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.

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months 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
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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
            ·
            3 months ago

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

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months 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
                ·
                3 months ago

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

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months 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
            7
            ·
            3 months 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.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months 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”

      • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
        9
        ·
        3 months 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
      6
      ·
      3 months 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
      ·
      3 months 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
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
          ·
          3 months 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
          ·
          3 months 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
    65
    ·
    3 months 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
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
      ·
      3 months 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?

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    3 months 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
      ·
      3 months ago

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

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 months 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
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months 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
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months 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
          23
          ·
          3 months 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
              21
              ·
              3 months 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
                ·
                3 months 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
                  ·
                  3 months 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
            ·
            3 months 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
          12
          ·
          3 months 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!

      • 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
          10
          ·
          3 months 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
            12
            ·
            3 months 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
                21
                ·
                3 months 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.

          • 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
              ·
              3 months 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
                ·
                3 months 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
                  ·
                  3 months 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
              ·
              3 months 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
                  ·
                  3 months 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.

          • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months 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
                ·
                3 months 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
                  ·
                  3 months 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.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months 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.

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah… We’re all going to vote for him if he’s the nominee… But he’s still going to lose… That’s the point, the point progressives have been making all along. BIDEN. WILL. LOSE. Like the sun will rise in the east, it’s just a fact of nature. They need to nominate someone who will get Gen z excited to come out, so at least there’s a chance of stopping Trump.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        We’re all going to vote for him if he’s the nominee… But he’s still going to lose…

        The state of the election is such that turnout is going to tank. Libs and Cons are both very worried who the indie voter aligns with, but I’m betting a bunch of people simply don’t vote in November.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          If the DNC would get their heads out of their asses (a longshot, ik) and voted in another viable, smart candidate they could turn voter apathy around in a heartbeat.

          Too bad they seem to be happy with the power status quo and fail to see the real danger they are in if/when Trump wins … cause he would not be adverse to using guillotines or nooses to fix that ‘problem’.

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          People staying home historically effects Democrats far more than Republicans. That’s why Dems win when people are excited about a candidate and more people actually show up.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            People staying home historically effects Democrats far more than Republicans.

            Trump has changed the math, somewhat. High energy elections tend to benefit Trump-y candidates and hurt the milquetoast Dems. Low energy elections favor Bidencrats.

  • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months 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
      ·
      3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months 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
      28
      ·
      3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
          ·
          3 months 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.

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
          ·
          3 months 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
            ·
            3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
          ·
          3 months 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
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months 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
              6
              ·
              3 months 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
                ·
                3 months 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
                  ·
                  3 months ago

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

                  Biden is closer to the Democrat mainstream.

    • Nurgle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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
        ·
        3 months 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
          ·
          3 months ago

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

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.)

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      The primaries aren’t actually legally binding. This is a misconception that keeps going around but the party makes the rules for the convention and it’s the convention that nominates the candidate. Furthermore, Russia has more democratic elections than the primary we got this year. A single name on the ballot isn’t an election. It’s a roll call.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    At this point it’s starting to feel like Biden’s holding the nation at gunpoint and making us have a second Trump term. He’s always been a terrible politician, running twice for the nomination and failing to get a single delegate, until Obama made him VP. Honestly I suspect part of the reason Obama chose him is because he didn’t wanna play kingmaker and figured Biden was too old to run again.

    Then in 2020 I think the argument was Biden could benefit from Obama’s popularity. I certainly thought that was a terrible pick, but not totally lacking in logic. But in 2024 there was utterly no rational basis for Biden to be running in the first place. Now that he’s been a complete disaster, he’s just fucking us as a nation for his own narcissism.

      • rsuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Anybody. Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders, AOC, John Elway, I don’t care. Biden keeps saying he’s the only guy who can beat Trump. After last night’s debate it should be obvious that he’s the only guy who can’t beat Trump.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          If Trump wins, there will never be a real election again. Conservatives will move to the Russian election model. This is an end-game election.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            And it will be again in 2026. And 2028. And 2030 if those don’t work…

            The Nazis are in the Reichstag. It ends with the death of the Republic or a civil war, period.

        • ImADifferentBird
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, hand the executive branch to the guy who attempted a coup to stay in power last time, backed by the Project 2025 guys, and come back in 4 years for the election that will surely still actually take place. Sure. Great plan.

  • b161
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 months ago

    People will come out and vote for Bernie.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ll vote for a senile old man who wants universal healthcare and won’t help do a genocide any day of the week.

          I’ll also vote for a senile old liberal who’s the opposite of both of those things when the alternative is a fuckin Nazi, but that doesn’t mean I’ll be quiet about my displeasure.

    • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      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!

        • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          That answer would shock you. Lot of older people it’s still an issue especially in the Midwest and in the south. Your younger more progressive voters it will not change a thing. Hamas is probably the most polarizing issue for the younger voters right now

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The interesting thing about Pete is I know life-long Republicans who said they would vote for him. Maybe it’s one of those, “he’s one of the good ones” situations.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    Because it is sooo late in the arbitrary-election-cycle, no matter what the Dems do, they’re fucked.

    Go with Biden?

    Then they’re fucked.

    Go with Kamala Harris, whom the white-supremacists have been working against for years?

    Then they’re fucked.

    Find somebody else?

    There isn’t time, so then they’re fucked.


    This highlights the category of political-lesson that you have to “fail early & fail often” ( to use a phrase from successful serial-startup founders ) in order to find the robust candidates whom you can currently win with.

    UNlike the way the Dems have played.

    The CNN+NYT “shutting down” of progressive-issues & progressive-voices, in the last election, burned too much potential out of existence, and that traction is gone: non-recoverable.

    The mega-entitlement of the Biden insitution is buckling & collapsing with increasing obviousity.

    I fucking told everyone so, again & again & again, but it was all my “delusion” & “incompetence” & “defectiveness” & “lies”, was it??

    Trump is going to become the US’s dictator,

    & is going to begin the 2nd half of the US’s Civil War ( the Confederates only pretended to surrender, & now are earning a “reverse takeover” ), & the butchery will probably reduce the US’s population by 2/3rds, within 12y, counting all the consequences both direct & indirect ( complete failure to manage a hurricane’s landfall costs much more life than does managing it competently: multiply that by a dozen per year, & you’ve got human-costs up the gills, without even considering atmospheric-rivers, megadroughts, quakes, wildfires, or any other kind of disaster to multiply costs on, right? ).

    it is infuriating to see people insist that “social pressure will make this work”, millions of times,

    while it measurably, proveably, isn’t working, but that is what Natural Selection at the species-level means, isn’t it?

    Terminal Species-ending Butchery.


    Sunak’s obliteration of his own party, Kim Campbell’s obliteration of her own party, what was that Liberal premier who wiped out her own party, in Ontario, can’t remember that one’s name…

    Social-pressure never acts when it is needed, it only acts when it gets around to feeling comfortable with acting, and that is consistently too-late.

    So, when will the Democratic Party admit they need to change gears??

    After they’ve fundamentally lost, is when.

    Imagine running a bunch of freight-trains that way: “oh, we’ll slow-down when we feel a collision beginning, but until then, we’re really fine, & there’s no indication of any real need to be doing anything different, is there?”

    Feelings are the wrong metric for preventing this kind of catastrophy.

    frustration-rage

    Authority needs to have hard walls, bright lines, & deadly-force biting its corruptions/entitlements/dishonesties/DarkHexad enactments, etc.

    Political-process won’t ever allow any such rule, in its dominion, of course…

    And that is why political-process cannot be permitted to own our world’s fate: its conflict-of-interest, & its inescapable-corruption disallow integrity from ruling, & without integrity, then only “Justice”, with falsifying-quotes, the phony version of Justice, remains…


    So, The Great Filter’s going to extinguish yet another world, from this Universe, is it?

    Political-machiavellianism/dishonesty’s going to snuff all LivingPotential, LivingWorth, LivingOpportunity of this whole world, while the “social consensus” indulges in orgiastic clusterfucking, until existential-viability itself is gone…??

    Ah, but at least everyone will be able to feel that they “weren’t responsible”, right?

    Social-feelings: that’s the real LORD, and so long as it’s happy, then existence, itself, isn’t actually necessary, right??


    bitterness

        • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nah he’s basically saying people mind more to stroke their egos and what others in their in-group think of them , so much in fact, they be willing to risk humanity itself just to not give their perceived enemies the satisfaction

    • notanaltaccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s hard being intelligent enough to see the problems but lack the political will power and opportunity to change them.

      I believe you. I think Trump has a very good chance of winning and the result could be conflict among different states or groups within them. Unless the conspiracy theorists are right and the Gavin/Kamala ticket is already selected for the ballot and the win. But it seems likely Trump will win. The upper classes have engaged in price gouging because a Democrat was in office, Biden never called them out on it in aggressive way because he lacked the aggressive nature and rage and gall to do it, and an incredible number of people are feeling stressed out by price changes. There are also many swing voters unhappy with immigration policies and think they are too mild. Between the two issues, Biden would lose even if he did seem energetic and lucid.

      Do you think it’s bad enough that it makes sense to flee the US? And to where would one even flee? There are wars in Eastern Europe, it’s not even clear Western Europe is safe. I have always though Trump was likely in the pocket of Russia or an actual Russian Spy, so when Trump wins he will unequivocally support Putin, which will be a disaster because Western Europe can’t stand up to the evil of Putin and Trump alone… especially not when there are Chinese and Saudi alliances that Putin has been working on.

      It’s terrible but the best option is probably for Biden to escalate the war now, which he is unlikely to do since he’s sort of become a bit of a hippy. Putin sees Biden’s hippy weakness as well. If Trump is a Russian spy, the US intel agencies likely know and have to decide whether to do something to protect the country, even something that some might seem nefarious.

      It’s a terrible situation and mostly a distraction from the environmental catastrophy on the horizon.

      Do you think it makes sense to leave the US now? I am not that attached to anything and could go anywhere. I am white but don’t like bigots, which may impact my options.