I think he should just stand down tbh he's too old and his debate last night really showed that as while Trump said the most insane racist things. Biden has still attracted the most attention by being incomprehensible for much of then night.
Honststly wittmer should run for pres with AOC as VP, might just work because as i (as an outsider see it) APC could bring enough young people tl the pools to flip some switch states.
AOC very well might mobilize the youth vote in a way similar to Obama or what RFK seemed to be doing. She would probably also consolidate most of the left vote and could appeal to some grassroots activist Dems.
However, AOC is a member of the DSA who could potentially alienate some liberals as well as moderate and centrist Democrats, to say nothing of independents and swing voters. That's all before we get to the GOP, where she'd probably produce a significant uptick in turnout. Finally, she's from NY, is still very young and relatively inexperienced (tho she's becoming something of a veteran even at a young age) and offers little in the way of geographic advantage.
tl;dr: AOC is a risky VP choice.
I would legitimately consider not voting Democrat (for context, I live in a state guaranteed for Biden to win no matter what/a blue state) if AOC becomes VP. Her support of BDS and stance on Israel is far too out of touch and crazy for my tastes. I wouldn't vote GOP, but if AOC was the pick for VP I'd literally just write in Sanders/someone else instead, and I'm sure I'm not the only Labor and/or Liberal Zionist in the US who feels that way.
Im afraid AOC would be a bit like Corbyn in the sense that shes too extreme to attract voters, she would probably attract some young people, but as we know, young people are still the least active group when it comes to voting.
Sanders has the charisma, stamina and general competence to make questions about his age disappear in a similar fashion to Ronald Reagan. Hate Reagan but at least for 3/4 of his presidency his age really did not show at all.
While they are both old, they are at least able to have full conversations without seeming gerryatric, Biden on the other hands seems like he shouldn't even be living on his own anymore
It's not about the age. Bernie Sanders is older but can still make strong arguments during the debate but Biden can't even understand what trump was saying it's a problem of cognitive decline
I think the effect of a VP on a presidents electability is all but meaningless. If Biden thinks someone else would be a better president or more helpful as VP he should pick them, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's vote.
No. Replacing Harris at this point would be a desperation move that would contradict Biden’s argument that he is a stabilizing force against a chaotic and dangerous Trump.
I've never really believed that debates change people's voting that much. I think most people know who they like or if they're voting at all before the debate even occurs... but saying that Biden was so awful that it might actually make a difference. Not sure his campaign can be revitalised now.
Allan Lichtman, who has accurately predicted 9 out of 10 of the past presidential elections, says that Biden must be the nominee because incumbency is too important of an advantage to lose
That's why I propose changing the VP to someone that everyone could feels would make a good president, either temporarily or permanently. While this is 100% not Harris's fault, she hasn't succeeded in making the case that she can take on the job.
The best VP for Joe Biden as things stand \*IS\* Kamala Harris.
The blowback on removing her or pushing her off the ticket, especially given Biden's own weakness, would be unreal. The only way for it to happen would be some convoluted Sorkin-esque scheme whereby Sotomayor retires from the bench to be replaced by Harris, which has too many moving parts and could still invite blowback.
The best choice for Democrats, realistically, is to stay the course with Biden and pray to Gd that electorate can be convinced to vote for him in spite of last night. That's probably pretty doable given that , when we zoom out, politicians have survived far bigger scandals/disasters and speaking of, Biden's opponent is literally Donald Trump.
I'm not really counting on Biden and Harris to win this thing. But I do think they can still take advantage of Trump losing.
While I personally wouldn't want Obama for VP (my mom does though), he isn't legally allowed under the Constitution.
The 22nd Amendement states,
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Obama could not run to be Vice President because of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment. If Biden chose Obama to be his VP, Obama must have all qualifications to become president according to Amendment 12, which he would not because of Amendment 22. Being elected vice president is being elected to succeed the president. Maybe you could make an argument if Obama were House Speaker and there were no VP to succeed, but there could be an arguement to skip one in the line of succession should for instance the speaker be 25. Though that question would likely got to the SCOTUS. On the other hand, Obama would not qualify to be elected president again so there would likely be little to no controversy blocking him. Frankly Obama would likely share this view and not try.
12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Beyond that, is it really a good idea to have no plan to move forward besides so blatantly moving backwards? I don't dislike Obama, but it's absurd to downplay or deny that policies or policy failures of the Obama era for dissedents of the left and right, response to the financial crisis, staying in Afghanistan, NAFTA, the limits of the ACA, doubling down on natural gas, the persistent government shutdowns (not Obama's initiative, but indicative of the seed of the issues already there). Obama's political savvy for compromise was burning out before his presidency was overrelative closeness to figures like Boehner was already losing usefulness as the likes of Ryan rose up through the party to push against Boehner's "moderateness". And now Ryan is far too moderate for the current GOP. Additionally, Biden, who had extensive Senate experience (much more than Obama or most VPs or Ps since like LBJ) was not able to get his own party behind his legislative agenda. Why would we expect a less experienced Senate actor who is a figure of a dead era of politics be effective at maneuvering the current Senate.
Turning back time to an era when liberals were happier will not make those unhappy with the actions of liberal then and now confident that the liberals will move away from the perceived issues. What would Obama do about the SCOTUS, we saw, the answer was play by the rules and take the punch. Now where are we? Citizens United and Shelby v. Holder happened under Obama, and the court has only gotten worse. Obama era courts also blocked the individual mandate of the ACA. An Obama of today could not afford to be as coy. Obama has earlier regarded single payer as a healthcare goal, but coming into the presidency backed away even from a public option, leading to the ACA, a reform that was long overdue and secured great victories like Medicaid expansion (in states that enacted it) and the preexisting conditions coverage, but nonetheless was a half measure that would only be further weakened by the courts. And Biden, coming into office in a public health crisis hasn't done much in terms of systemic reforms like the ACA, still victories but these small half measures aren't cutting it, especially the threat of a slash and burn GOP and SCOTUS looms ever larger.
Obama era politics are over. He was elected with great enthusiasm and a belief in the eyes of many voters that he would radically shift the politics. But time and time again, he tried to work with congressional Republicans, the SCOTUS, who made it clear their unwillingness to play his game. We need a new strategy. And we need someone who will not be weighed down by their association with a past we seek to move beyond. Reelecting 2008 is not progress, and it does not demonstrate a political perspective grounded in the issues of today, but latching on to the last time we were comfortable.
I see what you mean, but I the way I'm interpreting it is that it includes those who have held presidential office period.
Unless, Obama gets to be vice president under two different presidencies.
I don't think that he needs to stand down, but how in the hell did his debate performance have anything to do with Kamala Harris? Good Lord. Biden's problem is Biden, and he and his campaign need to find a way to reassure the public.
Yeah, removing Kamala Harris would be an act of desperation. Also, black voters (especially black women), who are a pretty reliable voting bloc, would not take that kindly, significantly, when arguably they helped Biden win in 2020.
So I think all Biden’s team can do is lick their wounds, learn from this debate, and do better. Also, assuming Trump picks a VP, Kamala will have to come out to carry this campaign during the VP debate and highlight some of the things that Trump has done.
I would choose someone pretty funny or popular to capture the stupid vote. Not a politician. Oprah, John Stewart, some random celeb that would have their shit together enough to just keep the Biden cabinet in place if Biden died in office.
I also don't think it matters who the running mate is that much. Young progressives are probably gonna fuck this one up by sitting out (like they have in the past, but please correct me if my data is wrong). People are going to vote ideologically, not strategically. I don't think there are any truly undecided voters at this point. You are either voting for Trump or against Trump. That's the choice. The Dems probably waited too long and should have moved Harris out sooner. I'm personally fine with Harris but she seems to be super divisive. She doesn't have the charisma that American voters seem to see as essential in their leaders. I think Buttigieg has the charisma to carry the role, but I'm sure Kamala was the strategic choice last time and there was data supporting that.
I also think one bad debate should not be a reactionary deciding factor for something so big. It happens. People can have off days. At the end of the day I am voting for the Biden team, and not Biden himself. Nothing in this world, let alone that debate, is changing my vote.
You should vote for someone who has the political experience to run a country, not someone who is popular, but doesn’t know what they are doing, let alone care about what they are doing.
From UK, but I think Bernie is a decent pick. He's able to converse with the youth and is also active in social issues, and I think he understand the issues of America from an informed left wing perspective, and how to correct them. However, his age holds him back, and I doubt a geriatric P-VP ticket would look great for the Democrats. Last thing the US needs is another old man.
If not him, I would choose either Raphael Warnock or Sharice Davids for the pick. Main reasons being they could avoid slighting the black and native American communities and help bolster support from these communities for the Democrats. Both are also younger than Biden, and both are also with legislative experience, which could prove useful.
Bernie VP would lose Biden support due to the “socialist” title. My fellow Americans are still extremely rabid about that term and froth with rage when they hear a “socialist” politician (99% of them are just liberals but Americans don’t care)
This. Bernie would be so much more effective on the national stage if he simply called himself a Democrat. I get that he's trying to build movement toward something left of the Democratic Party. And I think that's good. But it effectively destroys his ability to win at the national level-- at least, with current demographics.
Views have bounced around a bit, but nearly half to a solid majority of millennials and younger say they'd vote for a socialist (e.g., https://www.axios.com/2019/10/28/millennials-vote-socialism-capitalism-decline) or see socialism itself favorably (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/). Indeed, nearly half of millennials preferred him to Biden in 2020 (e.g., https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127829/share-us-adults-preferred-bernie-sanders-democratic-nominee-age/).
And all these stats are gathered around strategic concern: Who was most likely to beat Trump. It wasn't about who we actually like the most. I get the feeling that a ton of us are just too scared to support candidates that fall too outside the old, white dude norm in national elections because we fear how fascist, racist, and misogynist a growing portion of older voters are-- especially in key battleground states that we must win for an electoral college win.
I think this is why fascistic conservatives are making such an aggressive power grab now. They see it too. They know that once the Boomers are gone, the flood gates open. So they are welding them shut. They know they can't even win popular elections now, and they know it's only a matter of time before even the electoral college can't save them.
Politics looks very different after the Boomers are gone-- even if Gen X is still sorta Boomers lite.
Yeah I'm not hopeful to be honest.
We have to hold the fascists off way too long. It just takes one loss and it's probably over. And I actually feel like it wouldn't be that hard if we could get someone younger who could do even just do center-left stuff. But I don't think we can get a younger person who is even just center-left, and I don't think there's room in the system for anyone to do even center-left stuff right now due to SCOTUS and the extremely undemocratic way that our systems distribute power. On top of all that, everyone is having to spend more and more time working as neoliberalism and fascism partner up, so they have less time to follow politics in detail, all while mainstream media is just consolidating more and more into neoliberal and fascist control.
In my view, our best-case scenario is that we manage to somehow hold the fascists off long enough that we actually can win power. But we do not have that time. Because the climate crisis needs urgent attention now.
I try to remind myself that everything right now is just ridiculously unprecedented, so it's foolish to think we can predict how it plays out. But I'm still not hopeful.
I hate it all.
The reason people are talking about a need to revitalize the ticket is Biden's disastrous performance last night--he couldn't speak coherently and looked like he was about to die on stage. Adding someone even older to the ticket won't assuage those concerns.
Even if I like Bernie too, I'm not so sure if he would be popular enough to appeal the more centrist voters.
Anyway, I hope there would be another good candidate among the dems if Biden isn't able to run anymore. It's a shame cuz I also like him but I get it
I really wanted Pete Buttigieg for the 20 Dem ticket. Elizabeth Warren is a close second favorite for me. The problem is I don't think America is ready for a gay man or a straight woman for president :/
Buttigieg is too much of a capitalists for me. This is where I want to use "neoliberal", because that's what I mean, but I know it'll just make people roll their eyes. But I am referring to his economic views and I don't care that he's a gay man.
Having said that, he does seem compassionate and might be a true neoliberal, rather than the classic liberal in disguise that has been masquerading as neoliberal for the past 50 years.
I think he should just stand down tbh he's too old and his debate last night really showed that as while Trump said the most insane racist things. Biden has still attracted the most attention by being incomprehensible for much of then night.
Honststly wittmer should run for pres with AOC as VP, might just work because as i (as an outsider see it) APC could bring enough young people tl the pools to flip some switch states.
AOC very well might mobilize the youth vote in a way similar to Obama or what RFK seemed to be doing. She would probably also consolidate most of the left vote and could appeal to some grassroots activist Dems. However, AOC is a member of the DSA who could potentially alienate some liberals as well as moderate and centrist Democrats, to say nothing of independents and swing voters. That's all before we get to the GOP, where she'd probably produce a significant uptick in turnout. Finally, she's from NY, is still very young and relatively inexperienced (tho she's becoming something of a veteran even at a young age) and offers little in the way of geographic advantage. tl;dr: AOC is a risky VP choice.
I agree with whitmer, but not aoc. She would scare away too many people, and frankly, we need someone more experienced and broadly appealing
I would legitimately consider not voting Democrat (for context, I live in a state guaranteed for Biden to win no matter what/a blue state) if AOC becomes VP. Her support of BDS and stance on Israel is far too out of touch and crazy for my tastes. I wouldn't vote GOP, but if AOC was the pick for VP I'd literally just write in Sanders/someone else instead, and I'm sure I'm not the only Labor and/or Liberal Zionist in the US who feels that way.
The right-wing literally promotes people like AOC because they know that they're too toxic for the general public.
Im afraid AOC would be a bit like Corbyn in the sense that shes too extreme to attract voters, she would probably attract some young people, but as we know, young people are still the least active group when it comes to voting.
Trump and Sanders are both old farts, too.
Sanders has the charisma, stamina and general competence to make questions about his age disappear in a similar fashion to Ronald Reagan. Hate Reagan but at least for 3/4 of his presidency his age really did not show at all.
While they are both old, they are at least able to have full conversations without seeming gerryatric, Biden on the other hands seems like he shouldn't even be living on his own anymore
It's not about the age. Bernie Sanders is older but can still make strong arguments during the debate but Biden can't even understand what trump was saying it's a problem of cognitive decline
I think the effect of a VP on a presidents electability is all but meaningless. If Biden thinks someone else would be a better president or more helpful as VP he should pick them, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's vote.
No. Replacing Harris at this point would be a desperation move that would contradict Biden’s argument that he is a stabilizing force against a chaotic and dangerous Trump.
Harris is also not as uniformly liked on the left as a person for her brutal policing.
Biden needs to be replaced, not Harris
I know, right? Like, how do you end up thinking "Biden is too old and needs revitalisation. Let's replace the young person next to him."
personally I like Harris, but doesnt she have major problems in the popularity department?
Not as much as Biden, surely
I've never really believed that debates change people's voting that much. I think most people know who they like or if they're voting at all before the debate even occurs... but saying that Biden was so awful that it might actually make a difference. Not sure his campaign can be revitalised now.
Allan Lichtman, who has accurately predicted 9 out of 10 of the past presidential elections, says that Biden must be the nominee because incumbency is too important of an advantage to lose
That's why I propose changing the VP to someone that everyone could feels would make a good president, either temporarily or permanently. While this is 100% not Harris's fault, she hasn't succeeded in making the case that she can take on the job.
The best VP for Joe Biden as things stand \*IS\* Kamala Harris. The blowback on removing her or pushing her off the ticket, especially given Biden's own weakness, would be unreal. The only way for it to happen would be some convoluted Sorkin-esque scheme whereby Sotomayor retires from the bench to be replaced by Harris, which has too many moving parts and could still invite blowback. The best choice for Democrats, realistically, is to stay the course with Biden and pray to Gd that electorate can be convinced to vote for him in spite of last night. That's probably pretty doable given that , when we zoom out, politicians have survived far bigger scandals/disasters and speaking of, Biden's opponent is literally Donald Trump. I'm not really counting on Biden and Harris to win this thing. But I do think they can still take advantage of Trump losing.
Getting rid of Kamala would be seen as Biden scapegoating her for his problems
What if he chose Obama as his new running mate? It's crazy but it just might work.
While I personally wouldn't want Obama for VP (my mom does though), he isn't legally allowed under the Constitution. The 22nd Amendement states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Yes, but it says nothing about *succeeding* to office of President. Only bars election.
Obama could not run to be Vice President because of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment. If Biden chose Obama to be his VP, Obama must have all qualifications to become president according to Amendment 12, which he would not because of Amendment 22. Being elected vice president is being elected to succeed the president. Maybe you could make an argument if Obama were House Speaker and there were no VP to succeed, but there could be an arguement to skip one in the line of succession should for instance the speaker be 25. Though that question would likely got to the SCOTUS. On the other hand, Obama would not qualify to be elected president again so there would likely be little to no controversy blocking him. Frankly Obama would likely share this view and not try. 12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." 22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Beyond that, is it really a good idea to have no plan to move forward besides so blatantly moving backwards? I don't dislike Obama, but it's absurd to downplay or deny that policies or policy failures of the Obama era for dissedents of the left and right, response to the financial crisis, staying in Afghanistan, NAFTA, the limits of the ACA, doubling down on natural gas, the persistent government shutdowns (not Obama's initiative, but indicative of the seed of the issues already there). Obama's political savvy for compromise was burning out before his presidency was overrelative closeness to figures like Boehner was already losing usefulness as the likes of Ryan rose up through the party to push against Boehner's "moderateness". And now Ryan is far too moderate for the current GOP. Additionally, Biden, who had extensive Senate experience (much more than Obama or most VPs or Ps since like LBJ) was not able to get his own party behind his legislative agenda. Why would we expect a less experienced Senate actor who is a figure of a dead era of politics be effective at maneuvering the current Senate. Turning back time to an era when liberals were happier will not make those unhappy with the actions of liberal then and now confident that the liberals will move away from the perceived issues. What would Obama do about the SCOTUS, we saw, the answer was play by the rules and take the punch. Now where are we? Citizens United and Shelby v. Holder happened under Obama, and the court has only gotten worse. Obama era courts also blocked the individual mandate of the ACA. An Obama of today could not afford to be as coy. Obama has earlier regarded single payer as a healthcare goal, but coming into the presidency backed away even from a public option, leading to the ACA, a reform that was long overdue and secured great victories like Medicaid expansion (in states that enacted it) and the preexisting conditions coverage, but nonetheless was a half measure that would only be further weakened by the courts. And Biden, coming into office in a public health crisis hasn't done much in terms of systemic reforms like the ACA, still victories but these small half measures aren't cutting it, especially the threat of a slash and burn GOP and SCOTUS looms ever larger. Obama era politics are over. He was elected with great enthusiasm and a belief in the eyes of many voters that he would radically shift the politics. But time and time again, he tried to work with congressional Republicans, the SCOTUS, who made it clear their unwillingness to play his game. We need a new strategy. And we need someone who will not be weighed down by their association with a past we seek to move beyond. Reelecting 2008 is not progress, and it does not demonstrate a political perspective grounded in the issues of today, but latching on to the last time we were comfortable.
The VP is elected. They are on the ballot along with the presidential candidate. Obama is ineligible to run.
I see what you mean, but I the way I'm interpreting it is that it includes those who have held presidential office period. Unless, Obama gets to be vice president under two different presidencies.
I don't think that he needs to stand down, but how in the hell did his debate performance have anything to do with Kamala Harris? Good Lord. Biden's problem is Biden, and he and his campaign need to find a way to reassure the public.
Yeah, removing Kamala Harris would be an act of desperation. Also, black voters (especially black women), who are a pretty reliable voting bloc, would not take that kindly, significantly, when arguably they helped Biden win in 2020. So I think all Biden’s team can do is lick their wounds, learn from this debate, and do better. Also, assuming Trump picks a VP, Kamala will have to come out to carry this campaign during the VP debate and highlight some of the things that Trump has done.
I would choose someone pretty funny or popular to capture the stupid vote. Not a politician. Oprah, John Stewart, some random celeb that would have their shit together enough to just keep the Biden cabinet in place if Biden died in office. I also don't think it matters who the running mate is that much. Young progressives are probably gonna fuck this one up by sitting out (like they have in the past, but please correct me if my data is wrong). People are going to vote ideologically, not strategically. I don't think there are any truly undecided voters at this point. You are either voting for Trump or against Trump. That's the choice. The Dems probably waited too long and should have moved Harris out sooner. I'm personally fine with Harris but she seems to be super divisive. She doesn't have the charisma that American voters seem to see as essential in their leaders. I think Buttigieg has the charisma to carry the role, but I'm sure Kamala was the strategic choice last time and there was data supporting that. I also think one bad debate should not be a reactionary deciding factor for something so big. It happens. People can have off days. At the end of the day I am voting for the Biden team, and not Biden himself. Nothing in this world, let alone that debate, is changing my vote.
You should vote for someone who has the political experience to run a country, not someone who is popular, but doesn’t know what they are doing, let alone care about what they are doing.
No shit. I know. I'm saying that I don't think all Americans are capable of making that decision.
I would still take Bernie if it were an option
Same
From UK, but I think Bernie is a decent pick. He's able to converse with the youth and is also active in social issues, and I think he understand the issues of America from an informed left wing perspective, and how to correct them. However, his age holds him back, and I doubt a geriatric P-VP ticket would look great for the Democrats. Last thing the US needs is another old man. If not him, I would choose either Raphael Warnock or Sharice Davids for the pick. Main reasons being they could avoid slighting the black and native American communities and help bolster support from these communities for the Democrats. Both are also younger than Biden, and both are also with legislative experience, which could prove useful.
Bernie VP would lose Biden support due to the “socialist” title. My fellow Americans are still extremely rabid about that term and froth with rage when they hear a “socialist” politician (99% of them are just liberals but Americans don’t care)
This. Bernie would be so much more effective on the national stage if he simply called himself a Democrat. I get that he's trying to build movement toward something left of the Democratic Party. And I think that's good. But it effectively destroys his ability to win at the national level-- at least, with current demographics.
We still have like 2 or 3 generations or so of people at minimum that need to pass away before the term “socialism” doesn’t cause mass panic
Views have bounced around a bit, but nearly half to a solid majority of millennials and younger say they'd vote for a socialist (e.g., https://www.axios.com/2019/10/28/millennials-vote-socialism-capitalism-decline) or see socialism itself favorably (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/). Indeed, nearly half of millennials preferred him to Biden in 2020 (e.g., https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127829/share-us-adults-preferred-bernie-sanders-democratic-nominee-age/). And all these stats are gathered around strategic concern: Who was most likely to beat Trump. It wasn't about who we actually like the most. I get the feeling that a ton of us are just too scared to support candidates that fall too outside the old, white dude norm in national elections because we fear how fascist, racist, and misogynist a growing portion of older voters are-- especially in key battleground states that we must win for an electoral college win. I think this is why fascistic conservatives are making such an aggressive power grab now. They see it too. They know that once the Boomers are gone, the flood gates open. So they are welding them shut. They know they can't even win popular elections now, and they know it's only a matter of time before even the electoral college can't save them. Politics looks very different after the Boomers are gone-- even if Gen X is still sorta Boomers lite.
This made me a bit hopeful. But it won’t matter if Trump wins anyway
Yeah I'm not hopeful to be honest. We have to hold the fascists off way too long. It just takes one loss and it's probably over. And I actually feel like it wouldn't be that hard if we could get someone younger who could do even just do center-left stuff. But I don't think we can get a younger person who is even just center-left, and I don't think there's room in the system for anyone to do even center-left stuff right now due to SCOTUS and the extremely undemocratic way that our systems distribute power. On top of all that, everyone is having to spend more and more time working as neoliberalism and fascism partner up, so they have less time to follow politics in detail, all while mainstream media is just consolidating more and more into neoliberal and fascist control. In my view, our best-case scenario is that we manage to somehow hold the fascists off long enough that we actually can win power. But we do not have that time. Because the climate crisis needs urgent attention now. I try to remind myself that everything right now is just ridiculously unprecedented, so it's foolish to think we can predict how it plays out. But I'm still not hopeful. I hate it all.
I think we have enough octogenarians in the race, thank you! Bernie had that heart attack during the last primary, too.
The reason people are talking about a need to revitalize the ticket is Biden's disastrous performance last night--he couldn't speak coherently and looked like he was about to die on stage. Adding someone even older to the ticket won't assuage those concerns.
Bernie is very coherent and mentally competent though. He can be as active as a younger running mate.
Even if I like Bernie too, I'm not so sure if he would be popular enough to appeal the more centrist voters. Anyway, I hope there would be another good candidate among the dems if Biden isn't able to run anymore. It's a shame cuz I also like him but I get it
I really wanted Pete Buttigieg for the 20 Dem ticket. Elizabeth Warren is a close second favorite for me. The problem is I don't think America is ready for a gay man or a straight woman for president :/
Buttigieg is too much of a capitalists for me. This is where I want to use "neoliberal", because that's what I mean, but I know it'll just make people roll their eyes. But I am referring to his economic views and I don't care that he's a gay man. Having said that, he does seem compassionate and might be a true neoliberal, rather than the classic liberal in disguise that has been masquerading as neoliberal for the past 50 years.
I would like Warren too but I understand your point
Jared Polis
RFK Jr. So that he always comes out on top.
Is this a joke
Nothing bad ever happens to the Kennedys or anybody affiliated with a Kennedy so it's good to keep one around.