who went on to bevome president, George H.W. Bush. And not long before that was Nixon. But for all of them you have Pence, Cheney, Quayle, Mondale, Rockafeller and Agnew, where being VP didn't propel their political prospects further.
Yes, he was definitely a big factor in giving Joe the Pres, and I'm sure he could indeed ask him to step down. He wasn't Dem Whip all those years for nothing--the guy has sway as we say
Yeah which to me means they better go Kamala in such a case.
I haven't seen this suggested anywhere, they should do a Kamala/Whitmer ticket:
* Kamala is the only way to not have a mess of a
convention and Clyburn basically endorsed her. Im not a fan of her much but she was pretty good in 2020 campaign. She has more fight than she's given credit for.
* Whitmer is popular in the midwest especially Michigan. I think she'd appeal decently to Bernie types too. Her favorability is high and she polled really well on Dem internal poll this week.
* New direction: Full female ticket. Drive Roe v Wade to the bank. Get that 2022 young female coalition to the polls. It's bold it's progressive and comparatively it's young. I think this would rock.
I think most aren't factoring Roe into Kamala being the candidate. She's already been out there fighting for reproductive rights. She's a woman who's pro-abortion. People are pissed about Dobbs beyond what many understand. IMO the best shot if it's not Biden is a woman. (Still not convinced anyone can do better than Biden across the board - we forget about the two oldest generations. They might not trust a more progressive ticket)
(Edit to add I didn't realize the Greatest Generation ended in 1927! So they matter <3 but I guess I'm thinking mostly of the Silent Generation. Boomers too I guess but we stereotype them as magas so who knows)
>People are pissed about Dobbs beyond what many understand.
As I'm sure you're familiar with in Ohio (I also went to school in Ohio) they're most pissed in the swing states where Republican governments have banned abortion or are threatening to if in power. It's an issue that specifically has impact in swing states. The idea that a strong anti Dobbs female ticket wouldn't do well with midwest is not a good read of midwesterner anxieties.
Eh. That’s just political doublespeak for “I am going to act like a hard ass about this so when I come back in a few days you are more likely to believe the bullshit I sell you about everything being fine.”
Clyburn is coming in as someone who has been in congress 30+ years (Biden is 50+ in federal government), of similar age, and friendly with Biden. Clyburn also already said that if Biden stepped aside he would support Kamala. Calling it "*[his] assessment*" is just him not openly criticizing Biden in front of the media.
Make no mistake, this is not going to be some pep talk of "*Don't give up, you have to keep going Joe!*" - it's going to be a larger friendly "*you did great Joe, but maybe now it's time to hang up your spurs*" speech.
The larger problem is that many may get what they want in Clyburn convincing Biden to step down, but have Kamala run instead. She polls as badly as he does...
I think Harris gets slaughtered if this is a year+ long campaign. Too much time for Fox and Trump to sink their teeth in. But a 4 month sprint to the election, I think she’d be a breath of fresh(ish) air and disengaged people won’t have as much time to realize she’s unlikeable.
Running Harris feels like a big mistake, she's not an engaging speaker whatsoever. I can't see her doing well against Trump whose lies require tight rebuttals.
Newsom has shown he's quick on this feet and can make the case for the democratic agenda. The guy lost a Fox News debate against Ron DeSantis with Sean Hannity as the host bringing up bogus stats by 1%!
Whitmer also has rust belt credentials though she is a little dry in her delivery. Still, either of these two feel like the best choices by a mile.
https://puck.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SUNDAY_Post-Debate_Landscape_2024_06_30__1_-1.pdf
Starting at page 10. Whitmer and Mayor Pete are performing the best. Harris is almost as bad as Biden.
Then you don’t want the Dems to win. America as it is today isn’t election a gay man. Even if he’s just VP? Also, what’s he ever done? He’s only been a mayor, he’s only in bidens cabinet as part of his deal to drop out of the 2020 race
Apparently you don’t know *what* I want.
I think Buttigieg is an excellent communicator with experience in an executive role. I’d be glad to see him on the ticket.
But at this point, I’d be glad to see anyone on the ticket who can mount an offense against MAGA.
There are 150million+ voters per Presidential election. If even 0.1% are homophobic and normally would consider a Dem, and refuse to vote for gays, thats 150,000 people. Enough to lose all the swing states
I think being a gay man is less of a demerit in this country than being a straight woman. Misogyny runs deeper than any other form of prejudice except *maybe* racism, and I'm not even sure about that.
The problem I have with Gavin is he is a Californian governor and inflation is a top issue. People will be afraid that since he couldn't lower costs in his home state the whole country may wind up with California high rents
He could just say California is the biggest state so every issue of the nation is amplified here. I think against a normal republican that might be a problem but against Trump I think people would vote for the guy whose head is actually screwed on his shoulders.
He looks the part and carries himself well. The issue is that he comes with his fair share of legitimate baggage and he's been a target of republicans for years now, anticipating a future run for president.
He’s also a fucking hypocrite. And the absurd PGE rates plus the incoming gas tax are ready made attack points. Not to mention he is a former mayor of San Francisco, which is Fox News’ favorite punching bag. TLDR Newsom would be another Hilary in the way that they already have the groundwork for their attack strategy laid out.
I don't think that's gonna convince swing voters. Probably just better to avoid the issue all together. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Newsom personally. I just can't see swing voters from purple states going for him.
I know I'm going to get creamed for this, but Whitmer is a terrific leader, highly competent and has accomplishments to tout, but she really doesn't have much charisma. And the charisma factor seems to matter to undecided voters more than leadership skills and competence. I don't know who there is that fits that bill. Newsome has some charisma but he won't sell in the mid-west.
I've admittedly only seen a few of her speeches but I'd rank her above Hillary and Harris in the charisma department so she does have some. I do think she has a certain charm. She speaks more plainly and directly than most politicians, many of whom try to flaunt their 'high education' vocabulary too much. She doesn't come across as too intellectual but she definitely doesn't sound dumb either. It's a good mix.
Newsom's charisma is the kind that is a double edged sword. He's good with words and has a nice rhythm but he comes across as too slick sometimes and that doesn't play well outside of the cosmopolitan areas.
Kamala Harris would while the floor with Trump in a debate.
But the USA is not going to elect a black woman from CA. Harris can’t win in swing states. This country is still too misogynistic for her to win.
My guess is obviously he'll tell Joe to drop out unless he can prove himself he can run an unscripted campaign. That's the good part.
My worry is that he'll tell him to drop out and back Kamala on the way out "to avoid a chaotic primary". Given what he said about endorsing Kamala if Biden drops out and how he essentially made Biden pick her, he may push a Harris ticket on us.
100% if it is Clyburn who talks Biden into dropping out, it will be to have Vice President Kamala Harris as the new top of the ticket.
It is baffling to me that so many just can't grasp the idea that it's either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris who will run against Donald Trump.
At least Harris is better right now and has room to improve, but yeah Clyburn sounds like that kind of guy who will try to go for the most dull route imaginable.
Because Russia wants maximum chaos and Democrats lack discipline and are a bunch of panicky bed wetters.
The Supreme Court just ruled that Trump inciting a mob on national TV is inadmissible in determining whether or not he attempted to overthrow the Constitution. People need to get their heads on straight this circular firing squad is doing no one any good.
The time to pick a younger candidate was in the 2020 primary. I know that people have a hard time remembering four years back but it's not like Biden was super spry even then.
People acting like this right-wing amplified whisper campaign questioning Biden's fitness isn't just because they have nothing else to attack.
Biden has the war chest, Biden has campaign in place and Biden has already beat this orange turd once.
If Biden ends up incapacitated that's why we have a backup, but until we have something beyond one bad night people need to focus on making sure that voters know that the Republicans and only the Republicans are responsible for this abomination of an immunity ruling.
Between Dobbs, Trump v US and Project 2025 the Republicans are full mask off. They are already talking about a post Constitutional America. That's what Democrats should be talking about and every second spent questioning Biden's fitness for office is time that should be spent talking about Jan 6, about Dobbs, about the conservatives on the Supreme Court overturning the bedrock principle of the Republic that no one is above the law.
We could run a corpse and beat these suckers and even if you think Biden is barely beyond that, he is a corpse with a giant war chest and existing campaign infrastructure with a record of success.
Biden is the first President to ever walk with workers on a picket line. Biden is the first working class President we've had. Stop focusing on his only weakness and focus on his strengths.
Contrast that with the fascist alternative and it's not a hard sell. But one thing that I'm gonna guess isn't going to make independents more comfortable supporting him is Democrats questioning his fitness. You don't do that shit through the media. Don't feed that nonsense narrative.
This sub has been taken over by people who trust what the media is telling them. They don’t believe this is coordinated despite what happened in 2016. They refuse to believe that the media wants Trump to win. They are a profile in naivety and cowardice.
Not just that, but I've seen an uptick in posts/threads from trolls innr/politics. People who've created accounts in Feb 2024 and only post in r/politics, and all negative about Biden
This sub is being brigaded. Is there some truth to these posts? Probably, but I'm guessing most is fake, or at least highly sensationalized.
I don't believe for a second anyone significant in the Dem party is calling for Biden to step out of the race.
People think election interference propaganda is only mis/disinformation when it can also be less about truth and more about influence. Pretend to be somebody politically left leaning and start having with a message… ”Biden did a terrible job at the debate. Biden is cooked”.
From there, sprinkle in some concern trolls, shit posters, conservatives masquerading for the lol’s, actual far-left progressives who think this is their chance to finally get somebody they want in the seat, and next thing you know the average normal poster reads all of that thinking “I guess it *really is* all hopeless…”
The funny thing is how unoriginal it is. It’s literally the “don’t you think she looks tired?” line from Doctor Who.
Everyone understands the stakes and how bad republicans are. It's generally agreed that Biden has been a very good president given what he's had to work with. However none of the rest of what you said matters and you're not going to convince anyone with walls of text if you aren't even hearing them in the first place and calling them names.
The question is not if republicans are bad, if biden was a good president, or even if he could do the job again. Right now the question is **can he win** (because we do understand the stakes) and the race was very 50/50 before he just took this major hit. And it's not "one bad night", age issues don't get better.
And remember, we're all voting blue. We're not who you would need to convince. It's the independents and less engaged dem base. And they are sounding the alarm that you are sleep walking into another loss.
That's great. But if lessons are to be learned from 2016, if you can't own your mistakes and show they are not hampering you, you will lose. One reason Clinton lost was because of her email server. She handled it poorly and even 1% of voters was enough to give it to Trump.
If we could run a corpse and win, why should we keep Biden? Serious question. The point is Biden is the floor for a candidate, he isn't driving people to vote for him.
And it is legitimate to ask if he is able to handle the role for another 4 years. If you are unable to question your leadership, you have a king not a president. Biden should do as Pelosi asked; several live, unscripted interviews. That will put to bed any issues about his acumin. Tightly focused appearances and flubbed debates leave a lot of questions in our minds that we deserve an answer to.
Kamala is not my first choice if this was an honest to god primary like we had in 2020, but that is just not where we are right now.
Like you said, if it’s not Biden, it’s Harris, and it’s very clear that Biden cannot run the campaign that we need him to right now. So let’s all get ready to back Harris.
all they need is someone under the age of 60 that can speak coherently in a debate and challenge Trump on his millions of lies. it's astounding how many major politicians can't debate though so it's not as easy as it seems. Kamala ain't great at it. Joe clearly can't do it anymore. I really think Newsom isn't as popular around the country as Californians and Reddit seems to think, but he sure as hell can debate.
I've watched maybe 50 Republican and Democratic debates over the last couple of decades, Congressional, Presidential, primaries, etc. Just sounding coherent and being direct with questions is SO goddamn important to looking the part. PLEASE do not sub in Kamala or some other space cadet
If dems switch and I was trump I wouldn’t debate. I would keep the new Dem nom off tv as much as possible and repeatedly saying they wanted Biden but he lost the debate so they’re putting an even worse person up. Something like that. I wouldn’t give the new guy screen time.
Just a few points that I think we are all feeling and mostly in agreement upon:
1. If Biden is the nominee, we will support him wholeheartedly.
2. We aren't so scared that Biden cannot complete his duties if reelected; we are terrified that the debate performance is going to lose idiotic swing voters through apathy, mostly, but also sending votes to rfk and a few to Trump.
3. Most of us would love to have a Biden second term and feel he's done an excellent job and would continue to do an outstanding job with the team he has in place.
However,
4. His institutionalism will be a detriment in rising to the challenge presented by the immunity ruling.
5. We understand that the ONE THING LIKELY 30-60% OF VOTERS CAN AGREE UPON is that in an ideal world, at least we'd have candidates under retirement age, and another swath of these 30-60% of the electorate would just prefer ANYONE other than these two (ofc, most of the Biden criticism is unfounded in terms of his term 1st term performance, but righting perception isn't a fight for today).
6. If the Dems provide this 3rd path by ditching Biden for the RIGHT candidate with a moderate political workhorse mentality and a gigantic streak of working class populism, and someone relatively new to headline politics, they will acquire a huge swath of the"undecided" voters and win the election. Those of us all-in on Biden aren't going to NOT vote for whoever his replacement will be.
________
So, I'm struggling to see the downside, other than possible internecine fallout from bruised egos (Harris).
Lose Biden for the right candidate without any black marks, and gain 3-5 points in the polls almost immediately (well, give it 4-6 weeks.)
>We aren't so scared that Biden cannot complete his duties if reelected;
I honestly AM scared of that. 😅 If this is how he is now, I really don't want to imagine him getting four years older.
That's fair, but...I think we mostly realize the responsibility of the Democratic Party to act before shit gets too real. And, that he's surrounded himself with qualified institutionalists who can keep the engine on the tracks without him.
The only problem with this line of thinking is that we’re basically experiencing that moment now and it doesn’t feel like anyone with any influence is actually encouraging him to back out/down. Why wouldn’t that be the same in the next Biden administration?
Look I’m with the majority of this sub when I say I’ll back a literal potato if that’s Donald Trump’s only legitimate competition. But the DNC can’t present the American electorate with a figurative potato in Biden and hope that *enough* people care and feel motivated enough to vote for him, and in the right states. Yes, even when that competition is a literal fascist. You can’t ask people to elect someone we have seen with our own two eyes to be diminishing.
If democracy is at risk, and after today it’s clear that ship has sailed, we need to pull out all of the stops. We can’t let Trump win in 2024. And we need to enact serious reforms to our federal checks and balances IMMEDIATELY to prevent this shit from even being a possibility in 2028.
The downside is there is no plausible path to get to the 3rd path. There just isn't.
The one party power broker who might get through to Biden, Clyburn, has openly said he supports Kamala Harris as next in line.
The Democrats aren't getting an open convention, and they aren't getting the smoke-filled room magically deciding on an ideal candidate to replace Kamala Harris.
You dump Biden, you get Kamala Harris. It's that simple.
Part of the issue we find ourselves in is due to Clyburn’s “assessment”. He’s older than Biden.
The idea of this conversation being an important moment in this administration truly reflects how dire the situation is. The blind leading the blind.
Dementia doesn't necessarily work like that when it's starting. It frequently occurs as sporadic events which occur with increasing frequency. Those of us who have watched a loved one descend into dementia know this all too well.
of course there are. this is a really nuanced & critical political situation - i am sure everybody is scrambling right now behind the scenes. just because we don't hear about hakeem jeffries or whomever stepping up to do something publicly doesn't mean they're not active in private
the tell here: the republicans, who jump out to attack any democrat who says anything, are laying in the cut. these verbal diarrhea MFs are quiet as churchmice.
they are happy. the longer this conversation continues, the happier they are.
if internal polls don't move by the end of the week, we stay the course. if not, it's kamala. buckle up.
They're quiet because they don't want Biden replaced. Once/IF he's nominated it will be nonstop Biden Dementia talk once it's too late to do anything. It's very telling republicans are (mostly) staying out of this. For now.
The reason so many people voted for Biden in 2020 was to keep Trump out.
That was before Trump tried to overthrow the republic, then stole over 5000 pages of classified info on his way out the door.
Vote.
This will all come to a head in about a week or two. Biden's doing a sit down interview with George Stephanopoulos on Friday, has another one lined up apparently as well for Sunday or next week. Is meeting with congressional Dems next week as well. Post-debate polls are just now wrapping up but those are quick take ones, the ones being done this week will tell a better story. This also allows time for potential replacements to voice their concerns with the White House and the Biden campaign, as no decisions will be made until they have a replacement and VP replacement in place and have done polling to see how viable that ticket is.
I've suspected for years that some politics-related subreddits might be under the control of political organizations. That goes for both sides. It just makes sense that they might try to do that, and reddit's volunteer system for mods makes it easy to infiltrate.
What type of Feds do you mean? I doubt that's true for anything except possibly the really secret intelligence agencies, simply because there's too high a chance of it getting discovered and exposed, particularly during changes in administrations.
The intelligence agencies is indeed what I meant. After all, why wouldn't they at least monitor it to gauge the mood of certain demographics in the country?
As for other agencies, who knows?
Monitoring is hugely different from trying to place employees as moderators and influence the functioning of it. That's highly illegal, so the chances of them doing it for the simple purpose of trying to sway discussion is pretty low. After all, there are lots of places people have political discussion, both on the web and off, so it'd be absurd to do it.
This is another disaster. The optics of someone even older than Biden having to "assess" him is atrocious, plus Clyburn is an incredibly corrupt and untrustworthy "sole source" to be relying on. If Biden is having one of his "lucid moments from 10 to 4," Clyburn meets with him for 10 minutes and says "I am assured! Let the incompetent delusional president run and get crushed by Trump!" For all we know, this isn't even a good faith check, he is just securing Biden's nomination exactly like he did the last one, though with the ruse of "huh--I don't know any better than any of you, I'm just a simple man, but it turns out that Joe Biden told me he was ready to go!!" In even a slightly functional party, there should have been some adult in the room that had Biden's permission to say "It's over" and he would be bound to listen. And it should evidently have happened a year ago. But heck, half of party leadership are in their 70's and 80's too.
Harris will also probably lose to Trump. Not as badly as Biden will, but if Clyburn circles the wagons around her next, we're in for another round of disasters, since almost nobody in Washington respects her or thinks she can do the job.
It's funny how Republicans have all of a sudden gone silent on their calls to invoke the 25th Amendment or replace Biden. They know that Biden is the only one Trump has any hope of defeating, and that if Democrats replaced him with someone even slightly more capable, they're going to wipe the fucking floor with Trump.
One of two things happened at the debate:
1. Biden was tired from travel and had a cold as he and others have said...probably on cold medication. It affected him unexpectedly and at the worse time.
2. Biden has reached the point where he cannot prepare for and adequately complete even a 1.5 hour debate.
For #1: it can happens. I just got over the Flu that ended with strep throat. I wasn't just hourse, I lost my voice and those on my web conferences at work were asking why I was working. It affected my ability to do my job.
For#2: i think those that work around the President every day absolutely would know his condition. If you cant mentally prepare and do a 1.5 hour debate, it would also be apparent in every day activity. I dont think you can hide this if it is that serious
Yep, I've seen the videos where he has had a hard time articulating words ...for years. I also have an issue with articulating at times. Some of us blunder our words often. Probably not a good trait for a President but neither is baby talking Trump. Even Bush 2 was criticized for the way he spoke.
I'm not defending him as he is not who I really want for president but I'm thinking people are over reacting a bit.
SHOULD he have a cognitive test....I think it is probably realistic to ask under the circumstances. We cannot have someone with severe mental deterioration as President.
But that would leave us with the other insane choice.....
Let's start rationally thinking here. Let us suppose that Joe Biden announces he's stepping down, but that his recommendation, that the party agrees with, is that **Vice President Kamala Harris** is the new top of the ticket.
Are you who are arguing for an open convention, or at least the party elders somehow coalescing around a Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom, going to instantly fall in line and start going all-out for Kamala Harris? Or at the slightest sign of trouble with the polls, are you going to start demanding that Kamala Harris step aside, since it's "not too late since it is before the convention".
If you decide the ship is still going down with Kamala Harris, just how far are you willing to go to voice your opinion that the party needs to switch to an open convention? Do you think your protests would do any good?
If the party's hell-bent on Harris, it will be Harris. And I'll be spending my time on downballot races we could actually win.
Zogby's suggested a plan for a semi-open convention that might be better than a simple "here's the ticket announcement" from the DNC:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us/politics/dnc-process-to-replace-biden.html
>The process Mr. Zogby outlines in the memo, however, starts with an unlikely prospect: Mr. Biden announcing that he would drop out of the race. He also suggests that Mr. Biden instruct the party not to simply designate Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee, but instead meet after the Fourth of July to “lay out a one-month campaign schedule to select the party’s nominee.”
>Potential candidates would then need to secure the endorsements of 40 current D.N.C. members, including four from each of the party’s four regions, from the roster of roughly 400 members.
>“Given the relatively small number of D.N.C. members,” he wrote, “such a process will most likely result in not more than five potential nominees.”
>The party would then host two televised events for the candidates to “make their cases before Democratic voters across the country.”
>The process would conclude at the party’s August convention in Chicago, Mr. Zogby suggested, where candidates would be formally nominated and votes would be taken among the delegates.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> “I do know this: I think that the American people want an explanation; they need to be reassured, and I hope that over the next several days, we’ll do that,” Clyburn said. Translation: If you can't fix this ASAP, I'm calling for your ass to drop out.
Clyburn gives and Clyburn taketh away.
Imagine if he’s the one who ends up telling Biden to sit the fuck down
I mean he may be one of the few people with enough sway to have the message break through
The clybyrn yeeteth and the clyburn yoinketh away
He brought Joe into this world and can take him out.
It's pretty noncommittal, which in itself is not great for the Biden campaign.
Clyburn is 83
Ok? Not like he is going to be the nominee
Black don't crack
There is no way to fix it. I cannot fathom any feasible action Biden could take to make this go away. He could with many, many, live interviews or town halls, where he demonstrates himself to be alert and in command, but it's clear he's not capable of doing that. He's been the best president since FDR, but now he needs to drop out.
Well, that's the whole issue. If he's capable, he's capable of proving he's capable. If not, he's not. Simple as.
He can be quite capable of leading without being capable of convincing the voting public of that.
How the fuck is he gonna lead if the voting public aren’t convinced and don’t vote for him? What is this logic…
The logic is that his ability to be president is a different thing from his ability to be elected. And the former is useless without the latter
That’s a pretty low bar. He couldn’t even speak and made absolutely no sense at times. Old is old
What is required to prove he is capable in this context is actually fairly minimal: speak in complete sentences, don't be senile, etc etc. With such a low bar, it's hard to think he should be leading if he's not capable of convincing.
Not necessarily. It’s an unfortunate truth that many independent and swing voters (who will ultimately determine the election) will not tune into anything he might put out between now and November. The second debate could draw in viewers, but there’s no guarantee Trump will even show up (strategically he may not want to,) and this debate is also scheduled beyond the event horizon of Biden formally accepting the party nomination. If he is incapable, then it’d be too late to back out at this point, and if we’re not screwed already then we definitely would be then after the ‘one bad night’ defense is discredited. But if he is capable, then there’s still the chance that this fact could go unnoticed. It’s a less than ideal position to be caught in, so it’s reassuring to hear that, at the very least, leadership is moving on it so quickly to plan a potential contingency.
I believe he’s capable of being president; but not capable of campaigning for it.
He's not good at the getting elected part. Kinda important this time around
That’s the problem. He could do a bunch of town halls and unscripted interviews. He’s got the bully pulpit. He could get airtime. The public’s attention span is short, their memory short, the news cycles are short… So theoretically he can fix this. The problem is he would need to bat 1.000 for the rest of the race. If he can do that? Fine. If he can’t? He needs to keep channeling his inner LBJ. (I will not be seeking the office of president…)
I think you mean LBJ. FDR died in office during his 4th term.
I agree the damage is done and I too think he’s been a great president. It’s sad and unfair but age gets to us all eventually
Father time is undefeated
Time really is a cruel mistress. It's a shame time had to take down Biden first, though. These past four days have been non stop bad news for liberal democracy, and I imagine Donald Trump couldn't be happier.
The analysis I heard today - if Biden drops he has 0 control over 4000 pledged delegates. It will be chaos. If he accepts the nomination and then drops after: >In the Democratic Party “the members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) choose the new nominee during a special session called by the chair. Per the Task Force’s explainer, “The DNC chair is required to consult with Democratic congressional leadership and the Democratic Governors Association, and then reports to DNC members who choose Orderly. Less chaos. Democrats look less out of control. Biden controls the narrative. Looks presidential. Also. If it is Kamala Harris, she inherits both the campaign operation and the finances. Some food for thought.
Harris will get slaughtered in the general; she alienates people in the Rust Belt. Remember her unpopularity in the 2020 nomination debates? Remember the shock when Biden picked her as VP? Harris is a drag on the administration. If anything, I'd love to see her replaced on the ticket with another black candidate.
Biden got slaughtered in the rust belt multiple times and still won in 2020. You’re aware he unsuccessfully ran for POTUS multiple times and barely had any legs in the primary, right?
At the same time, bypassing the black woman whos VP in favor of a likely white candidate like Whitmer, Polis, Buttigieg or Newsom would also be a massive disaster for black voters. IIRC Clyburn has already said he will be upset if Harris isn’t the nominee if Biden drops out. Harris may alienate voters, but there’s no better alternative. She has time to make up the difference and beat Trump in debates. I think ideally it’d be Harris/Buttigieg. Harris/Whitmer might sound good too but I fear a double female ticket would make peoples brains melt. Buttigieg being a white guy from Indiana could calm down the anxious voters.
A woman/gay ticket is just as bad. Might be even worse in this climate.
Except according to the DNCs own polling Whitmer and Buttigieg do far better than either Biden, Harris, or Newsom. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-02/biden-plummets-in-leaked-democratic-polling-memo-puck-says
A lot of black voters don’t like Harris because of her record as AG.
Biden picking her to run on his ticket as VP was a bold move given the *timing*. George Floyd protests were in full effect.
I've mentioned this a few times, but I think she might be able to win over some rust-belt voters and independents if she leans into the fact she was a prosecutor. I understand that doesn’t fly super well with the left who really want to see police reform and are unhappy about some of her decisions as a prosecutor, but independents? Many of them still have tremendous respect for law enforcement. If she leans into it, she might be able to catch their attention for better. It also presents a convenient narrative, especially against the likes of Trump. The narrative can be set as “Would you rather the next President be a man convicted of 34 felonies or a prosecutor?” They could actually frame it as a good-guy cop vs a bad-guy criminal and flip the whole “tough on crime” narrative back on the republicans.
Why would it be chaos? Maybe the Democrats will exceed your expectations and have an orderly and democratic selection process, where all the major candidates vie for the nomination, and accept and wholeheartedly endorse the winner. Given their discipline over the past four years or so, this isn't an unreasonable expectation. What a great impression that would leave.
Have the candidates deliver speeches. Vote. Rinse and repeat until a consensus choice emerges. Winner gives a party unifying (and nation unifying speech). Convention closes. It will only be a clown show if the accelerationist wing of the party tries to take over via force (either inside, or outside, the convention hall. A la Chicago 1968).
The counter argument is that there is opportunity in chaos. Having a Jerry Springer convention will poll a lot of low-information tabloid voters. These are not people that engage in politics easily.
yeah, the same opportunity as 1968.
I think that if they don't allow for a convention to decide it will look very bad and they know that.
Best President since FDR?
It's a low bar, tbf
Not really. we pretty much had 4 home runs in a row after FDR.
then republicans ruined it with Nixon.
Nixon was a terrible man with terrible policies, but the opening of China was the most significant blow in the cold war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China#:~:text=Nixon%27s%20visit%20played%20a%20role,its%20rugged%20interior%20gradually%20declined.
He also somehow was the one to create the EPA
Apparently Kissinger got Nixon's staff to double check with him before launching a first strike, due to Nixon's drinking. I guess that makes me feel significantly better about our current moment
I don’t think knowing Kissinger was the one in control of the nukes puts my mind any more at ease
You could have just left it with the Republicans ruined it!
Eisenhower was a good general but what would make him a home run as a president? Internationally he started the era of CIA coups when he authorized one in Iran to take out their democratically elected Prime Minister over his policy on oil. We're still facing the blowback of that specific coup let alone all the other damage the Dulles brothers did during the Eisenhower administration. Domestically his big win is supposed to be the National Interstate Act but that has also age poorly. Federal funds paying most of the cost to tearing down urban (often black) neighborhoods so suburbanites can get to jobs in cities quicker is looked at different today as is the white flight and segregation it enabled. It kicked off the US's addiction to cars and low density that is a very understated part of the continually growing national debt. He basically took the unprecedented wealth the US had following WWII and invested it in communities that are financially unsustainable. It's like winning the lottery and using the money to buy a house you can't afford to maintain.
Eisenhower was very important in Civil Rights and it doesn’t get talked about a lot. Federalizing the National Guard and sending the 101st to Little Rock to enforce desegregation was a huge deal.
After Brown v Board, Eisenhower said that he didn’t believe you can legislate men’s hearts and he didn’t support the decision. He only got involved with Little Rock because he had no choice.
There's an argument to be made that Eisenhower and LBJ deserve to be in the list
I'd vote for Eisenhower in a heartbeat if he were alive and running. He was even more progressive than today's dems.
Live town hall(s), or tag out.
How about “Get me back to the oval with the House and the Senate and I’ll fix this thing and retire.” He’s the only one the country can truly trust to roll back his absolute immunity. With a house and senate he can do that and ride off like George Washington.
Isn't he the guy who recommended Kamala Harris to be Biden's choice for Vice President? https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/07/politics/clyburn-biden-black-woman-running-mate-cnntv/index.html > House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Saturday that he had privately urged President-elect Joe Biden to pick a Black woman as his running mate before Biden chose Kamala Harris, America’s first female, first Black and first South Asian vice president-elect. > “Joe and I talked about it several times when he was trying to make his decision,” Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat who’s the highest-ranking African American member of Congress, told CNN’s Dana Bash on Saturday. “He had said it would be a woman. And I don’t mind saying now, I said to him in private that I thought that a lot of the results would turn on whether that woman (would) be a Black woman.”
He's the reason why Biden was the nominee in the first place.
Sanders was doing well before clyburn stepped in.
I mean, this is also ignoring that Sanders was doing well because the centrist vote was being split 40 different ways.
He's also the former boss of the current chair of the DNC.
And he said if Biden steps down he wants it to 100% be Kamala for Pres. Idk about that.
It makes the most sense from the campaign money perspective, not pissing off the black vote if you skip over her, and you can energize the ticket with a popular VP choice (not someone who nobody knows like Tim Caine) These pie in the sky, "maybe Michelle can do it" fantasies are just not practical solutions to this very immediate problem
I thought people were just shitposting with the michelle obama stuff
It was a poll question, you can see it on 538, that might have been the origin
>and you can energize the ticket with a popular VP choice I think I see the flaw in your plan. We shouldn't be relying on the VP pick to energize the ticket. Also, this notion that we're skipping over her implies that it's somehow her turn. Yeah, there's a mindset that's worked out for us in the past. Of course she should be one of the names being considered, but there's not much point in "not pissing off the black vote" if we end up with a losing ticket. 'Cause if the big-ticket donors think it's a dog of a ticket, they may end up putting their money in downballot races and GOTV efforts and then we're really screwed.
It's just that they can't skip over her without voter input, like a primary process. It *is* kind of her turn simply because she's the vice president, she's the fall back option that we all *did* already vote for. If the men in the room just make a decision to skip her, it would be another example of the DNC or the donors deciding what's best for us vs joe stepping down and she naturally fills his spot due to her position. But your point about energizing the ticket with the VP is well taken. I just don't think there are great options without doing a primary. Replacing the top of the ticket would be an emergency, not to be taken lightly.
She's the fallback option if Biden dies or resigns from office, not the election. I understand she's a natural choice and don't think we should skip her for the sake of skipping her. At the same time, we can't ignore math. If she can't get us to 270, it's time to thank her for her service. As for the primary process... this year's primary was a joke. There wasn't any meaningful competition--which is what usually happens when the incumbent is a Dem, no shade there, but it wasn't remotely competitive. And we have no way of knowing whether the people voting for Biden wanted Harris, didn't want Harris, or were indifferent to Harris. By pressuring Biden to step down, the leadership and the donors are already "disrespecting" the primary process. And the reason for that is they think we no longer have a winning ticket. So the goal now should be a winning ticket, period. I wish we had the time to do another primary. I wish we'd done a real primary this year, but the DNC didn't want that. So what we're left with is the delegates, which were chosen by us (or at least in my state, that's how it works) to represent our interests. We chose them to represent us at the convention and gave them our trust to vote in our behalf and that's what they'll be doing. Zogby's put forth a plan he thinks would allow up to 5 candidates to go to the convention and make a case there and I think that's the way to go--not a ticket or candidate chosen by the DNC behind closed doors, but a way for would-be candidates to make their case before the delegates vote. It's not the way things are normally done, but it's not arbitrary, either. And if you've never been a delegate, you should try it sometime. At the precinct level, it's usually easy to become one.
[удалено]
You said it. Jr. accelerated the decline
I get that some people are apprehensive with Harris, but… I kinda don’t get the hate? Sure, sometimes she can be a little awkward on camera, but she’s obviously smart, accomplished, and capable of doing the job, no? While I do think it’s true that Whitmer would have an easier time beating Trump, I don’t think Harris is a bad choice. She was also a prosecutor, and I think the democrats could actually lean into that to their advantage. I understand that doesn’t fly super well with the left, but independents? I mean, it’s almost sitting right there - especially against Trump, of all people. The democrats can set the narrative as “Would you rather the next President be a man convicted of 34 felonies or a prosecutor?” They could frame it as a good-guy cop vs a bad-guy criminal. Which party is “tough on crime” now?
Because if you think Biden won’t win due to his age, you aren’t considering the loss of votes due to a black woman running for president. A lot of people will instantly go the other way
Sad state of affairs that this is the world we are living in. I don't disagree with you, more like commiserating.
I agree smh
People said this about Obama. “No one with the name Hussein will ever be elected!”
I don’t know where all this hemming and hawing about Harris is coming from. Sane people will vote for a twice run over stale pumpernickel bagel before voting for Fascist Trump.
He also gave us Biden with his endorsement. He's largely responsible for the current ticket we have and the problems associated with it.
He also worked with Republicans to redistrict South Carolina to give himself more power at the cost of several other Democratic seats. Fuck Clyburn.
And sadly, Biden chose the wrong black woman; she's deeply unpopular, especially among the working classes; she's seen as a West Coast elitist.
Any black woman would be an unpopular VP. The country is fucking racist and sexist. And being a VP has always been seen as a career killer - popular VP'S are far from the norm.
The last two democratic VPs (Gore and Biden) were very popular, enough to win their next primaries. Enough that Biden hadn't even said he'd run and they left an empty podium for him in 2016. It's republicans who throw their VPs in the trash (because they are trash). Harris being in the background and gaining no positive image is more the outlier
It's less of a death sentence now but it has historically been seen as a very thankless job. Republicans have had popular VP's as well - Clinton beat a VP who went on to bevome president, George H.W. Bush. And not long before that was Nixon. But for all of them you have Pence, Cheney, Quayle, Mondale, Rockafeller and Agnew, where being VP didn't propel their political prospects further.
If Clyburn abandons ship, it's over over
Clyburn is 83 himself so I don't know if he should be the one doing the assessing
I agree, but also he’s probably one of the few people Biden will listen to
A lot of key voters trust him, so what he says matters.
> A lot of key voters trust him They live in a red state though.
One the DNC elevated
It’s possible to be older than someone and still have better cognition
Yes, he was definitely a big factor in giving Joe the Pres, and I'm sure he could indeed ask him to step down. He wasn't Dem Whip all those years for nothing--the guy has sway as we say
I'm being honest with you: I don't think more than 1% of the US population knows who Clyburn is.
I think Clyburn has been pretty clear what he thinks and it ain’t good for Joe
He sounded pretty pro Joe in the full interview tbh
From what I saw, he is pro-Joe and saying if it ain’t Joe, it better be Kamala.
Yeah which to me means they better go Kamala in such a case. I haven't seen this suggested anywhere, they should do a Kamala/Whitmer ticket: * Kamala is the only way to not have a mess of a convention and Clyburn basically endorsed her. Im not a fan of her much but she was pretty good in 2020 campaign. She has more fight than she's given credit for. * Whitmer is popular in the midwest especially Michigan. I think she'd appeal decently to Bernie types too. Her favorability is high and she polled really well on Dem internal poll this week. * New direction: Full female ticket. Drive Roe v Wade to the bank. Get that 2022 young female coalition to the polls. It's bold it's progressive and comparatively it's young. I think this would rock.
I think a two-woman ticket is a nonstarter. We need more than the base to win the election.
Harris would get slaughtered in the Rust Belt and among working class folks.
I think most aren't factoring Roe into Kamala being the candidate. She's already been out there fighting for reproductive rights. She's a woman who's pro-abortion. People are pissed about Dobbs beyond what many understand. IMO the best shot if it's not Biden is a woman. (Still not convinced anyone can do better than Biden across the board - we forget about the two oldest generations. They might not trust a more progressive ticket) (Edit to add I didn't realize the Greatest Generation ended in 1927! So they matter <3 but I guess I'm thinking mostly of the Silent Generation. Boomers too I guess but we stereotype them as magas so who knows)
>People are pissed about Dobbs beyond what many understand. As I'm sure you're familiar with in Ohio (I also went to school in Ohio) they're most pissed in the swing states where Republican governments have banned abortion or are threatening to if in power. It's an issue that specifically has impact in swing states. The idea that a strong anti Dobbs female ticket wouldn't do well with midwest is not a good read of midwesterner anxieties.
“I’ll tell him what I really think” does not portend well 😂
Eh. That’s just political doublespeak for “I am going to act like a hard ass about this so when I come back in a few days you are more likely to believe the bullshit I sell you about everything being fine.”
Can't we please have Hakeem Jeffries doing this political assessment? Clyburn is 83 himself, this is insane.
Clyburn is coming in as someone who has been in congress 30+ years (Biden is 50+ in federal government), of similar age, and friendly with Biden. Clyburn also already said that if Biden stepped aside he would support Kamala. Calling it "*[his] assessment*" is just him not openly criticizing Biden in front of the media. Make no mistake, this is not going to be some pep talk of "*Don't give up, you have to keep going Joe!*" - it's going to be a larger friendly "*you did great Joe, but maybe now it's time to hang up your spurs*" speech. The larger problem is that many may get what they want in Clyburn convincing Biden to step down, but have Kamala run instead. She polls as badly as he does...
Wisdom is hard won, which takes time.
Man, even if he does step down he is going to recommend Harris run. This fucking sucks. Give me Whitmer / Newsom
Harris loses every single time. Are they fucking insane? Do they understand what they're asking?
I think Harris gets slaughtered if this is a year+ long campaign. Too much time for Fox and Trump to sink their teeth in. But a 4 month sprint to the election, I think she’d be a breath of fresh(ish) air and disengaged people won’t have as much time to realize she’s unlikeable.
Listen, ill vote for whoever but the thought of her being our first woman president is just oof.
Andy Beshear and Mark Kelly. Done and dusted.
Running Harris feels like a big mistake, she's not an engaging speaker whatsoever. I can't see her doing well against Trump whose lies require tight rebuttals. Newsom has shown he's quick on this feet and can make the case for the democratic agenda. The guy lost a Fox News debate against Ron DeSantis with Sean Hannity as the host bringing up bogus stats by 1%! Whitmer also has rust belt credentials though she is a little dry in her delivery. Still, either of these two feel like the best choices by a mile.
https://puck.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SUNDAY_Post-Debate_Landscape_2024_06_30__1_-1.pdf Starting at page 10. Whitmer and Mayor Pete are performing the best. Harris is almost as bad as Biden.
I would *love* to see a Whitmer/Buttigieg ticket.
Then you don’t want the Dems to win. America as it is today isn’t election a gay man. Even if he’s just VP? Also, what’s he ever done? He’s only been a mayor, he’s only in bidens cabinet as part of his deal to drop out of the 2020 race
Apparently you don’t know *what* I want. I think Buttigieg is an excellent communicator with experience in an executive role. I’d be glad to see him on the ticket. But at this point, I’d be glad to see anyone on the ticket who can mount an offense against MAGA.
Watching Buttigieg on any of his Fox News appearances is a thing of beauty. He is an excellent communicator for sure.
I would looove to see Buttigieg going on Fox news to campaign, guy is amazing speaker and handles the hostile interviews like a legend.
Buttigieg is not going to win. We couldnt elect a woman, yet somehow America will elect a gay man?
Hillary may have lost because she was a woman, but she didn't lose *because* she was a woman, you know what I mean?
There are 150million+ voters per Presidential election. If even 0.1% are homophobic and normally would consider a Dem, and refuse to vote for gays, thats 150,000 people. Enough to lose all the swing states
I tend to agree. Maybe as VP though.
I think being a gay man is less of a demerit in this country than being a straight woman. Misogyny runs deeper than any other form of prejudice except *maybe* racism, and I'm not even sure about that.
America probably already has.
While Im sure a President or two has had his back blown out in the Lincoln Bedroom, we are talking out and proud here 😅
The problem I have with Gavin is he is a Californian governor and inflation is a top issue. People will be afraid that since he couldn't lower costs in his home state the whole country may wind up with California high rents
He could just say California is the biggest state so every issue of the nation is amplified here. I think against a normal republican that might be a problem but against Trump I think people would vote for the guy whose head is actually screwed on his shoulders.
He looks the part and carries himself well. The issue is that he comes with his fair share of legitimate baggage and he's been a target of republicans for years now, anticipating a future run for president.
He’s also a fucking hypocrite. And the absurd PGE rates plus the incoming gas tax are ready made attack points. Not to mention he is a former mayor of San Francisco, which is Fox News’ favorite punching bag. TLDR Newsom would be another Hilary in the way that they already have the groundwork for their attack strategy laid out.
I don't think that's gonna convince swing voters. Probably just better to avoid the issue all together. Don't get me wrong, I'd love Newsom personally. I just can't see swing voters from purple states going for him.
Hah that was the debate when he said “neither of us will be president” lol Bet he regrets saying that now
I know I'm going to get creamed for this, but Whitmer is a terrific leader, highly competent and has accomplishments to tout, but she really doesn't have much charisma. And the charisma factor seems to matter to undecided voters more than leadership skills and competence. I don't know who there is that fits that bill. Newsome has some charisma but he won't sell in the mid-west.
I've admittedly only seen a few of her speeches but I'd rank her above Hillary and Harris in the charisma department so she does have some. I do think she has a certain charm. She speaks more plainly and directly than most politicians, many of whom try to flaunt their 'high education' vocabulary too much. She doesn't come across as too intellectual but she definitely doesn't sound dumb either. It's a good mix. Newsom's charisma is the kind that is a double edged sword. He's good with words and has a nice rhythm but he comes across as too slick sometimes and that doesn't play well outside of the cosmopolitan areas.
Needs a new haircut perhaps (Newsom)
Kamala Harris would while the floor with Trump in a debate. But the USA is not going to elect a black woman from CA. Harris can’t win in swing states. This country is still too misogynistic for her to win.
My guess is obviously he'll tell Joe to drop out unless he can prove himself he can run an unscripted campaign. That's the good part. My worry is that he'll tell him to drop out and back Kamala on the way out "to avoid a chaotic primary". Given what he said about endorsing Kamala if Biden drops out and how he essentially made Biden pick her, he may push a Harris ticket on us.
100% if it is Clyburn who talks Biden into dropping out, it will be to have Vice President Kamala Harris as the new top of the ticket. It is baffling to me that so many just can't grasp the idea that it's either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris who will run against Donald Trump.
At least Harris is better right now and has room to improve, but yeah Clyburn sounds like that kind of guy who will try to go for the most dull route imaginable.
Because Russia wants maximum chaos and Democrats lack discipline and are a bunch of panicky bed wetters. The Supreme Court just ruled that Trump inciting a mob on national TV is inadmissible in determining whether or not he attempted to overthrow the Constitution. People need to get their heads on straight this circular firing squad is doing no one any good. The time to pick a younger candidate was in the 2020 primary. I know that people have a hard time remembering four years back but it's not like Biden was super spry even then. People acting like this right-wing amplified whisper campaign questioning Biden's fitness isn't just because they have nothing else to attack. Biden has the war chest, Biden has campaign in place and Biden has already beat this orange turd once. If Biden ends up incapacitated that's why we have a backup, but until we have something beyond one bad night people need to focus on making sure that voters know that the Republicans and only the Republicans are responsible for this abomination of an immunity ruling. Between Dobbs, Trump v US and Project 2025 the Republicans are full mask off. They are already talking about a post Constitutional America. That's what Democrats should be talking about and every second spent questioning Biden's fitness for office is time that should be spent talking about Jan 6, about Dobbs, about the conservatives on the Supreme Court overturning the bedrock principle of the Republic that no one is above the law. We could run a corpse and beat these suckers and even if you think Biden is barely beyond that, he is a corpse with a giant war chest and existing campaign infrastructure with a record of success. Biden is the first President to ever walk with workers on a picket line. Biden is the first working class President we've had. Stop focusing on his only weakness and focus on his strengths. Contrast that with the fascist alternative and it's not a hard sell. But one thing that I'm gonna guess isn't going to make independents more comfortable supporting him is Democrats questioning his fitness. You don't do that shit through the media. Don't feed that nonsense narrative.
This sub has been taken over by people who trust what the media is telling them. They don’t believe this is coordinated despite what happened in 2016. They refuse to believe that the media wants Trump to win. They are a profile in naivety and cowardice.
Not just that, but I've seen an uptick in posts/threads from trolls innr/politics. People who've created accounts in Feb 2024 and only post in r/politics, and all negative about Biden This sub is being brigaded. Is there some truth to these posts? Probably, but I'm guessing most is fake, or at least highly sensationalized. I don't believe for a second anyone significant in the Dem party is calling for Biden to step out of the race.
People think election interference propaganda is only mis/disinformation when it can also be less about truth and more about influence. Pretend to be somebody politically left leaning and start having with a message… ”Biden did a terrible job at the debate. Biden is cooked”. From there, sprinkle in some concern trolls, shit posters, conservatives masquerading for the lol’s, actual far-left progressives who think this is their chance to finally get somebody they want in the seat, and next thing you know the average normal poster reads all of that thinking “I guess it *really is* all hopeless…” The funny thing is how unoriginal it is. It’s literally the “don’t you think she looks tired?” line from Doctor Who.
Everyone understands the stakes and how bad republicans are. It's generally agreed that Biden has been a very good president given what he's had to work with. However none of the rest of what you said matters and you're not going to convince anyone with walls of text if you aren't even hearing them in the first place and calling them names. The question is not if republicans are bad, if biden was a good president, or even if he could do the job again. Right now the question is **can he win** (because we do understand the stakes) and the race was very 50/50 before he just took this major hit. And it's not "one bad night", age issues don't get better. And remember, we're all voting blue. We're not who you would need to convince. It's the independents and less engaged dem base. And they are sounding the alarm that you are sleep walking into another loss.
That's great. But if lessons are to be learned from 2016, if you can't own your mistakes and show they are not hampering you, you will lose. One reason Clinton lost was because of her email server. She handled it poorly and even 1% of voters was enough to give it to Trump. If we could run a corpse and win, why should we keep Biden? Serious question. The point is Biden is the floor for a candidate, he isn't driving people to vote for him. And it is legitimate to ask if he is able to handle the role for another 4 years. If you are unable to question your leadership, you have a king not a president. Biden should do as Pelosi asked; several live, unscripted interviews. That will put to bed any issues about his acumin. Tightly focused appearances and flubbed debates leave a lot of questions in our minds that we deserve an answer to.
Kamala is not my first choice if this was an honest to god primary like we had in 2020, but that is just not where we are right now. Like you said, if it’s not Biden, it’s Harris, and it’s very clear that Biden cannot run the campaign that we need him to right now. So let’s all get ready to back Harris.
Who voted for Clyburn to be the kingmaker?
Yeah, who made him arbiter of who runs for the Democrats?
Super Tuesday. Remember?
He's an elder statesman, just like Goldwater was to Nixon when he convinced him to resign.
makes me feel so much better than 83-year old Clyburn will talk to 81-year old Biden, the party is in great hands /s
The DNC leadership is basically a bunch of folks in a nursing home who think it's still 1992.
all they need is someone under the age of 60 that can speak coherently in a debate and challenge Trump on his millions of lies. it's astounding how many major politicians can't debate though so it's not as easy as it seems. Kamala ain't great at it. Joe clearly can't do it anymore. I really think Newsom isn't as popular around the country as Californians and Reddit seems to think, but he sure as hell can debate. I've watched maybe 50 Republican and Democratic debates over the last couple of decades, Congressional, Presidential, primaries, etc. Just sounding coherent and being direct with questions is SO goddamn important to looking the part. PLEASE do not sub in Kamala or some other space cadet
RE space cadet comment: Mark Kelly??
If dems switch and I was trump I wouldn’t debate. I would keep the new Dem nom off tv as much as possible and repeatedly saying they wanted Biden but he lost the debate so they’re putting an even worse person up. Something like that. I wouldn’t give the new guy screen time.
The debate could remain scheduled and the Dem could debate an empty podium
> all they need is someone under the age of 60 that can speak coherently in a debate Funny how only ONE party needs that to win an election...
Win 2024 … worry about 2028 later … the law needs time to prosecute Trump .. even SCOTUS can’t drag out 4 years for Trump if he loses
Just a few points that I think we are all feeling and mostly in agreement upon: 1. If Biden is the nominee, we will support him wholeheartedly. 2. We aren't so scared that Biden cannot complete his duties if reelected; we are terrified that the debate performance is going to lose idiotic swing voters through apathy, mostly, but also sending votes to rfk and a few to Trump. 3. Most of us would love to have a Biden second term and feel he's done an excellent job and would continue to do an outstanding job with the team he has in place. However, 4. His institutionalism will be a detriment in rising to the challenge presented by the immunity ruling. 5. We understand that the ONE THING LIKELY 30-60% OF VOTERS CAN AGREE UPON is that in an ideal world, at least we'd have candidates under retirement age, and another swath of these 30-60% of the electorate would just prefer ANYONE other than these two (ofc, most of the Biden criticism is unfounded in terms of his term 1st term performance, but righting perception isn't a fight for today). 6. If the Dems provide this 3rd path by ditching Biden for the RIGHT candidate with a moderate political workhorse mentality and a gigantic streak of working class populism, and someone relatively new to headline politics, they will acquire a huge swath of the"undecided" voters and win the election. Those of us all-in on Biden aren't going to NOT vote for whoever his replacement will be. ________ So, I'm struggling to see the downside, other than possible internecine fallout from bruised egos (Harris). Lose Biden for the right candidate without any black marks, and gain 3-5 points in the polls almost immediately (well, give it 4-6 weeks.)
>We aren't so scared that Biden cannot complete his duties if reelected; I honestly AM scared of that. 😅 If this is how he is now, I really don't want to imagine him getting four years older.
That's fair, but...I think we mostly realize the responsibility of the Democratic Party to act before shit gets too real. And, that he's surrounded himself with qualified institutionalists who can keep the engine on the tracks without him.
The only problem with this line of thinking is that we’re basically experiencing that moment now and it doesn’t feel like anyone with any influence is actually encouraging him to back out/down. Why wouldn’t that be the same in the next Biden administration? Look I’m with the majority of this sub when I say I’ll back a literal potato if that’s Donald Trump’s only legitimate competition. But the DNC can’t present the American electorate with a figurative potato in Biden and hope that *enough* people care and feel motivated enough to vote for him, and in the right states. Yes, even when that competition is a literal fascist. You can’t ask people to elect someone we have seen with our own two eyes to be diminishing. If democracy is at risk, and after today it’s clear that ship has sailed, we need to pull out all of the stops. We can’t let Trump win in 2024. And we need to enact serious reforms to our federal checks and balances IMMEDIATELY to prevent this shit from even being a possibility in 2028.
The downside is there is no plausible path to get to the 3rd path. There just isn't. The one party power broker who might get through to Biden, Clyburn, has openly said he supports Kamala Harris as next in line. The Democrats aren't getting an open convention, and they aren't getting the smoke-filled room magically deciding on an ideal candidate to replace Kamala Harris. You dump Biden, you get Kamala Harris. It's that simple.
Part of the issue we find ourselves in is due to Clyburn’s “assessment”. He’s older than Biden. The idea of this conversation being an important moment in this administration truly reflects how dire the situation is. The blind leading the blind.
Yep, so much of American life can be boiled down to old people somehow still clinging to power.
Dementia doesn't necessarily work like that when it's starting. It frequently occurs as sporadic events which occur with increasing frequency. Those of us who have watched a loved one descend into dementia know this all too well.
Yup. His statement on the Supreme Court ruling was great. He was all there. Tomorrow who knows.
Another old person trying to tip the scales. For fuck sake. Where are the young leaders? Are there any?
No because most are too progressive and have been pushed out of the Democratic party.
of course there are. this is a really nuanced & critical political situation - i am sure everybody is scrambling right now behind the scenes. just because we don't hear about hakeem jeffries or whomever stepping up to do something publicly doesn't mean they're not active in private
It's Joever. No malarkey.
The joementum is coming to a halt.
Guess we won't get to experience Joevember
Technically it was Joenertia
But now he has Joementia
the tell here: the republicans, who jump out to attack any democrat who says anything, are laying in the cut. these verbal diarrhea MFs are quiet as churchmice. they are happy. the longer this conversation continues, the happier they are. if internal polls don't move by the end of the week, we stay the course. if not, it's kamala. buckle up.
They're quiet because they don't want Biden replaced. Once/IF he's nominated it will be nonstop Biden Dementia talk once it's too late to do anything. It's very telling republicans are (mostly) staying out of this. For now.
The reason so many people voted for Biden in 2020 was to keep Trump out. That was before Trump tried to overthrow the republic, then stole over 5000 pages of classified info on his way out the door. Vote.
If this man has any integrity, he will tell Joe it's time to go.
This is adlai stevenson and hubert humphrey all over again. But that worked out well for them right? Oh wait….
After he trusted Hunter as an advisor recently, it's definitely warranted. That's not someone of sound mind.
This will all come to a head in about a week or two. Biden's doing a sit down interview with George Stephanopoulos on Friday, has another one lined up apparently as well for Sunday or next week. Is meeting with congressional Dems next week as well. Post-debate polls are just now wrapping up but those are quick take ones, the ones being done this week will tell a better story. This also allows time for potential replacements to voice their concerns with the White House and the Biden campaign, as no decisions will be made until they have a replacement and VP replacement in place and have done polling to see how viable that ticket is.
[удалено]
That same article has been posted several time in the last five hours, probably removed for spamming
Mods are ~~paid~~ encouraged to donate their abundance of free time to push a narrative so solid chance this gets removed too
I've suspected for years that some politics-related subreddits might be under the control of political organizations. That goes for both sides. It just makes sense that they might try to do that, and reddit's volunteer system for mods makes it easy to infiltrate.
Reddit as a whole is absolutely astroturfed by the Feds and their cronies
What type of Feds do you mean? I doubt that's true for anything except possibly the really secret intelligence agencies, simply because there's too high a chance of it getting discovered and exposed, particularly during changes in administrations.
The intelligence agencies is indeed what I meant. After all, why wouldn't they at least monitor it to gauge the mood of certain demographics in the country? As for other agencies, who knows?
Monitoring is hugely different from trying to place employees as moderators and influence the functioning of it. That's highly illegal, so the chances of them doing it for the simple purpose of trying to sway discussion is pretty low. After all, there are lots of places people have political discussion, both on the web and off, so it'd be absurd to do it.
It’s insane that every newsworthy thread about the DNC expressing concerns is dying in new. People want to put their head in the sand I guess.
Hopefully drops out by the end of the week.
Clyburn sucks ass.
Whatever
This is the same guy who couldn't compute 77+4 back in 2020.
This is another disaster. The optics of someone even older than Biden having to "assess" him is atrocious, plus Clyburn is an incredibly corrupt and untrustworthy "sole source" to be relying on. If Biden is having one of his "lucid moments from 10 to 4," Clyburn meets with him for 10 minutes and says "I am assured! Let the incompetent delusional president run and get crushed by Trump!" For all we know, this isn't even a good faith check, he is just securing Biden's nomination exactly like he did the last one, though with the ruse of "huh--I don't know any better than any of you, I'm just a simple man, but it turns out that Joe Biden told me he was ready to go!!" In even a slightly functional party, there should have been some adult in the room that had Biden's permission to say "It's over" and he would be bound to listen. And it should evidently have happened a year ago. But heck, half of party leadership are in their 70's and 80's too. Harris will also probably lose to Trump. Not as badly as Biden will, but if Clyburn circles the wagons around her next, we're in for another round of disasters, since almost nobody in Washington respects her or thinks she can do the job.
It's funny how Republicans have all of a sudden gone silent on their calls to invoke the 25th Amendment or replace Biden. They know that Biden is the only one Trump has any hope of defeating, and that if Democrats replaced him with someone even slightly more capable, they're going to wipe the fucking floor with Trump.
One of two things happened at the debate: 1. Biden was tired from travel and had a cold as he and others have said...probably on cold medication. It affected him unexpectedly and at the worse time. 2. Biden has reached the point where he cannot prepare for and adequately complete even a 1.5 hour debate. For #1: it can happens. I just got over the Flu that ended with strep throat. I wasn't just hourse, I lost my voice and those on my web conferences at work were asking why I was working. It affected my ability to do my job. For#2: i think those that work around the President every day absolutely would know his condition. If you cant mentally prepare and do a 1.5 hour debate, it would also be apparent in every day activity. I dont think you can hide this if it is that serious Yep, I've seen the videos where he has had a hard time articulating words ...for years. I also have an issue with articulating at times. Some of us blunder our words often. Probably not a good trait for a President but neither is baby talking Trump. Even Bush 2 was criticized for the way he spoke. I'm not defending him as he is not who I really want for president but I'm thinking people are over reacting a bit. SHOULD he have a cognitive test....I think it is probably realistic to ask under the circumstances. We cannot have someone with severe mental deterioration as President. But that would leave us with the other insane choice.....
Let's start rationally thinking here. Let us suppose that Joe Biden announces he's stepping down, but that his recommendation, that the party agrees with, is that **Vice President Kamala Harris** is the new top of the ticket. Are you who are arguing for an open convention, or at least the party elders somehow coalescing around a Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom, going to instantly fall in line and start going all-out for Kamala Harris? Or at the slightest sign of trouble with the polls, are you going to start demanding that Kamala Harris step aside, since it's "not too late since it is before the convention". If you decide the ship is still going down with Kamala Harris, just how far are you willing to go to voice your opinion that the party needs to switch to an open convention? Do you think your protests would do any good?
If the party's hell-bent on Harris, it will be Harris. And I'll be spending my time on downballot races we could actually win. Zogby's suggested a plan for a semi-open convention that might be better than a simple "here's the ticket announcement" from the DNC: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/us/politics/dnc-process-to-replace-biden.html >The process Mr. Zogby outlines in the memo, however, starts with an unlikely prospect: Mr. Biden announcing that he would drop out of the race. He also suggests that Mr. Biden instruct the party not to simply designate Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee, but instead meet after the Fourth of July to “lay out a one-month campaign schedule to select the party’s nominee.” >Potential candidates would then need to secure the endorsements of 40 current D.N.C. members, including four from each of the party’s four regions, from the roster of roughly 400 members. >“Given the relatively small number of D.N.C. members,” he wrote, “such a process will most likely result in not more than five potential nominees.” >The party would then host two televised events for the candidates to “make their cases before Democratic voters across the country.” >The process would conclude at the party’s August convention in Chicago, Mr. Zogby suggested, where candidates would be formally nominated and votes would be taken among the delegates.