politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is the entire statement from the article. This isn't a "should stay in the race" statement. It's "I'm not going to answer that".
This is just wrong. "Should we replace Biden" is an entirely separate question from "who should replace him". And if someone named a specific name, the Biden-stans would attack them for trying to promote their own pick, or worse start attacking the pick themselves.
And we're rapidly approaching the last resort of public pressure campaigns. The "give him time and let him step down on his own terms" strategy doesn't look like it's going to work.
I think what Biden said was pretty spot on: If you don’t want me as the nominee, figure out a plan and mount a challenge at the convention. If I’m a weak candidate then beat me at the convention. But if you show up at the convention just standing there with nothing but your little sign that says “BUT HE’S OLLLLLLLD” then I hope you won’t mind if I don’t take you seriously, and run for president anyway, and in fact I would hope that in that case you’d be able to admit you don’t have anything better to offer and willing to vote for me so we don’t get Project 2025 instead.
To me, that sounds pretty fair.
It is not just that he's old. Biden has such a low approval rating that it's comparable to Trump's when he lost reelection during a pandemic.
If you truly do care about putting up a fight against Project 2025 then it is important that Democrats run almost anybody else.
Also, the articles about Biden's perceived inability to get elected are not a waste of time. The donor class is finally recognizing what many of us have known and are pushing for a change. I can kick and scream all I want about how I don't want Biden but I don't have money to fund campaigns.
Edit: You can boo me. I've seen you bet money on a corpse winning a race.
Pointing out Biden's flaws is not the problem. Biden's flaws are the problem.
Also I don't think that wealthy donors should have this much influence. I want to clear that up if it came across like I did.
So.. nobody in particular in mind?
I would literally even take Kamla who is also unpopular, but I'm sure has a better shot. She also has the benefit of having access to Biden's campaign donations if he drops out.
Manybof these articles are also listing all of the other options. That's why I said literally anybody who doesn't have a sub 40% approval rating.
All of the other options that poll below Biden? Every other realistic option that's been polled, that I'm aware of, is below Biden in polling. Polling's not real accurate (to put it mildly) but it is precise, in that you can use a comparison between one poll and another with the same methodology to gauge the relative reality even if you can't see the overall reality.
Kamala Harris polls a couple of percentage points above Biden. She's the only one who does and the only alternative that seems realistic, to me. The other options would represent this gigantic risky clusterfuck to replace Biden at the last minute, just to install a candidate that polls worse, and that after the media just got done shitting all over Biden relentlessly and he had the world's worst debate performance.
Do you not ever ask yourself why the media hates Biden so much that they try to create this reality where -- for example -- replacing him with almost any of these semi-nobodies would be a good idea, when that's not how the people who would be voting feel? That seems like an important question to investigate, does it not?
Or no, you're just gonna go with "almost anybody would be better and I know because X Y Z created that picture of how it works and will play out in my head, and it's definitely reality because they sounded super definitive about it" maybe. IDK. Up to you though. I would be interested in knowing why they are so vigorous about it, though, if I were you.
You can't say that everybody polls worse and then agree that Kamala Polls better.
Kamala would be the obvious choice if the party rallies behind her. She would most easily have access to the campaign funds.
I didn't like Biden as a candidate before becuase of all of the reasons he's been a favorite of the donors that you're mad at for no longer supporting him. I don't think he has the best shot at besting Trump. The media and donors suddenly turning on Biden is because of his dismal polling and a debate performance that worsened it. They are interested in their investment above all else. Biden is a career politician and he has been a favorite of wealthy donors until he became a liability.
I'm curious why you're so ride or die for Biden. I'd prefer candidates other than Biden or Harris, but I'll support either over Trump. I would prefer if the one picked is most likely to beat Trump though. I don't like Christofacism.
Yeah, that’s fair. What I meant was that everyone except Harris polls below Biden, and Harris is two points ahead. (I am not counting Michelle Obama as “realistic” because that is an asinine and imaginary idea.)
Check out the Ipsos poll for July 1. It’s changed since the one I was thinking of; now Biden is literally the best-polling candidate and equal with Trump in the only recent poll I can find.
There is no challenge at the convention, it's literally impossible. Unless he releases his delegates, they have to vote for him. Plus the convention isn't actually where the vote will happen this year. They need to run it virtually because they scheduled it too late to be on the Ohio ballot. And as we saw with the primary, no one wants to torch their political reputation to run a race challenging the incumbent leader when there isn't actually any chance of winning (in this case literally none, in the primary effectively none).
If that's actually what Biden said, it's just straight out lying to try to get him out of the tough spot now, when a decision could actually trigger a real process to find a replacement.
This, as far as I can tell, isn't true. If someone can talk enough delegates into supporting them instead of Biden -- instead of talking the media into running stories about wealthy donors and a handful of congresspeople who want Biden to drop out -- then the nomination can be theirs.
Yes, they would have to challenge Biden and mount a campaign. That's how it works. Usually nominees fight each other, sometimes fairly hard. They might also after that have to challenge Trump or get in a war or something. If they are hoping for the process to be nice to them and for Biden to just kind of clear the way so they don't have to do any work he has already said that (for now at least) he will not.
Again, it's incredibly notable to me that there's this incredible level of energy being spent on how Biden shouldn't be the nominee and almost none being spent on who should be the nominee instead. The first one will hurt the Democrats, and the second one might be a useful path forward in a difficult situation, and about 90% of what's in the media is the first one. So what does that tell you?
Look man, I don't know. Maybe Biden dropping out would be best. All I'm saying is that the things Biden is saying make a lot more sense to me than the things the media is saying.
Multiple news stories have said they're bound, and I'm skeptical that anyone would want to test "in good conscience" in the voting regulations and invite a lawsuit. According to this article even those who personally think a different candidate would be better feel obligated to vote for Biden.
Plus, nearly a third of the states have explicit laws about it. You can't possibly believe this is a contest being presented in good faith. "Let's have a contested convention, where the decision will be by delegates hand-selected for loyalty, with wording that sounds like they don't have a choice but maybe they do, and for a third of them would invite criminal danger."
Hm
You may have a point. I read more about it, and it's not really clear cut. You're right that the states have laws about what has to happen, but the Supreme Court has also said that they can't tell a political party how to run their nominating process. The delegates are pledged to Biden, but also, ever since 1984 they don't have to vote for him if their conscience bothers them. But also, knowledgeable people have looked at the situation and said, it doesn't really matter what the rules are because they just wouldn't do it.
I think in practice, it's a mess. I do somewhat stand by my statement that it doesn't make a lot of sense for Biden to just kind of leave the cockpit and trust that someone else will wander in and start flying the plane again, without anyone affirmatively saying, yes it is me, I will do it, I got it. But I do also get what you're saying and it has a lot more validity than I thought at first.