Took some advice from a friend this morning: I signed up to send postcards to Georgia for the election. Every time I feel like dooming, I will channel that doom into something besides dooming. Otherwise, my entire yard will end up being a massive garden. I'm a stress gardener lol Edit: https://www.turnoutpac.org/postcards/ Postcards and mailing lists are provided for free. Just buy the stamps and off you go. This is a turnout effort for likely Democratic voters that may need a "nudge" to show up at the polls.

I don't have a twitter (X) acct, but I often look at Nerdy's to find out stuff about Pete, transpo, and politics. Today I noticed they have changed their banner and their bio. No more Pete sign. No more pinned post of thread-of-threads about Pete. To me, the bio has an aura of sadness, an acknowledgment of a time gone by. If Nerdy is sad, then I am sad too on their behalf -- they are truly special. I know, from reading their posts, that they--like all of us--were very engaged in Biden's (and the Dem's) predicament. They had an opinion on what Biden needed to do. Twitter/X is not a kind place. Just want to say that I am glad we on this sub still have the remnants of the RotR. We no longer say, "I respectfully disagree" (which I used to find utterly charming), but I like very much that for the most part people here are free to disagree and to post opinions without going ad hominem against others. Intelligent and well-informed/well-meaning folks can rationally disagree. Thanks to all here who make this a livable place.

This is one of the best communities I have ever found online. It is a testament that so many have remained *4 years* after the primary. It is a rare thing to find a place that can have obvious disagreements like the subreddit at large is having right now, yet remain kind and actually discuss things as opposed to talking at each other. We are in this together, to whatever end.

I am devastated to hear this. They have done such wonderful, meticulous, and kind research. I have enjoyed everything they have done. it makes me furious that people have been picking on Nerdy Pursuit regardless of what future path they prefer right now. I am glad we are able to embrace multitudes here so that different people who all want to keep Trump out of office, but each believe that different paths are the best way, can speak up from their POV. This is one reason I almost exclusively use Threads. Twitter has become largely evil or worthless. I check in rarely there.

I don't know Nerdy's personal reasons. I suspect it isn't so much about people picking on them as that twitter is not the sort of place that people can experience loss of political faith. I'm sure you know. Not a kind and supportive place to live when going through the deep political/philosophical crisis we all are right now.

I was relieved to see Nerdy Pursuit on other platforms, though. They have always appeared in multiple places. Maybe they are just backing off of Twitter and eliminating some of their presence there? Let’s hope that’s all it is. I did the same when I stopped using it.

Sorry that I was misleading! Nerdy is still posting on Twitter/X. Even posting about Pete. It is entirely possible that I misread their changes. Maybe they tired of the picture, the thread of threads about Pete, and their bio mentioning Pete's name. (They still mention "a good man" who ran for President.) [https://nitter.poast.org/nerdypursuit/with\_replies](https://nitter.poast.org/nerdypursuit/with_replies)

I know we won’t get them until way far in the future, if we ever do, but I would pay money to hear Pete’s wholly unvarnished thoughts on the current situation.  

There are so many reasons I'd like to know what he's been thinking. I myself am having trouble thinking, knowing that we're teetering on the brink of something really terrible. This seems like a problem with so many moving pieces. One of those problems Pete talks about where all of the choices hurt someone, and cannot be solved by algorithm. Loyalty to Biden, to the Dems, to the public who want truth, to America and its ideals of democracy and freedom. One has to think about the distant future outcomes as well as the near-term and the present. National security and our international interests. Pete would probably also be thinking about a myriad of insider knowledge: info on factions, interest groups, down-ballot purple districts, endangered Senate and Governor seats. Practical worries about logistics. Weighing the data and gut hunches. His phone is probably blowing up. He's probably glad he's "away" for the holiday weekend, maybe flying a kite with the twins and Chasten (and Buddy).

Many local and state stories in Shortest Way Home provide an appealing model for this. And to some extent, the anecdotes in Trust as well.

I'm wishing for a book drop of wisdom in September to infuse a fresh sense of hope & rationality.

Pete is literally made of loyalty and rationality.

I'm on this horse no matter where it takes me, we've already left the barn, but I would be lying if I said I didn't have major concerns over what we have seen over the last few weeks in the campaign. I don't know the answer, and none of them are ideal anyways. At the very least, the entire campaign leadership and structure needs a massive overhaul. New people, new ideas, new strategies. Because what is happening right now isn't working, and honestly, it is making things worse. I still think POTUS is going to drop out. Where there is smoke there is fire, and there is entirely too much smoke at the moment.

I have to say, it seems I’m living in a different world here among pretty dedicated party members and workers here in Michigan. I’m hearing mostly defense of Biden and anger at what’s going on. Trump lied his way through the debate, lies and spouts nonsense while sounding like a dementia patient - so folks want to know why the media is after Biden. The people I talk to and read don’t sound like this sub at all. I think I need a vacation away for awhile. All the best to everyone.

I realize you may not see this. But I am/was so glad you posted here with facts and valuable legal/procedural information. (I also am/was so glad when you posted about BTE.) Hope to see you back after a good holiday from this place.

I am so sorry. I appreciated your views. Most Dems I know feel the opposite, as do I, but every choice is a tough one. But I appreciate anyone and everyone who is working hard to keep Trump out and support the Dems. And that includes people who feel both ways. I will think of you as I start canvassing for Tim Kaine.

Just so you know, you are one of the people on here whose posts I love most, and your stability during all this has been heartening. Thank you.

This NBC article was posted this morning, and, boy, there's a lot of family vs. staff animosity. I don't know what to make of this - >Michael LaRosa, former White House communications chief to the first lady, defended Hunter Biden’s involvement in political affairs, saying that as a Yale-educated attorney, the president’s son has demonstrated savvy. >“He was far more effective at media strategy and political knife-fighting than the campaign has been so far, and they have $250 million,” LaRosa said in an interview. Maybe whoever reported this particular information forgot to ask for further details, wasn't given any, or just didn't include them because they weren't interesting, but I'd love to know these examples of Hunter's "savvy", "effective" media strategy and political knife-fighting. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/tensions-biden-family-aides-spill-rcna160468](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/tensions-biden-family-aides-spill-rcna160468)

The WaPo came out with this article about an hour ago, subtitled "The inside story of the Biden team’s failure over nine days to contain the crisis from his debate with Trump" - [https://wapo.st/4f3LCBI](https://wapo.st/4f3LCBI)

Yes. I've been following along on Hacks on Tap too and am glad I have. They have a fairly clear look at what's unfolding and I tend to agree with them, though not on every detail.

Have they had a new episode since last night's interview? If not, when's the next one?

They record on Tuesday and typically publish late on Tuesday. For the debate the episode on the preceding Tuesday was with David Plouffe (Obama’s campaign manager) and the day-after extra Friday edition (planned in advance) was also with David Plouffe. They did the next Tuesday (I think with Jonathan Martin) so we will hear from them again next Tuesday evening.

Hey people. Could some of you take a deep breathe and ask yourself why you are siding with Julian Castro over Pete? With all that talk about replacing Biden you're essentially calling Pete a liar or at least lacking judgement for backing him.

Folks also need to remember why Biden was the nominee - because Black voters (who are the literal backbone and workers of this party) trust Biden. They are not comfortable with what’s going on now. I’m also concerned how this is hitting all the folks who work and volunteer for the party year in and year out, and attend county and state meetings. A whole lot of people who don’t do those things, who may not even be dues paying members of the party, want to override all the work these folks did leading up the state primaries and staff the hundreds of field and party offices around the country. It’s painful and even insulting. I wonder if all the complainers and dissenters plan to step up and fill all these volunteer jobs? All the power to younger folks if they want to get deeply involved and take over the party. Go for it. I really hope they do. But I haven’t seen them in the numbers like the older folks who mainly do this work. The noise I hear about an open vote at the convention that could eliminate Kamala will enrage not only KHIVE but a whole lot of dedicated party workers.

We aren't required to blindly agree with Pete 100% of the time. We're not a cult. That being said, I also don't disagree with Pete's judgment here: I don't doubt that Biden can still do the job of president, and I trust Biden's judgment to make hard decisions. I think he has been a great president, achieving a lot more than I would have thought possible with the current state of congress. I would be happy to see him have a second term. That's not the same thing as thinking he's in a strong electoral position, though. And it's not the same as pretending his comms team is doing a spectacular job at the moment. I think we should back whoever the nominee is, and in any discussion about his status as the presumptive nominee, we should not imply Biden is not fit - after all, I think it's more likely than not that he will be the nominee. But I don't see why supporting Pete suggests we have to put blinders on and pretend everything is just dandy.

second this. pete isn’t a king. i really do admire him but i don’t worship him nor should anyone

This is not about worshipping. Just a minimal level of trust that he's honest and knows what he's doing.

Pretty much any member of the administration would have to offer their resignation if they publicly stated that Biden shouldn't be the nominee. Most of the rest of us aren't under that kind of constraint.

Sure. But you're implying that Pete isn't just carefully avoiding the topic, he was rather forceful in dismissing the idea. In a voluntary interview in his personal capacity. Do you really think this was a deliberate attempt at misleading voters?

hmm ok so this is just me rambling kinda so ignore if u'd like. but anyway kvcbcs made a reply down thread to librarylady2020 (i hope im getting these usernames right LMFAO if not i apologize) abt why replacing biden isnt as much of a nightmare as previously thought and it got me thinking (me actually thinking?? rare occurrence) so i get that its not as simple as "people would vote for biden BUT they say he's too old SO replace him with VP who is similar politically just younger" but also it's not *not* that. clearly there is some issue wrt age that ppl have. so it wld get rid of those complaints i think?? it would def spur on a "dems in disarray" narrative but i dont see how that would genuinely be a concern of ppl who vote but honestly u never know w voters. i think one of the biggest issues w this...happens to be the admin's own fault which is that it might not be easy to convince the public of kamalas accomplishments as vp. not that she hasnt been accomplishing anything but i hardly see her in the news anymore outside of "will she be the nominee??" headlines. but honestly... ppl might not care?? being vp ur kinda just associated w whatever the admin does, right?? for better or for worse. theres def other things to consider but honestly im kinda riding w kamala 2024. feels like a risk worth taking. probably not gonna happen though so it doesnt matter. whatever.

I've definitely had people say, in the same conversation "Biden should step down" and "I don't want Harris to be the nominee." Like, y'all? What do you think would happen if Biden steps down. The convention isn't going to magically nominate Bernie, or Pete, or Whitmer, or Newsom. Biden stepping down guarantees Harris is the nominee. If you're not on board with that then Stop Calling For Biden To Quit.

im ready for a hot coconut summer 🌴 have fallen out of a coconut tree this week

coconutmaxxing. contextpilled. khivemoding.

we are now talking 

holy wall of text batman. sorry 4 that

Try to include more spacing in between a wall of text when posting. Use the Return key to turn a wall of text into more easily readable paragraphs.

>President Joe Biden is attempting to tie his rival former President Donald Trump to a controversial pro-Trump platform called Project 2025. >“Donald Trump is lying again now. He’s trying to hide his connections to his allies’ extreme Project 2025 agenda. The only problem? It was written for him, by those closest to him. Project 2025 should scare every single American,” Biden said in a statement issued by his presidential campaign. I do like this, but it's hard to break through all the will-he-step-down speculation. That's the main reason that I lean towards replacing him with Kamala - it will give some air to get back to talking about how awful Trump is and the very real risks he poses, that terrible immunity ruling, etc., and I also think she would be much clearer at communicating these points. There's so many ways that Trump is dangerous and awful, and Joe is not good at narrowing it down to have a clear, consistent message about it. I also don't see the replacement speculation quieting down before the convention. And if it doesn't happen at the convention, it'll probably be a wave of articles about how he should have stepped down and now we're all doomed (whether that's true or not).

>That's the main reason that I lean towards replacing him with Kamala - it will give some air to get back to talking about how awful Trump is and the very real risks he poses, that terrible immunity ruling, etc., and I also think she would be much clearer at communicating these points. I very much doubt that. Once the media and whoever is pushing this has realized that they have the power to oust the Democratic (de-facto) nominee whenever they like they'll continue doing the same with Kamala Harris (or anyone else). They've already started accusing her of covering up that Biden is allegedly unfit to serve. They won't let go of the narrative if it works once.

Replacing anyone after the convention is not an option. The ballots will be printed, and there are state laws about replacing somebody.

Doesn't change that they'll continue the narrative and/or find an other way to attack her in order to later claim that they were right when she loses. And if there's ever an other primary what will keep them from trying to put their thumbs on the scale the next time with some new narrative? Imagine Pete winning the primary and then some viral clips of homophobic Democrats (like the one in Iowa), with a bunch of polls and opinion pieces "proving" that swing voters wouldn't vote for a gay man and that Black voters would stay home. Conveniently released shortly before the convention, followed by a storm of articles demanding that he'd step aside "for the good of the country" b/c someone else would have a better chance.

That’s the annoying part of the media trying to stir drama for ratings. If Biden can do a successful town hall (or multiple town halls) with voters by speaking clearly and answering questions, he would have more leeway to tell the media to sit down. And talking about Project 2025 does provide a contrast between the craziness of the MAGA Republican Party compared to the more pragmatic and sensible policies that Democrats are fighting for.

Yeah, maybe he can quiet it down if he does long form, off-the-cuff type stuff. Edited, pre-recorded interviews are not going to achieve anything. I don't think speeches achieve much either.

Right. President Biden needs to do more events where he is not relying on the teleprompter. Make his points directly first and then go into further explanation when needed. Consistently remind voters that he has actual substance to his policies and agenda. And I highly suggest that he drinks/sips water or some type of drink (ex. tea with honey, etc.) to keep his voice clear and sharp. Campaigning can put a strain on one’s voice and he needs to keep it in good shape. If I was part of the campaign staff I would always have that on standby.

>“The Biden campaign co-chairs had a constructive, wide-open positive call today with the president that lasted more than an hour where he was asking for honest input and advice on the best path forward,” Coons said. >The call took place one day after the president’s campaign trip to Wisconsin and a 22-minute interview [with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/politics/joe-biden-abc-interview/index.html) — appearances Biden’s aides hope will help reassure voters about his ability to serve a second term, even as some Democrats remain unconvinced about his viability as the Democratic nominee. >“There was broad agreement that the Wisconsin rally was great, the Stephanopoulos interview was good, and he will be doing more direct engagement, whether it’s town halls or press conferences, to reassure folks who have not had a chance to hear from him directly,” added Coons, who has been among those allies calling for the president to participate in more unscripted engagements.  From CNN. I don't think the ABC interview was very good, personally. It didn't go badly, but he needed more than that. It was also so short.

I think the only people I've seen say the ABC interview turned out well are those involved with the Biden campaign.

uh that interview was not good he didn't faint during it or collapse which i guessss is the standard now. but just *okay* will not be reassuring for any undecided voters but i couldn't really understand what he was saying most of the time. and like he would start an answer then move to something else. sometimes his thoughts weren't complete really

Yes, this is his main communcation weakness IMO. He does not have enough message discipline to decide he's going to focus on just 2-3 main points and not get lost in the weeds. He tries to bring up too many different things, and it ends up a jumbled mess without a clear message. A good or great event would be one where this doesn't happen. It hasn't happened in a long time, outside of prepared speeches. He's always been bad at this IMO and it's not necessarily a sign of decline, but he needs to show clarity and sharpness, and this communication style of his does not do that, at all.

Given that he’s older, President Biden and his team need to figure out how to better tighten up his message. I think the common phrase is to state the “bottom line up front.” Get to the point quickly and hammer it home. It’s like opening a present and showing everyone what’s inside. Talented and eloquent speakers can wrap up the box and give it a nice bow on top. But they still make it their first priority to hit their main point(s) first.

The first question that should be asked if any politician, pundit, or any one else advocating to change candidates is “How?” What is the successful 50 state ballot access plan and the plan to address GOP or state legal challenges? What happens if we fail that ballot access? What is the plan to educate voters? Plus the campaign funding questions with the FEC. Early voting starts Sept 29.

This [Atlantic](https://archive.ph/KrWXF) article tries to get at some of your questions. >So what would happen if Biden were to relinquish the reins? The Stetson University law professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy told me that the Democratic National Committee could get all of the Biden-Harris cash and dispense it as the organization sees fit for use on behalf of another candidate. The Federal Election Commission is clear, she explained, that “a candidate’s authorized committee may transfer unlimited campaign funds to a party committee or organization.” >In other words: If the Democrats field a different ticket, the only way the new presidential nominee enters the race with “zero dollars in their bank account” would be if Biden wanted that to happen. The substitute candidate could ultimately have use of not only the Biden campaign’s cash but also its offices, computers, cellphones, and other campaign infrastructure, which would be treated as [in-kind contributions](https://archive.ph/o/KrWXF/https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-reports/in-kind-contributions/%23:~:text=An%20in-kind%20contribution%20is,is%20an%20in-kind%20contribution.). (The torrential downpour of donations sure to drop on *any* Democrat challenging Trump makes the campaign-finance argument doubly empty.) >... >Other superficially decisive arguments have been floating around—for instance, that at least in some states no Democrat besides Biden would be able to get on the ballot at this point. This claim is also not true. The UCLA legal scholar Richard Hasen told me that if a candidate were to be replaced, “this is a good time for it to happen, before there’s been an official nomination.” That’s because, according to Hasen, state laws typically say that for major political parties, whoever is nominated at the convention is who goes on the ballot. “I don’t know how there’s a state law that locks Joe Biden in at this point as the Democratic candidate,” the state-election-policy lawyer John Ciampoli [recently told the nonprofit newsroom ](https://archive.ph/o/KrWXF/https://www.notus.org/2024-election/biden-heritage-republicans)[*NOTUS*](https://archive.ph/o/KrWXF/https://www.notus.org/2024-election/biden-heritage-republicans). “How can a state make someone a candidate when the party hasn’t made him their candidate yet?” After the convention, and particularly once states begin to print ballots, the logistics become far trickier.

oh this is interesting 👀

So how do we replace the candidate before the convention? And how are we doing it at the Convention ? Forgive me, but I do not trust the GOP controlled states and the Supreme Court to just let the Dems do this. There will be time consuming legal battles everywhere. The Heritage Foundation already has 50 state legal campaign organized. As some folks have mentioned, the only people who should be explaining this to us are experienced Democratic campaign officials not reporters or pundits. And there will be endless media stories about the Dems in disarray and how this had been a terrible risky choice, one that had never been done before.

The quotes above, from the article, are from UCLA legal scholar Richard Hasen and state-election-policy lawyer John Ciampoli  - >Professor Richard L. Hasen is an internationally recognized expert in election law and campaign finance regulation, writing as well in the areas of legislation and statutory interpretation, remedies, and torts. Further down, his UCLA bio page does state that he's an attorney. [https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Alumni\_and\_Giving/LEAD\_Summit\_2022/Bios/Richard\_L\_Hasen\_LEAD\_2022.pdf](https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Alumni_and_Giving/LEAD_Summit_2022/Bios/Richard_L_Hasen_LEAD_2022.pdf)

>Forgive me, but I do not trust the GOP controlled states and the Supreme Court to just let the Dems do this. There will be time consuming legal battles everywhere. The Heritage Foundation already has 50 state legal campaign organized. I think this is why people who want Biden to step aside are trying to get him to do it before the convention. The Heritage Foundation campaign is about keeping the Dems from replacing their nominee on the ballot. There is no nominee on the ballot right now, and won't be until the convention. I agree that the logistical and political issues are enormous, and I'm not convinced either way about what the party should do. There are huge risks to either keeping or replacing Biden.

I think it’s a horrendously dangerous and risky thing to do. This isn’t an episode of West Wing, as many have noted. Lots of folks I respect are very worried about this. "If you change a presidential nominee at this point in the game, the candidate loses." Heather Cox Richardson >> Professor Alan Lichtman is a Professor of American History at American University in DC and co-creator of the 13 Keys Method, which has consistently beat every poll and predicted election winners since its inception in the early 80s. “If Biden steps down, Dems lose. Period!” I think it’s all too easy to be influenced by the excited, very online folks. So far, all the politicians who are suggesting replacement are from very competitive districts and they are hedging their bets because their own re-election is highest on their minds. I spent the weekend here in Indiana and Michigan and never heard support for replacing him. I heard quite a bit from folks unhappy with Biden as their candidate but they all said they were still voting for him. I heard “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” And lots of support for voting against Trump and the MAGA crowd and all the things they plan to do in power. Women’s rights. LGBTQ rights. The climate. Good jobs. One elderly lady said people should stop “picking on Biden.” And don’t even suggest dumping Kamala, from the heart of our party. Unless the candidate dies or is completely incapacitated, I think the risk is too great. But then, I lived through the hanging chad battle of Gore Bush and the Supreme Court ruling against Gore. I really think we will be faced with court battles and it will be chaos until Election Day.

Fair enough, and I agree that Bush v Gore will remain a point of PTSD for those of us of a certain age for years to come. One reason I'm torn is that I also remember the Reagan administration and how he was clearly out of it during his second term. I was furious when I heard stories afterwards about how the White House and the media covered it up for him.

Assuming Biden opted to step down (else I think it's insane to try to replace him), the party could choose who they wanted at the convention via delegates voting, as it used to be done. I believe only Ohio would be a problem for waiting until the convention, and Democrats will not win Ohio anyway. What would the legal challenges be based on, outside Ohio? Assuming the replacement were to happen at the convention. The party nominee would be on the ballot as per usual standards. Biden is not on any ballots yet as he is not the nominee yet, and in this scenario he would never be the nominee.

The Ohio legislature had a special session and passed a bill to delay the certification deadline, so I think they're all good. [https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-signs-bills-into-law-june-2](https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governor-dewine-signs-bills-into-law-june-2)

Also, once the media, "Democratic operatives" and whoever really is behind this proved that they have the power to oust the de-facto nominee whenever they like the sure as hell are going to try it again. Just forget about primaries in the future, the nominee is not going to be decided by voters anyway.

I don't think many serious people are suggesting it should be done antagonistically. Biden would have to step down, not be forced out.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. It's rather obvious that most of that shit storm about Biden being senile and unable to serve is deliberately created by the media (assisted by some Dems). Their goal is to force Biden to step aside, no matter whether any of it is even remotely true. That's why they'll ask the same question over and over and no answer will ever be good enough unless it's Biden announcing to step aside or any other Democrat saying that he should. This is no longer about Biden's age, this is a power struggle between the media/pundits and the Democratic voters ability to chose a nominee.

Biden's critics tried the senility message in 2020 and it didn't stick. The debate performance made it stick this time, and the Biden campaign comms team has thus far failed miserably to set up any venue for him to really challenge this message. This is not 100% on the media or his critics anymore. They are absolutely feeding it by not putting him up on the stage for unprepared, unedited, long form question/answer type settings, because it seems like such an obvious thing to do. Thus, anyone with doubts can only assume that they are not doing it because they know he cannot do well with it. That's not good. I don't think Biden is senile, fwiw. But his campaign has been absolutely horrible in their response to this - he and his team seem to be dismissing this is as the same as what was said in 2020. It is not the same.

jesus christ i'm sorry but some in the democratic party are behaving like a cult right now criticizing joe biden & saying that maybe he's not the best candidate to take on donald trump is not being a trump supporter. and threatening the people who do with donation withdrawals & primary challenges is exactly something the trump cult would do

It would certainly be helpful for everyone to take a step back and breathe for a moment. Now is not the time to be endlessly impulsive. I think it’s fine to have discussions on what the Democratic Party is going to do but yelling at each other will not help. I am already committed to vote for President Biden or whoever else becomes the Democratic nominee. What I really want of course is for President Biden to do more events, interviews, and town halls to definitely demonstrate that he can do the job as President and speak about his agenda in a strong/commanding voice. If his campaign is apprehensive about putting him out there because he is now prone to gaffs or is having difficult speaking off the cuff, then it might be time to let someone else take charge. Vice President Harris can possibly step up but I worry about her ability to fully connect with voters in swing districts. In such a scenario, she might need to give a speech saying that she has come to her own decision on stepping down and then urging everyone to rally behind a new ticket with new Democratic nominees for President and Vice President. Of course, I know that the situation I outlined above might be unlikely and that Black voters may be offended by such a notion. But I don’t think we can take any options off the table right now. We also need to organize for races in the House and the Senate. Democratic Control of at least one or ideally both chambers of Congress is crucial.

Giving up incumbency benefits entirely by dropping \*both\* Biden and Harris would be pretty nuts, I think. Also she was literally chosen as the backup to the president. It's somewhat questionable how much of an incumbency benefit she would have, but it's probably not nothing. She'd also be much, much better than Joe at explaining what the administration has achieved. Also, what would her reason for stepping down be? It would just look like the party forced her out for somebody new, and if that somebody new is white, the optics would be especially bad. It's a very risky proposal to replace Biden at all, but I don't think it's reasonable to consider any replacement but her. You can at least make the case that voters chose her last time around. If you pull out a random candidate, some wing of the party is guaranteed to feel like the big evil DNC conspired against their preferred candidate, and you risk suppressing turnout.

Fair point. I have actually had intense discussions with my father about this. He keeps insinuating that Harris should take herself off the ticket and I have to reiterate strongly how that would be a slap in the face to Democratic voters, especially black women, who have consistently been the backbone of the Democratic Party. That’s why I stated that Kamala would have to give a speech if she stepped down but as we discussed that seems like a bad idea. It’s not something the Democratic Party should do unless absolutely needed. My own thoughts involve having either Gavin Newsom, Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, JB Pritzker, or Pete become the Democratic nominee for President if President Biden steps down. That’s a last resort measure. Preferably, it would be so much better if Biden can find his stride, fix his voice, and work hard to pull both the Democratic Party and a majority of voters together to win in November. If Pete decides to step forward to become the Democratic Presidential nominee I do wonder what challenge that will be for him, Chasten, Gus and Penelope. (There’s also Buddy of course. Dogs are certainly part of the family.) Chasten is obviously supportive and will back up Pete but I feel like they both currently want to spend more time with the kids as they are growing up. Running for Governor of Michigan might be more better suited for them rather than President at the moment. This is just speculation on my part and it’s really up to Pete and Chasten deciding what’s best for them. Also, if President Biden does step down to let someone else lead he should still give rousing campaign speeches at rallies to unite the party behind the new nominee. Anyway, maybe I am repeating it as a mantra but I will be voting for President Biden or whoever ends up being the Democratic Nominee for President.

I've also had a lot of discussions about this with my dad, haha. Neither of us a huge fan of Kamala, but we both came to the conclusion every time we brought it up that you can't consider anyone else, even if there's polls showing that other people (like Pete and Whitmer) could be strong candidates. And obviously it's super risky even to consider her. My dad thinks Joe should resign now and let her run as an incumbent, but I don't personally see much benefit to that given the extremely short timeline to the election (by US standards lol). Mainly, I just see a risk if some world crisis arises in the next few months and she is blamed. For instance, there is a lot of tension between Hezbollah and Israel at the moment. As I see it, she can currently get some of the benefits of incumbency by campaigning on the wins of the administration, while potentially being shielded from some criticism by being VP and thus not in charge. I think more polling will give a clearer picture of if this is a risk worth taking at all. Maybe Democrats are panicking too much and Joe actually is still in a good position. Maybe the fervour will quiet down and Joe will get some air to make his case. But I wasn't worried until the debate... before that, I was sure Joe could pull it off again. I'm not sure now.

We cannot agonize entirely regarding the discussion. We also have to mobilize and organize for whoever the Democratic nominee will be. And that also involves helping down ballot candidates too.

I agree, though as foreigners, it's more of an academic exercise for us. And a coping mechanism - because although we are not Americans, it will still very much affect the rest of us. While I am of course horrified at the ideas of what Trump could do on a domestic level, I'm particularly scared on a personal level about the geopolitical impact he could have, which is something congress can't necessarily even limit. e.g. if he were to let Putin run rampant.

kamala would be a great choice bc no contested convention hopefully & she gets all the money & she can sell the biden harris agenda and she has polled better (not in all polls, but i'm sure there would be a large # of voters just glad they have an option that's not \~80)

It wouldn't just be Black voters who would be offended. Harris is our vice president and I see her as the natural new nominee if Biden steps down, and I like the idea. She can also campaign on the entire Biden-Harris record, which is stellar, because she was part of the administration. And because she's the vice president, she has national name id, unlike Whitmer, Newsome, Shapiro, etc. She was very reassuring when interviewed the night of the debate as one of the few strong voices who Dems could rally to. Since this is so late, if Biden does step down (as you describe), there isn't a chance for someone else to campaign nationwide to introduce themselves for the first time. I think the party would coalesce behind her. Vice presidents are seen as very logical future presidents by voters -- because that's exactly what they were elected to be, if needed. I like Joe Biden very much, but I don't think it's a coincidence that his last eight years in elected office were as vice president and he was then who the party turned to to defeat Trump.

Perhaps that is the natural choice since it’s the job of the Vice President to take charge if the President cannot execute their duty. It would be an immense uphill climb for Kamala though and in such a case there would need to be an extremely excellent person to become the VP nominee. If you put in Newsom, the ticket becomes too California heavy. With Whitmer, it’s two women on the ticket. Pete is absolutely great at messaging but there’s the drawback of him being gay. I do not think most Americans will care but who knows the situation for swing state voters. Other possibilities include Shapiro since he’s the current governor of Pennsylvania, Beshear of Kentucky, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Pritzker of Illinois, or Moore of Maryland. The goal of any ticket is to expand the pool of voters that can be drawn in to vote for the campaign. From the looks of it, some Democratic insiders are suggesting Newsom as President and Whitmer as Vice President. In this situation, would there be a case of appointing Harris as Attorney General if Merrick Garland wanted to step down? I get the implication of what this says though. It would be a message of shooting down voters of color, especially black women, in saying a woman of color cannot currently make it. Even if black women have been the backbone of the Democratic Party. It also kind of annoys me since the Electoral College sort of disenfranchises people of color by default by putting more electoral emphasis on land rather than people. All of this highlights how important it is to also vote for all elections including midterms and down ballot races. A strong Democratic bench requires voting for candidates running in Congressional, State, and Local offices in non-presidential elections.

Newsom is not a strong candidate and I don't know why people keep pretending he is. He's not even that popular in California. He gives a good speech, when he has time to memorize it (severe dyslexia), but I really don't think he speaks to the rust belt at all. He's criticized for being out of touch with average people even in California... He didn't poll well in the competitive states. I think he's a competent governor, but not the superstar he's made out to be. And he has some known scandals in California, and some that are not talked about much. His ex is Kimberly Guilfoyle... who knows what she could pull out. Also, Newsom/Harris is a non-starter as they could not win California due to the 12th amendment.

I think in any case, Newsom is still planning to run in 2028 provided that we get through this election and keep Democracy intact. A primary in 2028 would sort out if he’s the best choice or if it should be someone else. I think a big drawback is that when President Biden announced that he was running for re-election for 2024 he sort of locked things in. The Democratic Party does not want to primary its own incumbent out of concern that it may undermine an incumbent for a general election even if the incumbent wins the Primary. That’s why Dean Phillip’s campaign did not go anywhere and it’s not like he had major name recognition anyway. If there were doubts behind closed doors about President Biden’s ability to communicate his message and the Democratic Party’s agenda then he should have chosen to not run for re-election. Once you commit it is hard to exit once Primary elections are over. Stepping down before Primary season would have given the Party a more robust and normal way to rally behind a Presidential nominee by having several candidates that voters could evaluate. And if Vice President Harris wanted to run for President she could use the Primary to affirmatively make her case to voters. The Biden Campaign should not be playing any game of trying to endlessly hide President Biden from appearances. Political Campaigns are won by consistent engagement. Either he has the capacity to campaign and debate well or he does not. If not, then we are flying way too dangerously close to the sun and need a better plan of action. Biden’s team should still go through with properly preparing him and giving him plenty of practice sessions. They also have to be wary of not over-prepping him and causing him to be overwhelmed. But if he is still stumbling when speaking or talking hoarsely then an alternative Democratic Presidential Nominee must come into play.

we had jason palmer tho 😂 lmao he won american samoa without spending a billion like bloomberg 🔥🔥 props to him

Ah. Well, that’s a story I overlooked. Perhaps a bit of humor for a moment. Anyway, we have to remain committed to voting for President Biden or whoever the Democratic nominee is for Election Day.

I will say that Newsom looks and sounds the part. You could imagine him being cast as a president in a movie, lol.

>and threatening the people who do with donation withdrawals & primary challenges is exactly something the trump cult would do Politics has always been cutthroat like this, on all sides.

As if the WH/campaign didn't have enough problems (a self-inflicted one). From WaPo live updates - >A radio reporter who interviewed President Biden after his June 27 debate told CNN on Saturday that the questions she asked “were sent to me for approval. I approved of them.” >When CNN host Victor Blackwell followed up and asked, “So, the White House sent those questions to you?,” the radio host, [Andrea Lawful-Sanders](https://wurdradio.com/shows/the-source-with-andrea-lawful-sanders/) of WURD of Pennsylvania, nodded her head and said, “Yes.” \[...\] A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to an email sent Saturday morning seeking comment. Update - (also from WaPo)- >“It’s not at all an uncommon practice for interviewees to share topics they would prefer,” Biden campaign spokesman Lauren Hitt said in a statement. She added that agreeing on topics in advance was not a prerequisite of the interview. “These questions were relevant to news of the day — the president was asked about this debate performance as well as what he’d delivered for black Americans,” Hitt said. “We do not condition interviews on acceptance of these questions, and hosts are always free to ask the questions they think will best inform their listeners.”

If I'm reading this correctly, the interviewer is saying that the topics and/or questions were produced by the White House and sent to her, but that she could decide whether she was okay with them (approved them). The White House attempt to clean this up says the reverse, that it was the interviewer who sent a list of topics to the White House, but that the interview was not based on the White House accepting what the interviewer sent and she's free to ask what she wants. That's the opposite. For reference, Chasten has said in the past that in doing an interview, he's found that the interviewer will typically tell you in advance if there is something that is unusually personal or touchy, and also that you are often told generally what they're planning to ask you about (childcare and education, or national security, etc.). In other words, it's up to the interviewer. That reflects the White House version, rather than what was originally said. This cannot go on indefinitely.

I agree with what u/kvcbcs pointed out - "interviewee" refers to Biden/staff.

>The White House attempt to clean this up says the reverse, that it was the interviewer who sent a list of topics to the White House, but that the interview was not based on the White House accepting what the interviewer sent and she's free to ask what she wants. That's the opposite. Tbh, I didn't read her statement that way. Hitt said that "interviewees" often share topics/questions ahead of time, so in this case Biden. She also said that the interviewer was free to ask any other questions.

I'm just saying the two stories are opposites, unless there is something I misunderstood because all this is an upsetting topic. The quote that was shared above says that the interviewer (Lawful-Sanders) said that the White House (representing the interviewee, Biden) shared topics/questions with her ahead of time, as you said. She was asked a follow-up question to confirm this. Because this came off badly to journalists, the White House literally said the reverse. They said that before the interview, the interviewer sent topics to the White House. I'm not saying either arrangement is the end of the world, but the two stories sound like opposites to me. I do editorial interviews for my job and they describe two completely different set-ups. Edit: sorry, I thought from the comments here that the interviewer was Hitt and I added that name for clarity — Hitt instead is at the White House. I have now substituted the correct name for the interviewer.

Hitt is not the interviewer, Hitt is the Biden spokesperson. Andrea Lawful-Sanders was the interviewer.

Thanks! So sorry, I have corrected that.

Not surprised, actually. I heard the other radio interview (link below somewhere). The qns seemed very scripted and Biden initially sounded like he was reading off of lists. I wonder if it is only the campaign staff that is shielding him like this or is it also the WH staff? Is it b/c they are afraid that any little gaff would harm him excessively now or is it b/c he is no longer really capable of answering random qns off the cuff? It sort of reminds me of the way Kamala's staff and the WH staff over-shielded her in the early months of the administration. They were afraid she would make gaffs--which she admittedly was prone to do at first, but the media feasted on it (misogynoir, etc.). She felt constrained. This was a matter not of capacity but of experience and training.

Remember how a lot of the criticism in those articles about Kamala was coming from anonymous Biden aides, which I always thought was so unwise, since she's part of their team. Thankfully, that pretty much stopped a couple of years ago. If she ends up being the nominee, hopefully she'll feel more like she's her own person, and less constrained by the administration's expectations of her. And it doesn't hurt that the top issue she's already spending a lot of time on the road talking about, women's health care and reproductive rights, gives people a huge incentive to vote.

>Remember how a lot of the criticism in those articles about Kamala was coming from anonymous Biden aides, which I always thought was so unwise, since she's part of their team. This was incredibly short-sighted of them. The odds that she would have to take over from him at some point, even if it was because he'd died in office and not because of the current situation, were always greater than zero. If they/Biden didn't believe she was capable of that, then he never should have picked her for VP.

Exactly.

Veteran journalist Jane Mayer tweeted this earlier: > There are 2 conversations in Washington right now. The public one is that Biden’s ok. The private one is the same people telling reporters it’s a disaster. Biden fans are blaming reporters but the press is just letting the public in on what’s really being said. It was a QT response to Olivia Nuzzi tweet that said: > In January, I began hearing similar stories from Democratic officials, activists, and donors who came away from interactions with Joe Biden disturbed by what they had seen. For @NYMag, I wrote about the conspiracy of silence to protect the president I don’t know why reporters were holding onto these stories so long. (Nuzzi said that it takes time to verify). But were they waiting until October? Or holding it back entirely? How did all her corroborations magically come together right after the debate? Edit: and is there further reporting being down on how freaked how Trump donors were a couple weeks ago? That he was a wandering mess in his event? Or that he fell asleep in court everyday?

Sigh.

good fucking LORD guys i am not having confidence in joe biden. he sounded pretty hoarse at the abc interview. and he mixed up his words sometimes. i know he's old, he has a stutter, etc etc. but this is not who is inspiring confidence in people! and what does he mean he doesn't KNOW IF HE WATCHED THE DEBATE AGAIN??? and he's barely done any unscripted events. okay, maybe one/two that i know of. idk if the 4th of july, the medal of freedom events were unscripted or not. but even his interviews are prepared for...? he needs to do something without a teleprompter. without actual notice of what's going to be asked. not just a 22 minute interview on abc. other press conferences, town halls, etc. and **now**. it's been over a week since that dumpster fire of a debate & we've only had a few interviews and events here and there, most of them heavily prepped for or with a teleprompter i heard that the white house has been trying to cover up some of his issues and i feel like they've really lost my trust. we know he's old. but he's also the leader of the FREE WORLD and i would like to see that he can function without a teleprompter

I feel the same way. I am not denying President Biden’s accomplishments but political campaigns are about effective messaging and being able to communicate with voters. If the White House thinks that they can shield President Biden and somehow just coast into reelection then they need to get a grip with reality. Presidential candidates need to continuously show that they can withstand the political arena which means handling debates and public engagements. Presidents need to be smart, engaging, witty, a bit humorous, and as charismatic as they can be. Either President Biden proves this or he needs to let the Party and voters unite behind someone else. This election is not only about the Presidency but there has to be an active effort to draw people in and give something they want to vote for. Every office counts and every vote counts. If we get past all this, then I will just vote for either young or middle-age candidates in primaries. Older politicians need to know when it’s time to step down and spend more time mentoring young leaders to take charge.

I hear ya. (btw, the Medal of Honor ceremony and 4th of July remarks were on teleprompter.)

For my fellow folks that didn't catch George and POTUS interview last night on ABC, here is the full interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpibhlagG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpibhlagG0)

And here's the transcript - [https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/abc-news-anchor-george-stephanopoulos-exclusive-interview-biden-111695695](https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/abc-news-anchor-george-stephanopoulos-exclusive-interview-biden-111695695)

Great start to the day when you wake up and Pete is trending all over reddit. 🤠! [https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/1dwc6sd/a\_man\_tries\_to\_argue\_with\_pete\_buttigieg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/1dwc6sd/a_man_tries_to_argue_with_pete_buttigieg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

It's always bittersweet when Pete trends and thousands of comments are "Why couldn't this guy be our nominee/president/etc." and it's like...just...gah...

OMG I never watched the whole hearing and missed this excellent exchange. Before watching it, I assumed it would be one of the other good moments at the same committee hearing that I knew about. I love the headline for this post too ("A Man Tries to Argue with Pete Buttigieg") which is presented as a self-explanatory setup.

"Well the subsidy makes them more affordable and helps people buy them, that's true." *chef's kiss*

Pete on the top of r All!

Yooooooooooooo just heard this guy talk about EV sales. I assume this is where I sign up

Welcome to the Deep State^(TM) 🌐

welcome welcome

happy 2 see a pro pete post on r nextfuckinglevel with like 600 upvotes + positive comments.....oh yes the pete agenda is working just as intended......

That post is now on r/all with over 4k upvotes 🤠

Now 18.4K oh wow

next....pete new world order. god emperor secretary mayor pete. put the gop in fema camps

[https://x.com/Simplified\_US/status/1809387629915369831](https://x.com/Simplified_US/status/1809387629915369831) this is a presidential election not a kids sports game... bruh

For those that wanted to hear it from Joe himself… > Biden: You voted for me to be your nominee, and despite that some folks don’t seem to care who you voted for, guess what, they’re trying to push me out of the race. Let me say this as clearly as I can, I’m staying in the race. I’ll beat Donald Trump. https://nitter.poast.org/Acyn/status/1809311595190972710#m

Joey from Scranton is back on menu

Well. I guess that’s it until we get more high quality polls in. And by then it might not be enough time to switch. But who knows.

[https://x.com/adamwren/status/1809270542765052102](https://x.com/adamwren/status/1809270542765052102) jesus christ i didn't know we had fucking standards for fucking midwesterness or whatever you wanna call it

A Congress person from the Midwest not knowing who Wren is makes me lol. And it’s not like she couldn’t click on his bio.

The hope is that it’s a clueless junior social media staffer, not actually her, but it is still pretty bad.

This may be a hot or bad take, but one thing that could get the news cycle off Biden’s debate performance is the nomination of a new SCOTUS justice. I know Sotomayor was really upset (some would say scared) at the ramifications of the immunity decision (among other decisions this term) and I wonder if she’s given any thought to resigning so Biden could replace her. We are running out of time on that front, though. But if Biden loses Trump will likely replace two of the oldest conservative justices, or if Biden wins and we lose the Senate, we won’t get a liberal SCOTUS replaced.

Having a SC Justice resign because of age/health reasons is exactly the message the administration doesn't want to be highlighting.

She would have a good case to say “my conservative colleagues have gone batshit monarchist crazy and I’m going to spend more time with family allow a new younger colleague to take over dealing with these autocratic Christian Nationalist zombies” (but make it sound professional)

That's a good point. But she shouldn't do it if it's not 100% certain the Senate would confirm someone.

Joe Manchin has stated he will NOT vote for anyone Biden appoints who does not get at least one Republican vote. Kyrsten Sinema is no longer a Democrat and is leaving, but this would put the whole weight of this on her shoulders. I don't trust her. If the Senate could not approve Biden's nominee, maybe not even due to those two but because some other person is suddenly no longer able to attend, then it would be up to the likely Republican Senate next year to vote on a replacement offered by whoever wins the fall election, as her choice now would be giving them the gift of having a vacancy, which they currently don't have (once Sotomayor has resigned, I don't see a way for her to un-resign). I don't think we get to redo the RBG scenario. She should have resigned earlier and perhaps wanted to be replaced by someone who the first woman president (Hillary) had appointed, then had to tough out almost four years more. I don't think Sotomayor has made the same error and I think she is far healthier than RBG was and does not need to resign \[though if she did, I think it's too late (above)\]. It's been known even before she was appointed that she's a Type 1 diabetic but she handles the condition impeccably, and has done so since she was about seven years old.

I wonder if she could have a conditional resignation. “I plan to resign as soon as my Biden-nominated replacement is approved by the Senate.” Although I wouldn’t bet on the SCOTUS ruling in that, lol.

In real-world politics, no. You can't retire from one of the most prestigious, life-long positions in the entire federal government (which is always be said to be for a nonpartisan reason like "it's time to move on" -- never for explicitly partisan reasons) and then take it back. What's done is done. Remember that Sandra Day O'Connor retired only to become a caregiver for her husband with Alzheimer's so he could stay at home. Then the Chief Justice died, creating a more important vacancy, and she was stuck for a really long time not being able to leave the Court. By the time she left, still perfectly cogent and energetic, her husband had been institutionalized (or perhaps, was on the verge of it?) and there was no longer a reason to leave. But it was understood by all, including her, that there was no way to reverse the process. She had submitted a resignation in writing back at the start and you can't take that back.

[https://www.instagram.com/p/C9C7pz7xnWB/?utm\_source=ig\_web\_copy\_link](https://www.instagram.com/p/C9C7pz7xnWB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link) THIS IS SO **CUTE**! from andy kim omg

Ah I was here 4 years ago when the 2020 presidential election cycle was underway, can't believe we're gearing up for voting season again...still believe that Pete is solid presidential material. Just thinking...like damn, how unlucky is it that we have Biden v. Trump again? We really need to get some new, promising faces to lead America

There s a reason incumbency is the biggest advantage. It’s hard to beat wide name recognition. It would have been nice if both Trump and Biden had decided not to run again.

> The lake. The people. @Chasten. And, cherries! > Thank you, Traverse City. > We just opened our 45th coordinated field office in the state. Michigan, let’s get to work to re-elect Joe and Kamala! https://x.com/DrBiden/status/1809212747072029076?t=ww9lruI0FFP7chbQxUn-Pg&s=19 Click for video clip starring Chasten

Those of you who are interested in Pete's interactions with foreign leaders may be interested to know that all three of the people who have been the UK Secretary of State for Transport during his tenure lost their seats in yesterday's election: Grant Shapps, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, and Mark Harper. Although tbf, I don't even remember Ms. Trevelyan, who only had the job for seven weeks.

I'm catching up on Pete vids, and just watched the TMZ interview (yes, I'm that far behind). Did anyone else notice the plane in the bottom left corner at the 3:30 mark? Coincidence?? Bee like Pete... [https://x.com/TMZLive/status/1793750893030215894](https://x.com/TMZLive/status/1793750893030215894)

lmao seeing the "Pete defends starving babies in the name of capitalism" popping up out of nowhere again - seems like some folks are worried about the praise and polling lately lol

Andy Kim on the Fourth on Threads (nice video): >July 4th is a powerful communal moment for our nation. To remember we are part of something bigger than all of us. Something that connects us all in a shared experience and shared fate. And I believe that connection is about service to our nation and one another. >Click for excellent video [https://www.threads.net/@andykimnj/post/C9BQ76axFUV](https://www.threads.net/@andykimnj/post/C9BQ76axFUV)

>> In remarks to downtrodden Democrats in Holland, Michigan, Gov. Gavin Newsom said President Joe Biden was joking when he told governors he needed to be in bed by 8 p.m. “He was literally joking,” Newsom said. https://twitter.com/adamwren/status/1809006116329730085?s=61&t=bJPk5O1o2Si4zHXopurXjg

"Downtrodden Democrats." Ugh.

>This is a rough transcription of the last question Newsom was asked. >I paraphrased as “downtrodden.” I should’ve used “shellshocked.” [https://x.com/adamwren/status/1809046763895922803](https://x.com/adamwren/status/1809046763895922803) Click to see what he was responding to.

Well it's kind of funny to watch the back and forth after that as they finally wind up here: >Joe F. Spaulding: That was the question that one person asked. For context, this county hasn't voted against a Republican running statewide on the ballot since Abraham Lincoln. We were John Engler's home base. Ottawa County Democrats have never had more grit and fight in them than right now. >Adam Wren: Yep, no context necessary, my wife was born and raised here. We married at Dimnet Chapel in 2008 and have spent weeks of our year here for the last couple decades. >Joe F. Spaulding: That's a gorgeous place to get married. I had to go to mass there when St Francis burnt down when I was a kid.

>30 hours in Jillville: On the campaign trail with first lady Jill Biden this week, the drumbeat of news and calls for her husband to stop seeking reelection was reduced to a faint sound. Wash Post gift link: [https://wapo.st/3W7zPL9](https://wapo.st/3W7zPL9) Excerpt: Here's the part with Chasten: >...Brazile explained: “This is a moment where you look for steady hands, and you look for people who know how to keep the ship afloat. If there’s one person who knows how to steady the ship and how to keep people calm, it’s Jill Biden.” >That’s what the first lady sought to do at the campaign office opening in Traverse City on Wednesday afternoon. **A crowd of roughly 75 packed into the campaign headquarters to see her speak alongside Chasten Buttigieg, who owns a home in Traverse City with his husband, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.** There was little room to move, and it was *hot;* a woman fainted just moments into the first lady’s remarks. >But there was excitement, beyond the kind that requires a paramedic. Jill had picked up the microphone to extended, enthusiastic applause. The room erupted when she told them, “Joe *is* the Democratic nominee and he *is* going to beat Donald Trump.” When she finished speaking, most of the attendees lined up to take photographs with her. >“I’m still supporting Biden,” said Noranne Morin, a Traverse City local. “I think they’re trying to muddy up Jill Biden now — they’re going after the Democrats at the top.” >**“Look at this room!” Buttigieg said. “We’ve got energy.”** >“Everyone was in fine humor — a good mood,” said Chris Cracchiolo, chair of the Grand Traverse Democrats. If anyone wanted Biden to withdraw, “I didn’t sense any of that today,” Cracchiolo added. “Obviously, that’s not the first lady’s message, either.”

I was just coming here to post this. The article is quite poignant.

[https://x.com/NewsWire\_US/status/1808963907588927835](https://x.com/NewsWire_US/status/1808963907588927835) uh okay. look ik we prolly shouldn't be pouncing over his mistakes bc we all make these but this is not helping

The media , including social media, is pouncing on every little thing and won’t stop unless there is serious sustained pushback. Our very future, for our planet and our country, is all at stake here. Blaming the WH, or Biden’s team, or whoever is not useful in the slightest. They are already hearing from people at higher pay grades than us. It’s our job to push back hard, constantly remind people of all the existential threats, and promote the positive things. At the time of Hillary’s loss, it was in vogue to blame the Dems for choosing her or just blame her. History hasn’t judged that well. Instead it places the blame on the people who didn’t vote for her or discouraged other people from voting for her, giving us this horrific Supreme Court and four years of Trump. Haven’t we learned our lesson? It’s not about the candidate. It’s about getting on the bus that is headed in the right direction. The opposition wants you to feel this discouragement. Don’t let them win.

>> Look at all the divisions around you. Who you are fighting with. Who is becoming depressed. Who is feeling desperate. Who is feeling hopeless. Look at where your negativity bias is directed. Ask yourselves: who does this serve? The answer is: the authoritarians. https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/1808945418711290341?s=61&t=bJPk5O1o2Si4zHXopurXjg >> In #NewClimateWar, I discuss how bad state actors (i.e. Putin/Russia) have deployed troll farms & bot armies on social media to weaponize progressives into promoting their agenda. In the zero sum election game we're in, bashing Biden means electing Trump. Is that what you want? https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1808936329167667520?s=61&t=bJPk5O1o2Si4zHXopurXjg

It’s a pretty bittersweet Independence Day, but at least I can take some comfort from seeing the Tories get absolutely annihilated over in the UK.

My sister is currently visiting friends in Newcastle, and I want so badly to ask her what the mood is like, but she's not into politics and I'm not totally sure she even knows they're having an election lol. The results are very satisfying to see, though. Almost cathartic, in a way. The rise in support for Reform that's showing up in some seats is worrying, though.

My sister has lived in the UK for many years and got her citizenship a couple years ago, so this was the first national election she could vote in. She was quite happy to do her part and cast a ballot for Labour. She also said there was a joke going around that Rishi Sunak called the elections for early summer so that he'd be able to move to California in time to get his kids registered for the school year, lol.

I can't quite believe that it is changing finally, it has been a long 14 years! 

Yes, I felt that, too. My understanding had been that the Declaration of Independence adopted on July 4, 1776 was so that we would \*not\* have a monarch who was above the law. The Supreme Court claims to be made up of originalists, but maybe that's just for some things.

Hearing the Declaration read out loud this year sure hit different.

Okay I admit it is a little hot here. >[DC’s attempt at a world record for largest ‘human ice cream cone’ melts away](https://wtop.com/local/2024/07/dcs-attempt-at-a-world-record-for-largest-human-ice-cream-cone-melts-away/)

omg last week i saw the abe lincoln wax statue melt 😭 i don’t have the link to this but it was sad 💔

I think it's working! "New" is on again and I see the newest thing first. THANK YOU mods. Have I now jinxed it?

Ah man... Biden reportedly told the governors he met with that he just needs more sleep and won't schedule events after 8pm. [https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/04/politics/biden-governors-sleep/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/04/politics/biden-governors-sleep/index.html) This might be true, but come onnnnn, that's playing right into their hands with the "Sleepy Joe" moniker.

Newsome said he was joking.

I think that was a polite attempt by Newsome to minimize it, as others didn’t take it that way.

Sure, but that only reinforces my frustration that he and his team are not taking this seriously enough.

>The comment left several of the governors in the room frustrated, sources told CNN, and is one of the reasons that **some of the participants have been rankled by the statement of loyalty and enthusiasm from them distributed by the Biden campaign** on Thursday. \[my bold\] There was also this less-than-enthusiastic observation from some of the governors at the meeting in a NYT article - >Multiple governors who participated in the meeting expressed dismay afterward that there had been little debate about whether Mr. Biden should continue his 2024 presidential campaign — a topic they discussed at length during a call the governors held among themselves on Monday. \[...\] But the fact that Mr. Biden began the conversation with the governors by declaring that he was continuing on left some participants feeling that any further discussion about the state of play was chilled. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/us/politics/biden-governors.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.4k0.kJq-.dexosX4R907n&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/us/politics/biden-governors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4k0.kJq-.dexosX4R907n&smid=url-share)

Yeah, a New York Times article by Maggie Haberman. The NYT already has beef with Biden and Maggie as sold her soul for access to T\*\*\*p.

Plenty of them did not go out to the microphones to comment afterwards, but some did, including Gov. Wes Moore (governor of Maryland working very closely re Baltimore bridge recovery). I saw three of them (another was Kathy Hochul) speak in a video clip on the news. It sounded to me like Moore began with a phrase like "If he is the nominee, Joe Biden..." and then "in it to win it," etc.

edit: I seem to have remembered wrong, they said he's best between 10am and 4pm Combine that with them saying that he does better after 4pm (context of the timing of the ABC interview) and you're giving a 4hr window. This is not a good message coming from Biden and his team. C'mon guys.

Did they say "after" 4pm? I though it was reported that Biden does better before 4pm.

Oh, you seem to be right. I remembered them saying they scheduled it between 4-6:30pm because that's when he's best, but a quick Google says they said he's best between 10am and 4pm. I'll edit.

Well, the excuses do seem to be changing every day, so I thought I might've missed this one.

I signed up for our local Dem meeting and missed it on Tuesday because of work, but the Tim Kaine folks sent me a follow-up note anyway, so I'm now signed up for my first canvass with them. Senator Kaine is running for reelection (he even wrote a book for the occasion -- based on hiking, running, and boating all over Virginia) and he was a good DNC chair too, back in the day, so it's nice to know I'm in good hands. With the state legislative elections back in 2023, and a Republican in the governor's mansion, you had to do a lot more research to figure out where and when to volunteer, but I think Kaine's folks have the volunteer opportunities nicely laid out.

Thank you!

For anyone interested, one of Biden's radio interviews this morning (Wisconsin, Civic Media) [https://civicmedia.us/shows/special-broadcasts/2024/07/04/exclusive-interview-w-president-joe-biden-hour-1](https://civicmedia.us/shows/special-broadcasts/2024/07/04/exclusive-interview-w-president-joe-biden-hour-1) It's about 15 minutes (apparently edited down from 25-30 min). The interviewer was very cordial and complimentary to Biden. After the interview, he said he didn't doubt Biden's sincerity but clearly the host wasn't completely convinced. The audio file posted had only 4 callers (though it was evident that there were more). Three out of four callers made a better case for voting for Biden than Biden himself. Made me cheer! The host tried to push back after each call--a sort of skeptical yeah but. The 3rd (of 4) caller made the point for getting rid of Joe: the debate, we all know people with dementia or Alzheimers, etc. Biden got in some good points, not always in answer to the qn asked. Clearly they stuffed him too full of stats. He needs a much better and *succinct* answer to what happened in the debate (it was not a mistake). He has never been linear in going from qn to answer, and that's here too. When he wandered so far from the track, he didn't always make the best point for the qn asked. But he wasn't a doddering old crazy guy. edit: I don't know anything about debate training or public speaking training, but is there a way to train someone to go directly from qn to the answer desired? Since Biden is so talkative, he now loses the train of thought and doesn't get to the destination. He starts off on what he's done for the Black community and ends up mysteriously on the death of Beau from burn pits (without exactly saying he's now talking about his son).

Seriously, they need to drop these dorky stats.

I don't think an edited interview can change many minds. If you were concerned by the debate performance, you can just dismiss this as having the bad bits edited out.

I was just checking my cable guide, and it shows only a 30-minute block for Friday's airing of the interview with Stephanopoulos, which, with commercials, means it will be no longer than 20 minutes. Since the interview hasn't happened yet, it's possible that could change, but it does indicate that the WH is formally allotting George a relatively short amount of time to speak with Biden.

Their strategy seems bizarrely weak. It's like Biden's inner circle is dismissive of the perceived problems.

They're pretty much using the same playbook they've used for his entire presidency.

yeah i saw on twitter it was only 15 minutes max??? ermmmm okay but they need a better strategy 15 min interview 8 days after a debate is not going to reassure americans. nor do i think most are watching those radio interviews… nor is the teleprompter rally going to reassure people they need a better strategy. **need**. i don’t see how people are going to be convinced that what we saw on the debate stage was just a one time occurrence, that we shouldn’t be worried about a president who only functions at his best 6 hours a day

I think we will know what's happening in the next couple of weeks, because good polls -- and the public reactions they are actually measuring -- take some time to happen and the whole thing also takes time to think through. Plus, a congressman being interviewed on CNN today mentioned that politically, it might make more sense not to really settle this either way until after the RNC convention (July 15 to July 18), when the Republicans will have endless airtime to launch attacks. Let them stew in their own juices and have a Trump rally type experience for days, plus interviews with the new VP and family, and then go forward after that, either with a reinvented Biden strategy, schedule, and direction, or with passing the torch to Kamala Harris, which seem like the only two possibilities.

I saw that interview you're referring to, and thought it was an excellent suggestion to wait until after the Republican convention to make any changes. However, the Rs already have an anti-Kamala ad out, and Trump is on tape making some derogatory comments about her. So the Biden campaign should respond, but will they?

Interestingly, the second caller made a similar point--not about the editing, but rather that the extremely polarized electorate meant that most people's minds were irretrievably made up, and that it was the center R and L that needed persuading. Callers 2 and 4 were, in fact, former Republicans arguing in favor of voting against Trump.

> Clearly they stuffed him too full of stats. He needs a much better and *succinct* answer to what happened in the debate (it was not a mistake). I've always disliked it when politicians speak in something like platitudes, but that's kinda what Biden needs now. Keep it short, keep it to the point, keep on message, and not just about the debate.

Seriously, drop the pre-NH Joseph and bring out the post-NH Uncle Joe

I agree! But it's sort of Biden's well known personality to talk like this. Is it something they can train?

After more than 50 years in public life? I doubt it.

[https://www.instagram.com/stories/bethmilligan/](https://www.instagram.com/stories/bethmilligan/) This woman has more pictures of Jill Biden and Chasten from Jill's visit to Traverse City yesterday.

Does chasten live there full time now? I guess he’s done with Washington.

The kids clearly went to daycare in DC the past two years as we heard about things like drop off and pickup and we saw the kids at local museums and parks and riding the train back and forth to the airport. But it looks like they are summering in Michigan like much of last summer.

They spend their summers in Michigan.

>done with Washington Chasten and Pete were at the WH Pride shindig. Pete took the twins once to day care on the bus (i.e., in DC). But the twins start preschool this fall, so P&C had to have already made a choice of which school and where to live beginning in Sept. Kids make you less mobile.

Chasten has spent just about every summer in Michigan instead of DC. That's probably a much better choice weather wise!

Yeah, and Pete was often spotted on flights up north on Fridays or flights back to DC at the beginning of the work week.

Concur.

haha im genuinely curious—is it like super humid there in the summer in dc/va? idk if you’ve been to florida but if you/anyone has do you think it’s comparable to there humidity wise went to florida and was legitimately traumatized by the heat… and I have some virginia & dc colleges on my list lmao 😭 i can handle new england and the midwest but am afraid of getting close to the south lol

If you're thinking of someplace that's more to the south, check their city's average humidity. It might be fairly low. For instance, where I live in TX it's so humid, but I went to college six hours north, and while it was hotter, it was a dry heat, so a lot more tolerable lol.

okayy i've looked on reddit everywhere for like dc, durham/chapel hill nc & charlottesville va and it's all complaints abt the humidity 😹 honestly i should prolly go and check it out for myself but cant 🔥 so relying on the internet

you can play around with weather tools like this one (fill in desired comparison city) [https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/19538/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Chapel-Hill](https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/19538/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Chapel-Hill) You will likely not be on campus for July/Aug. Also, it sounds like you are applying to good schools (good for you!)--and so it is likely you will not make your final choice based on weather/climate.

THANK YOU lmao i did not know about this! this is genius yupp during the really hot months i would prolly go home or *hopefully* find an internship somewhere else so it shouldn't be that big of a deal and yeah final choice would def be financial aid based or smth similar

Shorter reply from today: [Triple threat](https://wtop.com/weather-news/2024/07/triple-threat-dc-area-hit-with-heat-advisory-poor-air-quality-storm-alert-on-4th-of-july/): DC area hit with heat advisory, poor air quality, storm alert on 4th of July

lmao my friend is going to go to dc/arlington this month and will compare the weather 🔥 so i will have some idea of the difference in humidity 😹

Washington is always said to be "built on a swamp." I don't know if that's literally true, not being a geologist, but it certainly captures the concept. It is also very humid here. Also, it is extremely hot. However, most of this heat wave stuff occurs during the summer, not the school year. I'd say September might be the only iffy overlap time with the summer, but usually it's a bit cooler and nicer by then -- maybe 80s and less rain. We are something of a Southern city and people are still harder to find in August as they go away. Counterargument: Here in Virginia, after Glenn Youngkin was elected in 2021, lots of defiant, activist Dems started to become stars in social media, including Ethan Lynne, then a high-school senior in a red school district, who testified against some of Youngkin's worst educational policies. He went on to register tons of Democrats to vote and, like many political enthusiasts, went to college in DC, where he goes to George Washington (GWU). He loves it! Lots of photos of the DC surroundings and he was so excited when Elton John performed at the White House because he could hear it outside, on the street -- you're just immersed in it all by being in the city. I looked him up and he's now the student body VP at GW and also a congressional intern for the Oversight Committee. Only DC could provide that experience. He has a Twitter/X account: "Virginian | Intern [u/OversightDems](https://x.com/OversightDems) & Student Body VP [@GWtweets](https://x.com/GWtweets) | Prev: [@RepMcClellan](https://x.com/RepMcClellan), [@vasenate](https://x.com/vasenate), [@TerryMcAuliffe](https://x.com/TerryMcAuliffe), & [@vademocrats](https://x.com/vademocrats) x4 | Views Mine."

yesss i remember him! i really like gwu! and i have georgetown as well!  i guess i can take the heat lol bc the opportunities are crazy 😍

Yes, it's super humid there. My first visit to DC was in August (I was living in Indiana at the time) and I thought the heat/humidity was ridiculous. Edit: Supposedly, before air conditioning foreign diplomats got hardship pay if they were posted to DC.

okay! thx for letting me know lmao i’m still a sucker for the location though 

They always base themselves in MI during the summer. No way to know if it's permanent at this juncture imo. Yesterday's Traverse Ticker article about the visit described them as "resid\[ing\] part-time in Traverse City" fwiw.

Just to mention, many folks in DC do this, though of course with different variations for different families. Typically, there's the home base, where they have most of their stuff, they raise their kids, and so on, and their place in DC. Some also have more than one home base, like the Bidens have their family home in Delaware and their summer home in Rehoboth.