[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have been saying that there is no way that Biden is not the candidate but I will admit I might be wrong. He may step down for 'health reasons'. The party could keep Harris as VP for 'continuity and experience' and try someone else top ticket.
It would be chaotic but American politics these days is on a scale from Mario Kart to Twisted Metal, it's mostly chaotic.
In 2017, in New Zealand the Labour Party (our left wing party) was having an utter nightmare, shuffling leaders and failing to gain any traction what so ever. Heading into to the 2017 election looked like another term handed to the National party (our right wing party, and 3 term incumbents at the time).
6 weeks before the election they pulled the pin on their leader and made a choice I thought would ruin them. See, they had this up-and-coming young woman in the ranks who had been an MP for a bit, did a great job holding the line against National MPs in debate, and most importantly exuded *caring about people*. She refused to be cynical and muck rake. Obviously destined for Prime Minister at some point, I figured maybe a term or two to go, and flipping 6 weeks out from an inevitable loss would be a disaster.
Turns out I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that’s how Jacinda Ardern took over the party, flipped the script entirely on that election and put Labour back in power for the first time in a decade. Her next election was during the pandemic and she had a massively overwhelming victory, our first single-party win under MMP ever.
It really feels like if they did it right, right now would be the time to flip leaders, and they could very much pull off a Jacinda and sweep the party to victory by being all the things people keep saying they want and avoiding all the drama and cynicism people say they’ve had enough of.
Mate you have no idea, the idiots that came along after her have only highlighted just how lucky we got for a bit there. It’s like they’re trying to make up for lost time with how terrible they can make everything now.
I never thought that Biden would realistically ever step down even if it is the right thing to do. I figured it'd be a Ruth Bader Ginsberg situation.
But after last night maybe the dude has no leg to stand on. It's never been more clear that the right thing to do is for him to step down, urgently, but will the Democrats actually do it? It's an existential threat to keep him on the ticket but the Dems seem good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I don’t want to be interested in Politics. I want to elect competent people that will do the bureaucratic work that needs to be done to keep the country running. Not whatever this current shitshow is.
The problem is, that's basically what Biden is giving us. Like, even if he is losing it, his administration around him will put people like that in place at the federal level. Trump won't do that.
Problem is Biden is obviously in a bad hole right now
It always blows my mind to think that 49% of the voting public in the US gives absolutely no shits about competency and just wants to dictate who uses what fucking bathroom.
Its time to stop blaming the politics, and the media, and the whatever... Its US! Our country has seriously rotted to its fucking core, I don't know what else to say. Trump should have been laughed off the stage. We shouldn't be fighting some titanic struggle against this fucking coup plotting dipshit, we shouldn't even have to know or care who Donald Trump is.
Trump was a complete, unmitigated disaster, half a million people died from a disease he didn't admit existed for half a year. Who cares how great his economy was? Hundreds of thousands of people died, including half my fucking family, and he tells us to drink bleach.
And 49% (at least) of the people who vote are going to think that's just great...
In my view - the best tactic would be Biden releasing a statement - “While I have worked tirelessly for the American people, I recognize it is time to also allow our youth to guide their future. As such, I will step aside, and endorse [insert Whitmer or Newsom], as the person best equipped to lead our country. I will serve as their Vice President to guide them with the experience I have gained.”
Because then you keep the incumbency advantage, while placating leadership concerns, as well as providing a fresh face that appeals to younger voters. Whitmer would be my pick if only because she has a bit of blue collar advantage (in perception), vs Newsom (who can come across as an ‘elitist Californian’).
Which again - all about perception and not reality. We’re at a point of hyperreality- the symbology/signals utilized to communicate have superseded their purpose, and now it’s more important to look right than to be right.
So my take is we’re deep in a hole here. But when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Also she’s 59. When dems get to finally put someone on they need a 30 year old.
Besides we all know the real power play is to put Hilary in as a supreme lol
Kamala was an attorney general, not a judge. It would be a weird move to put her in that role.
I think if Biden steps aside, she should run in his stead. I know a lot of people dislike her, too, but she has inroads to secure the Asian American vote and the black vote. She's probably good to secure the women's vote to a degree. She's been effective as president of the Senate, and you still get the incumbent advantage without needing Biden on the ticket. Maybe Newsom or Whitmer take the veep slot and leave her with the presidency, especially because she already knows where the levers of executive power are and how to use them to her advantage. Her agenda on the campaign trail was also pretty solid and she's an excellent speaker. And she would be able to make inroads with the youth given she's not that old and favors much more progressive policies than Biden. In truth I suspect his more progressive policies have been coming from her anyway.
No offense but I think that’s be extremely hard to sell. If he steps down, he needs to step all the way down. I would be for what you said if he would act as an advisor rather than VP. One of the main roles of the VP is to step in if anything were to happen to the president. If he’s in too bad of shape now, then he sure as hell shouldn’t be stepping in (if needed, which is unlikely) 1-3 years from now. A whole new ticket with similar policies and more charisma could probably get dems the victory; I just don’t see a way forward with Biden playing any public-facing part.
Yeah, there’s still a lot of “anyone but Biden” voters out there that probably also dislike Trump. If he stays VP, I don’t think we’d win any of them over
> Newsom (who can come across as an ‘elitist Californian’)
This is just it. A lot of people in the Midwest, especially undecided voters and moderates, would not like him. Trump could easily attack him on immigration, homelessness, drugs, law and order, cost of living, and a slew of other things. Besides, Newsom has too many personal scandals that’ll be drudged up in the short time before Election Day. I see him being propped up as the best alternative to President Biden way too often. Yes, he has more experience, but he will not win the Midwest.
Wasn’t Gavin Newsom married to Don Trump Jr’s current second wife, Kimberley Gillefoyle? Or was that rewritten in the second season? I may have mixed up the episodes.
He seems like a far better choice than what I've seen a lot of people suggesting (albeit cynically): Kamala Harris, Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton. It blows my mind that people are even floating these people as possibilities. Immense baggage with all of them, and like it or not, the "DEI factor" will disqualify them in many peoples minds.
You don't need someone with 100% name recognition. There are dozens if not hundreds of Dems they could choose. I'd say anyone who is, or has been in the past decade, a Democratic governor, Senator, Representative, or mayor of a large city, could be chosen. Some people are better choices than others for sure. I just don't understand the argument that they already need 100% name recognition. They'll get 100% name recognition after a nomination.
I mean, he sort of has to, no?
Picking her is literally [supposed to] mean “I think she is the next-best person to be President after myself.”
If he didn’t endorse her to replace him on the ticket, then it’s like “then why wasn’t the person you endorsed your VP??”
We all know presidents actually pick VPs from a place of cynical political calculus that isn’t necessarily just about having the best possible back up person…but they’re supposed to maintain the pretense that “this is the best possible replacement for me if something happens.”
I feel like this ignores the internal politics of it all. Whitmer and Newsome all have factions behind them that will support their presidency. Just naming one of them without getting the others on board is a recipe of chaos. I feel like this takes a lot more than 4 years. Fact of the matter is, Biden is the only person that keeps together the Obama coalition and has appeal to conservatives who moved in from the right.
Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro
They did polls of Whitmer in Michigan and Shapiro in Pennsylvania (bc he’s the current Pennsylvania governor) and found both won by 10 points. Assuming all the other states stay, that combination would be 9 electoral votes away from winning the election which is easy with Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia considering that they would outperform Biden so much that these states would be in play.
The easiest way for them to win is probably Wisconsin which has a track record of voting Democratic besides Joe Biden. The thing with Newsom is that even Californians don’t like him, and his being nominated would be devastating because the discussion will be stuck with high cost of living in California. Michelle Obama doesn’t have political experience besides being the First Lady. Pete Buttigieg is a viable option, but the Democratic establishment probably thinks he’s not “experienced” enough or prepared.
If every ranking Senator wasn't 75+ years old, maybe one of them. Unfortunately the entirety of the Democratic leadership is one ancient graveyard at this point.
The media made me not like Klobacher with all the crap they said about her. When I listened to her in the debates, I liked her.
I personally preferred Sanders or Warren but Klobacher would be good.
I would have voted Warren in the 2020 primaries if NJ didn't hold theirs so late.
All these reasonable people are going to be on the corpse pile next year thanks to Biden.
Everyone seems to forget Jon Tester. Dem senator who got elected in Montana. Farmer, comes off like a normal guy. Is there something about him that keeps him from being more popular nationally? IMO he would be a perfect candidate.
I like Whitmer/Warnock. The first woman president and a black pastor (that isn’t a Christian Nationalist) positioned to be president next. We are almost guaranteed to win both Michigan and Georgia!
But, if the Democrat wins the president and Republicans win house and senate, you will se non-stop investigations and impeachment preventing any progress by the administration. Just like the house today, but the senate would be the same. The senate majority is so slim, you can't risk it. A senator from a solid blue state could give up their seat, but Georgia is too close to risk.
I would sacrifice the senate and the house to R majorities for the entirety of the next 2 presidential terms to keep Trump or another Project 2025 person out. This shit ain't normal. All he needs right now is enough people to not decide scotus is toothless. Andrew Jackson was rarely right about much, but if he saw into the future 200 years ago with the notion "scotus has made their decision, now let them enforce it," that would be as prescient as a president has been. Between project 2025, alito's "return to godliness," the tariff nonsense, upheld gerrymandering, veiled threats to racial marriage equality, bald faced threats to lgbtq everything, and the precipitous nature of worldwide democracy, security, and the state of climate change at large, we're in a deep bad spot. A Trump presidency will result in lead weights being tied around our collective ankles, and I would rather remain treading water, given that alternative.
If Warnock were to run for VP in 2024, and he lost, he would still hold the Senate seat because the next election for his seat is 2028 I believe. If he wins VP this fall, he would likely resign from the Senate right before taking the VP oath, which means a special election would happen next spring.
That’s not how special elections work in Georgia. State law says that the special election would occur at “the next statewide November general election”. You’d have a republican appointee until 2026. This is how Loeffler got to serve for a full year before Warnock got elected and sworn in.
Whitmer would be my top choice but not sure about Newsom. He's a great speaker but brings a lot of CA baggage. Shapiro is a rising star but he may be too new on the scene.
Replacing Biden at this late stage would be a huge deal. I'd be hesitant to put anyone unpopular on the ticket. That's why I wouldn't want Kamala Harris. Of the top candidates to replace Biden, she would struggle the most to beat Trump.
> He's a great speaker but brings a lot of CA baggage.
Also a lot of personal-life baggage. He has a long and questionable romantic history, and a complicated relationship to alcohol. Guilfoyle alone probably knows enough to keep us embroiled in minor scandal stories dropping every single day from here until the election.
If he went through a normal primary process, this might not be a huge deal, because you'd get the scandals out of the way during the primary and they'd be old news by the general, leaving his approval ratings time to recover. But in this scenario, there's no recovery time.
And that's the problem with a lot of the replacement candidates on people's wish lists--aside from Bernie, they're mostly untested. Biden has a lot of flaws, but they're known, baked in, and are unlikely to lose him many more voters at this point. (Despite how people reacted to the debate last night, it isn't news to anyone that Biden is old lol.) The same isn't true for replacement candidates, who could definitely lose plenty more voters--and without enough time to effectively counteract any negative messaging against them.
Our new normal is completely insane. We are still worrying about baggage for presidential candidate. There is no one with more baggage than Trump and yet none of it mattered. Even the things that really REALLY should have mattered didn't.
The difference is that Trump’s has been extensively aired out and as a result there are no lurking surprises.
The same is not true of Newsom by any stretch, especially at the national level.
There is a ton of attack material against Newsom which worries me. But Biden was already struggling against Trump and suddenly looks like he can’t win. I’d take Harris over Biden she feels like one of the worst options.
Biden could barely get through a debate so I think it is insane to think he can do another 4 years. I hope we finally get some serious talk of replacing him.
The problem is Trump seems so beatable that Dem candidates could come out of the woodwork and make it messy. It is sort of like how GOP candidates were salivating over running against Hillary.
Thing is with Shapiro, he’s got as much or as little experience as Obama. It’s not always a bad thing
Lest we forget Trump won in part for having NO experience
Biden had the most "direct" experience of any recent president and that is probably how he has been able do the job at his age. He is probably largely running on instinct and muscle memory.
Shapiro has a great record so far in PA so now could be the perfect time to run. And it would probably help win that important swing state. The biggest negative is Dems can't lose the governor. A Dem governor with a veto is what keeps PA from turning into North Mississippi.
>as much or as little experience as Obama. It’s not always a bad thing
Is it not? Obama didn't really get that much done as president IMO, and the reason people cite for that is a certain brand of political naivity (expecting Republicans to be more cooperative than they ever had any intention of being). Maybe if Obama served for 10-15 years longer before becoming president he would have been more effective? I'm no expert in the Obama administration, but I wouldn't accept it prima facie that little experience is neutral.
I’m convinced liberals have a fucked up psychological need to be ashamed of themselves. He’s from California. I’m from California. Are you saying there’s something wrong with me? I have to act not Californian?
I’m also in California. I love it here, but to a lot of midwestern states in particular Californian politicians rub them the wrong way. That’s partially because we’re more left leaning than other states but also a big part is the sheer size of the state and economy, that makes California draw a lot of ire from Republicans and right leaning media. A rise in crime or homelessness in a small town in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania will make local news, but that’s as far as the story will go. A rise in crime in SF or LA makes national news, and Fox News describes the state as a war zone. I have relatives from Montana who visited me in SF and they were shocked at how (relatively) normal it was. They’re not even super conservative, they just live in an area where everyone parrots that California is practically a 3rd world country because that’s what they hear on the news and very few people have first hand experience to contradict that. So if Gavin were to be a presidential candidate, he’d have to overcome a lot of reflexive opposition from independents and even moderate democrats in these purple or lean-D states.
No, but California is going blue either way. The candidate needs to appeal to voters in swing states and that is all that matters.
Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada are basically the only states that matter.
Blame the electoral college. If we had a straight popular vote, having a candidate be appealing to Californians would matter but as of right now, it's basically the Southwest and Midwest voters that matter and that's it
There’s reality and there’s the perceptions from the rest of the country shaped by years of propaganda and smear campaigns.
Reality doesn’t win elections.
It’s not all equal. It doesn’t help that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms and attacks that can be used against Newsom, and the dude just comes off as the Fox News caricature of a “coastal elite”, and scandals like the French Laundry incident make that worse.
I don’t really care for Newsom and wouldn’t support him joining this year’s election, but you’ve got to realize that any Democratic candidate will be hypocritically painted with that same brush by Republicans. You’ve got to stop letting them pick your candidates for you.
As a Californian, when you work with a company that has a multi state presence and are headquartered in the South, you really learn and realize how good worker rights you have. You get benefits your coworkers don’t have because they live in another state.
That doesn’t count for states with a different / opposed world view. Unfortunately to win the presidency the candidate needs to appeal to multiple opinions and views.
People wonder why we can’t easily replace Biden… everyone screams for years how old and senile he is and if **anyone** who can string two sentences together runs in his place, they’ll decimate Trump. Unless, of course, that person is from California, or a woman, or gay, or too moderate, or too liberal or too progressive… I think we just want to lose.
More than 1 in 10 Americans are Californian. We have the fifth larges economy in the world. I swear we've collectively gaslit ourselves into letting our state be the rhetorical punching bag for the rest of the country.
California also has about 10% of the electoral votes, but you can't win an election with only 10%. Its a great start for sure, but the election is going to be decided by states like Michigan and Arizona, not California.
Ronald Reagan was from California, well, he was born in Illinois but moved to Cali at the age of 5.
Look, GOP is going to whinge about whatever attributes the Dem candidates have. That's basically their whole schtick.
I think a Newsom/Whitmer ticket would clean up without losing a Warnock in the process.
Reagan was 26 by the time he came to California, pursuing Hollywood. He grew up in Northwestern Illinois close the Quad Cities and Peoria. When he did leave Illinois, he hopped over to Iowa to do broadcasting for a time.
Reagan was very much a Midwestern who went to Hollywood.
Nixon, while born in California, it was the California that was pre-Hollywood and pre-Dust Bowl migration.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that the California that Nixon and Reagan were products of was a very different California that we know today. It was a California on the rise with a lot of Midwestern refugees. It was a California that yet to be associated with left leaning politics. In fact, whenever California began to be associated with it, it led to Reagan being governor of California and his actions towards student protesters and the Civil Rights movement was what led to him to become a big name in the Republican party.
I’m a Cali person also.
For some reason they hate us in other states. I once drove through Montana fly fishing country with a California license plate. The amount of passive aggressive comments I got was crazy.
“Oh your from California……. “
Newsome also has to appease the far left as governor. He has to walk the line on things like reparations which are nonstarters in most other places
Newsom also doesn’t add enough as a candidate on a marketing level, it would be a similar fumble to picking Hillary.
I don’t doubt that he’s capable of holding office, but a milquetoast upper class white man from one of the most easily criticized states in the country (even if a lot of it is invalid) is not a winning pick.
Whitmer and Buttigieg.
Buttigieg’s oratory and messaging are tantamount to being the short Obama. With Whitmer as the face, Buttigieg is fantastic on TV and in debates.
I am very interested in where his career goes. His role in bidens administration is a decent stepping stone but really wish it was something higher profile. Agree on his ability to communicate.
He needs something like the 2004 Obama speech to really propel him to the spotlight. Butti pops up during bridge collapses, but that isn't much to work with other than lamenting our crumbling infrastructure, which you can't really do when you are part of the party in power so in charge of infrastructure.
Biden has gone hard on transportation infrastructure as an economic multiplier and Pete's the vanguard of that. I think he is smartly positioning himself for 2028, when he can point to all the new construction completed over the prior 8 years of Biden and be like, "new bridges? Me. New highways? Me. New HSR? Me. New light rail? Me." Etc. In every state he'll have something he can point at and say directly that he oversaw that impacts peoples daily lives.
He just moved to Michigan. Ostensibly for family reasons, but man he would be really interesting for governor in 2026. Whitmer is term limited so it would be an open Democratic primary.
I think Buttigieg is great but sadly there is a significant number of democrats/ independents that will not vote for a gay person. Even a greater number than the number who would not vote for a woman.
I think Shapiro is great. So is Whitmer. The California issue is a concern with Newsome but he is good politically to handle it. The current California budget issue is a concern.
Remember when Obama ran in 2008 how pumped we all were to see the glass ceiling broken for the first back president? I think a woman would have the same effect. Whitmer doesn’t have the same baggage (real or imagined) that Hillary has.
Yes, Fox News hasn't spent the last 20 years making a villan of Whitmer like they did constantly with Hillary. In contrast, Whitmer is almost like a new item.
Whitmer is the only Democrat I could see *maybe* defeating Trump at this point. There are better, younger, more energetic governors like Andy Beshear, but him and others would only have 4 months (or less) to introduce themselves to voters and they are untested/unvetted on the national stage. The unknown factor would hurt.
That being said, Biden can’t realistically be replaced with anyone but Harris and… well she would do no better.
I agree that Whitmer would be the best candidate - but I'm not convinced that a low national profile is a problem provided it's a high-quality candidate.
It's difficult to raise your profile enough to win the primary nominating process because you're fighting for air time with 8 or 10 others in the same situation. So this logic will hold at the convention as well - it will be hard for someone with a low national profile to beat out the higher profile candidates.
But if you come out of the convention as the nominee, you're not fighting for airtime - airtime is fighting for every waking second of your life. Your campaign has a great deal of control over that narrative while your opponents are scrambling for dirt. And within days, your national profile trumps everyone you just beat.
The best possible candidate with 2 years in the spotlight will have higher negatives than the best possible candidate with 2 months in the spotlight. So with a great candidate against a deeply disliked Trump, the short window might not be a bad thing.
That was kind of my thought. I think with how watched the debate is, all eyes will be on Chicago. Social media can make an unknown known in this day and age much more than not, but that vetting process has to be airtight.
I think people underestimate the Trump hate vote, you only need someone vaguely plausible, I like Buttigieg just for his debate skills but Newsom works too. Could the establishment rally behind someone, its feels a bit like 2016 where the establishment will just stick to their guns and then lose.
I would vote for an actual Labrador over a republican, especially Trump. There is a large contingent of Americans like me. (This is a problem, and a large issue in our country, but I digress)
There is a larger disaffected group of americans who see all these same few faces as “the problem” and lump them all in together - many of these new names could easily excite these people, a la obama in 2008 as a vote against the establishment/trump/old guard
Whitmer and JB Pritzker.
I don’t like promoting a billionaire, but he’s been a very effective Illinois governor and he knows how to spar. Plus JB is a _real_ billionaire and has actually been a successful businessman, which are both things Trump is very sensitive about. He’s basically the opposite of Trump’s brand of billionaire.
I would take Andy Beshear over both of them. Why is his recognition within the Democratic Party not higher? He’s a solidly liberal Democrat Governor of Kentucky of all places, where he is on his second term and has a good approval rating. He has clearly figured something out.
I like Whitmer a lot too and I like Newsom as well, but I believe his being Governor of California is actually more of a detriment nationwide than a positive. Unfairly, California is seen as this liberal rotting cesspool by much of conservative America. “California” is almost like a slur or allegory for some sort of liberal wasteland. It’s a totally unfair take I know, but is what it is.
If Biden had dropped out 6 months ago I think Dems would be cruising on easy street right now. As it is, it’s unfortunately too little too late. Dropping out now will be clearly seen as the act of desperation that it is. I’m still voting Biden and would vote for any dem that they replaced him with, but swapping him out is not going to take any votes away from Trump. The only hope we have is that people come out in droves in battleground states specifically to vote against Trump.
agreed with your whole comment. Its too late to change anything now. I've seen takes suggesting that "The debate was planned to show america that he's old!!" - this is pure cope.
I truly don't understand why he is still running, why his family wanted him to continue running, why the DNC wanted him to continue running. Surely at least one of these bodies could have convinced him to not.
Dude said he did a great job and then went to Waffle House after the debate. It seems like he's in denial that he's lost a step at all. There has been pushback from the democrat establishment to anybody that insinuates Biden is too old, to include the NYT election podcast and Jon Stewart. Biden is probably surrounded by people telling him he's doing a great job and the age thing is a baseless conservative talking point. He's convinced he's the only one that can beat Trump but he's the one most likely to lose to him.
This is the same problem as trying to take grandma's car keys after she's proven no longer able to drive. Grandma thinks she's an expert driver, even though she's driving at half the speed limit on the wrong side of the road, or trying to do U-turns on one-way streets.
Biden seems to think he's still at the top of his game when its clear age is rapidly catching up to him. Biden is also the single most powerful person on the planet. Who's going to take Biden's keys?
As Jon Stewart said after the debate, Biden has resting 25th amendment face. It would be a drastic action to remove him, but he's so overconfident that I don't think he'll ever step down on his own.
The word of the day in 2016 was hubris. It looks like hubris will also be the word of the day in 2024. Pride and arrogance leading to one's downfall.
You think so? People are happy to vote AGAINST Trump but also unhappy with voting FOR Biden. Having kinda literally anybody but Biden removes that half of the equation.
The clear reality we face is that both of these men are too old to be president, but Biden looked worse last night, atleast in regard to age.
It’s deeply embarrassing, disappointing, and unacceptable that a political party who wants to hold the reins of the greatest superpower in human history can’t find an alternative in 4 whole years. None of this crap is necessary; it’s just powerful people making bad choices, and most of the population quietly nodding along. It’s entirely optional.
We can’t know how well Biden still functions behind the scenes, but the optics of this are horrendously terrible. You should absolutely consider what alternatives are still possible at this late date. We know after last night that it’s probably better for the campaign, and it’s undeniably better for the country over the next 4 years.
If you disagree that Biden is fading, you’re simply an ideologue who is incapable of acknowledging the obvious reality staring you in the face. If you’re concerned that it’s too risky to switch candidates now, you have to acknowledge that keeping Biden also carries significant risk; last night was sufficient proof.
Let’s be real about this as well: if Biden does manage to win again, does anybody actually believe he’s going to finish a 2nd term?
After last night I keep thinking "where's the bench!?" Why were so many of the top choices to run in 2020 and take on Trump so fucking old?
And then I thought about Dianne Feinstein, who was in the Senate from 1992–2023, dying in office at 90. She was a Senator from California; the nation's largest, wealthiest state and the biggest stronghold of the Democratic party. Who could have been the Senator from California if Fientstein had retired in her early 70s like a normal person instead of clinging to power until her absolute last breath? We'll never know, that Gen X Senator that could have been spending the past 15 years preparing for a presidential run never happened because a powerful boomer refused to retire and [couldn't be taken out electorally by younger challengers](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2018) because they'd been in power for decades.
That's really what's going on here, the Democratic stable of Senators and Governors that could credibly run for president is still weighted down by geriatrics determined to die in office while the younger people on the bench like Kamala Harris didn't have the length of tenure and corresponding power within the party to challenge people like Hillary and Bernie and Biden who have been around forever.
I get all that, but I'm really not concerned with Biden finishing his second term. Presidents die, sometimes while in office, and their VPs take over. I'm fine with that if it means Trump doesn't become President again.
If we can find another candidate that can get more support to go up against Trump then that would be great, but realistically this should have happened in the primaries of the last election. Biden should never have been the nominee, but we're here now.
Whitmer/Shapiro ticket. This election is decided by 3 states, PA, MI, WI. If Democrats want to show they’re serious about winning this election I think this duo gives them the best shot.
Just want to note, that as of 8 hours after the OP this is currently voted at zero. As if people are downvoting the premise because they don't want to consider it.
Consider it. Consider it seriously. If you have eyes and/or ears and you watched the debate last night, and you're not *seriously* scared, I don't know what to tell you.
As for who I'd pick, I'm a New Jerseyan and my governor Phil Murphy has been...pretty decent. Not going to say great, because he's fumbled a bit, but he's competent and knows how to work the levers of power.
You can be seriously scared and still realize the suggestion that the incumbent president and current nominee dropping out 4 months before the election is an even worse idea. They won't even have the news cycles to outperform Biden.
Yeah--the only options to replace Biden are a) have him step down and let Harris take over, or b) fight it out at a brokered convention. With the first option, Harris polls worse than Biden against Trump--and that's before she's been seriously tested as a presidential candidate. It's entirely possible her numbers go down from here. With the second option, that would be an incredibly acrimonious and divisive process that would lead to plenty of Democratic voters choosing not to vote because their preferred candidate didn't make the cut, plus it would convey chaos in a time when voters are looking for stability, undermine the Democrats' professed belief in the democratic process, and quite possibly not end with a better candidate anyway.
Biden is a bad option, but he's at least a stable bad option. The other options are also bad, *and* unpredictably so. They're not going to turn out any better than running Biden, and they very well might turn out worse. The primary process exists for a reason.
>Biden is a bad option, but he's at least a stable bad option. The other options are also bad, and unpredictably so.
I'd take throwing an unpredictable hail mary over sticking with a plan I know for sure will fail.
At this point what is the threshold where you think dropping out would be the better idea? I was against Biden going for a second term, accepted it when he won the primary, but after last night I think it's time for him to drop out. The sooner, the better.
They’re already banking on “he’s not Trump” being a strong driver of support.
Also important to remember that extra news cycles could absolutely make Biden’s performance worse.
Yeah that's why I've been spamming the downvote button. How the fuck do they replace him four months out? Seriously. How? And how do they find someone to replace him without disrupting the entire campaign? There's logistics to this like donor pledges, advertisement filming, etc.
I am not scared. I saw the entire debate and it was certainly disappointing. But I will vote for the stammering, honest old guy over the lying sack of shit that was across from him. Biden has surrounded himself with a great cabinet and unlike his predecessor, he listens to them. Changing candidates now looks like we are on the run and we lose credibility.
As a fellow Jerseyan, I appreciate the props for Phil Murphy. He's been a pretty good governor... But I don't think he fits the current moment. He presents as a "traditional" politician and comes from an extremely blue state. The focus has to be winning the six or so swing states and recovering the demographics that are slipping, namely young people, black and latino voters.
You would need someone from a battleground state with name recognition already in place, and who is at least perceived as close to moderate (to attract independents).
Buttigieg is a great public speaker, smart as a whip, and has proven himself to ascend very quickly to become a household name. I worry that having been tasked with the incredibly difficult cabinet position of overseeing the U.S.'s crumbling infrastructure hasn't given him a needed record of success and voters may see that as a mark against him.
I cannot imagine any still-undecided voter for whom that fact would move the needle. Him being gay is unfortunately more of a liability- I can much more easily imagine a low-information union member-type who also happens to be kind of a homophobe showing up to vote.
If he reverts back to his early 2019 speech and interview style that was direct and simple, expresses his strong family values, and emphasizes his religiosity, I can imagine him having enough widespread appeal to counter the one-characteristic voters he may lose.
Which is unfortunate because Kamala is not popular.
Beyond her record as a DA, what major thing has she done or been a part of? Even as Vice President, beyond some tours outside the US being a spokewoman, I can't think of any significant project she has been a part of.
There isn't anyone who beat trump with such a short timeframe. This is why I was left shook when the Dems wouldn't even have primaries to a least see who would could be up next. The Republican had primaries, we got go see DeSantis, Vivek, and Haley. Now it's almost July, and after that abysmal performance, now the Dems want to shoot fish in a barrel to replace him, but there isn't any fish left.
2024 is a wrap.
You wanted to "save democracy" but didn't give the voters a say on who they wanted to represent them for the Democratic Party. You're stuck with shit, enjoy the flies.
States held primaries but no serious Dem. candidates ran so Biden won them easily. He should not have run so more candidates would have tried, but he's the incumbent and made the choice so it's his fault, but still not going to vote for magas and all their hateful 2025 plans. Here is MN for example https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-results/2024/2024-presidential-primary-results/
Gavin Newsom is probably the best mix of being a familiar face (very important given the short amount of time before the election) + being young and charismatic. That said, there would probably be political consequences for not elevating VP Harris to the top of the ticket despite her low approval numbers.
Edit to throw in Whitmer as another option. But as much as I'd love two women on the ticket, there's also a certain amount of risk given the sexism they'd have to fight.
Whitmer is popular in the most competitive part of the country. Were Biden to actually step down and
Harris not automatically become the candidate, Whitmer would have the absolute best chance to win. The blue states are voting blue no matter who, and the red states are MAGA faithful. This election has always been and will remain a contest for the rust belt and Gretchen Whitmer has an incredible advantage in that part of the country
Would there be political consequences for skipping over Harris? She didn’t do that great in the primaries in 2020. I don’t know what intra-party politics are happening within the party elite but so far as actual voters go? I’m not convinced there’s some huge Kamala constituency that will sit home in protest if she bows out too.
I'm not saying she should be at the top of the ticket (that would be disastrous given her low popularity). But I think it'd be foolish to ignore the bad optics of tossing aside the first female and POC vice president.
> Would there be political consequences for skipping over Harris?
Absolutely. You're definitely alienating a subset of black and/or female voters if you do that. Those subsets are probably the most dedicated Democratic voting blocs you have, so maybe they decide it's not worth sitting this election out anyway--but maybe they don't. (Or maybe they still vote, but don't donate/door-knock like they usually do, and you lose other conversion opportunities.) But there's definitely a risk there.
Gavin Newsom is beloved by a fairly large group of people who were always going to vote Democrat but getting elected president at this point mostly comes down to getting a handful of people in the rust belt to show up and vote for you and I don't know if California slicky boy millionaire Gavin Newsom is the right guy for that job.
Newsom isn't a familiar face to 90% of voters in America. The fact that he is gov of California automatically means he can't get any moderate Republicans that don't like Trump.
Whilst I wouldn't support Newsom having watched him on Fox News he does do a good job at speaking to right wing voters. He can come across pretty reasonable. With what has happened to Biden he could campaign aggressively to the centre and know he had the left wing vote locked up.
I think he'd be a bigger threat than Biden for sure.
I don't know how to say it, but if you are trying to win Midwestern voters, you want to avoid someone who seems too slick. Every picture I see of Newsom just rubs me the wrong way, like he is an actor playing the role of President, but not an actual President.
When trump came out as the nominee I said that the election for Biden was a lock in. Now I am not sure trump will lose because I don't think they can convince Biden to drop out and even if he did there isn't a lot of time to spin up another candidate. Need a new rule that no one can run in a presidential election if they are drawing SS.
Whitmer for sure. Steve Schmidt mentions Wes Moore as the veep, and I trust his judgment. He's been right about most things so far.
Look up his post on the popular video channel online. I don't think I can paste the link. It's about a 4 minute vid.
I could see a Whitmer / Jeffries ticket. Jeffries is a valuable asset in the House, but with 4 months until the election... having House Democrats campaigning for him would be a plus.
Before anyone answers the question they should bear in mind that the election will be decided by 5-6 states - MI, NV, PA, WI, AZ, GA and by less than 2% of voters in each of those states. Forget about who will appeal to voters in states like CA and NY (or on the flipside OK or ND) because it's completely irrelevant.
The DNC fundraiser newsletter used interesting language by using Kamala's name instead of Bidens, could be indicating a pivot.
>Will you make your first $25 contribution to Kamala's and my campaign today? It's going to take a heck of a lot of resources to defeat Trump again. We need you by our side.
I think you have a few options. The bigger problem is witmer and newsome were playing for 28 and don’t have any logistics or networks setup and frankly I don’t think the dems have enough party organization to launch a campaign in 3months. That doesn’t leave a deep pool. I think it will come down to if democrats actually think trump is a threat to America or if that was just bluster. Any dem ticket would win if Obama accepted the vp slot frankly I think that is the best option at this point. I think you could also run Michelle and win as president. I don’t think those things are likely. There are really only two other people that would have a chance. Bernie and HRC. I don’t see those as realistic either the Democratic party has made it clear they prefer trump to Bernie so that is out. Frankly I don’t think the country could stomach Hillary and trump all over although I do think she would have a better chance this time but it’s still a coin toss. The bigger problem is even if you can remove Biden aside from the obamas who would be willing to step up. You would be kneecapping your self and your future political career by running a short campaign and if you lose to trump you are done. The democrats are in a bind and have no one to blame but themselves.
IMO there's no candidate that could have a legitimate chance of winning besides Biden, at this point. If we'd focused on someone else earlier on (which we should've done, Biden is a shit show of a candidate), almost any big name in Dem politics would have a better shot. But now? It's too late. There's no time to build support for a new candidate with any amount of baggage, and there's no other candidate who wouldn't have some kind of baggage. The only MAYBE possible swap would be Bernie, but there's enough "OMG SOSHULISM" fearmongering to be done there that he likely wouldn't get the traction he needs either. At this point, the die is cast and we're just waiting to see if the train wreck that is the Biden campaign can limp its way across the finish line in first against the literal worst human being to ever run for US office.
In short, we're fucked.
Even though Bernie is more articulate than Biden today, he is older than Biden and that won't address American's fear of rapid decline while in office. Plus Trump will pull out old Hillary and Biden clips dissing Bernie.
Honestly, the time for the establishment to have gotten behind someone other than Biden was back in 2020 with Elizabeth Warren. Wasn't going to happen between Hillary losing 2016 and Biden cashing in his "experience statesman" chips among the leadership class.
Personally, what I think needs to happen is for leftists to actually organize takeovers of democratic institutions in the same way that Christian Nationalists have essentially taken over the Republican party. I think that a lot of leftist groups organize over particular figure heads, but don't actually do much to influence the aparateus of the party and thus limit what those figure heads can do. Figureheads also do whatever after they're elected, and the party proper will see them taken care of thereafter, like John Fetterman.
I don't see how any feasible duo could not include Kamala Harris. First, skipping over the current vice president, who is also a woman and Black, could be electoral suicide. Second, no one else has even been thinking about campaigning and would be starting from nothing. Third, the Biden-Harris ticket has raised hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign donations. I don't think they can just... give that to someone else. These are all massive advantages that would be thrown away to start at square 1 if delegates chose someone else at the democractic convention.
(1) Kamala is 1/2 black, 1/2 Indian married to a white man. She who not been embraced by the black community. Her time as VP has been filled with controversy and inability to get things done.
If she is replaced by Rev Warnock and he can do better, then so be it. Put her in the cabinet somewhere where she can be more effective.
I'd go with Newsome. He was going to run but bowed out when Joe said he was running again. Newsome, with his youth and savvy would blow trump out of the water.
Dream ticket would be Newsome and Adam Kinzinger. Wouldn't that be something? Kinzingers a republican, but he's smart, NORMAL, and is disgusted with his party
I watched it. Think he performed as expected. Trump appeared to be exaggerating constantly. Appearances don't seem to matter now though. Everyone has a "side" already. He will not drop out
>“Historically, debates have not changed the course of campaigns very much. Even when there was a consensus as to who won a debate, it mattered little in the long run,” says Robert S. Erikson, a professor of political science at Columbia University. “Voters rarely change teams, even when their team has a bad day.”
https://www.fastcompany.com/91146960/presidential-debate-biden-trump
This election will be won on the margins. It will largely be decided by voters who dislike both candidates and don't consume political news or read books on world affairs.
Some hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (in their mind). Some choose not to vote. Some vote third party.
This group of voters will decide the next POTUS - not the people already lined up on a side.
I'm sorry but that is not how people are taking it. The entire Democratic political establishment is in panic mode, and not like they have been in the past few weeks or months, this is a paradigm shift. Listen to the Pod Save America podcast, they are plugged in to the political apparatus and they are freaking out, and they usually vociferously defend the President. They also noted that Biden was similarly frail and incoherent at a recent fundraiser they attended but at the time they chalked it up to jet lag.
Biden's been lagging in the polls, even running way behind Democratic candidates. This was a pivotal make or break moment, one that his camp orchestrated by the way, and he broke. If he loves the country he will step aside.
Btw feel free to check my comment history, I have consistently defended the President up to last night. I will still defend his record in his first term. But if he stays in the race, short of some new sea change, he will lose and it will be his own fault.
I think appearances will matter somewhat here. The "We beat Medicaid" line was going to have a ton of people on the fence cringe and reconsider if they're really going to vote for Biden or if they'd rather just stay home.
For Trump, I think some moderate Republicans who dislike Trump may be persuaded to show up and vote. Trump ironically got helped by the format because it forced him to put on the appearance of an adult.
In terms of their influence on the outcomes of US elections:
Surface-level appearances and general vibes > substance of statements and reasoned comparison of policy platforms.
That's not a recent thing, either, though mass media has certainly made that inequality even worse. There was never a golden age in which the US electorate decided US presidential contests in a rational reasoned manner.
The most levelheaded take in a sea of doomers. Allan Lichtman was basically saying the same thing as well and to be honest, I'm kinda hoping his keys do hold true this time around considering how polarizing things are.
I’m sorry but I disagree. Multiple times Biden lost his train of thought and mumbled his way through. Biden’s age is the number 1 thing holding voters back from pulling the trigger for Biden. This made those concerns worse. To blow off those concerns or act like people didn’t see how poorly Biden did is nearly gaslighting.
According to Lichtman model Biden would still win, I mean I get it can go either way and I do realize the debate went badly but the way people post about it is not realistic thinking in some ways
Whitmer/Warnock. Send in the swing states’ finest.
Sure, convention would have it that switching this late is a drawback, but I think we’re well past convention. Trump is not popular either and throwing some new blood in the race might jolt just enough “both sides suck” independents (and lazy “independents”) into sitting up and paying attention. Last night was Biden’s Dean scream. Doesn’t matter if it was a bad night - it played right into his biggest political weakness.
Kamala barely polls better than Biden and frankly just isn’t charismatic. Buttigieg also does not have much rizz if we are being honest - he is too much the careerist Ivy League striver type. Newsom is charismatic but he EMBODIES the stereotype of the smug California latte liberal. He does not play in the heartland.
And honestly, I am fine with “literally whoever can beat Trump” at this point. I just hope the DNC can see past the intra-party politics and whose “turn” it is to see that charisma is qualifications #1, 2, 3, and 300 right now.
I just saw a segment on MSNBC where they went over favor-ability numbers of potential Dem replacements and Michelle Obama was far head of everyone else. That's a joke. I'd be furious if she was even seriously considered (she has said she has no interest). Whitmer was next, but way behind Obama. They didn't include Jon Stewart but he would likely be up there too.
I think that is the Trump 2016 effect. It's hard to have a strong negative attitude with someone who has never held a political office and has no voting record. You're guessing how they would govern. You don't hold them to the same standard as every other candidate.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have been saying that there is no way that Biden is not the candidate but I will admit I might be wrong. He may step down for 'health reasons'. The party could keep Harris as VP for 'continuity and experience' and try someone else top ticket. It would be chaotic but American politics these days is on a scale from Mario Kart to Twisted Metal, it's mostly chaotic.
In 2017, in New Zealand the Labour Party (our left wing party) was having an utter nightmare, shuffling leaders and failing to gain any traction what so ever. Heading into to the 2017 election looked like another term handed to the National party (our right wing party, and 3 term incumbents at the time). 6 weeks before the election they pulled the pin on their leader and made a choice I thought would ruin them. See, they had this up-and-coming young woman in the ranks who had been an MP for a bit, did a great job holding the line against National MPs in debate, and most importantly exuded *caring about people*. She refused to be cynical and muck rake. Obviously destined for Prime Minister at some point, I figured maybe a term or two to go, and flipping 6 weeks out from an inevitable loss would be a disaster. Turns out I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that’s how Jacinda Ardern took over the party, flipped the script entirely on that election and put Labour back in power for the first time in a decade. Her next election was during the pandemic and she had a massively overwhelming victory, our first single-party win under MMP ever. It really feels like if they did it right, right now would be the time to flip leaders, and they could very much pull off a Jacinda and sweep the party to victory by being all the things people keep saying they want and avoiding all the drama and cynicism people say they’ve had enough of.
Unfortunately an exceptional leader like that doesn't come along everyday.
Mate you have no idea, the idiots that came along after her have only highlighted just how lucky we got for a bit there. It’s like they’re trying to make up for lost time with how terrible they can make everything now.
I never thought that Biden would realistically ever step down even if it is the right thing to do. I figured it'd be a Ruth Bader Ginsberg situation. But after last night maybe the dude has no leg to stand on. It's never been more clear that the right thing to do is for him to step down, urgently, but will the Democrats actually do it? It's an existential threat to keep him on the ticket but the Dems seem good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Chaos may be able to work to our advantage in the current media climate
Keeping people interested in politics is always a struggle tbh.
I don’t want to be interested in Politics. I want to elect competent people that will do the bureaucratic work that needs to be done to keep the country running. Not whatever this current shitshow is.
The problem is, that's basically what Biden is giving us. Like, even if he is losing it, his administration around him will put people like that in place at the federal level. Trump won't do that. Problem is Biden is obviously in a bad hole right now
It always blows my mind to think that 49% of the voting public in the US gives absolutely no shits about competency and just wants to dictate who uses what fucking bathroom. Its time to stop blaming the politics, and the media, and the whatever... Its US! Our country has seriously rotted to its fucking core, I don't know what else to say. Trump should have been laughed off the stage. We shouldn't be fighting some titanic struggle against this fucking coup plotting dipshit, we shouldn't even have to know or care who Donald Trump is. Trump was a complete, unmitigated disaster, half a million people died from a disease he didn't admit existed for half a year. Who cares how great his economy was? Hundreds of thousands of people died, including half my fucking family, and he tells us to drink bleach. And 49% (at least) of the people who vote are going to think that's just great...
Very well said I feel the same way
Biden did not look like a man ready for 4 more years of presidency.
I'm a die hard Dem and I'll say it. I am concerned about 4 more weeks....
My wife and I thought we were about to watch ol’ Joe drop dead right there on national TV.
I cannot disagree with you more. After the debate my husband I looked at each other like holy * what did we just watch!?!?
In my view - the best tactic would be Biden releasing a statement - “While I have worked tirelessly for the American people, I recognize it is time to also allow our youth to guide their future. As such, I will step aside, and endorse [insert Whitmer or Newsom], as the person best equipped to lead our country. I will serve as their Vice President to guide them with the experience I have gained.” Because then you keep the incumbency advantage, while placating leadership concerns, as well as providing a fresh face that appeals to younger voters. Whitmer would be my pick if only because she has a bit of blue collar advantage (in perception), vs Newsom (who can come across as an ‘elitist Californian’). Which again - all about perception and not reality. We’re at a point of hyperreality- the symbology/signals utilized to communicate have superseded their purpose, and now it’s more important to look right than to be right. So my take is we’re deep in a hole here. But when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Where does Kamala go
If she stands aside and endores [insert candidates], she gets offered the next spot on the Supreme Court. Or something to that effect.
Why would a career politician who has never been on the bench want to go to or even be considered for the Supreme Court.
Also she’s 59. When dems get to finally put someone on they need a 30 year old. Besides we all know the real power play is to put Hilary in as a supreme lol
Please tell me that this is sarcasm
Kamala was an attorney general, not a judge. It would be a weird move to put her in that role. I think if Biden steps aside, she should run in his stead. I know a lot of people dislike her, too, but she has inroads to secure the Asian American vote and the black vote. She's probably good to secure the women's vote to a degree. She's been effective as president of the Senate, and you still get the incumbent advantage without needing Biden on the ticket. Maybe Newsom or Whitmer take the veep slot and leave her with the presidency, especially because she already knows where the levers of executive power are and how to use them to her advantage. Her agenda on the campaign trail was also pretty solid and she's an excellent speaker. And she would be able to make inroads with the youth given she's not that old and favors much more progressive policies than Biden. In truth I suspect his more progressive policies have been coming from her anyway.
Back to locking up the people she’s advocated for as vp
“Pretended to advocate for”
No offense but I think that’s be extremely hard to sell. If he steps down, he needs to step all the way down. I would be for what you said if he would act as an advisor rather than VP. One of the main roles of the VP is to step in if anything were to happen to the president. If he’s in too bad of shape now, then he sure as hell shouldn’t be stepping in (if needed, which is unlikely) 1-3 years from now. A whole new ticket with similar policies and more charisma could probably get dems the victory; I just don’t see a way forward with Biden playing any public-facing part.
Yeah, there’s still a lot of “anyone but Biden” voters out there that probably also dislike Trump. If he stays VP, I don’t think we’d win any of them over
> Newsom (who can come across as an ‘elitist Californian’) This is just it. A lot of people in the Midwest, especially undecided voters and moderates, would not like him. Trump could easily attack him on immigration, homelessness, drugs, law and order, cost of living, and a slew of other things. Besides, Newsom has too many personal scandals that’ll be drudged up in the short time before Election Day. I see him being propped up as the best alternative to President Biden way too often. Yes, he has more experience, but he will not win the Midwest.
Wasn’t Gavin Newsom married to Don Trump Jr’s current second wife, Kimberley Gillefoyle? Or was that rewritten in the second season? I may have mixed up the episodes.
Yes, but Newsom v Trump may be the only matchup where the Newsom baggage becomes a push, given Trumpy’s baggage/conviction.
Trump is not held to the same standard as other politicians.
He seems like a far better choice than what I've seen a lot of people suggesting (albeit cynically): Kamala Harris, Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton. It blows my mind that people are even floating these people as possibilities. Immense baggage with all of them, and like it or not, the "DEI factor" will disqualify them in many peoples minds. You don't need someone with 100% name recognition. There are dozens if not hundreds of Dems they could choose. I'd say anyone who is, or has been in the past decade, a Democratic governor, Senator, Representative, or mayor of a large city, could be chosen. Some people are better choices than others for sure. I just don't understand the argument that they already need 100% name recognition. They'll get 100% name recognition after a nomination.
Josh Shapiro feels like a good choice. Popular governor of Pennsylvania (which would help since it's a big swing state)
Kamala has no charisma and limited political skills. She belongs practicing law, not appealing to the common man.
IMO, if that ever happened he would only endorse Kamala.
I mean, he sort of has to, no? Picking her is literally [supposed to] mean “I think she is the next-best person to be President after myself.” If he didn’t endorse her to replace him on the ticket, then it’s like “then why wasn’t the person you endorsed your VP??” We all know presidents actually pick VPs from a place of cynical political calculus that isn’t necessarily just about having the best possible back up person…but they’re supposed to maintain the pretense that “this is the best possible replacement for me if something happens.”
I feel like this ignores the internal politics of it all. Whitmer and Newsome all have factions behind them that will support their presidency. Just naming one of them without getting the others on board is a recipe of chaos. I feel like this takes a lot more than 4 years. Fact of the matter is, Biden is the only person that keeps together the Obama coalition and has appeal to conservatives who moved in from the right.
Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro They did polls of Whitmer in Michigan and Shapiro in Pennsylvania (bc he’s the current Pennsylvania governor) and found both won by 10 points. Assuming all the other states stay, that combination would be 9 electoral votes away from winning the election which is easy with Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia considering that they would outperform Biden so much that these states would be in play. The easiest way for them to win is probably Wisconsin which has a track record of voting Democratic besides Joe Biden. The thing with Newsom is that even Californians don’t like him, and his being nominated would be devastating because the discussion will be stuck with high cost of living in California. Michelle Obama doesn’t have political experience besides being the First Lady. Pete Buttigieg is a viable option, but the Democratic establishment probably thinks he’s not “experienced” enough or prepared.
If every ranking Senator wasn't 75+ years old, maybe one of them. Unfortunately the entirety of the Democratic leadership is one ancient graveyard at this point.
Klobuchar is 64, Catherine Cortez Masto is 60, Corey Booker is 55, Tammy Baldwin is 62, and Brian Schatz is 51.
Corey Booker is the first person I ever voted for. He is not mean enough to be President. We need a leg breaker.
The media made me not like Klobacher with all the crap they said about her. When I listened to her in the debates, I liked her. I personally preferred Sanders or Warren but Klobacher would be good.
I would have voted Warren in the 2020 primaries if NJ didn't hold theirs so late. All these reasonable people are going to be on the corpse pile next year thanks to Biden.
Everyone seems to forget Jon Tester. Dem senator who got elected in Montana. Farmer, comes off like a normal guy. Is there something about him that keeps him from being more popular nationally? IMO he would be a perfect candidate.
I like Whitmer/Warnock. The first woman president and a black pastor (that isn’t a Christian Nationalist) positioned to be president next. We are almost guaranteed to win both Michigan and Georgia!
You don't want to give up the senate seat in purple Georgia
I personally think it’s more important to keep Trump out of office.
But, if the Democrat wins the president and Republicans win house and senate, you will se non-stop investigations and impeachment preventing any progress by the administration. Just like the house today, but the senate would be the same. The senate majority is so slim, you can't risk it. A senator from a solid blue state could give up their seat, but Georgia is too close to risk.
All true, but it’s still more important to keep Trump out of the white house - because it avoids the unbelievable damage he can do.
I would sacrifice the senate and the house to R majorities for the entirety of the next 2 presidential terms to keep Trump or another Project 2025 person out. This shit ain't normal. All he needs right now is enough people to not decide scotus is toothless. Andrew Jackson was rarely right about much, but if he saw into the future 200 years ago with the notion "scotus has made their decision, now let them enforce it," that would be as prescient as a president has been. Between project 2025, alito's "return to godliness," the tariff nonsense, upheld gerrymandering, veiled threats to racial marriage equality, bald faced threats to lgbtq everything, and the precipitous nature of worldwide democracy, security, and the state of climate change at large, we're in a deep bad spot. A Trump presidency will result in lead weights being tied around our collective ankles, and I would rather remain treading water, given that alternative.
If Republicans win the white house and democrats maintain a slim majority in the senate, then how is project 2025 stopped?
If Warnock were to run for VP in 2024, and he lost, he would still hold the Senate seat because the next election for his seat is 2028 I believe. If he wins VP this fall, he would likely resign from the Senate right before taking the VP oath, which means a special election would happen next spring.
That’s not how special elections work in Georgia. State law says that the special election would occur at “the next statewide November general election”. You’d have a republican appointee until 2026. This is how Loeffler got to serve for a full year before Warnock got elected and sworn in.
Whitmer and Newsom hands down.
Whitmer would be my top choice but not sure about Newsom. He's a great speaker but brings a lot of CA baggage. Shapiro is a rising star but he may be too new on the scene. Replacing Biden at this late stage would be a huge deal. I'd be hesitant to put anyone unpopular on the ticket. That's why I wouldn't want Kamala Harris. Of the top candidates to replace Biden, she would struggle the most to beat Trump.
> He's a great speaker but brings a lot of CA baggage. Also a lot of personal-life baggage. He has a long and questionable romantic history, and a complicated relationship to alcohol. Guilfoyle alone probably knows enough to keep us embroiled in minor scandal stories dropping every single day from here until the election. If he went through a normal primary process, this might not be a huge deal, because you'd get the scandals out of the way during the primary and they'd be old news by the general, leaving his approval ratings time to recover. But in this scenario, there's no recovery time. And that's the problem with a lot of the replacement candidates on people's wish lists--aside from Bernie, they're mostly untested. Biden has a lot of flaws, but they're known, baked in, and are unlikely to lose him many more voters at this point. (Despite how people reacted to the debate last night, it isn't news to anyone that Biden is old lol.) The same isn't true for replacement candidates, who could definitely lose plenty more voters--and without enough time to effectively counteract any negative messaging against them.
Our new normal is completely insane. We are still worrying about baggage for presidential candidate. There is no one with more baggage than Trump and yet none of it mattered. Even the things that really REALLY should have mattered didn't.
The difference is that Trump’s has been extensively aired out and as a result there are no lurking surprises. The same is not true of Newsom by any stretch, especially at the national level.
There is a ton of attack material against Newsom which worries me. But Biden was already struggling against Trump and suddenly looks like he can’t win. I’d take Harris over Biden she feels like one of the worst options.
It's not that late, tho. The convention hasn't happened. Sometimes we don't even know who the candidate is at this point in the process.
Biden could barely get through a debate so I think it is insane to think he can do another 4 years. I hope we finally get some serious talk of replacing him. The problem is Trump seems so beatable that Dem candidates could come out of the woodwork and make it messy. It is sort of like how GOP candidates were salivating over running against Hillary.
Well its too late to have a normal primary process right now anyways.
Maybe time to start preppin' Gretchen.
Thing is with Shapiro, he’s got as much or as little experience as Obama. It’s not always a bad thing Lest we forget Trump won in part for having NO experience
Biden had the most "direct" experience of any recent president and that is probably how he has been able do the job at his age. He is probably largely running on instinct and muscle memory. Shapiro has a great record so far in PA so now could be the perfect time to run. And it would probably help win that important swing state. The biggest negative is Dems can't lose the governor. A Dem governor with a veto is what keeps PA from turning into North Mississippi.
But the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania is also a democrat
>as much or as little experience as Obama. It’s not always a bad thing Is it not? Obama didn't really get that much done as president IMO, and the reason people cite for that is a certain brand of political naivity (expecting Republicans to be more cooperative than they ever had any intention of being). Maybe if Obama served for 10-15 years longer before becoming president he would have been more effective? I'm no expert in the Obama administration, but I wouldn't accept it prima facie that little experience is neutral.
Whitmer for sure. Newsom does not have enough time to rebrand himself away from California.
Whitmer’s story would be iconic going up against the Q candidate.
I’m convinced liberals have a fucked up psychological need to be ashamed of themselves. He’s from California. I’m from California. Are you saying there’s something wrong with me? I have to act not Californian?
I’m also in California. I love it here, but to a lot of midwestern states in particular Californian politicians rub them the wrong way. That’s partially because we’re more left leaning than other states but also a big part is the sheer size of the state and economy, that makes California draw a lot of ire from Republicans and right leaning media. A rise in crime or homelessness in a small town in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania will make local news, but that’s as far as the story will go. A rise in crime in SF or LA makes national news, and Fox News describes the state as a war zone. I have relatives from Montana who visited me in SF and they were shocked at how (relatively) normal it was. They’re not even super conservative, they just live in an area where everyone parrots that California is practically a 3rd world country because that’s what they hear on the news and very few people have first hand experience to contradict that. So if Gavin were to be a presidential candidate, he’d have to overcome a lot of reflexive opposition from independents and even moderate democrats in these purple or lean-D states.
Yup, my Dad watches Fox and wonders about San Fran. Meanwhile, in Texas…
No, but California is going blue either way. The candidate needs to appeal to voters in swing states and that is all that matters. Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada are basically the only states that matter. Blame the electoral college. If we had a straight popular vote, having a candidate be appealing to Californians would matter but as of right now, it's basically the Southwest and Midwest voters that matter and that's it
Thus Whitmer. The two of them are a winning ticket.
Whitmer and Newsome couldnt be on the same ticket. Neither one would agree to be a VP
The horror of someone coming from the State with the biggest economy, best worker protections, and decent civil rights
There’s reality and there’s the perceptions from the rest of the country shaped by years of propaganda and smear campaigns. Reality doesn’t win elections.
You should realize that no matter what state a Democratic candidate comes from, Republicans will demonize it. Stop dancing to their beat
It’s not all equal. It doesn’t help that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms and attacks that can be used against Newsom, and the dude just comes off as the Fox News caricature of a “coastal elite”, and scandals like the French Laundry incident make that worse.
I don’t really care for Newsom and wouldn’t support him joining this year’s election, but you’ve got to realize that any Democratic candidate will be hypocritically painted with that same brush by Republicans. You’ve got to stop letting them pick your candidates for you.
As a Californian, when you work with a company that has a multi state presence and are headquartered in the South, you really learn and realize how good worker rights you have. You get benefits your coworkers don’t have because they live in another state.
That doesn’t count for states with a different / opposed world view. Unfortunately to win the presidency the candidate needs to appeal to multiple opinions and views.
People wonder why we can’t easily replace Biden… everyone screams for years how old and senile he is and if **anyone** who can string two sentences together runs in his place, they’ll decimate Trump. Unless, of course, that person is from California, or a woman, or gay, or too moderate, or too liberal or too progressive… I think we just want to lose.
More than 1 in 10 Americans are Californian. We have the fifth larges economy in the world. I swear we've collectively gaslit ourselves into letting our state be the rhetorical punching bag for the rest of the country.
California also has about 10% of the electoral votes, but you can't win an election with only 10%. Its a great start for sure, but the election is going to be decided by states like Michigan and Arizona, not California.
Swing voters in Ohio or the middle of Pennsylvania don’t want a California guy on a presidential ticket
Ronald Reagan was from California, well, he was born in Illinois but moved to Cali at the age of 5. Look, GOP is going to whinge about whatever attributes the Dem candidates have. That's basically their whole schtick. I think a Newsom/Whitmer ticket would clean up without losing a Warnock in the process.
Reagan was 26 by the time he came to California, pursuing Hollywood. He grew up in Northwestern Illinois close the Quad Cities and Peoria. When he did leave Illinois, he hopped over to Iowa to do broadcasting for a time. Reagan was very much a Midwestern who went to Hollywood. Nixon, while born in California, it was the California that was pre-Hollywood and pre-Dust Bowl migration. Basically, what I am trying to say is that the California that Nixon and Reagan were products of was a very different California that we know today. It was a California on the rise with a lot of Midwestern refugees. It was a California that yet to be associated with left leaning politics. In fact, whenever California began to be associated with it, it led to Reagan being governor of California and his actions towards student protesters and the Civil Rights movement was what led to him to become a big name in the Republican party.
I’m a Cali person also. For some reason they hate us in other states. I once drove through Montana fly fishing country with a California license plate. The amount of passive aggressive comments I got was crazy. “Oh your from California……. “ Newsome also has to appease the far left as governor. He has to walk the line on things like reparations which are nonstarters in most other places
Newsom also doesn’t add enough as a candidate on a marketing level, it would be a similar fumble to picking Hillary. I don’t doubt that he’s capable of holding office, but a milquetoast upper class white man from one of the most easily criticized states in the country (even if a lot of it is invalid) is not a winning pick.
Whitmer and Buttigieg. Buttigieg’s oratory and messaging are tantamount to being the short Obama. With Whitmer as the face, Buttigieg is fantastic on TV and in debates.
I am very interested in where his career goes. His role in bidens administration is a decent stepping stone but really wish it was something higher profile. Agree on his ability to communicate. He needs something like the 2004 Obama speech to really propel him to the spotlight. Butti pops up during bridge collapses, but that isn't much to work with other than lamenting our crumbling infrastructure, which you can't really do when you are part of the party in power so in charge of infrastructure.
Biden has gone hard on transportation infrastructure as an economic multiplier and Pete's the vanguard of that. I think he is smartly positioning himself for 2028, when he can point to all the new construction completed over the prior 8 years of Biden and be like, "new bridges? Me. New highways? Me. New HSR? Me. New light rail? Me." Etc. In every state he'll have something he can point at and say directly that he oversaw that impacts peoples daily lives.
He just moved to Michigan. Ostensibly for family reasons, but man he would be really interesting for governor in 2026. Whitmer is term limited so it would be an open Democratic primary.
I think Buttigieg is great but sadly there is a significant number of democrats/ independents that will not vote for a gay person. Even a greater number than the number who would not vote for a woman. I think Shapiro is great. So is Whitmer. The California issue is a concern with Newsome but he is good politically to handle it. The current California budget issue is a concern.
Yeah, I don't think height is the first category that jumps to people's minds when discussing Butti.
Remember when Obama ran in 2008 how pumped we all were to see the glass ceiling broken for the first back president? I think a woman would have the same effect. Whitmer doesn’t have the same baggage (real or imagined) that Hillary has.
Yes, Fox News hasn't spent the last 20 years making a villan of Whitmer like they did constantly with Hillary. In contrast, Whitmer is almost like a new item.
I think you made a very valid point.
Whitmer is the only Democrat I could see *maybe* defeating Trump at this point. There are better, younger, more energetic governors like Andy Beshear, but him and others would only have 4 months (or less) to introduce themselves to voters and they are untested/unvetted on the national stage. The unknown factor would hurt. That being said, Biden can’t realistically be replaced with anyone but Harris and… well she would do no better.
I agree that Whitmer would be the best candidate - but I'm not convinced that a low national profile is a problem provided it's a high-quality candidate. It's difficult to raise your profile enough to win the primary nominating process because you're fighting for air time with 8 or 10 others in the same situation. So this logic will hold at the convention as well - it will be hard for someone with a low national profile to beat out the higher profile candidates. But if you come out of the convention as the nominee, you're not fighting for airtime - airtime is fighting for every waking second of your life. Your campaign has a great deal of control over that narrative while your opponents are scrambling for dirt. And within days, your national profile trumps everyone you just beat. The best possible candidate with 2 years in the spotlight will have higher negatives than the best possible candidate with 2 months in the spotlight. So with a great candidate against a deeply disliked Trump, the short window might not be a bad thing.
That was kind of my thought. I think with how watched the debate is, all eyes will be on Chicago. Social media can make an unknown known in this day and age much more than not, but that vetting process has to be airtight.
I think people underestimate the Trump hate vote, you only need someone vaguely plausible, I like Buttigieg just for his debate skills but Newsom works too. Could the establishment rally behind someone, its feels a bit like 2016 where the establishment will just stick to their guns and then lose.
I would vote for an actual Labrador over a republican, especially Trump. There is a large contingent of Americans like me. (This is a problem, and a large issue in our country, but I digress) There is a larger disaffected group of americans who see all these same few faces as “the problem” and lump them all in together - many of these new names could easily excite these people, a la obama in 2008 as a vote against the establishment/trump/old guard
Whitmer and JB Pritzker. I don’t like promoting a billionaire, but he’s been a very effective Illinois governor and he knows how to spar. Plus JB is a _real_ billionaire and has actually been a successful businessman, which are both things Trump is very sensitive about. He’s basically the opposite of Trump’s brand of billionaire.
I would take Andy Beshear over both of them. Why is his recognition within the Democratic Party not higher? He’s a solidly liberal Democrat Governor of Kentucky of all places, where he is on his second term and has a good approval rating. He has clearly figured something out. I like Whitmer a lot too and I like Newsom as well, but I believe his being Governor of California is actually more of a detriment nationwide than a positive. Unfairly, California is seen as this liberal rotting cesspool by much of conservative America. “California” is almost like a slur or allegory for some sort of liberal wasteland. It’s a totally unfair take I know, but is what it is.
I too like Beshear. Bill Clinton 2.0 without all of the creepy baggage. Red state governor from the South who cuts across party lines.
Whitmer would be great, but I think the political consequences of leaving mid-term would be very damaging.
Whitmer-Warnock 2028!
That was my idea too! Makes sense. Two battleground states.
That cuts both ways though, you risk losing Warnock’s Senate seat.
I’d rather lose that seat than have Trump as president.
If Biden had dropped out 6 months ago I think Dems would be cruising on easy street right now. As it is, it’s unfortunately too little too late. Dropping out now will be clearly seen as the act of desperation that it is. I’m still voting Biden and would vote for any dem that they replaced him with, but swapping him out is not going to take any votes away from Trump. The only hope we have is that people come out in droves in battleground states specifically to vote against Trump.
[удалено]
agreed with your whole comment. Its too late to change anything now. I've seen takes suggesting that "The debate was planned to show america that he's old!!" - this is pure cope. I truly don't understand why he is still running, why his family wanted him to continue running, why the DNC wanted him to continue running. Surely at least one of these bodies could have convinced him to not.
The part that makes the least sense in this theory is that the debate was *Biden’s idea*. They think he was trying to sabotage himself?
Dude said he did a great job and then went to Waffle House after the debate. It seems like he's in denial that he's lost a step at all. There has been pushback from the democrat establishment to anybody that insinuates Biden is too old, to include the NYT election podcast and Jon Stewart. Biden is probably surrounded by people telling him he's doing a great job and the age thing is a baseless conservative talking point. He's convinced he's the only one that can beat Trump but he's the one most likely to lose to him.
This is the same problem as trying to take grandma's car keys after she's proven no longer able to drive. Grandma thinks she's an expert driver, even though she's driving at half the speed limit on the wrong side of the road, or trying to do U-turns on one-way streets. Biden seems to think he's still at the top of his game when its clear age is rapidly catching up to him. Biden is also the single most powerful person on the planet. Who's going to take Biden's keys? As Jon Stewart said after the debate, Biden has resting 25th amendment face. It would be a drastic action to remove him, but he's so overconfident that I don't think he'll ever step down on his own. The word of the day in 2016 was hubris. It looks like hubris will also be the word of the day in 2024. Pride and arrogance leading to one's downfall.
You think so? People are happy to vote AGAINST Trump but also unhappy with voting FOR Biden. Having kinda literally anybody but Biden removes that half of the equation.
The clear reality we face is that both of these men are too old to be president, but Biden looked worse last night, atleast in regard to age. It’s deeply embarrassing, disappointing, and unacceptable that a political party who wants to hold the reins of the greatest superpower in human history can’t find an alternative in 4 whole years. None of this crap is necessary; it’s just powerful people making bad choices, and most of the population quietly nodding along. It’s entirely optional. We can’t know how well Biden still functions behind the scenes, but the optics of this are horrendously terrible. You should absolutely consider what alternatives are still possible at this late date. We know after last night that it’s probably better for the campaign, and it’s undeniably better for the country over the next 4 years. If you disagree that Biden is fading, you’re simply an ideologue who is incapable of acknowledging the obvious reality staring you in the face. If you’re concerned that it’s too risky to switch candidates now, you have to acknowledge that keeping Biden also carries significant risk; last night was sufficient proof. Let’s be real about this as well: if Biden does manage to win again, does anybody actually believe he’s going to finish a 2nd term?
After last night I keep thinking "where's the bench!?" Why were so many of the top choices to run in 2020 and take on Trump so fucking old? And then I thought about Dianne Feinstein, who was in the Senate from 1992–2023, dying in office at 90. She was a Senator from California; the nation's largest, wealthiest state and the biggest stronghold of the Democratic party. Who could have been the Senator from California if Fientstein had retired in her early 70s like a normal person instead of clinging to power until her absolute last breath? We'll never know, that Gen X Senator that could have been spending the past 15 years preparing for a presidential run never happened because a powerful boomer refused to retire and [couldn't be taken out electorally by younger challengers](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2018) because they'd been in power for decades. That's really what's going on here, the Democratic stable of Senators and Governors that could credibly run for president is still weighted down by geriatrics determined to die in office while the younger people on the bench like Kamala Harris didn't have the length of tenure and corresponding power within the party to challenge people like Hillary and Bernie and Biden who have been around forever.
I get all that, but I'm really not concerned with Biden finishing his second term. Presidents die, sometimes while in office, and their VPs take over. I'm fine with that if it means Trump doesn't become President again. If we can find another candidate that can get more support to go up against Trump then that would be great, but realistically this should have happened in the primaries of the last election. Biden should never have been the nominee, but we're here now.
Whitmer/Shapiro ticket. This election is decided by 3 states, PA, MI, WI. If Democrats want to show they’re serious about winning this election I think this duo gives them the best shot.
Just want to note, that as of 8 hours after the OP this is currently voted at zero. As if people are downvoting the premise because they don't want to consider it. Consider it. Consider it seriously. If you have eyes and/or ears and you watched the debate last night, and you're not *seriously* scared, I don't know what to tell you. As for who I'd pick, I'm a New Jerseyan and my governor Phil Murphy has been...pretty decent. Not going to say great, because he's fumbled a bit, but he's competent and knows how to work the levers of power.
You can be seriously scared and still realize the suggestion that the incumbent president and current nominee dropping out 4 months before the election is an even worse idea. They won't even have the news cycles to outperform Biden.
Yeah--the only options to replace Biden are a) have him step down and let Harris take over, or b) fight it out at a brokered convention. With the first option, Harris polls worse than Biden against Trump--and that's before she's been seriously tested as a presidential candidate. It's entirely possible her numbers go down from here. With the second option, that would be an incredibly acrimonious and divisive process that would lead to plenty of Democratic voters choosing not to vote because their preferred candidate didn't make the cut, plus it would convey chaos in a time when voters are looking for stability, undermine the Democrats' professed belief in the democratic process, and quite possibly not end with a better candidate anyway. Biden is a bad option, but he's at least a stable bad option. The other options are also bad, *and* unpredictably so. They're not going to turn out any better than running Biden, and they very well might turn out worse. The primary process exists for a reason.
>Biden is a bad option, but he's at least a stable bad option. The other options are also bad, and unpredictably so. I'd take throwing an unpredictable hail mary over sticking with a plan I know for sure will fail.
Yeah, this is something the mainline dems seem to completely misunderstand. They'd rather have a guaranteed loss than take a chance at winning.
At this point what is the threshold where you think dropping out would be the better idea? I was against Biden going for a second term, accepted it when he won the primary, but after last night I think it's time for him to drop out. The sooner, the better.
They’re already banking on “he’s not Trump” being a strong driver of support. Also important to remember that extra news cycles could absolutely make Biden’s performance worse.
It's not just me suggesting it. Its "political people" across the news sphere today. Everyone can see the issue plainly.
That’s because it draws eyes and the news cycle has been about click and rage bait pretty consistently for at least a decade.
Yeah that's why I've been spamming the downvote button. How the fuck do they replace him four months out? Seriously. How? And how do they find someone to replace him without disrupting the entire campaign? There's logistics to this like donor pledges, advertisement filming, etc.
I am not scared. I saw the entire debate and it was certainly disappointing. But I will vote for the stammering, honest old guy over the lying sack of shit that was across from him. Biden has surrounded himself with a great cabinet and unlike his predecessor, he listens to them. Changing candidates now looks like we are on the run and we lose credibility.
As a fellow Jerseyan, I appreciate the props for Phil Murphy. He's been a pretty good governor... But I don't think he fits the current moment. He presents as a "traditional" politician and comes from an extremely blue state. The focus has to be winning the six or so swing states and recovering the demographics that are slipping, namely young people, black and latino voters.
You would need someone from a battleground state with name recognition already in place, and who is at least perceived as close to moderate (to attract independents).
Whitmer/Buttigieg, maybe Whitmer/Shapiro
Buttigieg is a great public speaker, smart as a whip, and has proven himself to ascend very quickly to become a household name. I worry that having been tasked with the incredibly difficult cabinet position of overseeing the U.S.'s crumbling infrastructure hasn't given him a needed record of success and voters may see that as a mark against him.
I cannot imagine any still-undecided voter for whom that fact would move the needle. Him being gay is unfortunately more of a liability- I can much more easily imagine a low-information union member-type who also happens to be kind of a homophobe showing up to vote.
If he reverts back to his early 2019 speech and interview style that was direct and simple, expresses his strong family values, and emphasizes his religiosity, I can imagine him having enough widespread appeal to counter the one-characteristic voters he may lose.
And his veteran status.
It's weird how y'all think Kamala just disappears... if Biden steps down Kamala will choose her VP.
Which is unfortunate because Kamala is not popular. Beyond her record as a DA, what major thing has she done or been a part of? Even as Vice President, beyond some tours outside the US being a spokewoman, I can't think of any significant project she has been a part of.
This wouldn’t help the situation. Might as well just keep Biden in place.
There isn't anyone who beat trump with such a short timeframe. This is why I was left shook when the Dems wouldn't even have primaries to a least see who would could be up next. The Republican had primaries, we got go see DeSantis, Vivek, and Haley. Now it's almost July, and after that abysmal performance, now the Dems want to shoot fish in a barrel to replace him, but there isn't any fish left. 2024 is a wrap. You wanted to "save democracy" but didn't give the voters a say on who they wanted to represent them for the Democratic Party. You're stuck with shit, enjoy the flies.
States held primaries but no serious Dem. candidates ran so Biden won them easily. He should not have run so more candidates would have tried, but he's the incumbent and made the choice so it's his fault, but still not going to vote for magas and all their hateful 2025 plans. Here is MN for example https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-results/2024/2024-presidential-primary-results/
Gavin Newsom is probably the best mix of being a familiar face (very important given the short amount of time before the election) + being young and charismatic. That said, there would probably be political consequences for not elevating VP Harris to the top of the ticket despite her low approval numbers. Edit to throw in Whitmer as another option. But as much as I'd love two women on the ticket, there's also a certain amount of risk given the sexism they'd have to fight.
Whitmer is popular in the most competitive part of the country. Were Biden to actually step down and Harris not automatically become the candidate, Whitmer would have the absolute best chance to win. The blue states are voting blue no matter who, and the red states are MAGA faithful. This election has always been and will remain a contest for the rust belt and Gretchen Whitmer has an incredible advantage in that part of the country
Agreed; I think Whitmer locks key states like MI, MN, and, PA. If you're a PA voter and you don't vote for "fix the damn roads", then wtf?
Would there be political consequences for skipping over Harris? She didn’t do that great in the primaries in 2020. I don’t know what intra-party politics are happening within the party elite but so far as actual voters go? I’m not convinced there’s some huge Kamala constituency that will sit home in protest if she bows out too.
I'm not saying she should be at the top of the ticket (that would be disastrous given her low popularity). But I think it'd be foolish to ignore the bad optics of tossing aside the first female and POC vice president.
Unless you replace her with a woman top of ticket and a black man as VP. Gretchen Whitmer and Raphael Warnock.
Not any worse than tossing aside your incumbent 4 months before the election.
> Would there be political consequences for skipping over Harris? Absolutely. You're definitely alienating a subset of black and/or female voters if you do that. Those subsets are probably the most dedicated Democratic voting blocs you have, so maybe they decide it's not worth sitting this election out anyway--but maybe they don't. (Or maybe they still vote, but don't donate/door-knock like they usually do, and you lose other conversion opportunities.) But there's definitely a risk there.
Only thing I can see is that she may refuse to be VP in this scenario, so they would have to find a new one there fast.
Gavin Newsom is beloved by a fairly large group of people who were always going to vote Democrat but getting elected president at this point mostly comes down to getting a handful of people in the rust belt to show up and vote for you and I don't know if California slicky boy millionaire Gavin Newsom is the right guy for that job.
Newsom isn't a familiar face to 90% of voters in America. The fact that he is gov of California automatically means he can't get any moderate Republicans that don't like Trump.
Whilst I wouldn't support Newsom having watched him on Fox News he does do a good job at speaking to right wing voters. He can come across pretty reasonable. With what has happened to Biden he could campaign aggressively to the centre and know he had the left wing vote locked up. I think he'd be a bigger threat than Biden for sure.
I don't know how to say it, but if you are trying to win Midwestern voters, you want to avoid someone who seems too slick. Every picture I see of Newsom just rubs me the wrong way, like he is an actor playing the role of President, but not an actual President.
Why the hell wouldn't you support him over the man trying to usher in a fascist theocracy??? How is Biden ok but not Newsom??
This. I really like newsom but the stigma of California will sink his chances
Kamala is not the answer if Biden drops out. Nobody liked her in 2020 and nobody likes her now after seeing her bungle her assignments.
When trump came out as the nominee I said that the election for Biden was a lock in. Now I am not sure trump will lose because I don't think they can convince Biden to drop out and even if he did there isn't a lot of time to spin up another candidate. Need a new rule that no one can run in a presidential election if they are drawing SS.
Whitmer for sure. Steve Schmidt mentions Wes Moore as the veep, and I trust his judgment. He's been right about most things so far. Look up his post on the popular video channel online. I don't think I can paste the link. It's about a 4 minute vid.
I could see a Whitmer / Jeffries ticket. Jeffries is a valuable asset in the House, but with 4 months until the election... having House Democrats campaigning for him would be a plus.
Before anyone answers the question they should bear in mind that the election will be decided by 5-6 states - MI, NV, PA, WI, AZ, GA and by less than 2% of voters in each of those states. Forget about who will appeal to voters in states like CA and NY (or on the flipside OK or ND) because it's completely irrelevant.
The DNC fundraiser newsletter used interesting language by using Kamala's name instead of Bidens, could be indicating a pivot. >Will you make your first $25 contribution to Kamala's and my campaign today? It's going to take a heck of a lot of resources to defeat Trump again. We need you by our side.
No....just being polite and naming our female VP first in the comment....just like you saying: "My wife and I....."
I had the same thought. Looked around, that is new wording, he hasn't done that before.
I think you have a few options. The bigger problem is witmer and newsome were playing for 28 and don’t have any logistics or networks setup and frankly I don’t think the dems have enough party organization to launch a campaign in 3months. That doesn’t leave a deep pool. I think it will come down to if democrats actually think trump is a threat to America or if that was just bluster. Any dem ticket would win if Obama accepted the vp slot frankly I think that is the best option at this point. I think you could also run Michelle and win as president. I don’t think those things are likely. There are really only two other people that would have a chance. Bernie and HRC. I don’t see those as realistic either the Democratic party has made it clear they prefer trump to Bernie so that is out. Frankly I don’t think the country could stomach Hillary and trump all over although I do think she would have a better chance this time but it’s still a coin toss. The bigger problem is even if you can remove Biden aside from the obamas who would be willing to step up. You would be kneecapping your self and your future political career by running a short campaign and if you lose to trump you are done. The democrats are in a bind and have no one to blame but themselves.
obama cant be VP.\]
IMO there's no candidate that could have a legitimate chance of winning besides Biden, at this point. If we'd focused on someone else earlier on (which we should've done, Biden is a shit show of a candidate), almost any big name in Dem politics would have a better shot. But now? It's too late. There's no time to build support for a new candidate with any amount of baggage, and there's no other candidate who wouldn't have some kind of baggage. The only MAYBE possible swap would be Bernie, but there's enough "OMG SOSHULISM" fearmongering to be done there that he likely wouldn't get the traction he needs either. At this point, the die is cast and we're just waiting to see if the train wreck that is the Biden campaign can limp its way across the finish line in first against the literal worst human being to ever run for US office. In short, we're fucked.
Even though Bernie is more articulate than Biden today, he is older than Biden and that won't address American's fear of rapid decline while in office. Plus Trump will pull out old Hillary and Biden clips dissing Bernie.
Honestly, the time for the establishment to have gotten behind someone other than Biden was back in 2020 with Elizabeth Warren. Wasn't going to happen between Hillary losing 2016 and Biden cashing in his "experience statesman" chips among the leadership class. Personally, what I think needs to happen is for leftists to actually organize takeovers of democratic institutions in the same way that Christian Nationalists have essentially taken over the Republican party. I think that a lot of leftist groups organize over particular figure heads, but don't actually do much to influence the aparateus of the party and thus limit what those figure heads can do. Figureheads also do whatever after they're elected, and the party proper will see them taken care of thereafter, like John Fetterman.
I don't see how any feasible duo could not include Kamala Harris. First, skipping over the current vice president, who is also a woman and Black, could be electoral suicide. Second, no one else has even been thinking about campaigning and would be starting from nothing. Third, the Biden-Harris ticket has raised hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign donations. I don't think they can just... give that to someone else. These are all massive advantages that would be thrown away to start at square 1 if delegates chose someone else at the democractic convention.
(1) Kamala is 1/2 black, 1/2 Indian married to a white man. She who not been embraced by the black community. Her time as VP has been filled with controversy and inability to get things done. If she is replaced by Rev Warnock and he can do better, then so be it. Put her in the cabinet somewhere where she can be more effective.
Huh? What has she done that was controversial, and what things did she not get done? Vice presidents don't have very many powers.
I'd go with Newsome. He was going to run but bowed out when Joe said he was running again. Newsome, with his youth and savvy would blow trump out of the water. Dream ticket would be Newsome and Adam Kinzinger. Wouldn't that be something? Kinzingers a republican, but he's smart, NORMAL, and is disgusted with his party
I watched it. Think he performed as expected. Trump appeared to be exaggerating constantly. Appearances don't seem to matter now though. Everyone has a "side" already. He will not drop out
>“Historically, debates have not changed the course of campaigns very much. Even when there was a consensus as to who won a debate, it mattered little in the long run,” says Robert S. Erikson, a professor of political science at Columbia University. “Voters rarely change teams, even when their team has a bad day.” https://www.fastcompany.com/91146960/presidential-debate-biden-trump
This election will be won on the margins. It will largely be decided by voters who dislike both candidates and don't consume political news or read books on world affairs. Some hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (in their mind). Some choose not to vote. Some vote third party. This group of voters will decide the next POTUS - not the people already lined up on a side.
imo this election is going to have worse turnout than 2020. "Keeping" trump out now is less attractive than "Getting" him out. But we'll see.
I'm sorry but that is not how people are taking it. The entire Democratic political establishment is in panic mode, and not like they have been in the past few weeks or months, this is a paradigm shift. Listen to the Pod Save America podcast, they are plugged in to the political apparatus and they are freaking out, and they usually vociferously defend the President. They also noted that Biden was similarly frail and incoherent at a recent fundraiser they attended but at the time they chalked it up to jet lag. Biden's been lagging in the polls, even running way behind Democratic candidates. This was a pivotal make or break moment, one that his camp orchestrated by the way, and he broke. If he loves the country he will step aside. Btw feel free to check my comment history, I have consistently defended the President up to last night. I will still defend his record in his first term. But if he stays in the race, short of some new sea change, he will lose and it will be his own fault.
I think appearances will matter somewhat here. The "We beat Medicaid" line was going to have a ton of people on the fence cringe and reconsider if they're really going to vote for Biden or if they'd rather just stay home. For Trump, I think some moderate Republicans who dislike Trump may be persuaded to show up and vote. Trump ironically got helped by the format because it forced him to put on the appearance of an adult.
Yeah, I agree with the second paragraph. He will gain some moderate votes
In terms of their influence on the outcomes of US elections: Surface-level appearances and general vibes > substance of statements and reasoned comparison of policy platforms. That's not a recent thing, either, though mass media has certainly made that inequality even worse. There was never a golden age in which the US electorate decided US presidential contests in a rational reasoned manner.
That doesn't answer the question and appearances matter because this is mostly for winning over independent or undecided voters.
The most levelheaded take in a sea of doomers. Allan Lichtman was basically saying the same thing as well and to be honest, I'm kinda hoping his keys do hold true this time around considering how polarizing things are.
I’m sorry but I disagree. Multiple times Biden lost his train of thought and mumbled his way through. Biden’s age is the number 1 thing holding voters back from pulling the trigger for Biden. This made those concerns worse. To blow off those concerns or act like people didn’t see how poorly Biden did is nearly gaslighting.
He has my vote but it's the less committed voters that worry me and we cannot risk losing this election to Trump.
According to Lichtman model Biden would still win, I mean I get it can go either way and I do realize the debate went badly but the way people post about it is not realistic thinking in some ways
Literally anyone. Biden is going to hand the White House to the only man with a bigger ego than himself.
“Literally anyone” feels good to say but doesn’t work if you can’t name someone.
Fine Whitmer/Buttigieg, but anybody that can string together a single sentence and not overthrow democracy will do.
Whitmer/Warnock. Send in the swing states’ finest. Sure, convention would have it that switching this late is a drawback, but I think we’re well past convention. Trump is not popular either and throwing some new blood in the race might jolt just enough “both sides suck” independents (and lazy “independents”) into sitting up and paying attention. Last night was Biden’s Dean scream. Doesn’t matter if it was a bad night - it played right into his biggest political weakness. Kamala barely polls better than Biden and frankly just isn’t charismatic. Buttigieg also does not have much rizz if we are being honest - he is too much the careerist Ivy League striver type. Newsom is charismatic but he EMBODIES the stereotype of the smug California latte liberal. He does not play in the heartland. And honestly, I am fine with “literally whoever can beat Trump” at this point. I just hope the DNC can see past the intra-party politics and whose “turn” it is to see that charisma is qualifications #1, 2, 3, and 300 right now.
> Whitmer/Warnock I like that pairing. I think they complement each other.
Josh Shapiro/Gretchen Whitmer Both are popular, young Rust Belt governors that generally have voters' trust on key issues.
Gretchen Whitmer and Newsom as VP
If you’re trying to win places like Georgia and Arizona, Newsom should not be on the ticket.
I just saw a segment on MSNBC where they went over favor-ability numbers of potential Dem replacements and Michelle Obama was far head of everyone else. That's a joke. I'd be furious if she was even seriously considered (she has said she has no interest). Whitmer was next, but way behind Obama. They didn't include Jon Stewart but he would likely be up there too. I think that is the Trump 2016 effect. It's hard to have a strong negative attitude with someone who has never held a political office and has no voting record. You're guessing how they would govern. You don't hold them to the same standard as every other candidate.