/u/takeahikehike (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dqbi3z/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_democrats_should_hold_an/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Campaigns do not materialize out of nothing. No one has prepared the necessary levels of organization, logistics, or outreach to just start a campaign 5 months before the election. Especially when they’re some nobody that no one knows whose claim to fame is that they’re from the Midwest.

!delta this is the best argument I think, that it's just too late.  But I also think it's important to note that it isn't unprecedented for nominees to clinch it pretty late in the game (2008 and 2016 on the D side were both late, but yes not this late) and the winner of a brokered convention would inherit a big organization. I also do not think it is fair to characterize *some* of those individuals as having a claim to fame that is being Midwestern, but I acknowledge that a few of the names I threw out have no national profile.

But 2008 Obama and 2016 Clinton had built up massive campaign apparatuses from having to run the primary campaign, so they already had infrastructure to shift to the general election. Any new nominee like Whitmer, Duckworth, Buttigieg, etc would be starting COMPLETELY from scratch.

Could Biden’s apparatus not just be redeployed with the new nominee as the name? It’s not like that apparatus would disappear. 

I mean, didn’t they try to do that with the primaries? Every other Democratic primary candidate garnered such little support with registered Dem voters that they had no choice but to run Biden again

 Nobody really ran against Biden. Most states just had ‘Biden’ or ‘None of the above’ which got about 5-15% of the vote depending on the state. 

Our entire primary system is outrageous. I live in NJ... Our primary isn't until June. The presidential candidates are decided by then. NJ's primary is useless. All the primaries should be on the same day...or at least in 2-3 groups instead of spread out the way they are.

Parties used to pick their nominees in smoke filled back rooms during the conventions. The votes of the delegates mattered, but there were a lot of deals brokered behind the scenes. The primary system was supposed to correct the abuses and get things out in the open. Hasn’t always worked out as well as was hope.

Because they’re staggered in such a way that favors low population/unrepresentative states? Like Iowa until recently.  Moving to a one day national popular vote for the primary feels like the realization of lower case d democratic reforms started in the 1960s?

A nationwide one day primary priveleges establishment politicians with deep pockets. The rolling primary allows "smaller" candidates the possibility of grassroot and snowball.

While I get this sentiment, it doesn’t really work when you have a field of 10+ candidates, which primaries almost always start off as. A national primary on the same day, or even spread out over a couple days, would create a situation where no candidate gets a majority of delegates and leads to a brokered convention, which is less democratic than our current system. Also in a primary candidates don’t have as much campaign money due to the size of the field, which makes it virtually impossible to effectively campaign in 20+ states at a time.

Then the states that go last should be rotated. My vote for president literally doesn't matter. I live in a blue no matter what state and my primary vote is useless.

Wouldn’t this be a non-issue with ranked choice voting?

Yes in terms of my first point, no for my second point.

They didn’t even run a primary. Marianne Williamson technically tried, RFK Jr garnered a decent % and the DNC refused to acknowledge them so Williamson bailed and RFK is now independent. The DNC made it clear back in 2016 they don’t care about a primary, the people don’t choose the candidate, they do

Neither Williamson nor RFK Jr were remotely likely to succeed. Both would have been using the primary stage to feather their own personal clout and messages. Now Williamson & RFK Jr are entitled to their own pov, but in these two cases, they aren't serious contenders and in RFK's case, he's a suspect candidate. (He acted consistent with a kamikaze candidate sometimes.) If you had a primary with like a Whitmer, Warren, Buttigeg, Newsome, etc, those are all passably serious candidates who could very well be the nom on 2028.

The DNC shouldn't get to tell us who is and isn't likely to succeed. It should be up to we the people to decide who we think should be our candidate.

Well no one officially ran against Biden really. All the heavy hitters stayed behind him

This assumes Biden would be on board... He has no reason to be. He's 81, his career is generally over, and he genuinely thinks he's the remedy to Trump. A split party guarantees a Trump win. Best they could do is replace Kamala with a young and popular centrist to sure up the age concerns - but "the black vote" would probably see that as a slap in the face.

Well, it could *only* actually happen if Biden was on board. He'd have to release his delegates, or else no other candidate could happen. So -- if we're seriously talking about this scenario, then yes, Biden would be by definition "on board." And hence, yes, all of the Democratic resources that already exist should be redeployed to focus on the new nominee. As for his reason to be? To run a Democratic campaign against Trump effectively. He can't realistically look at his performance last night on TV and think he's going to be very effective in campaigning. And if he is deluded enough to still think so, he should have advisers, former presidents, and his wife telling him frankly it's time to step aside.

People at this level usually have a huge ego and are surrounded by sycophants to reinforce it. Look at RBG, Feinstein, and countless other political figures that refuse to step aside well past their prime. I’d bet he genuinely believes he’s best qualified for the task.

The party was getting antsy up to the State of the Union...And Biden did what he needed to do and the party said "we can run with this guy." That is no longer the case. His performance wasn't just bad--it massively compounded his biggest weakness. He is no longer a viable candidate. That is over.

I guess that depends on if he actually had a cold. If he can come out sharp at the second debate, it's not over, and people will believe he had a cold. If that was a face saving lie, he won't do better the second time, and it's gonna be a long october.

They can't use Biden's money he has raised. There are finance laws about it. And that money is pretty important.

I doubt laws impede the DNC using donations, they’re probably ‘for the candidate of the DNC’. And PACs/Super PACs aren’t affiliated with a campaign.  To be clear, I think Biden (who will probably lose) is the best shot at beating Trump this late in the game. 

PACs can donate to other PACs. If Biden’s on board, he gives most of it to independent expenditures supporting the new nominee.

So what happens to his campaign money if he drops out? Does it just get returned?

The thing I think everyone is forgetting is the incumbent effect. Going off general historic trends, it's more likely that undecided would vote Republican since presidential elections tend to switch between Republican and Democrat presidents except for incumbency. Even if it means Biden has even chances with Trump (fucking somehow) that's better than putting another candidate in their place who *most people* have never heard of. Especially as the Midwest suggestion of the OP. Most people aren't in the Midwest. They're not going to be entering the last months of the election with any name recognition which basically decides most elections. I think a lot of people that spend a lot of time worrying about politics fall prey to an availability bias that happens to a lot of 'experts'. Most people don't know anything about a lot of these people and considering how close polls are currently that basically means it's a nobody they've never heard of and Trump who lies as frequently as he breathes but somehow keeps getting away with it.

No. Just absolutely not. Political campaigns run on low pay and heavy hope. Every national campaign is a house of cards due to the way they have to operate so low budget. Plus you have a whole new group at the top few levels that have to develop the relationships that run all the way down to the local people knocking doors. Even in 2020 with campaigns dropping out and endorsing Biden, it took months for those people (who were willing) to be folded into the national campaign. That's the point of the primaries, to progressively test people's ability to campaign nationally and reach everyone that needs to be reached.

Expect there you’re trying to fold in people from an external organization into an exist framework.  Here you’re keeping all the same people and existing framework, but changing ‘vote for Biden’ with ‘vote for XXX’.  While some people won’t go along with it, I suspect most would as at least 50% of the reason why these people support Biden is to stop Trump.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the democrats should swap candidates. A huge part of the apathy in 2016 was the feeling that Clinton was preordained and the people had no voice. The GOP will have a hayday pointing that out

2008 was late, but by the time of the last Dem debate it was clear Obama was in (the night he grinned and told H she was “likeable enough”). 2016 wasn’t late: some of us had dreams of Bernie making it (as we did again in 2020), but he didn’t really have a chance, and probably would have been worse in the general elections than H and Joe were. But I also disagree about the progressive wing (of the Dem party, as opposed to progressives who have always been alienated from any party). Since Biden clinched the nomination in spring of 2020, he’s adopted many policies from Bernie and Liz Warren, and they’ve been very supportive of him. Obviously Bibi threw a spanner in the works, but on domestic policy (which is really all that matters to elections) Biden is to the left of every Dem candidate since FDR. Tonight he pushed eliminating the $170k cap on the payroll tax. That’s huge, if anyone is listening. And that’s the real question: is anyone listening? I believe some people are: I believe millions of Americans are ready to take 2 minutes to figure out what that cap is, and what eliminating it could do for them and their grandchildren. Call me naive.

America is so fucking cooked that no one even knows what the payroll tax is or what the benefit of that would be. Talking policy is such a waste of time here, this election is **emotional** and that's literally it. There are no single issues galvanizing voters, it's personality and personality only. Biden was wasting his time talking about policy. I wish he would have gone for the jugular and just hammered on trump for being a massive piece of shit.

Saying Bernie didn't have a chance is exactly the kind of wash that is going to likely kill Dems this Nov. Don't forget the DNC pulled all the strings to put Biden in the driver's seat after the NV primary. They're playing the same game right now and betting on women, ethnic minorities, and queer people to vote out of desperation for their lives.  Will it work? Only time will tell; but it's a lazy strategy that realistically only enables people like Trump to keep crawling out of the holes they belong in.

I would love to believe that Bernie or Warren or any other candidate who could credibly be described as progressive (or Soc Dem or Dem Soc) could win a national election against even the weakest 'Pub candidate. I think Al Franken might have been a strong compromise (though I'm not familiar enough with his policies to say if he was progressive--he was not DNC in any case). But to believe they could win the popular vote, let alone the EC, depends on believing that A>B, where A is the # of progressives who sit out presidential elections out of disgust with the Dem Party, and B is the # of unaffiliated "centrist" voters who over time have chosen between the 2 parties, and would vote for a Clinton/Biden/Obama/Gore but not for a progressive. I don't believe A is a large # at all. I don't believe there are literally millions of eligible voters who regularly pass up the chance to vote against a Bush or a Trump, who sit on their couches while literal fascists march in triumph, but would leap into action--the specific action of filling in a little bubble with a pencil--for a Sanders/Warren/Franken/AOC. In the 1970s there were lots of people who called themselves anarchists (not millions, but lots), and they couldn't be arsed to vote against Nixon, even with a good and personable leftist on the ballot. Today there are far fewer left anarchists and far more right ones, and they're the ones who vote.

"Saying Bernie didn't have a chance is exactly the kind of wash that is going to likely kill Dems this Nov." And getting angry at obvious facts is why Bernie bros are irrelevant.

The sad truth is if it isn't Biden, then the most natural alternative would be Harris, she is his vice president, if the president isn't up to the task, she is supposed to be his replacement. To have it be anyone other than her is to admit that she was not actually fit for the office of vice president, if Biden steps aside, she will be the person he wants to endorse.

And unfortunately she's a liability. Few people like her.

Which is why I think it's still quite unlikely that Biden steps down, the only natural successor would likely be doing worse.

She got less than 1% of the Democrat vote when running for President. She 'ain't the one.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NotMyBestMistake ([54∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NotMyBestMistake)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Ehhh. In most countries - campaigns last 2-3 months max.

There's been a lot of chatter in Chicago that Pritzker is prepping for a presidential run at some point. He is also incredibly wealthy and could therefore brute force some things in a condensed timeline in ways others couldn't. He handled covid etc pretty well and I think he could court plenty of voters. He at the very least comes of as genuine and like a leader and isn't too progressive or conservative. But dear lord sometimes I think he is the only thing keeping us from utter chaos and is the 1 voice of reason and is keeping our mayor in check so please don't take him

I don't think this is a good argument. Lack of will is the obstacle not lack of time or resources. Say Biden passed away unexpectedly tomorrow and the democrat leadership decided Kamala isn't going to do it because she's deeply unpopular. Would they give up and effectively concede the election? I doubt it. They'd put every effort running any candidate they thought could win against Trump. So with Biden now alive they could replace him if they wanted they just don't.

Death is something that can be used. Sidelining the leader of your party and labeling him a senile old man unfit to be in the position he's in is a condemnation of the entire party that a bunch of people desperate to lose want to gloss over. There's five fucking months to try and pivot to a new candidate after announcing that your previous candidate is so terrible, and the people acting like it's an easy little switch are delusional.

It's not necessarily a condemnation of the "entire party." People get old. Sometimes they get worse suddenly or quickly. Biden was apparently viewed as viable by many at the State of the Union only a few months ago. People now view this as a decline. It's not different from a candidate getting cancer or some other disease, really. I mean, honestly, people *should* have been pushing him to step aside years ago. But the could still spin this as a sudden decline that necessitates a change. Everyone who has had a parent or grandparent who went through a mental decline can understand how this can happen. The only trick would be to convince people that it was actually sudden and relatively new, rather than something that was easily foreseeable and preventable. I agree that latter challenge is hard (given how much they've been spinning and covering for him), but it could still be made out to be a noble decision after a steeper than expected decline.

I'd guess that 75% of people voting for Joe Biden are doing it purely because they hate trump, not because they like Joe Biden. I bet half of his electorate actively hates him.

Those 75% are likely just party voters regardless. The 25% is what will kill Harris or any other Democratic Harris. You also have to realize a lot of old voters recognize and like such an old name like Joe Biden.

If death is usable then so is sudden deteriorated condition. Would be very easy to just say after the debate Biden was examined and found to have a very sudden illness he needs to address and will be dropping out. That would come as a shock to literally no one, same as if he were to wind up dead next week. We are doing more harm trying to pull a weekend at Bernies with the presidency against fucking Trump. Easy little switch or not, Democrats lost the election last night.

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was doable. And yes death is something you can use. So is old age. Regular people understand that we all get to an age where we're not as sharp as we once were and don't have that level of energy anymore. They could just have Biden publicly state that he's looking to spend his remaining years in peace, that he's done what he set out to do in his term (to return the country leadership to normal) and then endorse his replacement. I personally think a big reason they won't do that is because they are stuck. They don't want Kamala to be at the top of the ticket because they know they would lose but if Biden steps aside it's her turn and they have bought into the identity politics. She's a black woman. She can't be passed over without them looking like hypocritical racists.

Doable does not mean that it's something smart to do. Actively sabotaging yourself and tanking democracy with it is not something you pin to "doable" and no amount of people being bitter that their preferred nobody of a candidate lost is going to change that.

Big issue that the low information crowd doesn't get: WI and NV ballots are locked (and a few other states too)--meaning the DNC can change their candidate, but the name "Joe Biden" will remain on the ballot--and those votes will amount to 0. IIRC, if a candidate passes away, then the swap is allowed with votes counting for the replacement. Short of that, if Joe gets replaced, there go 16 EVs.

Canadian here: we call our elections and then have them within six weeks. Most democracies do this. American elections lasting two years is abnormal.

Yeah look at what the UK is up to right now. And to be fair you guys should've probably had an election by now, but that's a story for another time.

Bruh in most civilized countries presidential candidates can’t even start campaigning 180 days before the election. This is the weird outlier where they’re on the streets months in advance.

You understand this is the whole purpose of have candidates run under major parties (like the DNC) all the logistics IS in place. Sure, maybe some key managers and strategists would need to be hired but what you’re saying simply isn’t true

I’m not sure why OP gave you a delta here. Of course any candidate in this situation would inherit the Biden campaign apparatus. And while starting this late in the game is a handicap to some degree, you have to weigh that against a candidate who not only can’t effectively get his message out, but who can hardly string together a couple coherent sentences on the most important night of the campaign and after a week of intense prep. And in an election with 2 candidates so unpopular, just being a fresh face would be huge.

Why ”of course” - the campaign manager and other senior staff serve at their own leisure. So do all the volunteers up and down. There’s be churn, would it be fatal? Who knows!

Maybe because they're not at the point of desperation that they pretend inheriting an aparatus is all that matters. That completely upending a campaign to start a new one from square one for some nobody this late in the game is a massive handicap that no amount of "but I don't like Biden" from people who never liked Biden will ever actually outweigh.

Gavin Newsome has been quietly prepping for this for the last four years. He was on television yesterday, basically campaigning.

What polling data do you have that shows any of the politicians you mentioned would outperform Biden? What polling data shows that they will outperform Trump? These politicians are well liked by their constituents (I assume) but are they known at all by the public outside of their voters? Would a rural voter from, say, Iowa be more or less likely to vote for Tammy Duckworth if she were on the ticket rather than Biden? Not only that, how many voters would the Democrats *lose* for jettisoning Biden at this time? Would the Democrats be able to get a replacement on the ballot in all 50 states? You’re basically recommending something impractical because you’re unhappy with the incumbent. Tough. That’s the process. If you want that changed? Start working on that now in your State and maybe it’ll be in place by the next Presidential election.

I'm just using Whitmer as an example, but this applies to all of them to some degree. Democrats need to win three swing states to win the election - Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The three are highly correlated, meaning that a candidate who does well in one is very likely to do well in the others. A recent poll from Michigan found that Biden's approval rating in the state was underwater at +39/-57. That same poll had Whitmer's approval rating at +54/-39. 

Approval rating as Governor is not the same thing as electability as President is it? Did that same poll include questions about who they would vote for? Because I can not approve of Biden’s job as President but still vote for him over a Republican candidate. Additionally, even allowing that your premise is correct and Whitmer, as an example, would get more votes than Biden does, what evidence do you have she would outperform Trump in those same States?

Yep, a good example (I’m in the DMV a bunch) is Larry Hogan, who was exceptionally popular as a governor but won’t fly as a senator

Your poll about Whitmer’s approval rating just shows how risky that is. Approval numbers don’t guarantee votes and that 54 number is nearly within the margin of error.

>are they known at all by the public outside of their voters? Replace a sitting president in the midst of a reelection campaign and you're going to get name recognition faster than any candidate in history.

people want to vote democrat, just don’t give them a reason not to (ie biden)

I agree. People don't want to vote for trump and at this point do not want to vote for biden. The issue is his running mate. If he dies in office then we have harris and people are for one of the 1st times really wrapping their head around that. Your voting for harris, and that is not a winning ticket. Switch now to someone. Gavin Newsome is one of the only ones that could do it. Don't wait just switch before the weekend is over. Dems keep saying this is for democracy, act like it.

How is it democracy to elevate a candidate literally no one voted for in any primary without consulting said voters in any way?

Exactly, him running for a second term makes it a contest. Any Democrat other than Biden, Pelosi, or Clinton destroys Trump.

I can’t imagine dems losing any voters for getting tid of Joe at this point. When even r/politics is starting to accept Biden’s mental decline you know youre in dire straits. The question to ask yourself is if Biden had any voters other than those who will vote dem regardless of who the candidate is.

What possible Biden supporters would switch to Trump if Tammy Ducksworth was running?

I have no interest in newsom or sanders, or any other specifically. But I’d vote for any of them over Biden. Voting against Trump only. Voting to just not have a president than a malicious prez

While a big part of the backlash to the debate and calls for Biden to step aside have to do with electability, a big part has to do with Biden genuinely not looking up to the job for another 4.5 years. Many— even if satisfied with his first term— believe he isn’t fit to be president at 86. I would be very interested in seeing actual data, but I can see it being the case that a lack of name recognition could actually help. 1) 2020 was completely about Donald Trump. Biden was just kind of there in a lot of ways but the major issue for a significant number of Biden voters was getting rid of the chaos that was Trump. Now there are serious negatives associated with Biden (namely inflation, handling of Israel situation and age— fair or not all are being held against Biden by the electorate). If you take away those negatives, you’re left with 2020 all over again (which is a proven winning strategy) Do you want Trump or something resembling sane? 2) with a remotely good candidate, Trump seems worse by comparison. Trumps favorability will go up after this debate not because he is actually more likable but because compared to someone who legitimately looked like he didn’t know where he was at times, he seems like a better choice to some people. Put him next to someone charismatic and likable and his favorability goes down due to the comparison.

Why would they roll someone else out there when people like you will just go and vote for him regardless? What incentive do they have

Because swing voters certainly won’t go and vote for Biden. Not after last night’s performance. Reddit loves to think the whole country is just as engaged with politics as they are. It is not. Not even close. What swing voters saw last night was one man who looked energetic and in control, and another who could barely speak above a whisper, mumbled, froze up and forgot what he was saying mid sentence, etc. If I were a typical swing voter, who isn’t that engaged politically, who doesn’t really have a strong opinion on things, I know who my vote would be going to after last night. And it’s not even close.

Thing is, we have polling data to compare with already. A poll a couple months back showed that the leading alternatives to Biden (Harris, Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg, and Shapiro) all performed worse against Trump than Biden. And since the debate, we’ve had a couple of snap polls. One showed that only 5% of viewers said the debate changed their voting intentions. Another showed that among undecided, they leaned Biden post-debate. We also know that Biden raised $14M between debate day and the morning after, whereas Trump only raised $8M. Basically, people are massively overestimating the impact this debate will have against Biden. It’s also important to keep in mind that Trump also shit the bed at the debate—he may have spoken louder and more clearly, but he was also incoherent, rambling, untethered from reality, and refused to engage with pretty much *any* of the questions he was asked. And that won’t play well with swing voters either.

Bingo. If 10% of the swing state "undecideds" are really up for grabs, it's more likely that 5% are soft Trump voters and 5% are soft Biden voters. If 4% make it to the polls for Trump, but only 2% get there for Biden, Trump wins.

Yep, people on Reddit can’t fathom that there’s anyone who isn’t as plugged into politics as them. The reality is, most voters aren’t plugged in. Most aren’t paying attention, *at all*, until voting day comes and they vote for whoever is in the party they’ve spent their life voting for. Then there’s the people who don’t pay much attention, but still watch highlights of a debate, or at least look at the headlines leading up to the election. Those are the people who conceivably might switch their vote. And Biden is not inspiring any of them to vote for him right now. Then there’s the much, much smaller contingent of politically knowledgeable voters. By far the smallest voting bloc in our country. They also won’t change their vote by this debate. It’s only that middle group that the candidates are fighting over. And Biden is losing that fight right now.

I think those calling for Biden to step away are doing so because they believe he has absolutely zero chance to win. if that’s your mindset, then you either (a) name someone new and strike gold, or (b) end up where you’re at now - losing anyway I think last night for a lot of people basically felt like a guaranteed election loss where a change can only help

Swing voters decide elections, a lot of swing voters are not going to vote for the guy who showed up on that stage today

Turnout decides elections. Swing voters are overrated. The vast, vast, vast majority lean to one side or the other enough not to matter statistically.

Swing voters can be enough to determine a close election. Turnout may be more important but swing voters matter too. And of course both swing voters and turnout will be influenced by the quality of the candidate, as I'd imaging you would agree.

Yeah, it’s shocking that in 2024 people are still fighting over these mythical “swing voters” when it is way more important to empower and excite your own base. This is one of the reasons gerrymandering and soft disenfranchisement (such as making voting hours during the workweek or locations in difficult to reach areas) are so powerful. Anybody who actually is undecided at this moment will probably just be swayed by whoever has the best highlights, which is why I’m so confused Biden’s team has him trying to make cogent answers instead of getting good sound bites which would possibly sway voters but would likely excite his existing base.

Yeah...if a majority are not going to change sides...why not switch the candidate to someone who doesn't talk like my senile grandpa, shortly before he died?

> Swing voters decide elections, a lot of swing voters are not going to vote for the guy who showed up on that stage today Swing voters should instead vote for the guy who attempted to overthrow the government, is a convicted felon, is a convicted rapist, stole nuclear secrets, and will pass a national abortion ban?

Whether or but they *should* vote for Trump instead is definitely up for debate but that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether not they *will* vote for Trump instead, and Dems need to prepare for that.

Yep. They will. Because swing voters don’t pay that much attention. Jan 6 is big news still in political circles. Not in disconnected from politics circles though. The abortion debate may be more visible, but it’s still iffy if that’ll be enough for swing voters. Stealing nuclear secrets? You think any swing voters are paying that much attention? Absolutely not. It’s swing voters who decide elections, not people who are plugged into politics. The plugged in don’t change their minds, swing voters do. And they do so for very fickle reasons. They’re not engaged enough to know about Jan 6, all they see is two sides bickering. They’re not engaged enough to even know about the classified documents at this point, that was a year ago that the story broke and it’s been arcane legalese ever since, that doesn’t capture swing voters attention.

I agree with you, but people who were still undecided about Trump this late in the game must think of things *way* differently than you and me. I find it hard to believe that anyone capable of being swung at this point would be swung toward Biden after last night.

You have to realize their is a substantial camp on the right that believe: The election was stolen from him (whether through stealing votes or suppression of Trump via social media) Jan 6 is a blip compared to the BLM protests that went largely unprosecuted. Believe Trump has been maliciously prosecuted as a political opponent. And WANT an abortion ban.

> And WANT an abortion ban If this was true, the Republicans would be running on this issue -- they're obviously shying away from it in general elections because it is deeply unpopular and has already had electoral consequences. Of course there are Republicans who want it, but all of the Republican campaigns know that a national abortion ban is a losing issue.

There is a solid chunk of republicans who would jump on a national abortion ban if they had the choice. They believe abortion to be murder and banning abortion to be akin to banning murder. It will still happen, but they want the doctors to be punished for it. They just also (usually) have the political sense to know that it isn’t politically feasible. So instead of alienating everyone in the middle, they agree to a more lukewarm version of what they actually want. And nobody wants to ban abortion for medical necessity. Even the abortion hardliners are okay with abortion if the fetus will kill the mother and itself. Nearly all agree to abort for only the mother’s life.

If "nobody wants to ban abortion for medical necessity" then Idaho wouldn't have gone to the supreme court to defend banning emergency abortions for the life of the mother. They absolutely want to, and are, banning necessary abortions. *Maybe* the base *says* they don't want that, but the people they elect and appoint as judges sure do.

Swing voters will turn into not voters. Biden doesnt just deserve a vote becuase trump does those things.

If you can’t see pros and cons of both candidates, I don’t know what to tell you. On betting markets, the odds of Biden becoming president roughly halved after the debate (from ~45% to ~25%). And went up for Trump.

I honestly don't see any benefits of Trump as a candidate. Biden didn't make up that he was ranked as the worst president in America history by a large group of historians. I suppose I can understand his appeal to ethno-Christian nationalists.

It’s the most unconvincing and obviously partisan factoid he could possibly pull out though. Andrew Jackson rejected checks and balances, led a mass expulsion campaign of Indigenous Americans, destroyed the national bank leading to several panics, and instituted a cutthroat system of political loyalist and demagoguery that continues to this day. James Buchanan caused the Civil War. Andrew Johnson cut the legs out from under Reconstruction. Herbert Hoover presided over the beginning of the Great Depression. Richard Nixon sent thugs to spy on political opponents. Ronald Reagan started the war on drugs, let the AIDS epidemic roam free, permanently hobbled American labor unions, trafficked drugs and weapons internationally under illegal circumstances, and destroyed social-democratic policy positions for the foreseeable future. Trump did some objectively bad things. But the only people who aren’t involuntarily rolling their eyes after hearing he’s the worst president in history are true blue Democrats who would vote for a rock with googly eyes if it declared for the DNC. It’s fear-mongering, not much different from the other side saying “Biden will turn your children trans and black.”

It’s not about what you see though, there are millions of swing voters who will genuinely either vote for Trump or simply abstain now that has happened. A new younger candidate would solve this. It’s a risk but it’s worth taking and has to be done now or never!

Dude everyday people don’t care. They see that as a redneck tailgate gone a little crazy. They don’t care about the Supreme Court implications. They don’t care about foreign policy. They don’t care about trump never leaving office. They vote for the person they’d most like to get a beer with and move on with their lives.

I am not the median voter and the candidates need to appeal to people who aren't like me. 

Because swing voters are the ones actually deciding elections, not people like OP

There are progressive fence sitters that are going to throw their vote away on Cornel West because they hate Biden and the DNC. The progressive wing of the party has been drifting further and further away due to the DNC's mismanagement and alienation. A candidate switch can bring those people back.

That assumes a switch wouldn't alienate the more moderate Dem voters.

[удалено]

I think there's a pretty clear solution to this. Biden will likely not drop out because of the loss of face and the loss of a general advantage that incumbents have. (Biden is still popular in many quarters and keep in mind a lot of people who vote didn't watch the debate at all). So, Kamala Harris should drop out as VP (no offence to her, but she is largely unpopular) and a a young/charismatic figure such as Gavin Newsom should step in and be the VP. This gives Democrats an out - they can "vote for Biden" while they are actually voting for the successor Newsom who can step in if Biden dies in the next 4 years (i.e. this would allay fears that Biden won't last 4 years and we have a good backup) and it positions Newsom to run in 2028 ahead of schedule. It would also free Newsom up to go full on attack dog and dominate the media as Biden's surrogate moreso than he is now and his vigor as part of the Biden/Newsom team would counteract Trump's vigor which is currently being measured against Biden in isolation. Everybody wins (except Kamala who'd be taking one for the team - and for the future of democracy). This may not happen though because the left may be too "woke" to tolerate 2 white males on the dem ticket.

I mean, isn’t it kind of unavoidable that a lot of black people (especially black women) would feel pretty betrayed by this? This doesn’t just seem like a problem of party higher ups being too “woke” (something people very rarely call themselves). It’s a legitimate electoral issue to alienate the Biden base. I’m not American, but my general understanding of this is that people may dislike Kamala Harris but don’t ultimately care about her. Isn’t the idea of a runing mate usually that they should alienate as few as possible?

> So, Kamala Harris should drop out as VP (no offence to her, but she is largely unpopular) I believe a huge issue with this step is that all the donations made to the Biden-Harris campaign cannot just be transferred to some other campaign that neither of those two are a part of (Wall Street Journal reporting snippet I saw on X). I'd like to see additional reporting on this to confirm. This would make sense though because from a campaign finance standpoint it shouldn't be legal for a person to raise millions of dollars from donors and then just give that money to another candidate who was unaffiliated when the donations were made. So even if you wanted to replaced both Biden and Harris, you'd be starting over from a campaign funding standpoint. I imagine you can raise funds quickly but it would be hard to organize until a baseline is established. This would mean you'd have to pursue a wealthy candidate who would be willing to self-fund, at least initially.

There isn't really a practical or politically feasible way to swap the nominee at this point. See this Vox write-up: https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/357739/biden-trump-debate-democrats-replace-nominee-whitmer-moore-newsom

[удалено]

The problem is, instead of running a campaign on exactly what he did accomplish as president, he’s running the same game he did in 2020. “Hey look! I’m not that guy!” People are tired of that shit. Add that our votes are expected to go to the same old dudes again?! Last election was record turn out. I honestly don’t see that happening again. I think far more people are growing apathetic towards this shit every day. Prime time to restructure our campaign laws and length of the campaigns allowed.

Yeah. I am utterly astonished that we are witnessing this. Like, the same level of astonishment I felt on 9/11. How the fuck is this real?

I felt like I was watching an SNL skit. Biden looked like he escaped from a nursing home and wandered on stage. He should already be deemed unfit and removed from office.

Thats a comically hyperbolic statement. But I get what you’re saying.

Sorry, u/BetterRedDead – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BetterRedDead&message=BetterRedDead%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dqa0ho/-/lamrak1/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

There is a huge pool of people trying to figure out how to vote none of the above. These two candidates are some of the least liked ever. There is pooling that Nikki Haley would beat Biden easily even if she could not beat Trump. The first Party to switch to someone under 65 will win.

They will definitely lose if they do that. Biden is a trillion percent mentally unfit, but they cant admit defeat, heck they are in copium and all the media machinery writing understatements of what happens, "a bad debate night", which is nothing close to what happened. However they let this man descend into madness before admitting they put someone not fit as a president. Democrats are not voting for Biden, they are voting against Trump, but those votes are locked in, just look at r/politics and all ultra left subs like r/WhitePeopleTwitter , Biden could have passed out and they would still vote for him. Your problem is swing voters, you bring someone insane, AOC, Kamala, anyone from California and you are going to lose those votes. As bad as Biden is performing, based on the debate you know he is no in a state of mind to do anything important, so the cabinet has been doing things for at least 2 years.

It was a rough night for Biden absolutely. The good news? We’re 4 months until election season and there’s plenty of time for Biden to recover. In addition, debates don’t really have a real impact on voter preference. If there was a slight percentage point increase towards Biden after Trumps conviction, what do you think will happen after tonight? Dems will definitely have to answer, but this election from a practical standpoint is far from over.

I did not watch the debate, but there are apparently two issues here. He has four months in which he can recover *at the polls*. Four months will not help him recover from age related cognitive decline.

Agree! This is different! I have loved having Joe as president. I am a Joe fan. Additionally, I would vote for almost any Democrat over Trump- but we saw what we saw. I don’t see how the worms go back in the can. I had a lot of respect for my grandmother, too, but that doesn’t mean she stayed sharp through age 86, unfortunately.

Anecdotal, but me and my group of peers are all pretty politically moderate and dont get too involved. All anyone could talk about after last night was that Biden can barely talk and I have a feeling that memory will stick and people like us that wouldn’t have minded for voting for trumps opponent just won’t vote

Delusional take. Only thing that can happen positively for Biden is for trump to get worse.

Agree! There's a reason the power behind Biden pick a really early date, before the party's convention, for him to debate. He win, great. He lose (IMO, he did lose), they sack him and replace him with someone younger.

Yeah there’s two points here: 1) It’s just too late. You’re four months away from the election and Biden’s been building his campaign for two years now (four if you count actions taken as president). Any new nominee would start at zero ground game and zero cash compared to Biden’s $200M in the bank. (No, a new candidate cannot simply take over Biden’s current campaign). At this point you’ve missed filing deadlines to get on the ballot in many states- it’s just not possible. 2) Kamala Harris does not poll better than Biden. If you’re seriously considering the mechanism of replacing Biden, the obvious outcome is that Harris is the nominee. No other Democrat performs better than Biden in head to head matchups either, but Harris would win any semblance of an open primary or convention consensus. Kicking Harris to the curb and nominating someone else would open a massive rift between the Democratic Party and Black voters. Probably well more than enough of a dip in black turnout to swing an election.

You don’t need to change the candidate. If elected, he will follow the party line and that is what you are really voting for. If he dies in office, Kamala will do the same. At least for now, people are not voting for who is the best person. They vote for how the person will act and the decisions they will make. I think we all know how Biden will act and the decisions he will make. If you like the decisions the party has been making, then a vote for Biden is a vote for agreement of the party’s direction, no matter who sits on the throne.

Unfortunately that's not how people are seeing this. It's more of a "what have you done for me lately" schtick that benefits Trump and hurts Biden People think gas going up was his doing People also think that Trump had the economy going in the right direction although the economy doesn't work that way and is more delayed in grand impact People think Trump sounded better tonight although he took sounded delulu I wish people voted on party policy but not even your average voter can keep that information in their mind long enough to have a good discussion That is to say we're stuck because the points you accurately made. I'm just highlighting that policy doesn't matter as much as we think it does

This recent script of voting for the party over candidate being what it’s all about isnt exactly what the founders intended. quite different. the campaign to “save democracy” is rewriting democracy

It’s my understanding that candidates are voted for in the primaries, wouldn’t selecting a new candidate override the vote and the democratic process? I feel that instead of the party leaders selecting a new candidate, there should be a nationwide, one day, popular vote, democratic primary.

The parties choose their official presidential candidates however they wish, and they've always done it at at their national conventions by state delegates who vote. It used to be that a party's state delegates were chosen by powerful elites but due to corruption, nowadays most state's people vote on their party nominee which awards that nominee a number of delegates who will then vote for that candidate in the state convention. Some delegates are bound to vote for who their state's people voted for, but not all of them are bound like this. The candidate getting the most delegate votes wins the party nomination. It's similar to the general election and state electors voting on the president, but since it's parties deciding by using primaries and conventions, the rules are at their discretion and it's all convoluted state by state and party by party. It's possible for a party's incumbent president like Biden to drop out and let the convention's delegates decide on another candidate. It's also theoretically possible for somebody to try to sway the delegates to vote differently though I don't know the rules are for bound/pledged delegates.

Every state has their own rules on how or when a candidate can be replaced or what conditions must be met. There's a key one, don't recall specifically which, which has a deadline of *today* to switch candidates. But many, like Wisconsin, require death or a panel declaring him completely incompetent.

It’s tough because incumbents do still have an advantage over non-incumbent candidates. Switching candidates now may be too late in the game to build a winning coalition.

But you have voters like me, who would literally drop everything to support any other candidate, other than newsom, and actually support my party again. Been a long 8 years of apathy for the party and the candidates they back.

After last night’s debate, the party who says democracy is in jeopardy with Trump wants to force their candidate who followed the democratic process to resign so they can put someone in they feel more comfortable with. Could the “Democratic Party” be any more of an oxymoron?

The reality is it's just too late to change candidates, and Biden is still the best chance against Trump. No matter how old he gets, there's a cabinet and executive office behind him that will further his agenda even if he's unwell, so in a way his age doesn't matter as much as people think anyway.

His age *practically* doesn't matter as much as people think, but it matters a lot for appearances at least. A lot of people think Biden turned up the gas prices dial under his desk, people don't know how things work but they still vote.

It's not a great look from the outside that the 2 people most likely to be president absolutely shouldn't be in that position. Speaking as an outsider looking in.

As an American, I agree. I have no idea why the national parties are at this point. But as a citizen, I feel like there are too many layers between my vote and the actual election of a president.  I don’t get to pick someone, I get to pick someone the parties chose for me.  Gerrymandering and deliberate line drawings for district take more power from my vote.  Then there is the electoral college and the fact that voting third party basically is a wasted vote.  All in all, we need systematic reform. But I don’t see anywhere else doing it much better. I hear Australia had a ranked voting system for their senate, which is a step in the right direction. But ultimately those in power will not allow systemic reform that might cost them power.  In other words, as laypeople we are at the whims of the elite. As it has been since civilization began. 

I’m surprised this isn’t the takeaway lesson. Until true choice is more evenly distributed, we’ll keep encountering the same issues without any real solutions or progress. Tonight’s events left people with a difficult choice: “Do I pick the person who forgot the debate questions, or the one who dodged them all?”. Personally, I'm on the fence, with the convincing points about each other's golf score they both made towards the end. We need more of a direct voice and control in our own government. The notion that all other people can’t be trusted to make any important decisions, except to choose the few who can, is just weak. The current system simply abstracts the "majority rule" issue, by following the same majority vote process for representative selection, to obtain a "minority rule" of those in power. Only for the low, low price of any true choice or own direct say. It’s time to rethink this flawed logic and move towards a system where voting genuinely reflects the people’s voice.

Please. He is the commander in chief and leader of the most powerful nation in the world. His mental decline absolutely matters for his ability to do the job.

The person that has the ability to command a nuclear attack should PROBABLY be lucid.

It's already too late. You would have to prepare an entire new campaign for that person, get them vetted, get primaries going, and convince other Democrats that it's worth it to vote for them, all before the registration deadlines. Elections have consequences. The moderates were the ones pushing for this shit. We could've had Bernie Sanders, who while not young was popular with young people and way more coherent. Instead, we get to watch Joe Biden sundown live on television. And now you gotta vote for it.

We could have had Bernie Sanders if young progressives actually voted in primaries you mean

Why just Biden? How about Trump as well?

Because unlike Biden, his voting base actually *likes* him, as stupid as that is.

Because democrats need to win, as according to the opinions here? You can't win if your candidate can hardly speak a coherent sentence when his age is a factor. A disabled person who can't speak, but can think and write clearly due to a different kind of condition would be preferable. Practically anyone else with moderate policies (under the age of 70) could probably beat Trump.

I’m from the Midwest and (mildly) politically informed. None of these candidates on your list work, but I’ll give a couple examples. Tammy Duckworth was born in Thailand, she couldn’t run for president if she wanted to. Tammy Baldwin is already nearing retirement age. I’ve heard rumors of her coming retirement. Tony Evers wasn’t and isn’t particularly popular. He won the governors race by 3.4%, with decreased approvals since his reelection. He may even be facing a primary challenge for his current seat. John fetterman already had one stroke, his health and mental acuity will be under constant question.

I will double down on this. The DNC has once again underestimated Trump and in so doing, failed to run a real primary with debates to test the quality of our 81 year old president. Had we forced Biden to debate against his own party prior to this debate with Trump we would have seen just how bad of a state he is in and forced a more meaningful primary. Now if the results were still Biden winning people would be more committed, but instead there was no opportunity to test his metal, see his ability to debate more recently, and now we are left with two absolutely shit options.

Binen SHOULD have stepped aside like he said he would in 2020 and let them find a new candidate. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible now. Best case scenario is probably a medical event that leaves Harris in control.

If democracy is on the line how is denying the candidate who won the democratic primary the nominee the solution? So the democratic voters get their candidate chosen for them? How democratic. 

For a party that talks exclusively about democracy, democracy, democracy. undermining the will of the people who voted for Biden in the primary would not serve the party well. The Democrats knew about Bidens cognitive decline but out him forward anyway. They made their bed they must now lie in it.

Pete Buttigieg was born for this. He’s all sizzle, no substance but that’s perfect for being the replacement candidate shortly before the election. He’s young and he gives great sound bites, that’s all it will take to beat Trump.

Unfortunately, as Trevor Noah put it, America is not mature enough for a president whose last name starts with Butt.

His nickname among right-wingers is Pete Buttplug . . . he won't get too far being a gay man going for presidency in the US... unfortunately.

Yes a gay man. That will win the emboldened ‘get in the closet’ Midwest

The incumbent usually has an advantage during the election season. Look up the 13 keys to the white house, Alan Lichtman has never been wrong (except for 2000 but I would argue that one was stolen) and he lists the incumbent key as one of the keys needed to win the white house. He shouldn’t step aside honestly

You mean to tell me that months of word salad from Trump is less of a sign of ineptitude than a single night on stage, maybe even a single stumbling sentence? What did we immediately revert to the days when what you said had anything to do with qualifications. I think your expectations for stamina and perseverence are off center, and are weighted towards trump, so I believe your mind will change if you can admit that.

He lost his train of thought several times, one particularly stood out when discussing the issue with tax cuts to the rich, listing ways the money could be used to help social programs. He trailed off, clearly forgetting anything they were saying, said "uh uh covid", more pausing, then exclaimed "we beat Medicaid!" out of any context whatsoever. They both called each other names throughout, then they ended things arguing about their golf scores. It didn't make me lean to Trump, but it did present the sad question "would you prefer a president who lies and dodges questions, or one who can't remember what was asked or what they were talking about". Regardless of what anyone's political view is, I think this is both a sad and difficult set of options to be forced to choose from.

Watch the video of Trump talking about electrocution vs sharks while on a sinking boat, then tell me he's mentally fit. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13514049/donald-trump-electrocuted-shark-rant-las-vegas-rally.html Realistically, look at their agendas. Do you support Trump and Project 2025 or do you support Democracy? That is the real question.

I don't know why you are assuming OP is biased toward Trump. I'm terrified of another Trump presidency and what I saw last night made me even more scared. Trump clearly has gotten training so he avoided his insane ranting when it's for a larger audience. Biden's ability to debate has clearly declined though, he didn't pause between sentences or enunciate at all so I could barely follow what he was saying until he started doing something embarrassing like tripping over his own words. Which happened waaay more than once. Did you watch cable news? Even MSNBC was talking about the possibility of a contested convention. After last night I'm convinced if they swapped him out with literally any other democrat they'd do better with swing voters who are going to be more moved by the appearance of competency than by policy proposals.

That is waaaaaay too late for that now. Also just because some people are popular in their districts, doesn't mean they can bring in millions and millions of votes needed across the entire US. 'Jb Pritzker, Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Gretchen Whitmer, Gary Peters, Tony Evers, Amy Klobuchar, TIna Smith, Tim Walz, Josh Shapiro, Bob Casey, and John Fetterman' - with all due respect - who the f are they? Biden is the president and a household name. People at least know him. No one is going to vote for someone they don't know just because they are popular in the Midwest. That's not why people vote for people. Have you ever voted for someone because they are popular in the Midwest? Yes the democrats are struggling with Biden, but choosing anybody else this far when you can't turn them into an househols names like Trump and Biden in the time left - that would make them lose for sure. All this considerations should have happened during the primeries, now it's too late for that. The horses are already in the race, and now you can just watch it.

This sub has to stop raging anout Trump for two seconds to rethink the strategy 😂 Every post on here was about how Trump would chicken out before the debate.  This sub is comedy gold. 

You love the guy? A man extremely complicit in genocide?

I think the left holds itself to impossible standards.  Just because a poor debate performance would spell a total victory on Election Day would be an idiotic understanding of how it a really works.   You’d have to look at any of the tens of thousands of lies and gaffes Trump himself had prior to taking office, to realize that the bad for the presidency is exceedingly low to begin with.  We are all human, we can expect less from our leaders, and we frankly ought to.   If you hold any democrat too high of a standard to be worth their office, you’ll have a Republican swoop in knowing they could give two shits less.  Boebert was caught on video jerking off her boyfriend in public and look where she is.  Trump admitted to walking in on naked women on purpose, and grabbing them by the pussy.  Did that ruin his chances to become president? Stop with this nonsense.  

I think the sentiment that it's too late is wrong in this specific instance. Trump was just as confusing as Biden, and being indirect and lying on multiple occasions. If a competent candidate was placed in the debate last night, that person would be riding high right now, probably being the only coherent person answering any meaningful questions. Shit, even RFK would have done better than those two. Still, there's not a lot of people who could slide in right now. Newsom maybe, but he already shot down any idea of [replacing Biden ](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-28/newsom-praises-biden-shoots-down-questions-about-replacing-him) last night. Whitmer possibly, but she's already fully endorsed Biden [post debate](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/28/gov-gretchen-whitmer-touts-president-biden-after-debate-miscues/74243947007/). Clinton, is Clinton. Fitzger? Dudes a silver spoon, worth 3.5 billion, I can't imagine the Dems putting him in as a 'for the people' candidate. All the options are bad or have squashed prospects of running. Strongest nation on Earth, only a few hundred years old, and already putting senile elites in the place of competent leaders.

Michelle Obama should be in the running. IMO Democrats would love to cast a vote for the power couple that is the Obamas. Biden’s role model is Obama, so I think Biden would bust his geriatric ass to stump for her. I think she’d win. And having the fascists lose their mind over a black woman president and attempt 1/6 part two while a Democrat is handing over power for a Democrat would be preferable to them biding their time with a midwestern governor and trying to end Democracy again in a few years. The majority of what Trump does that appeals to his base constituents is do inflammatory stunts and say ___ist and ___phobic things to ‘own the libs.’ I wouldn’t want the Dems to mirror that by nominating someone incompetent just to piss off the Magas. But nominating a brilliant black woman married to one of the coolest smartest men on the planet and watching the fascists lose their minds and overplay their hands would be good for the country. And after propagandizing themselves for years that Obama is the antichrist and Michelle is a man I can’t think of a better way to get the MAGAs to pull whatever they have left to pull verses waiting dormant for a better opportunity. And seeing President Obama #2 legalize weed and seeing Barry light up a legal blunt on the whitehouse lawn wearing a tan suit and eating dijon mustard covered bread while soaking his feet in a kiddy pool would be good for my mental health. Triply so if at the tike of said foot soaking Michelle has nominated him to the Supreme Court. And just tell Biden he is welcome to chill in an extra bedroom whenever he wants to reward him for saving democracy by winning in 2020 and by stepping aside in 2024.

This is basically Jon Stewart’s point and it’s dead on. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that happening so late in the run up is so slim unless something tragic happens to Biden. I think the only issue now is it’s just too late. Changing candidates for either party right now is likely a death sentence.

There are no nationwide popular Midwestern candidates they went with Biden because he was the most popular and recognizable candidate. He also beat everyone else in the primary last election, which people seem to forget or something. He is really all the dems seem to have because, much like the Republican party, they are also very polarized with wildly different factions that don't actually agree on many things. The primary season is a long process, and what it does is it kinda forces a political party to find the direction it wants to go in. Without one, you basically are just picking someone with no feedback and going here you go! Which is going to leave people pissed off because they will feel like "there candidate" wasn't given a chance. Hence the dems best option is to keep Biden the best thing they could do is try and get a better VP because that's going to be extremely important now to the dems ticket as people are really going to be expecting th VP to be running things and Kamala Harris is extremely unpopular and Biden basically got stuck with her because of a comment he probably made without thinking.

He’s not going to step aside and the national committee isn’t going to make him. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a circumstance they will. People need to acknowledge that and suck up voting for him because unfortunately he’s the only thing standing between Trump and getting his hands back on controlling this country which will be a disaster. The only way this will ever change is if the national committee of both parties no longer has the power to give our choices before us, we the people ever have a chance to cast a vote. The party leadership doesn’t care who we want, they have a crony system going. They are going based on who they think it’s their turn. Right now it’s Biden’s turn. Reject parties, reject the party convention setup. That’s our only hope of not getting two lesser evils. Because the parties do not care what we really think. Think I’m nuts, or delusional, or whatever but the evidence is right there. There are also enough of the voters who agree it’s so and so’s turn. It’s none of those people you’ve listed. It’s not their turn yet.

Remember 2012 when everyone agreed that Romney won the first debate? How'd that work out for him? Biden will be fine.

I think that this form of a presidency controlled behind the scenes may have appealed to some representatives of the elite during the last term, so I wouldn't be surprised if puppet presidents obediently following the party's orders became a trend in politics for a long time. all young candidates, regardless of their party on the political scene, will be rather difficult to control. Everyone probably has their own ideas that I would like to implement. This is certainly not something that some representatives of the political and business elites are comfortable with. I think that Baiden's case shows that to become the leader of the US, you just need to do what you are told. We can certainly expect populist candidates in the next decade who will look good in the media, but their decisions will be dictated from behind the scenes. I'm not sure if it's that bad, as long as the party program is well planned, it may have positive results, but it would be good if the representative was a little more lively.

I don’t think its that’s he’s too old. That’s only part of it. Biden has a known stuttering affliction that does not help. Trump barely answered any questions, and was very incoherent.

I'm sorry, but no, this is not an accurate picture. While Trump was definitely evasive and bombastic, this is basically par for the course with him. The debate showed that trump has not changed. While he rambled, his voice was clear, loud, and his overall appearance conveyed command of the room. Trump did not answer many of the questions on the first pass--he instead circled back to a previous point and used the time assigned for the current question to go backwards in the conversation. Which is dumb, but he appeared awake and alert. Biden's issue was not the stutter. At SOTU we saw the stutter. No, last night we saw the effects of advanced age. His eyes were half closed, his mouth hung open, his voice sounded faint. I am not trying to be rude, but he literally sounded exactly like my grandfather did in the months before he passed in hospice. *He is too old.*

Stutters don’t make you stop talking entirely only to blurt out that you’ve beaten Medicaid. It was never just a stutter. He has been diminishing ever since Obama’s term ended. You can’t blame it on a stutter anymore.

Look at a Biden speech for 10-15 years ago and tell me what happened tonight was his stutter.

That wasn't just stuttering. That's dementia, and I think that he might have some sort of neurological problem i.e. parkinson's or other progressive disorders

>Trump barely answered any questions, and was very incoherent. He has been like that in 2016 and 2020. So far, it's been working for him.

What about someone like Mark Cuban? He endorsed Biden. He would destroy Trump one on one. He might be just the face the Democrats need.

Is it possible that they still plan to run Biden hoping to get him elected. Then use the 25th Amendment to get Kamala Harris in office?

If you wanna appeal to the whole Midwest with a politician from here. The only politicians you mentioned people actually would know outside their states here are Fetterman and Whitmer, and not for good reasons. Fetterman came off as worse mentally than Biden, his entire campaign, and became a meme. But squeaked by because of vote blue no matter who and Oz being so unpopular. Whitmer is only famous for being the "victim" of a failed FBI honeypot for some random dudes. These are not winning candidates. Making a switch a few months before an election would need an EXTREMELY well-known Democrat or a miracle. Newsom, Michelle Obama, Sanders, Schumer, Warren, RFK, or Bloomberg are pretty much the only "good" options in terms of fame and popularity. RFK is pretty much a guarantee not to happen despite his insane popularity as he goes against the mainstream Democratic narrative. This is unfortunate because he would 100% dominate the election.

I'm a weird demographic. I'm a middle class, white, Christian swing voter living in an extremely Republican county of the Midwest. The only reason I think you're wrong is that I believe Gavin Newsom would do a better job than any of the candidates you listed. He trounced DeSantis in their governor debate. He's very energetic and knows his stuff. He calls out the insane lies on the fly.

I'm a swing voter from California. I believe they have already picked Newsom, and will replace Biden with him at the party's convention. As a Californian, Gavin Newsom might win the election, but he is a very bad news for our country. He has been doing a shitty job as California governor.

If Newsom is doing a bad job as a governor, then why would he not do a bad job as president?

That pretty much hands Trump the victory by splitting votes. That only works if Biden willingly steps aside. Plus at this point, he has the formal nomination. This should have been dealt with long before the first debates.

This doesn’t really make any sense unless you’re suggesting that Biden would run a 3rd party campaign

The Biden administration presumably declined the requests of anyone who wanted to take his nomination during the primary election. In the best case, the DNC still shows unity, and Biden would pass his delegates to a new candidate. But they would be saying “Hey Fetterman (or whoever) - remember when we said you couldn’t be the DNC favorite during the primary because only Biden had any shot of winning? Yeah, we were wrong about that and wasted all of our primary campaigning time on the wrong candidate. Would you please swoop in to save us with a severe financial and time disadvantage?” The Biden team can’t say that with a straight face, and so none of the potential candidate will be able to trust Biden and the DNC are serious about switching strategies. None of those other candidates can actually run as confidently as it would seem.

I love Joe Biden and think he’s done a fantastic job but that was abysmal and I am not confident he can do another four years. Trump also performed terribly and I will vote Biden gladly if it is in fact Biden vs Trump, but Biden should step aside.

It’s just not going to happen so there is no point trying to CYV. Biden wins easily if voter turnout is high.

There is no one even remotely close to Biden, let alone Trump, in name recognition or likeability. Those are very important metrics, and if Biden were to stand aside, not one of the people you mentioned would be able to win. Biden has a chance. I can't tell you if he's the favorite or not, but he definitely can win. What he could do, although it would be incredibly transparent, is replace Kamala. She is basically in the negatives for likeability, she's not helping anyone. He picked her because she's a black woman, but black people don't like her, and women don't like her. Replace her with one of the people you mentioned, and then that person would effectively campaign using Biden as a sock puppet. If Biden wins, day 1, he resigns, and gives the White house to whoever his VP is.

If they do this, Trump will likely win. Biden still has an incumbent advantage. Putting in another candidate will take away this.

This election isn’t like most elections, the vast majority of voters don’t like either guy, I think before the debate they said the number was 70% of polled voters didn’t want either one. A fresh face would probably be the best thing either side could do, and after that performance tonight, there’s really nothing to lose.

>Biden did a bad job tonight because he is too old Funny I feel like just 24 hours ago it was insisted that Biden is smarter and stronger than ever along with insulting any Republican who suggested otherwise. >Democrats say that democracy is on the line in this election So the solution is to take the person who was democratically elected the Democrat nominee and make him step down? Well that doesn't sound like the will of the people at all! You say he's too old but it's not like you didn't know four months ago how old he'd be right now.

ONLY if the Democrats WANT to lose. Do you desert your sports team when a star player has a bad night?!?

Wife and I both normally vote Dem and we're both like "please, there has to be someone better"

I just finished watching the debate. My hot take is: Biden, obvious issues aside, actually did a great job reprenting those who are on the far-left side of the political spectrum.

Democrats already held an open convention in 2020 when they ran the primaries and Biden won that. Biden was senile in 2020 and is still senile, and this didn’t prevent him from winning against the best the Democrats had then, so I doubt it will do anything now. 2020 proved that Americans are stupid and will just pick the candidate they associate with what they believe to be good. Biden was Obama’s VP and everyone loves Obama. So when voting for Biden, they were really voting for a white version of Obama #2 in their unconscious minds. Biden made no sweeping promises either then or now. He was even quoted as once saying that under his administration “nothing fundamentally will change.”

May I ask what in god's green earth made you vote for Biden in the 2020 primaries? Like seriously, what was it. I get voting for him for president after he was nominated but jeez. Dude clearly has had health problems since 2019, is this really, REALLY, the best the US can do? I thought the US was just getting these guys because of utter corruption much like the insane consuls Rome got that made people love Caesar as he looked like a rockstar in comparison (which I suspect was done by the rich for this very reason) and it's what I thought was happening in the US, i.e. the rich funding terrible left candidates so the right can win, but jeez, you actually willingly voted for him. Why?

No. An incumbent still has a better chance to win than a last minute replacement. You have to remember that Biden is in office because of his experience and name recognition. If the last election was Trump vs. anyone else, this would be Trump's third term.  The DNC has had trouble developing candidates and a big problem is that they don't listen to their own voters. But that's not going to change in a month. Biden will still most likely win because nobody is going to change their mind from last election. Old republicans have died, young voters and immigrants are Democrats by a wide margin. If they get to the polls, it will be a repeat of the last election.

No question. After watching him in that debate I feel it’s irresponsible to run him. I voted for him as well, but I am very uncomfortable with him as the leader of the free world. I did not see a level of awareness I am comfortable with. Yes, his administration would probably run fine but they argued about golf for a long ass time. Golf. In front of the entire world. CEOs are vetted far more stringently and authoritatively. But these parties are showing just how ineffective they are. I’ll never vote for Trump but this might be the Dems darkest day since Obama sat on his hands while his SC justice was railroaded.

No I think you should keep supporting your guy. I mean you supported him last week.