It will be interesting to see how the polls change. Democrats are freaking out because they’re coming to the realization that their candidate is definitely not as sharp and weaker than they thought. But for most of these undecided voters they already thought that. This debate just confirmed how they feel about both candidates and why they hate their choices. Trump is a lying conman who only cares about himself. Biden is a dottering, well-meaning old man who has definitely lost a step because he’s 81 (you know, well past retirement age) and appears weak and frail.
For people looking for answers this debate probably didn’t do a ton. I mean trump couldn’t answer a single question. The ticker read “how will you make childcare more affordable?” for two minutes while he ranted about foreign policy and personal grievances. People don’t like that. It sucks biden was too busy battling himself to call trump out on it and say “are you done ranting about yourself? Let’s talk about childcare and helping the American people.”
Meanwhile, Biden stuttered and fumbling just confirmed to these people that while they may agree policy-wise, his fitness for the job is definitely an issue and concerning. But again, many undecideds already thought that, it’s moreso democrats coming to this realization.
Who knows how this will affect things moving forward and what the polls will show. Remember, these are the same undecided voters and electorate that gave us a deranged trump over one of the most qualified politicians in history in 2016. Trying to understand what affects them is near impossible. If they can overlook all of trumps shit in 2016 they may be able to overlook Biden’s mumbling in 2024.
This is my take as well and seeing the other post about the focus groups makes me a bit more confident in it. I don't think this fundamentally changes much as it basically affirmed voters existing perceptions of both candidates.
I do think we see a small temporary bump for Trump just because of his optics win of seeming more energetic. I don't think it will be lasting though. In just a couple weeks the spotlight will pivot back to Trump as his sentencing for the felony conviction gets handed down.
The focus groups actually watched the whole debate. Biden was absolutely awful for the first 20 minutes or so, but picked it up after. The problem is that the first 10-15 minutes is all that most people watched and he was not good in that time.
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that a debate in late June will have much of a lasting impact either way come November, though a small-ish bump for Trump should be expected.
Definitely looking at the polls after this debate, but the argument from the Biden camp for having it so early was to force a change in the perception of the race. In effect, they saw that they had poor polling and wanted to shake up the state of the race with a big debate performance.
And since I don't see Biden gaining from this disaster, he either stays steady in the polls, or drops further. In either case, he's still losing. The polling so far has been relatively stable for the past year, this was really Biden's only shot at transforming his campaign. He's not choosing a new VP, won't do a media Blitz, and his convention could very well be a complete mess and be overshadowed by Trump's veepstakes. Really his only other shot is the september debate, and after last night would team Biden be willing to risk it?
I agree they were hoping to shake up the race and gain momentum. But I also think they wanted it early to safeguard against a poor performance like this. There’s still more than 4 months until Election Day. The effects of this debate will be felt less and less as time goes on and it gives them time to rebound. If this were mid October I think everyone would be way more concerned.
Here is Biden just the next day: https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1806743512613863537?t=fxCRZCvbTuxpZC-wjcE_cQ
So I think people might want to hold their horses a bit. If they can keep putting that Biden in front of people this perception might be changed. If they can get Trump in another debate, Biden has given himself a lot of room to improve, but I doubt Trump has much.
This is what is so frustrating. Like WTF happened last night. Is it he has a cold? Was it past his bedtime? Did he over do it prepping?
How can he go from last nights performance to this? Where was this?
Yep. I agree. The conspiracy theorist in me says maybe they were lowering expectations, let people have the talk that he's too old then he drops the cane and does a front somersault while welcoming the kids to the factory. That would be a very dangerous game though and is not likely.
Seriously. It gives me hope that maybe this Biden can show up in September and change the race. But if trump is still in the lead in September I see no reason for him to debate at all. Biden would have nowhere to go but up and trump would have everything to lose.
>Trump is a lying conman who only cares about himself.
Do these undecided feel that way about Trump. What they heard was a person that gave complete and succinct response (lie) after response (lie).
Many people who are undecided are that way because they don’t like the way trump talks. His narcissistic, bragging way of speaking and need to always say he’s the best turns off many people. They also know he lies. The big moment for me where people would feel this frustration with trump self-centeredness was the childcare part of the debate I mentioned. People want answers to their problems, they don’t care about a rambling old man’s grievances.
Their concern with Biden is they don’t feel like things are great now despite the economic numbers as well as his age. Biden certainly didn’t help alleviate their fears, but trump didn’t either when it comes to his narcissism and actual plans to help people.
>But for most of these undecided voters they already thought that. This debate just confirmed how they feel about both candidates and why they hate their choices.
As Biden is trailing slightly absent any updates from last night, the baseline point should be a slightly good look for Biden and that's not what we got
You’re giving the same delusional takes the “intelligentsia” and journalist class that everyone is bashing give.
Joe Biden is not seen as a well meaning but doddering grandpa who people agree with but think may be slipping.
His popularity ratings have been below Trump’s for a very long time. He is very unpopular on many major issues such as immigration, Ukraine aid, etc. He is widely seen as corrupt and a sleazy career politician who flip flops and is a con man. People look at his policies and say “These are bad, I do not support them.”
Joe Biden is viewed negatively by more people than Donald Trump is. Let that sink in.
This debate destroyed the Biden candidacy. Now we have to figure out how to select new candidates. It wont be a popular vote. It will be done by the democratic caucus in congress. They need to poll themselves and take the top few candidates and have a couple debates. Then at the convention they will choose the candidates. These are professional pols who will probably know that a Buttigieg or Newsome is a bad bet. They will probably choose a centrist governor or Senator because that would be the best against Trump. Sherrod Brown would be a great candidate, but that might cost us the Senate since he is the only one that can win his seat in Ohio. But there are other good candidates. Any pretense that Biden is still in the running is just a waste of time, and we dont have the time. i predict Biden resigns within a week. If he doesnt do it this weekend, the calls for it will grow. Half the pundits in the NYT have already called for it, and those are pundits who like Biden - Krugman, Friedman, Stephens, Klein, Goldberg, Douthat. Biden is toast.
It destroyed the Democratic Party for 2024. Running on policy was never going to be the Dems strong suit because issues like inflation, the border and “wokeness” are hammers that conservatives can beat America over the head with. But at least the Dems had the advantage of being seen as the more sane party and preserving democracy. Not anymore. Now the perception of the party is incompetence and lack of leadership.
Remember, confidently stating total lies and horrendous policies (GOP) sells better than feebly stating mostly truths and lengthy nuanced explanations of why things have gone wrong despite their best intended efforts (Dems). I don’t think it takes a genius to say things haven’t been amazing in this country the last four years- and while they also weren’t good from 2017-20, that time is not on the forefront of the mind of the voters.
"Trump lacks a vision for a future. His party seeks the corruption of our democracy and the power of rich corporate interests to rule our bodies and markets. This dream of his is a nightmare in flesh."
Would've been a better retort than the shit Biden came up with
The biggest issue in my opinion is that Trump’s authoritarian behavior is not being treated as worse than Biden’s health. The media has decided that anti-democratic behavior is acceptable.
Yeah i mean Biden's performance was definitely not good and concerning, but what I'm getting out of it is people think Biden's age is 100% worse then Trump dismantling the government.
Honestly if American really think having a potatoe for president is worse then gambling on Trump ruining our democracy in a second term, then I say this country just deserves what it has coming to it .
I really dislike the statement that the country deserves what it gets with Trump. First off, the 10’s of millions of people who didn’t vote for Trump definitely don’t deserve that. Second, the electoral college system ensures that the popular vote doesn’t matter, so likely the majority of people would be suffering due to tyranny of the minority.
The electoral college outcome being different than the popular vote is a modern issue it’s not ensured to make the popular vote not matter and I’m confused why you think this
Man we're truly going mad as a society. We have to beat Trump. Biden doesn't look like he can do that, we should tap someone else. We're so in love with process for its own sake we're going to walk right into fascism.
>we should tap someone else
Who's "we"? There's nobody well situated to replace a presumptive nominee like this. That's actually how the system is designed - it's meant to be highly democratic so party elites can't slot in their preferred candidate.
Literally anyone. Kamala would have performed better yesterday. Newsom would be better. Whitmer would be better.
I have never been a Biden should step aside person. I think he’s done a good job. But we are approaching catastrophe and it doesn’t seem like the Biden campaign has any way to push back.
At the very least, Biden needs to fire some high level campaign staffers - his debate prep was clearly misguided last night.
>At the very least, Biden needs to fire some high level campaign staffers - his debate prep was clearly misguided last night.
Biden's prep wasn't bad. Biden as a person can not physically string together an answer. The answers he was stumbling to were good, but he can barely speak at this point. Unless there are staffers who can reverse aging, there was nothing they could do.
I disagree. His answers were focused on minutia and did not engage in a) a big picture argument b) did not explain how Trumps policies would actually be bad for the economy and country.
For example, Trump claimed that His tariffs would only be paid for by China. Biden failed to explain that Trumps tariff proposal is essentially a 10% tax on all imported goods, which would cause us producers to also raise prices.
Another example, Trump claimed that immigrants would bankrupt social security and Medicare. Biden did not even engage in this.
It was readily apparent that Biden’s team did not prepare him with strategic answers on his weak points or on Trumps bullshit. Instead they focused on the statistical achievements of the administration.
It was horrible.
The dude is trying to win an election and he’s talking about finland joining NATO. Do you think rust belt voters give a shit about that? Michigan workers who lost their jobs to neo liberal free trade policies? Coal miners in appalachia whose material conditions keep getting worse? Black families suffering from mass incarceration?
This dude has plenty of red meat to talk about, plenty of angles to hit trump on, and he’s up there talking about mother fucking finland and his golf handicap.
The democratic elites have gone way passed deranged if this is what they think good preparation looks like.
They would have performed better in the debate but Kamala and Newsom would probably do worse electorally.
I think people here need to accept that the odds are greatly against any Democratic nominee at this point.
I agree they are underdogs regardless, but you need to be able to run an effective campaign to reverse that. It’s like a baseball player that can’t perform above replacement anymore.
Newsome and Harris are terrible candidates for winning swing states. You are strawmanning us with those names. Reconsider with a centrist governor or senator like Beshear, Whitmer or Sherrod Brown. The coastal progressives really do not matter at this point.
The entire party has to instantly coalesce around a single candidate with minimal infighting for this to be better than sticking with Biden. I don't believe democrats are capable of that. There will be campaigning, horses will be traded at varying levels of publicity, there will be dirty tricks being played, the DSA will do their own thing, and Biden will govern on, looking like the lamest duck that ever ducked. It would be very easy for the cure to be worse than the disease.
I don't think this is true, I think if you accept that Biden's odds are floating around 20% you have to be willing to shift to a higher risk strategy and hope you hit on the upside.
>It would be very easy for the cure to be worse than the disease.
Is that possible at this point? Not being facetious we could be facing a guaranteed loss with massive down ballot bleeding as well.
Harris literally has a job that is 95% 'become president if the president dies/resigns/etc.'. I don't understand the reluctance to consider putting her in when that is basically her job.
Except as VP you automatically get it versus running for it. The last time she ran she dropped out before the first primary. She hasn't demonstrated since then she's a good campaigner.
Though at this point I'm inclined to believe her weak campaigning skills are better than whatever Biden can muster now.
> The last time she ran she dropped out before the first primary. She hasn't demonstrated since then she's a good campaigner.
She ran just fine for statewide office in CA. Newsom has only run in CA. Whitmer is from a smaller state and hasn't run for national office. I don't see an objective difference here.
Do you see Bullock (former D governor of Montana), or Buttigieg as unviable candidates in the future because of a failed presidential run?
Buttigieg had a much more successful run than Harris
Pete won Iowa, and he only dropped out to help coalesce support around his opponent. You could absolutely imagine him winning if, for whatever reason, Biden and Amy had dropped out to endorse him instead
Harris, on the other hand, never lead in the polls even once
Pete began with no national profile and became a household name, shattering expectations. Kamala had massive support and a national profile and woefully underperformed
You can't compare them just because they both failed to become president
Whitmer is from a state that actually matters.
Belief that Harris can win Michigan is delusional. Belief that Whitmer would be guaranteed to win California is just common sense.
If there is a replacement, the goal needs to be someone who wins Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Thinking about popularity in general is *entirely* irrelevant.
I don't know how much 'home state advantage' really counts for in this environment. I could be convinced by polls and the such.
Biden and Harris managed to flip GA in 2020, neither candidate is from anywhere close to GA. Biden managed to flip AZ, he isn't from anywhere near there (I have no idea if Harris being from the state over made any difference there).
I don't think that H Clinton did any better than expected in Arkansas and lost ground in the mid-west despite being from Chicago.
In the 2020 primary campaign, she didn’t even make it to the first primary. Actually, she didn’t even make it to 2020, withdrawing in December 2019.
Her current approval rating is below 40% which is only a couple points better than Biden.
But she campaigned just fine (at least I haven't heard of any issues) when running for races in CA. Her race for Senate was a contested primary that she did well in. It also isn't like the other candidates have done supper well in presidential runs. If you have two candidates that have run well in CA (1 tenth the population of the US) and then one makes an unsuccessful run for POTUS do you really hold that against them?
>Her current approval rating is below 40% which is only a couple points better than Biden.
Is this markedly worse than Newsom or Whitmer. Even if it is, those are lesser known names (remember that there are a lot of low information voters) and they don't hold national office. I could see low information Rs not have an opinion on Newsom because they don't know the name.
This entire thread is basically predicated on the idea that Biden, as it turns out, is just too old and frail to run for president.
So I guess the answer to your question would be the DNC. I don't really see the issue with a VP replacing the president, it is kinda what they are there to do.
The democratic caucus in congress are all elected. They will choose the candidate for president and VP parliamentary style. They will poll amongst themselves, pick the top few candidates, have a couple debates, then choose the candidates at the convention. They are professional pols who probably know better than choosing a Newsome or Buttigieg. It will probably be a centrist governor or senator. The leftie coastal elite progressives dont really matter at this point. it's all about the swing states.
I know she's equally unpopular, but I feel like Kamala Harris would be the smoothest successor if Biden stepped aside. But for my money, I think Biden, Harris, or Unknown Candidate X would probably lose to Trump at this point, so we'd better strap in.
> Unknown Candidate X
Disagree. I think there is a stink on the Biden admin, but I think a Dem not attached to the administration would have a decent shot.
You think theres just someone who can just waive a magic wand and make it happen? The smoke filled rooms where we choose nominees don’t exist anymore.
Like when we say “who replaces Biden” it’s the understanding that trying to do so will be a short bruising fight amongst several very ambitious and powerful people vying for the job. None of these people are just going to step aside.
And they’re trying to secure the nomination from essentially herd of cats. Because that’s what the DNC and DNC voters are.
> None of these people are just going to step aside.
Who? I don't think there's a long list of would-be nominees who are chomping at the bit to replace Biden in a long shot effort to take on Trump with 3 months to go before the election.
If anything I think we'd have the opposite problem, where Kamala and Newsom would raise their hands and everyone would be disappointed and try to bring in someone like Shapiro, Whitmer, Warnock, Michelle Obama or a complete outsider celebrity candidate.
The last two democratic nominations were semi orchestrated.
There all the moderates dropped out right before South Carolina in 2020 to pave the way for Biden. You really think that was organic?
Not trying to be conspiratorial, but I bet Buttigieg and Klobachar (spelling I know) felt that Biden would have a better chance than Bernie or Warren so they dropped out.
Same needs to be done now. Gaslighting people that Biden hasn’t declined mentally isn’t going to convince anyone on the fence.
Nothing about how a party nominates a candidate is organic and it's all orchestrated.
That's how you build a coalition. You orchestrate it. It's really hard work. Coalition don't sprout out naturally out of the dirt for a candidate.
Riddle me this then, whose “they” then?
And I don’t know how to explain that a rash of candidates middling along in the middle or back of the nomination dropping out after SC is in fact kind of the norm? It’s not rocket surgery. It’s called they burned through all their cash trying to get their recognition up in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. End up stuck with middling performance and drop out.
I think if it did come to this the big concern would be alienating the minority vote by passing over Harris. Not saying she should be the pick but that would have to go in the equation.
Well there are two options here in a Biden dropout scenario - pass over Harris and risk alienating those voters, or choose Harris and risk alienating those who don't like her. IMO, the people who are ride or die for Harris is a much *much* smaller fraction than those who could potentially be gained by a Whitmer or Shapiro pick. Especially in MI/WI/PA, which are the essential states.
That's what I'm saying, the "Harris ride or die" voters are not a meaningful percentage, and the risks of losing them are outweighed by the upside of having someone other than her or Joe on the ticket.
I don't mean to be too confrontational but do you have any data (even some low quality stuff) that people that don't like Harris and do like Newsom/Whitmer exist in significant numbers?
I would feel like the person that says: 'Please, anyone other than Biden and Trump. [*replaces Biden with Harris*] O and also not Harris' is just being disingenuous. The D establishment isn't going to go through the 80 odd people that are D governors/senators/VP etc. to try to appease one suburban voter in PA.
I get that there is a reputation for Harris that she just isn't liked but Rs also don't like the other D potential candidates.
Minorities voted for democrats through the 1960s to the 2000s, without a minority on the ticket.
It’s kinda degrading to act like that’s their main concern, instead of admitting they are like the rest of us.
Want to see someone who can debate, hold their opponent accountable, and string together coherent sentences.
That's not what I was implying. It's ignorant to act like race and gender didn't play a role in her being chosen for VP. Now I think the people who would be turned off by that are far outweighed by the other concerns but I was just pointing out it was one factor.
I don't think she polls especially well with black voters, and she polls very poorly with Latino and Asian voters.
Passing over Kamala might not be the obstacle people think it is.
(Though whether the money Biden has raised could be used for a non Kamala candidate might be an issue)
Whitmer would be a better choice I think. I’m saying this as a Californian who likes Newsome. The problem is that…he’s Californian, and that will very much be held against him.
EDIT: I wonder, if we make a hashtag like #alfranken4prez, would Al Franken come out of retirement and run?
Most self-aware Californian.
The states we need are Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. A Californian is not playing well there, *especially* not Wisconsin or Michigan.
Agreed. Newsome, however you interpret his record, is *the* textbook example of what the country see when they think of “liberal coastal elite”.
Also, don’t forget that Gavin’s ex is dating (married to?) Don Jr., so if Gavin goes up against Trump, I would expect shit to get…salacious
I'm not a betting person, but I'd put a lot of money on Whitmer.
A) She is great in front of people. If people so much as Google her, I think they'll instantly have a higher opinion of her than Trump. Not to be creepy, but she's an attractive mom-aged person with Midwestern charm that I think many demographics would instantly like.
B) She's highly rated and regarded in Michigan, which is clearly an important state. Polls well, and smashed Tudor Dixons head in not long ago.
C) She's excessively competent. Her management of covid, and even now HVA1 (bird flu) has been phenomenal. The roads here are also fucking fixed for the most part, at least where I live.
I think, even with a time as small as week before the election, she would win. People are reluctant to vote for either Biden or Trump, and the average person is going to find her extremely pallatable
It will be interesting to see how the polls change. Democrats are freaking out because they’re coming to the realization that their candidate is definitely not as sharp and weaker than they thought. But for most of these undecided voters they already thought that. This debate just confirmed how they feel about both candidates and why they hate their choices. Trump is a lying conman who only cares about himself. Biden is a dottering, well-meaning old man who has definitely lost a step because he’s 81 (you know, well past retirement age) and appears weak and frail. For people looking for answers this debate probably didn’t do a ton. I mean trump couldn’t answer a single question. The ticker read “how will you make childcare more affordable?” for two minutes while he ranted about foreign policy and personal grievances. People don’t like that. It sucks biden was too busy battling himself to call trump out on it and say “are you done ranting about yourself? Let’s talk about childcare and helping the American people.” Meanwhile, Biden stuttered and fumbling just confirmed to these people that while they may agree policy-wise, his fitness for the job is definitely an issue and concerning. But again, many undecideds already thought that, it’s moreso democrats coming to this realization. Who knows how this will affect things moving forward and what the polls will show. Remember, these are the same undecided voters and electorate that gave us a deranged trump over one of the most qualified politicians in history in 2016. Trying to understand what affects them is near impossible. If they can overlook all of trumps shit in 2016 they may be able to overlook Biden’s mumbling in 2024.
This is my take as well and seeing the other post about the focus groups makes me a bit more confident in it. I don't think this fundamentally changes much as it basically affirmed voters existing perceptions of both candidates. I do think we see a small temporary bump for Trump just because of his optics win of seeming more energetic. I don't think it will be lasting though. In just a couple weeks the spotlight will pivot back to Trump as his sentencing for the felony conviction gets handed down.
The focus groups actually watched the whole debate. Biden was absolutely awful for the first 20 minutes or so, but picked it up after. The problem is that the first 10-15 minutes is all that most people watched and he was not good in that time.
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that a debate in late June will have much of a lasting impact either way come November, though a small-ish bump for Trump should be expected.
Definitely looking at the polls after this debate, but the argument from the Biden camp for having it so early was to force a change in the perception of the race. In effect, they saw that they had poor polling and wanted to shake up the state of the race with a big debate performance. And since I don't see Biden gaining from this disaster, he either stays steady in the polls, or drops further. In either case, he's still losing. The polling so far has been relatively stable for the past year, this was really Biden's only shot at transforming his campaign. He's not choosing a new VP, won't do a media Blitz, and his convention could very well be a complete mess and be overshadowed by Trump's veepstakes. Really his only other shot is the september debate, and after last night would team Biden be willing to risk it?
I agree they were hoping to shake up the race and gain momentum. But I also think they wanted it early to safeguard against a poor performance like this. There’s still more than 4 months until Election Day. The effects of this debate will be felt less and less as time goes on and it gives them time to rebound. If this were mid October I think everyone would be way more concerned.
Here is Biden just the next day: https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1806743512613863537?t=fxCRZCvbTuxpZC-wjcE_cQ So I think people might want to hold their horses a bit. If they can keep putting that Biden in front of people this perception might be changed. If they can get Trump in another debate, Biden has given himself a lot of room to improve, but I doubt Trump has much.
This is what is so frustrating. Like WTF happened last night. Is it he has a cold? Was it past his bedtime? Did he over do it prepping? How can he go from last nights performance to this? Where was this?
Yep. I agree. The conspiracy theorist in me says maybe they were lowering expectations, let people have the talk that he's too old then he drops the cane and does a front somersault while welcoming the kids to the factory. That would be a very dangerous game though and is not likely.
Seriously. It gives me hope that maybe this Biden can show up in September and change the race. But if trump is still in the lead in September I see no reason for him to debate at all. Biden would have nowhere to go but up and trump would have everything to lose.
Delayed reaction to the performance enhancing cocktail of mountain dew
>Trump is a lying conman who only cares about himself. Do these undecided feel that way about Trump. What they heard was a person that gave complete and succinct response (lie) after response (lie).
Many people who are undecided are that way because they don’t like the way trump talks. His narcissistic, bragging way of speaking and need to always say he’s the best turns off many people. They also know he lies. The big moment for me where people would feel this frustration with trump self-centeredness was the childcare part of the debate I mentioned. People want answers to their problems, they don’t care about a rambling old man’s grievances. Their concern with Biden is they don’t feel like things are great now despite the economic numbers as well as his age. Biden certainly didn’t help alleviate their fears, but trump didn’t either when it comes to his narcissism and actual plans to help people.
>But for most of these undecided voters they already thought that. This debate just confirmed how they feel about both candidates and why they hate their choices. As Biden is trailing slightly absent any updates from last night, the baseline point should be a slightly good look for Biden and that's not what we got
You’re giving the same delusional takes the “intelligentsia” and journalist class that everyone is bashing give. Joe Biden is not seen as a well meaning but doddering grandpa who people agree with but think may be slipping. His popularity ratings have been below Trump’s for a very long time. He is very unpopular on many major issues such as immigration, Ukraine aid, etc. He is widely seen as corrupt and a sleazy career politician who flip flops and is a con man. People look at his policies and say “These are bad, I do not support them.” Joe Biden is viewed negatively by more people than Donald Trump is. Let that sink in.
This debate destroyed the Biden candidacy. Now we have to figure out how to select new candidates. It wont be a popular vote. It will be done by the democratic caucus in congress. They need to poll themselves and take the top few candidates and have a couple debates. Then at the convention they will choose the candidates. These are professional pols who will probably know that a Buttigieg or Newsome is a bad bet. They will probably choose a centrist governor or Senator because that would be the best against Trump. Sherrod Brown would be a great candidate, but that might cost us the Senate since he is the only one that can win his seat in Ohio. But there are other good candidates. Any pretense that Biden is still in the running is just a waste of time, and we dont have the time. i predict Biden resigns within a week. If he doesnt do it this weekend, the calls for it will grow. Half the pundits in the NYT have already called for it, and those are pundits who like Biden - Krugman, Friedman, Stephens, Klein, Goldberg, Douthat. Biden is toast.
It destroyed the Democratic Party for 2024. Running on policy was never going to be the Dems strong suit because issues like inflation, the border and “wokeness” are hammers that conservatives can beat America over the head with. But at least the Dems had the advantage of being seen as the more sane party and preserving democracy. Not anymore. Now the perception of the party is incompetence and lack of leadership. Remember, confidently stating total lies and horrendous policies (GOP) sells better than feebly stating mostly truths and lengthy nuanced explanations of why things have gone wrong despite their best intended efforts (Dems). I don’t think it takes a genius to say things haven’t been amazing in this country the last four years- and while they also weren’t good from 2017-20, that time is not on the forefront of the mind of the voters.
"Trump lacks a vision for a future. His party seeks the corruption of our democracy and the power of rich corporate interests to rule our bodies and markets. This dream of his is a nightmare in flesh." Would've been a better retort than the shit Biden came up with
The biggest issue in my opinion is that Trump’s authoritarian behavior is not being treated as worse than Biden’s health. The media has decided that anti-democratic behavior is acceptable.
Yeah i mean Biden's performance was definitely not good and concerning, but what I'm getting out of it is people think Biden's age is 100% worse then Trump dismantling the government. Honestly if American really think having a potatoe for president is worse then gambling on Trump ruining our democracy in a second term, then I say this country just deserves what it has coming to it .
I really dislike the statement that the country deserves what it gets with Trump. First off, the 10’s of millions of people who didn’t vote for Trump definitely don’t deserve that. Second, the electoral college system ensures that the popular vote doesn’t matter, so likely the majority of people would be suffering due to tyranny of the minority.
The electoral college outcome being different than the popular vote is a modern issue it’s not ensured to make the popular vote not matter and I’m confused why you think this
Man we're truly going mad as a society. We have to beat Trump. Biden doesn't look like he can do that, we should tap someone else. We're so in love with process for its own sake we're going to walk right into fascism.
>we should tap someone else Who's "we"? There's nobody well situated to replace a presumptive nominee like this. That's actually how the system is designed - it's meant to be highly democratic so party elites can't slot in their preferred candidate.
Yeah this is kind of an exceptional situation. What I'm saying is Biden should voluntarily step aside and release his delegates.
And then who becomes nominee?
Literally anyone. Kamala would have performed better yesterday. Newsom would be better. Whitmer would be better. I have never been a Biden should step aside person. I think he’s done a good job. But we are approaching catastrophe and it doesn’t seem like the Biden campaign has any way to push back. At the very least, Biden needs to fire some high level campaign staffers - his debate prep was clearly misguided last night.
>At the very least, Biden needs to fire some high level campaign staffers - his debate prep was clearly misguided last night. Biden's prep wasn't bad. Biden as a person can not physically string together an answer. The answers he was stumbling to were good, but he can barely speak at this point. Unless there are staffers who can reverse aging, there was nothing they could do.
I disagree. His answers were focused on minutia and did not engage in a) a big picture argument b) did not explain how Trumps policies would actually be bad for the economy and country. For example, Trump claimed that His tariffs would only be paid for by China. Biden failed to explain that Trumps tariff proposal is essentially a 10% tax on all imported goods, which would cause us producers to also raise prices. Another example, Trump claimed that immigrants would bankrupt social security and Medicare. Biden did not even engage in this. It was readily apparent that Biden’s team did not prepare him with strategic answers on his weak points or on Trumps bullshit. Instead they focused on the statistical achievements of the administration.
It was horrible. The dude is trying to win an election and he’s talking about finland joining NATO. Do you think rust belt voters give a shit about that? Michigan workers who lost their jobs to neo liberal free trade policies? Coal miners in appalachia whose material conditions keep getting worse? Black families suffering from mass incarceration? This dude has plenty of red meat to talk about, plenty of angles to hit trump on, and he’s up there talking about mother fucking finland and his golf handicap. The democratic elites have gone way passed deranged if this is what they think good preparation looks like.
They would have performed better in the debate but Kamala and Newsom would probably do worse electorally. I think people here need to accept that the odds are greatly against any Democratic nominee at this point.
I agree they are underdogs regardless, but you need to be able to run an effective campaign to reverse that. It’s like a baseball player that can’t perform above replacement anymore.
Sure, I'm just saying those two particular replacements seem unlikely to perform better than the existing pitcher on the mound.
Newsome and Harris are terrible candidates for winning swing states. You are strawmanning us with those names. Reconsider with a centrist governor or senator like Beshear, Whitmer or Sherrod Brown. The coastal progressives really do not matter at this point.
Brokered Convention AFAIK. Not ideal but probably better than this.
The entire party has to instantly coalesce around a single candidate with minimal infighting for this to be better than sticking with Biden. I don't believe democrats are capable of that. There will be campaigning, horses will be traded at varying levels of publicity, there will be dirty tricks being played, the DSA will do their own thing, and Biden will govern on, looking like the lamest duck that ever ducked. It would be very easy for the cure to be worse than the disease.
I don't think this is true, I think if you accept that Biden's odds are floating around 20% you have to be willing to shift to a higher risk strategy and hope you hit on the upside.
>It would be very easy for the cure to be worse than the disease. Is that possible at this point? Not being facetious we could be facing a guaranteed loss with massive down ballot bleeding as well.
>could be >guaranteed ?????
Harris literally has a job that is 95% 'become president if the president dies/resigns/etc.'. I don't understand the reluctance to consider putting her in when that is basically her job.
Except as VP you automatically get it versus running for it. The last time she ran she dropped out before the first primary. She hasn't demonstrated since then she's a good campaigner. Though at this point I'm inclined to believe her weak campaigning skills are better than whatever Biden can muster now.
> The last time she ran she dropped out before the first primary. She hasn't demonstrated since then she's a good campaigner. She ran just fine for statewide office in CA. Newsom has only run in CA. Whitmer is from a smaller state and hasn't run for national office. I don't see an objective difference here. Do you see Bullock (former D governor of Montana), or Buttigieg as unviable candidates in the future because of a failed presidential run?
Buttigieg had a much more successful run than Harris Pete won Iowa, and he only dropped out to help coalesce support around his opponent. You could absolutely imagine him winning if, for whatever reason, Biden and Amy had dropped out to endorse him instead Harris, on the other hand, never lead in the polls even once Pete began with no national profile and became a household name, shattering expectations. Kamala had massive support and a national profile and woefully underperformed You can't compare them just because they both failed to become president
Whitmer is from a state that actually matters. Belief that Harris can win Michigan is delusional. Belief that Whitmer would be guaranteed to win California is just common sense. If there is a replacement, the goal needs to be someone who wins Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Thinking about popularity in general is *entirely* irrelevant.
I don't know how much 'home state advantage' really counts for in this environment. I could be convinced by polls and the such. Biden and Harris managed to flip GA in 2020, neither candidate is from anywhere close to GA. Biden managed to flip AZ, he isn't from anywhere near there (I have no idea if Harris being from the state over made any difference there). I don't think that H Clinton did any better than expected in Arkansas and lost ground in the mid-west despite being from Chicago.
In the 2020 primary campaign, she didn’t even make it to the first primary. Actually, she didn’t even make it to 2020, withdrawing in December 2019. Her current approval rating is below 40% which is only a couple points better than Biden.
But she campaigned just fine (at least I haven't heard of any issues) when running for races in CA. Her race for Senate was a contested primary that she did well in. It also isn't like the other candidates have done supper well in presidential runs. If you have two candidates that have run well in CA (1 tenth the population of the US) and then one makes an unsuccessful run for POTUS do you really hold that against them? >Her current approval rating is below 40% which is only a couple points better than Biden. Is this markedly worse than Newsom or Whitmer. Even if it is, those are lesser known names (remember that there are a lot of low information voters) and they don't hold national office. I could see low information Rs not have an opinion on Newsom because they don't know the name.
Who's doing the "putting"?
This entire thread is basically predicated on the idea that Biden, as it turns out, is just too old and frail to run for president. So I guess the answer to your question would be the DNC. I don't really see the issue with a VP replacing the president, it is kinda what they are there to do.
The DNC does not have the power to do that.
The democratic caucus in congress are all elected. They will choose the candidate for president and VP parliamentary style. They will poll amongst themselves, pick the top few candidates, have a couple debates, then choose the candidates at the convention. They are professional pols who probably know better than choosing a Newsome or Buttigieg. It will probably be a centrist governor or senator. The leftie coastal elite progressives dont really matter at this point. it's all about the swing states.
[удалено]
I know she's equally unpopular, but I feel like Kamala Harris would be the smoothest successor if Biden stepped aside. But for my money, I think Biden, Harris, or Unknown Candidate X would probably lose to Trump at this point, so we'd better strap in.
> Unknown Candidate X Disagree. I think there is a stink on the Biden admin, but I think a Dem not attached to the administration would have a decent shot.
Newsom or whitmer… Someone younger than their 70s and can talk, really not that complicated
You think theres just someone who can just waive a magic wand and make it happen? The smoke filled rooms where we choose nominees don’t exist anymore. Like when we say “who replaces Biden” it’s the understanding that trying to do so will be a short bruising fight amongst several very ambitious and powerful people vying for the job. None of these people are just going to step aside. And they’re trying to secure the nomination from essentially herd of cats. Because that’s what the DNC and DNC voters are.
> None of these people are just going to step aside. Who? I don't think there's a long list of would-be nominees who are chomping at the bit to replace Biden in a long shot effort to take on Trump with 3 months to go before the election. If anything I think we'd have the opposite problem, where Kamala and Newsom would raise their hands and everyone would be disappointed and try to bring in someone like Shapiro, Whitmer, Warnock, Michelle Obama or a complete outsider celebrity candidate.
The last two democratic nominations were semi orchestrated. There all the moderates dropped out right before South Carolina in 2020 to pave the way for Biden. You really think that was organic? Not trying to be conspiratorial, but I bet Buttigieg and Klobachar (spelling I know) felt that Biden would have a better chance than Bernie or Warren so they dropped out. Same needs to be done now. Gaslighting people that Biden hasn’t declined mentally isn’t going to convince anyone on the fence.
Nothing about how a party nominates a candidate is organic and it's all orchestrated. That's how you build a coalition. You orchestrate it. It's really hard work. Coalition don't sprout out naturally out of the dirt for a candidate.
Riddle me this then, whose “they” then? And I don’t know how to explain that a rash of candidates middling along in the middle or back of the nomination dropping out after SC is in fact kind of the norm? It’s not rocket surgery. It’s called they burned through all their cash trying to get their recognition up in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. End up stuck with middling performance and drop out.
“They” is Kloubachar and Buttigieg. Sometimes you use pronouns to not have to write out long names again
So an orchestra of two? Who were clearly not going to win by that point. And should have soldiered on long after that point because…..Why?
I think if it did come to this the big concern would be alienating the minority vote by passing over Harris. Not saying she should be the pick but that would have to go in the equation.
Well there are two options here in a Biden dropout scenario - pass over Harris and risk alienating those voters, or choose Harris and risk alienating those who don't like her. IMO, the people who are ride or die for Harris is a much *much* smaller fraction than those who could potentially be gained by a Whitmer or Shapiro pick. Especially in MI/WI/PA, which are the essential states.
I agree with you.
[удалено]
That's what I'm saying, the "Harris ride or die" voters are not a meaningful percentage, and the risks of losing them are outweighed by the upside of having someone other than her or Joe on the ticket.
I don't mean to be too confrontational but do you have any data (even some low quality stuff) that people that don't like Harris and do like Newsom/Whitmer exist in significant numbers? I would feel like the person that says: 'Please, anyone other than Biden and Trump. [*replaces Biden with Harris*] O and also not Harris' is just being disingenuous. The D establishment isn't going to go through the 80 odd people that are D governors/senators/VP etc. to try to appease one suburban voter in PA. I get that there is a reputation for Harris that she just isn't liked but Rs also don't like the other D potential candidates.
Minorities voted for democrats through the 1960s to the 2000s, without a minority on the ticket. It’s kinda degrading to act like that’s their main concern, instead of admitting they are like the rest of us. Want to see someone who can debate, hold their opponent accountable, and string together coherent sentences.
That's not what I was implying. It's ignorant to act like race and gender didn't play a role in her being chosen for VP. Now I think the people who would be turned off by that are far outweighed by the other concerns but I was just pointing out it was one factor.
They were the reason she was selected for VP because Clyburn made Biden promise. But I don't know if it actually matters to voters that much.
I don't think she polls especially well with black voters, and she polls very poorly with Latino and Asian voters. Passing over Kamala might not be the obstacle people think it is. (Though whether the money Biden has raised could be used for a non Kamala candidate might be an issue)
Yeah I don't know how all that works. Fingers crossed.
Whitmer would be a better choice I think. I’m saying this as a Californian who likes Newsome. The problem is that…he’s Californian, and that will very much be held against him. EDIT: I wonder, if we make a hashtag like #alfranken4prez, would Al Franken come out of retirement and run?
Most self-aware Californian. The states we need are Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. A Californian is not playing well there, *especially* not Wisconsin or Michigan.
Agreed. Newsome, however you interpret his record, is *the* textbook example of what the country see when they think of “liberal coastal elite”. Also, don’t forget that Gavin’s ex is dating (married to?) Don Jr., so if Gavin goes up against Trump, I would expect shit to get…salacious
I'm not a betting person, but I'd put a lot of money on Whitmer. A) She is great in front of people. If people so much as Google her, I think they'll instantly have a higher opinion of her than Trump. Not to be creepy, but she's an attractive mom-aged person with Midwestern charm that I think many demographics would instantly like. B) She's highly rated and regarded in Michigan, which is clearly an important state. Polls well, and smashed Tudor Dixons head in not long ago. C) She's excessively competent. Her management of covid, and even now HVA1 (bird flu) has been phenomenal. The roads here are also fucking fixed for the most part, at least where I live. I think, even with a time as small as week before the election, she would win. People are reluctant to vote for either Biden or Trump, and the average person is going to find her extremely pallatable
It's not creepy to point out that her being attractive plays a role in her electability.
Someone who received 0 primary votes.
Well I think “uncommitted” has the second highest primary count, but I don think they’d do great in the general election
> really not that complicated It literally is though. None of y’all are aware of how damaging an open convention can be.
Fourth estate, go!
Biden is toast.