The first presidential debate is done and the aftermath has not been good for the incumbent, Joe Biden.
Some Democrat politicians and operatives reportedly texted CNN commentators with hopes that Mr Biden, 81, would step aside. Some floated the possibility of going to the White House and publicly stating concerns about him remaining as candidate.
But if Mr Biden were to drop out, it would be a free-for-all. There is no official mechanism for him or anyone else in the party to choose his successor, meaning Democrats would be left with an open (Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago from August 19-22.
Lol wtf. The BBC implying that Biden did such a shit job he could stop running.
They asked the question because …
Some Democrat politicians and operatives reportedly texted CNN commentators with hopes that Mr Biden, 81, would step aside.
That’s from the summary and article, if you had bothered to read it.
Treating the opinions of any asshole with a cell phone as “news” is one of the leading causes of the downfall of civilization.
That’s from common fucking sense, if you bothered to have any.
Unfortunately news doesn’t cease to be if you dislike it.
He’d have to resign as Governor first, and seeing as the convention is less than 2 months away it’s unlikely he would/could do it.
Quick, change the law so he can run for president whilst being governor, worked for Florida.
Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
It’s time for Warren to step in!
It’s time for Warren G to regulate!
I’d go for Bernie myself.
I mean just imagine that! In a year of some of the worst and craziest ‘first-time-evers’ Sanders could be the DNC’s candidate.
This is a fella with unquestionable principles. I love the guy.
But we really need someone like you know, younger or were gonna run into the same cryptkeeper problems very soon.
You’d go for someone older than Biden?
I like Bernie, but that’s a ridiculous replacement.
Bernie is sharper on his worst day than Biden or Trump are on their best day.
I think at this point he has a lot going for him, ie: he’s recognizable, he’s popular with a large segment of Americans, he can play the game well (as seen when he graciously accepted the DNC’s bs in 2015), he’s kind, he’s rarely (if ever) been known to publically lie, he’s smarter than at least half of Congress and the House of Reps, etc etc.
You can’t simultaneously argue that Biden is too old to be president and that we should have someone even older instead.
I never argued Biden was too old.
But if I had I would have argued that of any candidate in that age group, Bernie could defy the odds as far as ageism goes.
Biden isn’t too old, he’s too mentally incompetent and decrepit.
Good luck convincing all the people who have spent months saying that Biden is too old to be president to accept someone even older.
I hear you buddy, but I think that chance was squashed by the DNC last time around. He was old when he ran, and he’s 8 years older than that now. Besides, “the South won’t vote socialist” is still just as true now as then.
I wish it weren’t so!
I think it’s Bernie’s competency that’s appealing. Sure he’s older, but he’s in touch with reality and has never stopped fighting for tangible as well as progressive ideals.
Once again, we agree.
Why always with the old white men, when we have prominent politicians like Yang, Buttigieg, Klobuchar? And as for Bernie, if you want a firebrand who’s going to alienate moderates, why not AOC? Well, she’s too young to run, but she’s not the only truly liberal option. Warren is old enough, progressive enough, and a woman. But, no, Bernie Bros gotta Bro.
I’m honestly trying to think of who they could run this late and I’m coming up short. Gavin Newsom is terrible idea in my opinion. Like you said, AOC is too young. Kamala Harris? People hate her.
The age specifics might be important. AOC turns 35 in October, before she’d take office if elected. And therefore might actually be eligible.
That would be the sort of legal battle that I could see taking too long to resolve.
There’s no battle to be had. You can be elected at 34 and you have to be 35 to serve. As long as you are 35 before inauguration, you are good. There is nothing to challenge. It’s cut and dry.
None of it is cut and dry. It never is. You must realize that.
Agreed, and agreed.
Why not Klobuchar? She’s got some national recognition from the 2019/20 cycle, politics are acceptable to moderates, progressive (enough), and she’d eat Trump for lunch in debates and on social media. Plus, she’s from the Midwest, and might pick up some folks for regional loyalty, and could play against the “slick New Yorker” which might still work.
The bases are going to vote party lines. I think undecideds and wavering moderates are the pick-up points, and I think Klobuchar could do that.
I like Yang’s politics, but he’s got a popularity problem, and Buttigieg - Trump would just harp on his sexual orientation, and I’m not confident enough that America’s ready yet to vote for a gay president. Hell, we can’t even get a woman into office.
IMO Klobuchar’s the safest bet against Trump.
Trump won’t agree to a debate with a new candidate. I doubt that there be another debate at all as is.
For sure. But there will be a lot of indirect debate on social media, because Trump can’t keep his burger-hole shut, and Klobuchar’s free to murder him (metaphorically) on public platforms. Even if he only posts to TruthSocial, everything he says gets parroted on X and Facebook, and that’s still where the most eyeballs are.
And old school public media picks this stuff up and repeats it - that’s mostly what they’ve been reduced to -but it still reaches a lot of eyes and ears.
And: Trump refusing another debate, she could just hammer on his cowardice, over and over. That’d be a win.
Klobuchar is tough. If nothing else, I’d love to see that fight. Only slightly less than I’d love to see an AOC v Trump fight; that’d be like watching a skinny junkie enter the MMA ring against Holly Holm. It’d be hilarious. But AOC is too young, and Trump will be either dead or in a home by the time she’s old enough to run. I just hope Bernie is still active enough by then to support her. I don’t know that she could get elected - she’s too polarizing - but it would be a marvelous spectacle.
Anyway, I prefer Yang’s politics, and I’d be thrilled to see Buttigieg in the White House, but I stand by Klobuchar as the best bet.
AOC turns 35 before the election, so she’s eligible. She might be “too young” to vote for but not too young to run.
Klobuchar is definitely a good idea. Although I’m not convinced that replacing Biden this late in the game is going to save the presidency either. I don’t know what should be done.
🙁 🤝
Lemmy really, really needs emoji responses that don’t require and entirely new comment.
Yang’s a grifter.
Why?
With the way the DNC is it would be Harris or, more likely, Hillary Clinton.
Your comment makes me feel unwell
We’re all feeling unwell I think.
Pls no.
And Hillary is the only candidate to ever lose against Trump lol
Pete Buttigieg
I was not crazy for him in 2016 but he has grown on me a lot. I think he is a great candidate! Biggest issue this election cycle is he is gay. Lot of bigots will not vote for him because of it and go for Trump.
I really hope he make a presidential run again!
Yes, but were any of those people not going to vote for Trump?
He’s already accepted the nomination.
Gretchen Whitmer.
I wouldn’t wish that horror on anyone, not even my worst enemies.
Stacie Abrams
Abrams can’t win local elections, she has no shot at a national level.
A black women not being able to win the governorship in Georgia doesn’t necessarily mean she can’t win election period
There is no official anything when two duopolic corporations (with wildly similar interests) decide which candidates to bring forward. They decide which two will be the only viable choices.
Afaik there are no legal requirements binding them except the restrictions who is eligible (“being born in USA”, that sort of arbitrary weirdness).
Being born in the US is such a stupid requirement. Someone who immigrated here as a child in a relatively non-wealthy family would understand the average american so much better than the super wealthy politicians we have now
being born in USA", that sort of arbitrary weirdness
The actual requirement is “natural-born citizen”, which doesn’t really have a definition. John McCain was born on a US military base in Panama, Rafael Edward Cruz was born in Calgary, yet both were citizens at birth and nobody contested their status as “natural-born” when they ran for President
This is the thing with a primary season. If something happens late in the season, then how do you go back and change the results from earlier in the season?
Let’s say for instance Biden listens to all the “sky is falling” pundits and retires now. How does the DNC choose its candidate? I’m not very familiar with procedures for a closed system like that. Do they do an open convention and let the delegates vote on whoever they want? Do they have a list of candidates to vote one at the convention? Who makes up that list?
From the article …
There, a candidate must win support from the majority of “delegates” - party officials who formally choose the nominee. Delegates are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the results of each state’s primary election. This year, Mr Biden won almost 99% of the nearly 4,000 delegates.
According to the DNC rules, those delegates are “pledged” to him, and are bound to support his nomination.
But if Mr Biden were to drop out, it would be a free-for-all. There is no official mechanism for him or anyone else in the party to choose his successor, meaning Democrats would be left with an open convention.
Presumably, Mr Biden would have some sway over his pledged delegates, but they would ultimately be free to do as they please.
That could lead to a frantic contest erupting among Democrats who want a shot at the nomination.
Thanks!
So the alternative would be chaos with the hope that a good candidate emerges.
Gavin Newsom or Jon Stewart would be the only people with name recognized and the politics to win. Knowing the DNC will get Hillary Clinton or Hakeem Jeffries
Jon Stewart
Would be extremely funny if the Dem response to Trump was to seed the election with their own brand of C-List celebrity.
But our country simply isn’t that cool.
With as many people voting against trump rather than for Biden, I’m interested to see how much this does or doesn’t do anything
Any one 40-60 yrs old with moderate politics and an unobjectionable personality supported by a major party would really cause a splash.
with moderate politics
They’ll do great for one campaign until they actually have to govern and then it’s going to be 1996 and 2012 all over again and we’ll barely scrape by (if we’re lucky) against extremely beatable candidates. Moderates run good campaigns and terrible administrations because the average American voter has been propagandized into believing they want bipartisanship and small government when what they actually want is some affordable healthcare and housing which moderate politics are not going to deliver to them.
e; and actually the “do great for one campaign” thing might be optimistic or antiquated thinking based on how Biden barely won in 2020
Oh they could win alright. Literally all they have to do is be leftist.
“We’re gonna keep your kids healthy, in a good daycare while you work, educated and fed, and your fucking boss is gonna pay for it all” is a simple mantra well used by unions.
Except they don’t do that. The purpose of a system is what it does, and liberals have done nothing but protect capital since FDR died.
Of course we want affordable health care and housing, but I’d absolutely kill for a Bill Clinton or Bush Sr over a Trump any day.
Just made a large post on this elsewhere, but the TL;DR is that the party can’t just replace Biden. He has all the delegates from the primaries. Do you really think the party that is campaigning on preserving Democracy can get away with ignoring elections?
Now, it’s possible that Biden gets diagnosed with a severe case of not-gonna-win-itis which adversely affects his health to the point that he has to resign not only from the campaign, but from the Presidency. If that happens, Kamala Harris becomes the 47th President, and has the only real claim to take over the ticket. It has the fun side effect of making Trump reprint all his hats to say “45 - 48” instead of “45-47”.
(The Secret Service better take good care of President Harris, because whatever VP she appoints to take over that role needs to get a majority vote in both houses of Congress, and the House will never do it.)
the TL;DR is that the party can’t just replace Biden.
The Democratic Party can run whoever it wants. The primaries and party nomination are party-internal processes. They could say “now the rules are we choose a random US citizen”. They don’t have to do a primary at all. Some parties don’t. There was a point in time in US history when primaries weren’t a thing, and parties were quite happily doing their thing back then.
kagis for a starting date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election
The direct primary became important in the United States at the state level starting in the 1890s and at the local level in the 1900s.[17] The first primary elections came in the Democratic Party in the South in the 1890s starting in Louisiana in 1892.
The United States is one of a handful of countries to select candidates through popular vote in a primary election system;[12] most other countries rely on party leaders or party members to select candidates, as was previously the case in the U.S.[13]
EDIT: As a good example, the Libertarian Party – though much smaller than the Big Two – is the next closest. Under their rules, they participate in primaries, but they treat the primary simply as a way to obtain the preference of the electorate; the primary doesn’t bind the party, under their rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries
The Green Party has a mix of conventions and primaries, depending upon state; a random member of the electorate may-or-may-not directly vote to select their party’s candidate.
I’d add that I don’t at all agree with some of the people in this thread, who are on the left end of the spectrum and mainly seem to be hoping that the Democratic Party will select someone further left than Biden because they personally would prefer a further-left candidate. In the American electoral system, voting is FPTP. That means that you tend to wind up with two large, big-tent, fairly centrist parties (which approximate party coalitions in parliamentary systems), and the smart move for each to win general elections is to run a centrist candidate.
A Big Two party can nominate someone out on the fringes, but then they will cede the general election to the other party if the other party runs a centrist candidate.
In fact, a major argument against primaries is that they may tend to choose a suboptimal candidate for the general election, since they tend towards electing candidates towards the center of the political party, and that that a more-winning strategy for a party is to choose someone not at the center of their party’s views, but between that and the center of the general electorate, and that the party members are more-likely to make use of strategic voting than are members of the electorate that votes for their party’s candidate.
I watched a very similar discussion play out on British political forums over the past decade or so. Due to Labour changing some internal party policies that lowered the bar to party membership, party voting changed. Some left-advocacy groups organized a campaign to get people on the left side of the Labour spectrum to become members, to act in the party candidate selection process, and as a result, Jeremy Corbyn – who is on the left end of the Labour spectrum – was chosen as Labour candidate. There were people who were absolutely convinced that running Jeremy Corbyn would be a stupendously winning strategy because they personally were politically closer to Corbyn and couldn’t imagine why anyone else would vote against him. I watched Tony Blair give a talk where he pointed out that unless a political party wins elections, it doesn’t get to have political power, and that while he was a centrist candidate, he actually won elections and that Labour had mostly been out of political power for an awfully large portion of recent British political history. Sure enough, Labour proceeded to run Corbyn twice and were clobbered in two elections. Now they’re back to the comparatively-moderate Keir Starmer and based on polling, are looking at having strong results in the imminent election.
