r/politics • u/bustersnuggs5011 Pueblo • 4d ago

Biden’s Family Tells Him to Keep Fighting as They Huddle at Camp David Soft Paywall

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/30/us/politics/biden-debate-anxious-democrats.html
3.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/beerspice 4d ago

"We had a bad debate night. But you win campaigns by fighting — not quitting — in the face of adversity.”

Ron Klain needs to read Annie Duke's book on quitting:

“Success does not lie in sticking to things. It lies in picking the right thing to stick to and quitting the rest.”

I'm not invested in whether Biden's campaign succeeds; I'm invested in beating Trump.

369

u/coldphront3 Louisiana 4d ago

The obvious issue that Democrats would run into in the event of Biden dropping out would be finding a new candidate that they think can get the votes to beat Trump within 4 months.

310

u/Deesing82 Utah 4d ago

and part of me has been thinking that with only 4 months to work, the GOP hate machine might not be able to get spun up on a newer candidate

240

u/cmnrdt 4d ago

Guess what: anyone voting for Trump was going to vote for him regardless of who the other guy is. Which is more difficult, Trump convincing his supporters to switch their target, or Democrats convincing their entire base to get behind a completely new candidate less than 5 months before the election when most primary votes have already been cast?

297

u/tripping_on_phonics Illinois 4d ago

Democrats’ entire base is already motivated to vote against Trump. The key demographic that your comment omits is independents who will most likely not vote for Trump, but will be quite likely to stay home or vote for a third party.

163

u/barowsr 4d ago

Ding ding ding.

90% of the electorate is already set. About half are voting for Trump, period. Half are voting against Trump, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s Biden, Whitimer, Harris, Mickey fucking Mouse.

It’s that 10% that’s trying to decide who they will vote for, or if they’ll stay home. And news flash, we need 6-7% of those 10% to vote Dem. The question is will that 6-7% be more motivated to choose Biden, or Whitmer? Or Newsome? Or any other of the other 5-6 big name Dems?

85

u/saypsychpod 4d ago

I agree except for Harris who polls extremely poorly

46

u/mrpeabody208 Texas 4d ago

And I'm not sure Mickey Mouse is a Democrat.

9

u/MechanicalTurkish Minnesota 4d ago

If you are a Scottish lord then I am Mickey Mouse!!

2

u/Spiff76 3d ago

“How Dare He!” dramatic pause, fourth wall break, punch sound effect

4

u/TheCwazyWabbit 4d ago

I watched him on South Park, he's gotta be a fascist.

22

u/barowsr 4d ago

Even she was within same % gap as Trump in last data for progress poll. But nonetheless, of the eight-ish possible alternatives, she’s probably the weakest

4

u/SkyriderRJM 4d ago

It is very possible Harris polls a lot better with Biden as her alternative.

2

u/hintofinsanity 3d ago

She currently polls better than Biden

1

u/NeonArlecchino California 3d ago

I am not a fan of hers, but I think she could do it if she paired with a progressive VP. Jamaal Bowman is looking for a job and selecting him would send a message about standing for progress and against foreign election interference.

0

u/GoBackToLurk1ng 3d ago

Get rid of Kamala and get the successor in as VP. Obama what you up to these days?

33

u/Whostartedit 4d ago

I am independent but thinking of registering dem so i can join this phone bank where you call democrats in battleground states

https://democrats.org/call/

12

u/barowsr 4d ago

I really like to hear this

3

u/Deaner3D 4d ago

This reality always makes me admit I truly don't understand independents. Or, rather, I don't understand the mindset voting R then D then R again. I'm like "pick your fucking issues then pick that candidate, geeze!"

4

u/rivsnation 4d ago

Locally I get not being tied to a party, but after Trump I don’t understand an independent who hasn’t made up their mind already. Unless they’re using the title to stop people from ostracizing them about their politics.

1

u/Popular_Table8654 2d ago

I’ll put the corruption, ethical, hypocritical issues that exist in both parties aside. On the issues, for me it’s because both parties stances/talking points on issues is extremely narrow and usually intellectually dishonest if not outright dishonest.
For example, on immigration: there are like 8 different kinds of immigration(lottery, political asylum, work, illegals at the border, etc). Yet, the debate from both parties basically centers on the southern border is definitely not nuanced. Per the DNC, if you object to an open border you are a privileged racist asshole. Per Trump, not even German Au pairs are gonna be allowed in.

1

u/Deaner3D 2d ago

Some issues are invented by one side as a wedge. I think the border security qualifies as that. Granted, it's a concern, but the hyperventilating about it on the right is what's driven the narrative. You can tell it's a wedge issue because when they had an offer from Dems to work on it they collapsed bipartisan legislation because it was seen as helping them more politically if left unfixed.

Examining other classical issues though there are stark differences.

1

u/Popular_Table8654 2d ago

Biden completely ignored the border for three years. And it’s not like the Republicans were quiet about the issue. They made an issue about pretty much on day 1. I don’t like the Republicans failing to do their job this year but it kinda offends me when the DNC tries to take the high ground now, and say “see, we tried”. They didn’t do shit until they realized normal people might actually hold it against Biden in the election.

1

u/hous26 4d ago

Its about turnout. Dang near everyone has a preference one way or the other on the next president, but Biden's debate performance will cost him turnout because it created a lot of doubts. He can't afford to lose votes in swing states and hes not going to get some folks out to the polling stations or their mailboxes that he otherwise would have gotten.

1

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

They'll be more motivated to vote Biden than anyone else on that list

-5

u/EnvironmentUseful229 4d ago

Other than Biden, as the Democratic minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries is closest to being the standard bearer of the Democratic party. I think the country would be well served if Biden nominated Jeffries to take his place.

While we're at it, I'd love to see Katie Porter as the VP.

64

u/SilentJoe1986 New York 4d ago

I'm independent. I'm voting for the candidate most likely to beat Trump and third party isn't it. I've seen a Trump presidency, and a Biden presidency. Biden is the better choice.

13

u/jetlightbeam 4d ago

I'm of a mind that that 10% people keep talking about are made up of two main groups. The informed voter and the uninformed voter.

The informed voter analyzes the platform of each candidate and makes a decision based on whoever is closest to their ideals. There is no way an informed voter is going to choose trump over biden, and as such, have already made up their mind.

The uniformed voter will probably not decide until day of and then only choose by flipping a pencil or playing eeny meeny miney moe and as such are completely irrelevant to the conversation.

1

u/gingerwhale Texas 3d ago

Exactly. There are no undecided voters, just uninformed voters.

-1

u/Fastphilly1187 4d ago

“I’m independent” and I’m voting for the candidate most likely to beat Trump. You are not fooling anybody, independents do not hold allegiance to either party and for you to make your “Anybody But Trump” decided vote in June makes your “Independent” claim laughable.

7

u/standardsizedpeeper 3d ago

What? You think that an independent who has seen the two men do the job can’t possibly know who to vote for by now? I mean, also, having seen Trump do the job there’s a lot there that would disqualify him. I was a Republican until Trump’s presidency and was even pretty optimistic about him for a year. Where we are now makes me not a Republican and not a Democrat but also I’ve not heard of a single person I wouldn’t rather want to be president than Trump other than maybe Elon Musk.

2

u/ragingreaver 3d ago

I'd vote for a literal sandwich with the Weekend At The Bernie's prop as VP over Trump, if that is what it took to keep him out of office. Trump has successfully turned the election into a question of "do you want the USA to turn into the Fourth Reich this upcoming year or no?"

And THAT is the thing: I would LOVE to vote a third party and tell the Dems to suck it, but right now, doing that runs the risk of seeing this nation drown in a tide of blood. Project 2025 is a declaration of war, and it is high time, as a nation, we started treating it as such.

2

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

Independents at least KNOW Biden.

The debate was watched by 50mil viewers, down from 70mil in 2020.

You fail to realize how much regular people DONT follow politics.

2

u/DolfLungren 3d ago

Dems entire base is not (yet) motivated to show up on Election Day, this takes the work.

1

u/PissNBiscuits 3d ago

This exactly. After the debate, what is more likely for an independent who doesn't like Trump, but doesn't exactly hate him: Vote for Biden (who was a complete and total shit show and barely looks like he can function) or stay home? My bet's on the latter.

1

u/tlsrandy 3d ago

A new candidate doesn’t have time to convince undecideds to vote for them.

-1

u/eilertokyo 4d ago

Dems base is being openly manipulated to think it’s perfectly ok to abstain from voting because Biden didn’t single handedly solve some of the most complicated political problems to ever face a president.

1

u/NeonArlecchino California 3d ago

Numerous US presidents (including Reagan) have gotten Israel to do what they want by threatening to withhold aid. It's a well tested method for getting them to stop doing evil shit such as their current genocide.

-1

u/Coolegespam 3d ago

It's a well tested method for getting them to stop doing evil shit such as their current genocide.

Words have meaning. The attack on Oct 7th was a genocidal act by Palestine and a deceleration of war. Israel responding was self defense, and they've fought a war with some of the lowest casualty to combatants (~1:1) of any Urban combat in the 20th-21st. Even the UN would expect 9 civilians for every combatant. If this is a genocide, then virtually every war fought was a genocide. Of course, we both know the only real difference is that Israel is the only Jewish country in the world.

I applauded Biden for the work he's done in the middle east, and with Israel and Palestine. It's a big reason why I'm voting for him. Because you know, Trump want's Israel to just nuke them and would probably declare them a pariah afterwards.

1

u/NeonArlecchino California 3d ago edited 3d ago

Almost an entire country's infrastructure leveled, civilians and aid workers specifically targeted, aid trucks allowed to be raided by terrorists while the IDF guards them from the drivers, hundreds of genocidal statements from members of the Israeli government and IDF officials and members that I can provide an incomplete version of since too many come out to adequately record, a temporary ruling of "plausible genocide" by the ICJ as the investigation continues, safe zones bombed after members of the IDF claim they're still safe, farms destroyed for no reason beyond starving the population, war crimes constantly posted online by laughing IDF, entire buildings destroyed without any claim of terrorist usage, land being sold while the people pushed off of it or their families may still live, Palestinian hostages being raped to death and tortured in Israeli concentration camps, and anyone above the age of 12-15 being labeled a combatant to create the false numbers you're claiming. The final point is especially easy to prove false since Israel often targets terrorists as they get home to their families to kill their target while also murdering their family. A 1:1 ratio of civilians and combatants killed is impossible to create that way unless you wrongfully count anyone related to a terrorist as a combatant.

Furthermore, the biggest thing is that Oct 7 was a response to thousands of Palestinians being murdered and kidnapped by Israel in the decades leading up to it and peaceful Palestinian protestors having limbs shot off by IDF. That response only had 1200 deaths which even with a majority of them being civilians, many victims were IDF and an unknown number were former IDF. The goal of the hostage taking (that was reported shortly after and I haven't heard updated) was to trade for thousands of Palestinian hostages Israel is indefinitely detaining and torturing. Considering the recent operation that saw over 250 Palestinians killed (with most of them being civilians) for 6 hostages being deemed acceptable by Israel and the United States, Oct 7 would be a more legitimate military operation than Israel's operations since it had a higher number of hostages attempted being rescued vs number of people murdered and kidnapped. If all lives are treated equally, have a right to defend themselves, and you truly believe Oct 7 was a genocidal action: then everything Israel has done is too.

1

u/Coolegespam 3d ago edited 2d ago

Almost an entire country's infrastructure leveled

Because they civilian structures to wage war.

civilians and aid workers specifically targeted

One of the lowest civilian to combatant death ratios shows they're not. You also have a problem with the numbers from Palestine not fully adding up.

aid trucks allowed to be raided by terrorists while the IDF guards them from the drivers,

Because aid organizations have been found to transport weapons to Hamas. A violation of international law.

hundreds of genocidal statements from members of the Israeli government and IDF officials and members that I can provide an incomplete version of since too many come out to adequately record

Yeah, in response to the genocidal actions of Palestine towards Isreal. That's not proof of genocide.

a temporary ruling of "plausible genocide" by the ICJ as the investigation continues

Not what they said.

farms destroyed for no reason beyond starving the population

That's war, that's what happens when you attack civilians and start a war. According to the UN The population isn't starving. Being at risk is not the same thing.

war crimes constantly posted online by laughing IDF

You mean like raiding a music festival, raping women to death and then dragging their bodies through the streets while people laugh and spit on their corpse? Warning on that link, it's graphic. (Because this is what Palestine did.)[https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/04/middleeast/sexual-assault-october-7-israel-witness-int/index.html]

safe zones bombed after members of the IDF claim they're still safe

Hamas stores weapons in Civilian structures and areas. IDF legally hits those illegal cashs and the secondary explosions kill civilians because Hamas used those areas for illegal war operations. Be mad at Hamas for putting their own civilians in danger.

entire buildings destroyed without any claim of terrorist usage

I've not seen that, in all the reporting everything has always come back as having a Hamas link of some kind.

land being sold while the people pushed off of it or their families may still live

Gaza is a warzone, what's happening in the West bank is a separate issue, and one I don't agree with.

Palestinian hostages being raped to death and tortured in Israeli concentration camps

Bullshit, unless you can provide a source. On the other hand, Israel hostages have been raped.

and anyone above the age of 12-15 being labeled a combatant to create the false numbers you're claiming

Palestine uses child soldiers and even child suicide bombers, that's not in debate it's a fact, and no they're still counted as children and non-combatants by Palestine. Which is where most of the numbers come from.

With that, I'm done. All your points are incorrect or at the very least inaccurate. You're only getting your information from anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sources. Look at things with a more critical mind, because right now, you're defending a country that's using child soldiers. That raped civilians and then desecrated their corpse. It's beyond sick what Palestine has done, and you're choosing to defnding it.

EDIT: Well, he blocked me so I can't respond. I shouldn't be surprised they had no follow up for Palestine's use of child soldiers. They never do.

0

u/NeonArlecchino California 3d ago edited 3d ago

Because they civilian structures to wage war.

Not 90% of structures. The most notorious IDF casualties came when a Hamas rocket exploded the explosives the 28 terrorists were using to level an empty apartment building. If it ever was a Hamas unit, it wasn't at that point.

One of the lowest civilian to combatant death ratios shows they're not. You also have a problem with the numbers from Palestine not fully adding up.

That link doesn't support you and it even states that the people lost under rubble cannot be accounted for. The least trustworthy part of the numbers is that they're revised for accuracy.

Because aid organizations have been found to transport weapons to Hamas. A violation of international law.

Times of Israel is a hasbara rag that doesn't (typically) clean up its lies. You also have Israel blocking medical kits claiming that they're weapons so that claim loses all validity. That said, at least we can agree that the people raiding the trucks while the IDF protects them are terrorists.

That's not proof of genocide.

It is proof of the intent of the policymakers. Intent counts for a lot in the rulings on genocide taking place.

Not what they said.

That is what they said when the ruling is that genocidal protections may be needed for Palestinians and that the claims of genocide are plausible. What you're doing is equivalent to claiming that BLM is a black supremacy movement because the Too isn't directly there.

That's war, that's what happens when you attack civilians and start a war.

International law prohibits destroying assets vital to human life. You're admitting that Israel is committing war crimes while ignoring the thousands of civilians murdered or kidnapped in the years leading up to Oct 7.

Because this is what Palestine did.

Hamas, not Palestine. Either way, Israel shouldn't use terrorist actions as a guideline if they want to be legitimate. Then again, one of their leaders did recently praise Hitler's methods so that is rather mask off.

Hamas stores weapons in Civilian structures and areas. IDF legally hits those illegal cashs and the secondary explosions kill civilians because Hamas used those areas for illegal war operations. Be mad at Hamas for putting their own civilians in danger.

That isn't close to what I said. The IDF is sending out maps of safe zones and then bombing those zones. If it happened as you're claiming then they wouldn't send out the maps until after the weapons are cleared out.

I've not seen that, in all the reporting everything has always come back as having a Hamas link of some kind.

Date farms and monuments are definitely hives of evil, am I right?

Bullshit, unless you can provide a source.

Here you go:

A leaked draft of the UNRWA report detailed an interview that gave a similar account. It cited a 41-year-old detainee who said that interrogators “made me sit on something like a hot metal stick and it felt like fire,” and also said that another detainee “died after they put the electric stick up” his anus.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-detention-base.html

I'm sure you'll claim UNRWA isn't reliable (even though they've been cleared of the charges), but the NYT was comfortable using them as a source.

All your points are incorrect or at the very least inaccurate. You're only getting your information from anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sources.

The audacity to claim that after citing a literal propaganda rag, endorsing or excusing war crimes, and ignoring all of the death Israel had caused before Oct 7 is really something. Especially since by Israel's own metric, Oct 7 was ok to do since it was done to eventually rescue hostages through trade with a better than 270:6 ratio on deaths to hostages.

EDIT: autocorrect made a "you'll" a "you're" so I fixed it.

→ More replies (0)

66

u/DonaldsMushroom 4d ago

I think a lot of Biden's vote is tied in to voting for anyone but Trump, and I would do likewise.

But how can the democrats not have a plan B after 4 years? The man is 81. If plan B is Kamilla, then go for it, but I feel like they sidelined her for the entire Presidency. Why did they not build her up, or replace her?

They had 4 years.

28

u/biggamax 4d ago

They sidelined her because they know she's deeply unpopular. And frankly, she isn't up for the job.

I like Jasmine Crockett. Can you imagine what she'd do to Trump in a debate? O.M.G., it would be glorious.

3

u/AntoniaFauci 3d ago

She’s deeply unpopular because she’s sidelined. But also because her motherly-leader persona is fake as hell and intensely off-putting.

She’s most genuine and effective when she’s acting like a kick ass prosecutor.

That one moment when she (unfairly) kicked Biden’s teeth in during a primary debate is what got her the VP nod. Biden foolishly wanted to show how magnanimous he could be, plus she conveniently fit Jim Clyburn’s extortion demand.

She could have been popular today, if she’d spent the last 4 years being the Democrat’s version of a Trump mouthpiece. She should have been doing the same low blows she hit Biden with, but to Republicans, every day. She should have been at Trump’s civil trial steps, giving loud reminders he’s a rapist. She should have been in Florida weekly, calling for statutory rapist Gaetz to be indicted. She should have been in Ohio, reminding everyone that Jim Jordan was an accessory to a mass sexual abuse. She should be ripping new a holes for Jd Vance and Tim Scott and all the other republican creeps that the media ignores while they’re regurgitating manufactured negatives about her administration.

Media could have covered that for 4 years instead of being the Dolby sound system for conservative lies about Biden. As the bad cop to Biden’s good cop, they’d probably be riding record high approval ratings today, instead of defiantly leading us to the extermination of Democracy.

0

u/biggamax 3d ago

Kamala intrinsically sucks. 

2

u/AntoniaFauci 3d ago edited 3d ago

She is excellent at certain things. She’s good at being a brash loudmouth and an aggressive prosecutor. She should have used those strengths for the last several years. She could have been busy 24x7 verbally prosecuting criminal and corrupt Republicans. That alone would have displaced 98% of the disinformation firehose they used to Orwell the incredible accomplishments of the Biden administration. The angry public would now be calling for Trump crime family to face justice instead of being brainwashed into hating Biden.

Instead, the second she was picked for the ticket, she started acting like she’d been unanimously elected president herself, giving fake floaty TED talks about leadership and vision. She comes off like wish.com Oprah. It’s off-putting to Republicans and Democrats alike, as reflected in her bottom-scraping approval numbers.

Now cue the apolgism and self-sabotage crew who will be out in force. She’ll get a tiny and meaningless bump in polling from last week’s rare appearance. Lazy media will skreech about her “astounding” rise in popularity, while burying the fact that a jump from 10% approval to 15% is still a massive guaranteed loss.

1

u/biggamax 3d ago

She is excellent at certain things. She’s good at being a brash loudmouth and an aggressive prosecutor.

Only when Willie Brown was pulling the strings for her in the first place.

2

u/Numerous_Photograph9 3d ago

There are a lot of people I like within the party. I'd say many of them would even make good presidents. But the pragmatist in me still questions if they'd be able to beat Trump in an election with such a short window to campaign in.

0

u/biggamax 3d ago

The true pragmatist is in favor of an immediate tactical substitution.

1

u/Dineology 4d ago

I’d look beyond the House for any possible replacement, iirc nobody has gone directly from the House to the White House successfully since Lincoln. And even, that was a 4 way race and he was able to win with under 40% of the vote. VPs, Senators and Governors are your best bets generally for electoral success.

1

u/suffaluffapussycat 3d ago

Yeah I wonder what Newsom is doing right now.

0

u/biggamax 4d ago edited 4d ago

We Americans are tired of being told who we may, or may not, have represent us. Our choice always amounts to the lesser of two evils. Or, we're told that it's a candidates "turn", and aren't we just so silly and naive for ever questioning that.

The likes of Congresswoman Crockett is what America wants. And she could get elected, when Joe cannot. We want Ms. Crockett to eviscerate DJT on that debate stage, and we want to see her drive Putin mad with rage, as a Black Woman with guts and brains bests him on the world stage.

0

u/AntoniaFauci 3d ago

It might be cathartic for us to see her tongue lash him.

But if we actually want to win the election, one needs to know what the 300,000 swing state undecideds want. If you made a list, their wants are a perfect description of Gavin Newsom.

Crockett would be fun for a roast battle. But for winning in November, no.

1

u/NeonArlecchino California 3d ago

Unless Crockett is losing her seat, I think she should wait until at least 2028 or 2032 to go for president. I like her a lot, but I think she'd stand a better chance later on.

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/TdrdenCO11 4d ago

love that any time a black woman gets a job it’s a diversity hire but it doesn’t occur to you that race and gender are why we only had white male presidents for 200+ years. That’s peak identity politics

9

u/biggamax 4d ago

There are several black women who are up for the job of President of the United States. Kamala Harris ain't one of them. Not even remotely.

2

u/TdrdenCO11 4d ago

Sure I agree. Bad pick. But that’s not what this muppet is saying

3

u/biggamax 4d ago

The guy does seem very muppet like, but I'm afraid he/she might be correct. Biden literally stated that he was going to select a woman for VP and indicated, beyond all doubt, that gender would be the primary selection criterion.

1

u/TdrdenCO11 4d ago

So it’s the stating it out loud that bothers you? Mike Pence was, by the same logic, an “identity politics” pick for VP. The difference is that representation of under represented groups has important effects. She was a bad choice because she was a bad candidate. Like you said, there were better women. But arguing that any woman would have been a diversity choice or that explicitly stating that representation would be a criteria is somehow bad doesn’t make any sense because limiting to 50% of the candidate population is an absurd thing to whine about when it’s only ever been the other 50% of male candidates who were considered. The cabinet should look like the country it represents and getting butthurt over that is too dumb to engage with

3

u/biggamax 4d ago

I'm not really backing muppet, but Biden stating gender would be the number one part of his selection criteria was stupid and maddening. That statement showed that Joe was willing to narrow down the selection pool and dismiss potentially qualified candidates in favor of potentially inferior candidates, simply due to an accident of birth. That's infuriating, and frankly, it reeks of the same stubborn hubris that's driving Biden to stay in the race now.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Fasefirst2 4d ago

I guess it never happens then. Lol

4

u/Fasefirst2 4d ago

I mean, it’s not like he said he was gonna hire based off gender or anything.

5

u/TdrdenCO11 4d ago

No you’re right there wasn’t one qualified person once you limit it to only 50% of the population. Trump picked on gender too btw you just don’t see it that way because you think you’re the default setting for humanity

0

u/Fasefirst2 4d ago

50% of the population, but what percent of qualified politicians?

2

u/TdrdenCO11 4d ago

can’t credibly promote a female politician because there aren’t enough of them isn’t the argument you think it is. get some rest homie.

1

u/Fasefirst2 3d ago edited 3d ago

It doesn’t matter if you can or can’t. That’s not what he did Homie

1

u/Fasefirst2 3d ago

But when it comes to selecting your world leaders, I guess find a particular demographic is more important than finding somebody qualified. Have fun with Trump for the next four years.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thegrandpineapple 3d ago

I mean iirc Biden did say he was looking for a black woman for the job.

1

u/TdrdenCO11 3d ago

Right now, relatively few women and even fewer women of color enter politics because they don’t see themselves represented proportionately. That’s part of the reason representation matters. There’s nothing wrong having a cabinet that looks like the country it represents. And again, if you don’t think Mike Pence was an “identity politics” vp pick, all you’re really saying is that you consider white men to be a default for the position.

1

u/thegrandpineapple 3d ago edited 3d ago

All I’m trying to say is that it is identity politics because he said he was going to pick a black woman. I’m not saying I’m against a black woman having the job. Two things can exist at once here.

1

u/TdrdenCO11 3d ago

And what i’m saying is that if it weren’t for hundreds of years of identity politics, a commitment like that wouldn’t be so necessary. But the people who recoil at her have no issue with Pence and saying that that the objection is only over the fact that Biden stated what he was doing out loud feels like a distinction without a difference. He wanted a cabinet that reflected like the country it was leading and he said so. That’s it.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Numerous_Photograph9 3d ago

Not to diminish her abilities, but the VP often is picked for who they can bring to the voting booth. Pence brought the evangelicals. Biden brought the more moderate voters. Cheney brought the assholes. VP's tend to fill a role that the candidate just can't manage.

So, there is merit to say her race was a factor. however, she also is an accomplished politician, so it wasn't a bad choice.

2

u/mrpeabody208 Texas 4d ago

She was picked to tick demographic boxes, which often time the VP is. Just happened to be "black woman" and not "from Wisconsin", or like that one time it was "known quantity, white" Joe Biden.

Doesn't make her a good choice, and frankly, they should dump her. "Young and from <battleground state>" would be better for Biden this time anyway.

0

u/Numerous_Photograph9 3d ago

Whose to say they don't have a backup plan? They very well might. I mean, it's possible that Biden could die a natural death, or have a very senior moment which makes him unable to serve. The debate wasn't that very senior moment...just to clarify.

But, as of right now, it's not the time to just up and replace Biden. That's not how this would go down, even if it was seriously being considered. People are impatient, and think everything happens the second they want it...which is one reason everyone keeps getting disillusioned when the government doesn't respond to their every need the second they hit send on their twitter account.

15

u/riftadrift 4d ago

The only possible would be Biden dropping out for health reasons and endorsing someone with an identical policy platform.

21

u/SkyriderRJM 4d ago

Old age is a good health reason.

0

u/FiendishHawk 3d ago

Dementia, too.

31

u/leostotch Illinois 4d ago

After the debate, I’m primed to get behind somebody with a pulse. I’ve always been cool on Biden, I just want the Dems to get their shit together for once in my life.

13

u/TdrdenCO11 4d ago

hmm we definitely had it together in 08.

16

u/Dineology 4d ago

Nah, Dems didn’t. Obama build his entire campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic Party systems because of how much they did not have their shit together

2

u/Sharkictus 3d ago

And the democratic party managed to get it shit together just enough to make sure that never happens again.

2

u/eukomos 4d ago

Biden passed a huge climate bill. Obama based a huge health care bill. What does it take for you to consider them having their shit together? A personal Christmas present on your doorstep?

5

u/leostotch Illinois 4d ago

Winning battles, losing wars. We’re teetering on the edge of fascism, but sure, both Biden and Obama managed to pass a bill each.

14

u/paultheschmoop 4d ago

What’s easier: convincing people who otherwise wouldn’t vote to vote for a 50 year old democratic governor, or for a guy who apparently handily lost a debate to a cold? That’s the question that’s being asked.

12

u/somasomore 4d ago

Getting people out to vote for an 81 year that can barely form full sentences is harder.

1

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

Than getting people out to vote for someone they've never heard of? LOL.

1

u/FiendishHawk 3d ago

The media will freak over the drama of a last minute convention. Everyone will know the name of the candidate.

1

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

No one watches the convention but good try

0

u/somasomore 3d ago

The convention is in August, it's not like the election is the next day. 

-1

u/Telzen Georgia 4d ago

Biden has name recognition and policy achievements. Getting people out to vote for someone they have never heard of is harder.

6

u/Nernoxx 4d ago

No, Trump has his 40 percent that’s almost locked in, but there’s around 20% of Republicans willing to vote for someone that’s not Trump, but have really been turned off by Biden.

The issue with Biden/Trump has always been voter turnout - Trump guarantees about 40% of the electorate with a high turnout rate, Biden can only count on a high turnout rate on a significantly smaller percentage.

17

u/possibilistic Georgia 4d ago

Dems have to activate those who don't typically vote as well as swing voters / moderates.

Biden is the pick to do this.

Do you see why there is cause for concern?

13

u/beerspice 4d ago

You think infrequent and swing voters would turn out more enthusiastically for Biden than they would for one of the other candidates whose name is being batted around? How come?

To me, it seems the other way around. I would think swing voters would be more excited to vote for a younger candidate who could make the case against Trump more strongly, and who wouldn't come with the baggage of Biden's Israel policy or current grocery store prices.

13

u/possibilistic Georgia 4d ago

I was saying this rhetorically. Biden is a horrible candidate and we're going to lose the White House to Trump if we stay the course.

2

u/AntoniaFauci 3d ago

Biden is the pick to do this.

Watch the debate. Seriously. I just watched it for the second time. Biden killed off tens of millions of potential votes. Many of them Democrats even.

If they push ahead defiantly, it will be a slaughter. All because of hubris, and a circle of delusional enablers.

8

u/teachersecret 4d ago

Honestly? It would be easy to get dems behind this. President resigns, we get our first female president and we get to duke it out in an open convention, sucking all the air out of the media cycle while Trump sits in courtrooms.

Those conventions would involve democrats arguing about what they want to do - showcasing Democrat ideas.

I think it would be the media boost we need.

The alternative is a weekend at Bernie’s situation that I think we’re all uncomfortable with.

6

u/SkyriderRJM 4d ago

And anyone voting against Trump will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is. You can’t lose those people. We have already lost the people in the middle. You need a new candidate to have a chance.

3

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

Do you think a random independent in Pennsylvania is following all of this? Cuz they're not. They're just busy working.

2

u/SkyriderRJM 3d ago

The random independent in Indiana looked at that debate and said “these choices suck but I’d rather have the crazy convict than an invalid in charge”.

0

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

Yep, and having a slick liberal California San Francisco dude (Newsom) or a liberal corrupt Illinois dude (Pritzker) or someone no one knows (Whitmer) will be worse. Because on top of the lack of name recognition and the stories of "dems in disarray" the stories will also be "look at the dems changing presidential candidates out like they're disposable! DEEP STATE!!"

2

u/SkyriderRJM 3d ago

If you’re seeing a story that says deep state, you’re already not voting for the democratic candidate.

2

u/moosepers 3d ago

Guess what: people don't like choosing between a dictator and a guy with dementia. Biden had the same 1000 yard stare my mother in law gets when she has a senior moment in the diner. Yea one is obviously better but all the people that are still willing to vote for a guy that was about to collapse on the debate stage will be willing to vote for a last minute hail Mary. Switching horses now can only improve dems chances

6

u/marchbook 4d ago

Democrats convincing their entire base to get behind a completely new candidate

Their entire base is not behind Biden, has never been. The base is against Trump.

If there was ever a time when a candidate could be successfully switched out, it's now.

0

u/darshfloxington 3d ago

The base is absolutely behind Biden. People that yell about politics on the internet are not the base.

-1

u/sir_mrej Washington 3d ago

Nope it was before he started running

2

u/puertomateo 4d ago

They don't have their entire base behind Biden now. He's been bleeding support from the core constituencies, the progressive and minority wing.

0

u/darshfloxington 3d ago

Source? Also progressives are absolutely not the base of the Democratic Party, the are a relatively small bloc that cannot be counted on to actually vote. The base is suburban women and middle aged and older black people.

3

u/puertomateo 3d ago

This is the mindset that lands the Democratic party where it is now. And frankly, what imperils Biden's campaign.

54% of Democrats identify as liberal

And policy posititions that the centrist, Pelosi majority deem unthinkable are often supported by not only a vast majority of Democrats, but the nation as a whole. Examples, examples,. Even after the end of Roe, the party avoided talking prominently about abortion until they discovered that protecting reproductive rights was immensely popular. And they still soft pedal it was more than they should. It wins ballot measures in deep red states by the range of 55-57% to 45/43. A majority of Americans oppose the current war in Gaza, yet the White House can't find the wherewithal to address it other than the occasional, empty "stern words" that Israel promptly discards.

Presidential elections these days are close. The Ds can't afford to simply discard its base, ever-pursuing the fickle, 0.5% of voters in the center. Biden has been losing massive support from voters who are young and black, demographics who have been easy in the pocket for them. It was their shunning of Bernie, and the young voters who believed in him, who arguably cost Hillary the election and at a very minimum contributed to it. Biden has been polling poorly for over a year. The younger more progressive voters don't *want* an 80-year-old centrist. And for over a year Biden's people have been blowing it off, saying that Trump was so bad that once it became serious, they'd be fine. They're not fine. We're not fine.

There is no world in which an actual, centrist, level-headed voter should be torn or up for grabs this election. Trump wants to become a dictator. He says he wants to become a dictator. He idolizes dictators. His first term's SCOTUS picks have leveled American society and in many more ways that the general populous understands but do enough that its approval is at an all-time low.

Biden's campaign, and Democrats generally, need to address their core constituencies. They need to, as Buttigieg said in the primaries 4 years ago, not be afraid to be Democrats. Elizabeth Warren has probably already her moment, but the party needs her type of fiery, value-driven, morally-guided progressivism.

Biden is losing right now because he absolutely does NOT have all of the party's support behind him. He's losing right now because the demographics who have historically been in the bag for the party, really don't like him, and aren't saying they'll support him. And it's about time that that sinks in to the Boomers & older who have been trying to win on Clintonian triangulation for over 30 years now.

1

u/atuarre Texas 4d ago

There will be people who will be angry that Biden was forced to step down and it will cost us the election.

1

u/Aware-Line-7537 3d ago

That's true of a lot of Trump voters, but not all. And the Democrats just need to turn around about 3% of the US electorate to win.

1

u/CalifaDaze California 3d ago

I'm not. This debate made it clear that Biden isn't thr choice and I'll probably end up voting for Trump.