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.

  • notanaltaccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    The conspiracy theorists all say Joe is supposed to step down and Gavin Newsom somehow is added to the ticket which then will win. These conspiracy theorists also say that candidates are selected in advance by the powers that be and it’s all pagentry to deceive the gullible masses. If this is true, then we need not worry for this is all fot dramatic effect and Gavin and Kamela are already selected.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      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.

    • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      The guy is an effective cheerleader for any cause he really believes in. I mean he almost singlehandedly extended benefits to 9/11 first responders on the strength of his eloquence.

      Thing is he doesn’t want to do it. Which makes me want him to do it even more. Something about great leaders not seeking power but having it thrust upon them in times of need like a George Washington

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        I know he doesn’t want to run which just like you only makes me want him to run even more. He’s smart enough to know that he doesn’t know everything and never will.So he will surround himself with people who know what they’re talking about and listen to their advice.

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Stewart (and Colbert) are literally a clown (TV Comedian) who is refusing to ever make a serious political moves. Neither of them have any legislative experience or executive experience either.

      The fact that modern people always choose TV Personalities (like Trump, Stewart and Colbert) is part of the same problem of ignorance of our Political system and what this job even freaken entails.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Stewart (and Colbert) are literally a clown

        what this job even freaken entails.

        You know Volodymyr Zelenskyy, current president of Ukraine?

        He’s a comedian who did a political satire TV series about being president of Ukraine.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy

        Born to a Ukrainian Jewish family, Zelenskyy grew up as a native Russian speaker in Kryvyi Rih, a major city of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in central Ukraine. Before his acting career, he obtained a degree in law from the Kyiv National Economic University. He then pursued a comedy career and created the production company Kvartal 95, which produced films, cartoons, and TV shows including the TV series Servant of the People, in which Zelenskyy played a fictional Ukrainian president. The series aired from 2015 to 2019 and was immensely popular. A political party with the same name as the TV show was created in March 2018 by employees of Kvartal 95.

        EDIT: Darn, someone else apparently mentioned it as well, checking their link. I’m still gonna leave this text up, though.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 days ago

        Modern? where do you think Reagan came from? At least Stewart and Colbert are versed in the political and policy stuff from having been immersed in it for decades.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Strange that an ailing old man has his administration behind him to do all the gruntwork but an actually popular candidate wouldn’t

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Why wouldn’t they have an administration? Any president will hire a cabinet and advisors.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Yes, indeed. So really what you need from a president is a trustworthy image and a baseline moral character, because all the actual governance minutiae is handled by the staff.

              So why is it that all these people come out of the woodwork to insist the president NEEDS to be mired in one of the most corrupt political systems in the developed world?

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Because a leader does need to be present. They aren’t just a face in front of their staff.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Al Franken graduated cum laude with a poli sci degree from Harvard. I’ll let Jon Stewart himself tell you about his education.

          “My college career was waking up late, memorizing someone else’s notes, doing bong hits, and going to soccer practice”

          • tal@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            George Washington wasn’t able to attend school after the age of 11, because his father died and he had to take over running the family farm.

            https://www.georgewashington.org/education.jsp

            Despite being the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the President of the Constitutional Convention, and the first President of the United States, George Washington’s level of education was far lower than any of the other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, he was often scorned by some of the other Founding Fathers for this inadequacy. However, this lack of education was not George Washington’s fault. Upon the death of George Washington’s father in 1743, George’s formal schooling ended. He is thought to have attended the nearby grammar school run by Reverend James Marye, the rector of St. George’s Parish, up until this time. Therefore, the extent of young George’s formal educational training was in basic mathematics, reading, and writing.

            Although his older half-brothers had the opportunity to gain a formal education over in England at the Appleby School, George was required to take on the responsibility of running the family farm after his father’s death.

            On this list, every ranking places him as the highest-ranked President to ever serve other than one that places him at #2 and one that places him at #3:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

            • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              That was 200 years ago. I’m comparing Jon Stewart to one of his contemporaries, in the modern era.

              This wasn’t about Stewart anyway. My point was that Al Franken is a bad example of an entertainer breaking I to politics, because with his background it was entertainment that was the abberation.

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Didn’t stop Donald Trump or Ronald Regan.

          My point is that there’s more bad examples of Hollywood Actors or Reality TV stars becoming President for the worse of America, than the reverse.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            You have two counter examples, and one of them was incredibly successful, just for the side where success is bad for the country. Reagan wasn’t ineffective, he was effective for evil purposes.

      • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        If wielding power in our “democracy” is so complicated that we must exclude non-experts isn’t that an indictment of our democracy? What is it about the legislative and executive process that people are ignorant of?

        While I am skeptical of the celebrity as politician trend which has been prominent over the last few decades; especially on the right. I don’t think lack of experience is the problem with the trend.

        Put aside what you think about Trump’s political project for a moment. He was effective at giving conservatives what they wanted. Tax cuts and Supreme Court seats. Despite having zero legislative and executive experience. You could say the same thing about Reagan and perhaps Schwarzenegger.

        I agree, expecting a strongman to come in and save us from all our political issues is problematic. We shouldn’t recreate feudalism. We need to learn to organize ourselves into a base of democratic power that we can wield towards our broad economic interests.

        But at the same time our media apparatus runs on spectacle, it takes someone with the charisma of John Stewart to be taken seriously by mainstream power brokers. Perhaps he could breakthrough the spectacle and kickstart a new progressive era that could enable those democratic ends.

        Because the alternative to charisma for gaining political legitimacy is going through the political system. And the longer you’re in that system the more time that system has to influence you towards ends that want to stop progress. Just look at Jamal Bowman and John Fetterman.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Perhaps, but even with these alleged shortcomings, either would be so much better equipped for the job than the 2 senile geezers.

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 days ago

        I know he doesn’t want too which is another reason why I want him. He could announce himself right now and still pull tons of votes to be a threat to both parties.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      If the Democrats could ever get to that choice it would be an autowin and an instant rejuvenation for the party.

    • Xanis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m tempted to really believe in Biden taking the loss and just going absolutely balls to the walls with harsh ads aimed at the GOP and Trump, hitting dozens of speaker events at high levels of energy, and becoming what we wish the Democratic party would become to win this thing.

      Realistically though, I’d prefer a sound, harder left leaning, less bipartisan nominee. It’s a safer and surer bet, unfortunately.

    • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I voted for him last time. May be dumb, but I did believe in him more than Biden. I still don’t know if he could carry the party, but I’d love to watch him try.

      • errer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        If you don’t want someone who is too fucking old then don’t pick Bernie…

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          It’s not that Biden is old, it’s that he’s senile… Bernie is sound of mind, has the national name recognition, and is wildly popular

        • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Old is one problem. Old and mentally disabled is a whole other problem. Plus who are you supposed to vote for here with that rule? We’ve got 2 realistic options.

          But in general you’d be correct.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    Any one 40-60 yrs old with moderate politics and an unobjectionable personality supported by a major party would really cause a splash.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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

      • SOMETHINGSWRONG@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

      • treadful@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        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.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s weird that you specify 40 when the Constitution says they only need to be 35. Doesn’t all of our recent political history show we need younger politicians?

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Okay, but if we do this, we’re gonna need the whole rest of the world to stand against the US and decide to fight against our corrupt government. It’ll suck for us, but let’s be honest, we’ve had it coming. Some of us are willing to sacrifice to make the world a better place. Probably a good idea to all stand against Russia and China too… Everyone just stand together against the 3 big bullies… Deal?

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    The Democrat plan is to replace him just like they did Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by waiting for him to die and then hoping for the best.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Out of respect for a great woman/man! Not being disrespectful to important people is much more important than human rights or democracy.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 days ago

        I don’t really follow. Didn’t Obama ask RBG if she wanted to retire so he could put up a left leaning judge? That’s not disrespectful nor respectful, it’s just sensible.

        She refused, predictably precipitating the current shit show out of hubris.

        She may be a great woman deserving of respect but she fucked up, bringing harm to an entire generation of women.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 days ago

          The “respect” is letting her decide and then dropping the issue. After she refused she should have received more pressure, first in private and then, if necessary, in public. She should have been disrespected for the good of the nation.

  • Audacious@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    Too many articles focusing on replacing Biden when they should be focusing on Trump being a federal convict walking around free.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.

      • Drag it thru daGarden@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          8 days ago

          You can’t simultaneously argue that Biden is too old to be president and that we should have someone even older instead.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              8 days ago

              Good luck convincing all the people who have spent months saying that Biden is too old to be president to accept someone even older.

              • imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                You do realize that age is not a perfect proxy for mental competence? A good number of people remain mentally sharp well into their 90s, while others experience rapid dementia as early as their 60s.

                I’m not saying his age wouldn’t be a talking point, but I’m damn sure Bernie could express his platform with more clarity and vitality than Biden at this point. Unfortunately I dont think it’s a real possibility, but it’s stupid to act like the the actual birth date matters. It’s the signs of cognitive decline that are problematic.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  When people are repeatedly arguing that Biden (and Trump as well) are too old to be president, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t matter.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 days ago

            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.

        • tamal3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          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!

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Bernie is still mentally sound. He’d make for a far better candidate, and would easily mop the floor with Trump in a debate.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          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.

          • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            8 days ago

            The age specifics might be important. AOC turns 35 in October, before she’d take office if elected. And therefore might actually be eligible.

              • citrusface@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                ·
                8 days ago

                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.

          • gbuttersnaps@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            Def not Kamala. A buddy and I were throwing around ideas earlier and he mentioned Michelle, which threw me off but I think she would have just as much of a chance as anyone.

          • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Tim Walz. Minnesota has been kicking ass with progressive legislation these past few years, and here in Minnesota we’ve been wondering if he’s been quietly trying to get his name out there to run for President. (And the general consensus is that we don’t want to lose him as governor, but I guess we’ll give him up to save US democracy, lol.) On paper he’s fairly moderate too.

              • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                Is that really a bad thing, though? Generic Democrat polls really well against Trump. The people who know of Walz really like him, even the more reasonable rural Republicans here grudgingly admit that while they don’t agree with him politically he clearly cares about Minnesotans. Newsom doesn’t have that. The past couple of years have seen some semi-viral quotes from him poking at politicians in red states, mostly along the lines of “we fed children, what have you done?”, and I’ve seen them posted here. The people who know him like him. For the people who don’t, he’s Generic Democrat. He’s well spoken enough to handle the discussions around the George Floyd protests (which already came up in the first debate but Biden didn’t address directly). He’s well spoken, smart, kind, and down to earth - everything Trump isn’t.

                Also, I hadn’t heard of Obama before he ran for president. For a sufficiently likable candidate, it’s not a deal breaker.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Then there’s this little time to campaign? I’d say yes. You had a lot more time to learn about who Obama was.

          • 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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              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.

              • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 days ago

                The only reason to vote for Biden at this point is anti-Trump and Blue No Matter Who. Those still apply to anyone else that the DNC puts forward, as a base score, with any actual merits, charisma, or vigor adding to that. This should have been an easy decision six months ago and doing-nothing-and-hoping-for-the-best doesn’t seem to be making the prospects any better.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  anti-Trump sounds like a pretty damn good reason for me. Unless you think there’s a good reason to let a dictator win.

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 days ago

              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.

                • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  AOC turns 35 before the election, so she’s eligible. She might be “too young” to vote for but not too young to run.

    • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

  • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    There’s no time. Democrats, I swear, just can’t see past one election at a time. They’re literally not prepping someone else. What they think will happen is KH will be the next person and they’re flat wrong. She can’t win. But they’ll dig their heads in the sand and put her up anyway.

    So, now, because they put an old guy up last time they’re stuck. They have zero choice but to run what the brung.

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      They do far too much of it’s their turn in the big chair and not enough who is the best candidate. They cannot see past Trump as an absolutely terrible choice and think anyone else would be the automatic winner like 2016 didn’t just happen because of that shit.

      Macron is going through the same bullshit, thinking that the electorate would rather support him than literal racists. Guess what fuck nuts, the electorate is about to call you on that, as dumb a decision as it is.

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s an astute observation. The Democrats are like the perpetual optimist from 90s cartoons that think the story always ends happy, the good guys win, and all you need is honor and trust and a good soundbite to pull through, instead of actually playing chess, or checkers, or perhaps politics with enough forward thinking to actually plan a few moves ahead for once. Perhaps they should hire an evil person to teach them how the R’s think.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Is it really feasible to replace Biden at this point? I didn’t watch the debate last night but from what I’ve heard it was not good for Biden. Nonetheless, I think Biden remains the Democrats’ best option. They’re just going to have to rely on the electorate recognizing that Biden is still the better of the two choices, as pathetic as that reality may be. However, even if that strategy is somehow successful, again, and Biden does manage to get reelected, the Democrats MUST nominate a better candidate in 2028. I don’t think the Democrats can continue with their strategy of just being better than terrible, indefinitely.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      “Not good” is an understatement. Potential career ender.

      If Trump wins in November, this debate will be exhibit #1.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 days ago

        At his age the cold he supposedly had is a potential career ender. “He just had a cold that made him feeble” isn’t a great alternative explanation when you’re talking about an 81 year old.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          All you have to do is imagine Putin manages to convince Cuba to let him put some nukes in there. Instead of being able to act effectively, Biden is dealing with a cold at the time. Just the shittiest luck. We need a president that can show up when they’re needed.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      However, even if that strategy is somehow successful, again, and Biden does manage to get reelected, the Democrats MUST nominate a better candidate in 2028.

      The Constitution mandates a maximum of two terms for a President. If he wins, he can’t run again. He can technically additionally serve up to half of a term without “using up” one of his terms if he’s vice-president and the serving President dies.

      The two-term limit was originally purely a convention that had been set by George Washington, who was getting on in years, wasn’t many years away from his death, really wanted to retire to his plantation (as in, he didn’t even want to serve a second term, and was only convinced to do so by politicians arguing that without him, there might not be sufficient unity), and was also extremely popular and would have been re-elected again.

      That convention held until FDR broke it and ran for four terms. In response to that, the Twenty-second Amendment was passed, prohibiting anyone from having more than two terms.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 days ago

        The Constitution mandates a maximum of two terms for a President. If he wins, he can’t run again.

        I know, I didn’t mean to imply that the Democrats would try to run Biden again, only that they might try to run a similarly “weak” candidate in 2028, believing that the American people will vote for the candidate simply because they are Democrat and not Republican. I think that would be a mistake.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I don’t really understand how it could be too late.

      Float a candidate under 60 and they win riotous support from Democrats and undecideds.

      Biden is the only Democrat that Trump has a chance of beating.

      Perhaps there has never been changes this late in the cycle, but come on… we’re breaking new ground in so many ways.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Float a candidate under 60 and they win riotous support from Democrats and undecideds.

        But who would that be? Do you remember the 2020 primaries? They started out with 29 candidates, the most since the modern primaries began back in 1972, and several of them were under 60, including Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kamala Harris. Only Pete Buttigieg won any delegates (29 out of a possible 3,979). The Democrats have had many years to find a younger candidate who could unify the party. No such candidate has emerged, that I’m aware of, and so Biden, at 81 years old and showing signs of rapid cognitive decline, ran essentially unopposed in this year’s primaries.

      • maniii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Shillary Clinton will be the DNC nominee again if too many people complain about Joe.

    • Nurgle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      There are absolutely zero good options this late in the game, but I feel someone like Sherrod Brown has to be a million times better than Biden. Either way yeah, they need to start merchandising their wins and develop a real platform that is “proactive” for ‘28.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Unlikely. People keep pointing to the two times it has happened in the past but they NEVER say anything about how THEY FAILED BOTH TIMES lmao

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I really don’t think it would work at this point, but if I were to pick someone to replace Biden it wouldn’t be Gavin Newsom, it would be Andy Beshear. But that’s just it, this country is so divided we can’t find a consensus candidate.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Trump and Biden aren’t consensus candidates either. We don’t need to find the second coming of JFK to make it work.

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 days ago

      No party has ever tried changing a candidate at this point. It’s not even clear how the Primary / Conventions should go legally speaking.

      • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        ?? It’s extremely clear. The Democratic nominations are not a legal matter. The Democratic party is not an arm of the government, they are a private entity. They are free to choose a nominee however they wish, like always.

        • cmbabul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Which normally is not something I particularly love about the DNC but it may actually be the thing that saves us from Trump

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            And notably it wouldn’t just be a decree from on high, it’d be officially picked by the delegates. There was still (technically) a primary this year, with delegates heading to a convention to vote on who becomes the nominee. I’m sure there will be a lot of backroom plotting to try to figure out a good replacement before the open votes start, but at least there’s an air of legitimacy as (many of) the people who officially make the decision have some connection to votes cast. It’s more an appearance thing than actually separating the pick from “the party establishment”, but that’s a pretty important aspect.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 days ago

        We didn’t always have a primary system, that’s relatively recent.

        In the past, the candidate would be picked at the convention after much wheeling dealing. “Smoke filled rooms” and all that.

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yeah, and Progressives don’t like that. Heck, progressives don’t like anything. So its kind of delicious for me to see them ask for a backroom selection at the primary (throwing out all of the Primary Votes until now) and just picking something else.

          You know just as well as I do that it’d only piss off the caucus in general. Look at this topic: there’s no unity on who’d even replace Biden right now.

          • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            There’s a reason Progressives don’t like it. It’s that same attitude that led to Biden being picked in the first place, and Clinton before him. They pick the senior person in the Party and then elevate them through donations, the Party apparatus gives them staff, email lists, endorsements, connections to media to push them up, and more to reward them for years of service.

            People are finally realizing maybe we don’t live in a great democracy just in time to lose it. At this rate, I’ll take anyone who can beat Trump. If it’s Biden I’ll take it. But I’m not sure it is…

            • dragontamer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 days ago

              Are you sure anyone who actually gets picked in such a deal could unite the Democrats on Ukraine, Israel, Roe v Wade, LGBT, Unions, Trade issues like Biden has?

              The reason why Republican support is strong is because Republicans rally when Trump makes a mistake or stumbles. Democrats do this shit. Yall just backstab the party leader in vain attempts to pull the party left. You think Republicans aren’t keenly aware of Trump’s failings in this last debate? They’re mostly happy because of topics like this one, clearly showing Democrats are a group who get easily shaken. They know they can use this public display of worries against you guys.

              In any case, I’m voting for “Not Trump”. If its Biden, so be it. If its someone else… no promises I can vote for them too. (Biden ultimately has done a lot of stuff to pull me over from the Republican side and join your cause this year. But my vote is severely at risk if you push too far left). I’ve considered myself a lifelong Republican before this bullshit from Trump these past 8 years.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 days ago

                unite the Democrats on… Israel… like Biden has?

                Wut? Not being Biden on Israel is one of the major benefits of a different candidate. And all the other things are stuff the Democrats are already unified on, not some miracle of Democratic leadership.

                • dragontamer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Jamaal Bowman losing his New York Primary would like a word with you.

                  Biden is closer to the Democrat mainstream.