By Sunday it appeared that the Democratic Party and elected Democrats closed ranks around Biden. Anyone who ever wants a career in politics as a Democrat risks getting black-balled if they hint at replacing Biden. Unless, they are secretly planning a replacement, it will be up to big donors to try to leverage Biden out. Seems like a long shot to me.
So true. Recall that it was less than a year ago that Rep. Dean Phillips became the first, and to date only Democrat to challenge Biden for the nomination, an announcement that was received by the Democratic brain trust with the expected knee jerk contempt (Dean who? How dare he!), replete with urgings of their media lapdogs not to “platform” him. Most of them obsequiously complied, but on the few forums that would have him for an interview, he revealed himself to be an intelligent, charismatic, well versed, well informed, and well qualified candidate, whose main purpose in vying for the nomination was to draw attention to the fact that Biden is likely to lose to Trump, for reasons that the Democrats were keeping their heads buried in the sand about, and which were manifest in full gruesome detail last Thursday.
I’m reminded of that old Twilight Zone episode “Spur of the Moment”, in which Diana Hyland portrays a seemingly sinister, but in reality bitter, ruined, middle aged woman on horseback desperately pursuing the younger version of herself about 50 yards ahead to warn her not to make a terrible, life altering choice that she is destined to make. Rod Serling’s closing summation could not be more pertinent: “Warnings from the future to the past must be taken in the past. Today may change tomorrow, but once today is gone, tomorrow can only look back in sorrow that the warning was ignored”.
Dean Phillips followed his patriotic duty by sounding the clarion call last year, a call that was all but ignored. What slim hope there is of defeating Trump in November will now come down to talking Joe down, and quickly installing a candidate who will beat Trump. Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg have all been mentioned, and all could do it. I would also add Andrew Cuomo (yes, I know he isn’t pure, but he’d trounce Trump, which I think is just a tad more important) and Andy Beshear to that list. This all should have been done a year ago, and it’s probably too late now, but if our democracy is really in grave danger, then this Hail Mary has to be tried.
I am sure the lesson of 1980, when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in the primary, is not forgotten. The Party should enforce discipline to build unity for a candidate. We are seeing a downside of the practice, which may be good in general. In this case though, they maybe should have working on a transition after the midterm elections. I realize that might only now seem logical in hindsight.
At this point the question is to decide the least bad option. Changing horses at this point is damaging, but so it running one which risks being an embarrassment to the entire Party. Also, it is not entirely in the Party's control.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think all the certifiable gay haters are probably already committed to Trump, so I don’t think there would be much risk there.
Pritzker is another matter. Jew hatred seems to be more prevalent among progressive radical types, so I could see a real risk that a lot of committed Democratic votes could be lost because of this.
Another one that I think would make an excellent candidate is Ro Khanna, although his lack of brand recognition would probably make him too much of a risk to roll the dice on with just four months to go.
I’m a big fan of Sec. Pete, but he has never previously held an elected office higher than mayor of a middle size city. After he’s done a couple of terms in the Senate, I think he’ll be good to go.
Reading this first thing in the morning and, at first, my stomach starts churning, my heart starts racing, my anxiety starts peaking, and, THEN, the visual tweets of the week make everything all better. All of them were soooo good, it was difficult to choose the best. (Just my thoughts on the election - We will be voting for Biden's team this time around. We all know about and are saddened about his disabilities but the people he has put in place are experienced, intelligent, caring, dedicated to democracy individuals who help make him a far better choice than King Trump.)
Jeanne, you stated the Biden case exactly. Millions of dollars of donations came in after the debate (including mine) but this hasn't been mentioned. More importantly, why weren't any of the media demanding that evil Hitler-wannabe Trump step down? If he wins, with the help of the MAGA Supreme conservatives, our democracy is over, and I'm usually quite an optimist. I'm working like crazy for Biden and Dems so that doesn't happen. Also agree about the visual tweets, they were all sooo good. In the end, I had to go with the Not Haunted House, LOL!
The Dems' decision takes on all the more import given SCOTUS ' decision about presidential immunity. I woke up in the middle of the night last night and couldn't get back to sleep - I fear for our country.
Leaving aside the wisdom or otherwise of "replacing" President Biden (by some unknown mechanism) has anyone conisdered the logistics? The Biden/Harris electoral machine is complex and vast with an enormous war chest. Any ideas on how that transfers speedily and efficiently to some other candidates? The only Plan B is VP Harris, who is (quite unfairly and with obvious racial and misogynistic undertones) polling as more unpopular than President Biden. On which planet does a Democratic party shove aside a Black woman who is the sitting VP? Who knows what the reality is of the notional other candidates and their liabilitiies and flaws to be exposed by a ruthless MAGA attack machine?
allowing that you are correct on many of your points - tho i believe one can claim harris unfit to be POTUS and not simultaneously be mysoginistic/racist - then dems who support an enfeebled, shuffling, stammering, incoherent joe biden to continue in the race for POTUS shd get ready foir a shellacking in Nov on the order of Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern.
distincly different. to assume the holder of the opinion - just an opinion, a political opinion, unlike your ascension to the papacy, a fantasy - that believeing harris is unfit to be prez must be mysoginistic &/or racist is intellectually dishonest.
your opinion that she is fit to be prez is every bit as valid as my opinion - but no more so.
i hold many other high ranking political figures, mostly white+male, to be unfit for the presidency. females and racial minorities do not get a free pass just because of their sex, race or ethnicity.
I think people have thought through those exact questions. Currently the Democratic Party does not officially have a nominee for the 2024 presidential election. If Biden steps down then the delegates that were committes to him are free to vote for who they want.
Regarding watches. If Kamala Harris is nominated then she can use the Biden/Harris campaign fund.
That is not to say the replacement process would go smoothly.
I also haven't heard any political pundit that would put Harris at the top of the list of replacement candidates or that would claim that she is electable. The time to dump Harris was before the primaries. Then the discussion of alternatives could have been more viable.
Nate Silver mentions her as viable. I don't know if she is the top of the list. Kamala and Gavin Newsom are often mentioned in his podcast, and the point out that Gavin has problems as a candidate as well with problems in CA and San Francisco.
The problem with digging deeper for candidates who are less well known but better (Like Pritzker or Whitmer), is they have to finalize the selection within a week as delegates are planned to vote on July 11.
Do you want to win? Do you want to beat Trump? Do you think an obviously senile guy asking for four more years is the best way to do that? Are you kidding? Democrats need to get their incredibly shrinking incompetent pathetic brains out of their giant ass.
This is their fault. I blame them for picking Harris, I blame them for backing Biden a second time, I blame them for failing to have any sort of positive vision, and I blame them for continuing to deny reality, even after we all saw it, to this day. One of Biden's recent emails began, "Humbly asking for $15" or whatever. I wrote back, "Humbly asking: drop the fuck out, you selfish bastard."
I have no more patience with this bullshit. We're so fucked, and you're talking about how Harris is Black woman. Yeah, the most unlikeable, inauthentic, bullshitty, grating Black woman in America, she who sucked in the debates, who sucked in every assignment the administration gave her, who blows with the wind and doesn't know how to hide it, who excels at nothing so much as taking umbrage in a way that, even if it's real, seems fake.
The fact that anyone is concerned about "passing her over" is insane to me. Nobody is entitled to these jobs. The point is to win, and we're in an emergency.
It's not "some unknown mechanism." It's the convention, which is how it always used to be done. Biden drops out, so the delegates are uncommitted. Carville wants the most compelling convention ever in modern history, where the bench of talent makes its case to the delegates and the world, and the party emerges invigorated, a new birth of competence. But that would require a couple of people to put aside their egos, so I guess forget it, Trump 2, and y'all better shut up as we dutifully march over the cliff behind the head in the jar of blue liquid and its insipid running mate.
Hard to reply to such an eloquent and closely reasoned comment and such a balanced assessment of the individuals free of bias and the whiff of racism.
I want to beat Trump and if a 48 year old combination of Mother Cabrini, Nancy Pelosi, and FDR were available and could be slid into place seamlessly, I would be all for it. As it is, I remain astonished by the foul-mouthed vitriol addressed to someone who pointed out that there are some difficult practical hurdles to be surmounted before the dreams of the NYT editorial board and anti-Democratic never Trumpers are realised.
I'm sorry Michael. I'm really angry. I think I have a good reason to be. Not at you so much as Biden, the Democrats, and the position you espouse here, which strikes me as, ahem, if I may be so bold as to suggest, perhaps, just might be the height of folly, my good man.
Obviously there's no "seamless" way to fix this. But a bumpy road to the promised land strikes me as preferable to the superhighway off a cliff.
p.s. I thoroughly reject your baseless charge of a "whiff of racism," which strikes me as a touch less polite than peppery language. Let's just be done with that.
Biden successfully got Europe and most of the world to unite around Ukraine. His greatest achievement of his presidency would be to get the Democrats to unite around a new set of candidates. Given the stakes, I would hope that Harris, Pritzker, Newsome and Whittier could put aside their ambitions for the sake of the country and the world. Maybe I am dreaming, but if they can't they are no better than the Republicans who have fallen in line behind Trump, no matter what they really think of him only because of their ambition to remain in office.
By the new interpretation (to be kind) of the US Constitition, a sitting president is above the law if he/she is acting officially. Suppose the sitting president were to order armed forces (of which he is the C-in-C) to remove a political opponent who is a convicted criminal and a demonstrable danger to US security and democracy--I assume the Roberts majority would say he is immune from prosecution. They wanted to help Trump and they have handed any president new and sweeping powers.
That's exactly what I would want Biden to do after that appallingly wrong SCOTUS decision by the six outright fascists on SCOTUS.
I'd like to see him declare martial law on T**** & the six fascists, plus about a dozen of the worst Re Thug Licon traitors in Congress, hold a summary court-martial, find them guilty, sentence them all to death & the hang them.
It is not legal for the US military or any member of the military to murder, incarcerate, or 'disappear' any US citizen - under US law. Also, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is illegal to commit murder or to order a murder. Any member of the military has the right to refuse to execute an illegal order. So even in the absurd situation where Biden would be immune, no one perpetrating such a crime would be immune from either state, military, or Federal charges. Only an armed combatant on the battlefield or an imminent terrorist threat can be killed, as when Obama ordered drone strikes that killed US citizens in 2011.
Having the current good guy utilize the imagined future anti-democratic actions of the bad guy is pretty much the path of many failed African states.
Thank you. I was not seriously proposing or thinking that President Biden would issue such an order but suggesting, if he did, that he would be immune from prosecution for what should be an illegal act even if no-one acted on it. The headlines have been "Trump wins ..." etc., etc. when it should be "Presidential powers expanded by power-drunk court majority."
Regarding Biden, Jake Tapper yesterday asked a Biden spokesperson to have the president hold a 2 hour press conference with questions. It would test him, but be easier than the debate which had a lying distraction. But the spokesperson said that he’s brought that up to the president multiple times and been rebuffed. If Biden won’t or can’t do that, then he needs to be replaced. He may be sundowning. He can hold the presser during the day.
The problem has been obvious for at least two years. President Biden always uses a notebook, notecards, or a prompter in any public appearance. This includes photo ops with visiting dignitaries. Even then, he has frequently stumbled by reading annotations, like 'pause'. Sadly, he is not up to unscripted interchanges.
Bill Maher had said repeatedly that he’d vote for Biden if it was just his head in a jar of purple liquid. But Friday he said that the Democrats better get the jar ready.
We have to stop the talks of replacing Biden. A) There is no one else - Trump is beating every other hypothetical Dem by even wider margins. B) There is no tested mechanism for this, it will result in chaos and law suits and a certain defeat.
We need to close ranks against Trump, with Biden propped up Weekend at Bernie's style if necessary as the figure head leader. The singular goal must be stopping Trump and all election discussions should be laser focused on the existential threats he represents, not exposing the faults of our only chance to stop him.
Well in fairness, those other candidates have low national profiles for the most part and I think the polling about them is fairly meaningless. What do most of them really know about, say, Gretchen Whitmer?
Lack of familiarity is one of the big problems with the replacement idea. I don't think there is nearly enough time to work out who might be a successful replacement.
I think you covered this topic very well in your PS comments. Finding a new candidate should have started four years ago, or at least before the primaries. In addition to favorables and familiarity, the primaries could have exposed the negatives that might defeat a candidate. Too late for that now.
Not to mention the race/gender dust up that will be inevitable if Harris is bypassed. Her poor standing should have been recognized, and she should have been replaced when Biden announced he was running. As I wrote then, the VP choice was critical in a campaign for such an aged candidate and what was needed was a Biden centrist clone that was 20-30 years younger.
Do you honestly think that loyal democrats closing ranks around an obviously failing Biden and propping him up will do the trick? That’s an epic delusion. What about the many undecided who watched that debate? Where do you think those votes are going to go?
Suddenly many dems are looking as delusional as the maga people.
I don't know for sure that it will do the trick, but I know that trying to replace him will 100% result in a devastating loss. Anyone still undecided or who turned off Biden after the debate will go for Trump over an unknown Dem on name recognition alone or will simply stay home.
wrong, wrong, wrong. Dem's can kiss the fed govt - presidency, House, Senate - good-bye if biden stays in the race. his shuffling, his addled gibberish, and his deer-in-the-headlights gaping told everyone watching, most especially the undecideds, that biden is too old and unfit for office.
now, you may say, trump is unfit for the office of POTUS, and i would agree. but we're talking about the independents, the undecideds - they had determined before they looked into the debate that both candidates were worth assessing, and that one of them might get their vote. regardless of what you may think of that rationale, it's pretty pretty clear that the vast majority of those folks concluded: biden is less fit for the office of prez than trump.
'close ranks'? who are the 'ranks' to close? if it's those who were comitted to biden, &/or never-trumpers [i'm one of the latter], that would be a foolish waste of time. how could someone who was open to voting for biden or trump before the debate ever conclude, a day later or a week later or in Nov, that biden is worth their vote?
biden must step out of the race ASAP, release his delegates, and let the dems w- aspirations for the presidency make their case to the dems and the nation. biden can endorse or not endorse harris - won't matter, she's toast.
I listened to the debate on the radio and didn't think Biden was so awful; all I heard from the other guy were lies and exaggerations. When I saw clips on TV later, I could see more of what people were saying about Biden - he really looked like a doddering old man. It reminded me of the stories of the Nixon/Kennedy debate in 1960. People who watched on TV thought the younger, energetic, and telegenic Kennedy won, people who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. The visual certainly makes a difference. I will still vote for the doddering old man who surrounds himself with decent people over the other option.
It’s a figure of speech, but there is some literality to it. It may be glib to point out, but political candidates are, in a sense, commodities that are being sold to the public. When they reach an advanced age and start to become noticeably mentally enfeebled, well…..
Yet another member of the Silent Generation -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Diane Feinstein, Mitch McConnell etal -- who is/was so convinced of their importance that they would risk the nation's welfare instead. The morning after the debate I received more than 60 Biden campaign email appeals, no apologies, no explanations, no straight talk, just "we need money". Those I didn't report as spam, I responded "Withdraw Joe!"
As someone who works with older adults, seeing Joe Biden's modest decline over the past 4 years is disappointing yet unsurprising. Nobody can outrun the fate, but some are more lucky than others as to stave off time when the slide becomes a bit more steep. Pres Biden will likely be more physically and mentally frail in a couple years. I'm not looking to elect a Joe Biden of today, but for 4 years. I'm not comforted that Joe Biden's staff will be his backbone. Those are the same type of people as the staff of Dianne Feinstein, who kept her in office way beyond her mental capacity. Nevertheless, my fear is that Joe Biden will step aside AFTER the convention so a small group of Dems can make their backroom deal and give us a candidate we had no hand in choosing. That will turn off some voters, perhaps a bit too many. Give me a messy convention with public drama and an eventual nominee that the majority of the group agreed upon. What could be more American than that? Another thing to ponder, if Pres Biden stays in the race until the end and loses to the dictator-in-waiting, Biden's own selfishness will be blamed for the loss and will be his lasting legacy.
Why should a Democratic candidate "do the right thing" by withdrawing from the race (for whatever reason} when the Republican candidate has far more reasons why he's not fit for the job? Yet none, in the media or either party, suggest Trump withdraw. The cognitive ability of both candidates is questionable, so how do we decide? By picking the far less dangerous man is the only answer.
It's not about fairness. Everyone is freaking out and asking Biden to drop out because they can't see how Biden can win. They want to beat Trump, and they hope against hope that Biden would have the decency, honor, courage, and integrity (traits he has otherwise demonstrated) to gracefully step aside and save his legacy, and not shit all over it in a fit of selfish pride the way RBG did.
The idea that Trump and Biden are on a par in terms of mental acuity is belied by the debate, the first real test that many of us have seen in some time. Trump spoke normally; Biden couldn't. I got a text five minutes in, "It's a disaster, he can't talk." We can't minimize this. Biden can deliver a speech off a teleprompter, and he uses one everywhere, even at fundraisers. He can't speak coherently off it, or, at least, is very much in danger of appearing senile. Because he's going senile, which only gets worse. Heartbreaking. Sad. But true. Trump doesn't come across that way. I'll still vote for Biden, but we're not the votes that will matter.
Biden had one job at the debate -- deliver proof of life. An exceedingly low bar he failed to clear.
Lots of voices -- including, notably, the Philly Inquirer editorial page -- have called for Trump to withdraw. But we all know that such a call is totally feckless and fruitless; that the MAGA party is insensible to reason or decency. I agree that if Biden is the choice, Biden it is. Easily. But there are better options, and whataboutism isn't going to help.
The issue isn’t who is more fit to be president. The issue is whether we want to continue our current form of government, whether we want a president or a dictator. It’s scary how many voters want to turn this country into a dictatorship.
While Trump was president there was talk, at least a few times, of calling for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office for being unfit. At least one media outlet had physicians diagnosing him without ever meeting him. Forget "can Biden govern in four years" and go with "Why is he even still president?" Do you our enemies aren't sharpening their knives? (They probably have been for at least a year or more.) The answer most likely is that then Kamala is prez and, I agree with Bob below, she's not up to the task either. That's what happens when identity politics trumps competence. And I'm beyond furious that we, as a country, are in this position.
And another thing! There is less time than people think to make a change. The DNC is scheduled to do a virtual roll call July 11 to nominate Biden formally, because of the Ohio nominating deadline to be on its ballot. (The actual deadline is later but at the moment, the virtual roll call is set for next week.) Once that happens is there even a mechanism for a change?
And finally, the media have lied to us for years. Democrats, too, obviously, but an objective media? Ha. Reporters, analysts, whoever have their thumbs on the scale.
Biden would have to drop out. That's always been the only way after the primaries. The delegates are committed to vote for Biden no matter when the vote is.
Biden can drop out at any time up until the day of the election. I don't know the rules about replacing names on the ballots in all the states, but the longer they wait the more complex it will be. The worst case yet somewhat likely scenario is that Biden is nominated, hangs on but shows more and more signs of confusion.
It's rare I don't agree with Eric's well-articulate rationale, but having Biden drop out at this point is speaking purely from emotion & disappointment and not reason or political strategy. He acknowledges that the "intra-party battle that would break out" would be a "divisive mess" without really contemplating what that would do to the existing vast campaign operation and whether a contested convention is even possible. He assumes based on nothing, that a "quick, exciting campaign" of a new candidate would be successful and not with it's own disasters. None of the names being floated as possible replacements have been vetted at the level of a presidential campaign and they would be pressure, likely, to go with JB Pritzker because of the $$ he'd bring as Biden-loyal donors drop off.
Jay Kuo in his blog The State Kuo I think does a great, concise explanation of why the chaos of a new candidate is not viable. Including the point that the Heritage Foundation has legal challenges at the ready, and I'm sure Republican Secretarys of State in red states will refuse to put the new candidate on their ballots. We all need to acknowledge our disappointment at the situation but shift to PRACTICAL actions to defeat Trump.
Ballot access would not be a problem with a candidate nominated in time for the Ohio deadline. I don't know why Kuo is wringing his hands about this. And I roll my eyes hard at the idea that the media is pushing this because it wants drama to sell papers or draw clicks or whatever the expression should be anymore. The old "this is just a media creation by cynical reporters" argument is stale and stupid.
Look, sure, some constituencies and interest groups would be sore at a new ticket. They are already sore. There would be more than enough time and money and attention to introduce the new ticket -- many voters don't even start to pay attention to the race until after Labor Day.
Anyone who thinks this process would be too messy may end up marinating in the realization that avoiding this "messy" process all along is what gave us four more years of a malignant, lawless, vengeful, dishonest, spectacularly stupid Trump.
So no, I don't trust these calm, cool "don't wet the bed" Democrats who enabled Biden's vanity and didn't see this coming.
I agree with you that his remark about the media is wrong and unnecessary snark. However, I believe there's a lot to be concerned about to get a new candidate on the ballot in all the states. The republican machine will move heaven and earth to make that a nightmare. And I just don't share your confidence that dumping VP Harris will not piss off enough constituencies that they won't choose to not vote.
I am in no way a "don't we the bed" Dem who tries to dismiss people's concerns about Biden. My stress level has increased significantly since the debate and I absolutely see the appeal - always have - of having a different candidate. But I see a myriad of real challenges both legally and politically to having an open convention.
No matter what, I will support in any way I'm able the Democratic candidate whoever it is. I've worked and volunteered for campaigns in the past. I worked for the Dem Convention here in 1996 and signed up to volunteer for it this time only because I want it to be a success for Chicago. I know 'politics ain't beanbag' and the Dem party is in a fix right now.
I am almost convinced. But I fear the new ticket would be a bizarre compromise with little chance of winning. And the infighting could be so ugly as to drive irreparable wedges into the electorate.
even if you're right - and you probably are - wouldn't you rather the dems 'go down fighting' with whitmer, newsom, klobuchar, booker - even pritzker - heading the ticket? they all have the competence, the wits, the track record and the fire to take it to trump.
biden's unfitness will become more evident, not less, over the coming months. there's no reason to believe that, like obama, he'll up his game in the 2nd debate - obama could up his game, biden can't.
those who recommend 'closing ranks' and supporting biden - and not just biden, but biden-harris - are in for an electoral disaster of the sclae of Reagan-Mondale and Nixon-McGovern.
Go down fighting is a good point. Maybe a ticket of two swing state Senators - like Raphael Warnock and Mark Kelly could pull it off. Or Wittmer and Warnock. It would be better than Harris/Buttigieg.
The media is actually laying off on what they could be talking about in regard to the "bad debate". Where is Sanjay Gupta explaining to the public about "sundowning", which is very common in the early stages of age related dementia? Many believe that is clearly what happened and there are reports that he is only really sharp from 10-4. I watched my mother go through this and it looked all too familiar.
I think they realize that it is too late. First the experts have no credibility, having told us there was nothing to worry about just a few months ago. But as I recall there was a lot of talk in 2016 (?) about 'who do you want to get the call at 2:00 AM regarding a crisis?'. Maybe it was 2020, but in either case, the argument does not favor Biden now.
By Sunday it appeared that the Democratic Party and elected Democrats closed ranks around Biden. Anyone who ever wants a career in politics as a Democrat risks getting black-balled if they hint at replacing Biden. Unless, they are secretly planning a replacement, it will be up to big donors to try to leverage Biden out. Seems like a long shot to me.
So true. Recall that it was less than a year ago that Rep. Dean Phillips became the first, and to date only Democrat to challenge Biden for the nomination, an announcement that was received by the Democratic brain trust with the expected knee jerk contempt (Dean who? How dare he!), replete with urgings of their media lapdogs not to “platform” him. Most of them obsequiously complied, but on the few forums that would have him for an interview, he revealed himself to be an intelligent, charismatic, well versed, well informed, and well qualified candidate, whose main purpose in vying for the nomination was to draw attention to the fact that Biden is likely to lose to Trump, for reasons that the Democrats were keeping their heads buried in the sand about, and which were manifest in full gruesome detail last Thursday.
I’m reminded of that old Twilight Zone episode “Spur of the Moment”, in which Diana Hyland portrays a seemingly sinister, but in reality bitter, ruined, middle aged woman on horseback desperately pursuing the younger version of herself about 50 yards ahead to warn her not to make a terrible, life altering choice that she is destined to make. Rod Serling’s closing summation could not be more pertinent: “Warnings from the future to the past must be taken in the past. Today may change tomorrow, but once today is gone, tomorrow can only look back in sorrow that the warning was ignored”.
Dean Phillips followed his patriotic duty by sounding the clarion call last year, a call that was all but ignored. What slim hope there is of defeating Trump in November will now come down to talking Joe down, and quickly installing a candidate who will beat Trump. Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg have all been mentioned, and all could do it. I would also add Andrew Cuomo (yes, I know he isn’t pure, but he’d trounce Trump, which I think is just a tad more important) and Andy Beshear to that list. This all should have been done a year ago, and it’s probably too late now, but if our democracy is really in grave danger, then this Hail Mary has to be tried.
I am sure the lesson of 1980, when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in the primary, is not forgotten. The Party should enforce discipline to build unity for a candidate. We are seeing a downside of the practice, which may be good in general. In this case though, they maybe should have working on a transition after the midterm elections. I realize that might only now seem logical in hindsight.
At this point the question is to decide the least bad option. Changing horses at this point is damaging, but so it running one which risks being an embarrassment to the entire Party. Also, it is not entirely in the Party's control.
Buttigieg can't win, there are still far too many gay haters out there!
Same with Pritzker, far too many Jew haters out there!
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think all the certifiable gay haters are probably already committed to Trump, so I don’t think there would be much risk there.
Pritzker is another matter. Jew hatred seems to be more prevalent among progressive radical types, so I could see a real risk that a lot of committed Democratic votes could be lost because of this.
Another one that I think would make an excellent candidate is Ro Khanna, although his lack of brand recognition would probably make him too much of a risk to roll the dice on with just four months to go.
I’m a big fan of Sec. Pete, but he has never previously held an elected office higher than mayor of a middle size city. After he’s done a couple of terms in the Senate, I think he’ll be good to go.
Reading this first thing in the morning and, at first, my stomach starts churning, my heart starts racing, my anxiety starts peaking, and, THEN, the visual tweets of the week make everything all better. All of them were soooo good, it was difficult to choose the best. (Just my thoughts on the election - We will be voting for Biden's team this time around. We all know about and are saddened about his disabilities but the people he has put in place are experienced, intelligent, caring, dedicated to democracy individuals who help make him a far better choice than King Trump.)
The PS is the first thing I read even before my coffee! The dad tweets are a personal favorite.
Jeanne, you stated the Biden case exactly. Millions of dollars of donations came in after the debate (including mine) but this hasn't been mentioned. More importantly, why weren't any of the media demanding that evil Hitler-wannabe Trump step down? If he wins, with the help of the MAGA Supreme conservatives, our democracy is over, and I'm usually quite an optimist. I'm working like crazy for Biden and Dems so that doesn't happen. Also agree about the visual tweets, they were all sooo good. In the end, I had to go with the Not Haunted House, LOL!
The Dems' decision takes on all the more import given SCOTUS ' decision about presidential immunity. I woke up in the middle of the night last night and couldn't get back to sleep - I fear for our country.
Leaving aside the wisdom or otherwise of "replacing" President Biden (by some unknown mechanism) has anyone conisdered the logistics? The Biden/Harris electoral machine is complex and vast with an enormous war chest. Any ideas on how that transfers speedily and efficiently to some other candidates? The only Plan B is VP Harris, who is (quite unfairly and with obvious racial and misogynistic undertones) polling as more unpopular than President Biden. On which planet does a Democratic party shove aside a Black woman who is the sitting VP? Who knows what the reality is of the notional other candidates and their liabilitiies and flaws to be exposed by a ruthless MAGA attack machine?
allowing that you are correct on many of your points - tho i believe one can claim harris unfit to be POTUS and not simultaneously be mysoginistic/racist - then dems who support an enfeebled, shuffling, stammering, incoherent joe biden to continue in the race for POTUS shd get ready foir a shellacking in Nov on the order of Reagan-Mondale or Nixon-McGovern.
You can claim VP Harris is unfit. I can claim to be the rightful Pope. Without evidence both are meaningless.
distincly different. to assume the holder of the opinion - just an opinion, a political opinion, unlike your ascension to the papacy, a fantasy - that believeing harris is unfit to be prez must be mysoginistic &/or racist is intellectually dishonest.
your opinion that she is fit to be prez is every bit as valid as my opinion - but no more so.
i hold many other high ranking political figures, mostly white+male, to be unfit for the presidency. females and racial minorities do not get a free pass just because of their sex, race or ethnicity.
I think people have thought through those exact questions. Currently the Democratic Party does not officially have a nominee for the 2024 presidential election. If Biden steps down then the delegates that were committes to him are free to vote for who they want.
Regarding watches. If Kamala Harris is nominated then she can use the Biden/Harris campaign fund.
That is not to say the replacement process would go smoothly.
I also haven't heard any political pundit that would put Harris at the top of the list of replacement candidates or that would claim that she is electable. The time to dump Harris was before the primaries. Then the discussion of alternatives could have been more viable.
Nate Silver mentions her as viable. I don't know if she is the top of the list. Kamala and Gavin Newsom are often mentioned in his podcast, and the point out that Gavin has problems as a candidate as well with problems in CA and San Francisco.
The problem with digging deeper for candidates who are less well known but better (Like Pritzker or Whitmer), is they have to finalize the selection within a week as delegates are planned to vote on July 11.
A planet on which its sane inhabitants really don’t want Donald Trump to be re-elected, and for whom identity politics is not a narcotic.
Do you want to win? Do you want to beat Trump? Do you think an obviously senile guy asking for four more years is the best way to do that? Are you kidding? Democrats need to get their incredibly shrinking incompetent pathetic brains out of their giant ass.
This is their fault. I blame them for picking Harris, I blame them for backing Biden a second time, I blame them for failing to have any sort of positive vision, and I blame them for continuing to deny reality, even after we all saw it, to this day. One of Biden's recent emails began, "Humbly asking for $15" or whatever. I wrote back, "Humbly asking: drop the fuck out, you selfish bastard."
I have no more patience with this bullshit. We're so fucked, and you're talking about how Harris is Black woman. Yeah, the most unlikeable, inauthentic, bullshitty, grating Black woman in America, she who sucked in the debates, who sucked in every assignment the administration gave her, who blows with the wind and doesn't know how to hide it, who excels at nothing so much as taking umbrage in a way that, even if it's real, seems fake.
The fact that anyone is concerned about "passing her over" is insane to me. Nobody is entitled to these jobs. The point is to win, and we're in an emergency.
It's not "some unknown mechanism." It's the convention, which is how it always used to be done. Biden drops out, so the delegates are uncommitted. Carville wants the most compelling convention ever in modern history, where the bench of talent makes its case to the delegates and the world, and the party emerges invigorated, a new birth of competence. But that would require a couple of people to put aside their egos, so I guess forget it, Trump 2, and y'all better shut up as we dutifully march over the cliff behind the head in the jar of blue liquid and its insipid running mate.
Hard to reply to such an eloquent and closely reasoned comment and such a balanced assessment of the individuals free of bias and the whiff of racism.
I want to beat Trump and if a 48 year old combination of Mother Cabrini, Nancy Pelosi, and FDR were available and could be slid into place seamlessly, I would be all for it. As it is, I remain astonished by the foul-mouthed vitriol addressed to someone who pointed out that there are some difficult practical hurdles to be surmounted before the dreams of the NYT editorial board and anti-Democratic never Trumpers are realised.
I'm sorry Michael. I'm really angry. I think I have a good reason to be. Not at you so much as Biden, the Democrats, and the position you espouse here, which strikes me as, ahem, if I may be so bold as to suggest, perhaps, just might be the height of folly, my good man.
Obviously there's no "seamless" way to fix this. But a bumpy road to the promised land strikes me as preferable to the superhighway off a cliff.
p.s. I thoroughly reject your baseless charge of a "whiff of racism," which strikes me as a touch less polite than peppery language. Let's just be done with that.
It might not be the convention. Ohio is mucking things up
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/05/20/an-obscure-provision-of-ohio-law-could-keep-biden-off-the-ballot-there-in-november/
Biden successfully got Europe and most of the world to unite around Ukraine. His greatest achievement of his presidency would be to get the Democrats to unite around a new set of candidates. Given the stakes, I would hope that Harris, Pritzker, Newsome and Whittier could put aside their ambitions for the sake of the country and the world. Maybe I am dreaming, but if they can't they are no better than the Republicans who have fallen in line behind Trump, no matter what they really think of him only because of their ambition to remain in office.
By the new interpretation (to be kind) of the US Constitition, a sitting president is above the law if he/she is acting officially. Suppose the sitting president were to order armed forces (of which he is the C-in-C) to remove a political opponent who is a convicted criminal and a demonstrable danger to US security and democracy--I assume the Roberts majority would say he is immune from prosecution. They wanted to help Trump and they have handed any president new and sweeping powers.
That's exactly what I would want Biden to do after that appallingly wrong SCOTUS decision by the six outright fascists on SCOTUS.
I'd like to see him declare martial law on T**** & the six fascists, plus about a dozen of the worst Re Thug Licon traitors in Congress, hold a summary court-martial, find them guilty, sentence them all to death & the hang them.
That shouldn't take more than a couple of hours!
It is not legal for the US military or any member of the military to murder, incarcerate, or 'disappear' any US citizen - under US law. Also, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice it is illegal to commit murder or to order a murder. Any member of the military has the right to refuse to execute an illegal order. So even in the absurd situation where Biden would be immune, no one perpetrating such a crime would be immune from either state, military, or Federal charges. Only an armed combatant on the battlefield or an imminent terrorist threat can be killed, as when Obama ordered drone strikes that killed US citizens in 2011.
Having the current good guy utilize the imagined future anti-democratic actions of the bad guy is pretty much the path of many failed African states.
Thank you. I was not seriously proposing or thinking that President Biden would issue such an order but suggesting, if he did, that he would be immune from prosecution for what should be an illegal act even if no-one acted on it. The headlines have been "Trump wins ..." etc., etc. when it should be "Presidential powers expanded by power-drunk court majority."
Regarding Biden, Jake Tapper yesterday asked a Biden spokesperson to have the president hold a 2 hour press conference with questions. It would test him, but be easier than the debate which had a lying distraction. But the spokesperson said that he’s brought that up to the president multiple times and been rebuffed. If Biden won’t or can’t do that, then he needs to be replaced. He may be sundowning. He can hold the presser during the day.
The problem has been obvious for at least two years. President Biden always uses a notebook, notecards, or a prompter in any public appearance. This includes photo ops with visiting dignitaries. Even then, he has frequently stumbled by reading annotations, like 'pause'. Sadly, he is not up to unscripted interchanges.
Bill Maher had said repeatedly that he’d vote for Biden if it was just his head in a jar of purple liquid. But Friday he said that the Democrats better get the jar ready.
Taking the opinion of a drug addled idiot like Maher is foolish beyond belief!
We have to stop the talks of replacing Biden. A) There is no one else - Trump is beating every other hypothetical Dem by even wider margins. B) There is no tested mechanism for this, it will result in chaos and law suits and a certain defeat.
We need to close ranks against Trump, with Biden propped up Weekend at Bernie's style if necessary as the figure head leader. The singular goal must be stopping Trump and all election discussions should be laser focused on the existential threats he represents, not exposing the faults of our only chance to stop him.
Well in fairness, those other candidates have low national profiles for the most part and I think the polling about them is fairly meaningless. What do most of them really know about, say, Gretchen Whitmer?
Lack of familiarity is one of the big problems with the replacement idea. I don't think there is nearly enough time to work out who might be a successful replacement.
I think you covered this topic very well in your PS comments. Finding a new candidate should have started four years ago, or at least before the primaries. In addition to favorables and familiarity, the primaries could have exposed the negatives that might defeat a candidate. Too late for that now.
Not to mention the race/gender dust up that will be inevitable if Harris is bypassed. Her poor standing should have been recognized, and she should have been replaced when Biden announced he was running. As I wrote then, the VP choice was critical in a campaign for such an aged candidate and what was needed was a Biden centrist clone that was 20-30 years younger.
Do you honestly think that loyal democrats closing ranks around an obviously failing Biden and propping him up will do the trick? That’s an epic delusion. What about the many undecided who watched that debate? Where do you think those votes are going to go?
Suddenly many dems are looking as delusional as the maga people.
I don't know for sure that it will do the trick, but I know that trying to replace him will 100% result in a devastating loss. Anyone still undecided or who turned off Biden after the debate will go for Trump over an unknown Dem on name recognition alone or will simply stay home.
wrong, wrong, wrong. Dem's can kiss the fed govt - presidency, House, Senate - good-bye if biden stays in the race. his shuffling, his addled gibberish, and his deer-in-the-headlights gaping told everyone watching, most especially the undecideds, that biden is too old and unfit for office.
now, you may say, trump is unfit for the office of POTUS, and i would agree. but we're talking about the independents, the undecideds - they had determined before they looked into the debate that both candidates were worth assessing, and that one of them might get their vote. regardless of what you may think of that rationale, it's pretty pretty clear that the vast majority of those folks concluded: biden is less fit for the office of prez than trump.
'close ranks'? who are the 'ranks' to close? if it's those who were comitted to biden, &/or never-trumpers [i'm one of the latter], that would be a foolish waste of time. how could someone who was open to voting for biden or trump before the debate ever conclude, a day later or a week later or in Nov, that biden is worth their vote?
biden must step out of the race ASAP, release his delegates, and let the dems w- aspirations for the presidency make their case to the dems and the nation. biden can endorse or not endorse harris - won't matter, she's toast.
Putting "respectfully" in front of a comment does not make it less offensive to refer to a person having a sell by date because of their age.
It's not just his age. C'mon. Did you watch the debate? You wouldn't hire that guy to run a house-painting company.
I listened to the debate on the radio and didn't think Biden was so awful; all I heard from the other guy were lies and exaggerations. When I saw clips on TV later, I could see more of what people were saying about Biden - he really looked like a doddering old man. It reminded me of the stories of the Nixon/Kennedy debate in 1960. People who watched on TV thought the younger, energetic, and telegenic Kennedy won, people who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. The visual certainly makes a difference. I will still vote for the doddering old man who surrounds himself with decent people over the other option.
I'm not disagreeing with you regarding his competency in the debate. It's the "sell by" terminology which clearly relates to age that I object to.
It’s a figure of speech, but there is some literality to it. It may be glib to point out, but political candidates are, in a sense, commodities that are being sold to the public. When they reach an advanced age and start to become noticeably mentally enfeebled, well…..
Yet another member of the Silent Generation -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Diane Feinstein, Mitch McConnell etal -- who is/was so convinced of their importance that they would risk the nation's welfare instead. The morning after the debate I received more than 60 Biden campaign email appeals, no apologies, no explanations, no straight talk, just "we need money". Those I didn't report as spam, I responded "Withdraw Joe!"
As someone who works with older adults, seeing Joe Biden's modest decline over the past 4 years is disappointing yet unsurprising. Nobody can outrun the fate, but some are more lucky than others as to stave off time when the slide becomes a bit more steep. Pres Biden will likely be more physically and mentally frail in a couple years. I'm not looking to elect a Joe Biden of today, but for 4 years. I'm not comforted that Joe Biden's staff will be his backbone. Those are the same type of people as the staff of Dianne Feinstein, who kept her in office way beyond her mental capacity. Nevertheless, my fear is that Joe Biden will step aside AFTER the convention so a small group of Dems can make their backroom deal and give us a candidate we had no hand in choosing. That will turn off some voters, perhaps a bit too many. Give me a messy convention with public drama and an eventual nominee that the majority of the group agreed upon. What could be more American than that? Another thing to ponder, if Pres Biden stays in the race until the end and loses to the dictator-in-waiting, Biden's own selfishness will be blamed for the loss and will be his lasting legacy.
The convention may be too late. Ohio is trying to muck things up
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/05/20/an-obscure-provision-of-ohio-law-could-keep-biden-off-the-ballot-there-in-november/
Why should a Democratic candidate "do the right thing" by withdrawing from the race (for whatever reason} when the Republican candidate has far more reasons why he's not fit for the job? Yet none, in the media or either party, suggest Trump withdraw. The cognitive ability of both candidates is questionable, so how do we decide? By picking the far less dangerous man is the only answer.
It's not about fairness. Everyone is freaking out and asking Biden to drop out because they can't see how Biden can win. They want to beat Trump, and they hope against hope that Biden would have the decency, honor, courage, and integrity (traits he has otherwise demonstrated) to gracefully step aside and save his legacy, and not shit all over it in a fit of selfish pride the way RBG did.
The idea that Trump and Biden are on a par in terms of mental acuity is belied by the debate, the first real test that many of us have seen in some time. Trump spoke normally; Biden couldn't. I got a text five minutes in, "It's a disaster, he can't talk." We can't minimize this. Biden can deliver a speech off a teleprompter, and he uses one everywhere, even at fundraisers. He can't speak coherently off it, or, at least, is very much in danger of appearing senile. Because he's going senile, which only gets worse. Heartbreaking. Sad. But true. Trump doesn't come across that way. I'll still vote for Biden, but we're not the votes that will matter.
Biden had one job at the debate -- deliver proof of life. An exceedingly low bar he failed to clear.
Oh boy, EVERYONE speaks again? If you can vote for a convicted felon and liar, you need to drop fairness from consideration.
Lots of voices -- including, notably, the Philly Inquirer editorial page -- have called for Trump to withdraw. But we all know that such a call is totally feckless and fruitless; that the MAGA party is insensible to reason or decency. I agree that if Biden is the choice, Biden it is. Easily. But there are better options, and whataboutism isn't going to help.
The issue isn’t who is more fit to be president. The issue is whether we want to continue our current form of government, whether we want a president or a dictator. It’s scary how many voters want to turn this country into a dictatorship.
While Trump was president there was talk, at least a few times, of calling for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office for being unfit. At least one media outlet had physicians diagnosing him without ever meeting him. Forget "can Biden govern in four years" and go with "Why is he even still president?" Do you our enemies aren't sharpening their knives? (They probably have been for at least a year or more.) The answer most likely is that then Kamala is prez and, I agree with Bob below, she's not up to the task either. That's what happens when identity politics trumps competence. And I'm beyond furious that we, as a country, are in this position.
Mike Pence was not gonna accept being President for 5 minutes, his ego would never allow it.
And another thing! There is less time than people think to make a change. The DNC is scheduled to do a virtual roll call July 11 to nominate Biden formally, because of the Ohio nominating deadline to be on its ballot. (The actual deadline is later but at the moment, the virtual roll call is set for next week.) Once that happens is there even a mechanism for a change?
And finally, the media have lied to us for years. Democrats, too, obviously, but an objective media? Ha. Reporters, analysts, whoever have their thumbs on the scale.
Biden would have to drop out. That's always been the only way after the primaries. The delegates are committed to vote for Biden no matter when the vote is.
Biden can drop out at any time up until the day of the election. I don't know the rules about replacing names on the ballots in all the states, but the longer they wait the more complex it will be. The worst case yet somewhat likely scenario is that Biden is nominated, hangs on but shows more and more signs of confusion.
It's rare I don't agree with Eric's well-articulate rationale, but having Biden drop out at this point is speaking purely from emotion & disappointment and not reason or political strategy. He acknowledges that the "intra-party battle that would break out" would be a "divisive mess" without really contemplating what that would do to the existing vast campaign operation and whether a contested convention is even possible. He assumes based on nothing, that a "quick, exciting campaign" of a new candidate would be successful and not with it's own disasters. None of the names being floated as possible replacements have been vetted at the level of a presidential campaign and they would be pressure, likely, to go with JB Pritzker because of the $$ he'd bring as Biden-loyal donors drop off.
Jay Kuo in his blog The State Kuo I think does a great, concise explanation of why the chaos of a new candidate is not viable. Including the point that the Heritage Foundation has legal challenges at the ready, and I'm sure Republican Secretarys of State in red states will refuse to put the new candidate on their ballots. We all need to acknowledge our disappointment at the situation but shift to PRACTICAL actions to defeat Trump.
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/be-practical-not-problematic?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=283462&post_id=146167864&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=u7a0&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Ballot access would not be a problem with a candidate nominated in time for the Ohio deadline. I don't know why Kuo is wringing his hands about this. And I roll my eyes hard at the idea that the media is pushing this because it wants drama to sell papers or draw clicks or whatever the expression should be anymore. The old "this is just a media creation by cynical reporters" argument is stale and stupid.
Look, sure, some constituencies and interest groups would be sore at a new ticket. They are already sore. There would be more than enough time and money and attention to introduce the new ticket -- many voters don't even start to pay attention to the race until after Labor Day.
Anyone who thinks this process would be too messy may end up marinating in the realization that avoiding this "messy" process all along is what gave us four more years of a malignant, lawless, vengeful, dishonest, spectacularly stupid Trump.
So no, I don't trust these calm, cool "don't wet the bed" Democrats who enabled Biden's vanity and didn't see this coming.
Thank you.
I agree with you that his remark about the media is wrong and unnecessary snark. However, I believe there's a lot to be concerned about to get a new candidate on the ballot in all the states. The republican machine will move heaven and earth to make that a nightmare. And I just don't share your confidence that dumping VP Harris will not piss off enough constituencies that they won't choose to not vote.
I am in no way a "don't we the bed" Dem who tries to dismiss people's concerns about Biden. My stress level has increased significantly since the debate and I absolutely see the appeal - always have - of having a different candidate. But I see a myriad of real challenges both legally and politically to having an open convention.
No matter what, I will support in any way I'm able the Democratic candidate whoever it is. I've worked and volunteered for campaigns in the past. I worked for the Dem Convention here in 1996 and signed up to volunteer for it this time only because I want it to be a success for Chicago. I know 'politics ain't beanbag' and the Dem party is in a fix right now.
I am almost convinced. But I fear the new ticket would be a bizarre compromise with little chance of winning. And the infighting could be so ugly as to drive irreparable wedges into the electorate.
even if you're right - and you probably are - wouldn't you rather the dems 'go down fighting' with whitmer, newsom, klobuchar, booker - even pritzker - heading the ticket? they all have the competence, the wits, the track record and the fire to take it to trump.
biden's unfitness will become more evident, not less, over the coming months. there's no reason to believe that, like obama, he'll up his game in the 2nd debate - obama could up his game, biden can't.
those who recommend 'closing ranks' and supporting biden - and not just biden, but biden-harris - are in for an electoral disaster of the sclae of Reagan-Mondale and Nixon-McGovern.
Go down fighting is a good point. Maybe a ticket of two swing state Senators - like Raphael Warnock and Mark Kelly could pull it off. Or Wittmer and Warnock. It would be better than Harris/Buttigieg.
The media is actually laying off on what they could be talking about in regard to the "bad debate". Where is Sanjay Gupta explaining to the public about "sundowning", which is very common in the early stages of age related dementia? Many believe that is clearly what happened and there are reports that he is only really sharp from 10-4. I watched my mother go through this and it looked all too familiar.
I think they realize that it is too late. First the experts have no credibility, having told us there was nothing to worry about just a few months ago. But as I recall there was a lot of talk in 2016 (?) about 'who do you want to get the call at 2:00 AM regarding a crisis?'. Maybe it was 2020, but in either case, the argument does not favor Biden now.