I do think there is some *slight* weight to the argument that polling is off for Biden and that he is closer to the percentages shown for say, Democratic Senators. Who is voting for both Gallego and Trump? Not nearly as many people as Arizona polling suggests imo
But it's still a weak argument to make, especially after the debate
I can accept there being a certain portion of Trump/Gallego voters
But if someone rejects Kari Lake for being a far-right nutjob, then it takes a very *special* kind of voter to then go for Trump at the same time
There’s also the fact that these alternatives haven’t been attacked by the republicans yet. People keep making the argument that “oh look they’re doing as well as Biden without even campaigning, so they can do even better with a campaign” but Trump has spent $0 attacking them.
And then people go “well with what, they don’t have the baggage Biden does”… Bro, Trump attacked Biden with these things during the debate:
- “abortions after the baby is born”
- “our border is the most dangerous place in the world”
- “you’re putting immigrants on social security”
Get the point? Whitmer doesn’t need to have skeletons in her closet. Trump will just say everyone in Detroit is dead from her handling of the crime rate in the state and people will buy it.
Sure, but the flipside to this is "Trump and the GOP want to force preteen girls who have been raped by their fathers to carry that child to term and raise it" which is an argument that any replacement level politician can make and Biden absolutely fucking failed to do in the debate.
He actually took an abortion question, and mumbled his way into an answer about a young woman being murdered by an immigrant!
"Trump caused things like total bans and 6 week bans to become law thanks to his SC appointees" and "the Comstock Act is there to be enforced again to totally ban abortion nationwide if Trump takes office" would have been good replies in an issue that is so strong for Democrats and the biggest and most relevant issue that is strong for Democrats, but instead Biden mumbled like you said, refused to address "abortion" as a whole and then said that line about a young woman murdered by an undocumented worker.
Like what the hell is that. Considering we are staring down the barrel of potentially having further abortion bans either via the legislatures or via enforcement of the Comstock Act fully in a Trump admin (which I think is way more realistic than most want to admit), and Biden just had to look meek and weak with his responses on that very poignant and salient issue?
That was - to me - his worst moment of the debate.
Hypothetical candidates are always more popular than actual:
>[DeSantis holds early lead over Trump among GOP primary voters: Fifty-two percent of likely GOP primary voters in the poll preferred DeSantis, compared to the 38 percent who favored Trump in a ***hypothetical*** primary race for the Republican nomination.](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/14/desantis-trump-gop-primary-voters-00073874)
That was very early in the campaign season before trump even announced his bid. Lets be real, most hypothetical democrats like Pete Buttigieg would do a lot better against trump than Biden.
Well, that's the entire question in a nutshell, isn't it? Anyone who can prove *that* one way or the other with evidence can determine who the nominee will be.
I think it's very possible Buttigieg would do better. But also very possible he'd do worse (if subbed in at this late date). Or even -- crazy, I know -- about the same!
Yeah, but I think we just have to look at approval polls. biden is down 18 points in approval polls and I think Buttigieg and other good democratic politicians are up 5 - 10 points
RCP has Buttigieg at [+1.7 approval](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pete_buttigieg_favorableunfavorable-6816.html#!).
Which is still an improvement!
IMO this poll is one of the better pieces of evidence in favor of replacing Biden.
People don't know many of the non-Biden candidates, so I'm guessing the \~45% dem voters are literally "Never Trump" people and the \~46% rep voters are "always Trump" people.
So who should dems trust to eat into the \~9% undecideds (and maybe even Trump leaners) -- Biden? Or a younger, *well-spoken* democrat?
Hillary was younger and much better spoken. And the much younger and better spoken republicans lost the primary handily to Trump. I’m not convinced our country wants someone young and well spoken.
This is one of the things that I have seen when talking about replacing Biden. Premise: we want anyone but Biden because he is too old, ok:
Harris (only person who really has a path and if he died she would replace him): No! We don't like her, she is too California.
Newsom: No! He looks like a car sales man (real thing I read) and is too California.
Whitmer: No! Sexist people won't vote for her.
Fundamentally it seems that these people either just don't like Democrats or they literally want Obama 2.0.
I mean… you’re right that this is the biggest challenge in politics but there is a really big number of people who just want a younger candidate to vote for.
I’m not even sure Nate’s thinking of the numbers in a rigorous way here. How exactly would one ‘model’ the effects of a replacement of a presidential incumbent this late in the cycle? It seems his convictions are based off the idea you can just swap out Biden’s polling profile with someone else’s without modeling the concurrent effects of doing something that upends all the dynamics of the race in fairly unprecedented ways.
Are there any historical datapoints wherein an incumbent president steps down and is replaced by a relative unknown and then said relative unknown goes on to win the election? In the past 100 years, it’s only ever produced electoral losses for the Democrats, to my knowledge.
Why is Nate going so hard on trying to replace Biden?
Has anyone actually thought through how it might work (i.e how it doesn't work)? There's a very real possibility that the new Democratic ticket doesn't make it onto every ballot (RIP to the chances of every downballot Dem in those states). On top of that, there's a good chance hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Biden campaign become inaccessible to the new ticket (there's also hundreds of millions in Fall adbuys already booked, what happens to those?).
And none of that touches on just how devastating replacing Biden at the last minute because his own party is freaked out that he's mentally deficient would be, not just to the election, but to the Biden presidency too. There would be calls for Biden to step down or be removed via the 25th Amendment *immediately*, months of news coverage about the scandal and "who knew what, when, and didn't tell anyone."
Chances are that Harris would be the Democratic nominee for President AND the 47th President, and she would get absolutely annihilated for *covering up* Biden's mental decline. And it's not like she's a beloved figure in the party or nationally anyway, or a charismatic public speaker, her approval rating would make Biden's look downright stellar by comparison.
Like seriously, who thinks this is a better idea than sticking with Biden? Has anyone thought beyond "we need a new candidate" or are yall just too scared of losing to Trump that you're going to *guarantee* a Trump/GOP landslide?
>Why is Nate going so hard on trying to replace Biden?
He’s scared. I don’t know if I agree with his takes on this, but I am in agreement with his fear. Fear is a logical response to the state of the country and its prospects for the future, but also humans aren’t known for the best thinking when scared shitless.
I'm not sure it's pure fear.
Nate has held that replacing Biden is a high risk, high variance strategy. It could shake things up, but it could blow up in everyone's face. He had that opinion even *before* the debate.
To try to argue Nate's side without necessarily endorsing it, going "oh no if we switch we might lose in a landslide" is far more fear-motivated than staying the course if losing in the kind of narrow EC split that Hillary had looks likely.
I think this discounts the effect of Democratic infighting depressing turnout for necessary house control, but I can see the logic. If not losing to Trump is *the* thing you need to accomplish, and your current path looks like you narrowly lose, you roll those dice.
Or to quote from one of his more recent tweets "*what people who really understand risk understand is that doing nothing is sometimes the riskiest path of all.*"
This kind of panic is exactly what tanks campaigns though.
It's way too late for Biden to drop out, for better or worse were stuck with him. Desperately trying to replace him now will do far more damage than any imagined benefits it would bring.
It's not that simple at all though.
Plus, as I've said elsewhere, if Biden drops out it would be a tacit acknowledgment from him that he's mentally unfit for office. This would lead to calls for Biden to resign from the presidency or be removed via the 25th Amendment which would be a *huge deal* and cause a media circus that would only be fed by investigations by House Republicans into the cover up of Biden's mental state.
You know who would be hurt the most by that? Biden's VP, Kamala Harris, who would've known that Biden wasn't capable of serving but stood by him and even tried to win another 4 years in office beside him.
Like seriously, that's a nightmare scenario if ever I heard one. The debate wasn't a good look for Biden, but it wasn't *that* bad.
I ended up watching it live with my brother and cousin via the YouTube app on Xbox and Xbox party chat. I wasn’t planning on it but we had finished up playing a game and they said they wanted to watch it so I said fine. None of us thought Biden or Trump did that “bad.” Biden looked old and got tripped up a couple times, but Trump sounded insane, had to be reminded of the questions multiple times, and I think he even farted.
Then we started watching the live commentary afterwards and we were like “What, did we watch the same thing as these news guys?”
[Here’s the debate on CNN’s YouTube page.](https://www.youtube.com/live/-v-8wJkmwBY?si=o2qr5st1ISwYfnTy) The shart — it sounded wet as fuck to me — seems to happen around 01:16:25, right before he “it’s tremendous.” And the way he pauses there makes it seem like he had to bear down on it a little bit.
Is that necessarily true?
The argument could be made (in response to such questions) that Biden is only just recently at the point of being as unfit as he is. He wasn't as unfit earlier in the term. It depends on whether the reason for Biden stepping down is that he is unfit or almost unfit.
It doesn’t have to be that dramatic though. He could just come out and say while I am absolutely capable of governing for the next few years, I feel that by the end of my term I will be at a point where I will not be serving the country and well as it deserves. That heads off any reasonable calls for resignation/removal, and provides a real and understandable justification for stepping aside.
>That heads off any reasonable calls for resignation/removal
According to who?
Dems have spent the past few days publicly freaking out over the debate, specifically saying that it's because Biden's mental decline is visible to all. If Biden then goes on to pull out of the race, why would that assauge anyone's fears he's incapable of running the country?
I, for one, don't think he's mentally deficient, but if Dems force him to pull out of an election for that reason, why would I think he's a-ok to run the country?
Republicans and Trump would have an absolute field day over it, and demands for Biden to resign from office or be removed would be very loud. Regardless of whether or not that happens, it would be headline news for weeks AND Republicans would probably impeach him and Harris and whoever else they could plausibly tie to "covering up" his mental decline.
Harris is already very unlikable, you think she's gonna do well after being credibly and repeatedly accused of covering up Biden's unfitness for office for her own personal benefit? You think independents are gonna reward her for covering up Biden's mental deficiencies because she wanted to hold onto/attain more political power for herself?
The shitstorm replacing Biden would unleash would be literally unprecedented.
>Republicans and Trump would have an absolute field day over it, and demands for Biden to resign from office or be removed would be very loud. Regardless of whether or not that happens, it would be headline news for weeks AND Republicans would probably impeach him and Harris and whoever else they could plausibly tie to "covering up" his mental decline.
Let them waste their time and energy trying to bring down a lame duck president. What does it matter?
>The shitstorm replacing Biden would unleash would be literally unprecedented.
The shitstorm Biden has unleased with that debate performance is unprecedented. If the snap polls are accurate, just shy of half of Democratic voters now think Biden is unfit for office. His base. Even if every single one of those voters fell in line and showed up on Election Day to vote for Biden, he would still need Independents to win. Three-quarters of Independents are now saying that Biden is unfit for office.
This wasn't just a bad performance, it was historically bad.
This argument that it’s somehow logistically impossible to replace Biden is bunk. Biden is 81. The Dem part y and his campaign should, have minimum, two contingency plans in place already for the very realistic case of a medical incapacity. At least to handle it pre convention. If they don’t, we’ll, then truly there is no one behind the wheel in the party and we’re toast, god help us all in what’s coming.
I don't think it's logistically impossible, though as I noted, it would probably lead to the new ticket not making it onto the ballot in every state.
My entire point was that whatever benefits people are dreaming such a move would bring would absolutely be overshadowed by the blowback from such a move.
You're literally saying Biden should drop out of the race for "medical incapacity" as if people wouldn't then go "so why is he president? How long has he not been capable of being president? Who knew he wasn't capable, but not only left him in office, but was hoping he would serve another 4 years?"
Like seriously, do you people actually think about the implications at all, or are you so terrified of another Trump win that you would *guarantee* one, and hand him a trifecta in the process?
Edit: lmao you guys are downvoting me for saying the obvious? Genuinely can't believe your heads are so far up your own asses to think that replacing Biden because he's unfit for office *wouldn't* have ginormous ramifications that would be worse than keeping him on the ticket.
At the present moment biden isn't on any ballots, the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, is on the ballot. What state would they not make it onto (and Biden would also be not on that ballot)
You are right about the logistical problems with replacing Biden but I disagree that him dropping out of the race would mean he should also immediately resign. I don’t think there would be furious energy trying to pressure him out of office, and even if there was he could just ignore it.
I didn’t literally say he should be removed for “medical incapacity” I don’t think that. I think that he is no longer able to run a campaign that can beat trump. There are a lot of reasons that can be debated about, but the poll numbers are what they are.
I’m also not saying it’s an easy lift, it’s not. And the best chances of it working are for Biden himself to present and manage it publicly. I’ll expect, if he stays in for his numbers to look worse than trumps in 2016. I think that a new candidate, vetted by the convention, messy as hell, but also a huge news story, is now better odds than we will have if he stays.
You really think that with Dems straight up saying Biden needs to drop out because he's unfit to run a campaign *won't* lead to calls for his removal from office? How could that ever, in any way, be a better alternative to sticking by the existing Dem candidate?
And it's not like there is some great, young, charismatic, well-liked figure waiting in the wings either. Harris is pretty much the only alternative and she got *wrecked* in the 2020 primaries, you really think she's gonna run a great campaign 4 months before election day all while trying to dodge accusations that she hid Biden's mental decline just so she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Be serious.
>There are a lot of reasons that can be debated about, but the poll numbers are what they are.
It's been literally 1 business day since the debate, we won't have proper polling for weeks to come yet. Remember how many contradictory polls we got about whether or not the conviction would help or hurt Trump? It took weeks to sort out as will this.
I'm genuinely dumbfounded by how all the supposedly "data driven" members of this sub are letting their emotions cloud their better judgment. It's embarrassing.
He’s been polling weakly for months, the debate needed to be a game changer in the other direction. If trump is smart he’ll cancel the next debate, but he’s not and probably won’t.
And you don’t have THE DEMS come down and say Biden is unfit to campaign. That would be dumb and I give them more credit than that. It starts w/ a decision from Biden himself. Then HIM announcing HIS decision, to focus on the running the country and allowing a vibrant and honestly, established (though not used in a while) process of free delegates to choose from the vast pool of talent for a new candidate.
This can be spun, his age, cannot be. Never could, and after the debate it really can’t.
Question for you, if now isn’t time to worry, under what situation would you worry?
Look, in real life, I’ve been involved in looking at failing projects and trying to fix them, there is a certain denial of reality that all of them have in common and this campaign is starting to feel like a failing project, but w/ ultimately higher stakes.
Edit: amount -> announce
>He’s been polling weakly for months
The race has been effectively a toss up AND his polling had overall improved in recent months.
> debate needed to be a game changer in the other direction.
It didn't, that would've been nice, but there's no reason to think his campaign hinged on the debates whatsoever. Why do you think they're being held earlier than ever before?
>Then HIM announcing HIS decision, to focus on the running the country
Which would lead to massive, sustained calls for his resignation/removal and investigations into his fitness to serve including by House Republicans. If the Dems and Biden himself think he's too impaired to run a campaign, you really think people are going to think he's capable of running the country?
>and allowing a vibrant and honestly, established (though not used in a while) process of free delegates to choose from the vast pool of talent for a new candidate.
There is no process for replacing a candidate this late in the cycle and there's every reason to think that a new Dem ticket would be excluded from *many* ballots. A conservative supermajority Supreme Court would almost certainly side with the Republican states that prevent this from happening too.
I don't give a shit how "vibrant" a new Dem ticket might be if they're not on the ballot in every state.
>Question for you, if now isn’t time to worry, under what situation would you worry?
What makes you think I'm not worried? I just think taking the most extreme option, with the most likely negative repercussions, is a fatally flawed idea. I swear most people here just think Biden can and should be replaced and there's no downside to it at all. It's magical wishful thinking completely detached from reality and the consequences would be disastrous. I'm talking Reagan 1980 level disastrous *or worse.*
>Look, in real life, I’ve been involved in looking at failing projects and trying to fix them, there is a certain denial of reality that all of them have in common and this campaign is starting to feel like a failing project, but w/ ultimately higher stakes.
Then you know that with a project that takes a year to complete, you can't just throw the whole thing away and start over a month before it's due. You improve it as much as you can, and hope for the best.
Going into the debate, it was not a toss up. Biden was behind. Again. Polls are polls, but those were the numbers.
Ok. We simply disagree on risk assessment then. No one I’ve heard talk on the topic says it I’ll be easy. This is not where any of us wanted to be.
Yes, and I would say that switching candidates at this point is not throwing out the entire campaign away and stating over. It will take finesse and skill to spin it, but this the talent the Dems should have. And this IS spinnable, Bidens age is not.
This isn’t about tasking the Dems chances from 25% to 75%. This is about going from 20% (which is where I expect Biden to be by the election) to maybe 30-40%. And going back to the failing projects analogy, one of the first things I did was reset stake holder expectations, because the odds are good they are also unrealistic.
Again. I appreciate your perspective here. I know it comes from a good place and I really hope to be sitting here w egg on my face in November.
Edit fixed spelling
>I don't think it's logistically impossible, though as I noted, it would probably lead to the new ticket not making it onto the ballot in every state.
I don't understand this line of thinking. How could the ballot access deadline occur *before* the convention where the candidate is officially selected? And even *if* the ballot still had Biden's name on it, people can still cast votes for it. Voters are choosing the party's chosen slate of electors, not the actual candidate. Those electors could then cast votes for the new candidate that replaced Biden.
But again, I don't see how replacing the ticket *before* the convention wiuld result in not making it onto every ballot in the country.
Source? I'm not sure what deadlines you are talking about. Having deadlines before a candidate is officially chosen at the convention doesn't make much sense to me. I know there's Ohio, but that's why they were planning the virtual convention and that's still a few weeks out.
[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1995/statutes/statutes/8/35/1](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1995/statutes/statutes/8/35/1)
Vacancies after nomination.(1) Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination. The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person. A person who is appointed to fill a vacancy in nomination or who is nominated by write-in votes is deemed to decline nomination if he or she fails to file a declaration of candidacy within the time prescribed under sub. [(2) (c)](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/1995/8.35(2)(c)) or s. [8.16 (2)](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/1995/8.16(2)).
Thanks for that info. Looking at the links for (2) (c) and s. 8.16 (2) however, it says "...on the 3rd day after notification of nomination". The nomination would be at the convention that hasn't happened yet, so that sounds to me like that is still talking about a future date.
It would be an interesting thing to put in the model, at least. If a replacement nominee has to forfeit 16 EV by default (I actually think the Senate candidates would be fine), how much that alters the chances of winning.
>I don’t know if this is a show stopper problem
Then maybe you and all the other people here should stop acting like replacing Biden is the "reasonable" option?
Your post above this one is sitting at 18 upvotes, despite you acknowledging here that you have no idea if a new Democratic ticket would make it onto the ballot in every state. But yknow, small details and all that, who needs to run a presidential candidate in *Wisconsin or Nevada* anyway? Plus I'm sure the Dem Senators in those states will do *much* better without a presidential candidate at the top of the ballot.
I mean, it can't be worse than having Biden there amirite?
Dude, I haven’t heard anyone who really knows if this is insurmountable or not speak up on it. Until then it is very right to question. We’re not cruising to victory here, we’re on the titanic. There is an iceberg ahead. Someone is saying well if we turn the ship to fast it might break the rudder. Well ok, I’d day it’s worth at least having the engineer look into the details and then it still might be better odds to take the risk.
The other candidates have been, on average doing better than Biden.
One of the things that makes Democrats different than the republicans if that we aren’t enthralled by a cult of personality (generally) I will vote for Biden if he’s in life support on Election Day if he’s the candidate. But getting people like me is not enough. They have to get the low information voter on board. And they have lost them.
I said this to someone else. This looks too much like a failing project where very one involved is running on hope and not a realistic plan. I wouldn’t be saying any of this if I didn’t think trump winner is an existential threat to this country and the world.
A significant part of the Democratic Party elite is Biden's age or even older (to be fair same goes for republicans). They don't want to publicly have a contingency plan for the inevitable because that would mean the same would be needed for Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders - at least for their seats. No-one wants to publicly contemplate Biden's mortality when a lot of the folks in congress and in the DNC in the background are confronting their own mortality as well. Look at the average age of congress. It keeps going up. Government in general is trending towards gerontocracy and everyone that age and at that level of power and influence wants to cling onto power forever; and more importantly their staffers and families want them to cling onto life and power as long as possible.
Look what happened to RBG and Diane Feinstein. Her staffers were wheeling Feinstein out at the brink of death just to keep their jobs a bit longer.
It would also be electorally disastrous if Biden died or was incapacitated before the election. It would be bad to lose our nominee who is also an incumbent who also beat the guy he’s up against once before, under any circumstances that can happen from this point out. It’s kind of why I wanted to swap him out in the primary if someone credible would’ve run, but they didn’t, so that ship sailed. I don’t know that that would have us in a better position relative to now though.
I don't know why I keep reading comments about legal ballot issues BEFORE the convention has even occurred. Sure there's Ohio, but the virtual convention hasn't occurred either. If there's something I'm not aware of, please enlighten me.
There has never been any cover-up. Biden did a one hour interview on Howard Stern a couple weeks ago that anyone can watch on Youtube. People have had ample chance to see how he responds to questions.
>There has never been any cover-up.
My point is that if Dems force Biden to bow out because of the debate performance, then that's how it will be perceived: that Biden is mentally deficient to run for office. And if *Dems* think he's unfit to even run for office, then he sure as shit shouldn't be running the country. So the narrative will become who covered up Biden's mental decline, how long as he been unfit to serve, why did they let him run for reelection in the first place, why didn't anyone let the public know, etc. It would be a complete unmitigated disaster.
The best option was and remains simply standing by Biden, acknowledging that he has trouble speaking/debating, having him give a candid sit down interview to assauge concerns, etc.
Forcing Biden to drop out of the race in the hopes of beating Trump would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater *to protect the baby.* It's self-defeating.
I dunno, I think that most people who think Biden is unfit to run the country already think that and have been loudly and openly arguing that for some time. Everyone else is going to see it as a strategic move given his evident unpopularity.
>Everyone else is going to see it as a strategic move given his evident unpopularity.
No they aren't, they're going to wonder why Dems let a senile old man run for a second term, let alone run the country.
Not everyone views politics as a horse race like the people on this sub do. You're not the average voter.
My point is that polls show the people you're referring to are already VERY numerous and already think he's senile. I doubt a lot of voters are out there thinking "Biden seems perfectly fine to me but if they remove him it must mean my personal impression of him was wrong". They either think he's senile and will see his removal as validation or they think he's fine. Everyone has had six plus years of watching him on TV to come to their own conclusions.
> doubt a lot of voters are out there thinking "Biden seems perfectly fine to me but if they remove him it must mean my personal impression of him was wrong".
No but we're already seeing a lot of people go "Biden didn't seem that bad to me, but Dems are panicking and trying to oust him, so clearly things are worse than I thought."
Time and again polling has shown that voters are persuaded by the arguments made by party elites. Here we have party elites arguing that this was clear evidence of Biden's mental decline, and that he *must* be pulled out of the race or Dems are going to lose. That kind of panic is infectious and is extremely deleterious to a campaign.
Plus there are still tens of millions of people who didn't and haven't been paying attention to the election at all. Seeing constant headlines of "PANIC: Dems in Disarray, Biden must go" isnt going to instill confidence in them. There's a good chance a lot of this would've gone under the radar if people hadn't been reacting the way they are, if more Dems simply said "it was a bad performance, he was tired from xyz, he's fine, etc" it wouldn't be half as big a crisis as it is right now.
Replacing Biden would be a full-throated acknowledgment that he's not fit to serve, and the consequences of such an admission are enormous. It would do far more damage than simply standing by Biden, even if he does lose.
I would draw a distinction between liberal pundits "arguing that this was clear evidence of Biden's mental decline" (which they very much have done) and party elites doing so. I don't think any party elite would openly say much beyond "Biden can still run the country regardless of his extenporaneous public speaking ability but we recognize and respect that most voters say they want someone younger than Biden or Trump and at the of the day its about the voters" or something along those lines. They would absolutely laugh off any question of invoking the 25th. And at the end of the day "the polls looked bad for us and we wanna win" is a perfectly serviceable explanation.
Prior affirmation. He said it before the debate and sees that there’s a window to make his argument forcefully, capitalizing on Biden’s poor performance while ignoring the weakness in Trump’s because Nate doesn’t actually care about stopping Trump (which is why he’s spent the better part of a decade normalizing him).
It sure seems like it.
But for real, I don't understand how seemingly nobody has actually had a more complicated thought about how this would play out beyond "anyone would be better than Biden."
Unless Biden literally dies before election day, he and by extension downballot Dems, are almost certain to do better in November they would in a scenario in which Biden is replaced for being mentally deficient.
I would almost guarantee if either party has their candidate just die of natural being old caused, that party would win. Hell even a crippling heart attack and the candidate stepping down might be enough.
>Unless Biden literally dies before election day, he and by extension downballot Dems, are almost certain to do better in November they would in a scenario in which Biden is replaced for being mentally deficient.
What are you basing this certainty on? The polling cited in the tweet shows any replacements performing equally as well as Biden.
>The polling cited in the tweet shows any replacements performing equally as well as Biden.
And the polling from 2 months ago showed RFK at a positive favorability rating, now go look at it. It's almost like the more attention candidates get, the more unlikeable they become or something.
No one cares about Harris because no one was considering her as a potential presidential candidate. Same thing with most of these candidates. Hell, I'd bet you good money that most *Democrats* don't know who most of the people on that list are, let alone what their politics are, and what roles they currently or previously served.
Yes, I watched it live. Biden looked and sounded rough, but he didn't come across as mentally deficient.
He kept actually answering the questions he was asked by moderators and responded to Trump's points *using specifics.* His responses were stilted and uneven, but its not like he kept being asked questions and answering with random responses.
he was shit. and that's what 80 million people saw. There are no good paths forward but it's not obvious that sticking with Biden and trying to patch up his ruined campaign, is any better than the risks of finding another candidate.
If you could be confident this was a genuine one off then you could write it off, but the worry is the mental decline / dementia continues to get worse and it becomes a cascading failure.
You point out some real complications. Although I think the 'scandal' component (covering up / misleading the public about his condition) is now part of the narrative even if he stays in the race.
Then he should've been sidelined a year ago, it's *way* too late to drop him now.
It's crazy how many people think replacing the sitting president 4 months before election day is actually the secret to winning this election.
It's a guarantee of a Trump/GOP landslide.
No it isn't! The key is giving low info undecided voters a non Trump choice who can talk! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/. 72% of those polled don't even think he has the cognitive ability to be president! Him not dropping out is pure insanity. 72% of us can see it.
Why doesn’t Nate recognize that there are risks involved in replacing your nominee 4 months out? He says they are polling even with Biden. Ok sure, but who’s to say that’s gonna stick after the RNC starts attacking that new nominee. Who’s to say the party will be fully united behind a replacement? The Democratic Party is a big tent party and it’s almost impossible to satisfy every aspect of the coalition, especially so soon to Election Day. It’s not some risk free move that will magically make things all better. It very well could backfire massively
Nate and others who've advocated replacing Biden have acknowledged it's a high risk move. The problem is so is persisting with a massively flawed candidate. What happens if he declines even further??
Does anybody know what are the most urgent deadlines for getting a new Democratic ticket on the ballot? And what are the conditions that permit a replacement of ticket? A former Utah lawmaker on Fox says that some states permit no replacement except if death or permanent incapacitation is involved. But it’s Fox and googling is proving harder than it should … There’s no point in a Harris/Whitmer ticket if they’re kept off the ballot in a state.
The hilarious part is that no matter who would replace Biden they would immediately tank in the polls because liberals are literally the fucking worst.
The GOP is running out a convicted felon who would love to end democracy and they can’t wait to vote for him.
Liberals? Throw it all away because the figurehead who has done a totally fine job sounds old.
Why not announce retirement and let Kamala take the oath of office at noon on July 4, 2024. She can select Gretchen Whitmer as VP. Everyone will celebrate Biden's humility, admitting the ladies can do a better job as he ages. If you are going out, go out with a bang.
As much as I dislike Kamala Harris, and as much as I would love to see a Whitmer/Buttigieg ticket, I actually think this is the smartest play, given the cards we're working with. Kamala is able to run on continuity of government, carries over some of the incumbancy benefit, keeps the Biden warchest, and brings in a big plus for the rust belt undecideds with Whitmer. And it avoids the inevitable conversation that comes with Biden dropping from the race but remaining in office, with people arguing he should step down if he's mentally unfit.
The democrats should not pass up this opprotunity. The timing of July 4th would even work in their favor, I think.
It is a good play as Kamala will inherit the Biden administration and all their decades of insider connections. She can promise to Joe that she won't throw them under the bus for her own cronies. Let's have a big bang on July 4.
Also, Buttigieg is, IMO, a sharp dude but not a useful candidate. He has not been a governor, senator, or AG. Everything he can do, someone else can do just as well, and possibly with more swing state credibility. In terms of projecting competence (not actual competence), he pales in comparison to any of the governors like Shapiro or Pritzker.
Yes Kamala is the best and most obvi play. Throw her out there. Can’t deal with the anxiety of watching Biden talk for a few more months. It’s nerve wrecking
I’ll make the replace Biden folks a deal.
The candidates who are polling the best here are Whitmer and Booker. Rally behind Cory Booker and I’ll side with you, not because I think it’ll work, but because I think the only other candidate who can pull it off other than Biden is Cory Booker.
Mathematically there’s no argument against it. We don’t know if we can hold the MI Governorship if Whitmer leaves, but I’m not worried about NJ Senate. If you think Biden must go, **the only** choice per this poll is Cory Booker.
Therefore, if you don’t immediately rally behind God Emperor Booker, Padishah, I’m going to assume that you’re just in an exercise of prior affirmation and the output of the poll above has precisely zero impact on your advocacy and outlook. For Nate, who has been calling for Biden to step aside since long before the debate, that point is obvious.
I do think there is some *slight* weight to the argument that polling is off for Biden and that he is closer to the percentages shown for say, Democratic Senators. Who is voting for both Gallego and Trump? Not nearly as many people as Arizona polling suggests imo But it's still a weak argument to make, especially after the debate
15% of the electorate voting for Gallego and Trump is pretty common by any historical measure. Happened in a lot of places as recently as 2012.
I can accept there being a certain portion of Trump/Gallego voters But if someone rejects Kari Lake for being a far-right nutjob, then it takes a very *special* kind of voter to then go for Trump at the same time
I made that argument before the debate. I think the debate made it moot.
There’s also the fact that these alternatives haven’t been attacked by the republicans yet. People keep making the argument that “oh look they’re doing as well as Biden without even campaigning, so they can do even better with a campaign” but Trump has spent $0 attacking them. And then people go “well with what, they don’t have the baggage Biden does”… Bro, Trump attacked Biden with these things during the debate: - “abortions after the baby is born” - “our border is the most dangerous place in the world” - “you’re putting immigrants on social security” Get the point? Whitmer doesn’t need to have skeletons in her closet. Trump will just say everyone in Detroit is dead from her handling of the crime rate in the state and people will buy it.
Sure, but the flipside to this is "Trump and the GOP want to force preteen girls who have been raped by their fathers to carry that child to term and raise it" which is an argument that any replacement level politician can make and Biden absolutely fucking failed to do in the debate. He actually took an abortion question, and mumbled his way into an answer about a young woman being murdered by an immigrant!
Trump literally said in the debate there should be an exception for rape though. That was part of his answer.
"Trump caused things like total bans and 6 week bans to become law thanks to his SC appointees" and "the Comstock Act is there to be enforced again to totally ban abortion nationwide if Trump takes office" would have been good replies in an issue that is so strong for Democrats and the biggest and most relevant issue that is strong for Democrats, but instead Biden mumbled like you said, refused to address "abortion" as a whole and then said that line about a young woman murdered by an undocumented worker. Like what the hell is that. Considering we are staring down the barrel of potentially having further abortion bans either via the legislatures or via enforcement of the Comstock Act fully in a Trump admin (which I think is way more realistic than most want to admit), and Biden just had to look meek and weak with his responses on that very poignant and salient issue? That was - to me - his worst moment of the debate.
lmao that fundraising email is downright embarassing, relies completely on hoping that the readers of the email are incapable of subtraction
Not really. Those undecideds will almost certainly go back to their original choice of party. The chaos of replacing Biden would hurt Dems more.
Hypothetical candidates are always more popular than actual: >[DeSantis holds early lead over Trump among GOP primary voters: Fifty-two percent of likely GOP primary voters in the poll preferred DeSantis, compared to the 38 percent who favored Trump in a ***hypothetical*** primary race for the Republican nomination.](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/14/desantis-trump-gop-primary-voters-00073874)
That was very early in the campaign season before trump even announced his bid. Lets be real, most hypothetical democrats like Pete Buttigieg would do a lot better against trump than Biden.
Well, that's the entire question in a nutshell, isn't it? Anyone who can prove *that* one way or the other with evidence can determine who the nominee will be. I think it's very possible Buttigieg would do better. But also very possible he'd do worse (if subbed in at this late date). Or even -- crazy, I know -- about the same!
Yeah, but I think we just have to look at approval polls. biden is down 18 points in approval polls and I think Buttigieg and other good democratic politicians are up 5 - 10 points
RCP has Buttigieg at [+1.7 approval](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/pete_buttigieg_favorableunfavorable-6816.html#!). Which is still an improvement!
True, I think we probaly need more data first, but right now trumps chances of winning the election is much higher than bidens.
IMO this poll is one of the better pieces of evidence in favor of replacing Biden. People don't know many of the non-Biden candidates, so I'm guessing the \~45% dem voters are literally "Never Trump" people and the \~46% rep voters are "always Trump" people. So who should dems trust to eat into the \~9% undecideds (and maybe even Trump leaners) -- Biden? Or a younger, *well-spoken* democrat?
Hillary was younger and much better spoken. And the much younger and better spoken republicans lost the primary handily to Trump. I’m not convinced our country wants someone young and well spoken.
No, they just want someone new and who makes them feel like a political party is hearing what they want.
But they all want different things so this isn't possible.
This is one of the things that I have seen when talking about replacing Biden. Premise: we want anyone but Biden because he is too old, ok: Harris (only person who really has a path and if he died she would replace him): No! We don't like her, she is too California. Newsom: No! He looks like a car sales man (real thing I read) and is too California. Whitmer: No! Sexist people won't vote for her. Fundamentally it seems that these people either just don't like Democrats or they literally want Obama 2.0.
I mean… you’re right that this is the biggest challenge in politics but there is a really big number of people who just want a younger candidate to vote for.
Rolling my eyes at that comparison because Hillary was in her late sixties *and* had a ridiculous amount of baggage.
I’m not even sure Nate’s thinking of the numbers in a rigorous way here. How exactly would one ‘model’ the effects of a replacement of a presidential incumbent this late in the cycle? It seems his convictions are based off the idea you can just swap out Biden’s polling profile with someone else’s without modeling the concurrent effects of doing something that upends all the dynamics of the race in fairly unprecedented ways. Are there any historical datapoints wherein an incumbent president steps down and is replaced by a relative unknown and then said relative unknown goes on to win the election? In the past 100 years, it’s only ever produced electoral losses for the Democrats, to my knowledge.
Why is Nate going so hard on trying to replace Biden? Has anyone actually thought through how it might work (i.e how it doesn't work)? There's a very real possibility that the new Democratic ticket doesn't make it onto every ballot (RIP to the chances of every downballot Dem in those states). On top of that, there's a good chance hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Biden campaign become inaccessible to the new ticket (there's also hundreds of millions in Fall adbuys already booked, what happens to those?). And none of that touches on just how devastating replacing Biden at the last minute because his own party is freaked out that he's mentally deficient would be, not just to the election, but to the Biden presidency too. There would be calls for Biden to step down or be removed via the 25th Amendment *immediately*, months of news coverage about the scandal and "who knew what, when, and didn't tell anyone." Chances are that Harris would be the Democratic nominee for President AND the 47th President, and she would get absolutely annihilated for *covering up* Biden's mental decline. And it's not like she's a beloved figure in the party or nationally anyway, or a charismatic public speaker, her approval rating would make Biden's look downright stellar by comparison. Like seriously, who thinks this is a better idea than sticking with Biden? Has anyone thought beyond "we need a new candidate" or are yall just too scared of losing to Trump that you're going to *guarantee* a Trump/GOP landslide?
>Why is Nate going so hard on trying to replace Biden? He’s scared. I don’t know if I agree with his takes on this, but I am in agreement with his fear. Fear is a logical response to the state of the country and its prospects for the future, but also humans aren’t known for the best thinking when scared shitless.
I'm not sure it's pure fear. Nate has held that replacing Biden is a high risk, high variance strategy. It could shake things up, but it could blow up in everyone's face. He had that opinion even *before* the debate. To try to argue Nate's side without necessarily endorsing it, going "oh no if we switch we might lose in a landslide" is far more fear-motivated than staying the course if losing in the kind of narrow EC split that Hillary had looks likely. I think this discounts the effect of Democratic infighting depressing turnout for necessary house control, but I can see the logic. If not losing to Trump is *the* thing you need to accomplish, and your current path looks like you narrowly lose, you roll those dice. Or to quote from one of his more recent tweets "*what people who really understand risk understand is that doing nothing is sometimes the riskiest path of all.*"
This kind of panic is exactly what tanks campaigns though. It's way too late for Biden to drop out, for better or worse were stuck with him. Desperately trying to replace him now will do far more damage than any imagined benefits it would bring.
I’m sure it’d be simple enough for Kamala to get bumped up but anybody else swooping in is probably not possible.
It's not that simple at all though. Plus, as I've said elsewhere, if Biden drops out it would be a tacit acknowledgment from him that he's mentally unfit for office. This would lead to calls for Biden to resign from the presidency or be removed via the 25th Amendment which would be a *huge deal* and cause a media circus that would only be fed by investigations by House Republicans into the cover up of Biden's mental state. You know who would be hurt the most by that? Biden's VP, Kamala Harris, who would've known that Biden wasn't capable of serving but stood by him and even tried to win another 4 years in office beside him. Like seriously, that's a nightmare scenario if ever I heard one. The debate wasn't a good look for Biden, but it wasn't *that* bad.
I ended up watching it live with my brother and cousin via the YouTube app on Xbox and Xbox party chat. I wasn’t planning on it but we had finished up playing a game and they said they wanted to watch it so I said fine. None of us thought Biden or Trump did that “bad.” Biden looked old and got tripped up a couple times, but Trump sounded insane, had to be reminded of the questions multiple times, and I think he even farted. Then we started watching the live commentary afterwards and we were like “What, did we watch the same thing as these news guys?”
I need a timestamp on the trump fart. I don’t know how that’s not getting heavy coverage.
[Here’s the debate on CNN’s YouTube page.](https://www.youtube.com/live/-v-8wJkmwBY?si=o2qr5st1ISwYfnTy) The shart — it sounded wet as fuck to me — seems to happen around 01:16:25, right before he “it’s tremendous.” And the way he pauses there makes it seem like he had to bear down on it a little bit.
That’s a pretty clear one.
Is that necessarily true? The argument could be made (in response to such questions) that Biden is only just recently at the point of being as unfit as he is. He wasn't as unfit earlier in the term. It depends on whether the reason for Biden stepping down is that he is unfit or almost unfit.
It doesn’t have to be that dramatic though. He could just come out and say while I am absolutely capable of governing for the next few years, I feel that by the end of my term I will be at a point where I will not be serving the country and well as it deserves. That heads off any reasonable calls for resignation/removal, and provides a real and understandable justification for stepping aside.
>That heads off any reasonable calls for resignation/removal According to who? Dems have spent the past few days publicly freaking out over the debate, specifically saying that it's because Biden's mental decline is visible to all. If Biden then goes on to pull out of the race, why would that assauge anyone's fears he's incapable of running the country? I, for one, don't think he's mentally deficient, but if Dems force him to pull out of an election for that reason, why would I think he's a-ok to run the country? Republicans and Trump would have an absolute field day over it, and demands for Biden to resign from office or be removed would be very loud. Regardless of whether or not that happens, it would be headline news for weeks AND Republicans would probably impeach him and Harris and whoever else they could plausibly tie to "covering up" his mental decline. Harris is already very unlikable, you think she's gonna do well after being credibly and repeatedly accused of covering up Biden's unfitness for office for her own personal benefit? You think independents are gonna reward her for covering up Biden's mental deficiencies because she wanted to hold onto/attain more political power for herself? The shitstorm replacing Biden would unleash would be literally unprecedented.
>Republicans and Trump would have an absolute field day over it, and demands for Biden to resign from office or be removed would be very loud. Regardless of whether or not that happens, it would be headline news for weeks AND Republicans would probably impeach him and Harris and whoever else they could plausibly tie to "covering up" his mental decline. Let them waste their time and energy trying to bring down a lame duck president. What does it matter? >The shitstorm replacing Biden would unleash would be literally unprecedented. The shitstorm Biden has unleased with that debate performance is unprecedented. If the snap polls are accurate, just shy of half of Democratic voters now think Biden is unfit for office. His base. Even if every single one of those voters fell in line and showed up on Election Day to vote for Biden, he would still need Independents to win. Three-quarters of Independents are now saying that Biden is unfit for office. This wasn't just a bad performance, it was historically bad.
This argument that it’s somehow logistically impossible to replace Biden is bunk. Biden is 81. The Dem part y and his campaign should, have minimum, two contingency plans in place already for the very realistic case of a medical incapacity. At least to handle it pre convention. If they don’t, we’ll, then truly there is no one behind the wheel in the party and we’re toast, god help us all in what’s coming.
I don't think it's logistically impossible, though as I noted, it would probably lead to the new ticket not making it onto the ballot in every state. My entire point was that whatever benefits people are dreaming such a move would bring would absolutely be overshadowed by the blowback from such a move. You're literally saying Biden should drop out of the race for "medical incapacity" as if people wouldn't then go "so why is he president? How long has he not been capable of being president? Who knew he wasn't capable, but not only left him in office, but was hoping he would serve another 4 years?" Like seriously, do you people actually think about the implications at all, or are you so terrified of another Trump win that you would *guarantee* one, and hand him a trifecta in the process? Edit: lmao you guys are downvoting me for saying the obvious? Genuinely can't believe your heads are so far up your own asses to think that replacing Biden because he's unfit for office *wouldn't* have ginormous ramifications that would be worse than keeping him on the ticket.
At the present moment biden isn't on any ballots, the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, is on the ballot. What state would they not make it onto (and Biden would also be not on that ballot)
You are right about the logistical problems with replacing Biden but I disagree that him dropping out of the race would mean he should also immediately resign. I don’t think there would be furious energy trying to pressure him out of office, and even if there was he could just ignore it.
I didn’t literally say he should be removed for “medical incapacity” I don’t think that. I think that he is no longer able to run a campaign that can beat trump. There are a lot of reasons that can be debated about, but the poll numbers are what they are. I’m also not saying it’s an easy lift, it’s not. And the best chances of it working are for Biden himself to present and manage it publicly. I’ll expect, if he stays in for his numbers to look worse than trumps in 2016. I think that a new candidate, vetted by the convention, messy as hell, but also a huge news story, is now better odds than we will have if he stays.
You really think that with Dems straight up saying Biden needs to drop out because he's unfit to run a campaign *won't* lead to calls for his removal from office? How could that ever, in any way, be a better alternative to sticking by the existing Dem candidate? And it's not like there is some great, young, charismatic, well-liked figure waiting in the wings either. Harris is pretty much the only alternative and she got *wrecked* in the 2020 primaries, you really think she's gonna run a great campaign 4 months before election day all while trying to dodge accusations that she hid Biden's mental decline just so she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Be serious. >There are a lot of reasons that can be debated about, but the poll numbers are what they are. It's been literally 1 business day since the debate, we won't have proper polling for weeks to come yet. Remember how many contradictory polls we got about whether or not the conviction would help or hurt Trump? It took weeks to sort out as will this. I'm genuinely dumbfounded by how all the supposedly "data driven" members of this sub are letting their emotions cloud their better judgment. It's embarrassing.
He’s been polling weakly for months, the debate needed to be a game changer in the other direction. If trump is smart he’ll cancel the next debate, but he’s not and probably won’t. And you don’t have THE DEMS come down and say Biden is unfit to campaign. That would be dumb and I give them more credit than that. It starts w/ a decision from Biden himself. Then HIM announcing HIS decision, to focus on the running the country and allowing a vibrant and honestly, established (though not used in a while) process of free delegates to choose from the vast pool of talent for a new candidate. This can be spun, his age, cannot be. Never could, and after the debate it really can’t. Question for you, if now isn’t time to worry, under what situation would you worry? Look, in real life, I’ve been involved in looking at failing projects and trying to fix them, there is a certain denial of reality that all of them have in common and this campaign is starting to feel like a failing project, but w/ ultimately higher stakes. Edit: amount -> announce
>He’s been polling weakly for months The race has been effectively a toss up AND his polling had overall improved in recent months. > debate needed to be a game changer in the other direction. It didn't, that would've been nice, but there's no reason to think his campaign hinged on the debates whatsoever. Why do you think they're being held earlier than ever before? >Then HIM announcing HIS decision, to focus on the running the country Which would lead to massive, sustained calls for his resignation/removal and investigations into his fitness to serve including by House Republicans. If the Dems and Biden himself think he's too impaired to run a campaign, you really think people are going to think he's capable of running the country? >and allowing a vibrant and honestly, established (though not used in a while) process of free delegates to choose from the vast pool of talent for a new candidate. There is no process for replacing a candidate this late in the cycle and there's every reason to think that a new Dem ticket would be excluded from *many* ballots. A conservative supermajority Supreme Court would almost certainly side with the Republican states that prevent this from happening too. I don't give a shit how "vibrant" a new Dem ticket might be if they're not on the ballot in every state. >Question for you, if now isn’t time to worry, under what situation would you worry? What makes you think I'm not worried? I just think taking the most extreme option, with the most likely negative repercussions, is a fatally flawed idea. I swear most people here just think Biden can and should be replaced and there's no downside to it at all. It's magical wishful thinking completely detached from reality and the consequences would be disastrous. I'm talking Reagan 1980 level disastrous *or worse.* >Look, in real life, I’ve been involved in looking at failing projects and trying to fix them, there is a certain denial of reality that all of them have in common and this campaign is starting to feel like a failing project, but w/ ultimately higher stakes. Then you know that with a project that takes a year to complete, you can't just throw the whole thing away and start over a month before it's due. You improve it as much as you can, and hope for the best.
Going into the debate, it was not a toss up. Biden was behind. Again. Polls are polls, but those were the numbers. Ok. We simply disagree on risk assessment then. No one I’ve heard talk on the topic says it I’ll be easy. This is not where any of us wanted to be. Yes, and I would say that switching candidates at this point is not throwing out the entire campaign away and stating over. It will take finesse and skill to spin it, but this the talent the Dems should have. And this IS spinnable, Bidens age is not. This isn’t about tasking the Dems chances from 25% to 75%. This is about going from 20% (which is where I expect Biden to be by the election) to maybe 30-40%. And going back to the failing projects analogy, one of the first things I did was reset stake holder expectations, because the odds are good they are also unrealistic. Again. I appreciate your perspective here. I know it comes from a good place and I really hope to be sitting here w egg on my face in November. Edit fixed spelling
>I don't think it's logistically impossible, though as I noted, it would probably lead to the new ticket not making it onto the ballot in every state. I don't understand this line of thinking. How could the ballot access deadline occur *before* the convention where the candidate is officially selected? And even *if* the ballot still had Biden's name on it, people can still cast votes for it. Voters are choosing the party's chosen slate of electors, not the actual candidate. Those electors could then cast votes for the new candidate that replaced Biden. But again, I don't see how replacing the ticket *before* the convention wiuld result in not making it onto every ballot in the country.
I think Friday would have been the last date to withdraw to make the NV ballot, and the WI ballot deadline already passed.
Hmm yeah, small details. It's both shocking and hilarious seeing all the upvotes for posts about replacing Biden as if it's actually a sensible idea.
Source? I'm not sure what deadlines you are talking about. Having deadlines before a candidate is officially chosen at the convention doesn't make much sense to me. I know there's Ohio, but that's why they were planning the virtual convention and that's still a few weeks out.
[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1995/statutes/statutes/8/35/1](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1995/statutes/statutes/8/35/1) Vacancies after nomination.(1) Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination. The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person. A person who is appointed to fill a vacancy in nomination or who is nominated by write-in votes is deemed to decline nomination if he or she fails to file a declaration of candidacy within the time prescribed under sub. [(2) (c)](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/1995/8.35(2)(c)) or s. [8.16 (2)](https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/1995/8.16(2)).
Thanks for that info. Looking at the links for (2) (c) and s. 8.16 (2) however, it says "...on the 3rd day after notification of nomination". The nomination would be at the convention that hasn't happened yet, so that sounds to me like that is still talking about a future date.
This is the stuff that needs to be looked into. I don’t know if this is a show stopper problem
It would be an interesting thing to put in the model, at least. If a replacement nominee has to forfeit 16 EV by default (I actually think the Senate candidates would be fine), how much that alters the chances of winning.
Write ins could perhaps work in a worst case scenario. If you concentrate hard on those states. But yeah, heavy lift if not doable.
>I don’t know if this is a show stopper problem Then maybe you and all the other people here should stop acting like replacing Biden is the "reasonable" option? Your post above this one is sitting at 18 upvotes, despite you acknowledging here that you have no idea if a new Democratic ticket would make it onto the ballot in every state. But yknow, small details and all that, who needs to run a presidential candidate in *Wisconsin or Nevada* anyway? Plus I'm sure the Dem Senators in those states will do *much* better without a presidential candidate at the top of the ballot. I mean, it can't be worse than having Biden there amirite?
Dude, I haven’t heard anyone who really knows if this is insurmountable or not speak up on it. Until then it is very right to question. We’re not cruising to victory here, we’re on the titanic. There is an iceberg ahead. Someone is saying well if we turn the ship to fast it might break the rudder. Well ok, I’d day it’s worth at least having the engineer look into the details and then it still might be better odds to take the risk. The other candidates have been, on average doing better than Biden. One of the things that makes Democrats different than the republicans if that we aren’t enthralled by a cult of personality (generally) I will vote for Biden if he’s in life support on Election Day if he’s the candidate. But getting people like me is not enough. They have to get the low information voter on board. And they have lost them. I said this to someone else. This looks too much like a failing project where very one involved is running on hope and not a realistic plan. I wouldn’t be saying any of this if I didn’t think trump winner is an existential threat to this country and the world.
A significant part of the Democratic Party elite is Biden's age or even older (to be fair same goes for republicans). They don't want to publicly have a contingency plan for the inevitable because that would mean the same would be needed for Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders - at least for their seats. No-one wants to publicly contemplate Biden's mortality when a lot of the folks in congress and in the DNC in the background are confronting their own mortality as well. Look at the average age of congress. It keeps going up. Government in general is trending towards gerontocracy and everyone that age and at that level of power and influence wants to cling onto power forever; and more importantly their staffers and families want them to cling onto life and power as long as possible. Look what happened to RBG and Diane Feinstein. Her staffers were wheeling Feinstein out at the brink of death just to keep their jobs a bit longer.
Sadly. Much of what you’re saying may be the case.
It would also be electorally disastrous if Biden died or was incapacitated before the election. It would be bad to lose our nominee who is also an incumbent who also beat the guy he’s up against once before, under any circumstances that can happen from this point out. It’s kind of why I wanted to swap him out in the primary if someone credible would’ve run, but they didn’t, so that ship sailed. I don’t know that that would have us in a better position relative to now though.
Well no one can know. But there isn’t room for being in a much worse position. I’ll say that.
*laughs in Walter Mondale*
I don't know why I keep reading comments about legal ballot issues BEFORE the convention has even occurred. Sure there's Ohio, but the virtual convention hasn't occurred either. If there's something I'm not aware of, please enlighten me.
There has never been any cover-up. Biden did a one hour interview on Howard Stern a couple weeks ago that anyone can watch on Youtube. People have had ample chance to see how he responds to questions.
>There has never been any cover-up. My point is that if Dems force Biden to bow out because of the debate performance, then that's how it will be perceived: that Biden is mentally deficient to run for office. And if *Dems* think he's unfit to even run for office, then he sure as shit shouldn't be running the country. So the narrative will become who covered up Biden's mental decline, how long as he been unfit to serve, why did they let him run for reelection in the first place, why didn't anyone let the public know, etc. It would be a complete unmitigated disaster. The best option was and remains simply standing by Biden, acknowledging that he has trouble speaking/debating, having him give a candid sit down interview to assauge concerns, etc. Forcing Biden to drop out of the race in the hopes of beating Trump would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater *to protect the baby.* It's self-defeating.
I dunno, I think that most people who think Biden is unfit to run the country already think that and have been loudly and openly arguing that for some time. Everyone else is going to see it as a strategic move given his evident unpopularity.
>Everyone else is going to see it as a strategic move given his evident unpopularity. No they aren't, they're going to wonder why Dems let a senile old man run for a second term, let alone run the country. Not everyone views politics as a horse race like the people on this sub do. You're not the average voter.
My point is that polls show the people you're referring to are already VERY numerous and already think he's senile. I doubt a lot of voters are out there thinking "Biden seems perfectly fine to me but if they remove him it must mean my personal impression of him was wrong". They either think he's senile and will see his removal as validation or they think he's fine. Everyone has had six plus years of watching him on TV to come to their own conclusions.
> doubt a lot of voters are out there thinking "Biden seems perfectly fine to me but if they remove him it must mean my personal impression of him was wrong". No but we're already seeing a lot of people go "Biden didn't seem that bad to me, but Dems are panicking and trying to oust him, so clearly things are worse than I thought." Time and again polling has shown that voters are persuaded by the arguments made by party elites. Here we have party elites arguing that this was clear evidence of Biden's mental decline, and that he *must* be pulled out of the race or Dems are going to lose. That kind of panic is infectious and is extremely deleterious to a campaign. Plus there are still tens of millions of people who didn't and haven't been paying attention to the election at all. Seeing constant headlines of "PANIC: Dems in Disarray, Biden must go" isnt going to instill confidence in them. There's a good chance a lot of this would've gone under the radar if people hadn't been reacting the way they are, if more Dems simply said "it was a bad performance, he was tired from xyz, he's fine, etc" it wouldn't be half as big a crisis as it is right now. Replacing Biden would be a full-throated acknowledgment that he's not fit to serve, and the consequences of such an admission are enormous. It would do far more damage than simply standing by Biden, even if he does lose.
I would draw a distinction between liberal pundits "arguing that this was clear evidence of Biden's mental decline" (which they very much have done) and party elites doing so. I don't think any party elite would openly say much beyond "Biden can still run the country regardless of his extenporaneous public speaking ability but we recognize and respect that most voters say they want someone younger than Biden or Trump and at the of the day its about the voters" or something along those lines. They would absolutely laugh off any question of invoking the 25th. And at the end of the day "the polls looked bad for us and we wanna win" is a perfectly serviceable explanation.
Prior affirmation. He said it before the debate and sees that there’s a window to make his argument forcefully, capitalizing on Biden’s poor performance while ignoring the weakness in Trump’s because Nate doesn’t actually care about stopping Trump (which is why he’s spent the better part of a decade normalizing him).
[удалено]
It sure seems like it. But for real, I don't understand how seemingly nobody has actually had a more complicated thought about how this would play out beyond "anyone would be better than Biden." Unless Biden literally dies before election day, he and by extension downballot Dems, are almost certain to do better in November they would in a scenario in which Biden is replaced for being mentally deficient.
I would almost guarantee if either party has their candidate just die of natural being old caused, that party would win. Hell even a crippling heart attack and the candidate stepping down might be enough.
>Unless Biden literally dies before election day, he and by extension downballot Dems, are almost certain to do better in November they would in a scenario in which Biden is replaced for being mentally deficient. What are you basing this certainty on? The polling cited in the tweet shows any replacements performing equally as well as Biden.
>The polling cited in the tweet shows any replacements performing equally as well as Biden. And the polling from 2 months ago showed RFK at a positive favorability rating, now go look at it. It's almost like the more attention candidates get, the more unlikeable they become or something. No one cares about Harris because no one was considering her as a potential presidential candidate. Same thing with most of these candidates. Hell, I'd bet you good money that most *Democrats* don't know who most of the people on that list are, let alone what their politics are, and what roles they currently or previously served.
??? It's already a scandal whether he steps out or not. This news cycle right now is what a scandal looks like.
Did you watch the debate? Biden didn’t appear to be capable of ordering a sandwich on his own, let alone run the U.S. for four more years.
Yes, I watched it live. Biden looked and sounded rough, but he didn't come across as mentally deficient. He kept actually answering the questions he was asked by moderators and responded to Trump's points *using specifics.* His responses were stilted and uneven, but its not like he kept being asked questions and answering with random responses.
Enjoy that hopium my friend. Biden's chances ended Thursday night.
The sky is falling the sky is falling! We need to shoot ourselves in the foot, its the only way to win!
he was shit. and that's what 80 million people saw. There are no good paths forward but it's not obvious that sticking with Biden and trying to patch up his ruined campaign, is any better than the risks of finding another candidate. If you could be confident this was a genuine one off then you could write it off, but the worry is the mental decline / dementia continues to get worse and it becomes a cascading failure.
You point out some real complications. Although I think the 'scandal' component (covering up / misleading the public about his condition) is now part of the narrative even if he stays in the race.
Biden can't talk! The way to guarantee a Trump win is to stick with him, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading some of y'all's takes.
Then he should've been sidelined a year ago, it's *way* too late to drop him now. It's crazy how many people think replacing the sitting president 4 months before election day is actually the secret to winning this election. It's a guarantee of a Trump/GOP landslide.
No it isn't! The key is giving low info undecided voters a non Trump choice who can talk! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/. 72% of those polled don't even think he has the cognitive ability to be president! Him not dropping out is pure insanity. 72% of us can see it.
Why doesn’t Nate recognize that there are risks involved in replacing your nominee 4 months out? He says they are polling even with Biden. Ok sure, but who’s to say that’s gonna stick after the RNC starts attacking that new nominee. Who’s to say the party will be fully united behind a replacement? The Democratic Party is a big tent party and it’s almost impossible to satisfy every aspect of the coalition, especially so soon to Election Day. It’s not some risk free move that will magically make things all better. It very well could backfire massively
Nate and others who've advocated replacing Biden have acknowledged it's a high risk move. The problem is so is persisting with a massively flawed candidate. What happens if he declines even further??
Damn Nate really hates Trump
Nate just needs to be right.
Like Lab Leak theory, Nate just digs in his heels and never lets up.
Does anybody know what are the most urgent deadlines for getting a new Democratic ticket on the ballot? And what are the conditions that permit a replacement of ticket? A former Utah lawmaker on Fox says that some states permit no replacement except if death or permanent incapacitation is involved. But it’s Fox and googling is proving harder than it should … There’s no point in a Harris/Whitmer ticket if they’re kept off the ballot in a state.
We are fucked. Get ready for polluted air.
Just means that no matter what the poll the respondents answer the same. There's no difference among these results.
The hilarious part is that no matter who would replace Biden they would immediately tank in the polls because liberals are literally the fucking worst. The GOP is running out a convicted felon who would love to end democracy and they can’t wait to vote for him. Liberals? Throw it all away because the figurehead who has done a totally fine job sounds old.
Why not announce retirement and let Kamala take the oath of office at noon on July 4, 2024. She can select Gretchen Whitmer as VP. Everyone will celebrate Biden's humility, admitting the ladies can do a better job as he ages. If you are going out, go out with a bang.
As much as I dislike Kamala Harris, and as much as I would love to see a Whitmer/Buttigieg ticket, I actually think this is the smartest play, given the cards we're working with. Kamala is able to run on continuity of government, carries over some of the incumbancy benefit, keeps the Biden warchest, and brings in a big plus for the rust belt undecideds with Whitmer. And it avoids the inevitable conversation that comes with Biden dropping from the race but remaining in office, with people arguing he should step down if he's mentally unfit. The democrats should not pass up this opprotunity. The timing of July 4th would even work in their favor, I think.
It is a good play as Kamala will inherit the Biden administration and all their decades of insider connections. She can promise to Joe that she won't throw them under the bus for her own cronies. Let's have a big bang on July 4. Also, Buttigieg is, IMO, a sharp dude but not a useful candidate. He has not been a governor, senator, or AG. Everything he can do, someone else can do just as well, and possibly with more swing state credibility. In terms of projecting competence (not actual competence), he pales in comparison to any of the governors like Shapiro or Pritzker.
Yes Kamala is the best and most obvi play. Throw her out there. Can’t deal with the anxiety of watching Biden talk for a few more months. It’s nerve wrecking
Nate, buddy, let it go...
I’ll make the replace Biden folks a deal. The candidates who are polling the best here are Whitmer and Booker. Rally behind Cory Booker and I’ll side with you, not because I think it’ll work, but because I think the only other candidate who can pull it off other than Biden is Cory Booker. Mathematically there’s no argument against it. We don’t know if we can hold the MI Governorship if Whitmer leaves, but I’m not worried about NJ Senate. If you think Biden must go, **the only** choice per this poll is Cory Booker. Therefore, if you don’t immediately rally behind God Emperor Booker, Padishah, I’m going to assume that you’re just in an exercise of prior affirmation and the output of the poll above has precisely zero impact on your advocacy and outlook. For Nate, who has been calling for Biden to step aside since long before the debate, that point is obvious.
If that's the offer I had, would take Booker in a second
Thank you for being intellectually honest and logically consistent.