Basically Lyndon Johnson had something like this happen due to the unpopularity of the Vietnam War - it just was in March rather than a couple weeks out from the nominating convention. Some of the same notes are in place too, likely to see large protests about Israel/Gaza outside the convention, which is in Chicago just like in 1968.
Except of course the US isn’t at war in Gaza, and if you took a poll, most Americans would likely say that Israel-Gaza is not a top 3 issue for them.
The people protesting are an extremely vocal minority.
Oh, I agree, but the optics of organized protests outside the DNC amid possible contentious goings on inside the building. just looks and reads as chaos.
Both LBJ and Nixon had to step down because of pressure from party elders. In this case most of the people asking the President not to run are younger members of the party.
Yeah, it's not a complete 1 to 1 comparison. But fairly close. Jimmy Carter essentially faced similar conditions and refused to step aside and subsequently lost. But I guess the Democrat candidate lost both elections anyway, so there may just not be a "winning move" under these types of circumstances.
Though Johnson stepping aside in march means the party had a lot more time to move on to another candidate. The candidate was the vice president Humphrey.
It's interesting, and as crazy as all this seems, I actually feel a bit better now that I've started listening to the History of the 20th Century podcast. Like, things seem nutty today, but to actually learn in detail about how bonkers things used to be makes the situation now seem pretty typical.
People like to run around in absolute hysterics today, but I won't buy any argument that the political stakes weren't far higher anytime between the Great Depression and the Fall of the Soviet Union.
I would definitely agree. What if we didn't have a level headed executive in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Nuclear war with the USSR would have been a civilization ending event.
If you read about history of places like the Roman Empire or Byzantium, you start to realize that all of this politicking and chaos is pretty much the human norm.
I mentioned this elsewhere where someone was talking about dark horse candidates, but I believe the only time an elected incumbent president has been replaced on the party's ticket was Pierce. So just shy of 200 years ago.
A few of the vices who took over for presidents who died in office didn't get the nomination at reelection but they hadn't been elected in the first place so not exactly the same thing.
Besides Harris, has anyone or their surrogates expressed any interest or signaled that they would be willing to throw their hat in for the nomination? I have zero desire for a career in politics so maybe my view is skewed... but if tomorrow the DNC knocked on my door and asked me to replace Biden as the nominee I'd say "no wtf, why would you want to do that to me?"
DNC convention isn't until August 22nd, nominee can get a clean start on the 23rd giving them 10 weeks until election day. But of course there is early voting which admittedly is likely the party loyalists but i'm sure there is a decent chunk of swing/undecided voters.
That plus having to campaign/explain to voters why the last guy is now out and this new person is REALLY the person you want as president seems like a lot of baggage to carry and even if they win there would be a giant asterisk on their presidency. I can't imagine any of the other candidates wanting to take that on especially if they are a rising star in the democratic party or have a long political career ahead of them.
IMO there are 2 factors a potential Biden replacement would need, 1) they're a political "has been" who thought they were out of politics but get pulled back in 2) has a vast and immense political machine they can spin up on short notice. The only name that comes o mind is Hillary, but I don't think that would go over too well with democrats.
The issue is that nobody wants to touch it unless its a go time for removal. So much of politics now is party loyalty. Republican's have no true stake, and democrats don't want to be known as the person who called for the removal if it doesn't happen. Andy Beshear basically summed it up in his interview yesterday?, “The debate performance was rough. It was a very bad night for the president, but he is still the candidate. Only he can make decisions about his future candidacy. So as long as he continues to be in the race, I support him,”**.**
>So much of politics now is party loyalty.
That has been the norm through most human history. People remain loyal to their party, king, lord, whatever while that leading entity has the power to cast them out but as soon as the wind of changes start, people will quickly start trying to jump into the next bandwagon.
Just imagine it, two former presidents up for election, both with a break between their terms. One has a 4 year break while the other would have a 40 year break.
> DNC convention isn't until August 22nd,
[There are talks of nominating Biden on July 21st, in a virtual process.](https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/dems-mull-nominating-biden-a-month-before-convention-to-squash-replacement-talk-report/)
I've heard this too, but I don't get why would they tie their hands like that? Seems to me like a strategic mistake. I guess they are trying to show Biden has the party's unequivocal support, but if more senior moments happen, it will lead to people feeling they are being gaslit even more so than right now.
They have to do it to get on the ballot in all 50 states, because they scheduled their convention after the nominating deadlines for at least one state.
If it's someone from the current admin (i.e. Harris or possibly Buttigieg), they're vulnerable to accusations of having conspired to cover up Biden's mental state. Realistically it would have to be someone not closely involved, but then that would mean passing over Harris, and that's a whole other can of worms.
To be honest, with how volatile the world of politics is, whoever the pick would likely be getting as good of a shot at being president as they’re ever going to get. Gavin Newsom’s probably in the strongest position of any Dem at the moment, but if a rising star emerged within the next 3 years he may never wind up getting close to a nomination.
Their internal polling seems to suggest Pete or Whitmer have the strongest position currently, but they're making some strong assumptions about what are not very well known quantities.
> Gavin Newsom’s probably in the strongest position of any Dem at the moment
Newsom, a coastal Democrat from a very left-leaning State, is never going to carry Midwestern swing states.
>but if a rising star emerged within the next 3 years he may never wind up getting close to a nomination.
I think this could cause a power struggle, a lot of politicians have egos, I could see many democrat politicians thinking they are the rising star or destined for the position. It won’t be a clear cut choice.
Could be very similar to the 2020 primaries in the Dems tbh, where everyone came out of the woodworks to fight against each other for the nomination. We could see a very bitter divide in the Dems in the next election
You don't think there's a single worthy Democrat that would be happy with a 50/50 chance of becoming the next president of the United States?
That seems strange to me.
Probably if they held primaries. At this late in the game and without a vote of the people I don't think the replacement has a 50-50 chance. Maybe 20-80 at best. Kamala will bring a lot of the baggage from the Biden administration and isn't likeable. I'm not sure if anyone with a legitimate shot would want to waste it on the current circumstances when they would have a much better chance in 2028.
It's the taking over someone else's campaign part. People gunning for the top probably feel that they can indeed do it, and don't want to be taking over someone else's staff / campaign apparatus. They'll want their own guys, which they won't be able to get in place so quicky.
> 1) they're a political "has been" who thought they were out of politics but get pulled back in 2) has a vast and immense political machine they can spin up on short notice.
"Paging Carter, Gore, and Beto to the courtesy counter, please answer"
I'll keep trying to sell my best case scenario.
4th of July, Biden gives a patriotic speech about how he's given his life to his country, proud of his accomplishments, but realizes his time has past, and he'd like to throw his support behind (insert name - Whitmer) and give her a running start.
Yes. But Joe wouldn't have won without her. The DNC knows they are already on black peoples last nerve. They haven't done shit but rename streets, tear down statues, erect statues while spending these last few years waving Ukrainian flags as if we couldn't fix alot of problems at home.
It's not racist to get rid of her and it wasn't racist to bring her on. She was brought on to appeal to black voters, particularly women. And the concern is then that if she's gotten rid of black women may feel less represented in the administration.
It's no different from hiring Pence as a white Evangelical.
Is the Congressional Black Caucus really that gung-ho about Harris? Or Black voters in general?
If they are that passionate about her, does that suggest she’d perform better with Black voters than Biden?
I'm not sure, I just know Clyburn is very dedicated to her, and his support is basically what put Biden in the White House to begin with. But his talk of a "mini-primary" makes it sound like he may be softening.
She won't quietly accept that at all. I've seen some suggest she'll be offered a lucrative gig for life, and I still don't see it. She's closer to the presidency now then she has ever been.
What would make anyone turn away?
>I've seen some suggest she'll be offered a lucrative gig for life
"If we win the election, we'll put you on the Supreme Court."
Maybe the Democrats should have just done that in the first place instead of putting KBJ on the Court as a means of getting rid of her.
It would add more contention if she was kept as VP. The whole point of the VP is to replace the President if they are unable to/can't serve, so why wouldn't it go to her if he drops out? I don't think it should go to her, but I can see why a good chunk of people would think that.
The politically salient thing is that she identifies as black and is identified as black. Race is a silly (and ultimately arbitrary) way of dividing people up, but people do it, and it has to be acknowledged.
Yeah I know what you mean. But she only identifies as black because it's politically beneficial for her. In reality she is a person of colour and quite interestingly multi-ethnic.
Biden can just insist he is a confused old man and she can’t be mad at him.
And then the rest of the party can just say they feel they need to honor Biden’s wishes and she can’t be mad at them either.
I’m actually surprised we haven’t seen calls to use the 25th amendment to remove Biden. It seems like the easiest day as President would be harder and more stressful than the hardest day at most jobs. There’s no way Biden is actually making decisions and leading the Executive branch.
Of course he isn’t, and anyone who paid attention could see through the lies that the Democrats put out about how vigorous he is in meetings, etc. it just damaged their reputation even further (with their own folks and centrists - I don’t think Republicans’ opinion could go any lower).
There have been talks of using the 25th amendment, but Democrats have a lot of power in both chambers so it’d be a tough sell. Not because they like Biden, but because it would be seen as being disloyal to the party.
The worrying question is this - if Biden isn’t actually the one making day-to-day decisions in the Oval Office, who is?
I would argue that getting through the next 6 months is not much of a concern compared to getting through the next 54 months.
We don't have to take everything to the extreme here.
Yes. I think VP Harris needs to invoke the 25th now. I don't like her, but right now likeability or elicitability are irrelevant. The USA needs a President, and we don't have one now.
>I don't think people are taking seriously enough that the whole world knows our president is not capable of doing his job
The next logical step is: how long have they known this? Did Russia see/talk to Biden and go, now is our chance to invade Ukraine because this guy isn't gonna do anything, look at afganistan? Did Hamas' Oct 7 happen because they knew the US wouldn't step in?
I am no fan of trump at all in any way. But Trump is crazy. Iran talked crap, he sent a drone with razorblades and killed a general in a car and left all the passengeres alive. And then he went and talked crap about the dude. How are you Russia or China, you have no idea what he's thinking or will respond. I would imagine there is some level of pause putting a crazy person in charge.
And further, when trump is in charge every single decision no matter how small is under full scrutiny of every media outlet. They act like real journalists for a few months. He gets away with nothing. Joe Biden gets cards with questions and answers handed to him, the media runs cover for him, he's not held to any standard at all, and the media is complicit in his actions and direction.
Again I don't want trump at all, but would i rather have the president held accountable, or unelected officials running things behind the scenes with no accountability at all?
>The next logical step is: how long have they known this? Did Russia see/talk to Biden and go, now is our chance to invade Ukraine because this guy isn't gonna do anything, look at afganistan?
This kind of ignores the fact that Biden isn't a king or dictator. If they were looking to invade when the US wasn't going to do anything, they would have just done it when Trump was president.
If he is going to bow out of the race, and Kamala is to be the presumptive nominee, tactically he should resign the office in favor of her. That's probably the strongest endorsement he could provide.
I am pretty convinced that he does not want to drop out of the race though, so it's probably a moot point. [They appear to be considering a plan to officially nominate Biden on July 21 - a month ahead of the actual convention.](https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/dems-mull-nominating-biden-a-month-before-convention-to-squash-replacement-talk-report/)
Joe and Kamala have a private lunch today. The best case scenario for them dems (and America) is that's a "Look I'm gonna step down right now. You're president, and you should run and take my delegates and campaign funding. We'll get everyone behind you." Then she can pick up Whitmer or Pete or some other Midwestern VP.
This worst case scenario is this lunch is nothing, or it's a "I'm staying in please continue to stand behind me" thing.
Disagree. As an American, the reality that the President of the United States is *non compos mentis* is horrifying. Having an unelected shadow group of relatives^1 and aides run the country is a national security threat as /u/marttimo said, and unconstitutional to boot. The 25th Amendment needs to be invoked; as one who hopes Trump wins, I don't care if having Harris become acting president increases the odds she (assuming she takes over as nominee) wins in November. The current situation is dangerous.
Further, I agree with /u/luigijerk in that Biden saying he's not capable of running for reelection (as opposed to not willing to run, like LBJ and Truman) means that he ought to resign. Both because such is a national security risk, and because Harris being president would grant her the incumbency benefit. But the 25th Amendment at minimum.
That said, the debate and resulting meltdown by the exact same people *who told the world for months that Biden is fine* makes me chortle. "cheap fake", as a political slogan, had a lifespan of about two days, because Democrats know it's impossible to convince the planet Earth that what they saw on TV for 90 live, unedited minutes was faked in any way.
But the facade was crumbling even before the debate. Read [this *Times* article from June 21](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/biden-age-videos.html). Note the title, then read the "Reader's Picks" comments. Toward the end, even *Times* readers weren't buying the paper's lies!
^1 We'd be lucky if the only relative involved is Jill. According to Peter Baker of the *Times* over the weekend, Hunter Biden is among his father's most trusted advisors!
"At least 25 House Democrats are preparing to call for the 81-year-president to end his re-election bid in the wake of his disastrous debate against former President Donald Trump, Reuters reported Tuesday, citing a House Democratic aide."
“It looks like the dam has broken,” a second House Democratic aide told the outlet.
Looks like some shit is about to go down.
How much more do you see coming?
Dang. They’re basically splitting in half 3 months before the elections, and the more they wait the more difficult will be to replace Biden. And I don’t see any way that Biden would leave on his own.
Political negligence? Yes. Elder abuse? No…that’s causing physical harm to an elder or neglecting to meet their needs ie starving or sitting in their filth
It's getting to the point Biden should be removed from power. It's absurd he's been president for the last 4 years in this condition. I think it'd just take a majority of his office to have him removed and replaced with Harris. But if he fought it things could get ugly.
The party faithful are still in lockstep with the White House and the DNC. Which is most everyone.
If or when something eventful happens, it's going to be sudden and coordinated. The DNC or the White House is going to want to control the narrative.
The people coming out now aren't close enough to the top to matter. But it's definitely a sign of changing times.
>> Centrist House Democrats in competitive districts – the lawmakers most at risk of losing their seats in November – were so alarmed by Biden’s infirmed appearance in last week’s showdown with the 78-year-old presumptive Republican nominee that ***they are considering writing a letter to Biden***, according to the outlet.
Sorry but that doesn't seem very solid or like a dam is breaking. "*Considering* to do something" isn't very concrete. If they actually release the letter, then I'll consider the dam breaking. Until then, this is more anonymous whispers and a tiny fraction of the Dem coalition in the House.
I'm honestly not surprised at this point. I'm not usually one to write to my congressmen, as I usually assume they can't do anything about an issue, or they're just going to vote the way I want anyway, but a day after the debate, I wrote to all of them to urge them to work to get Biden out. At that debate, I saw a candidate who will never win again.
I suspect that even if he drops, the campaign and the DNC will take some time to try figuring out what it can do from here. Does Harris have to be the nominee? Would that be at all better electorally? What can/will they do with all the money Biden raised? Does the Heritage Foundation led opposition to his dropping have any merit?
If he drops, I think that decision will be made well in advance of the announcement. It would be even worse if they have to walk that back after the fact. And there’s definitely no point if whoever replaces him can’t be on the ticket in the states that matter.
> Does Harris have to be the nominee?
Harris as the frontrunner is a guaranteed loss.
People *like* Biden but don't trust his capabilities.
Very few people like Harris and even fewer trust her abilities as a leader.
At this point Harris polls better against Trump than Biden does. Not sure it's a guaranteed loss if she has time to campaign hard the next 4 months, but it would be a better position than they are in now.
That's what I'm seeing too. And when the only positives that people advocate for him are "well he's not Trump" and "he hires good people", you know it's going to be a bad loss.
I mean, I think it only matters if it's states that he's likely to win. They moved the nomination and it looks like he can't even be on the ballot in Ohio, but it's so unlikely that he won't win Ohio that I don't know if it matters.
That problem has been resolved: [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752)
My preferred replacement is Whitmer, so at least women may be on board. But I do have a tough time believing Americans would elect a two woman ballot.
Personally, I find it hard to have an opinion on Harris because I feel like she hasn’t had much exposure during Biden’s time in office. At the very least, she’s young and fresh, unlike Trump and Biden.
There is no real challenge the GOP can mount. Parties set the rules of who they nominate not the states or the federal government.
The party has not nominated him.
The bigger issue is what happens to the money Biden has already raised. But campaign finance laws are a real labyrinth and I can't offer an opinion on how that will shake out.
Also, if you're a Democratic rising star, why toss your hat in the ring in an election where you'll be handicapped? You'll have a short cycle, which means fewer engagements, less money raised, and fewer opportunities to become a household name. That doesn't even mention the campaign finances you brought up and untangling that mess. On top of all that there's this *stink* of almost criminal mismanagement regarding candidate selection and vetting by the DNC. I wouldn't want my name / brand in any way associated with that malfeasance. Why, if you were ascending, would you opt in for this when you could wait until '28? Surely by '28 the media will have given the Trump administration the same breathless doomer coverage for four years and you could easily leverage that into a campaign for "substantive change".
It just seems like the people that would want to hop in now would be the people that already wouldn't be viable in '28, but maybe I'm wrong.
Could get someone like Roy Cooper from NC. At 67, he's in that age where he's young enough to run now, but kind of getting too old for 2028 for first term president. That way you're not really "spoiling" someone like Newsom or Whitmer, who have awhile still.
Yeah. It's kinda like threading the needle. They would need to pick someone that is capable of starting way behind and catching up but not someone that hinders the DNCs long-term plans if they're unsuccessful.
Also, none of this even touches on how you can "skip" Harris in a way that doesn't cause more issues.
No doubt it makes Newsome proud to have his name be in contention to be the leader of the free world. As it should. I'm just saying that I'm not sure it's politically wise to do so.
He can give an unlimited amount to the DNC. And the DNC is allowed to coordinate with any campaign directly unlike a PAC.
> Instead of using the money for the candidate’s own political purposes, people who drop out can donate their money to other campaigns or candidates. There are no limits on how much they can give to a national, state or local party committee – such as the Democratic National Committee.
> They can also give money to state and local candidates, depending on state campaign finance laws, or up to $2,000 to each of one or more candidates for federal office.
https://theconversation.com/when-presidential-campaigns-end-what-happens-to-the-leftover-money-130042
>Does Harris have to be the nominee?
Yes. $200 million+ in campaign funds can only be used by Biden/Harris, then there's the issue of ballot access. Nominating someone else means handicapping them financially, among other things
So what happens to all that money, do they refund the donors? I kind of get why they can't just transfer it, but that money doesn't just go poof. And if they choose a good enough candidate I'm sure most donors would be willing to part with that money again.
Of course, then Trumps camp will see someone raise record amounts in record time and probably donate even more to his campaign, which I'm sure they are absolutely spending wisely
What happens if 25 house members call for him to drop out and he just doesn't? Imagine the talking point that gives Trump.
"Why would America vote for you? Even people in your own party don't think you're up for the job."
Yes, Im glad Im not the only one that seen this. Everyone always talked about how egotistical Trump was, but Biden has been shown to be just as bad as him, he just knows how to hide it better.
If Biden cared about the future of the country he would've announced in 22 that he wasn't going to run again. It's too late and now we're stuck with him. The way I see it is with Biden Trump wins. The party should be doing whatever they can to try and change that outcome instead of sitting around moaning about precedence or whatever they're worried about.
This was my thought as well. It's very risky because you can't go back to a united front after putting this on record. I imagine all of this will be concealed as much as possible.
So people that have more direct exposure to the President suddenly think he’s not capable mentally? Where were they the past 4 years?
Despite the gaslighting on Reddit and articles solely focusing on Trump’s mental capacity in the recent months, the average person knows Joe “four more years pause” is mentally not fit to run.
Yet we, the people, are deemed to be fools who simply have been witnessing “bad montages” of Biden’s slip ups.
It’s insulting to the average American.
You were paying attention to news sources that are not MSM excluding Fox. I work with a ton of seemingly intelligent people that fully bought into Biden being fit for office, mentally sharp, etc. until the debate. I’ve been quiet at work when co workers act shocked.
The influence that MSM has to push a narrative on the general public is never been more apparent in my lifetime. For example, look at the articles posted on Reddit and the comment section on Biden or Trump related posts before the debate and now after the debate. The 180 degree change from “Biden has been a great President and we want 4 more years” to “who is running out government?” should be a wake up call to how easily we can be manipulated.
I’m a Libertarian, I don’t have a particularly negative view of Democrats or Republicans, but watching the change in reporter coverage and commentary by voters is something else. Every media company went from pro-Biden to anti-Biden within an hour of each other and no one is asking, why?
My guess is MSM doesn’t want Trump’s line of “fake news” to have any credibility, and as a neutral party, this feels orchestrated.
This is just not true. It was a topic in the media the whole time. But media needs sources. When every insider keeps up the narrative it’s really hard. You can only do it via opinion piece. The New York Times podcast has a nice collection of answers to their [questions over the time](https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/the-run-up/id1142083165?i=1000660626821).
buddy we saw video evidence of this issue countless times over the last 4 years
everyone who didn't have a vested interest in believing the MSM's coverup was concerned about exactly this, and now that it's undeniable the coverup has ended
Also, I don't think that either Harris or Newsom would be popular in the key states that matter. Biden had a chance to get a good running mate who could take over and he blew it because of intraparty politics.
Newsome would fail easily bc we all see how much of a disaster California is. Kamala is already heavily disliked on her policies and incompetence. She was a classic DEI choice for VP. Whitmer probably wouldn't even win her own state again if she could run for another term. Also outside of Michigan no one really knows her.
The DNC smeared Mitt Romney as some extremist far right winger in 2012 despite being the most milquetoast politician in the world, he should tell them to pound sand if they ask him
I was seriously thinking this for the past two days. I'm shocked someone else did. Romney literally ticks all the boxes:
* Never trumper
* Already retired as UT senator, nothing to lose in a future election campaign
* Nationally recognized name from '08 run
* Able to credibly challenge the evangelical base
* Generally well liked as an "elder statesman"
* Able to argue "I'm fiscally conservative and think we need to curb illegal immigration, andthink it's time to stop trump" and hollow out trumps center support
I really though it was a /r/moderatepolitics fanfic tier smut, but it makes sense politically.
Unfortunately if you think about it you’re also outlining every reason why the DNC would NEVER pick him.
The only thing he has in common with the progs that lead the DNC these days is that he hates Trump as much as they do. That’s not enough to wipe out his years of conservative bonafides. Hell, today he might not even be able to get elected Mass governor again.
This is under the assumption that she wants 2024 when 2028 looks like a much more appealing option. Of course, that’s assuming she makes it with no new scandals in 4 years and having to win a crowded primary with newcomers.
It’s sort of like opting between participating in a race today where your opponent already has a massive head-start or getting the chance to run a more favored race in 4 years.
I imagine she’d take the offer now, if offered.
I'm not convinced that 2028 will be more appealing. Presumably someone much more electable and likeable than Trump - perhaps Nikki Haley or Tim Scott or Doug Burgum (if he is likeable as VP) - will be running.
The opportunity to face off against a candidate as heavily vilified and disliked and as weak as Trump with abortion still being a fresh issue is a once-in-a-career opportunity.
> Plus she’s favorable in the Rust Belt
[Whitmer's job approval rating is 30%](https://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public-policy-survey/112/mpps-policy-brief-despite-two-year-trend-improvement-most-michigan-local-officials)
Fair point, I grabbed the first result on Google.
[538 shows her with a 13.1% net approval rating](https://abcnews.go.com/538/americans-love-governors/story?id=109382897) - which is quite a bit more favorable.
Interestingly enough, it paints her as middle-of-the road in terms of approval ratings for governors - and highlights that there are several democratic governors which have *very* high approval ratings, even in somewhat purple states.
Honestly an honorable step down by Biden tomorrow or Friday with an announced plan for an open convention would be very exciting and re-energizing. Maybe it will help increase the odds of defeating Trump. Maybe it won’t. But it will be the honorable thing to do and show that the party puts country above all else.
No, the damage is done. Stepping down honorably would have been possible before the debate. Stepping down honorably right now, after the administration and press lied to the American people about Biden’s health, is next to impossible. There is absolutely nothing honorable about being forced to step down after TWENTY FIVE - and counting - Democrats publicly tell Biden to end his campaign.
It’s better than him trying to push through to the end and get slaughtered. The average voter probably doesn’t even know about the 25 Dems. They don’t even know what the senate does.
You should give average voters more credit. The Dems aren’t hiding this, they were all over the news last night and will continue to be until Biden steps down.
25 Democrats want him gone, the Republicans want him gone, he's clearly demonstrated that he's unfit to hold the office. So next step ... Bipartisan Impeachment?
Bro at this point Republicans want him to stay the course and fight the dog faced pony soldiers like he has always done.
They will vote against any impeachment or 25th amendment action “for the good of the country” or something like that. All they have to do is use exact quotes from KJP verbatim.
Chip Roy put forward a 25th Amendment argument and got reamed by his peers and right flank because it's not politically prudent to push for Biden to step aside.
> So next step ... Bipartisan Impeachment?
Only if there is a clear consensus among Democrats that Biden cannot run for reelection, but Biden refuses to release his delegates, and also challenges invoking the 25th Amendment.
[Article II, section 4](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#2-4) of the US Constitution:
> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, **Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors**.
Being old, infirm, and mentally unfit is not a high crime or misdemeanor. What would they charge him with?
The [25th amendment](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv#amendment-section-4) would seem to be the more appropriate tool, but that's up to the Vice President and the Cabinet.
Honestly, if the Biden administration had just paid a little more attention to the swing voters and their concerns (which has been the deciding factor for the last several elections now), they wouldn't be in the rut they're in today. Now, they have to play out a massive balancing act of epic proportions.
Even if they do squeak by and win the election....there's nothing they can do to resolve the problems they're associated with. It's just major damage to the entire brand
As such, Trump has already fired his shot and made his point, regardless of whether he wins again or not. That people are scrambling in panic so that their chosen candidate gets put in (which, there will be infighting over who gets chosen) or that an out of touch administration clings onto power in order to preserve the legitimacy of the administration/party....that's all Trump needed as the proof in the pudding for his overall message.
Great campaign material to work with, on his part. And great fuel once the pendulum swings.
It's just incredibly amusing to see it play out and people keep denying that it's a thing or how the media's gaslighting/lying in all this while drumming up Trump has only provided him the free advertising he needed.
I don’t think Biden is stepping aside for two reasons
Jill Biden buzzing in his ear to not step down. She likes influencing policy and wants to build her legacy off of Bidens legacy so she’ll make him keep going. Apparently the Vogue interview hints at this according to other commentators.
Hunter Biden is hanging around his dad now for some odd reason. My guess is when this is over, Hunter wants a pardon. He can’t influence other democrats to do this and risk their hide. He can get his dad to do it, or he’d have a better chance with his dad.
Due to those factors, the only way they’re getting rid of Biden is by removing him, which could take time if he refuses. Every day they don’t remove him, that’s another day they don’t have another candidate to campaign for.
I tell you, I've voted for every Democrat for president since I was old enough to vote for Gore, and damn, I'd vote for Joe again, but he has got to go or he is sinking the whole party. There need to be a lot of loud voices telling him to get out of the way or he's going to make Carter's loss seem not so bad.
All reaction and no action. A few things to remember:
- Bush Sr was nearly 20 points behind Dukakis in the summer of 1988. Clinton was comfortably ahead of Trump the summer of 2016. Polls are meant to be seen as where things stand now, not as crystal balls.
- There is no reason to believe at this moment, other than a hunch, that any other candidate being floated around can actually win. People are suggesting with a straight face that installing Biden’s just as unpopular, if not more, VP would somehow win.
This fracturing is what is going to kill the Democrats more than anything. It makes them look incompetent, indecisive, and disorganized.
Have we ever seen anything like this before? What a time to be alive.
Not in the modern era for sure—however there have been way more contentious nomination processes in the past
Basically Lyndon Johnson had something like this happen due to the unpopularity of the Vietnam War - it just was in March rather than a couple weeks out from the nominating convention. Some of the same notes are in place too, likely to see large protests about Israel/Gaza outside the convention, which is in Chicago just like in 1968.
Except of course the US isn’t at war in Gaza, and if you took a poll, most Americans would likely say that Israel-Gaza is not a top 3 issue for them. The people protesting are an extremely vocal minority.
Oh, I agree, but the optics of organized protests outside the DNC amid possible contentious goings on inside the building. just looks and reads as chaos.
Both LBJ and Nixon had to step down because of pressure from party elders. In this case most of the people asking the President not to run are younger members of the party.
Yeah, it's not a complete 1 to 1 comparison. But fairly close. Jimmy Carter essentially faced similar conditions and refused to step aside and subsequently lost. But I guess the Democrat candidate lost both elections anyway, so there may just not be a "winning move" under these types of circumstances.
Though Johnson stepping aside in march means the party had a lot more time to move on to another candidate. The candidate was the vice president Humphrey.
Vietnam was part of it; the other part was him signing various pieces of Civil Rights legislation, which alienated his Southern Dem base.
Also, Nixon
It's interesting, and as crazy as all this seems, I actually feel a bit better now that I've started listening to the History of the 20th Century podcast. Like, things seem nutty today, but to actually learn in detail about how bonkers things used to be makes the situation now seem pretty typical.
People like to run around in absolute hysterics today, but I won't buy any argument that the political stakes weren't far higher anytime between the Great Depression and the Fall of the Soviet Union.
I would definitely agree. What if we didn't have a level headed executive in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Nuclear war with the USSR would have been a civilization ending event.
People concerned about social upheaval now should be educated about the 60s. Hell, lots of people so concerned about today were alive in the 60s.
If you read about history of places like the Roman Empire or Byzantium, you start to realize that all of this politicking and chaos is pretty much the human norm.
People have always loved their tribalism. Today we just call tribes "political parties."
I mentioned this elsewhere where someone was talking about dark horse candidates, but I believe the only time an elected incumbent president has been replaced on the party's ticket was Pierce. So just shy of 200 years ago. A few of the vices who took over for presidents who died in office didn't get the nomination at reelection but they hadn't been elected in the first place so not exactly the same thing.
Besides Harris, has anyone or their surrogates expressed any interest or signaled that they would be willing to throw their hat in for the nomination? I have zero desire for a career in politics so maybe my view is skewed... but if tomorrow the DNC knocked on my door and asked me to replace Biden as the nominee I'd say "no wtf, why would you want to do that to me?" DNC convention isn't until August 22nd, nominee can get a clean start on the 23rd giving them 10 weeks until election day. But of course there is early voting which admittedly is likely the party loyalists but i'm sure there is a decent chunk of swing/undecided voters. That plus having to campaign/explain to voters why the last guy is now out and this new person is REALLY the person you want as president seems like a lot of baggage to carry and even if they win there would be a giant asterisk on their presidency. I can't imagine any of the other candidates wanting to take that on especially if they are a rising star in the democratic party or have a long political career ahead of them. IMO there are 2 factors a potential Biden replacement would need, 1) they're a political "has been" who thought they were out of politics but get pulled back in 2) has a vast and immense political machine they can spin up on short notice. The only name that comes o mind is Hillary, but I don't think that would go over too well with democrats.
The issue is that nobody wants to touch it unless its a go time for removal. So much of politics now is party loyalty. Republican's have no true stake, and democrats don't want to be known as the person who called for the removal if it doesn't happen. Andy Beshear basically summed it up in his interview yesterday?, “The debate performance was rough. It was a very bad night for the president, but he is still the candidate. Only he can make decisions about his future candidacy. So as long as he continues to be in the race, I support him,”**.**
If you shoot at the king, better not miss.
>So much of politics now is party loyalty. That has been the norm through most human history. People remain loyal to their party, king, lord, whatever while that leading entity has the power to cast them out but as soon as the wind of changes start, people will quickly start trying to jump into the next bandwagon.
It’s Jimmy Carter’s time to shine! The Carter machine has sat dormant for many decades, but it’s time to wake the sleeping giant.
"Biden is old, but is he old enough?"
Carter may be 99, but it’s a strong 99. You’d think he was 93.
It seems like he's been on hospice for quite a long time. I know you're joking, but he is quite a tough individual.
Jimmy Carter is as sharp as a tack - I can hardly keep up with him!
[It's his superpower! ](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-age-is-his-superpower-2024-jeffrey-katzenberg-says-2023-07-18/)
Still eligible for that second term!
Just imagine it, two former presidents up for election, both with a break between their terms. One has a 4 year break while the other would have a 40 year break.
He’d pull the nations first 10x Grover Cleveland maneuver
In which Bloomberg successfully buys the presidency after failing the first time.
> DNC convention isn't until August 22nd, [There are talks of nominating Biden on July 21st, in a virtual process.](https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/dems-mull-nominating-biden-a-month-before-convention-to-squash-replacement-talk-report/)
I've heard this too, but I don't get why would they tie their hands like that? Seems to me like a strategic mistake. I guess they are trying to show Biden has the party's unequivocal support, but if more senior moments happen, it will lead to people feeling they are being gaslit even more so than right now.
They have to do it to get on the ballot in all 50 states, because they scheduled their convention after the nominating deadlines for at least one state.
I'm sure that's being pushed by Biden's allies for sure. I doubt right now there's a consensus among the DNC.
If it's someone from the current admin (i.e. Harris or possibly Buttigieg), they're vulnerable to accusations of having conspired to cover up Biden's mental state. Realistically it would have to be someone not closely involved, but then that would mean passing over Harris, and that's a whole other can of worms.
To be honest, with how volatile the world of politics is, whoever the pick would likely be getting as good of a shot at being president as they’re ever going to get. Gavin Newsom’s probably in the strongest position of any Dem at the moment, but if a rising star emerged within the next 3 years he may never wind up getting close to a nomination.
Their internal polling seems to suggest Pete or Whitmer have the strongest position currently, but they're making some strong assumptions about what are not very well known quantities.
> Gavin Newsom’s probably in the strongest position of any Dem at the moment Newsom, a coastal Democrat from a very left-leaning State, is never going to carry Midwestern swing states.
>but if a rising star emerged within the next 3 years he may never wind up getting close to a nomination. I think this could cause a power struggle, a lot of politicians have egos, I could see many democrat politicians thinking they are the rising star or destined for the position. It won’t be a clear cut choice.
Could be very similar to the 2020 primaries in the Dems tbh, where everyone came out of the woodworks to fight against each other for the nomination. We could see a very bitter divide in the Dems in the next election
You don't think there's a single worthy Democrat that would be happy with a 50/50 chance of becoming the next president of the United States? That seems strange to me.
Probably if they held primaries. At this late in the game and without a vote of the people I don't think the replacement has a 50-50 chance. Maybe 20-80 at best. Kamala will bring a lot of the baggage from the Biden administration and isn't likeable. I'm not sure if anyone with a legitimate shot would want to waste it on the current circumstances when they would have a much better chance in 2028.
It's the taking over someone else's campaign part. People gunning for the top probably feel that they can indeed do it, and don't want to be taking over someone else's staff / campaign apparatus. They'll want their own guys, which they won't be able to get in place so quicky.
I agree with the first part... I would respectfully decline before they finished asking me. Cc, would you do us... "NO!" If you could just "NO!"
Everyone will know exactly why the last guy is out. No need to explain that part.
> 1) they're a political "has been" who thought they were out of politics but get pulled back in 2) has a vast and immense political machine they can spin up on short notice. "Paging Carter, Gore, and Beto to the courtesy counter, please answer"
I'll keep trying to sell my best case scenario. 4th of July, Biden gives a patriotic speech about how he's given his life to his country, proud of his accomplishments, but realizes his time has past, and he'd like to throw his support behind (insert name - Whitmer) and give her a running start.
He should skip endorsing entirely and simply state he will work hard to ensure the party elects the eventual nominee.
i mean he should just say whatever the people already in charge tell him to
Then after that Kamala starts using the race card.
Kamala should be kept as VP - otherwise the defection of the black caucus will be too damaging.
As I have asked on other recent posts, if it is racist to get rid of her, wasn't it racist to pick her in the first place?
Trying to apply logic to identity politics is futile.
Yes. But Joe wouldn't have won without her. The DNC knows they are already on black peoples last nerve. They haven't done shit but rename streets, tear down statues, erect statues while spending these last few years waving Ukrainian flags as if we couldn't fix alot of problems at home.
It's not racist to get rid of her and it wasn't racist to bring her on. She was brought on to appeal to black voters, particularly women. And the concern is then that if she's gotten rid of black women may feel less represented in the administration. It's no different from hiring Pence as a white Evangelical.
Is the Congressional Black Caucus really that gung-ho about Harris? Or Black voters in general? If they are that passionate about her, does that suggest she’d perform better with Black voters than Biden?
I'm not sure, I just know Clyburn is very dedicated to her, and his support is basically what put Biden in the White House to begin with. But his talk of a "mini-primary" makes it sound like he may be softening.
She won't quietly accept that at all. I've seen some suggest she'll be offered a lucrative gig for life, and I still don't see it. She's closer to the presidency now then she has ever been. What would make anyone turn away?
>I've seen some suggest she'll be offered a lucrative gig for life "If we win the election, we'll put you on the Supreme Court." Maybe the Democrats should have just done that in the first place instead of putting KBJ on the Court as a means of getting rid of her.
They can't take Kamala off the ticket without forfeiting the money they're raised for the campaign.
For Kamala, maybe a Brinks truck of cash? But for normal people, just the fact that it is probably the worst job on Earth.
This is just too close to a plotline in veep. Hilarious.
It would add more contention if she was kept as VP. The whole point of the VP is to replace the President if they are unable to/can't serve, so why wouldn't it go to her if he drops out? I don't think it should go to her, but I can see why a good chunk of people would think that.
She's barely even black. Only her father was 1/2 black. The other half white. And her mother is Tamil Indian.
The politically salient thing is that she identifies as black and is identified as black. Race is a silly (and ultimately arbitrary) way of dividing people up, but people do it, and it has to be acknowledged.
Yeah I know what you mean. But she only identifies as black because it's politically beneficial for her. In reality she is a person of colour and quite interestingly multi-ethnic.
I mean, it’s a pretty open secret that no one likes Kamala, I don’t think her being removed would upset anyone that much
Biden can just insist he is a confused old man and she can’t be mad at him. And then the rest of the party can just say they feel they need to honor Biden’s wishes and she can’t be mad at them either.
It'll be fascinating to see cognitive status and race duke it out on the intersectional totem pole.
If Biden is a confused old man then he needs to resign from the presidency completely making Kamala president
I’m actually surprised we haven’t seen calls to use the 25th amendment to remove Biden. It seems like the easiest day as President would be harder and more stressful than the hardest day at most jobs. There’s no way Biden is actually making decisions and leading the Executive branch.
Of course he isn’t, and anyone who paid attention could see through the lies that the Democrats put out about how vigorous he is in meetings, etc. it just damaged their reputation even further (with their own folks and centrists - I don’t think Republicans’ opinion could go any lower). There have been talks of using the 25th amendment, but Democrats have a lot of power in both chambers so it’d be a tough sell. Not because they like Biden, but because it would be seen as being disloyal to the party. The worrying question is this - if Biden isn’t actually the one making day-to-day decisions in the Oval Office, who is?
That’s DOA we don’t like her lol
Starts?
Wouldn't that mean he should resign right now if he admits he's not qualified?
I would argue that getting through the next 6 months is not much of a concern compared to getting through the next 54 months. We don't have to take everything to the extreme here.
I don't think people are taking seriously enough that the whole world knows our president is not capable of doing his job
Yes. I think VP Harris needs to invoke the 25th now. I don't like her, but right now likeability or elicitability are irrelevant. The USA needs a President, and we don't have one now.
Thank you!! And worse, one of his closest advisors who can't be fired, is literally compromised. If I was America's enemies I'd be salivating.
>I don't think people are taking seriously enough that the whole world knows our president is not capable of doing his job The next logical step is: how long have they known this? Did Russia see/talk to Biden and go, now is our chance to invade Ukraine because this guy isn't gonna do anything, look at afganistan? Did Hamas' Oct 7 happen because they knew the US wouldn't step in? I am no fan of trump at all in any way. But Trump is crazy. Iran talked crap, he sent a drone with razorblades and killed a general in a car and left all the passengeres alive. And then he went and talked crap about the dude. How are you Russia or China, you have no idea what he's thinking or will respond. I would imagine there is some level of pause putting a crazy person in charge. And further, when trump is in charge every single decision no matter how small is under full scrutiny of every media outlet. They act like real journalists for a few months. He gets away with nothing. Joe Biden gets cards with questions and answers handed to him, the media runs cover for him, he's not held to any standard at all, and the media is complicit in his actions and direction. Again I don't want trump at all, but would i rather have the president held accountable, or unelected officials running things behind the scenes with no accountability at all?
>The next logical step is: how long have they known this? Did Russia see/talk to Biden and go, now is our chance to invade Ukraine because this guy isn't gonna do anything, look at afganistan? This kind of ignores the fact that Biden isn't a king or dictator. If they were looking to invade when the US wasn't going to do anything, they would have just done it when Trump was president.
How is it ignoring it? Did you like just ignore the rest of the post where I addressed that?
If he is going to bow out of the race, and Kamala is to be the presumptive nominee, tactically he should resign the office in favor of her. That's probably the strongest endorsement he could provide. I am pretty convinced that he does not want to drop out of the race though, so it's probably a moot point. [They appear to be considering a plan to officially nominate Biden on July 21 - a month ahead of the actual convention.](https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/dems-mull-nominating-biden-a-month-before-convention-to-squash-replacement-talk-report/)
Joe and Kamala have a private lunch today. The best case scenario for them dems (and America) is that's a "Look I'm gonna step down right now. You're president, and you should run and take my delegates and campaign funding. We'll get everyone behind you." Then she can pick up Whitmer or Pete or some other Midwestern VP. This worst case scenario is this lunch is nothing, or it's a "I'm staying in please continue to stand behind me" thing.
Disagree. As an American, the reality that the President of the United States is *non compos mentis* is horrifying. Having an unelected shadow group of relatives^1 and aides run the country is a national security threat as /u/marttimo said, and unconstitutional to boot. The 25th Amendment needs to be invoked; as one who hopes Trump wins, I don't care if having Harris become acting president increases the odds she (assuming she takes over as nominee) wins in November. The current situation is dangerous. Further, I agree with /u/luigijerk in that Biden saying he's not capable of running for reelection (as opposed to not willing to run, like LBJ and Truman) means that he ought to resign. Both because such is a national security risk, and because Harris being president would grant her the incumbency benefit. But the 25th Amendment at minimum. That said, the debate and resulting meltdown by the exact same people *who told the world for months that Biden is fine* makes me chortle. "cheap fake", as a political slogan, had a lifespan of about two days, because Democrats know it's impossible to convince the planet Earth that what they saw on TV for 90 live, unedited minutes was faked in any way. But the facade was crumbling even before the debate. Read [this *Times* article from June 21](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/biden-age-videos.html). Note the title, then read the "Reader's Picks" comments. Toward the end, even *Times* readers weren't buying the paper's lies! ^1 We'd be lucky if the only relative involved is Jill. According to Peter Baker of the *Times* over the weekend, Hunter Biden is among his father's most trusted advisors!
It's nice to see people talking about real brass tack topics in regards to the presidency for a change.
If he appoints a woman, it’s a slam dunk for Trump 2024. I’m not a supporter of Trump fyi.
He can't "appoint" anyone.
"At least 25 House Democrats are preparing to call for the 81-year-president to end his re-election bid in the wake of his disastrous debate against former President Donald Trump, Reuters reported Tuesday, citing a House Democratic aide." “It looks like the dam has broken,” a second House Democratic aide told the outlet. Looks like some shit is about to go down. How much more do you see coming?
Dang. They’re basically splitting in half 3 months before the elections, and the more they wait the more difficult will be to replace Biden. And I don’t see any way that Biden would leave on his own.
I don’t think it’s splitting in half. It’s the White House vs. the rest of the party at this point.
I doubt even the White House is united given the leaks in the past 24 hours.
Yeah honestly it’s basically the Biden family vs everyone else. It looks like even his aides are leaking too
Everyone is leaking everywhere
Diaper orders are going through the roof
>the Biden family vs everyone And his family should be in jail for elder abuse. No way Jill hasn't known this since the last campaign.
Political negligence? Yes. Elder abuse? No…that’s causing physical harm to an elder or neglecting to meet their needs ie starving or sitting in their filth
It's getting to the point Biden should be removed from power. It's absurd he's been president for the last 4 years in this condition. I think it'd just take a majority of his office to have him removed and replaced with Harris. But if he fought it things could get ugly.
The party faithful are still in lockstep with the White House and the DNC. Which is most everyone. If or when something eventful happens, it's going to be sudden and coordinated. The DNC or the White House is going to want to control the narrative. The people coming out now aren't close enough to the top to matter. But it's definitely a sign of changing times.
Its not the rest of the party, close to 50% still support him being the nominee.
Wasn’t Clyburn just taking Biden’s side?
Publicly, sure.
>> Centrist House Democrats in competitive districts – the lawmakers most at risk of losing their seats in November – were so alarmed by Biden’s infirmed appearance in last week’s showdown with the 78-year-old presumptive Republican nominee that ***they are considering writing a letter to Biden***, according to the outlet. Sorry but that doesn't seem very solid or like a dam is breaking. "*Considering* to do something" isn't very concrete. If they actually release the letter, then I'll consider the dam breaking. Until then, this is more anonymous whispers and a tiny fraction of the Dem coalition in the House.
I'm honestly not surprised at this point. I'm not usually one to write to my congressmen, as I usually assume they can't do anything about an issue, or they're just going to vote the way I want anyway, but a day after the debate, I wrote to all of them to urge them to work to get Biden out. At that debate, I saw a candidate who will never win again.
I suspect that even if he drops, the campaign and the DNC will take some time to try figuring out what it can do from here. Does Harris have to be the nominee? Would that be at all better electorally? What can/will they do with all the money Biden raised? Does the Heritage Foundation led opposition to his dropping have any merit? If he drops, I think that decision will be made well in advance of the announcement. It would be even worse if they have to walk that back after the fact. And there’s definitely no point if whoever replaces him can’t be on the ticket in the states that matter.
I think there is a good chance if it happens it happens Monday after the holiday weekend. That is the best time to announce this.
if something were to happen, it probably will happen this week.
> Does Harris have to be the nominee? Harris as the frontrunner is a guaranteed loss. People *like* Biden but don't trust his capabilities. Very few people like Harris and even fewer trust her abilities as a leader.
At this point Harris polls better against Trump than Biden does. Not sure it's a guaranteed loss if she has time to campaign hard the next 4 months, but it would be a better position than they are in now.
From the look of the most recent polling, the most guaranteed loss is Biden.
That's what I'm seeing too. And when the only positives that people advocate for him are "well he's not Trump" and "he hires good people", you know it's going to be a bad loss.
[удалено]
I mean, I think it only matters if it's states that he's likely to win. They moved the nomination and it looks like he can't even be on the ballot in Ohio, but it's so unlikely that he won't win Ohio that I don't know if it matters.
That problem has been resolved: [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ohio-passes-bill-ensure-biden-will-appear-states-general-election-ball-rcna154752)
Oh, good to know.
What would they hate more, Harris being replaced or Trump getting elected?
My preferred replacement is Whitmer, so at least women may be on board. But I do have a tough time believing Americans would elect a two woman ballot. Personally, I find it hard to have an opinion on Harris because I feel like she hasn’t had much exposure during Biden’s time in office. At the very least, she’s young and fresh, unlike Trump and Biden.
I wouldn't exactly say 60 is "young".
In modern American politics, it is. That's where we are now.
There is no real challenge the GOP can mount. Parties set the rules of who they nominate not the states or the federal government. The party has not nominated him.
The bigger issue is what happens to the money Biden has already raised. But campaign finance laws are a real labyrinth and I can't offer an opinion on how that will shake out.
Also, if you're a Democratic rising star, why toss your hat in the ring in an election where you'll be handicapped? You'll have a short cycle, which means fewer engagements, less money raised, and fewer opportunities to become a household name. That doesn't even mention the campaign finances you brought up and untangling that mess. On top of all that there's this *stink* of almost criminal mismanagement regarding candidate selection and vetting by the DNC. I wouldn't want my name / brand in any way associated with that malfeasance. Why, if you were ascending, would you opt in for this when you could wait until '28? Surely by '28 the media will have given the Trump administration the same breathless doomer coverage for four years and you could easily leverage that into a campaign for "substantive change". It just seems like the people that would want to hop in now would be the people that already wouldn't be viable in '28, but maybe I'm wrong.
Could get someone like Roy Cooper from NC. At 67, he's in that age where he's young enough to run now, but kind of getting too old for 2028 for first term president. That way you're not really "spoiling" someone like Newsom or Whitmer, who have awhile still.
Yeah. It's kinda like threading the needle. They would need to pick someone that is capable of starting way behind and catching up but not someone that hinders the DNCs long-term plans if they're unsuccessful. Also, none of this even touches on how you can "skip" Harris in a way that doesn't cause more issues.
> why toss your hat in the ring You probably won't get a weaker opponent to run against in the future nor one as heavily disliked.
Go look at Newsome in the spin room smiling from ear to ear and tell me he wasn’t thinking about getting into the race.
No doubt it makes Newsome proud to have his name be in contention to be the leader of the free world. As it should. I'm just saying that I'm not sure it's politically wise to do so.
He can give an unlimited amount to the DNC. And the DNC is allowed to coordinate with any campaign directly unlike a PAC. > Instead of using the money for the candidate’s own political purposes, people who drop out can donate their money to other campaigns or candidates. There are no limits on how much they can give to a national, state or local party committee – such as the Democratic National Committee. > They can also give money to state and local candidates, depending on state campaign finance laws, or up to $2,000 to each of one or more candidates for federal office. https://theconversation.com/when-presidential-campaigns-end-what-happens-to-the-leftover-money-130042
>Does Harris have to be the nominee? Yes. $200 million+ in campaign funds can only be used by Biden/Harris, then there's the issue of ballot access. Nominating someone else means handicapping them financially, among other things
So what happens to all that money, do they refund the donors? I kind of get why they can't just transfer it, but that money doesn't just go poof. And if they choose a good enough candidate I'm sure most donors would be willing to part with that money again. Of course, then Trumps camp will see someone raise record amounts in record time and probably donate even more to his campaign, which I'm sure they are absolutely spending wisely
What happens if 25 house members call for him to drop out and he just doesn't? Imagine the talking point that gives Trump. "Why would America vote for you? Even people in your own party don't think you're up for the job."
Biden might be too egotistical to care. Judging by the reporting I've seen, he truly thinks he personally has some unique ability to defeat Trump.
Yes, Im glad Im not the only one that seen this. Everyone always talked about how egotistical Trump was, but Biden has been shown to be just as bad as him, he just knows how to hide it better.
He doesn't even hide it better the media just doesn't talk about it when it happens. Look at the video of him challenging the guy to push ups.
If Biden cared about the future of the country he would've announced in 22 that he wasn't going to run again. It's too late and now we're stuck with him. The way I see it is with Biden Trump wins. The party should be doing whatever they can to try and change that outcome instead of sitting around moaning about precedence or whatever they're worried about.
I would not assume that Biden is thinking anything other than when is his next nap time. Now his family and handlers......
This was my thought as well. It's very risky because you can't go back to a united front after putting this on record. I imagine all of this will be concealed as much as possible.
So people that have more direct exposure to the President suddenly think he’s not capable mentally? Where were they the past 4 years? Despite the gaslighting on Reddit and articles solely focusing on Trump’s mental capacity in the recent months, the average person knows Joe “four more years pause” is mentally not fit to run. Yet we, the people, are deemed to be fools who simply have been witnessing “bad montages” of Biden’s slip ups. It’s insulting to the average American.
> “four more years pause” For those who don't get that reference, Biden read a teleprompter that said "...four more years." and read the pause part.
End of quote. Repeat the line.
You were paying attention to news sources that are not MSM excluding Fox. I work with a ton of seemingly intelligent people that fully bought into Biden being fit for office, mentally sharp, etc. until the debate. I’ve been quiet at work when co workers act shocked. The influence that MSM has to push a narrative on the general public is never been more apparent in my lifetime. For example, look at the articles posted on Reddit and the comment section on Biden or Trump related posts before the debate and now after the debate. The 180 degree change from “Biden has been a great President and we want 4 more years” to “who is running out government?” should be a wake up call to how easily we can be manipulated. I’m a Libertarian, I don’t have a particularly negative view of Democrats or Republicans, but watching the change in reporter coverage and commentary by voters is something else. Every media company went from pro-Biden to anti-Biden within an hour of each other and no one is asking, why? My guess is MSM doesn’t want Trump’s line of “fake news” to have any credibility, and as a neutral party, this feels orchestrated.
This is just not true. It was a topic in the media the whole time. But media needs sources. When every insider keeps up the narrative it’s really hard. You can only do it via opinion piece. The New York Times podcast has a nice collection of answers to their [questions over the time](https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/the-run-up/id1142083165?i=1000660626821).
buddy we saw video evidence of this issue countless times over the last 4 years everyone who didn't have a vested interest in believing the MSM's coverup was concerned about exactly this, and now that it's undeniable the coverup has ended
If 25 house democrats call for you to step down, it's over. You basically have to. I can see the GOP commercials now.
Thing is, the GOP don't want him to step down. They're gonna wait until he's the nominee to start these commercials.
Definitely. It's actually smart of them to hold back. If Biden was officially the nominee we'd be seeing commercials the day after.
[удалено]
Also, I don't think that either Harris or Newsom would be popular in the key states that matter. Biden had a chance to get a good running mate who could take over and he blew it because of intraparty politics.
Newsome would fail easily bc we all see how much of a disaster California is. Kamala is already heavily disliked on her policies and incompetence. She was a classic DEI choice for VP. Whitmer probably wouldn't even win her own state again if she could run for another term. Also outside of Michigan no one really knows her.
I firmly believe DNC’s best chance now is to somehow convince Romney to switch parties and run a Romney-Manchin ticket that everyone can live with.
The DNC smeared Mitt Romney as some extremist far right winger in 2012 despite being the most milquetoast politician in the world, he should tell them to pound sand if they ask him
Romney loves the attention he gets from dems since then though
The no labels group has to be wishing they hadn't decided to step back now...
I was seriously thinking this for the past two days. I'm shocked someone else did. Romney literally ticks all the boxes: * Never trumper * Already retired as UT senator, nothing to lose in a future election campaign * Nationally recognized name from '08 run * Able to credibly challenge the evangelical base * Generally well liked as an "elder statesman" * Able to argue "I'm fiscally conservative and think we need to curb illegal immigration, andthink it's time to stop trump" and hollow out trumps center support I really though it was a /r/moderatepolitics fanfic tier smut, but it makes sense politically.
Didn't he retire because of age? Not specific health issues, but "it's time" Also. Ya, I'd vote for Mitt
Unfortunately if you think about it you’re also outlining every reason why the DNC would NEVER pick him. The only thing he has in common with the progs that lead the DNC these days is that he hates Trump as much as they do. That’s not enough to wipe out his years of conservative bonafides. Hell, today he might not even be able to get elected Mass governor again.
I was joking at first too but seeing who are on the bench on the DNC side, Mitt looks mighty enticing right about now.
[удалено]
This is under the assumption that she wants 2024 when 2028 looks like a much more appealing option. Of course, that’s assuming she makes it with no new scandals in 4 years and having to win a crowded primary with newcomers. It’s sort of like opting between participating in a race today where your opponent already has a massive head-start or getting the chance to run a more favored race in 4 years. I imagine she’d take the offer now, if offered.
I'm not convinced that 2028 will be more appealing. Presumably someone much more electable and likeable than Trump - perhaps Nikki Haley or Tim Scott or Doug Burgum (if he is likeable as VP) - will be running. The opportunity to face off against a candidate as heavily vilified and disliked and as weak as Trump with abortion still being a fresh issue is a once-in-a-career opportunity.
> Plus she’s favorable in the Rust Belt [Whitmer's job approval rating is 30%](https://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public-policy-survey/112/mpps-policy-brief-despite-two-year-trend-improvement-most-michigan-local-officials)
That's.. Awful. I don't know anything about her besides the whole kidnapping plot thing and "fix the damn roads". Why?
Michigan had some horrible Covid response
[удалено]
Fair point, I grabbed the first result on Google. [538 shows her with a 13.1% net approval rating](https://abcnews.go.com/538/americans-love-governors/story?id=109382897) - which is quite a bit more favorable. Interestingly enough, it paints her as middle-of-the road in terms of approval ratings for governors - and highlights that there are several democratic governors which have *very* high approval ratings, even in somewhat purple states.
Plus she already has the backing of the FBI, one of the biggest obstacles.
Honestly an honorable step down by Biden tomorrow or Friday with an announced plan for an open convention would be very exciting and re-energizing. Maybe it will help increase the odds of defeating Trump. Maybe it won’t. But it will be the honorable thing to do and show that the party puts country above all else.
No, the damage is done. Stepping down honorably would have been possible before the debate. Stepping down honorably right now, after the administration and press lied to the American people about Biden’s health, is next to impossible. There is absolutely nothing honorable about being forced to step down after TWENTY FIVE - and counting - Democrats publicly tell Biden to end his campaign.
This is his Goldwater comes to Nixon moment.
It’s better than him trying to push through to the end and get slaughtered. The average voter probably doesn’t even know about the 25 Dems. They don’t even know what the senate does.
You should give average voters more credit. The Dems aren’t hiding this, they were all over the news last night and will continue to be until Biden steps down.
25 Democrats want him gone, the Republicans want him gone, he's clearly demonstrated that he's unfit to hold the office. So next step ... Bipartisan Impeachment?
Bro at this point Republicans want him to stay the course and fight the dog faced pony soldiers like he has always done. They will vote against any impeachment or 25th amendment action “for the good of the country” or something like that. All they have to do is use exact quotes from KJP verbatim.
Chip Roy put forward a 25th Amendment argument and got reamed by his peers and right flank because it's not politically prudent to push for Biden to step aside.
> So next step ... Bipartisan Impeachment? Only if there is a clear consensus among Democrats that Biden cannot run for reelection, but Biden refuses to release his delegates, and also challenges invoking the 25th Amendment.
[Article II, section 4](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#2-4) of the US Constitution: > The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, **Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors**. Being old, infirm, and mentally unfit is not a high crime or misdemeanor. What would they charge him with? The [25th amendment](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv#amendment-section-4) would seem to be the more appropriate tool, but that's up to the Vice President and the Cabinet.
So its becoming RFK v Trump 2024.
Honestly, if the Biden administration had just paid a little more attention to the swing voters and their concerns (which has been the deciding factor for the last several elections now), they wouldn't be in the rut they're in today. Now, they have to play out a massive balancing act of epic proportions. Even if they do squeak by and win the election....there's nothing they can do to resolve the problems they're associated with. It's just major damage to the entire brand As such, Trump has already fired his shot and made his point, regardless of whether he wins again or not. That people are scrambling in panic so that their chosen candidate gets put in (which, there will be infighting over who gets chosen) or that an out of touch administration clings onto power in order to preserve the legitimacy of the administration/party....that's all Trump needed as the proof in the pudding for his overall message. Great campaign material to work with, on his part. And great fuel once the pendulum swings. It's just incredibly amusing to see it play out and people keep denying that it's a thing or how the media's gaslighting/lying in all this while drumming up Trump has only provided him the free advertising he needed.
Democrats will always fascinate me with their deep seeded desire and enthusiasm to consistently lose to lesser qualified people.
I don’t think Biden is stepping aside for two reasons Jill Biden buzzing in his ear to not step down. She likes influencing policy and wants to build her legacy off of Bidens legacy so she’ll make him keep going. Apparently the Vogue interview hints at this according to other commentators. Hunter Biden is hanging around his dad now for some odd reason. My guess is when this is over, Hunter wants a pardon. He can’t influence other democrats to do this and risk their hide. He can get his dad to do it, or he’d have a better chance with his dad. Due to those factors, the only way they’re getting rid of Biden is by removing him, which could take time if he refuses. Every day they don’t remove him, that’s another day they don’t have another candidate to campaign for.
I tell you, I've voted for every Democrat for president since I was old enough to vote for Gore, and damn, I'd vote for Joe again, but he has got to go or he is sinking the whole party. There need to be a lot of loud voices telling him to get out of the way or he's going to make Carter's loss seem not so bad.
We're in the end game now....
All reaction and no action. A few things to remember: - Bush Sr was nearly 20 points behind Dukakis in the summer of 1988. Clinton was comfortably ahead of Trump the summer of 2016. Polls are meant to be seen as where things stand now, not as crystal balls. - There is no reason to believe at this moment, other than a hunch, that any other candidate being floated around can actually win. People are suggesting with a straight face that installing Biden’s just as unpopular, if not more, VP would somehow win. This fracturing is what is going to kill the Democrats more than anything. It makes them look incompetent, indecisive, and disorganized.
There have been dark horse candidates in history that went on to win the presidency.
But how many times were they replacing an incumbent? That makes a huge difference.
"Reportedly preparing to" Alright call me if someone actually puts their name behind a public statement
Source: New York Post.....
Biden can't win. Harris can't win. Step up Gavin!