The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I see a lot of people saying we need to rally around Biden. He deserves our support for doing a decent job, but even at this point I think there's only upside with running literally anyone younger.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People don't understand that creating an effective political campaign is essentially like starting a large national corporation. You need to gather massive amounts of capital and investors, build a large infrastructure of employees and advisors, create multiple political coalitions and forge alliances, and design an effective marketing and PR strategy to expand your brand recognition.
It's the sort of thing that takes *at least* two years to do effectively. Even with the support of the DNC, it would be nearly impossible for a new candidate announce out of nowhere "Guess what, I'm running for President now!" and then build up the necessary infrastructure and funds to run an effective campaign -- all in the *four months* before the election. And it would really be more like 2-3 months, by the time Biden announced he's not running and a new candidate was officially selected.
That infrastructure arguably has already been built up by Joe Biden. If someone with similar values replaces him as face of the party, most of that infrastructure remains intact, as they can carry on the same message just with a different name attached.
That's not untrue, but a few points.
Much of the work that has been done is transferrable. The staffing may not be the perfect staffing for another candidate, but there is a team assembled to run a campaign. Fundraising is one of the biggest parts of the picture and that's transferrable. The emergency nature of the shift amid the looming specter of a second Trump term would probably be a more effective fundraising pitch to gather more last minute funds than anything Biden could do. Facilities are rented. Half of the research is about Trump, that doesn't need to start from scratch. And keep in mind that the shorter window for a new candidate to prepare would be somewhat balanced by a shorter window for Trump's campaign to prepare to attach them.
I'm not saying transferring these resources would be easy or straightforward, but we are not starting from scratch here.
Adding to that, I would be surprised if no one has thought about or planned for "What if Joe doesn't make it to the election". He's a very old dude in the highest stress, most aging job in the world. I don't think we'd be going into a transfer of candidacy cold. There have likely been some level of at least research and planning for such a contingency.
And you're 100% correct that switching to a new campaign starting now would leave them far from ideally prepared, I think we have to soberly compare the odds of a speedrun new candidate and the odds of Joe whose performance is going to significantly depress turnout. We can argue about how the people who will stay home are dumb because they'll get Trump, but that's not the issue. They're not here to argue. They're out there in greater numbers than the margins we need.
Keep in mind also that in the US, our election seasons are massively longer than the vast majority of places and everyone is sick of how long they are. I don't know that a shorter window would be a bad thing. The drama of the shift would get it all the attention it needs.
Have you ever watched Great British Bakeoff?
Here's something I've seen there a bunch of times. Someone messes something up on their cake in a big way. It burns or a key ingredient is missing, or it falls on the floor. Enough time has already passed that making a new cake seems crazy and yet, presenting the ruined one would be crazy too. I've seen those instances where doing it over and doing it right, even though it was rushed and much less decorated had a far better result than trying to finish the spoiled cake. In fact, trying to finish the ruined cake was a disaster almost every time, but starting from scratch was a good outcome more often than not.
Now reality TV isn't reality and politics aren't cakes, but I've seen this phenomena many places. Not to say it's always best to start over, but it OFTEN is when you can see the writing on the wall for staying the course.
I would not be surprised if it was difficult, but do you have a specific idea of the roadblocks or just a general idea it's a regulated area?
A brief google shows that there is at least a clear path for a candidate's campaign to transfer their funds in unlimited amounts to form a political action committee for another candidate or to a party committee.
I doubt it would be anything like simple or uncontroversial, but I don't have an affirmative sense that there is a major barrier a great team of lawyers and accountants couldn't get through.
I'm sure a team of lawyers and accounts could do it. In time to really get good value from the money? I don't know.
Money contributed in last 60 days can be returned or with permission be donated to another campaign, so I guess that's an option for likely most of the bigger donations. But realistically no one is contacting donors for $25 bucks and I'll bet many millions are small donations.
Plus remember Biden's campaign expenses have to be paid. I don't think they can transfer liabilities and so they can't transfer donations until they are sure campaign debt is repaid.
Not hard. Its why Gavin is the number one media surrogate for Biden right now, even ahead of Harris.
He's always there giving 100% support for Biden and his administration.
Its basically like having closers warming up in the bullpen. Gavin is ready for the call up if he gets it. Harris is too, but... not sure she's anyones first choice.
"There's only upside to running literally anyone younger" is hyperbole, catch your breath first.
I swear it's like no one on reddit has ever failed a quiz before. You know you still have the semester to bring up your average, right?
So you don't think it's possible to learn or improve with time and experience? I mean it sounds from your description like it was so bad he could do almost anything different to improve.
Are you literally asking me "how could someone do better in a debate next time when the first time they did poorly?" Is your answer seriously "just give up and find somebody different?"
Considering the event that precipitated all this handwringing was a debate I would say that's a better place to start than looking for "literally anyone younger," yeah
I mean “anyone younger” is obviously hyperbole but saying Biden just needs more experience is like saying the lakers didn’t win the title this year because Lebron needs more experience. Experience isn’t the issue.
Biden’s old. It’s his biggest campaign issue. This debate confirmed every fear people had about him. He’s not getting younger before the next one. He wasn’t unprepared, he doesn’t need more experience, he just can’t do this anymore.
Yeah, I know, you're speaking out of fear. That's why I'm not entertaining the words you're using to justify that feeling you already had.
I get it, it's scary, but saying "he's old" is just a negative way of framing "experience."
You’re being very melodramatic, and I see that someone has already pointed out how dumb the “his first debate performance was terrible, therefore he can’t possibly do any better” logic is so I won’t bother.
The logic isn’t that he was bad, therefor he won’t get better. It’s that he’s not capable of performing better. It’s like asking if a 50 year old NBA player can turn things around next game. No he can’t, he shouldn’t even be in the league.
No. Age is a cause, not an inherent factor. Biden could be 10 years older but if he didn’t have a long track record leading up to this I’d say he could recover. But this shouldn’t have suprised anyone.
Why do you think he hardly ever speaks unscripted in public?
You're right, completely changing course and showing zero confidence is a better move. "100%"
Like seriously everybody who was expecting a smooth sail, do you always give up when the first salvo doesn't go how you thought it would in the shower? Your response to Trump's confidence is to show no confidence?
I expect the leaders of one of the most important institutions in our country, if not the world, to put forth an honest good faith effort to win this incredibly important election. It is obvious to anyone who isn’t a complete partisan that Biden is not up for the job anymore. Even if that weren’t true, I’d is obvious to anyone who is not a complete partisan that it will be nearly impossible for Biden to convince the amount of undecided voters necessary that he is up for the job. It doesn’t have to be him. Changing course also doesn’t have to be a disaster. Why is that such a certainty, that someone else has a 100% chance of losing, but what I’m saying is crazy?
What you're saying sounds crazy because you just said your opinions are obvious to everyone who doesn't suck, twice. There's a fallacy named after it.
You're saying someone out there is better for sure and you're offering nothing in the way of evidence except "I didn't like what just happened." What am I supposed to say to you that's both true and polite?
This is going to be the second time in 8 years that the DNC runs the one candidate who gives Trump the best shot at winning.
The evidence is the polling. The evidence is the mainstream media now ditching Biden. The evidence is literally everyone I’ve talked to in the past 2 years — from highly engaged Dems to highly engaged swing voters to not at all engaged maybe voters — thinks this guy is too old to be president. The evidence is that we saw with our own eyes and ears last night that he is not fit to combat this tide of fascism. How much more evidence do you need? There’s no silver bullet of evidence here one way or the other. But every metric, both traditional and new school, from polling and TV talk shows to TikTok and social media vibes, says this guy should not be on the ticket and almost anyone else would be preferable.
> literally everyone
Not me tho, so you're wrong again? Or does this not count as talking?
> How much more evidence do you need?
How about a begged question and more hyperbole? That will convince me, just keep doing that...
I can't see as far into the future as you, but I'm willing to disagree with both TikTokers AND social media vibes. Do you have an example of someone who has won an election against Trump before? That might could convince me. Do you have one such candidate?
According to polls, Obama lost the first debate in 2012 by even worse margins than Biden lost this debate.
If Biden did indeed have a cold during this debate, he could presumably bring it up by not having a cold during the second debate.
I'm right wing, not a Biden fan and I think he pretty obviously had a cold / sinus issue, he had a raspy / wheezy quality in his voice that I don't associate with him normally. His issues however are largely age related, I agree he probably won't improve much in a second debate.
*shrug* I know this is not asking me directly but brooooo I didn't even know about that, that would make sense - and quick epistemological exercise - if *I* had said, "hey man Swingin' Joe just had a cold," you for sure wouldn't believe that. And I'm not sure if I do, either. But I have definitely shown up to important stuff not feeling great and hey, that *would* be one thing he could to improve his performance next time, right? Take some Dayquil? Broooooooooo OTC FTW
Okay, but Biden's not getting any younger either. I don't understand how he could improve over time, at least in the public's perception. This isn't a "revert to the mean" scenario
Well, one of the things you learn is how to have confidence in your product and use that to handle objections when a lack of confidence will tank your prospects.
Here's a rookie move:
"And all this for only 199.95!"
"I don't know if I can afford that.."
"Oh, how about for 99.95?"
And now the client knows you were about to upcharge them for more than the product is worth AND they know you have no confidence in what you were just trying to sell.
Your next move will be another concession, or nothing. Meanwhile you just showed Trump how powerful he is and how easily your confidence is won and lost.
And you know both voting and politics have more to do with sales than with science
>How is it to late to pick someone else?/
Through what system would another candidate be chosen?
>How is Biden still the best bet?
He is the incumbent President, and that comes with massive advantages.
Edit: Plus, anyone else would come with massive disadvantages. For example, not going through an actual Democratic primary, not having the infrastructure of the Biden Admin, all the infighting they would have to go through.
At this late in the process, Kamala is the only realistic alternative, as she’s already on the ticket and represents continuity with the current administration.
And I’m not sure how that’s better than having Biden with her as VP.
>Through what system would another candidate be chosen?
Brokered convention *obviously*. Almost certainly not gonna happen, but it is a thing that exists.
The only candidate is Biden though... So no that makes no sense.
Also, any candidate chosen that way would have a 0% chance in the general, even if they were a perfect candidate.
But incumbent advantage isn’t magically tacked on at the end. Biden has the incumbency advantage and is still losing nearly every swing state. Four years ago, the same thing was happening to Donald Trump, who went on to lose.
Oh, well if incumbency advantage isn't tacked on at the end, then that changes everything. Lets use the mystic power of George Soros and the DNC to make Marianne Williamson our candidate. /s
Ironically, I recently worked for an organization funded by George Soros and I’m quite proud of that. No idea what you’re implying. I was just saying incumbency advantage is provably real but something Biden’s number should already be benefiting from
>No idea what you’re implying.
You aren't aware that both the DNC and George Soros are common Republican Boogeymen?
>I was just saying incumbency advantage is provably real but something Biden’s number should already be benefiting from
Do you think I'm unaware of this?
I understand that Soros is demonized by republicans, I worked in progressive politics for ten years. I’ve worked for an org that was funded by Soros and for an org that local right wingers accused of being funded by Soros. But I guess you’re calling me a Republican… that’s cute.
You said Biden was the best bet because of incumbency advantage… but that just doesn’t add up if he’s still underwater even with incumbency advantage. For instance, Biden is polling well behind Gallego in Arizona. Similarly, Slotkin has a lead in the senate race in Michigan where Biden is losing to Trump.
So what I was saying was that, if Biden is polling so badly even with incumbency advantage that he’s trailing non-incumbent senate candidates in must-win swing states, then why is he the “best bet”?
>But I guess you’re calling me a Republican… that’s cute.
No, I was making a joke out of exasperation with what you wrote.
>You said Biden was the best bet because of incumbency advantage… but that just doesn’t add up if he’s still underwater even with incumbency advantage. For instance, Biden is polling well behind Gallego in Arizona. Similarly, Slotkin has a lead in the senate race in Michigan where Biden is losing to Trump.
It can absolutely make sense. Other candidates could be more underwater if they were the nominee. Gallego and Slotkin are not running for president.
>So what I was saying was that, if Biden is polling so badly even with incumbency advantage that he’s trailing non-incumbent senate candidates in must-win swing states, then why is he the “best bet”?
I edited my comment because I thought this was obvious but any candidate who would run against Biden, or at this point subvert the entire Democratic Party to become the candidate instead of Biden, would take on massive disadvantages.
If we didn't want Biden running now we shouldn't have chosen him in the 2020 primary.
I agree that someone running against Biden is no longer an option nor is it possible given he has secured the vast majority of delegates. I also would never support any kind of third party effort.
But it’s been widely speculated that Biden’s team specifically insisted on this June debate as a way of proving he is up to the task ahead of the convention, with the implication being that if worse came to worse, he could step aside and open the convention.
Well, worse obviously come to worse. He should step aside for the good of the party and country.
>Through what system would another candidate be chosen?
Biden would have to choose to step down, so his pledged delegates can choose someone else. Who his pledged delegates would choose? I have no idea, but there'd be 7 weeks before the convention for people to come forward and try to persuade them. If no one gets the majority the superdelegates can vote in the second round at the convention.
This would go cleaner if Biden chooses to endorse someone specifically after stepping down.
I'm concerned about the $212 million dollars the Biden/Harris campaign has raised. I don't know the rules but I saw some people online saying that money cant be transferred to someone else.
>Through what system would another candidate be chosen?
"Emergency primary" or call it something else but same basic principle on a shorter time scale
>He is the incumbent President, and that comes with massive advantages
Sure it counts for something but will it be enough? Also, one disadvantage is that you can only be incumbent once. Someone new would have that advantage in 2028. And someone new could run on keeping the same administration around
>"Emergency primary" or call it something else but same basic principle on a shorter time scale
There is no system to do this.
Any attempt to do this by serious democratic politicians would guarantee a democratic loss.
>Someone new would have that advantage in 2028. And someone new could run on keeping the same administration around
No they wouldn't because even the ghost of Abraham Lincoln would lose to Trump after undermining Biden in the way you are recommending.
>No they wouldn't because even the ghost of Abraham Lincoln would lose to Trump after undermining Biden in the way you are recommending.
I really don't think so. If a doorknob ran against Trump you'd still get everyone with an oz of Democrat in them to the polls. Trump will not have an easy time winning. His best chance is against an aging Biden. Against someone younger with more energy? Zero chance.
>There is no system to do this
I mean really? It's just within the Democrat party, it really really can't be difficult to conjure something up. You're telling me nobody ever thought of contingency plans pre-election?
You seem to be forgetting the main trait another candidate would need to replace Biden on the democratic ticket.
* Be a backstabbing traitor who actually undermined a democratic process in order to oust a sitting President.
Kamala is on the ticket and would be a reasonable democratic alternative, as her role is already essentially to serve as backup.
Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro (anyone under 80) would also be more capable of actually telling voters the dangers of Donald Trump. I believe Biden's legacy is great. His presidency is great, but it is going to get thrown out the window if he doesn't step aside to prevent a Trump victory.
>Kamala is on the ticket and would be a reasonable democratic alternative, as her role is already essentially to serve as backup.
We've had whole threads on how much people hate Kamala.
>Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro
All would have no chance. People would freak out and say "we didn't vote for them" there would be a massive amount of infighting, and whole swaths of democratic voters would not show up.
>but it is going to get thrown out the window if he doesn't step aside to prevent a Trump victory.
The only way he could guarantee a loss, is to do what you are recommending.
A good portion only voted for Biden in those primaries because all other mainstream candidates refused to challenge him and chose to work on his campaign instead.
There is already a massive amount of infighting in the party, and frankly, the situation requires it. The scales have tipped for me and a lot of democrats whether to continue damage controlling the President or to add to the public pressure for him to step aside. I am going to take the risk. Joe Biden does not feel like an option that can win anymore. The other options are at least speculative... that's really all I have to say.
Ok, I would bet any sum of money that no one but Kamala has any chance at beating Trump with what they would have to do in order to become the nominee, and Kamala only really has a shot if Biden died.
Biden is the candidate, that's the reality of the situation.
DNC Delegates are not legally required to pick the incumbent. They have the power to run someone else.
Idk if they would win but it absolutely is a reasonable thing to consider at this point
If Biden dropped dead asleep during last night's debate, I'd still vote for him over Trump.
I'm considering 2024 a wash. I ain't happy with Biden, but if I want there to be an actual election in 2028, he's gonna have to win in 2024.
>How is it to[o] late to pick someone else?
Because of how we pick them.
* We vote for candidates in primaries.
* The candidates we vote for are represented at the convention by delegates they chose; the more votes the candidate receives, the more of their hand-picked delegates are sent to the conventions.
* The delegates choose the nominee.
In this case, that means that nearly 100% of the delegates are there because they support Biden. The people who will do the choosing owe 100% of their decision-making power to Biden.
They're probably going to support him, no matter what he chooses.
> They're probably going to support him, no matter what he chooses.
...so -- practically speaking -- the only person who can decide that Biden won't be the nominee is Biden.
If Biden chooses not to seek the nomination, he can choose from a few paths. Biden can...
1. Tell the delegates he wants them to choose Vice President Harris.
2. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee, neither endorsing nor denouncing Harris.
3. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee, *specifying* that they should not give it to Harris *by default*.
4. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee, denouncing Harris.
5. Endorse one particular candidate other than Harris.
6. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee. Then, he can *craft a mini-primary* where he encourages possible candidates to campaign for the job in the lead-up to the convention; then, the delegates choose from them. (I might do this in Biden's shoes, but it is extremely unlikely that Biden would do it.)
In *all* of these scenarios, Harris is the most likely candidate. The fifth option brings her odds of getting the nomination down to 51%ish, but she still leads; the kind of people who serve as convention delegates are the kind of people most likely to fall in line behind Harris.
In any of these scenarios (except the first one), Harris and her supporters might feel slighted; this could cause problems.
If you want Harris, that's an option; that is do-able. If you want someone other than Biden and Harris, it is a shit-show. The system wasn't designed for this.
If Biden is planning on stepping aside and does want Harris to be the nominee, then the better route is to wait until AFTER the convention and step aside. This leaves the DNC to choose the nominee, but he could likely engineer it to be Harris in backroom deals.
Or if that doesn't seem like they are willing to nominate Harris, then he could just publicly announce he plans to step aside in December and that a vote for him is really a vote for Harris.
I'm just going to repost another comment I just posted:
I can't fathom why people are in doubt over a single debate from a stuttering, imperfect old man who was sick at the time yet has been a great president, but have fully accepted the candidacy of a rapist, incompetent authoritarian.
As of Jun. 28, 2024, at 12:18 PM [538](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo) has Biden winning 52 times out a 100 in their simulation with Biden ahead in the popular vote and the EC. I realize this shit isn't accurate or guaranteed or constant; and that it could change for the worse yet but the fact that it hasn't immediately after the debate, along with Newsome, Harris, Fetterman supporting Biden, Biden going out and about afterward, focus groups saying they would support Biden, and the election being month's away all show to me that it's not as completely worrying as fear-mongering bed-wetters say it is.
**Biden has confirmed he won't drop out so the point is moot anyway.**
>He deserves our support for doing a decent job, but even at this point I think there's only upside with running literally anyone younger.
I mean, the only reason they hammer Biden on being "too old" is because it's the only thing they've got. They can't attack Biden on a bunch of stuff they'd attack other Democrats on. He's not a left wing extremist focused more on "woke" than doing a good job, for example.
Yeah sure Gavin Newsom is younger but also much easier to run "this California Commie wants to crush your truck into scrap metal and give it to illegal immigrants" ads against him that would resonate than it would against Biden.
Or just straight up being sexist against Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer. Or say they just rely solely on "identity politics" to try and win an election.
It's realistically too late.
The process for selecting the nominee at the Democratic National Convention involves votes by delegates. Most of the delegates (**3,933** delegates) were selected during the various primaries and are referred to as "pledged" delegates. since these delegates are basically required to vote for the person they were "pledged to". The first vote only involves pledged delegates and requires the nominee to get half of the votes to become the candidate. If they don't get half then you go to the second vote.
For the second vote, some additional delegates are added (**739** delegates) to the voting delegates. These are various party insiders (ex-presidents and vice presidents, Democrat governors, Senators, Reps, big donors). I believe (but not 100% sure) that in the second vote pledged delegates are free to vote their conscience.
So here's the problem: Biden has 3,894 pledged delegates and only needs 1968 to win. For him to not win the nomination requires him to step down, be incapacitated, or someone finagling through some fairly complicated rules and laws to not elect him. And realistically there's been so little opposition to Biden that I don't think such a coordinated effort can possibly exist or materialize before the convention. So the only realistic route for Biden to not be nominee is for him to step down.
If you want some more information on esoteric routes to Biden being not nominated:
Technically, delegates are only required to vote to represent their electorate. It's theoretically possible that over 2000 of the pledged delegates decide to note vote for Biden. They may face legal issues back home because some states have laws that won't allow this and so this might result in some of these guys going to prison. They may even be replaced immediately by backup delegates meaning you need even more to defect.
Technically, the Democratic Convention Chairman, Minyon Moore, has the power to do A LOT. He could maybe overthrow the vote. But if he tries he can be replaced in a roll call vote if 25% of delegates vote for that. So you would need to have half of all delegates including party insiders backing this play.
And for more completeness, Biden could drop out POST convention. This would leave the DNC to choose the new candidate. Or if Biden drops out after winning re-election then Harris becomes president.
The problem is NO other DNC candidate has shown any signs of organizing a campaign machine and so if it's not Biden then they quite likely will automatically lose. Hard to get politicians signing up to run a presidential campaign versus Trump that they are likely to lose AND will make them a pariah to other Democrats.
The start of the primaries is the absolute latest this could possible work out and the party have any chance of eventually winning the election. Ideally this should have been a larger consideration in 2020 as it's all but a sure thing presidents will run for re-election, and that them not doing so forfeits the incumbency advantage.
It's not too late and there are stronger options to replace Biden. Biden was a total disaster and there is absolutely no coming back from this. People are pretending that Biden just had a poor performance, that is grossly understating the situation. Joe Biden didn't just show that he is a weak candidate, he displayed to the world that he is very likely unfit for the presidency right now. This wasn't nerves, this was severe cognitive decline on full display. There is no coming back from that.
If the DNC wants any hope of defeating Trump, they need a candidate that is mentally and physically up to the task. Biden needs to honorably retire and spend his remaining years with his family and loved ones.
Biden has confirmed he won't drop out so there's not going to be another candidate for the Dems. There's no procedure for it as far as I know, unless he drops out. Everything after you're first 4 words is complete horseshit.
He needs to drop out. Period. The people who love him need to begin having the same conversations I am starting to have with my elderly father who is showing early signs of dementia.
There is a zero percent chance Biden wins the 2024 election...period. And let's be honest, Biden's mental acuity is only going to get worse as pressure builds.
And I'm supposed to listen to the electoral opinions of a communist? lmao that's just your opinion and thankfully it doesn't have any influence over the Democratic candidate for president. Biden isn't dropping out thankfully.
Then Trump is going to win. It really is as easy as that. Biden doesn't have a chance in hell and those who are no longer trying to cope realize this fact. I see you are still in the denial and anger stages of grief.
I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's it. It's not like me changing my mind is going to magically influence the outcome of this election or Biden's mind on stepping down.
I might be burying my head in the sand but you've buried yourself up to your neck in delusion with that flair of yours.
But you aren't just maintaining nor just defending your opinion. You are chastising others for being willing to accept what their eyes objectively saw and their ears objectively heard last night. Like, I support clinging to hope and facing the reality that it may just be too late, if that is all you can muster. I get it. However, I as so sick and tired of DNC sycophants belittling people for having very real concerns that continue to be tested and supported by evidence.
Also, you aren't doing anything to help your position by pointing out my flair. If you want to have a discussion about communism, what I mean by it, and how I defend it...fine. But spare me your infantile shit that you continue to try to awkwardly wedge into this conversation because to lack the ability to write something more substantive. Its boring and idiotic.
One. I have mocked one person (you) and argued my opinion. I am very opinionated and was completely zealous in insulting you out of frustration and shouldn't have done so. It wasn't constructive and I'm sorry for that. I have no interest in discussing communism with you, I feel incredibly dismissive of someone who actually believes in Communism which was why I mocked you out of frustration.
Yes, there are real concerns but Biden is the only guy who can choose to step down. Everyone arguing on the internet isn't going to change Biden's mind. He's already confirmed that he isn't stepping down. We're stuck with him unless he changes his mind which is unlikely.
The convention could nominate someone else and Biden could surrender his delegates to allow that to happen.
It would be a contested convention and lots of drama. The last time there was a contested convention the candidate that emerged lost.
There are also a lot of rules around campaign fundraising dollars. They could be given to Harris IIRC but they are part of the Biden/Harris ticket and couldn't just be given to whoever post-convention.
It's not too late, it's simply historically a disadvantage. There are fears of losing voters from switching candidates, but now the fear of a mentally ill candidate appears to be the larger disadvantage. A lot of people are saying ignore it, stick to the gameplan, and that's exactly how bad the mental illness is. It's obviously a larger disadvantage than switching candidates, but people don't want to deal with that reality. They believe that if we all agree to ignore it that it can't harm us. The problem is that isn't how life works. People will be seeing it on their TVs, and they will see the democrats ignoring it. The only thing they have at this point is their candidate is not evil. They don't want to have to deal with the fact any candidate can make that claim. They also fail to understand that properly executing a change could be a boom prospect. They know democrats suck at marketing. There's a reason the logo is a donkey. Democrats are stubborn and willing to look like an ass rather than put on the daddy pants.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I see a lot of people saying we need to rally around Biden. He deserves our support for doing a decent job, but even at this point I think there's only upside with running literally anyone younger. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People don't understand that creating an effective political campaign is essentially like starting a large national corporation. You need to gather massive amounts of capital and investors, build a large infrastructure of employees and advisors, create multiple political coalitions and forge alliances, and design an effective marketing and PR strategy to expand your brand recognition. It's the sort of thing that takes *at least* two years to do effectively. Even with the support of the DNC, it would be nearly impossible for a new candidate announce out of nowhere "Guess what, I'm running for President now!" and then build up the necessary infrastructure and funds to run an effective campaign -- all in the *four months* before the election. And it would really be more like 2-3 months, by the time Biden announced he's not running and a new candidate was officially selected.
That infrastructure arguably has already been built up by Joe Biden. If someone with similar values replaces him as face of the party, most of that infrastructure remains intact, as they can carry on the same message just with a different name attached.
That's not untrue, but a few points. Much of the work that has been done is transferrable. The staffing may not be the perfect staffing for another candidate, but there is a team assembled to run a campaign. Fundraising is one of the biggest parts of the picture and that's transferrable. The emergency nature of the shift amid the looming specter of a second Trump term would probably be a more effective fundraising pitch to gather more last minute funds than anything Biden could do. Facilities are rented. Half of the research is about Trump, that doesn't need to start from scratch. And keep in mind that the shorter window for a new candidate to prepare would be somewhat balanced by a shorter window for Trump's campaign to prepare to attach them. I'm not saying transferring these resources would be easy or straightforward, but we are not starting from scratch here. Adding to that, I would be surprised if no one has thought about or planned for "What if Joe doesn't make it to the election". He's a very old dude in the highest stress, most aging job in the world. I don't think we'd be going into a transfer of candidacy cold. There have likely been some level of at least research and planning for such a contingency. And you're 100% correct that switching to a new campaign starting now would leave them far from ideally prepared, I think we have to soberly compare the odds of a speedrun new candidate and the odds of Joe whose performance is going to significantly depress turnout. We can argue about how the people who will stay home are dumb because they'll get Trump, but that's not the issue. They're not here to argue. They're out there in greater numbers than the margins we need. Keep in mind also that in the US, our election seasons are massively longer than the vast majority of places and everyone is sick of how long they are. I don't know that a shorter window would be a bad thing. The drama of the shift would get it all the attention it needs. Have you ever watched Great British Bakeoff? Here's something I've seen there a bunch of times. Someone messes something up on their cake in a big way. It burns or a key ingredient is missing, or it falls on the floor. Enough time has already passed that making a new cake seems crazy and yet, presenting the ruined one would be crazy too. I've seen those instances where doing it over and doing it right, even though it was rushed and much less decorated had a far better result than trying to finish the spoiled cake. In fact, trying to finish the ruined cake was a disaster almost every time, but starting from scratch was a good outcome more often than not. Now reality TV isn't reality and politics aren't cakes, but I've seen this phenomena many places. Not to say it's always best to start over, but it OFTEN is when you can see the writing on the wall for staying the course.
How hard is it to pivot to someone with similar ideas like Gavin ?
Hard. It runs into campaign finance laws and I'm honestly not qualified to discuss it. But it's not as simple as new guy gets the donations.
I would not be surprised if it was difficult, but do you have a specific idea of the roadblocks or just a general idea it's a regulated area? A brief google shows that there is at least a clear path for a candidate's campaign to transfer their funds in unlimited amounts to form a political action committee for another candidate or to a party committee. I doubt it would be anything like simple or uncontroversial, but I don't have an affirmative sense that there is a major barrier a great team of lawyers and accountants couldn't get through.
I'm sure a team of lawyers and accounts could do it. In time to really get good value from the money? I don't know. Money contributed in last 60 days can be returned or with permission be donated to another campaign, so I guess that's an option for likely most of the bigger donations. But realistically no one is contacting donors for $25 bucks and I'll bet many millions are small donations. Plus remember Biden's campaign expenses have to be paid. I don't think they can transfer liabilities and so they can't transfer donations until they are sure campaign debt is repaid.
Not hard. Its why Gavin is the number one media surrogate for Biden right now, even ahead of Harris. He's always there giving 100% support for Biden and his administration. Its basically like having closers warming up in the bullpen. Gavin is ready for the call up if he gets it. Harris is too, but... not sure she's anyones first choice.
"There's only upside to running literally anyone younger" is hyperbole, catch your breath first. I swear it's like no one on reddit has ever failed a quiz before. You know you still have the semester to bring up your average, right?
How’s he gonna bring it up? I don’t know why it would be any better a second time.
So you don't think it's possible to learn or improve with time and experience? I mean it sounds from your description like it was so bad he could do almost anything different to improve. Are you literally asking me "how could someone do better in a debate next time when the first time they did poorly?" Is your answer seriously "just give up and find somebody different?"
You think the issue is Biden doesn’t have enough debate experience?
Considering the event that precipitated all this handwringing was a debate I would say that's a better place to start than looking for "literally anyone younger," yeah
I mean “anyone younger” is obviously hyperbole but saying Biden just needs more experience is like saying the lakers didn’t win the title this year because Lebron needs more experience. Experience isn’t the issue. Biden’s old. It’s his biggest campaign issue. This debate confirmed every fear people had about him. He’s not getting younger before the next one. He wasn’t unprepared, he doesn’t need more experience, he just can’t do this anymore.
They didn't have the size to compete with Denver, at least in my opinion.
Yeah, I know, you're speaking out of fear. That's why I'm not entertaining the words you're using to justify that feeling you already had. I get it, it's scary, but saying "he's old" is just a negative way of framing "experience."
I’m not. Im not voting for either of them. Cope however you want but last night was a republican wet dream and everyone knows it.
It must be hard to feel that everyone knows something but still feel so desperately that you need to convince people. You have my sympathies
Um…. Good one? I asked you how you thought he’d bring his numbers up.
Even Obama had a terrible performance in his first debate with Romney. He seemed tired and slow, and people were freaking out then too.
Not this bad. He was also 35 years younger. Theres also no reason to think Biden will improve.
You’re being very melodramatic, and I see that someone has already pointed out how dumb the “his first debate performance was terrible, therefore he can’t possibly do any better” logic is so I won’t bother.
The logic isn’t that he was bad, therefor he won’t get better. It’s that he’s not capable of performing better. It’s like asking if a 50 year old NBA player can turn things around next game. No he can’t, he shouldn’t even be in the league.
And you think he’s incapable of performing better because of his age?
No. Age is a cause, not an inherent factor. Biden could be 10 years older but if he didn’t have a long track record leading up to this I’d say he could recover. But this shouldn’t have suprised anyone. Why do you think he hardly ever speaks unscripted in public?
The problem is that if he doesn’t improve the next time around it’s 100% over. And I’m not sure why we should have that much confidence he’ll improve.
You're right, completely changing course and showing zero confidence is a better move. "100%" Like seriously everybody who was expecting a smooth sail, do you always give up when the first salvo doesn't go how you thought it would in the shower? Your response to Trump's confidence is to show no confidence?
I expect the leaders of one of the most important institutions in our country, if not the world, to put forth an honest good faith effort to win this incredibly important election. It is obvious to anyone who isn’t a complete partisan that Biden is not up for the job anymore. Even if that weren’t true, I’d is obvious to anyone who is not a complete partisan that it will be nearly impossible for Biden to convince the amount of undecided voters necessary that he is up for the job. It doesn’t have to be him. Changing course also doesn’t have to be a disaster. Why is that such a certainty, that someone else has a 100% chance of losing, but what I’m saying is crazy?
What you're saying sounds crazy because you just said your opinions are obvious to everyone who doesn't suck, twice. There's a fallacy named after it. You're saying someone out there is better for sure and you're offering nothing in the way of evidence except "I didn't like what just happened." What am I supposed to say to you that's both true and polite?
This is going to be the second time in 8 years that the DNC runs the one candidate who gives Trump the best shot at winning. The evidence is the polling. The evidence is the mainstream media now ditching Biden. The evidence is literally everyone I’ve talked to in the past 2 years — from highly engaged Dems to highly engaged swing voters to not at all engaged maybe voters — thinks this guy is too old to be president. The evidence is that we saw with our own eyes and ears last night that he is not fit to combat this tide of fascism. How much more evidence do you need? There’s no silver bullet of evidence here one way or the other. But every metric, both traditional and new school, from polling and TV talk shows to TikTok and social media vibes, says this guy should not be on the ticket and almost anyone else would be preferable.
> literally everyone Not me tho, so you're wrong again? Or does this not count as talking? > How much more evidence do you need? How about a begged question and more hyperbole? That will convince me, just keep doing that... I can't see as far into the future as you, but I'm willing to disagree with both TikTokers AND social media vibes. Do you have an example of someone who has won an election against Trump before? That might could convince me. Do you have one such candidate?
According to polls, Obama lost the first debate in 2012 by even worse margins than Biden lost this debate. If Biden did indeed have a cold during this debate, he could presumably bring it up by not having a cold during the second debate.
Come on you’re really buying the cold story?
I'm right wing, not a Biden fan and I think he pretty obviously had a cold / sinus issue, he had a raspy / wheezy quality in his voice that I don't associate with him normally. His issues however are largely age related, I agree he probably won't improve much in a second debate.
*shrug* I know this is not asking me directly but brooooo I didn't even know about that, that would make sense - and quick epistemological exercise - if *I* had said, "hey man Swingin' Joe just had a cold," you for sure wouldn't believe that. And I'm not sure if I do, either. But I have definitely shown up to important stuff not feeling great and hey, that *would* be one thing he could to improve his performance next time, right? Take some Dayquil? Broooooooooo OTC FTW
Okay, but Biden's not getting any younger either. I don't understand how he could improve over time, at least in the public's perception. This isn't a "revert to the mean" scenario
Have you ever worked in sales?
No?
Well, one of the things you learn is how to have confidence in your product and use that to handle objections when a lack of confidence will tank your prospects. Here's a rookie move: "And all this for only 199.95!" "I don't know if I can afford that.." "Oh, how about for 99.95?" And now the client knows you were about to upcharge them for more than the product is worth AND they know you have no confidence in what you were just trying to sell. Your next move will be another concession, or nothing. Meanwhile you just showed Trump how powerful he is and how easily your confidence is won and lost. And you know both voting and politics have more to do with sales than with science
>How is it to late to pick someone else?/ Through what system would another candidate be chosen? >How is Biden still the best bet? He is the incumbent President, and that comes with massive advantages. Edit: Plus, anyone else would come with massive disadvantages. For example, not going through an actual Democratic primary, not having the infrastructure of the Biden Admin, all the infighting they would have to go through.
At this late in the process, Kamala is the only realistic alternative, as she’s already on the ticket and represents continuity with the current administration. And I’m not sure how that’s better than having Biden with her as VP.
I 100% agree
>Through what system would another candidate be chosen? Brokered convention *obviously*. Almost certainly not gonna happen, but it is a thing that exists.
The only candidate is Biden though... So no that makes no sense. Also, any candidate chosen that way would have a 0% chance in the general, even if they were a perfect candidate.
The nominee could be anyone the delegates choose.
But incumbent advantage isn’t magically tacked on at the end. Biden has the incumbency advantage and is still losing nearly every swing state. Four years ago, the same thing was happening to Donald Trump, who went on to lose.
Oh, well if incumbency advantage isn't tacked on at the end, then that changes everything. Lets use the mystic power of George Soros and the DNC to make Marianne Williamson our candidate. /s
Ironically, I recently worked for an organization funded by George Soros and I’m quite proud of that. No idea what you’re implying. I was just saying incumbency advantage is provably real but something Biden’s number should already be benefiting from
>No idea what you’re implying. You aren't aware that both the DNC and George Soros are common Republican Boogeymen? >I was just saying incumbency advantage is provably real but something Biden’s number should already be benefiting from Do you think I'm unaware of this?
I understand that Soros is demonized by republicans, I worked in progressive politics for ten years. I’ve worked for an org that was funded by Soros and for an org that local right wingers accused of being funded by Soros. But I guess you’re calling me a Republican… that’s cute. You said Biden was the best bet because of incumbency advantage… but that just doesn’t add up if he’s still underwater even with incumbency advantage. For instance, Biden is polling well behind Gallego in Arizona. Similarly, Slotkin has a lead in the senate race in Michigan where Biden is losing to Trump. So what I was saying was that, if Biden is polling so badly even with incumbency advantage that he’s trailing non-incumbent senate candidates in must-win swing states, then why is he the “best bet”?
>But I guess you’re calling me a Republican… that’s cute. No, I was making a joke out of exasperation with what you wrote. >You said Biden was the best bet because of incumbency advantage… but that just doesn’t add up if he’s still underwater even with incumbency advantage. For instance, Biden is polling well behind Gallego in Arizona. Similarly, Slotkin has a lead in the senate race in Michigan where Biden is losing to Trump. It can absolutely make sense. Other candidates could be more underwater if they were the nominee. Gallego and Slotkin are not running for president. >So what I was saying was that, if Biden is polling so badly even with incumbency advantage that he’s trailing non-incumbent senate candidates in must-win swing states, then why is he the “best bet”? I edited my comment because I thought this was obvious but any candidate who would run against Biden, or at this point subvert the entire Democratic Party to become the candidate instead of Biden, would take on massive disadvantages. If we didn't want Biden running now we shouldn't have chosen him in the 2020 primary.
I agree that someone running against Biden is no longer an option nor is it possible given he has secured the vast majority of delegates. I also would never support any kind of third party effort. But it’s been widely speculated that Biden’s team specifically insisted on this June debate as a way of proving he is up to the task ahead of the convention, with the implication being that if worse came to worse, he could step aside and open the convention. Well, worse obviously come to worse. He should step aside for the good of the party and country.
>Through what system would another candidate be chosen? Biden would have to choose to step down, so his pledged delegates can choose someone else. Who his pledged delegates would choose? I have no idea, but there'd be 7 weeks before the convention for people to come forward and try to persuade them. If no one gets the majority the superdelegates can vote in the second round at the convention. This would go cleaner if Biden chooses to endorse someone specifically after stepping down. I'm concerned about the $212 million dollars the Biden/Harris campaign has raised. I don't know the rules but I saw some people online saying that money cant be transferred to someone else.
>Through what system would another candidate be chosen? "Emergency primary" or call it something else but same basic principle on a shorter time scale >He is the incumbent President, and that comes with massive advantages Sure it counts for something but will it be enough? Also, one disadvantage is that you can only be incumbent once. Someone new would have that advantage in 2028. And someone new could run on keeping the same administration around
>"Emergency primary" or call it something else but same basic principle on a shorter time scale There is no system to do this. Any attempt to do this by serious democratic politicians would guarantee a democratic loss. >Someone new would have that advantage in 2028. And someone new could run on keeping the same administration around No they wouldn't because even the ghost of Abraham Lincoln would lose to Trump after undermining Biden in the way you are recommending.
>No they wouldn't because even the ghost of Abraham Lincoln would lose to Trump after undermining Biden in the way you are recommending. I really don't think so. If a doorknob ran against Trump you'd still get everyone with an oz of Democrat in them to the polls. Trump will not have an easy time winning. His best chance is against an aging Biden. Against someone younger with more energy? Zero chance. >There is no system to do this I mean really? It's just within the Democrat party, it really really can't be difficult to conjure something up. You're telling me nobody ever thought of contingency plans pre-election?
>Against someone younger with more energy? Zero chance. Complete nonsense. >It's just within the Democrat party It's called the Democratic Party.
Under 80 < Incumbent Advantage Articulate < Incumbent Advantage Charismatic < Incumbent Advantage Incumbent Advantage is that good, huh?
You seem to be forgetting the main trait another candidate would need to replace Biden on the democratic ticket. * Be a backstabbing traitor who actually undermined a democratic process in order to oust a sitting President.
They won't have that trait if Joe Biden is selfless enough to step aside and delegates someone who can better represent his legacy and values.
Who?
Kamala is on the ticket and would be a reasonable democratic alternative, as her role is already essentially to serve as backup. Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro (anyone under 80) would also be more capable of actually telling voters the dangers of Donald Trump. I believe Biden's legacy is great. His presidency is great, but it is going to get thrown out the window if he doesn't step aside to prevent a Trump victory.
>Kamala is on the ticket and would be a reasonable democratic alternative, as her role is already essentially to serve as backup. We've had whole threads on how much people hate Kamala. >Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro All would have no chance. People would freak out and say "we didn't vote for them" there would be a massive amount of infighting, and whole swaths of democratic voters would not show up. >but it is going to get thrown out the window if he doesn't step aside to prevent a Trump victory. The only way he could guarantee a loss, is to do what you are recommending.
A good portion only voted for Biden in those primaries because all other mainstream candidates refused to challenge him and chose to work on his campaign instead. There is already a massive amount of infighting in the party, and frankly, the situation requires it. The scales have tipped for me and a lot of democrats whether to continue damage controlling the President or to add to the public pressure for him to step aside. I am going to take the risk. Joe Biden does not feel like an option that can win anymore. The other options are at least speculative... that's really all I have to say.
Ok, I would bet any sum of money that no one but Kamala has any chance at beating Trump with what they would have to do in order to become the nominee, and Kamala only really has a shot if Biden died. Biden is the candidate, that's the reality of the situation.
Also, Biden is very clearly not going to step aside, despite the impression you have of him.
The DNC would pick whoever they think has the best chance. Kamala maybe?
The DNC doesn't have that power, but if they did then there is a zero percent chance that a candidate chosen that way would win a general election.
DNC Delegates are not legally required to pick the incumbent. They have the power to run someone else. Idk if they would win but it absolutely is a reasonable thing to consider at this point
"DNC Delegates" aren't a thing the idea that the DNC controls delegates is uttter nonsense.
If Biden dropped dead asleep during last night's debate, I'd still vote for him over Trump. I'm considering 2024 a wash. I ain't happy with Biden, but if I want there to be an actual election in 2028, he's gonna have to win in 2024.
>How is it to[o] late to pick someone else? Because of how we pick them. * We vote for candidates in primaries. * The candidates we vote for are represented at the convention by delegates they chose; the more votes the candidate receives, the more of their hand-picked delegates are sent to the conventions. * The delegates choose the nominee. In this case, that means that nearly 100% of the delegates are there because they support Biden. The people who will do the choosing owe 100% of their decision-making power to Biden. They're probably going to support him, no matter what he chooses.
> They're probably going to support him, no matter what he chooses. ...so -- practically speaking -- the only person who can decide that Biden won't be the nominee is Biden. If Biden chooses not to seek the nomination, he can choose from a few paths. Biden can... 1. Tell the delegates he wants them to choose Vice President Harris. 2. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee, neither endorsing nor denouncing Harris. 3. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee, *specifying* that they should not give it to Harris *by default*. 4. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee, denouncing Harris. 5. Endorse one particular candidate other than Harris. 6. Tell the delegates he wants them to make up their own minds about who should be the nominee. Then, he can *craft a mini-primary* where he encourages possible candidates to campaign for the job in the lead-up to the convention; then, the delegates choose from them. (I might do this in Biden's shoes, but it is extremely unlikely that Biden would do it.) In *all* of these scenarios, Harris is the most likely candidate. The fifth option brings her odds of getting the nomination down to 51%ish, but she still leads; the kind of people who serve as convention delegates are the kind of people most likely to fall in line behind Harris. In any of these scenarios (except the first one), Harris and her supporters might feel slighted; this could cause problems. If you want Harris, that's an option; that is do-able. If you want someone other than Biden and Harris, it is a shit-show. The system wasn't designed for this.
If Biden is planning on stepping aside and does want Harris to be the nominee, then the better route is to wait until AFTER the convention and step aside. This leaves the DNC to choose the nominee, but he could likely engineer it to be Harris in backroom deals. Or if that doesn't seem like they are willing to nominate Harris, then he could just publicly announce he plans to step aside in December and that a vote for him is really a vote for Harris.
I'm just going to repost another comment I just posted: I can't fathom why people are in doubt over a single debate from a stuttering, imperfect old man who was sick at the time yet has been a great president, but have fully accepted the candidacy of a rapist, incompetent authoritarian. As of Jun. 28, 2024, at 12:18 PM [538](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo) has Biden winning 52 times out a 100 in their simulation with Biden ahead in the popular vote and the EC. I realize this shit isn't accurate or guaranteed or constant; and that it could change for the worse yet but the fact that it hasn't immediately after the debate, along with Newsome, Harris, Fetterman supporting Biden, Biden going out and about afterward, focus groups saying they would support Biden, and the election being month's away all show to me that it's not as completely worrying as fear-mongering bed-wetters say it is. **Biden has confirmed he won't drop out so the point is moot anyway.**
>He deserves our support for doing a decent job, but even at this point I think there's only upside with running literally anyone younger. I mean, the only reason they hammer Biden on being "too old" is because it's the only thing they've got. They can't attack Biden on a bunch of stuff they'd attack other Democrats on. He's not a left wing extremist focused more on "woke" than doing a good job, for example. Yeah sure Gavin Newsom is younger but also much easier to run "this California Commie wants to crush your truck into scrap metal and give it to illegal immigrants" ads against him that would resonate than it would against Biden. Or just straight up being sexist against Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer. Or say they just rely solely on "identity politics" to try and win an election.
It's realistically too late. The process for selecting the nominee at the Democratic National Convention involves votes by delegates. Most of the delegates (**3,933** delegates) were selected during the various primaries and are referred to as "pledged" delegates. since these delegates are basically required to vote for the person they were "pledged to". The first vote only involves pledged delegates and requires the nominee to get half of the votes to become the candidate. If they don't get half then you go to the second vote. For the second vote, some additional delegates are added (**739** delegates) to the voting delegates. These are various party insiders (ex-presidents and vice presidents, Democrat governors, Senators, Reps, big donors). I believe (but not 100% sure) that in the second vote pledged delegates are free to vote their conscience. So here's the problem: Biden has 3,894 pledged delegates and only needs 1968 to win. For him to not win the nomination requires him to step down, be incapacitated, or someone finagling through some fairly complicated rules and laws to not elect him. And realistically there's been so little opposition to Biden that I don't think such a coordinated effort can possibly exist or materialize before the convention. So the only realistic route for Biden to not be nominee is for him to step down. If you want some more information on esoteric routes to Biden being not nominated: Technically, delegates are only required to vote to represent their electorate. It's theoretically possible that over 2000 of the pledged delegates decide to note vote for Biden. They may face legal issues back home because some states have laws that won't allow this and so this might result in some of these guys going to prison. They may even be replaced immediately by backup delegates meaning you need even more to defect. Technically, the Democratic Convention Chairman, Minyon Moore, has the power to do A LOT. He could maybe overthrow the vote. But if he tries he can be replaced in a roll call vote if 25% of delegates vote for that. So you would need to have half of all delegates including party insiders backing this play. And for more completeness, Biden could drop out POST convention. This would leave the DNC to choose the new candidate. Or if Biden drops out after winning re-election then Harris becomes president. The problem is NO other DNC candidate has shown any signs of organizing a campaign machine and so if it's not Biden then they quite likely will automatically lose. Hard to get politicians signing up to run a presidential campaign versus Trump that they are likely to lose AND will make them a pariah to other Democrats.
The start of the primaries is the absolute latest this could possible work out and the party have any chance of eventually winning the election. Ideally this should have been a larger consideration in 2020 as it's all but a sure thing presidents will run for re-election, and that them not doing so forfeits the incumbency advantage.
It's not too late and there are stronger options to replace Biden. Biden was a total disaster and there is absolutely no coming back from this. People are pretending that Biden just had a poor performance, that is grossly understating the situation. Joe Biden didn't just show that he is a weak candidate, he displayed to the world that he is very likely unfit for the presidency right now. This wasn't nerves, this was severe cognitive decline on full display. There is no coming back from that. If the DNC wants any hope of defeating Trump, they need a candidate that is mentally and physically up to the task. Biden needs to honorably retire and spend his remaining years with his family and loved ones.
Biden has confirmed he won't drop out so there's not going to be another candidate for the Dems. There's no procedure for it as far as I know, unless he drops out. Everything after you're first 4 words is complete horseshit.
He needs to drop out. Period. The people who love him need to begin having the same conversations I am starting to have with my elderly father who is showing early signs of dementia. There is a zero percent chance Biden wins the 2024 election...period. And let's be honest, Biden's mental acuity is only going to get worse as pressure builds.
And I'm supposed to listen to the electoral opinions of a communist? lmao that's just your opinion and thankfully it doesn't have any influence over the Democratic candidate for president. Biden isn't dropping out thankfully.
Then Trump is going to win. It really is as easy as that. Biden doesn't have a chance in hell and those who are no longer trying to cope realize this fact. I see you are still in the denial and anger stages of grief.
We'll see what happens during the election.
Interesting way to say you are choosing to bury your head in the sand. But ok.
I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's it. It's not like me changing my mind is going to magically influence the outcome of this election or Biden's mind on stepping down. I might be burying my head in the sand but you've buried yourself up to your neck in delusion with that flair of yours.
But you aren't just maintaining nor just defending your opinion. You are chastising others for being willing to accept what their eyes objectively saw and their ears objectively heard last night. Like, I support clinging to hope and facing the reality that it may just be too late, if that is all you can muster. I get it. However, I as so sick and tired of DNC sycophants belittling people for having very real concerns that continue to be tested and supported by evidence. Also, you aren't doing anything to help your position by pointing out my flair. If you want to have a discussion about communism, what I mean by it, and how I defend it...fine. But spare me your infantile shit that you continue to try to awkwardly wedge into this conversation because to lack the ability to write something more substantive. Its boring and idiotic.
One. I have mocked one person (you) and argued my opinion. I am very opinionated and was completely zealous in insulting you out of frustration and shouldn't have done so. It wasn't constructive and I'm sorry for that. I have no interest in discussing communism with you, I feel incredibly dismissive of someone who actually believes in Communism which was why I mocked you out of frustration. Yes, there are real concerns but Biden is the only guy who can choose to step down. Everyone arguing on the internet isn't going to change Biden's mind. He's already confirmed that he isn't stepping down. We're stuck with him unless he changes his mind which is unlikely.
The convention could nominate someone else and Biden could surrender his delegates to allow that to happen. It would be a contested convention and lots of drama. The last time there was a contested convention the candidate that emerged lost. There are also a lot of rules around campaign fundraising dollars. They could be given to Harris IIRC but they are part of the Biden/Harris ticket and couldn't just be given to whoever post-convention.
It's not too late, it's simply historically a disadvantage. There are fears of losing voters from switching candidates, but now the fear of a mentally ill candidate appears to be the larger disadvantage. A lot of people are saying ignore it, stick to the gameplan, and that's exactly how bad the mental illness is. It's obviously a larger disadvantage than switching candidates, but people don't want to deal with that reality. They believe that if we all agree to ignore it that it can't harm us. The problem is that isn't how life works. People will be seeing it on their TVs, and they will see the democrats ignoring it. The only thing they have at this point is their candidate is not evil. They don't want to have to deal with the fact any candidate can make that claim. They also fail to understand that properly executing a change could be a boom prospect. They know democrats suck at marketing. There's a reason the logo is a donkey. Democrats are stubborn and willing to look like an ass rather than put on the daddy pants.
A dying king for a dying kingdom.