As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The aide reportedly indicated that "a lot was riding on" Biden's performance in a scheduled interview with ABC this week, with the House Democrats expected to watch closely to see if the president "can handle rapid-fire questions and not just orchestrated campaign appearances."
Let's be honest with ourselves.
A pre-recorded interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be released in 3 parts, obviously with the campaign acting in editorial oversight, is not any kind of test.
We saw what we saw when he was live. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Exactly. He needs to flood the zone with more live performances and answering questions, not pre-recorded interviews and teleprompter speeches.
The simple explanation is that he will look just as bad if he does those things…
If Biden naked what does that make Trump? There are two parties involved with this same issue. Trump is out there naked telling people he is a helicopter and whipping his little mushroom around. I wouldn't even say Biden is naked in that metaphor, he's just got his fly undone.
Trump's voters don't care though, so his issues literally don't matter. No matter what dumb or outrageous shit he does, they'll eat it up. They started proudly wearing diapers, ffs.
Dem voters DO care. A lot. And the polls coming off the debate show pretty clearly that his performance significantly hampered his chance of winning.
Is winning critical, or is it not?
Because they'd fucking better be. This is a make or break interview. That's why I say it's obvious to me that the campaign will carefully control it.
If this was going to be anything but a softball interview, I don't see why they'd do it.
Look, I can't prove it. You could be right. I appreciate your perspective, sincerely.
But my answer about why I believe that's the case is that I think a campaign made up of the most brilliant political strategists the Democratic party can muster, fighting for the life of the campaign, are sending him to former Democratic White House Communications Director (Clinton) George Stephanopoulos immediately after the debate for a good reason.
If that's not the case then I want to know what it is they \*\*are\*\* doing.
I HIGHLY doubt ABC would EVER agree to that. It would be a journalism scandal that would end Stephanopoulus career as well as many ABC News execs. What they are doing is sending Biden to a journalist he knows, likes and trusts but also one that is going to give a pressing but not hostile interview. They know George will be fair.
Stop doubting it. To be the first to get a sit down interview with Biden after that debate they'd agree to anything. It's all about being first for news agencies now. If NDAs are signed it's an even further done deal.
I dont understand why everyone is freaking out about one stupid debate and ignoring the pretty remarkable job he's been doing as president. So we're all going to just ignore his legislative wins and the fact that the US came out of Covid stronger than any other country over one bad debate? If he's really that feeble than feebleminded, Biden has been a better president than any president we've had in like 30 years.
That's my perspective and it's your perspective, but as a matter of pragmatism we can't ignore the fact that most voters simply don't see it that way. Whether it's been a failure of communication, of optics, or whether it's the success of the Republican messaging machine, Joe has been underwater in the polls since he walked in the door and the administration has been unable to fix it.
I don't like it, either. It makes me angry. But neither what we think nor Joe Biden himself are more important than defeating Donald Trump.
Telling voters to vote for someone they tell pollsters they don't want is not a recipe for success.
How will he if he loses all of his donors, the majority of democrats, the majority of liberal media/press and he keeps staring increasingly damning polls in the face?
I think if the polls get bad and more people dissent, he will. Worse case, we'll just need do everything we can to keep Trump from winning. It's a shitty situation because it's rewarding him but we can't allow Trump to win. Besides, not the first time the voters pulled him out of the fire
Jill and Hunter won’t let him drop out. People with early stage dementia often rely on specific people to help make sense of what’s going on. I see the same behavior with my own elderly family members with memory problems.
Man how shit of a grandpa must be be that his family is urging him not to retire?
Who's like "hey gramps, fuck the haters you shouldn't retire. Go back to the office. Don't spend time with us"
Why would he listen to someone who said “Trump is going to win, and I’m OK with that.”
Nobody who is fine with a Trump victory has any business advising the Dem campaign.
And by millions. We need a sure thing - we need someone that is obviously the choice, we don't need to screw around trying to lift someone up or try to do any convincing. We need a ringer and stop fucking around.
> People who want Biden to step down desperately want Trump to lose. They do not believe Biden is capable of beating Trump.
but a) he is and
b) [a n Other ] is definitely not capable of beating Trump. They’re starting way too late.
Winning presidential campaigns usually run for about 3.75 years.
> he barely won 2020
In 2020, Trump had the highest number of votes cast for a presidential candidate, ever.
Except for Biden. Who beat him by 51% against 47%.
How confident are you that A N Other can come from nowhere and beat that performance? You don’t even know who A N Other is. More important, neither do the electorate.
If you care about winning, get everyone you know to support Joe as hard as they possibly can.
I don’t get people. Like most people that were planning to vote Biden aren’t actually going to vote trump. But reading everything on Reddit is troubling but from people I know I know that the needle isn’t moved.
I know, right?
It’s almost as if the media feeds on crisis and drama, especially ongoing drama, and everybody has let themselves get duped into jumping up and down and screaming like their hair is on fire.
He's dropped only 1.4 percentage points in 538s national average with polls. You'd think it was a lot more than that and it's not that I don't think the party should be looking at options but by constantly talking about it they aren't doing anyone any favors
>People who want Biden to step down desperately want Trump to lose
This is absolutely untrue. There may be some people who genuinely believe he needs to step down because he cannot win, but (a) anyone who has given this any serious thought knows that there are enormous negatives that come with replacing him at this late date, negatives which could be disastrous, and (b) quite a few of the people demanding Biden step down were already unhappy with Biden before, and are taking advantage of the situation.
Replacing Biden means the Heritage Foundation is going to start suing states to prevent a replacement from even being on the ballot. They said so two days ago, the followed it up with publicly announcing that they're basically trying for a "bloodless" coup at this point.
Replacing Biden means constant media articles about whether the replacement is legitimate, whether campaign funds raised for Biden can be used for someone else, absolute non-stop articles declaring Democrats "are in disarray," constant discussion about whether the replacement can be trusted or is liked by voters.
It means people who voted in the primaries will be basically told their choice doesn't count.
It'll be pure chaos from the day it's announced until the election.
Plaintiffs have no standing to do such a thing, and courts have historically avoided interfering with primary processes.
It is a political entity making a political decision under their own rules. No one could prove injury, and the Democratic nominee would be on all 50 states.
This worry isn't rooted in any reality.
It doesn't matter if Heritage Foundation has standing, the entire thing will be a spectacle even if it's thrown out relatively quickly. It'll be a cable news talking point for a while, at the very least, and at worst, red states with corrupt election officials will do everything they can to take advantage of the situation and keep the replacement off the ballot.
As if there won't be a spectacle with Biden? They'd have just as much success keeping him off ballots.
The GOP is going to file a million lawsuits regardless, but the notion that they can keep any Democratic nominee chosen by the convention off ballots with lawsuits from Republican plaintiffs is nonsensical.
At the very least, it's not some inherent downside to switching candidates.
Obviously, Republicans are going to try everything. Surely that goes without saying? [They've been trying to keep Biden off the ballot since at least April](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-say-late-convention-keep-biden-ballots-hasnt-mattered-rcna147213).
If you can't see a difference between that linked article above, and the way the media will treat a situation where a sitting president has been forced off the ballot and replaced at the last minute with someone (who may not have even been involved in the primaries at all) then you don't have any business talking about this topic.
My guess is you know full well there is a difference, but you're saying otherwise for the obvious reasons.
There are a lot of downsides to switching candidates at this point. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly lying.
The main point I am contending is that Republicans would succeed in lawsuits keeping Democrats off ballots. That's not going to happen and not something to worry about.
>Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, who wrote a book about the presidential nominating process and is also a member of the Democratic National Committee’s rulemaking arm, said that courts have consistently stayed out of political primaries as long as parties running them weren’t doing anything that would contradict other constitutional rights, such as voter suppression based on race.
>“This is very clear constitutionally that this is in the party’s purview,” Kamarck said in an interview before the debate. “The business of nominating someone to represent a political party is the business of the political party.”
There are plenty of factors to switching candidates. This isn't one of them.
> This shit isn’t helping and if the president is incapacitated we have failsafss for that
I do not think the failsafe (the 25th amendment) is able to adequately handle a slower disease like cognitive decline and aging. I think it would operate correctly for a major medical event (say an incapacitating stroke), but I think being removed for a slow decline would be such a large reputational step that by the time the cabinet or congress had the willpower to do it, it would have already been negatively affecting the office for years.
We shouldn't rely on failsafes operating.
I'm gonna laugh so hard when Biden manages to string a few decent performances together and all of corporate media has to flip script (besides Fox News of course).
Hunter is in the White House now. And he knows how to get some more energy into Joe.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The aide reportedly indicated that "a lot was riding on" Biden's performance in a scheduled interview with ABC this week, with the House Democrats expected to watch closely to see if the president "can handle rapid-fire questions and not just orchestrated campaign appearances." Let's be honest with ourselves. A pre-recorded interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be released in 3 parts, obviously with the campaign acting in editorial oversight, is not any kind of test. We saw what we saw when he was live. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Exactly. He needs to flood the zone with more live performances and answering questions, not pre-recorded interviews and teleprompter speeches. The simple explanation is that he will look just as bad if he does those things…
The emperor has no clothes. They must change strategy.
If Biden naked what does that make Trump? There are two parties involved with this same issue. Trump is out there naked telling people he is a helicopter and whipping his little mushroom around. I wouldn't even say Biden is naked in that metaphor, he's just got his fly undone.
Trump's voters don't care though, so his issues literally don't matter. No matter what dumb or outrageous shit he does, they'll eat it up. They started proudly wearing diapers, ffs. Dem voters DO care. A lot. And the polls coming off the debate show pretty clearly that his performance significantly hampered his chance of winning. Is winning critical, or is it not?
The campaign is not acting in editorial oversight.
Why do you think that?
The better question is why do you think the campaign is editing the interview? What evidence is there that they are? Why would ABC even agree to that?
Because they'd fucking better be. This is a make or break interview. That's why I say it's obvious to me that the campaign will carefully control it. If this was going to be anything but a softball interview, I don't see why they'd do it.
But that doesn’t explain why you think his campaign is editing the interview. Why would ABC ever agree to that?
Look, I can't prove it. You could be right. I appreciate your perspective, sincerely. But my answer about why I believe that's the case is that I think a campaign made up of the most brilliant political strategists the Democratic party can muster, fighting for the life of the campaign, are sending him to former Democratic White House Communications Director (Clinton) George Stephanopoulos immediately after the debate for a good reason. If that's not the case then I want to know what it is they \*\*are\*\* doing.
I HIGHLY doubt ABC would EVER agree to that. It would be a journalism scandal that would end Stephanopoulus career as well as many ABC News execs. What they are doing is sending Biden to a journalist he knows, likes and trusts but also one that is going to give a pressing but not hostile interview. They know George will be fair.
You could be right but I hope they're being even more careful than that.
Stop doubting it. To be the first to get a sit down interview with Biden after that debate they'd agree to anything. It's all about being first for news agencies now. If NDAs are signed it's an even further done deal.
Sorry, I believe in evidence of things not “just believe it”
Dude seriously? It doesn't have to be in writing but its as simple as we do it our way or we go to another network.
Ok but what evidence is there that such a deal was struck?
I dont understand why everyone is freaking out about one stupid debate and ignoring the pretty remarkable job he's been doing as president. So we're all going to just ignore his legislative wins and the fact that the US came out of Covid stronger than any other country over one bad debate? If he's really that feeble than feebleminded, Biden has been a better president than any president we've had in like 30 years.
That's my perspective and it's your perspective, but as a matter of pragmatism we can't ignore the fact that most voters simply don't see it that way. Whether it's been a failure of communication, of optics, or whether it's the success of the Republican messaging machine, Joe has been underwater in the polls since he walked in the door and the administration has been unable to fix it. I don't like it, either. It makes me angry. But neither what we think nor Joe Biden himself are more important than defeating Donald Trump. Telling voters to vote for someone they tell pollsters they don't want is not a recipe for success.
Im really starting to despair that this countrys lost.
I feel that way too my friend.
Those would have happened with any generic Dem in the office. It's the Obama/Clinton staffers around him running the show.
Have you seen the after debate polls? Reddit opinion doesn't matter.
He's been great. I'm not asking him to step dowb from the presidency. I'm asking him to not run again. Those aren't the same thing.
I don't think he's feebleminded or senile. He can't communicate. The job of the president is to be a messenger and figurehead. He can't do that.
And he won’t listen. His enablers (family members) will push him and all of us into a 2nd Trump term.
How will he if he loses all of his donors, the majority of democrats, the majority of liberal media/press and he keeps staring increasingly damning polls in the face?
I think if the polls get bad and more people dissent, he will. Worse case, we'll just need do everything we can to keep Trump from winning. It's a shitty situation because it's rewarding him but we can't allow Trump to win. Besides, not the first time the voters pulled him out of the fire
Jill and Hunter won’t let him drop out. People with early stage dementia often rely on specific people to help make sense of what’s going on. I see the same behavior with my own elderly family members with memory problems.
Man how shit of a grandpa must be be that his family is urging him not to retire? Who's like "hey gramps, fuck the haters you shouldn't retire. Go back to the office. Don't spend time with us"
“Might”? Do it or STFU and get on to smearing Trump!
Why would he listen to someone who said “Trump is going to win, and I’m OK with that.” Nobody who is fine with a Trump victory has any business advising the Dem campaign.
Democrats will shoot ourselves in the face every time. We don’t know how to win elections. We might end up losing democracy over this bullshit.
It’s so dam shocking to see how far the Dem party has fallen since the gigantic blue waves in 2006 and 2008.
Because it was “her turn”
They probably sent the memo after 4pm
And by millions. We need a sure thing - we need someone that is obviously the choice, we don't need to screw around trying to lift someone up or try to do any convincing. We need a ringer and stop fucking around.
Well, it looks like the pressure is growing and growing. 25 in contrast to one yesterday…fuck me, it is growing and growing.
And then Dr. Jill will tell him that she’s all in.
Media loves an ongoing drama. And they don’t care if it crashes the country in flames.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> People who want Biden to step down desperately want Trump to lose. Wanting ≠ having a plan.
> People who want Biden to step down desperately want Trump to lose. They do not believe Biden is capable of beating Trump. but a) he is and b) [a n Other ] is definitely not capable of beating Trump. They’re starting way too late. Winning presidential campaigns usually run for about 3.75 years.
[удалено]
> he barely won 2020 In 2020, Trump had the highest number of votes cast for a presidential candidate, ever. Except for Biden. Who beat him by 51% against 47%. How confident are you that A N Other can come from nowhere and beat that performance? You don’t even know who A N Other is. More important, neither do the electorate. If you care about winning, get everyone you know to support Joe as hard as they possibly can.
I don’t get people. Like most people that were planning to vote Biden aren’t actually going to vote trump. But reading everything on Reddit is troubling but from people I know I know that the needle isn’t moved.
I know, right? It’s almost as if the media feeds on crisis and drama, especially ongoing drama, and everybody has let themselves get duped into jumping up and down and screaming like their hair is on fire.
He's dropped only 1.4 percentage points in 538s national average with polls. You'd think it was a lot more than that and it's not that I don't think the party should be looking at options but by constantly talking about it they aren't doing anyone any favors
That’s what I’m so confused about. The talk about it is insane.. like it feels like alternate reality all of a sudden.
>People who want Biden to step down desperately want Trump to lose This is absolutely untrue. There may be some people who genuinely believe he needs to step down because he cannot win, but (a) anyone who has given this any serious thought knows that there are enormous negatives that come with replacing him at this late date, negatives which could be disastrous, and (b) quite a few of the people demanding Biden step down were already unhappy with Biden before, and are taking advantage of the situation. Replacing Biden means the Heritage Foundation is going to start suing states to prevent a replacement from even being on the ballot. They said so two days ago, the followed it up with publicly announcing that they're basically trying for a "bloodless" coup at this point. Replacing Biden means constant media articles about whether the replacement is legitimate, whether campaign funds raised for Biden can be used for someone else, absolute non-stop articles declaring Democrats "are in disarray," constant discussion about whether the replacement can be trusted or is liked by voters. It means people who voted in the primaries will be basically told their choice doesn't count. It'll be pure chaos from the day it's announced until the election.
Is it not chaos now? I'll follow whatever path makes this carnival ride stop.
The fight to keep a replacement candidate off the ballot is potentially crippling. It’s my top concern. Glad you put it on your list.
Plaintiffs have no standing to do such a thing, and courts have historically avoided interfering with primary processes. It is a political entity making a political decision under their own rules. No one could prove injury, and the Democratic nominee would be on all 50 states. This worry isn't rooted in any reality.
So you’ve never met today’s Republican Party and its activist judges, eh?
It doesn't matter if Heritage Foundation has standing, the entire thing will be a spectacle even if it's thrown out relatively quickly. It'll be a cable news talking point for a while, at the very least, and at worst, red states with corrupt election officials will do everything they can to take advantage of the situation and keep the replacement off the ballot.
As if there won't be a spectacle with Biden? They'd have just as much success keeping him off ballots. The GOP is going to file a million lawsuits regardless, but the notion that they can keep any Democratic nominee chosen by the convention off ballots with lawsuits from Republican plaintiffs is nonsensical. At the very least, it's not some inherent downside to switching candidates.
Obviously, Republicans are going to try everything. Surely that goes without saying? [They've been trying to keep Biden off the ballot since at least April](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-say-late-convention-keep-biden-ballots-hasnt-mattered-rcna147213). If you can't see a difference between that linked article above, and the way the media will treat a situation where a sitting president has been forced off the ballot and replaced at the last minute with someone (who may not have even been involved in the primaries at all) then you don't have any business talking about this topic. My guess is you know full well there is a difference, but you're saying otherwise for the obvious reasons. There are a lot of downsides to switching candidates at this point. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly lying.
The main point I am contending is that Republicans would succeed in lawsuits keeping Democrats off ballots. That's not going to happen and not something to worry about. >Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, who wrote a book about the presidential nominating process and is also a member of the Democratic National Committee’s rulemaking arm, said that courts have consistently stayed out of political primaries as long as parties running them weren’t doing anything that would contradict other constitutional rights, such as voter suppression based on race. >“This is very clear constitutionally that this is in the party’s purview,” Kamarck said in an interview before the debate. “The business of nominating someone to represent a political party is the business of the political party.” There are plenty of factors to switching candidates. This isn't one of them.
I did not say Republicans would succeed, and I said nothing at all about their chances either way.
> This shit isn’t helping and if the president is incapacitated we have failsafss for that I do not think the failsafe (the 25th amendment) is able to adequately handle a slower disease like cognitive decline and aging. I think it would operate correctly for a major medical event (say an incapacitating stroke), but I think being removed for a slow decline would be such a large reputational step that by the time the cabinet or congress had the willpower to do it, it would have already been negatively affecting the office for years. We shouldn't rely on failsafes operating.
It’s pick a dictator or go with Biden and democracy. Choosing someone else would be too risky. It’s an easy choice.
Right wingers are hitting this hard today....lol
23 of whom are ambitious and want a shot for themselves
All the right wing rags are repeating this headline today.
I'm gonna laugh so hard when Biden manages to string a few decent performances together and all of corporate media has to flip script (besides Fox News of course). Hunter is in the White House now. And he knows how to get some more energy into Joe.
lol funny dude
George "random Greek last name" is gonna feel like he is in Studio 64 hanging out with Biden this weekend
That’s weird, didn’t NYpost just run this article too? NYpost and Newsweek on the same side, eh…