Lichtman thinks Dems would be slitting their own throats by dumping Biden
Lichtman thinks Dems would be slitting their own throats by dumping Biden
Sam will be live, after this live, here: https://www.youtube.com/live/PqfALiniMjc?si=EWrMUnolUtdZsqJqThe calls for Joe Biden to step aside aren't diminishing...
I honestly don't know what to think at this point; just putting this out there.
This upheaval against Biden is too late. It undermines the entire process we have and makes Democrats appear as poor for the country as Republicans.
We already have a bad system for primaries that is only loosely democratic. It takes votes into consideration but is a broken system that heavily favors super-delegates and pressures primary opponents of an incumbent to drop out.
But if we throw away any implication of democratic elections in choosing the nominee, we just trade one type of descent into authoritarianism for another.
The time for this was during primary elections for the Democratic nominee, not now. Doing it now undermines the rule of law, reduces any moral high ground Democrats have going into a very close election, and erodes any little chance remaining of a nonviolent transfer of power in January.
If the primary system is already "loosely democratic" then we're not really throwing anything away by choosing a different nominee. This already happened with Bernie. Should we reform the DNC to make it more democratic? Certainly, but that's a different problem and isn't going to happen in the next two weeks.
Is it only unacceptable to you if the party pushes him out? How would Biden stepping down due to health reasons (or any personal reason, really) undermine the rule of law?
If the primary system is already "loosely democratic" then we're not really throwing anything away by choosing a different nominee.
I disagree. If you start with a flawed system and then go to a worse system, you're marching in the wrong direction.
If Biden legitimately has health issues, he should resign as President, not just bow out of reelection. The fact that very few are calling for that belies the fact that few actually believes he's unhealthy. They just don't think he'll win and want a different candidate.
broken system that heavily favors super-delegates
This is years out of date nonsense.
The time for this was during primary elections for the Democratic nominee, not now. Doing it now undermines the rule of law
And this is incoherent. There's no "law" involved in any of this. If Biden leaves the race it will be from him withdrawing, which is a totally by the books option in Democratic internal rules.
On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Hillary Clinton and the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns
Ultimately, the DNC decided to prevent superdelegates from voting on the first ballot, instead of reducing their numbers
People keep seeming to forget about the super delegate reform Bernie fought for. They are still there now, 15% of all the delegates (a lot of the super delegates being democratic elected officials like members of congress since that automatically gives the status). But they can't vote in the first ballot any longer. They could only vote in a contested election in subsequent ballots, after all the other pledged delegates are unbound as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Even before those reforms, they never really made a difference in any convention, except possibly 1984 when they helped push Mondale from a plurality to a majority by voting for him on the first ballot.
I'm not personally in favor of them at all, but it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be sometimes. If we go to an open convention though, unless there's a majority choice on the first ballot, they may play a role on subsequent ballots.
I've been against Biden stepping down, it's just so late in the process, and a heavy push for Kamala Harris to take his place in the media soured that; I have nothing against her personally, but she is the 'establishment' currently, as the VP of the current administration, and I don't feel she is particularly strong against Trump, other than a "I'd vote for anyone with a D next to their name over Trump" kind of way.
A large part of that has been, the only reason I feel he could successfully step down at this point, is if a good candidate is already in place to step up. The Dem and anti-Trump base will have no problem switching their vote. It's having someone to appeal to the people that could be persuaded either way, or may not even vote.
Personally, that would be Gavin Newsom from my perspective; he is well known, has been going head to head with Florida's DeSantis already, has been in the media in a way that already seems like he is gunning for the presidency, and was Biden's media spin room representative at the debate; but he has his drawbacks as well.
I've seen Whitmer floated, and I don't think she's an awful choice, but also feel she is needed in the roll she is currently in, and is doing an awesome job there.
Josh Shapiro... I know nothing about, may be a fine candidate, but my mind immediately turns to Turning Point USA's Ben Shapiro, and it is probably an unfortunate name recognition issue to the average person. Have to keep in mind, this is elevating mostly people with state level recognition to a national stage of people unfamiliar with them (in that way, maybe a swing state Dem would be a good pick).
The other people I've seen floated, I have no opposition to, but the main issue is, are the funds there to run an effective campaign to elevate someone who hasn't been running on the national stage, in only a few months time. 3+ months is plenty of time for an election in a state, or your average European sized country, I feel; but the US is massive, with a lot of states the size of a European country. It may be fine for the majority of people, but I worry about penetration into the swing states, particularly those that don't generally pay attention to elections, or the media.
Obviously stay away from anyone that is retirement age though, as the push to out Biden is specifically about his age, and perceived age related mental health, and have a preference to keep them under 70 by the end of 8 years in office, so they can do a double term without perceived age issues, so about 35 - 62.
Funding shouldn't be an issue, because there is an entire war chest that candidates aren't supposed to get access to until after the convention when they're formally nominated. Unless that's been raided ahead of time by Biden, there is supposed to be a bunch available there.
I believe modern presidential campaigns focus their war chest into swing states, and typically less into stronghold states; they typically would have already done that in the primary against people of the same party. My concern is more around if they don't have the name recognition, and didn't have the primary to build that, they may have to spread their funds more than Trump would at this point in time.
Then again, I'm sure Fox would spread such name with vitriol, so people would at least hear about the candidate. Them negging on Harris already at the RNC is only increasing the chance of them having a more viable opponent, but they can't help themselves when the crowd eats it up.
But I may be being too critical. For the typically non-conservative, maybe just having a Dem on the ticket that isn't Biden, is young, and they know nothing about, may be a good thing. If they haven't commented on Isreal/Gaza (or foreign politics at all really), and are a state level actor like a Governor (and thus has little influence on national economics), maybe there won't be much for swing voters/independents, or progressives to have a grievance about. Will really depend on who it is.
I think there’s a narrow way through, by fielding a candidate that most democrat voters actually like (or tolerate at the minimum). It can have the positive effect of actually re-energizing voters to go out and vote if there’s a fresh face. As to who that person should be, I’m not really sure.
As to who that person should be, I’m not really sure
This right here is the crux of how the dems fucked up so, so badly. Why they went into this election season without even attempting to run anybody aside from Biden I'll never know. All that it's reaped is all us know of not knowing anybody else and the federal party managers seem to be just as clueless (generally clueless, yes, but especially and specifically clueless here)
They learned the wrong lesson from 2016 and Bernie/Hillary. They knew the candidate they wanted, and didn't even need to maintain the pretense of democracy, so just ran effectively one candidate, failing to consider that the more popular candidate than Hillary was more popular for a reason, and so in this cycle any other candidate would have looked amazing next to Biden, who again they already knew they wanted to run.
Why they went into this election season without even attempting to run anybody aside from Biden I'll never know.
When has either party ever run a credible candidate against their own incumbent?
Arizona Senator Mark Kelly is the only one in the entire field I can see possibly defeating Trump, you may like Gavin Newsom's progressive policies but the levels of crime and drug abuse in his state are not fake news, the middle will never support him and they are the ones who will decide this election, Mark Kelly is a puzzle piece that fits perfectly here, even republicans sitting on the Trump fence would vote for him, he is a blue blooded true American hero.
I will always support Biden but sadly I think he has become damaged goods and I'm in fear for our liberty.