The quote:
“Given Joe Biden’s incredible record, given Donald Trump’s terrible record: he should be mopping the floor with Donald Trump. Joe Biden is running against a criminal. It should not be even close. And there is only one reason it is close. And that is the president’s age.”
Hillary Clinton ran against a sexual predator. She should have mopped the floor with him. She didn’t.
Any election against Trump will be close. The problem isn’t age. The problem is Trump supporters.
The problem is that Republicans don’t vote for a candidate they vote for a party. The Republicans could run Hitler’s reanimated corpse as their candidate and as long as it had that R next to its name it would get their vote. Democrats on the other hand are much more likely to not vote for or not even show up to vote at all for a candidate they don’t particularly like. It’s why good Democrat candidates always beat Republican candidates of any kind, but bad candidates usually lose. Democrats massively outnumber Republicans, but the Democrat party nearly always runs the worst possible candidate. If Republicans win any election it’s not because they had a good candidate, it’s always because Democrats ran a bad one.
My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.
So, under the leadership of Clinton, Pelosi, and Schumer, they chose to make the swing voters the ones they appeal to most. Maybe Bernie’s positive populism would have matched up better against Trump’s negative populism than Clinton’s outdated neoliberalism. But leadership and the DNC would rather lose an election and keep control than win but lose their place atop the party hierarchy.
My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.
I think it’s simultaneously less conspiratorial and more nefarious than that: the establishment wing of the party likes power and power means control over campaign funding, so they pander to large corporate donors by suppressing anti-corporate populists.
That, and how much the rural vote is overly counted.
No, the problem is democrats refusing to run a real populist against a fake populist like Trump. Instead we get the same establishment garbage, which is exactly what the Trump campaign is geared towards defeating. Schiff is also incorrect - Kamala would be just as bad in this regard.
If Dems run a real populist who is a champion of the people, not the corporations, Trump would be exposed and the whole MAGA movement would fall apart at the seams.
If a populist can’t beat Biden in a primary then they won’t beat Trump in the general
There was no primary in good faith, Biden didn’t even entertain a debate with those running. His admin colluded with state DNC boards to cancel primaries in some states, and remove contenders from the ballot in others. Establishment Dems bullied and threatened major contenders behind the scenes to prevent them from even attempting to run. In light of recent events it’s quite obvious why.
So to me this isn’t a valid argument for Biden’s legitimacy, quite the opposite in fact. And quite ironic in an election where “democracy is on the line.”
Biden isn’t expected to help challengers. If they can’t get enough signatures or polling support to meet debate / ballot access requirements, then they certainly can’t beat Trump.
And if potential candidates couldn’t stand up to other Dems in private, how are they expected to stand up to Trump in public?
Primaries aren’t beauty pageants. It’s survival of the fittest. Candidates have to work to win over other Democrats and build a strong support network for the general. Nothing will be handed to them, because the general will be ten times harder.
What are you on about?
Biden is expected to show up and make his case, which he appears unable to do. His administration also actively worked to subvert the primary process, a wholly undemocratic maneuver.
And now here we have Blue MAGA - blaming the primary contenders who were brave enough to run, blaming the voters, blaming anything and everyone possible except the one man whose ego will cost us the election in November unless he steps down now.
Biden is making his case, the same way he always has.
Trying to defeat your primary opponents is not undemocratic.
When a candidate loses an election, they should take responsibility for the outcome. Blaming the opponent for “stealing” an election is classic MAGA-speak.
Kamala Harris could win “overwhelmingly”
Citation needed.
She is hated more than Biden. I doubt this would play out as intended.
Yes, but that was before everyone saw a sundowning POTUS on that debate stage.
Attitudes have changed amongst the DNC establishment, at least according to the reporting.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard similar feelings echoed in far left/socialist circles.
I will say I haven’t seen any new polling that take recent events into account. I assume those figures exist, I just haven’t seen you come across my feeds yet.
Polls have her doing better than Biden. You could do worse than running a woman when abortion is on the ballot (and by worse I mean, for example, a catholic who’s visibly queasy about actually supporting bodily autonomy). She also gets you back the anti-genocide vote, and she’s responsible for a lot of Biden’s support among black Americans.
She’s only polling better because that’s what the media wants you to believe. Polls are meaningless and are only valuable to those pushing the polls.
She also gets you back the anti-genocide vote
I hadn’t heard that she’s diverged from the administration on this issue. But I would add that the anti-genocide vote is also anti-cop, and Harris is a cop.
She distanced herself when Biden was starting to really commit to the genocide denial, which is probably enough for a lot of people. Biden is pretty extreme, even among democrats who support Israel, and he’s been the one driving the wagon. Harris doesn’t have the same baggage or history of fantacism when it comes to Israel. She shows more awareness of the generational sea change regarding attitudes towards Israel.
As for the prosecutor thing, I don’t think that’s something in the same scale of problem as the genocide support. People act like because centerists/“leftists” won’t compromise on genocide that means they’re unwilling to compromise on everything but that’s not true. Such flagrant disregard for basic humanity is a hard limit for many people though. People understand the stakes, Biden’s zealotry is just that extreme and alienating. It wouldn’t have taken much for him to avoid this problem, but combined with the faltering mental capacity he’s too politically toxic at this point to recover.
Polls show that people will vote for the lesser evil that is Harris, they won’t vote for the outright evil that is Biden’s fanatical, blind support of genocide. The party leadership sees it, they understand the math is against them regardless of how much AIPAC pays them, this doddering debate performance and politically deaf follow-up was the tipping point.
The last polling I saw on her actually had her doing considerably better than Biden. Her approval rating is about the same, but her disapproval is much lower. She’s not the strongest candidate, and I don’t particularly like her, but she’s got a better shot than Biden at this point.
…its…
Its in the article?
The reason given in the article is “Because I, Adam Schiff, think so” - all the hard data we have (competive polls, opinion polls, historical references) gives a pretty bleak outlook for a Harris presidency.
Without even looking at polls, and knowing how much racism and misogyny there is, as well as the outcome of 2016, I have my doubts about Kamala as a viable candidate.
There was some misogyny involved in Clinton’s loss, but she had a special kind of misogyny attached to her that was built up over years. The fallout from the affair Bill had really kind of splashed back on Clinton, she wasn’t just hated by misogynist men, she illicited a ton of internalized misogyny from conservative women as well, in part because of the way she presented herself after it came to light.
Harris doesn’t have any of that baggage. At this point I think Trump has hoovered up the vast majority of misogynists and bigots already. Most people at this point likely don’t care.
That’s a lie though, the data we have literally says the opposite. Which is why all the party power players are in favor of Biden shuffling off.
I mean.
Schiff said the thing. So there is your citation for the quote.
He’s not asking for the citation for the quote. He’s asking for the citation of the veracity of the assertion. We know Adam Schiff said the thing. What matters is the justification for saying the thing.
With no data to justify it (and plenty available showing it’s not true), this is just further evidence Democratic leadership is stuck in the mindset of political battles from 30 years ago. If Trump were running in the political reality of the 90s with his current background and record, even current Biden would mop the floor with him. But we’re not in the age of the party of Gingrich. This is the party of Trump, and facts and record don’t matter to Trump voters and Republicans in general. Welcome to 21st century American politics, Mr. Schiff.
I guess he can email Schiff’s office?
He didn’t want a quote citation though. He wanted a data citation.
I think that’s a fair miscommunication. I was asking for a data driven citation while you were providing a quote citation. I agree that Adam Schiff almost certainly said that, but my question is why he thinks that (or, as I’d suspect, why he’s lying).
Lol, you got caught in a lie and are doubling down on it.
Its an article about what a politician said. The politician said that thing. I think you and your buddies lack reading comprehension.
This is simply not true. Its this close because half the population has been raped by education defunding and copious amounts of right wing propaganda. Allowing people and entities to control large swathes of media networks has been disastrous. Repealing the Fairness Act has been a fucken tragedy. It could be anybody, literally. Throw Harris up there and watch the machine get to work. This isn’t a mystery. This isn’t about age. Its about the death throws of the Republican Party, and them ending democracy to hold onto power. Ya’ll are eating it up and being divided. Just keep drinking that juice, I guarantee this push has republicans somewhere behind it.
Could you describe the push you’re referring to? We all saw the debate, then the poll drop, then the calls for Biden to step aside. Which of those events have republicans behind them? We all just want the best chance at beating Trump, and many of us think that’s not Biden. I don’t think the media is to blame for reporting on what each congressperson is saying – that’s kinda their job, and that’s whats going to get clicks – but I do think they are to blame for the opinion articles that are saying “I’m not voting, you shouldn’t either.” Obviously that is horseshit. If Biden’s the nominee, you gotta vote for him. But I struggle to think that the drama surrounding Biden’s candidacy is somehow sparked by some hidden republicans pulling the strings. The dude just performed really poorly in a debate that he himself wanted, and then he doubled down with some awful awful soundbites about him being okay with Trump winning, as long as he tried his best.
Its like dude, have some fuckin awareness. The stakes aren’t low enough for you to be self satisfied with doing your best.
The focus on Biden’s age at the 11th hour is what is strange. We knew the dude was ancient, shit we expected Harris to have to take the torch mid term. But now its too old? Right before the elections? Now is the time? I dont think so bud. None of this new and it could not come at a worse time for Democrats. I’ve seen a fucken dizzying amount on Biden’s age, but none on how Trump sounded like a martian lunatic? Something smells fishy to me boss.
I mean, the age thing has been a concern for a while, but Democratic messaging really played it down, and the State of the Union was also a pretty good reliever in that sense. But the debate was a lot lot worse than the State of the Union, and that just completely shattered the illusion that Biden is in command, in terms of not only his own health but in the election, itself.
You’re asking why now? Well, the debate is what sparked this. But now is the time because we are afraid of what a Trump presidency could mean, especially after the Supreme Court decisions last week. Now is the time because the debate just exposed Biden’s greatest electability weakness (not, necessarily, his ability to make decisions based an a talented and experienced group of advisors). And now is the time because we think he won’t win, and that this whole time the United States have been asking for a younger candidate, so why don’t we give them one?
I don’t think you really need a Republican conspiracy behind all that to explain why there is such panic in the democratic party right now. But thanks for answering my question genuinely.
There’s just no clear alternative. We don’t have someone to rally under even if we get rid of Biden. Maybe it is the right thing cause I know I dont want Biden either. Its just a dangerous gamble with all that is at stake either way you slice it. Which is why I’m questioning the move so hard. There’s no clear alternate candidate, doing this is very likely to fracture democrats even more. Maybe I do have a tinfoil hat on, but all these fears are very valid. I dont trust Republicans with even a single one of my pubic hairs and I know something like this is not below them.
The only actual alternative is Harris. I wouldn’t guess anyone having a panic attack right now will listen to me but:
- she’s the only one who can legally use the campaign funds
- setting up a new campaign takes months
- ads have largely already been reserved
- passing over a qualified black woman for [insert the imaginary candidate of your dreams] would piss off a pretty key constituency (especially in Georgia and Michigan)
- the media and Republicans will have a motherfucking feeding frenzy destroying an untested candidate with no experience on the national stage
Am I happy about this? Nope. But those facts are just being hand-waived away while people ignore every risk to replacing Biden and, on top of that, the risk of replacing him with their favorite.
You make reasonable points, but here are a couple light rebuttals which ultimately amount to my idea that the risks of replacing Biden outweigh the risks of keeping him on the ticket.
I’m skeptical of the candidate even having to set up a full campaign, because they’ll have the name recognition already. If it’s the result of 5 debates between younger Democrats including Harris, that is going to be blasted on every news channel. Not to mention, a giant campaign isn’t exactly helping Biden. The negative press alone from them trying to shield him probably set him back enough that he’ll lose.
Regarding the ads having already been reserved, I won’t pretend to know how any of that works, but wouldn’t you think that would also hinder Trump? As all his ads would be toward Biden and not the candidate? He would somehow have to pivot his attacks. Harris is easier for Trump to attack, because he’s been doing it for years now, along with Fox News. Regardless, I don’t find much sway in that argument , just because I’m not sure ads are really going to do much to swing moderate or independent voters.
I don’t think the public is politically aware enough to realize Harris is the “next in line,” as you infer, so I really don’t think they’d be alienating black or female voters.
(Side note: I think the whole idea of Harris being the one to be “passed over” is such a bullshit modern political take. Just like how it was Hillary’s turn, or Biden’s turn. That kinda shit is what got us here now, instead of choosing the best candidate we always seem to choose the one who should be, or who is due next. Really fucking frustrating.)
Finally, the media is already having a feeding frenzy on Biden, a well-tested candidate with lots of experience. He is down in the polls in swing states, he’s getting grilled by his own party, and his numerous attempts of damage control have done little to assuage the concerns from congresspeople, but I’d also guess voters, as well. I’m sorry but I just don’t think Biden can beat Trump, and I think he should step aside for either Harris or, in my preference, let the DNC shake it out with some debates.
I don’t think either us are wrong since we’re in unprecedented territory. Almost any scenario could happen. My main concern is that calling for a different candidate is easy and no one is addressing the hard parts of a campaign and building a winning coalition.
The ad buys for September and October are probably just reserved at this point with content to come later. There’s probably lots of flexibility for presidential campaigns but, like any project, a last minute change with no new deadline will make it all worse.
And whether we like it or not, plenty of people support Kamala Harris. And not just her. All the potential candidates. We’re all imagining our fave will get the nod but only one will. People say Gavin Newsome but he had an affair with his campaign manager’s wife. How is that going to play with voters? No idea. Maybe Trump is so bad, it’s a footnote but maybe it makes enough suburbanites disgusted. I don’t know.
It’s not his age, it’s his behavior. And he’s been doing this shit for a couple years now. Pretending it’s just his age is more disingenuous gaslighting.
Remember after Jan 6 when Republicans overwhelmingly were shocked and disgusted eith trump and publicly decried his actions, and then in a few weeks they basically sucked his dick? Why do democrats publicly want to show dissatisfaction and disdain amongst their own party and they stick to it so the media gets stuck in this endless loop while we jsut had a political debate where the Republicans top nominee (which was publicly trashed by his party for Jan 6th) said the absolute worst will happen if the country elects him?
So much in fighting on the dem side with a guckin dictator in waiting for the Republicans. Get your shit together dems
So what you’re advocating is figuratively sucking the candidates dick no matter what terrible thing he does (aka blind worship), like republicans do?
And that would make you different than them, how exactly?
Not really. Let’s say people don’t vote at all because they don’t like this guy or that guy. Who benefits? The Republicans at this stage. Let’s say a real third party surfaces. Hypothetically let’s say AOC. Who benefits? Republicans because now a democratic vote is split among 2 candidates. Brain worm Kennedy won’t split the republican vote to benefit the democrats because there’s no cult of worm following for him.
I hate to say to vote for the lesser of two evils. Both sides have done wrong. But personally I’ll not vote for an outright dictator-to-be in trump. And that is for this moment in time mind you. These are supposedly the best candidate these 2 parties offer and they both suck. But again personally I feel we can work something out with democrats while Republicans have a single agenda, theirs.
No she couldn’t.
A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris… so…
Yeah really, if you like Harris, just vote for Biden and wait a couple of months.
Ironic coming from someone who just pimped his Republican challenger to blow off 2 other Democratic candidates, same dangerous idiotic move a certain presidential candidate tried some years ago.
Does DNC have any other strategies?
Heh. Thats a good point.
DNC: IF YOU CHALLENGE BIDEN IN THE PRIMARY YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!! NO DEBATES!! WE’LL SHUT YOU THE FUCK DOWN MARYANNE WILLIAMSON!!!
Also DNC: Did I do a fucky-wuckey? Oops.
I saw a Prius with both Kennedy and Marianne stickers in the back.
No, I don’t want to come over for dinner.
He doesn’t seem to want to pass the torch.
A Jul 2 poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos had Kamala Harris losing to Donald Trump by 1 point (42% to 43%) if she were to replace President Biden. The only Democrat who would hypothetically beat Trump according to the poll is Michelle Obama, who would have an 11-point advantage over the former president. However, the former First Lady has expressed several times over the years that she will not be running for president.
It’s interesting, this farce and display of pride and ego. All Biden has to do is one of two things:
-
Go all- in. Set up another debate. Make sure he’s top of his game. Go full Dark Brandon and absolutely wipe the floor. Then apologize AFTER doing this for his previous bad performance. Do this right, reaaally sell it, and he’ll come out the other side in a better position. Do it wrong and it’ll hurt his campaign even more. Trump doesn’t even have to show up. The point is giving Biden the same opportunity to step up. Toss in some late night talk shows with hard questions. When you have trust to gain back you have to work twice as hard.
-
Be a leader and talk to us all. Put forth a nominee to take his place. Work with them on the campaign trail and truly ask all of us to step up for our Nation, as one.
AND YET we appear to be getting some silly asinine middle-of-the-road choice.
I like Biden for many of the policies and steps he and his administration have taken these last four years. They’ve done good and sometimes even great things, and made mistakes and done bad things too. Over all, he’s been far from the worst President. Now though is the time to step aside as a leader, or rise into that position and take control.
He can’t “fix this” the same way he hid it.
The catch 22 he is in, is that he has to very publicly demonstrate to us that the debate was a fluke. The problem, is performances like his Stephanopoulos interview simply affirm the conclusion that he’s a deeply out of touch grumpy old man who can keep track of his own thoughts for the duration of a conversation. His: recovery’ interview, I mean it wasn’t as bad that the debate, but it did still dig the hole deeper.
So if you can go ‘show’ how this isn’t a problem because you make the problem worse, you have to concede.
-
Want to “win overwhelmingly”? Stop saying you’re not as bad as the Toupee. Duh. There’s at least 300 million people in the US that fit that statement. Don’t tell us to vote against the Other Guy, tell us why we should vote for you, specifically. You had some trivial wins in the past year? Advertise them. You have some plans for working class Americans that you’ll pretend never existed the second the election is over? Promise them!
If you want us to vote for a specific person, tell us why that person is worth voting for. If the strategy remains “I’m not as bad as the Other Guy”, you might as well just put a blank line next to the D on the ballot.
Same thing goes for all you centrist supporters who automatically assume everyone who wants a better candidate than Biden is secretly a Russian troll who will be voting for the Toupee.
deleted by creator
If he loses there won’t be anyone to pass the torch to.
If he runs, he loses. Thats the reality all of the data we have paints for us.
He passes the torch like, maybe next week at the latest, or Trump is the next President.
Biden wasn’t capable of beating Trump before the debate; he’s less capable after.
deleted by creator
The reason is ageism.
deleted by creator
