Activists who protested Biden’s handling of the war during Democratic primaries say they will maintain pressure no matter the nominee.
Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.
“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.
Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.
“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.
The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”
It blows my mind that people can argue that Trump is the worst possible outcome for our country and the world, and then follow that up with "we need a candidate that can beat Trump". If everyone knows what is at stake (democracy), how is Biden not capable of beating Trump? Do people think that not voting, or voting 3rd party is going to somehow keep Trump out of the white house? Anything but a vote for Biden (or whoever ends up on the ticket opposite Trump) is who everyone needs to vote for, or they have chosen Trump and doomed us all.
The post-debate Data for Progress poll tested the odds of eight Democrats who have been floated as possible alternatives to Biden, including Vice President Kamala Harris and multiple Democratic governors. Biden’s self-proclaimed advantage is tempered by the lack of name recognition — so far — for the other options. Aside from Harris, prospective voters were so unfamiliar with these Democratic leaders that between 39 and 71 percent* *of respondents said they hadn’t heard enough about them to have an opinion. Even so, each potential candidate performed the same or even better than Biden.
Overall, these results show that voters continue to be concerned about Biden’s age — but there is not yet clear evidence that an alternative nominee would significantly outperform him against Trump in a head-to-head matchup.
That's evidence that some candidates poll similarly to Biden.
That's not evidence the best thing Biden can do to stop Trump from becoming president is drop out.
That quote comes directly from the poll you linked.
...that means their floor is where Biden is.
That's a specious conclusion you're jumping to because it supports your biases. With out more information it's more likely that once the respondents know who the candidates are the overall responses will fall in line with the population averages and the candidates polling results will be the same as they are now.
All we can confidently conclude for now is "39%-71% of people polled don't know who the candidates in the polls were".
Just as a devils advocate when we talk about replacing Biden at this late stage.
Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election.
Swapping Biden out to find someone that can poll better than a guy who plans to end elections, setup death camps, take away all reproductive rights (abortion, birth control, IVF), as well as rolling back LGBTQ+ rights, shouldn't even be an issue. Unless you're part of the cult, it seems like an easy choice between freedom, or the fall of the Republic.
I was using the same language as the OP when referring to the poll, but if you feel better about yourself now good job.
You draw a pretty extreme conclusion about the polling of a generic candidate. Honestly it sounds like another specious conclusion that's been drawn because it agrees with a bias. I'm open to being wring and am interested in how you came up with it.
This CNN article has some pretty interesting discussion about generic candidates. The general consensus seems to be that generic candidates simply indicate a party preference rather than a judgment about a particular candidate.
Oh look. Same person who shows up at any anti-Biden post trying to convince people not to vote for Biden, but stops just short of saying they want Trump to win.
Let’s see all your “genocide Joe” type of comments directed to all the GOP members in Congress who happily support Israel’s efforts.
maybe a few miniscule scraps will make to the people but nothing progressive or meaningful
our lives are worse than four, eight, twelve, sixteen, or however many four years you want to go back our lives get worse every election no matter who wins
some of have waited our whole lives for a change with parents and grandparents who have done the same
Tell that to my friends who’s parents weren’t allowed to get married until our lifetimes or who’s great grandparents were classified as 3/5ths of a person
And we didn’t abolish slavery for 89 years after declaring independence. We can absolutely agree change is usually painfully, unnecessarily, terribly slow but it does happen, requiring time, work, and sacrifice
our lives are worse than four, eight, twelve, sixteen, or however many four years you want to go back our lives get worse every election no matter who wins
Is what I was replying to and it’s objectively false.
An important caveat is that positive societal change is absolutely not inevitable, generations have fought to improve the injustices of their times and we must carry on their legacy lest we allow their sacrifices to be in vain
Yeah, the necessity of our current times seems to be following that 80-year generational cycle..
What's sad to me is how all of this has seemed inevitable since at least as far back as the DNC boosting Trump and conspiring against Bernie in 2016. I couldn't have guessed the form it'd take, but I knew that our Von Hindenburg Moment was on the way since the '08 crash got followed up by the astroturfed Tea Party pulling Republicans to the right while Occupy Wall Street went nowhere at all.
What's scary is that I still can't see even a vague outline of the future past 2025. I wouldn't even bet we're having elections in 2028, much less what Trump will do with the new criminal immunity for presidential acts and a supreme court majority in his back pocket.
Nobody's coming to save us, so it's up to us to save each other.
Yeah, the necessity of our current times seems to be following that 80-year generational cycle..
What's sad to me is how all of this has seemed inevitable since at least as far back as the DNC boosting Trump and conspiring against Bernie in 2016. I couldn't have guessed the form it'd take, but I knew that our Von Hindenburg Moment was on the way since the '08 crash got followed up by the astroturfed Tea Party pulling Republicans to the right while Occupy Wall Street went nowhere at all.
What's scary is that I still can't see even a vague outline of the future past 2025. I wouldn't even bet we're having elections in 2028, much less what Trump will do with the new criminal immunity for presidential acts and a supreme court majority in his back pocket.
Nobody's coming to save us, so it's up to us to save each other.
I.E.; not actually leading the charge for human rights, following along only when not doing so would have hurt their standing, and taking credit for reluctant half-measures implemented through the courts (and overturned just as easily by current courts) rather than having put in the effort to amend the bill of rights or at least to pass a federal law while they had the chance.
They weren't fully on board until after Obergefell, when they started taking credit for the courts doing what they were too timid to do via legislation.