Can Biden be replaced as Democrat nominee? Who could replace him?
bbc.com
The first presidential debate is done and the aftermath has not been good for the incumbent, Joe Biden.
Some Democrat politicians and operatives reportedly texted CNN commentators with hopes that Mr Biden, 81, would step aside. Some floated the possibility of going to the White House and publicly stating concerns about him remaining as candidate.
But if Mr Biden were to drop out, it would be a free-for-all. There is no official mechanism for him or anyone else in the party to choose his successor, meaning Democrats would be left with an open (Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago from August 19-22.
You are viewing a single comment
Agreed, and agreed.
Why not Klobuchar? She's got some national recognition from the 2019/20 cycle, politics are acceptable to moderates, progressive (enough), and she'd eat Trump for lunch in debates and on social media. Plus, she's from the Midwest, and might pick up some folks for regional loyalty, and could play against the "slick New Yorker" which might still work.
The bases are going to vote party lines. I think undecideds and wavering moderates are the pick-up points, and I think Klobuchar could do that.
I like Yang's politics, but he's got a popularity problem, and Buttigieg - Trump would just harp on his sexual orientation, and I'm not confident enough that America's ready yet to vote for a gay president. Hell, we can't even get a woman into office.
IMO Klobuchar's the safest bet against Trump.
Klobuchar is definitely a good idea. Although I'm not convinced that replacing Biden this late in the game is going to save the presidency either. I don't know what should be done.
The only reason to vote for Biden at this point is anti-Trump and Blue No Matter Who. Those still apply to anyone else that the DNC puts forward, as a base score, with any actual merits, charisma, or vigor adding to that. This should have been an easy decision six months ago and doing-nothing-and-hoping-for-the-best doesnβt seem to be making the prospects any better.
anti-Trump sounds like a pretty damn good reason for me. Unless you think there's a good reason to let a dictator win.
If that were all it took to win, we wouldn't have been worried before the debate and twice as worried after. Not-Trump isn't the autowin the establishment wishes it was.
Whether or not it's all it takes to win doesn't mean it isn't a good reason.
You clearly didnβt read what I wrote, but you sure took the time to start talking some more.
The only reason to blindly insist on Biden as the only possible nominee, a bad-mouth someone who discusses an alternative approach, is if you want Trump to win.
I read every word. I still maintain that "not dictator" is always a better vote than "dictator," even if that is your only reason.
I said that the DNC should run someone who is more charismatic and younger so that they could more easily beat Trump. Where are you getting the dictator garbage?
Seriously?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
So, again, anti-Trump is a good enough reason to vote who whomever gets the nomination as far as I can tell. They could nominate clam and they'd get my vote.
Thatβs literally exactly what I said.
Geez, you make some good posts sometimes but interacting with you is a really horrible experience every time. So needlessly hostile.
I don't think I was the hostile party here:
Then how does "needlessly argumentative" strike you? You misinterpreted the other poster's point entirely, and then entered a cycle of doubling down without making any further effort to understand.
Maybe I misinterpreted their point, but I'm not sure why I should have been expected to make much more of an effort after that first reply. And then I get blamed for being hostile all the time by that same person?
My guess is that they're conflating "stubbornly contradictory" with "hostile," which isn't accurate. Being labeled as or treated as hostile when you're not is frustrating, and it leads to poor communication. That goes both ways, though, and I can see where you'd both be able to infer hostility that may or may not be intended by the other party.
Also, I'd suggest that if you no longer feel that you should "make an effort" then the best course of action is exactly that - cease engaging.
I think what the other commenter meant was that for many people, like yourself, a D near the name is enough to vote for that person but the bar can be higher for other people. If the dems had put (might be time yet?) a not-absurdly-bad candidate, as they have now, they would've won easily. But seeing how it's going you guys are gonna enjoy four years (hopefully only four) of Trump as president, and the rest of the world will have to put up with all his crap as well.
π π€
Lemmy really, really needs emoji responses that don't require and entirely new comment.
You could just upvote it.
The problem is that upvotes serve two conflicting proposes. Upvoting raises visibility, so one use is to say, "this is a post people should see." In that case, you may not necessarily agree with the content of the post, but rather believe it's worthy of debate. A good example of this is c/unpopularopinion, where the community rules specifically state to upvote if you agree it's an unpopular opinion, not whether you agree with the opinion.
The other, conflicting, use is to signal approval or disapproval.
You can't do both at the same time. It's a flaw in design Reddit had, which they fixed but monetized. Lemmy did not learn from Reddit's mistake and instead repeated it.
Two conflicting uses for the same action is terrible UX design.
Trump won't agree to a debate with a new candidate. I doubt that there be another debate at all as is.
For sure. But there will be a lot of indirect debate on social media, because Trump can't keep his burger-hole shut, and Klobuchar's free to murder him (metaphorically) on public platforms. Even if he only posts to TruthSocial, everything he says gets parroted on X and Facebook, and that's still where the most eyeballs are.
And old school public media picks this stuff up and repeats it - that's mostly what they've been reduced to -but it still reaches a lot of eyes and ears.
And: Trump refusing another debate, she could just hammer on his cowardice, over and over. That'd be a win.
Klobuchar is tough. If nothing else, I'd love to see that fight. Only slightly less than I'd love to see an AOC v Trump fight; that'd be like watching a skinny junkie enter the MMA ring against Holly Holm. It'd be hilarious. But AOC is too young, and Trump will be either dead or in a home by the time she's old enough to run. I just hope Bernie is still active enough by then to support her. I don't know that she could get elected - she's too polarizing - but it would be a marvelous spectacle.
Anyway, I prefer Yang's politics, and I'd be thrilled to see Buttigieg in the White House, but I stand by Klobuchar as the best bet.
AOC turns 35 before the election, so she's eligible. She might be "too young" to vote for but not too young to run.
She was born in October; shit, you're right. She'll be barely legal in time for the election, and certainly eligible by the time she'd take office. So she won't be too young to vote for by the time of the general election.
Wow.
And imagine the click-through rate for "hot barely legal candidate" ads going straight to a policy video.