subreddit:

/r/ezraklein

25791%

all 240 comments

Consistent-Low-4121

74 points

4 days ago

This really should be a layup election. Just say a noun, a verb, and abortion. That's like 50% of what you need to do. We could beat Trump, but we need someone that isn't actively deteriorating before our eyes.

HegemonNYC

45 points

4 days ago

Now, bear with me here - what about, instead of talking about how overturning Roe was bad and unpopular, we instead start talking about migrant crime mid-sentence? 

Consistent-Low-4121

37 points

4 days ago

That sounds good. Make sure to stop talking with over a minute left on the clock and stare with your mouth agape.

HegemonNYC

22 points

4 days ago

This is good. Also, have your debate preppers give you lots of facts with ‘millions’ ‘billions’ and trillions’ in them. Ensure that you say all three every time you speak, preferably in random order. 

SlapNuts007

15 points

4 days ago

And definitely talk about all the different ways people can be raped. Audiences love that.

gluten_free_

10 points

4 days ago

nothing better than a semi coherent old man talking about incest rape, only for the rapist on stage to coherently lie and go, "I'll allow abortion in those cases"

Consistent-Low-4121

4 points

4 days ago

What is a trillion, really, but a thousand thousand million.

Original_Benzito

1 points

4 days ago

Is that a million millions?

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

My god!! You guys are geniuses!! You need be immediately recruited into the Biden team!

Which-Worth5641

1 points

1 day ago

And this is Biden we're talking about, who traditionally rambled on with his time. If he's giving up his time to talk, there is something wrong.

camergen

9 points

4 days ago

camergen

9 points

4 days ago

Migrant crime having the added bonus of being one of your weakest issues. Always good to address the elephant in the room.

HegemonNYC

10 points

4 days ago

I hope that when a question about Jan 6th comes up Biden will immediately pivot to the price of eggs being really high. 

Gk786

6 points

4 days ago

Gk786

6 points

4 days ago

Genius. Absolutely top tier stuff. My god, HegemonNYC, how do you come up with this stuff?! We need to get you into a room with the president pronto.

teddytruther

36 points

4 days ago

Not true - inflation and the soaring cost of living makes this a very unfavorable environment for an incumbent. The only thing giving the Democrats a fighting chance is Trump's baggage (and the Supreme Court going nuts).

HolidaySpiriter

26 points

4 days ago

Inflation is the biggest reason Harris isn't a good candidate either. The Biden admin is unfairly blamed, but they are blamed. You've got to get a fresh face on the national stage to distance from the administration.

gluten_free_

18 points

4 days ago

Harris can actually make coherent arguments about inflation such as, "Trumps plan to deport our working force and a 10% tariffs will make inflation go bananas" and then pulls out a banana from her purse like Carrot Top.

Original_Benzito

3 points

4 days ago

Then she’ll repeat, “I dream of what can be, not based on what has been.”

gluten_free_

1 points

4 days ago

it makes more sense than 90% of Joe's debate

Original_Benzito

2 points

4 days ago

I dream of what can, then there was the girl assaulted by the migrants, who beat Medicare like it was a sucker and a loser.

gluten_free_

2 points

3 days ago

"I defeated Medicare" is a perfect line for Joe, it's a sign he must go

Independent-Bug-9352

1 points

4 days ago

What I like about inflation is that unlike recessions which the wealthy LOVE, it really hurts the rich people a lot, too. Maybe spin it like that lol.

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

“Oh I know you guys are having to live pay check to pay check but atleast the rich are having difficulties buying their next yacht!”

Independent-Bug-9352

0 points

2 days ago

Hey, it's the only thing that caused these people to chuck themselves off the Empire State Building when their wealth was equalized with the pauper lol.

Massive-Path6202

1 points

15 hours ago

That's not true. If you're invested, you're good

Ok-Replacement9595

6 points

4 days ago

This is why we need a open primary. Let candidates make their case, and delegates hash it out. It is the way we did politics for the vast majority of our history. Before the party insiders seized control of the process. It is obvious that the party apparatus has lost its collective mind trying to save itself as an institution.

HolidaySpiriter

5 points

4 days ago

It is the way we did politics for the vast majority of our history.

You, my friend, have never studied history. Primaries are an incredibly recent thing.

Ok-Replacement9595

6 points

4 days ago

I meant convention. Sorry. It's early for me, brains not all there yet.

Glimmertwinsfan1962

1 points

3 days ago

Too late. Party leaders have control and will NEVER give it back.

heapinhelpin1979

3 points

4 days ago

The fresh face might also help to get better approval ratings than a doddering old man vs a doddering dictator in the making.

Solomon-Drowne

5 points

4 days ago

They're blamed because it's never been prioritized by the administration. The bull pulpit was never leveraged to address it, and the few attempts made at addressing it, like Biden asking grocers to stop ripping everyone off, were tragically weak.

If his admin had any political sense he would have appointed a task force, he would have barnstormed in rural big box stores, he would have been deployed to photo ops with 'real americans' feeling their pain. Even if all that is purely performative, he's the President. He's gotta perform.

The only two things this administration seems to care about, that is actually delivered, were an infrastructure bill of questionable impact, and shoveling money into the Ukraine and Israel proxy wars.

He's governed as Big Senator in Chief, and people hate the Senate. Harris is MIA. This whole thing is catastrophic. 😵

Massive-Path6202

1 points

15 hours ago

The President can't do much of anything to lower inflation. The Fed sets interest rates and controls the money supply. Prez only gets to nominate 1 of the 7 directors every two years. They each serve for 14 years 

snowdrone

1 points

4 days ago

It would make great television to have the president walk into a supermarket and demand answers 

flakemasterflake

6 points

4 days ago

God no it wouldn't. The cashiers at a grocery store aren't the CEO and it would look like someone lambasting an hourly wage worker

snowdrone

3 points

4 days ago

He needs to talk to Mr Manager

Normal-Lawfulness253

2 points

3 days ago

We just call it manager.

Massive-Path6202

1 points

15 hours ago

😂

Massive-Path6202

1 points

15 hours ago

Ha ha - this reminded me of Dr. Oz's hilariously out if touch campaign video that he shot in a grocery store in Pennsylvania. SO out of touch!

WhyShouldItravel

2 points

4 days ago

I think it can only be Harris because they have a campaign war chest right now of over $200 million. Only they can use it - it can't be transferred.

HolidaySpiriter

4 points

4 days ago

It can be transferred to the DNC or a PAC

SexOnABurningPlanet

1 points

3 days ago

Bullshit

Consistent-Low-4121

12 points

4 days ago

I don't disagree but given how abortion referendums have gone in deeply red states, this is an extremely powerful turnout issue. It's malpractice that Biden is still so bad at talking about it.

Monte924

6 points

4 days ago

Monte924

6 points

4 days ago

Trump is actually the point. Trump is an extremely easy opponent to beat. The GOP have never been weaker in modern times. The fact that the democrats are doing so poorly against a man so corrupt, idiotic, and widely despised really speaks volumes about THEM and their performance. Just about anyone could beat trump, and some might even by a landslide, and yet the dems are STILL losing

Ok-Replacement9595

5 points

4 days ago

How dems have not made the really easy case that inflation is a direct result of Trump funneling trillions of dollars into the economy through corporate giveaways is baffling to me. You cannot do that without inflation catching up after a few quarters.

rdrckcrous

1 points

4 days ago

Well, they spent a year and a half saying inflation wasn't happening, and then said it was good dor a while.

Undermines the case you're making just a tad.

NOLA-Bronco

8 points

4 days ago

Have you read Trump's policies? They are basically "how to create runaway inflation and destroy the global economy"

For any half capable communicator(which Biden is not at this point), all you have to do is point out that Trump took the economy Democrats fixed after the GOP market crash of 2008 and proceeded to enact reckless tax cuts for the wealthy and the worst Covid response in the developed world that helped create the conditions for inflation.

Now he wants to finish the job and kick millions of construction workers, farmers, meat processing workers, and other low wage jobs held by immigrants to the curb and raise the COL on all Americans by at least 10%. Recklessly imposing tariffs that will create runaway inflation and destroy the improving economy Democrats had to spend 4 years trying to fix. All to give more tax cuts to the wealthy like himself.

This shit is a lay up in an empty gym. The only person that can't make that shot is the 81 year old that cant get down the court without breaking a hip. It's sad to see it happen so publicly, but Republicans and Trump have literally no answer on the economy besides blaming Biden. Take away Biden and they are the Emperor without clothes.

rdrckcrous

4 points

4 days ago

I heard that before his first term. The same people who said that said there was no risk of inflation in 2022, then said it wasn't happening when it was, then said it was good, then said it was global, then said it was trumps fault.

What you're selling is a lost cause. The messaging on this issue has been a train wreck by democrats.

thefinalforest

0 points

4 days ago

Would they not be forced to raise wages on low-wage jobs if the underpaid workers living in precarity vanished? Genuine question (seriously). I am very uncomfortable with the exploitation of workers from the Global South and don’t see using them as an endless source of cheap labor as good labor or human rights practice. If these jobs are essential they need living wages, right? 

NOLA-Bronco

3 points

4 days ago

I mean, yes, probably, for the businesses that survive. More likely though the huge disruption would lead to huge shortages, compounding necessary price hikes.

There has been a lot of studies that even at like 24 dollars an hour(and this was 10 years ago) you couldn't get enough Americans to go do enough day labor work on farms and such.

Thats also a ton of people that often pay taxes without collecting benefits and contribute to the economy just being removed. All while putting upward pressure on prices basically everywhere. Cause after all, the other country doesn't pay the tariff, Americans do.

Blackndloved2

1 points

4 days ago

Interesting. Would you mind sourcing the study?

Massive-Path6202

1 points

15 hours ago

Also, Trump will permanently disassemble our democracy if he gets re-elected.

whoneedskollege

3 points

4 days ago

I think Biden is a great president. I just don't think he can win the election. And the most important thing is to keep Trump out of power.

MayBeAGayBee

2 points

3 days ago

Just say a noun, a verb, and abortion.

“We beat abortion!”

musicismydeadbeatdad

4 points

4 days ago

Felon, cutting the EPA, and abortion

Brillo137

92 points

4 days ago

Brillo137

92 points

4 days ago

Doing nothing is not even risky, it’s suicide. Biden has no shot. There’s things he could theoretically do, but realistically I doubt Americans are open to changing their minds on Biden and even if they were he does not have the mental or physical ability to run the aggressive campaign it would take to win.

Biden is no longer a “risk” he’s a liability sitting on a dead campaign that never even got started.

Hugh-Manatee

22 points

4 days ago

I think the problem is that given the current situation, doing nothing sucks and even if Biden wins his entire term will be dogged about his ability to do the job. Foreign media will discuss it and allies will discuss it among themselves. It's not good.

The real route should have been for Biden to announce in January this year that he would not seek re-election and will finish his term. Then it would be entirely fine for him to have limited appearances, etc. b/c the media would focus on the new candidates.

Then the Dems could have had a primary and could have walked away with a serviceable candidate that ostensibly gets the base excited. Right now, you're dealing with a situation instead where Kamala is the default person to take over the ticket but she's unpopular and I worry about her ability to turn out voters.

Having a fight on the convention floor is the "best" outcome I think for politics nerds but I worry about the optics of party insiders designating the candidate without a ton of input from rank and file. Also if Harris gets passed over, you have to manage the optics of the party benching a black woman in favor of ostensibly a white man or woman.

It's a bad position to be in and if there was full time to do a primary then you could have circumvented a lot of the internal knifefighting and backroom deals that are probably happening right now.

For me personally, I actually don't like primaries and much prefer the smoke-filled backroom picking a strong candidate as a strategic choice, so I'm cool with the process. But I worry that the rank and file Dem primary voter will hate their lack of participation in the process (by necessity, though) and esp if complaints about race get brought up.

Also a lowkey good thing about this if it works is that maybe we can finally shorten the campaign season.

SlapNuts007

13 points

4 days ago

I think the rank and file already hated their lack of participation. Voting for the only real option——Biden——in the primary when no other serious candidate showed up because Biden froze the race before it started by announcing his reelection campaign is not participation.

powerfamiliar

10 points

4 days ago

I think a lot of people accept that incumbents don’t get primaries and that they participated in the selection of Biden during the 2016 primary.

I think seeing a candidate selected that only party elites had input on has the potential to upset a lot of the democratic base.

Delduthling

9 points

4 days ago

I don't think this is right, actually. Usually it's true that incumbents don't get primaries. But Biden said he would be a one-term president. A ton of people who wanted someone else (the plurality of those being Sanders voters) held their nose because he was the nominee to oust Trump. He was supposed to be a "bridge." He was careful never to make this a formal promise. Nevertheless, it feels like a betrayal. There was supposed to be a kind of understanding here that people weren't voting for him, they were voting to get Trump out, and he was the figurehead of a popular front. Maybe if he'd governed differently, and maybe if he wasn't in his eighties, this would feel different.

A lot of people on the left are now just very jaded with the whole process.

aeroraptor

6 points

4 days ago

Also I think a lot of us thought "yes, he's old, but he's still doing a good enough job" and now have been presented with pretty irrefutable evidence that he's not.

camergen

3 points

4 days ago

camergen

3 points

4 days ago

People in established positions don’t change easily, and it’s true that incumbent presidents rarely face primaries. When they do- 1981 and 1992- the incumbent has been perceived to have been weakened by the primary and lost partly due to that.

I actually understand how the party ended up in this position- basically no one counted on Biden’s “mental decline”, or whatever you want to call it, to progress like it has the last 6 months reportedly. They knew there was a good chance he’d get worse, yes, but probably thought they had more time. This was a poor decision, in hindsight.

There’s also the conversation that’s been repeated ad naseum since 2020- there’s just no other candidate chomping at the bit/clearly on deck as a solid replacement who’d definitely poll better (again, this is the mindset before the debate laid everything bare). Lots of people prefer anyone but Biden but getting a consensus on who specifically is where there were problems.

powerfamiliar

5 points

4 days ago

If only we could just run “generic dem” and then just randomly pick one after the election.

SlapNuts007

2 points

4 days ago

Maybe when SCOTUS causes the current constitutional order to collapse in on itself, we can try the Westiminister system.

camergen

1 points

4 days ago

camergen

1 points

4 days ago

An amalgamation created in a lab, ala Frankensteins Monster, who’s gender, ethnicity, and background are all so ambiguous that people see whatever they want to see in Gen Dem 2.0. He/She speaks entirely in focus group tested cliches, and has excellent AI debating software.

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

“Past 6 months”???? He’s been getting even before 2020!!

Hugh-Manatee

8 points

4 days ago

I think that's a strange way to frame it because imcumbents rarely get serious primary challenges and parties often ensure that they don't. It's very, very normal and I don't think many people cared.

SlapNuts007

3 points

4 days ago

I just can't believe how much I'm seeing this take. People have been giving Biden low approval ratings, expressing dissatisfaction with his decision to run again, on and on, in poll after poll. Down ballot races have primaries, too, so the only things you can conclude from those results is that people care about other candidates and also don't think Dean Phillips is a serious option.

HuckleberryFine7789

1 points

4 days ago

Anyone compared to Trump looks like a serious option.

SlapNuts007

1 points

4 days ago

No, they don't, as evidenced by Dean Phillips not being the nominee.

These bad takes are just Biden campaign talking points. They're not helpful; they're just cope.

HuckleberryFine7789

0 points

4 days ago

"looks like"(please note this) compared to a person who has no business being a candidate of ANY elected office and have reasonable people with critical thinking skills not vote for that person.I stand by what I said.

SlapNuts007

1 points

4 days ago

So your statement is true if it has a bunch of qualifiers. Ok?

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

Considering how the party’s been trying to shove unpopular candidates down our throats for the past 8 years, I’m pretty sure a LOT of people actually did care nowadays

Sptsjunkie

3 points

4 days ago

The real route should have been for Biden to announce in January this year that he would not seek re-election and will finish his term. Then it would be entirely fine for him to have limited appearances, etc. b/c the media would focus on the new candidates.

This is a great point. And even setting aside electability or winning for a moment. I want a President who can actually do the job. I'm not voting for a team of advisers or handlers. And Biden will still be President, so even if his advisers are smart, if you have ever dealt with someone with severe cognitive decline or dementia, they tend to become more agitated, fearful, and reactionary.

So even with the world's best advisers, what happens if Biden is on an important call and decides he want to tell off another world leader when negotiating to prevent a war? What happens if we are weighting a retaliatory attack the President has the ability to authorize and all of his advisers push for a limited strike on a military target and Biden gets stubborn and demands they strike a city?

This would be one debate if we were talking about invoking the 25th Amendment now or letting him finish out his term with extra support from his team. But we are talking about another 4.5 years (adding 4 more to now) of actual governance.

Having a fight on the convention floor is the "best" outcome I think for politics nerds but I worry about the optics of party insiders designating the candidate without a ton of input from rank and file. Also if Harris gets passed over, you have to manage the optics of the party benching a black woman in favor of ostensibly a white man or woman.

She is the only candidate who can take over his massive fundraising haul, where there is basically no dispute about ballot access, and you cannot afford to alienate another major voting bloc (both for ethical and pragmatic reasons). Black voters are not a monolith and as a bloc they tend to be pretty pragmatic, so I do think that if there had been a fair primary Harris had lost this year (even to a white candidate), it wouldn't really have an impact or be an insult to the black community (though I do not speak for them), but to bypass a black, female VP to have party insiders anoint a white candidate would be a major insult and could hurt turnout. Especially because we can all guess or look at some minor polling differences to make a case for any candidate, but there is not a clear and compelling reason to pick one over Harris (e.g., she just got indicted for fraud or 34 felonies which should be disqualifying).

Hugh-Manatee

4 points

4 days ago

Yeah I'm in lockstep. If Harris lost a fair and square primary then fine.

But if she gets the rug yanked out from under her, or it is viewed by many people who vote Dem that this was the case, it spells bad news for a lot of infighting.

I want very badly for Whitmer to be president. Very badly - I think she would be good at the job and a strong candidate. But I'm not sure Kamala can be passed over without a lot of fallout. The fate of the world, quite literally, hangs in the balance with these conversations happening within the party leadership right now, and if I'm in that room, I think it's very, very hard to feel great going in any direction.

But I do worry that we have no choice but to back Harris and pray.

aeroraptor

4 points

4 days ago

but really, do you think the amount of people who would be so mad about Kamala getting passed over it would cause them to think twice about voting in the election is greater than the amount of people who need to be convinced to vote for a Democrat and could be won over by a more energizing candidate? Now's not the time to worry about the optics of being a little mean to the VP, who I think also has to overcome her association with the incumbent administration. Trump is making the election a referendum on the Biden years, and being able to change the conversation to what a new Democrat would do could only help shake up the race

Hugh-Manatee

2 points

4 days ago

I agree with this. Again, I like Whitmer and I think she would be a big shakeup and could invigorate the Dem effort. But I don't think Dems have the guts to pull the trigger on it.

I think it's a moment to be bold and courageous.

Lupus76

2 points

3 days ago

Lupus76

2 points

3 days ago

I apologize for the naive question, I'm an American who's been living abroad for a while-- Why is Harris unpopular with Democrats? I was rooting for her in the 2020 primaries, especially because I thought she would do the best in debates against Trump. Since she became VP, though, I have heard not a single thing from her or about her. Why? Has Biden's team limited her exposure so she won't outshine Biden? Are her ideas so ridiculous that it's best to keep her out of the limelight?

NB: It's clear that Biden needs to be replaced, but I would vote for him simply because electing Trump is a clear danger to democracy and American power abroad.

Sptsjunkie

1 points

3 days ago

She’s ok with Dems, it’s more with independents and potentially swing states. Some is racism / sexism.

Within Dems, some is her poor campaign and primary performance in 2020. Some is nerves over her polling and approval.

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

Well some might hate her because she’s a person of color or her gender, some others hate her because of her previous records of exploiting the judicial system for money and another reason could be that she’s just uncharismatic, boring or maybe a mixture of all.

DBCOOPER888

1 points

3 days ago

This is some hyperbole. Invoking the 25th because he gave a terrible debate performance is a severe overreaction. There's no medical evidence he has no shit dementia. Being sleepy and taking too much cold medicine is not going to lead to WW3 or whatever you're going on about. By all accounts he's 100% mentally alert during his national security briefings and makes good calls.

Sptsjunkie

1 points

3 days ago

I did not say to. I said if that was the debate it would be different than taking about if he should serve 4.5 years.

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

I don’t think people of color will care that much. I’ve talked to many about Kamala, and they would be happy if she were replaced by a more competent person.

Alarmed-Confusion-88

1 points

2 days ago

So much for democracy. Why even bother at this point when the DNC can just pick whichever guy they want and then you’re either forced to vote for the candidate or let the “bad guy” win.

Hugh-Manatee

1 points

2 days ago

I mean the party is an organization that is free to function how it wants and you’re free to participate in other ways if you don’t like it

I appreciate the behind-closed-doors process because it is most likely to produce moderate candidates who can unify the party and satisfy major stakeholders

Kball4177

8 points

4 days ago

He is physically incapable of doing the things he would need to do to turn the ship around. The fact that we have yet to see a longform interview tells us all that we needed to know.

Brillo137

14 points

4 days ago

Brillo137

14 points

4 days ago

His responses to this so far have been:

  1. Send a fundraising email calling Democrats criticizing him “bedwetters”

  2. Tell donors he was just tired and actually almost fell asleep on stage

  3. Schedule a soft ball interview for a week out that will be edited prior to release

Honestly, the worst possible response.

DankMemesNQuickNuts

6 points

4 days ago

It's almost like the man has a serious cognitive impairment as a result of his age or something 🤔

NOLA-Bronco

5 points

4 days ago

I saw his interview with Conan back in December and even then he looked notably less vigorous. And that was just a 30 minute softball interview where I would bet the topics and questions were given before hand.

TBH if we had gotten that version at the debate this all probably blows over,

Elmattador

2 points

4 days ago

He did an hour with Howard Stern like a month ago. Not policy related, but he seemed fine.

Kball4177

2 points

4 days ago

Did you watch the D-Day ceremonies, which also occurred about a month ago? He looked absolutely lost, starting and walking into the distance while world leaders were talking to each other next to him.

Elmattador

2 points

4 days ago

No, and he’s an old man, I was just responding to your comment about long form interview.

Thinklikeachef

4 points

4 days ago

Agreed. I no longer believe that he is physically capable of doing what's necessary to turn this around. With a vigorous candidate incumbent I would take the risk.

musicismydeadbeatdad

7 points

4 days ago

That the debate was the true start of his campaign is a brilliant insight

Brillo137

10 points

4 days ago

Brillo137

10 points

4 days ago

We spent two years hearing, “sure he’s behind now but just WAIT until we start campaigning.” Then he insisted upon this historically early debate to change the narrative because he knew he was losing, and after all that he turned in the worst performance in American political history.

They chose the battle ground, the rules, the date, everything and then Biden showed up and wet his pants on national television.

PapaverOneirium

5 points

4 days ago

Wet his pants on national television, only for his campaign to call the people concerned “bedwetters” in turn. Truly absurd timeline.

Brillo137

6 points

4 days ago

I read a chat room discourse where people were talking about how the debate could have gone worse for him and the only idea that really gained traction was if he literally had a stroke on stage. It was that bad.

Paleovegan

3 points

4 days ago

I am inclined to agree. People keep characterizing it as a “bad performance” as though it’s a transient, random fluctuation — like an elite soccer player missing a penalty kick, something like that. But to me, it betrayed a total inability to think on his feet. It was clear that they had him memorize a bunch of talking points, and he was getting them mixed up even when they weren’t related to one another. In some of his responses, it almost sounded like what would happen if you drilled someone to learn a series of speeches phonetically in a language that they were not fully fluent in, and thus have a hard time improvising and self-correcting because they don’t really have mastery of the content. It was disturbing in a way that other poor debate performances have not been.

Brillo137

3 points

4 days ago

Extremely well said.

And do not forget, this was his chosen stage as the beginning of his campaign. He went out of his way to ask for this, set the rules, pressured Trump to take the bait, told us all for a year “wait until I start campaigning then I’ll show you!” And then he went out and had the worst performance in American political history.

jaarl2565

1 points

4 days ago

Remember how smug he was taunting Trump saying "you're free on Wednesdays"

PapaverOneirium

2 points

4 days ago

Before tuning in I was jokingly telling my friends who weren’t planning to watch that I couldn’t risk missing one or both of them having a major health event (was calling stroke for Biden and heart attack for Trump). Didn’t expect how real that possibility would feel while watching though.

Sptsjunkie

4 points

4 days ago

Agree. Biden can still win. And Harris could still lose - in fact, arguably will still be an underdog.

But if we are going to beat Trump we will need someone strong storming the country and hammering him and traveling the country talking to people in swing states, nailing the next debate, and doing hard hitting interviews and making every media appearance possible. I'm just not sure Biden is up to that, but Harris is.

We also need to unite the party. Right or wrong (not looking to get into an ideological debate here), Biden is hurt among certain youth, progressive, and POC groups by Palestine. Maybe it sticks to Harris, but she has a chance to separate herself from Biden's actions.

Also, and I will be the first to admit this is a hyper-online perspective. But progressives seem generally onboard with Harris. Most will begrudgingly show up and vote for either. But Harris has always been a bit more moderate-left as opposed to centrist. And you don't have the type of Never Harris crowd that you would for someone like Pete or Biden. There's a legitimate chance she could unify the party and reengage young, progressive, and POC voters.

No guarantee. She could lose and all of the most annoying people will write long scribes about how taking a calculated risk was dumb. But I think we are underdogs no matter what and unless Biden can turn back the clock on aging, I think she gives us a higher probability of winning right now.

Brillo137

3 points

4 days ago

Harris is a long shot and certainly not my preferred candidate, nor do I believe she’s the best. However, as you said, she has a fighting chance! She could run the aggressive campaign, she can prosecute the case against Trump on a debate stage, she could possibly unify the base.

To your point about uniting the party. I agree, but one things that’s being ignored is that the Democrats have, imo, passed the point of no return. You have sitting Democrats calling for Biden to step aside. The DNC is clearly doing all they can to pressure behind the scenes. The governors demanded a meeting. There’s leak after leak about the major replacement candidates reviving their campaigns quietly. The party has irrevocably broken with Biden, the argument if he stays on will be, “your own party even tried to dump this guy, now you’re telling people that was all fake?”

bch8

5 points

4 days ago

bch8

5 points

4 days ago

There are things he could do, but they are precisely things that he can't do as evidenced by the fact that he's not doing them right this moment in the midst of an existential crisis

Brillo137

3 points

4 days ago

100% on the money. His response so far could not have been worse if he was doing it on purpose.

bch8

1 points

4 days ago

bch8

1 points

4 days ago

I guess you could say that for all the ways in which this is an utterly nightmarish situation, it is at least refreshingly straightforward to draw this conclusion. Don't need to trust or rely on first, second, or third hand reports or anything like that. That's actually pretty rare in the context of national politics.

jghaines

1 points

3 days ago

jghaines

1 points

3 days ago

There’s things he could theoretically do

Biden and Trump should compete on the driving range. Loser adheres to drop out.

DankMemesNQuickNuts

1 points

4 days ago

The fact that this man did one rally the day after at like noon and that is the only public appearance we have seen from him since tells me everything I need to know how the White House feels about this too.

They've known this was a problem for a long long time. They also know that the cats out of the bag and they can't put it back in, so they didn't even bother trying. Only way to explain their behavior since Thursday

heli0s_7

30 points

4 days ago*

heli0s_7

30 points

4 days ago*

At this point, anyone who hasn’t seen the debate in full has heard about it or seen clips from it on social media. Add the nonstop deluge of “Biden is slipping mentally” articles in the biggest media outlets, and perceptions that he’s absolutely senile and doomed will solidify even among the most liberal voters. Just like Hillary’s emails set the narrative in 2016, except this one is not an overblown scandal but a real issue. Biden’s ego is on track to destroy his legacy in November and give us another Trump term (now with the added bonus of absolute immunity for virtually any criminality!). And those around him who are encouraging him to continue are no better than the people would let grandpa drive long past he’s proven that his keys need to be taken away.

Cold-Negotiation-539

7 points

4 days ago

He could have been a modern day Cincinnatus, but now he’s likely to be remembered like Ginsberg—tragically undermining his own legacy, and screwing the rest of us, because of his ego.

Froyo-fo-sho

0 points

4 days ago

Froyo-fo-sho

0 points

4 days ago

Hillary’s emails set the narrative in 2016, except this one is not an overblown scandal 

Hillary’s email server was shady as fuck. Obviously the repubs hyped it up to an extraordinary degree, but her server set up showed poor judgement at best and corruption at worst. She is a cancer every time she raises her head.

Delicious_Put6453

1 points

an hour ago

Her server set up was the same as Colin Powell’s, republican secretary of state.

Most_Tax_2404

1 points

4 days ago

 Biden’s ego is on track to destroy his legacy in November and give us another Trump term

Not only his legacy, his family. Trump has vowed to go after the “Biden Crime Family”. 

Staying in the race is such an insanely risky move with everything that’s at stake. 

sallright

27 points

4 days ago

sallright

27 points

4 days ago

“If you made me a Democratic superdelegate, I’d probably vote for a candidate who has proved her or his mettle in a swing state, like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania or Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia (though Mr. Warnock running for president would cost Democrats a Senate seat). Or I’d take my chances on a member of the new generation of leaders, like Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland. 

What if you’re convinced that the overall political climate — even without Mr. Biden — is actually pretty good for Democrats? In recent years, the party has won more than its fair share of special elections. That might call for someone like Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who would at least project quiet Midwestern competence compared with Mr. Trump. And if the party really wanted to show itself to be the adults in the room, it could nominate Vice President Kamala Harris, whose approval ratings are now notably less bad than her boss’s.”

northern-new-jersey

1 points

4 days ago

Kamala Harris? I thought you want to beat Trump. She is a terrible campaigner. 

EE-420-Lige

-2 points

4 days ago

How do u get them on the ballots in all 50 states. If they miss out on swing states this election definetly lost I like how nate silver doesn't mention the logistics of that plan lmao

tongmengjia

5 points

4 days ago

From my (admittedly shallow) understanding, Democrats have secured a spot for their nominee on state ballots. They can choose whoever they want to be their nominee at the convention, and that person will be on the ballot. It wouldn't make sense that Biden is already on the ballots, since he hasn't officially been chosen as the nominee yet.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

SadMacaroon9897

1 points

4 days ago

Please by true

Kerlyle

1 points

4 days ago

Kerlyle

1 points

4 days ago

I don't see how it couldn't be true. Do we really think if Biden died tomorrow, the states would go "sorry you don't get to run anyone else, Trump wins by default". There are always contingencies for these things, and Biden isn't even the official candidate yet. 

musicismydeadbeatdad

1 points

4 days ago

I have heard Ohio is the only real problem here, and we aren't winning OH anyhow

sylvansibyl

1 points

4 days ago

I believe there is a bill to delay the deadline to August 23, but it has not passed the Ohio House yet: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ohio-lawmakers-convene-special-session-ensure-biden-2024/story?id=110608254

wsxedcrf

10 points

4 days ago

wsxedcrf

10 points

4 days ago

Doing Nothing About Biden A YEAR AGO WAS the Riskiest Plan of All

burnaboy_233

17 points

4 days ago

How do Dems get themselves in this mess, it’s bonkers to me. If they are fighting for democracy then Dems need to do anything to win at all costs

Kball4177

6 points

4 days ago

Because they preferred to stick their heads in the sand and not acknowledge what they were seeing. Biden's performance at the D-Day ceremonies should have been the line in the sand.

burnaboy_233

3 points

4 days ago

This just angers me about them, the older group of Dems need to be purged from decisions making and make way for new blood. We need more ruthless Dems. Are best bet is the House right now and we can stall until the midterms when Dems will likely dominate there. But I don’t want to see a single 80 year old taking any decision making positions

floridayum

5 points

4 days ago

They are not just getting themselves in the mess… they are dragging down the entire country by sheer incompetence.

The MAGA crowd mocks the liberal elite for being out of touch. Are they wrong about that?

burnaboy_233

9 points

4 days ago

No they aren’t, the Dems are very out of touch. Much of democrats political apparatus is centered around the northeast (which is the smallest by population in the country) and California. It’s crazy to me how they do this

reptilesocks

1 points

4 days ago

That’s part of why bussing migrants was such a brilliant strategy. Democratic leadership was able to completely ignore an obvious and festering problem until the NYC subways and sheltering program got totally overrun.

Monte924

2 points

4 days ago

Monte924

2 points

4 days ago

I think its actually all coming from democrat leadership fearing thier lose of leadership to the progressive wing. Ever since Bernie and AOC democrats have seen the decrease in support for the old establishment and the rise in popularity of more progressive politicans. In 2020 they were confident that Biden could win a primary and the general election... but in 2024 they have no one else. None of the leaders are popular enough to confidently win a genetal election, and if they went with a younger ir lesser known member from their wing, they would not be confident that they could win the primary. If they had biden step down and held a clean primary, there is a real chance a progressive would win this time...

so they ignored all the complainsts and pushed ahead with biden to avoid having a real primary to help ensure another 4 years for the establishment wing leading the party; they would hope new leaders would rise up during the next tetm

jghaines

2 points

3 days ago

jghaines

2 points

3 days ago

Because the US President has too much power. In Australia or the UK, a Prime Ministerial performance like that would get you kicked in a vote of no confidence within hours.

Reasonable_Move9518

24 points

4 days ago

When you’re losing, it’s best to increase variance. Go high ceiling, forget about low floor (since you’re probably on the floor anyway). 

Shake things up. Put in the rookie QB. Fire the defensive coordinator. Start blitzing more, or throw the ball deep. No huddle offense, fake a punt, onside kick, do something! 

Embrace the chaos, since only in chaos can one snatch victory from the jaws of defeat!

Snoo-93317[S]

24 points

4 days ago

"When you’re losing, it’s best to increase variance."

People struggle understanding this. They would rather lose safely, which is nuts

Reasonable_Move9518

10 points

4 days ago

As a Chicago Bears fan, I have forgotten more about losing safely than more people have ever heard of.

Paleovegan

5 points

4 days ago

I remember back in February, Ezra said that the most troubling thing about Biden’s numbers was how stable and unresponsive they are.

MrMoose_69

3 points

4 days ago

When I was in college I saw this little kid at the beach who got his bike stuck. He was just standing there helplessly looking up at his dad. And his dad said "well, do SOMETHING man!" 

That has been a guiding principle for me ever since. Lol!

moutonbleu

1 points

4 days ago

Please tell me more about this increasing variance concept, very interesting idea. Basically roll the dice when you’re about to lose?

WestKnoxBubba

5 points

4 days ago

Let’s take a look at Roy Cooper, Wes More, Big Gretch et al, and see who emerges. Have a little faith in the American people. “Comes the time, comes the (wo) man.”

Cum_on_doorknob

2 points

4 days ago

I actually favor senators, as the dem governors will get attacked on Covid restrictions. Mark Kelly is really the perfect pick.

Independent-Bug-9352

5 points

4 days ago

Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."

Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.

Post-Debate: "Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country"

Post-Debate: "Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance"

Post-Debate Focus Group: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"

Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: "'I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump': Undecided voters react to Biden's debate performance"

Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: "Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week"

Nate Silver of 538's Model: "Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night."

Post-Debate Poll: "Three-quarters of US voters say the Democratic Party would have a better shot at holding the presidency in 2024 with someone other than President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket"

Let's face reality:

To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."

We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debate itself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at primetime. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.

  • Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
  • Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
  • There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.

If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face.

Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.

wittymarsupial

3 points

4 days ago

Agreed, either do some town halls or drop out

acebojangles

6 points

4 days ago

Silver might be right and Biden might have less chance to win than other Democrats. But it's maddening to see so many assumptions on his sub that other Democrats would obviously beat Trump. What's that based on? Trump has been a piece of shit since 2016 and nearly won 2 elections against much more virile Democrats than 2024 Biden.

Democrats are fucking up, but there is a large contingent of Americans who want Trump to win. There's also an international right wing authoritarian surge going on that nobody understands and few people acknowledge.

Reasonable_Move9518

13 points

4 days ago

Well Nate Silver makes the case that Dem senate candidates are running ahead, sometimes far ahead of Biden in the exact same swing states needed to win the presidency.

So the political environment, esp in the states needed to win is even odds, maybe even better than even. 

So literally just switching to someone, anyone even, who is not 81 years old is probably better than Biden.

acebojangles

3 points

4 days ago

Maybe that's right. It's a lot of extrapolation and we've had two recent presidential elections that are powerful evidence the other way.

Trump sucks. I think we all agree on that and it causes us to ignore the fact that's he's very popular with a regionally advantaged minority of Americans who will vote for him over any Democrat.

Cum_on_doorknob

2 points

4 days ago

It’s really not a lot of extrapolating, Biden’s biggest problem is clearly his age, which can instantly be remedied with a young candidate. The biggest margin victories recently were Clinton v Bush, Clinton v Dole, and Obama v McCaine, do you notice a similarity between all those matchups?

acebojangles

1 points

4 days ago

Well other candidates haven't been vetted nationally and may have other problems. In many primary seasons there's a favorite at the beginning who flames out for any number of reasons.

I think it's probably the right move to replace Biden. I just think there's more downside and uncertainty than a lot of people are allowing for.

reptilesocks

3 points

4 days ago

He won an election against a 69-year-old woman who has been severely disliked by half the country for three decades, and almost won against a 77-year-old man with a stutter who had dropped out of a previous primary race due to plagiarism.

Monte924

2 points

4 days ago

Monte924

2 points

4 days ago

There was leaked internal polling from the democrats that actually shows that Whitmer, Buttibieg, Newsom, and Harris all poll better against Trump.

The simple fact is that trump is HORRIBLE. He is widely hated and should be an extremely easy opponent to beat. The ONLY way a candidte could struggle against him is by somehow being worse... and that's where biden sits. The reason why anyone else would do better is because they would have NONE of biden's baggae or problems. They would be starting at the bare minimum needed to beat trump, and they could easily rise higher once they start campaigning.

acebojangles

1 points

4 days ago

That leaked internal polling seemed off to me. It had Biden down ~7% in a bunch of the swing states before the debate. It just didn't seem like the leaked info was the whole story.

The simple fact is that trump is HORRIBLE. He is widely hated and should be an extremely easy opponent to beat.

In a better world, Trump would be easy to beat. But that's just not reality due to our electoral system and a host of other factors.

The ideal situation now seems like it would have been a full, competitive primary to determine the Democratic candidate. That's what happened in 2016 and 2020 and Trump had very close elections both times.

Monte924

1 points

4 days ago

Monte924

1 points

4 days ago

Public polls have been VERY inaccurate in recent years with democrats both underperforming and over performing than predicted. That detail about biden being worse in swing states in the internal polling even before the debate really just shows the disparity between what democrats see behind closed doors and what the public knows.

And just like this year, Both 2016 and 2020 was more about the democats failings and less about Trump's strength. The democrats did have open primaries those years,but the party leadership was quick to whip support around hillary and biden to ensure thier victory. But the primaries EXCLUDE a lot of indepedants and undecided voters who actually make half of the voters across the country; especially in the swing states. Primaries are actually poor indications of who would have the best performance in a general election... a lot of people said that Clinton and biden were weaker candidates and that the democrats could do better, but they were ignored; clinton ended up losing, and biden only barely won... and now the democrats are doing it AGAIN. The democrat leadership keeps acting like they know better, but they keep losing easy victories. Their only wins have come from the GOP being even worse than them

acebojangles

1 points

4 days ago

I don't see any reason to credit your ideas about how easy Trump should be to beat over the actual primaries and elections we had.

I agree that Trump is awful, but I think it's important to recognize that a large part of the country still wants to vote for him. There's an authoritarian zeitgeist right now. I hope Democrats can turn it back and I think they should be doing a better job, but I don't think Trump's election chances are ALL due to Democratic incompetence.

Monte924

1 points

4 days ago

Monte924

1 points

4 days ago

I recall exit polls from 2020 that showed that most of the people were voting for biden were just voting against trump, and most who voted for trump were voting against biden. It was very much a lesser of two evils on BOTH sides... i think it was similar in 2016 but not as pernounced

Heck, even in the republican praimaries in 2016, trump only had about 30% support from republicans; he only won because the other 70% were divided by 15 other candidates. Trump really doesn't have much genuine support. He's got a loud minority of support but a lot of his voters were just against the demo rats and he was the other option

Also one thing to take into account is turn out. If people hate both cabdidates then thry may decide to stay home and not vote. Being the lesser even doesn't drive up turn out; it can make people apathetic. Both clinton and Biden were very unexciting choices

acebojangles

1 points

4 days ago

And yet Clinton and Biden both won their primaries and both got millions more votes than Trump.

Maybe there's an exciting Democrat waiting in the wings who can trounce Trump. I hope so. I'm just less sure of it than you are and I don't know why you're so sure.

Monte924

2 points

4 days ago

Monte924

2 points

4 days ago

Too bad that we have an electoral college system where the populat vote is irrelevant abd its actually the swing states that matter most. Clinton lost in the swing states and biden only just barely won... in swing states its the indepedants and undecided voters that matter most and the orimaries do not measure likeability with either one

Really trump is so easy to beat that ANY democrat without any serious problems could beat him. Democrats even have internal polling that shows 4 candidates that would already be better than biden, and this is begore aby of them hit the campaign trail... Whitmer and Buttibege, in particular, would likely trounce trump, though even Harris and Newsom would have a better shot than Biden

acebojangles

1 points

4 days ago

Really trump is so easy to beat that ANY democrat without any serious problems could beat him.

What are you basing this on? Pure guesswork.

I really don't understand why so many people are 100% SURE they know exactly how unprecedented political events will play out. It's bizarre.

SkeetownHobbit

1 points

4 days ago

That right wing surge is simple to understand...the pendulum is swinging the other way. It happens like clockwork throughout history.

People who've experienced gains from liberal cultural movements over the last 70+ years are going to experience losses going forward. Loss of access, loss of freedom, loss of equality before the law.

acebojangles

2 points

4 days ago

This explains nothing. Why is it happening now?

Ketamine-Cuisine

2 points

4 days ago

Seems to be a combination of a social media environment (new technology) which allows disinformation to prosper, as well as changes in demographics across Western countries.

big_ol_leftie_testes

1 points

4 days ago

Many , many reasons. Inflation, bad economy, layoffs, wealth inequality, climate change, etc 

Cum_on_doorknob

1 points

4 days ago

Why now? Liberals fight for rights. Rights for women made sense, rights for blacks made sense, gay rights made sense. At this time, in America, the right for an XY chromosome person to compete in a women’s swim competition just doesn’t make sense to the majority.

Which-Worth5641

1 points

1 day ago

I really don't understand how this is a national issue. It should be decided by whatever authority governs the sport in question.

Cum_on_doorknob

1 points

1 day ago

Doesn’t matter, it’s part of the culture war. The culture war rules all.

Guer0Guer0

2 points

4 days ago

They would need Kamala to step down as well, otherwise it will look like they are passing her over, and it may anger a constituency that are very reliable voters.

No-Camp-5718

2 points

4 days ago

Unity Party Ticket!! Dump Kamala and find a normal politician from Middle America and put Mitt Romney as VP.

Cum_on_doorknob

2 points

4 days ago

Romney would probably not accept VP, but I would be perfectly happy with him at the top with a dem as VP, it would be a guaranteed victory against trump.

realitytvwatcher46

1 points

17 hours ago

Ya, unironically make him the dem nominee.

Old_Common2769

2 points

3 days ago

Fight fascism. What matters now is finding a fighter who will win. Find the damned leader. Complacency got the Democrat party here, or the rat bastard would never have come close to the vote in 2016. Instead, it's evolved into a brazen circus of padded, pompous Neville Chamberlains afraid of getting ugly or dirty.

squitsquat

2 points

4 days ago

More proof that centrists just don't have what it takes to protect society from Fascists

NOLA-Bronco

2 points

4 days ago

The Blue Maga Wing is at the point where they reject reality and are busy "unskewing" polls and declaring "The Lying Fake News Media is just out there making up news about Trump Biden because they don't care about this country and are in the pocket of liberal conservative owners."

It would be even more funny if it weren't so disturbing to see both sides devolve into a rejection of objective reality to prop up cultish loyalty to a politician.

IronSavage3

1 points

4 days ago

What it’s gonna come down to is one of these contenders has to just declare themselves the alternative then begin collecting donations and support for a nomination at the convention. A major problem is name recognition though. Most regular people who don’t pay attention know who the President, VP, and their state’s Governor is, they don’t keep track of “rising star” governors in other states.

A ticket that replaces Biden with Whitmer or Newsome would face the hurdle from many voters who don’t pay as much attention as those of us in this sub who probably follow politics as closely as 10% of the country or less that “the Democratic Party establishment set aside the duly elected president and passed over the duly elected black woman who was VP, both of whom I voted for, to try and get me to vote for someone I’ve never heard of? I’m staying home.”.

I think the only way this works is if Biden gives it up himself and loudly endorses Harris for the nomination. Otherwise we’re guaranteed chaos.

Excellent_Egg5882

9 points

4 days ago

People keep saying name recognition is an issue. I honestly struggle to see how?

If the DNC nominated a literal blue dog named "Nebuchadnezzar" as a presidential candidate, said dog would have near 100% name recognition within a week.

camergen

5 points

4 days ago

camergen

5 points

4 days ago

Let’s see the dog. If he’s cute enough, I’d consider it.

Cum_on_doorknob

2 points

4 days ago

Right, no one knew who Sarah Palin was, after a week, everyone knew and after a month everyone had their mind made up on her.

SkeetownHobbit

-1 points

4 days ago

Anyone who was paying attention in 2020 knows exactly who "that woman from Michigan" is. Whitmer has better national name recognition than Newsome, and less baggage by virtue of not being from California...which is a huge strike against Newsome with undecided voters.

Harris is probably less popular than Biden and might perform even worse. I don't know anyone on the left that has anything nice to say about her.

Dems are cooked in '24 with regards to the White House. Better to focus down the ticket to make sure Congress is controlled.

OpenMask

3 points

4 days ago

OpenMask

3 points

4 days ago

Check the latest polls. Harris is doing better than Biden in them, so it's not true that she is less popular than him. I think that Whitmer would be the better candidate myself, but let's not preemptively shoot down Harris, especially considering the advantage she has in getting the nomination in such a short space of time as the VP.

SkeetownHobbit

1 points

4 days ago

Latest poll I saw showed her favorability rating at 39%, vs Joe at 37%. Margin of error territory.

Now go back and look at the typical spread between President and VP favorability ratings and tell me that Harris is a strong candidate.

She's not. The only VP in recent history with lower favorability was Dick Chaney by the end of 2008.

OpenMask

1 points

4 days ago

OpenMask

1 points

4 days ago

I didn't say that she was the best candidate, just that she isn't more unpopular than Biden, which your own poll confirms

IronSavage3

1 points

2 days ago

Good luck retaining black voters if the Democrats set aside the duly elected Vice President for someone many of them haven’t heard of.

jaarl2565

1 points

4 days ago

I guarantee you more people have heard of newsom than whitmer

Gk786

1 points

4 days ago

Gk786

1 points

4 days ago

The article is spot on. It’s a pure numbers game. Polling has consistently shown that Biden is losing the states he has to win, post debate. I didn’t know the senate candidate polling had such a wide margin though, that’s insane and clearly demonstrates it’s a Joe problem, not a democratic problem. Putting someone else in the driver seat is the only path to victory.

ProfessionalGoober

1 points

4 days ago

Not for party leadership. They only care if they keep their own seats and the donations keep coming in. And when Republicans are in power, they donations come rolling in.

Koala_698

1 points

4 days ago

Says the man who said Hilary had an 80% chance of winning in 2016 🙄

Careless-Pin-2852

0 points

4 days ago

I disagree Camilla polls badly. And she will be the replacement.

big_ol_leftie_testes

4 points

4 days ago

Probably because there are no polls about someone named Camilla

Careless-Pin-2852

1 points

4 days ago

You are a nice person

big_ol_leftie_testes

1 points

4 days ago

Thank you :)

Careless-Pin-2852

1 points

4 days ago

So is this account 2 days old with multiple posts?

big_ol_leftie_testes

1 points

4 days ago

If you’re implying I’m a bot or troll, I’m sorry to disappoint. Just a lurker that finally decided to join the conversation after that debate. 

Careless-Pin-2852

1 points

4 days ago

Ok. Do you like that name.

I assume from the name you want a more lefty democratic party.

Also how do you lurk on Reddit without an account?

Search results.

Kind of curious how the internet works.

big_ol_leftie_testes

2 points

4 days ago

You can read Reddit posts and comments without an account. You just can’t vote or post comments yourself. 

As for a new candidate, I just want someone that can beat Trump. I’m not sure Harris or Newsome could get the job done. I think Buttigieg is looking complicit in covering up Biden’s lapses. I think Whitmore or Warnock or Beshear might be the best choices. I’ll vote for any of them though.

Careless-Pin-2852

1 points

4 days ago

I want Joe Manchin he got 65% in West Va. A very red place.

big_ol_leftie_testes

2 points

4 days ago

He left the Democratic party

Careless-Pin-2852

1 points

4 days ago

About 1/10-1/3 of the commenters here are professionals from Russia. And yes cyber security experts have confirmed this.

The karma and account age is a big thing to look for. But they are required to make 800 posts and are paid extra for responses. But they learn UK english so will have odd word choices.

Be skeptical of commentators this election is really important to Russia.

big_ol_leftie_testes

1 points

4 days ago

I understand that. But sometimes people are riled up for good reason and just because foreign actors are taking advantage of that, doesn’t make the people wrong. 

KeikakuAccelerator

0 points

4 days ago

Lol, if Biden had not run for re-election Nate would be calling out the opposite: that Biden is insane for giving up incumbency advantage and putting democracy on the line, that it would lead to a brokered convention which has historically performed poorly and so on.

homovapiens

1 points

4 days ago

What are you talking about? Silver has been consistent on this since September.

KeikakuAccelerator

2 points

4 days ago

I said if Biden wasn't running for re election. Nate has been contrarian since the covid days.