Just interested in your thoughts
1,000
1.00You need an option that says "Yes, because I do not want Biden to be the president".
No. It includes people who would prefer Trump to win, but would prefer someone other than Biden to win if Trump lost. It also includes people who would prefer someone other than Biden or Trump but don't think that person would have a better chance to win than Biden.
It's kinda weird, I personally think Biden is better than most of his potential replacements (Kamala), but that isn't the case for say 2-3% of the electorate who switched from Biden to Trump or Biden to RFK or undecided to Trump in the last week.
It's kind of becoming necessary since the new nominee needs to get name recognition and ballot access, etc. If they walk the tight rope for too long and Biden tries to stay in while being an ineffective communicator the Dems are cooked regardless.
It could be a pride thing since Biden feels he "should" be able to beat someone as repugnant as Trump and dropping is kind of like submitting defeat to a convicted felon.
Aside from your concerns, I feel like most people advocating for anyone besides Harris, are completely ignoring the financial aspect. It's not like the Biden campaign would, or even could, transfer their capital and funding deals to a new candidate's campaing with the press of a button. I get it money doesn't buy votes, but starting from scratch at this point?
But plenty of donors are withholding unless Biden drops out.
If I were I dem strategist, I'm not ready to give up on Biden and take a gamble on (Harris, Newsom, or no name recognition) yet.
I'd wait until September after the 2nd debate and see what the polls/Election models say.
Biden >50% (back to March or so) - stay in the race
Biden <20% (what he's at currently) - do the nuclear Michelle Obama option, she's beating Trump in the polls by a huge margin
Biden 20-50%, if Harris is enough to win do that, otherwise you need to have a candidate that's ready.
IDK maybe it's impossible for the incumbents to win in this climate of high negative partisanship, so Dems need to take their losses. How bad can Trump be? 4 years of Republican leadership should be enough for demographic shift and Trump's mental decline to be on full display. Maybe I'm coping.
@dgga what it looks like there is that people are saying they support Biden policies because Democrats just promise "free stuff!"
Everyone wants to be paid more and have free college and free everything, these polls are so dishonest. They should ask voters what they're willing to give up
Which policies? Sending our people off to die for Taiwan and Ukraine? Increasing the minimum wage, cancelling up to 10000 in student loans, free college? Letting criminals vote and making it easier for illegals to become citizens? Abortion??
I disagree with some of Trump's economic policy, but I'm a Christian. Trump isn't, but Biden very clearly opposes Christian morality with everything in his senile heart, as much as he claims to be a "Catholic." Not that Francis is much better
—
@dgga yes, majoritarianism will always unequivocally lead to degeneracy. That's why we need a monarchy.
I'm on the fence. Pre-debate I would've said yes because of the long-term effects (a Biden loss would make democrats think he was insufficiently leftist and embrace their lunatic fringe, while a Trump win would make republicans double down on trumpism). Now that a Biden loss is likely to just be blamed on his age I'm a lot less worried about that. I think a replacement would probably lose anyway, and might make this post-election narrative more likely.
Biden is certainly not the favorite to beat Trump right now, but historically Presidents have rebounded from bad debates, especially bad first debate performances. I think it's time now to admit that the people who were saying in 23 or 22 that Biden should be a one term President were correct, but right now the one worse option than Biden staying in is Biden dropping out.
Whoever replaces Biden won't have gone through a primary process and will therefore have to deal with the task of uniting and strengthening a Democratic Party which looks weak and divided, and without a primary process, who to do it? Harris was honestly not the best VP pick and probably isn't the person. She wasn't even close in 2020 and we'd be replacing someone who currently is trailing Trump to someone that could never beat Trump. Newsom is Californian, Californians hardly even like Newsom, and he's been the target of Republicans for forever. Gretchen Whitmer is the best choice + has a real shot of doing better than Biden, but there are still so many things that could go wrong
I think it's time now to admit that the people who were saying in 23 or 22 that Biden should be a one term President were correct, but right now the one worse option than Biden staying in is Biden dropping out.
This is where I'm now. I thought Biden was gonna be just fine for two terms and now have to admit the naysayers were probably right: Dems should have primaried a new candidate last year. However, by now its too late: Harris is pretty much the only possible choice and she's notoriously unliked throughout the country. No other widely considered option is even financially viable, let alone capable of uniting the party or making a positive mark on the entire potential voter base in less than 4 months.
I think both Biden and Harris are capable of beating Trump but my money is on Biden. IMO the debate performance was not even that horrible, it's just massively propped up by the vulturistic media culture (I think its actually disgusting how, e.g. NYT has published 190 articles on Biden's debate performance vs. 48 articles on the SCOTUS ruling) chasing their clicks, and the internet overreacting. Biden still seems perfectly capable of doing his job and hopefully takes real steps to do better in the next debate. His cabinet has been super effective during his term and that's what people will be voting for afterall.
Unrelated but quick comment on the SCOTUS thing: I did not know that lol yeah that's pretty... I remember there was a market here for the SCOTUS ruling and the overwhelming favorite was 9-0 or 8-1 against Trump. So I thought, you know what, the Trump people are unhinged, I can't see Clarence and Alito not siding with Trump. 7-2 against Trump
No, 6-3 in favor of Trump. The case looked so ridiculous going in that I think that nobody but the hardcore pro-Trump people predicted this and it's really scary. The US is not a dictatorship now, but this is still certainly one of the largest backslides toward authoritarianism here in my lifetime, at least.
Yeah it's actually insane. That ruling should probably have been the biggest national news piece of the decade and it's been overshadowed by a bunch of gossip about an old man misspeaking at 10pm. I've certainly lost a lot of the faith I still had in he state of traditional journalism, after the debate.
@stardust Huh? It's not like there is a lack of actual practicing lawyers talking and writing about it. And almost none of the buzz has anything to do with the vindication of Trump but with the implications the ruling has for the future.
I dont see how this ruling is that historic. Almost everyone, even the left, acknowledges that it would be radical and insane to prosecute George W Bush who I don't even like as a "war criminal" for the Iraq War. Theres always been some understanding that the President has some immunity to protect against repeated harassment by the ~10 years in the future woke left that would be happy to ship all our people off to The Hague and if you don't like what a President does, then impeach them.
It is historic not because it grants "some immunity," but because the ruling is worded in a way that it seems impossible to prove literally anything to be beyond it's scope. If you want the POTUS to be able to call for targeted violence (it is explicitly stated that all of the president's public speeches would fall under immunity), hell, even order assassinations of their political enemies in the name of protecting the country, you do not want a democracy, you want a dictatorship. And I'm not sure most Americans would agree with you on that.
@stardust I'd invite any defenders of the ruling to show me where in the majority opinion they define what an "official action" is in a way that isn't totally absurd
From Sotomayor's dissent:
In fact, the majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action. Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023)). It then goes a step further: “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” Ante, at 18. It is one thing to say that motive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to questions regarding criminal liability. Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small.
@dgga When have I ever claimed to want a "democracy?" In my opinion, the principal reason why the West has so quickly fallen into degeneracy is because of majoritarianism where a mentally ill person or - as some Democrats want it - even felons or illegals have equal vote strength to anyone else may not be a good system. I find it laughable that we've fallen into this collective delusion that surely if everyone just gives their opinion, the average is probably correct, right? No one would apply this logic to medicine or how to make an airplane or what happened in Constantinople in 325. But somehow you're telling me that this magically works for governing the most powerful nation in the world? If you're scared about a majoritarian system electing someone that will assassinate political enemies, then maybe that in of itself is proof that "liberal democracy" is a failed experiment.
@StarkLN In your quote from Sotomayor it literally contains the definition. When the President is not manifestly or palpably acting beyond his authority, it's an official action. If you don't like that, then I don't know, read some other Supreme Court documents? The Constitution is a living document and that wording is something for future courts to interpret. You can make a market on Trump ordering someone's assassination in 2025 and I'll bet NO in it.
Democratic countries outdo non-democratic countries on literally every measurable metric, but you are of course free to believe in your fairytale of better days gone by. All I said is that I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the US would prefer democracy over a fascist dictatorship. Good on you to at least admit that's what you want I guess.
Why even set up and knock down this strawman of what democracy should look like if you don't even believe in it? Sure, if we create a democratic system where the President has too much power, once every 100 years you might get someone that seriously fucks shit up. That's exactly why we support checks and balances and oppose this ruling.
If we did a theocracy or whatever you want but the leader guy has the unfettered ability to do anything, if they decided "theocracy sucks actually" and tore the system down, would you take that as a complete repudiation of your system?
Your criticism doesn't work because theocracy means rule by the word of the Lord. One man being able to overturn that contradicts the whole point of a theocracy, not that I'm a theocrat. I support a monarchy where the Church has the ability to dismiss the king at will. Theocracy makes the Church a political entity, which I don't approve of.
Iran is Christian? Wow, color me shocked, I did not know that! (this is sarcasm for the liberals in chat)
I said the Church, capital C. Of course an Islamic theocracy wouldn't be something that I would want because they worship a false god, so the virtues they're maximizing for are different from the virtues that I'm maximizing for. Your analogy would be like if I said "you like democracy? What about that time democracy elected Hitler!? He was a democratic leader at one point no?"
Yes, I think that makes sense. Just like how if you believe in democracy, you probably don't like all democratic candidates. You probably like the ones that agree with you
Also, I don't believe in theocracy. I support monarchy where the monarch can be dismissed by the Church
So that's not exactly right for democracy - I like democracy because it limits the downside (even the bad governments are only so bad and are eventually replaced), not because I think any specific government is the best. I think monarchy and theocracy are both incredibly high risk (even more than regular dictatorships, which at least tend to require some sort of elite backing).