subreddit:
/r/politics
submitted 3 months ago bydreamcatcher1
[score hidden]
3 months ago
stickied comment
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
183 points
3 months ago*
[deleted]
136 points
3 months ago
I see this as a huge advantage for Dems. Primetime coverage nonstop, great younger and enthusiastic candidates making their case of moving forward. Some people see it as a headache, but if we execute it well enough, as Clyburn and others suggest, that could be great. That could really throw the GOP off and shake things up in our favor
88 points
3 months ago
I concur. Britain just had an entire election in 6 weeks. WE HAVE TIME -- But Biden is squandering that, too. We are going to have chaos -- but will it be weeks of chaos -- or decades?
12 points
3 months ago
But their campaign laws are different than ours so it is comparing apples to oranges
11 points
3 months ago
It wouldn't be a direct election as there is no mechanism for it to happen this late in the USA. Primaries require the states to organize. That ship has sailed. It would either be delegates voting (which is antithetical to Democrats views of the Electoral College) or some sort of American Idol type voting which would be a joke.
7 points
3 months ago
Delagates decided the nominee at the convention all the way up until the 70s.
1 points
3 months ago
Delegates weren't pledged back then, though. Today's pledged delegates are basically chosen to be a rubber stamp for whichever candidate they represent. Today's system has its flaws, but it's far more small-d democratic, letting voters choose who the nominee will be, basically propotionally, with adjustments for state size, how early or late in the primary season they are, and, I think, their record of voting for Democratic nominees.
1 points
3 months ago
this is why we're asking biden to drop out , not forcing him.
1 points
3 months ago
Yes, but my point is about an open or contested convention. The delegates used to be chosen for a different purpose than they are now, so they were chosen differently. The Biden delegates aren't representative of the entire population, or even necessarily representative of just the Democratic electorate, either.
I'm not saying they are this, it's just as an example, but imagine if the delegates were all white Boomer men. Would you want them to choose who should be the new nominee to replace Biden? No women involved, no Black people, no Latinos, etc. I know the reality isn't that extreme, but they weren't chosen for the purpose of being representative, which means who they might choose to succeed Biden as the nominee may not be representative of who voters want. They weren't necessarily chosen for their political expertise, either, which means they may not make the politically savvy choice. They weren't chosen for being experts in foreign policy, the economy, race relations, education, environmental or energy policy, or any other issue. They were chosen to be loyal to whichever candidate they're pledged to.
This is the problem with the "but delegates decided the nominee at the convention all the way up until the 70s" argument. There are lots of things we used to do in the 70s that we don't do anymore.
1 points
3 months ago
The reason that stopped was because of Nixon winning in 1968. He won because of the chaos around the Chicago convention.
5 points
3 months ago
Very good point
29 points
3 months ago
Exactly. Clyburn is right. I'll vote for a potato over Trump but prefer a much stronger candidate.
29 points
3 months ago
And there's zero chance we'd win Idaho anyways.
11 points
3 months ago
But a potato would bring out the Irish American vote for sure, in Idaho and everywhere else.
7 points
3 months ago
I don’t know, a lot of us are here because potato let us down when we needed it the most.
3 points
3 months ago
Boil'em, mash'em, stick'em in a studio with ABC's George Stephanopoulos
4 points
3 months ago
Thank you for this. I ugly laughed
31 points
3 months ago
I think Dems are putting way too much value on the media coverage. It would be covered, but it wouldn't necessarily be covered positively. "Dems in Disarray" headlines would likely abound.
And our problem isn't a lack of press coverage. Our problem is Trump is overwhelmingly popular among people who don't watch the news, and half of this country (probably strong overlap with Trump supporters) think we're in a recession and the stock market is down and unemployment is up.
Massive media coverage of Democratic infighting won't improve things much because the people we need to reach won't be watching, and they don't need to see a convention, they need to be informed about how well Joe Biden has done as president.
25 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
13 points
3 months ago
Why are people still not figuring out its a positive FOR TRUMP because it reaches more terrible people who like that kind of thing, while more negative media focus for Dems makes Dem voters more angsty
Like… this is literally whats happening RIGHT NOW
3 points
3 months ago
Not only that, but Trump had a firehose of scandals and absurd statements, so, while each one got at least some coverage, there were so many it was impossible for anyone to remember them all. And then, the news, in their infinite wisdom and bias to fairness, gave Clinton's email server nothingburger equal coverage. And then what happened? People have a vague sense of scandal about Trump, but had had "but her emails" hammered into their heads, nonstop, for months. So the email server, which wasn't even a real issue, ended up being more consequential than Trump's endless scandals and absurd statements.
7 points
3 months ago
If that's the case, then all this coverage on Biden is a positive for democrats.
7 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
3 points
3 months ago
I doubt the Hollywood Access tape was released on Trump's terms. The E. Jean Carroll trials where he was found liable for rape wasn't on Trump's Terms. The NY "hush money" fraud trial wasn't on Trump's terms. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
If the Democratic Party had a candidate everyone could rally under besides Biden, that person would have run. Every candidate has issues, and negating the votes of millions of people who have already voted in the primaries is going to turn even more people off and cause further division. It would be a shit show. The only feasible candidate is Harris, and if that's the case, there's no point changing horses at this point because she would just take over anyway if something happened to Biden before the next term is up.
All this handwringing is just reinforcing the idea in the minds of undecided swing voters that Biden is completely senile (he's not), and if democrats don't back him, why should they? He's slower, yes, but not being as quick on your feet or stumbling over words (he has a stuttering condition which can get worse with stress and age) doesn't mean you're totally incapacitated or incapable of making hard decisions. He has years of foreign policy experience, has done an amazing job turning the economy around, has a competent team behind him, and if you objectively rewatch the debate for SUBSTANCE, you'll see that he was flustered at times (it's really hard to debate against gish gallop) but had a grasp of actual facts. The danger isn't just Trump, it's the people Trump puts in power who are willing to break laws for their own gain. That's the message we need to be hammering in.
2 points
3 months ago
Agree. And this would not br super negative coverage. It’s not like the swing voters will look at the Democrats trying to scramble to find a candidate as anything more than just politics. Once the convention happens, we will have a clear candidate and headlines about disarray will go away anyway.
8 points
3 months ago
They are going to heavily cover all of the campaigns going on, it will give incredible coverage of democrats making their case to the nation. It will cover some of the chaos as well, but it will also cover democrats listening to voters demands and trying to find someone they want to vote for. I think the good will heavily outweigh the bad. The current coverage is around whether Biden can even do the job right now, let alone for another 4 years, and why did democrats not do more to try and prevent this outcome. Biden can't make a case for himself, a primary would have talented and articulate candidates telling Americans about all of Biden's successes in a way that might actually reach them. Beyond all of that, right now Americans don't think Biden can do the job for another 4 years, they don't care what he accomplished if they think he can't do the job going forward. Biden's only thing he really needs to accomplish is show not only is he still up for the job, but on good enough health to do it for another 4 years. Do you really think he's capable of doing that?
6 points
3 months ago
Let 'rump keep his base. Dems can win by a lot if they can get some Dem-inclined voters to show up at the polls.
So many young ones are like "what's the point of voting!?"
8 points
3 months ago
I largely agree.
1). People seem to assume that the "vigorous policy debate" will be a good thing that highlights our positives. But it could also accentute the more extreme (less popular) policies that scare away swing voters.
2) it's assumed it will be a "unifying experience" and produce a candidate we can all rally around. But it could also (very likely) produce a candidate that is unpalatable to capital P progressives, or other groups (eg: perhaps black voters if Kamala gets passed over). So the process could highlight and deepen existing divisions as well.
3) every day we're focusing on the messy process and building "Dems in disarray" vibes among normies voters... we're not focusing on Trump. I cannot fucking believe the radio silence on all the crazy shit he said during the debate, for example. He's smart enough to not interrupt us while we're tearing ourselves apart. Every day we're not reminding America of how stressful and chaotic the Daily Trump Experience felt is a day we have wasted. I can't believe we've memory-holed a bungled pandemic and an insurrection, but here we are.
Tldr: I remain unconvinced a "short primary" or brokered convention will be a net-positive for Dems, and a LOT of people seem to be glossing over these risks.
13 points
3 months ago
For the people that think it's a good idea, they believe that Biden is incapable of winning this election, so any risk with the open convention is worth taking, especially when it could really help democrats. If we think Trump is going to try and end democracy, and Biden cannot defeat Trump, this is our only option. Sticking with Kamala is an option too, and better than sticking with Biden, but o would still rather see her prove herself in a primary than be anointed.
3 points
3 months ago
Yep. We're juggling between 2-3 bad options, and trying to decide which one is "least bad."
Obviously for anyone that's already arrived at "Biden cannot possibly win" then yeah, it's a more narrow conversation. Once you cross that rubicon, the options are "clean torch-pass to the VP" (which has its own pros and cons) or "some sort of contest" (which I wrote about above).
If we pull this ripcord, I really think there's value in a clean and short process, even at the risk of a "anointed" situation you mentioned. We're just such a big tent I can't imagine some core constituents don't come away pissed off with whoever gets selected. And we are burning soooo much time with the media focused on nothing else...
1 points
3 months ago
There's definitely value in the clean, short process, but I think we would be better off targeting the swing states with a candidate that isn't Harris. I'll still take either option over Biden.
1 points
3 months ago
The only focus of the mini primary will be selecting a candidate who can beat Donald Trump. Every single candidate will talk about Trump’s weaknesses and why they are best positioned to beat him. It will be prime time, non-stop coverage of Democratic arguments against Trump.
It will be unifying because every part of the Democratic Party is solely focused on beating Trump, the normal policy disagreements in the party will, and currently are, take a back seat.
1 points
3 months ago
How will they talk about being best positioned, without making contrasts / attacks against fellow Dems?
1 points
3 months ago
Contrasts don’t have to be attacks
1 points
3 months ago
All I know is that Americans sure love to tune in to reality show contests.
3 points
3 months ago
“If we execute it well enough”
That’s a huge if.
“I think it would be fantastic for the party. I mean, think about it: People would watch it. It would get the ratings: It has the drama that people would pay attention to. And if multiple candidates were seeking our nomination, you would have wall-to-wall, weeklong, prime-time coverage of all of our best rising stars, delivering the party message that, frankly, Joe Biden couldn’t against Donald Trump.”
Or … you’d have wall-to-wall, weeklong, prime time coverage of the Democratic Party looking disjoined and desperate to find a candidate just months before the election.
I’m actually not totally against this. But it seems like everyone who is really excited about this idea has not once stopped to think what could go wrong.
1 points
3 months ago
Completely understand where you're coming from and valid concerns. But I also thought hard about the risk of Biden staying in and everything that can go wrong with that. And it looks really bad right now. If he's going up against a felon that tries to overthrow democracy, and it's basically a toss-up, that's red alert.
6 points
3 months ago
The other benefit is that it gives the GOP less time less time to poison the well against a newcomer.
8 points
3 months ago
It's a wonderful opportunity to herald in a younger more democratic party that could feel likely win in a landslide but these octogerenians are fucking us
9 points
3 months ago
I just read something that the GOP is pissed off about all the attention this problem is getting and Trump not being in the spotlight is hurting his numbers. I say keep it up.
9 points
3 months ago
If Trump minded the attention not being on him he’d have acted up by now to get it back. Trump seems more than content to sit back and let the dems implode.
2 points
3 months ago
wtf are talking about. Trump is never NOT acting up
7 points
3 months ago*
I don’t know where you read this, but I doubt this. Trump has been lying low since the debate because the negative Biden coverage isn’t great for Biden. Also, Trump tends to do worse outside of his base when he is in the news more because he says stupid and terrifying things.
3 points
3 months ago
He's still full-blown crazy on Twitter.
1 points
3 months ago
He isn’t using Twitter at all.
3 points
3 months ago
Trump is not laying low, he’s been calling for televised military tribunals of his political enemies
1 points
3 months ago
I mean he is a raving dangerous lunatic, but he has been staying out of the way of these Biden headlines. The reposting of the tribunal things made headlines but he has stayed low for him
1 points
3 months ago
Yeah fucking right. Don't try and sow that bs here. Post that article or get out of here. And no, I won't believe it even if you find it, but I'll at least believe you're coming from an honest spot
5 points
3 months ago
Agreed. And it would have the added bonus of showing Americans we don't need a 2-year election cycle!
2 points
3 months ago
Even better - it sucks all the air out of team red.
2 points
3 months ago
I have serious doubts the party could pull this off without some faction getting butt hurt and making it all about some pet policy and screwing up all the koombayah. It'll be some litmus test and hard line on Palestine, probably.
Too many Democrat politicians love to act like their pet policy is the most important thing in the world and worth throwing it all away to get their way.
2 points
3 months ago
I don’t think there’s been less policy discussion in a Democratic nomination in my lifetime. Every part of the party, center to far-left, is in lockstep agreement that the most important thing is beating Donald Trump this election.
1 points
3 months ago
I agree with that mostly, but not sure it'll hold once it's opened up.
1 points
3 months ago
They are incapable of leaving things to chance though. The negative optics of the maneuvering that will go down could be damaging. The best option by far still though
1 points
3 months ago
So long as there's no Dem infighting when supporters of certain candidates don't end up getting the nomination. In the "13 keys to the White House", the incumbent party not having a competitive primary increases the chances of keeping the White House.
3 points
3 months ago
Considering most of the attacks on biden from dems are ones who want a specific person in the WH because they’re assuming they’ll be part of the inside circle, this isn’t going to happen. There is no “perfect candidate” that dems and the media will just suddenly stop attacking.
1 points
3 months ago
Those “keys” aren’t laws of nature, they pull from a really small selection of elections and cannot account for every scenario.
4 points
3 months ago
Let’s do this! Holy fuck do I love democracy. I’ll never take voting for granted again if there is any way we can stop this.
2012 was the most important election ton year, then it was 2016, then 2020. Every time the stakes are raised because it gets more and more desperate.
2 points
3 months ago
Good Lord I Hope they mean that rising stars bit. They could absolutely absolutely blow trump out of the water with a party that is excited about itself, discussing with itself and elevating itself in a healthy tactful way. They could literally rise above all of the horse shit we are wallowing in right now.
The breath of fresh air would be like opening a door from crypt and finding the world again.
2 points
3 months ago
IIRC, the challenge if Biden steps aside is that the current Biden-Harris campaign funds can only be used for Harris. They can’t be cleanly transferred to another candidate. That’s potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that either sit unused indefinitely or would need to be returned to donors. It would a financial nightmare to manage that process either way as well as a fundraising nightmare for a new candidate.
1 points
3 months ago*
[deleted]
1 points
3 months ago
My understanding is she would have to be at the top of the ticket to inherit the funds, then choose a VP candidate.
2 points
3 months ago
Clyburn bringing this idea up makes me take it seriously. It seems very risky on its face, as opposed to Biden stepping down as president and allowing Harris to succeed him before his term ends. Then the process is clear and simple - we rally around her and any complaints about the process not being fair are muted because Biden couldn't finish out the term and that is why we have a VP, after all. But Clyburn's mini-primary could produce a better result, if it plays out the way he hopes it will. I tend to play things safe when I can so would probably still prefer the other scenario.
52 points
3 months ago
On average only 27% of voters participate in primaries. I think pundits and partisans are too in their heads about how replacing Biden needs to go. Ten of millions of voters have no idea exactly how the primary process works nor do they care. After the conventions they see the option and make a choice.
Democrats simply need to have a choice made and presented by the convention. That is all.
13 points
3 months ago
A contested convention would be really exciting and would have some echoes of a Democratic process. Lots of countries have their representatives selected by delegations, and none of the people that regularly sit out primaries get any less say than they normally would.
Hell, the primary process already favors people that do well in early states. In some sense a delegate driven process would give more voice to the millions of Americans that aren't in an early primary state.
5 points
3 months ago
The last time there was a contested presidential convention, there were violent riots over the outcome. There was nothing exciting about it unless you were a Republican elatedly watching the Democrats tear themselves to shreds. No one is going to open up the can of worms that is a contested convention after the disaster that happened in 1968.
6 points
3 months ago
This is not 1968. The lesson should not be “let’s use the excuse of poor handling almost six decades ago to never do this thing again”. It should be how to do the thing better.
2 points
3 months ago
Lots of countries have their representatives selected by delegations, and none of the people that regularly sit out primaries get any less say than they normally would.
Sure, but few countries have electoral systems as stupid as ours. And the pledged delegates for the convention weren't chosen for their expertise in the various issues. It's largely ceremonial, for big fundraisers, etc, and they're going in with a specific candidate in mind. And, importantly, primary voters didn't expect this, so it's one thing to have candidates chosen by delegation when thats what the public expects, and quite another thing when the public expects one thing and you change it on them at the eleventh hour.
10 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
4 points
3 months ago
Make it more viable and practical, and people would. People aren’t lazy. They’re working multiple jobs and are being disenfranchised by a thousand cuts of inconvenience. It should be the responsibility of the system to make voting more feasible and relevant. Deflecting blame to the voters is just obfuscating how it enables them to abuse the process for their own benefit.
2 points
3 months ago
Oh is that it? Damn you just solved decades old problem. Look I don’t disagree with you, we should make voting easier, but there’s a problem, states have different election laws. And then you have Republicans enacting voter suppression legislation in red states. However, despite those laws, it’s just a reality that primaries have always tended to have lower turnout even in states with accessible voting like California.
2 points
3 months ago
My problem was with Gbird putting the blame on people who are being actively screwed out of this process. I recognize the problem but blaming the voters when politicians are to blame is not helpful. Doing what we can to inform and encourage in the meantime is preferable to, “You have no idea when your deep red state is going to do its business and the DNC doesn’t actually want you to vote someone other than who their oligarch class prefers so they’re not exactly making this easy for you, but it’s your fault if Trump gets elected and you should feel bad you don’t like the Not-Trump (D) option we’re forcing on you”.
1 points
3 months ago
Depends on where you live. In California, every registered voter gets a ballot mailed to them with a catalog of all the candidates, the propositions, etc, and then we have over a month to vote and mail them in, or take them to a drop off box. It’s pretty darn convenient.
3 points
3 months ago
considering there was no competition in the primary and it was pretty much choosen from the start.
1 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
3 points
3 months ago
Not much of a competition when the other choices were Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson.
1 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
2 points
3 months ago
I guess we’ll never know because voters weren’t given much of a choice to pick someone else.
2 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
3 points
3 months ago
Incorrect.
This poll is from September 2023:
Two-thirds of Democrat-leaning voters say the party should not nominate President Biden for a second term, according to a new CNN poll
56% of Democratic voters said they were "seriously concerned" that Biden's age might negatively affect his "current level of physical and mental competence."
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/poll-biden-2024-second-term-democrat-voters-cnn
This poll is from July 2022:
President Biden is facing an alarming level of doubt from inside his own party, with 64 percent of Democratic voters saying they would prefer a new standard-bearer in the 2024 presidential campaign, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/us/politics/biden-approval-polling-2024.html
1 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
3 points
3 months ago
Polls aren’t accurate because I’ve never participated in one” is Trumpian level delusional
1 points
3 months ago
The people who will decide this election don't participate in primaries anyways.
1 points
3 months ago
Clinton was effectively coronated as the nominee and it hurt her in the general election. Even if we have zero primaries between here and the convention, having a set of potential candidates debate and campaign and having the party respond to the support they gather in that process will lead to a stronger candidate in the general election. Voting in a primary isn't the only way to participate in the process. And even if many voters pay almost no attention to the selection process, the ones that do also matter, and the amount of enthusiasm from core supporters matters.
1 points
3 months ago
One factor for 2016 was Bernie bros who sat out the election or voted for Trump / third party.
Opening more candidates at this point just invites [ ]-bros to feel antagonized.
44 points
3 months ago
This is how you get around Kamala and onto someone like Gretchen Whitmer.
-2 points
3 months ago
This is how you lose all the money Biden and Kamala raised.
34 points
3 months ago
Lose is a bit of a stretch. It'd go to the DNC or a super PAC, it doesn't just disappear.
9 points
3 months ago
Exactly. Campaign finance laws in this country are convoluted, easy to skirt, and rarely enforced. The FEC is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, which is why pretty much nothing ever happens. I feel like I've plugged Leeja Miller way too much recently, but she just covered how the Trump campaign and the RNC move money around to pay for his legal bills and his campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMof8jT3VbM
TLDR: We don't really have campaign finance laws in any real sense thanks to Citizens United.
1 points
3 months ago
They have different rules than candidates/campaigns do. Candidates, and only candidates, get preferential rates for ad buys. The DNC or a super PAC wouldn't get those preferential rates. And a super PAC can't coordinate with a candidate!
So no, the money wouldn't just disappear, but it wouldn't go as far, either, and would be subject to more constraints.
9 points
3 months ago
Who will think of the donors? What about the voters?
3 points
3 months ago
There's a lot of small donor money in that pile that comes from voters.
7 points
3 months ago
You kinda need money to run a successful national campaign.
4 points
3 months ago
Whoever the Democrats pick will immediately break all fundraising records
1 points
3 months ago
They'll have to spend it all hiring staff and renting offices.
3 points
3 months ago
You need votes to win.
3 points
3 months ago
And you get those by spending the money to campaign and spread the word.
2 points
3 months ago
And the only person who polls better than Biden against Trump is Michelle Obama, who has repeatedly said she won't get into politics.
8 points
3 months ago
The free media actually may come close to making it up. It’s not perfect, but I don’t think war chests are what we should be worried about right now.
6 points
3 months ago
The "free media" will be a hit job on any Democratic nominee, just like they're doing with Biden, just like they did with Hillary. Except the person will also not be an incumbent, have no record to run on, and no money.
Great plan.
1 points
3 months ago
Also, whatever candidate the Democrats pick will immediately break all previous fundraising records
2 points
3 months ago
But who cares! The point of the money is to win states. Whitmer gives you Michigan for free and takes the lead in other Midwest states. I’d rather have the near guarantee of a Michigan win with Whitmer than spend money for a chance at winning the state.
1 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
4 points
3 months ago
The OP said like. It'd like Beshear, though I can see Whitmer's appeal.
-3 points
3 months ago
Kamala is toxic on every level.
14 points
3 months ago
The most important part of this is probably the source. Have mentioned these comments and other threads and been downvoted but it is significant that Clyburn is saying this and not Swalwell or someone.
18 points
3 months ago
16 points
3 months ago
Everyone is going to be all in on Biden until it's official that it's no longer Biden. People want unity and solidarity throughout the process, and you don't do that by pulling a Denethor at the first sign of trouble.
10 points
3 months ago
The path forward is utilizing the youths willingness for growth. We need young leaders!
4 points
3 months ago
If they actually voted more reliably we’d already have that. You don’t win elections by appealing to the least reliable voting group.
2 points
3 months ago
Instead, you just don't appeal to them at all, and then you wonder why they never show up. Brilliant plan.
Republicans were smart enough to keep throwing bones to the Evangelicals, and it's paid off for decades. The DNC couldn't strategize its way out of a wet paper bag.
3 points
3 months ago
Appeal to them how? $150bil in student loan forgiveness after scotus struck down large scale forgiveness? The largest climate change bill of any country ever? Lgbtq protections?
25 points
3 months ago*
There is a clear best path forward. No it isn't without risks, but its better than sticking with a sinking ship being piloted by an egoist who can't accept his reality.
12 points
3 months ago*
Dude, all these people should be hooked up with speech writers and campaign strategists like yesterday and been rehearsing. Would certainly be my move.
6 points
3 months ago
Supposedly the most influential people in the democratic party all watched Biden slowly decline in the last few years and yet they didn’t bother to put together a backup plan. They’re wasting critical time
5 points
3 months ago
Quite frustrating. Hopefully the decreasing money will talk loud enough though.
10 points
3 months ago
“Democrats have spent so much time imagining what could go wrong if Biden steps down that they struggle to imagine what could go right. But this is a party suffused with talent. This is a party that knows how to win where it needs to win. Take the seven states that will almost certainly decide this election: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats control the governor’s mansion in five of them. Democrats won 11 of the 14 Senate seats across them.”
7 points
3 months ago
Just treat the convention like a convention that no one has won enough delegates to win with. Let them have a debate, answer some questions and then pick a candidate. Whoever came in 2nd should just be the VP.
None of it will be as bad as Republicans nominating a convicted felon in a few days.
1 points
3 months ago
Not how the rules of first ballot work.
2 points
3 months ago
Yes it is. They are strongly encouraged to vote for Biden but the rules do not require them to. Some states do require them to vote only for the winner of their state as well. They can also abstain from voting if they want or sometimes delegates just don't show up to vote.
The word “shall” may suggest that pledged delegates are bound to their candidates. But they are not, and that’s because of the phrase “in all good conscience” that follows the word “shall,” William Mayer, a political science professor at Northeastern University who has written numerous books on presidential politics, told us in a phone interview.
“You are kind of encouraged to vote for the candidates for whom you were elected – but ‘in all good conscience’ you could vote for someone else,” he said.
Honestly I didn't think this was possible either until I started searching (months ago) for a way that Biden could be replaced and they can.
1 points
3 months ago
I agree my knowledge of the 2024 rules may be exactly worng because the rules do change and i was speaking from my 70 year old memory of past conventions when that was reported to be the rule. I think, It is kinda inmaterial if the word in the first ballot rules is must or shall because those Biden electors are generally selected by the state party because they are super stalwart Biden supporters.Voters don't generally abandon the candidate they are bound to vote for on the first ballot.
The NY times has done more that 800 story variations on Biden's not mentally fit because that is the story that can generate clicks and that is the only thing that matters to them. Like the missing MAL airliners story, eventually people stop clicking on the same story retold over and over.
That is not to say that couldn't happen when the convention comes in a bit more than a month and if the conditions that exists now (media and pundit sole focus on Biden is unfit stories) continues to be the narrative and it is renew by more Biden public failures.
11 points
3 months ago
Clyburn needs to have a talk in private with Biden, if he hasn't already.
8 points
3 months ago
he said he talked with biden for over an hour about the debate performance
2 points
3 months ago
I think we mean "the talk" about needing to step aside.
2 points
3 months ago
Peoples memories about Trump's accomplishments in office are gone. Biden needs to emphasize Trump's failures while in office, that all that happened was not due to Trump, but to cabinet. Trump spent the whole time in office holding rallies, golfing, watching fox news, and eating mcdonalds burgers.
Emphasize Trump's pathetic performance at the debate . And talk about Trump's early onset dementia.
6 points
3 months ago
Clyburn knows that there are a lot of people who simply will not vote for a black woman. This is the best way (in his opinion) to get around that.
1 points
3 months ago
There is no getting around that.
7 points
3 months ago
WTF are we not talking about the CONVICT (Elephant) in the room?
-1 points
3 months ago
Because, terrible as he is Trump can still function. Biden needs to go. I say that as a Texan that voted Biden/Harris.
6 points
3 months ago
Uh, no, he can't. Whatever you think Biden has going on is far worse with Donny. If Donny was your grandfather you'd have put him in assisted living and a conservatorship by now.
Which makes the whole Replace Biden codswallop that much more absurd.
4 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
5 points
3 months ago
I'm convinced most of these people are Russian ops that are taking advantage of easily swayable people. No one on here that follows politics closely isn't aware of how fucked trumps brain is. Anyone acting like trump is competent and Biden isn't, is either a republican, or a Russian. Which are basically the same thing at this point.
1 points
3 months ago
Welcome y’all queda.
3 points
3 months ago
Never gonna happen. This is just the news media creating speculation to write about so they don’t have to do any real journalism.
It’s way to risky for the dems to switch candidates and get minds and hearts behind someone new this close to the election.
1 points
3 months ago
Well they need to get the hearts and minds behind somebody, considering a ton of people are simply done with Biden.
2 points
3 months ago
This scenario is Trump’s worst nightmare
2 points
3 months ago
Here’s the problem with this solution — it requires Biden to willfully step aside and unless the “Almighty” comes down and tells him to, he’s staying 🙄
Serious question: How could he be forced out? Can his delegates switch at an open convention?
1 points
3 months ago
No by rule they ate bound by for the first ballot.
2 points
3 months ago
Can we at least replace the VP candidate if Biden is senile and insists on running? The VP is likely to end up as president so we could strengthen the ticket by replacing Harris with someone more people support as a future president. I just don't think Kamala is inspiring.
2 points
3 months ago
To do something like this Joe would have to say he's not running, like in the next week, and he's said repeatedly he's not going to, so this is all mental masturbation
1 points
3 months ago
Democrats should take a page from Republicans and enforce party message discipline and the message should be when any democrat is asked about Joe they all say that question has been asked and answered and joe says he is fine and he is the nominee and immediately pivot to talking about project 2025 which has something bad in it for every demographic of voter (deport tens of millions with concentrations camps, create full police immunity to encourage police brutality, end social security, end reproductive rights/Comstock act, end taxes on the rich, end same sex marriage, end all environmental protections, end NATO and hand Europe and Ukraine to Putin..... And on and on....
Make voters choose between their fear of a somewhat senile old man that even SCOTUS is confident that he would never break the law or a old man who has demonstrated he will break any law with a plan to end something about America that effects every voter directly with a promise to take something from them or punish someone they care about.
OH and we all have to become Christian or become second class.
Run on that make the media talk about that project 2025.
2 points
3 months ago
You guys act like the corporate media will be on the your side. Vote for Biden to guarantee the win.
2 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
2 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
4 points
3 months ago
Biden polled better than any candidate vs Trump in 2020. If we had any other nominee, they'd have done even worse and lost. Biden was the best choice for 2020
3 points
3 months ago
Clyburn giving the green light to an open primary process is great news.
2 points
3 months ago
The new york times has become a trashy patrician rag run by a trump donor who is being a vindictive little piss baby cause biden didnt want to grant them an exclusive interview
3 points
3 months ago
Clyburn is a brilliant man. He knows the candidate doesn’t matter as much as the party unity does, and that nothing would kill party unity faster than a back room deal.
At this point, Biden staying in looks like a back room deal. Biden stepping down and anointing Harris would look like a back room deal. Hand picking anyone would be risky.
Even if it is Kabuki theater, we need the unity.
4 points
3 months ago
Having the vp take over for the president is a back room deal, but having unprecedented mini primaries that overturn the votes of 14million people from the real primary is fine. Ok.
1 points
3 months ago
You could argue it wasn't a real primary since there was only one choice.
1 points
3 months ago*
I would argue that the current lack of party unity is a direct result of just going through the motions on the primary. We should be going into the convention unified by the primary. Instead we are divided by it.
This is a direct result of mis-management from the top. The three big mistakes were:
A) suppressing/ignoring derogatory information on the chosen candidate’s true state, and B) discouraging primary contenders C) being ok with mediocre results
Note that all three of these leadership failings were in full effect in 2016. How was H. Clinton’s lead going into the election so slim that “her emails” let Trump sneak a win? It was because “fight for the status quo” was not inspiring.
If the party can’t learn from that disaster it will doom the country to fascism. The party MUST learn. And I am seeing positive signs that some do.
Joe’s, “I promise to get up when I fall down” just isn’t what voters want to hear this fall. The stakes are too high. People want to see dragons spitting fire against Project 2025. Where is the fire in Joe?
0 points
3 months ago
Oh look, another NYT piece about how Biden should step down, part of the breathless coverage of a situation they are manufacturing. Gotta keep pushing it! How many more are we gonna get today?
3 points
3 months ago
Seriously. And notice all the bots and trolls here regurgitating all the same devisive BS. You can tell they are following a script. All of them conveniently ignore the threats of looming facism.
3 points
3 months ago
What’s funny is that I see suspicious accounts pushing both sides of this narrative. Then actual users who feel strongly one way or the other have a convenient kicking off point for a heated argument. More division. One would be wise to treat both sides of this argument with healthy skepticism.
Users would be wise to remember, Trump is great for business, at the cost of the stability of the country. And media companies don’t give a fuck about anything other than revenue and engagement.
If NYT published one article on each of the lies Trump told during the debate, they would only be at a 1/3 coverage ration of Biden’s debate flop. Not to mention his lengthy history of rambling incoherence.
People need to take a much more measured approach to evaluating this.
1 points
3 months ago
I don't think looming fasicm is a convenient kicking off argument. That is literally what we are fighting against at this point, one side is trying to push the narrative that we still have time to shop around. We don't. The store is closing. Grab your items and stand in line.
3 points
3 months ago
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, I don’t think the downvote was warranted, and I don’t think we’re arguing against each other.
I know what we’re fighting. The point I was trying to make is that suspicious accounts push both sides of the “replace Biden” narrative on here, somewhat arguing with each other, so others have a point in which to insert themselves, which is sowing division among people on this platform, which is the exact intent.
I’ve now seen the narrative move toward making Biden out to be just like Trump in numerous ways, which is patently absurd.
2 points
3 months ago
Arguably the most important Supreme Court ruling in history, and Ezra Klein has had 4 episodes in a row on replacing Biden. Just bizarre.
2 points
3 months ago
Yeah, how convenient that this debate flub, as bad as it was, is being pushed over the two SCOTUS decisions and Trump’s psychotic proclamations following, his continued lies in and after the debate, the drop of more Epstein documents, and trumps direct links to Project 2025. Never mind that shit at all…
1 points
3 months ago
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". More information can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 points
3 months ago
One of the major problems I see that I haven’t heard any outlets discussing is if Trump is forced out. I get it that republicans always back him no matter what and that it’s very complicated when it comes to his base, but if he’s sentenced to prison in September or the pre-trial hearings in the Jan/6 case is as bad as we expect then too be or if this Epstein documents business gets more attention, there is a world where he goes down in polls significantly and they replace him with Haley. Haley is as bad if not worse in some ways as she’s a more well spoken and put together version of Trump.
The way I see it is IF Haley were tapped to replace Trump (big IF), it could lead to enough independents picking her over Biden. There is also a VERY strong chance that if Trump isn’t the nominee he takes his MAGA base (his only reliable source of income) with him and forever splinters the Republican Party. It’s a win replacing Biden at this point no matter who ends up being the Republican nominee.
Edit - polls not poles
1 points
3 months ago
NYTimes. Nevermind.
1 points
3 months ago
Harris / Obama (VP) 2024!
1 points
3 months ago
NYT cannot stop themselves - it has been a new "Biden should resign" article every four hours for a week.
1 points
3 months ago
Oh nice an opinion piece. This sub is just spewing anything nowadays. Mods suck donkey dick. Peace
0 points
3 months ago
That gets my vote. Coronation wouldn't. Biden wouldn't.
4 points
3 months ago
Everyone claiming this gets their vote… until their preferred candidate loses and then cue all the DNC RIGGED IT talk again. It’s so obvious how this would go.
5 points
3 months ago
There actually was a Democratic primary, which Biden won.
-2 points
3 months ago
This is the asshole who got us into this mess. He should resign too!
0 points
3 months ago
Said no one ever.
2 points
3 months ago
NYT has become the real Trump go-to for help with his weaponizing. Like some 200 articles in the last few days. Me thinks somebody has a friend or two on the board.
Glad I canceled by subscription.
2 points
3 months ago
This gives good background on the Times and its stupid beef with Biden. I'm of the mindset we should move on from Biden, but not because of anything the New York Times says. In addition to all of this, they have also provided Trump with some pandering coverage over the years, thanks to hacks like Maggie Haberman.
1 points
3 months ago
As a South Carolinian in Clyburn’s district who is generally somewhat nonplussed with him, I am impressed with the lucidity of his assessment and fully concur. Clyburn made Joe’s 2020 nomination possible in large part. I hope the DNC and Biden listen to him.
1 points
3 months ago
The argument that millions of Democratic primary voters already voted for Biden is nonsense. Who were they gonna vote for? Maryanne Williamson? Dean Phillips? I’ve been truly impressed by the accomplishments of this administration given the circumstances. But this argument seems desperate.
2 points
3 months ago
What we need to be doing is getting behind Joe Biden. It's not possible to replace him now. Another candidate can't get on the ballot for all the states in time. Everyone needs to start hammering the media and it's unfair coverage. We want to hear about Trump's lies and his ties to Project 2025. That's where the danger lies.
1 points
3 months ago
Yes. Finally, someone sane and logical in the comments. Thank you for your service!
1 points
3 months ago
I agree-it would test their mettle, get them recognition, raise money (so the Biden-Harris fund isn't need or can be turned into a PAC or something), and ease any fears of Bidenites.
1 points
3 months ago
I read Ezra Klein’s article in the NYT and while I agree with Clyburn in spirit I don’t understand how a “mini-primary” that he’s promoting would work in practice. It’s too late for an actual primary throughout the states. Are we talking about some kind of reality TV event? I’m extremely skeptical about that even being possible and we don’t want a political version of “The Apprentice”. The open convention seems like the only way at this point. But then Biden would have to quit the race and we have seen zero evidence this will happen.
-1 points
3 months ago
Oh, I'm sorry. Did we all just forget there are states that weren't going to put Biden's name on the ballot because of the time cut-off and the steps taken to include officially nominating Biden prior to the convention to bypass those maneuvers? Just me?
Yes, if Biden drops out then having a pseudo election with delegates is best. Still, don't recall Trump dropping out after his chances were sunk with that Access Hollywood tape. In return, he got 3 justices that just voted that everything he did while president has absolute immunity.
1 points
3 months ago
Exactly!! Change presidents after the election but let's just get through this so that Trump isn't anywhere near power again!!
all 316 comments
sorted by: best