If you're going to engage in any discussions about replacing Joe Biden on the ticket, you should know a few unassailable facts that the media have left out of their hysterical drumbeat "coverage" of what "Democratic insiders" are saying: Democratic "insiders" don't give the President advice through the media. They speak directly to him or to the people in his immediate circle. Anyone you see publicly calling on the President to step down is not close to him and does not have his ear. Yes, they may attend occasional briefings at the DNC or get invited to the White House holiday parties and annual Easter Egg Roll, and have their picture taken with him at fundraisers they pay good money to attend so they can get their picture taken. But they don't have real access to him and they can't be assumed to have his best interests in mind. Because the people who are actually close to him don't call him out on CNN and Twitter.
Thank you *very* much for making crystal clear what the disastrous results would be of trying to put forward a fantasy candidate in place of President Biden, and for explaining just how perilous and damaging it is even to engage in such a discussion now. In addition to the logistical impossibilities you articulate above, there’s also the fact that many general election voters are VERY low information and have never even heard of the people whose names are being tossed about as possible candidates. And just imagine what would happen once the GOP oppo machine gets rolling against them. The utter irresponsibility and cavalier attitude toward our fragile democracy that these media pundits (and now the NYT and AJC editorial boards) are showing is truly appalling.
What I have been posting on this topic is a simple question:
People need to start asking themselves what they really need in a presidential skill set:
1. The ability to discuss policies comprehensively within a 2 minute strict time limit or
2. The ability to have the ability to support and promote policies that benefit the American people AT ALL
As several people have noted--how many time in a presidency does performance depend on a decision made in two minutes in the face of a onslaught of disinformation aka lies?
I'm still not seeing much, if any, mention of similar reelection-debate debacles by Ronald Reagan (1984, v Mondale), by George W. Bush (2004, v Kerry), or by Barack Obama (2012, v Romney). Am I the only American/Democrat who remembers that those four predecessors (two GOP; one Democratic) were counted out, too? Just like Pres. Biden?
Most Americans pay little attention to these things. If Biden were successfully replaced (by no one knows whom), how the Heck would run-of-the-mill, disengaged American voters even learn the new candidate's name?
These predecessor successes should give Americans hope. Did everybody see what Pres. Biden looked and sounded like, and how he moved, at the after-debate party? It was a disaster of debate, yes. And we don't understand it, no. But choosing between an old, angry, crazy con man and an old, accomplished American president, or even just staying home and not voting, ought not be a challenge for even the most-disengaged, pro-American voter. (As for the shrinking array of misinformed, venal, or both, on the GOP side, there's no use counting on them for anything, any way.)
Excellent piece. This needs to be widely read so that people understand that the media is actively trying to undermine our democracy. Whether for profit or a more nefarious purpose, it’s dangerous.
I disagree with you but you made some great points.
However, you need to fix one thing that is VERY SERIOUSLY WRONG in your post. There is NO QUESTION AT ALL about "ballot access" for anyone who is nominated by the Democratic party. Remember that for President (and VP), the actual person running isn't even technically "on the ballot" anywhere, just the electors who represent that person are on the ballot. And the ballot access is to the PARTY who nominates that person. Your argument would hold water if you were talking about running an independent candidate separate from a party that has already qualified for the race, but the Democrats have OBVIOUSLY already qualified (for several centuries now) in every state of the union, so if we decided (as I recommend) that we nominate Gretchen Whitmer for President, she in fact WILL appear on EVERY ballot in every state in the union without any question.
To suggest otherwise is simply and purely misleading and you should fix it because it is most definitely NOT the way things work.
Voters vote for candidates' electors, but it is the candidates' names that appear on the ballot.
And no, in most states, the nominee/electors cannot go on the ballot until the nominee is officially nominated at the party's convention. Just winning the primary is not enough to get the nominee on the ballot.
If Whitmer were nominated instead of Biden, she would not automatically be added to every state ballot. She would not be added until her nomination was certified and submitted to the state.
Please research the process of you want to better understand it. But your assumptions are not correct
How many disengaged American voters, Democratic or otherwise, do you believe know who Gretchen Whitmer is? From everything I've seen and heard of this fine politician, I believe she will make an excellent Democratic candidate for president when her turn comes. But for now, I believe that most of us, who pay attention to politics, can't grasp how-little attention the majority of Americans pay, and how under-informed most of them are. A democracy where so-few of us bother to follow politics, let alone show up at election time to vote, is always at risk of an unsavory, Trump-like, GOP-like takeover. This time around, we're going to go with Pres. Biden, and hope that we keep working as hard as we can, to get our fellow-minded—but stay-at-home—voters, to vote.
First, I expect quite a few know who Whitmer is. Her victory in Michigan was given wide coverage. But that is beside the point. How many people knew who Obama was when he ran in 2008? Very few, but he was young, exciting, clear-headed, dynamic and all the other characteristics that people like to vote for as well as being a solid liberal Democrat. Many people made the same point about Obama vs Hillary that you are making here, but Obama beat Hillary and won two terms. He was not yet 60 when he LEFT office. Biden is EIGHTY ONE YEARS OLD! He is 8 years older than Reagan was when he won his second term. He can barely put two sentences together that make sense. And he is politically handicapped as well with his fervent support of Israel (I support Israel myself, but I recognize that in the US today, that is a rough position to take given the polarization). From where I sit, Whitmer has all the attributes needed... she is governor of one of the major swing sstates that could easily support Trump against Biden but would almost certainly support Whitmer and the Michigan people know her VERY well even if a lot of others don't. Ditto for Wisconsin voters. She would have to get more exposure in Pennsylvania but she is a very dynamic speaker and SHE IS YOUNG (or at least MUCH YOUNGER).
Sorry, I just think you need to face the reality. Biden is done and he needs to graciously step down (as other Presidents have in the past) and let someone who can beat Trump take his place.
Here, I come now to your second comment in reply to one of mine:
First, my sad experience is that the vast majority of the American people are woefully indifferent to our political landscape. I think that, no matter who the Democratic candidate turns out to be (and I, for one, ardently hope we stick with, and build on, Biden), finding someone who Adds to the attraction, without Subtracting any of what has already been built, would be nigh impossible.
Do you recall at what stage in the nominating process Barack Obama appeared on the scene? I believe it was prior to primary season, as I seem to recall a whole lot of controversy in relation to some aspect of how he clinched the nomination.
I'm a big, big fan of Gretchen Whitmer; make no mistake. At this point, my sight is on some combination of Whitmer and Buttigieg. Won't it be gratifying to have both a first Female president and a first Gay president at one time? This assumes, of course, that Trump doesn't somehow manage to upset things and do away with democracy all together.
I can't think of anything more you can say, to enlighten me on this subject. However, if you do have more to say, and you post it, I'll read it. Meanwhile, I've got a ton of pro-Biden postcards to write. Just in case.
Gozo is correct, you are wrong. And reality is spelled out in Stephanie's post.
Also, the party of Presidents who have stepped down has always lost.
"How many people knew who Obama was when he ran in 2008?"
A great many, from his killer speech at the 2004 Dem convention. And Obama didn't start running in July of 2008, well after the primaries were held and someone else won 96% of the delegates. Your arguments are extremely poor.
But you can't point out any error or offer a counterargument. And in re the thing you call out in all caps, you are completely and utterly wrong about ... electors are not on the ballot. Sheesh.
Separately from my question, I would like to note that several of the MSNBC hosts have been very explicit about the impossibility of President Biden being replaced by any means allowed under Party rules or current election law. There was a couple of hours of OMG MY PHONE IS OVERWHELMED WITH UNNAMED PEOPLE ASKING WHAT WE CAN DO? That didn’t really last long.
Note that I am not hoping that this will happen, but, if a sitting Presidential candidate died or dropped out, whether before or after a nominating convention, could their campaign funds be passed along to the sitting VP and announced candidate on their ticket? If this happened in 2024, would Harris appear on all state ballots as the Democratic Presidential candidate? If this is not really practicable, how can we risk having the conventions so late?
If the vice president became the presidential candidate I believe she could use the funding because it would be the same campaign the funding, although, as I said, I would need to confirm that. But if she remained vice presidential nominee while someone else was put in over her as the presidential candidate, that would then be a different campaign and they could not use the funding.
But if Kamala Harris were passed over and someone else put on the ticket above her, you can bet the Democrats would lose the election as tens of millions of people - especially African Americans - would be furious about the first black female vice president being insulted that way.
As for the ballot access, Harris's name is already going to appear on all of the ballots as the vice presidential nominee, so if she were to become the presidential nominee, her name would remain.
Actually NOT "100%". In particular, this is completely wrong and misleading about the access to state ballots that a different nominee would have. First of all, NO ONE (not Biden or anyone else) has YET qualified to be on any state ballot for President. That won't happen until the convention nominates him. The Democratic party is qualified on every state's ballots in the US as they have been one of the two major parties for decades. WHOEVER the Democrats nominate will be on every ballot in the US. Period. And any statement to the contrary is 100% wrong.
That's not true. Parties don't qualify for state ballots, individuals do.
Not all states base base ballot access on the convention vote. Some states require the candidate to actually have been nominated by the delegates before their name can appear on the ballot.
But some other states permit parties to certify their presumptive nominee prior to the delegates' official vote in order to be added to the ballot in time to meet an early deadline if it occurs before the convention. This is how Biden, the presumptive nominee based on the primary results, will qualify for ballots in states where the deadline occurs before the convention.
And that's why before the convention, Biden will already have qualified for the ballots in numerous states whose deadlines will have passed before the convention starts. Anyone taking his place (besides possibly Harris, whose name will appear with his on the ballot) after those deadlines will be unable to qualify for the ballot in those states.
You are SO completely wrong about this that I do not even know where to start. First of all, "persons" are not nominated for state ballots for President and VP. States elect "electors" (that's because the President and VP are voted upon by the Electoral College which is stated in the Constitution). States put slates of electors on their ballots. Those electors are, most states, pledged to specific candidates of their parties, but the parties do not even MAKE those selections until their party conventions, so there is NO WAY to know who they will be pledged to until the respective conventions. Even if someone SWEPT all their party's primaries, there is always the possibility (even if very rare in modern times) that the convention could nominate someone else.
I could go on to explain to you how this works in most (or even all) states, but it would be a waste of time since you obviously have gotten VERY WRONG and MISLEADING facts about how the election of Presidents and Vice Presidents work. I will leave it to you to read more about this in the hopes that you could correct your obviously completely wrong impression of how this works. I don't know where you get your sources from (if any) but they are completely wrong.
There IS a question about MONEY for candidates, i.e., whether a replacement candidate such as Whitmer could use the money raised by Biden and Harris for their election. I believe that in most cases, that money would have to be returned to the donors (or used by the designated candidate(s)), it can NOT simply be moved from the Biden/Harris ticket to a replacement ticket. So if the Democratic convention chose to nominate Whitmer/Fedderman for instance, they would have to start raising money themselves immediately (although the Democratic party itself would have some money to contribute to this effort).
But there is NO QUESTION AT ALL, that if the Dems DO replace Biden at the convention (whether he chooses to step aside or not) with Whitmer, she and her slate of electors will appear on EVERY STATE'S ballots in November. You are simply 100% incorrect about this and I hope you do some reading and figure out how you got this so wrong.
You're hilarious ... and rude and completely and utterly wrong. Anyone who has ever voted in the U.S. knows that candidates, not electors, appear on ballots. States do not elect electors, parties select them, and states have no say in who is selected. The states *certify* the slate of electors of the party whose candidate won the election. The Constitution says that the electors are free agents but things have changed considerably and nowadays electors are pledged to the candidate (with some rare exceptions of unfaithful electors).
This is Civics 101 and it's bizarre that you are so adamant about your radical misstatements.
And by the way, your whole point about "deadlines passing" before the convention makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE if you think about it. The CONVENTION chooses the candidates. They are NOT chose BEFORE the convention so HOW could Biden's name be put on states' ballots BEFORE the convention even takes place? That is just nonsensical reasoning. The CONVENTION CHOOSES the candidates for their party, all the primaries and caucuses do before the convention is choose delegates who are pledged to some candidate. In many states, those delegates do not even have to stay pledged to their candidate, they can choose anyone they want. Of course, that hasn't happened in over 70 years (the last time any party had a really open convention was 1952) so I understand how you could be misled, but clearly you should study the FACTS about how conventions work even in modern day when we typically have candidates selected LONG BEFORE the conventions. This might turn out to be the first exception to that in a long long time.
You are free to believe whatever you like, regardless how uninformed your opinion may be.
But you are not free to come into my Substack and spread misinformation with a degree of arrogance that is directly proportional to your ignorance on this topic.
Spoken truth. Like, I'm mad that the DNC didn't work the last three years to find, build, bolster a viable candidate. But they didn't. So just get behind Biden, and vote for him to win.
I'm not "mad" at the DNC at all. President Joe Biden is the absolute strongest possible candidate to run against Trump, bar none. No one has been able to name another candidate who he brings to this race - other than being younger.
It's easy for someone to look perfect on paper or in the abstract. But when you hold them up to the light, no one shines like Biden.
I have been a long supporter of the party AND of Biden, but it is clear he is past his "Sell By" date. I assume you watched the debacle that was the last debate. He can't put full sentences together when he is confounded or confused, he can't walk up or down a two step platform without help (Jill had to hold his arm), and he clearly can't handle the challenge of face-to-face debate any more. And the notion that this was a one-time bad day like Obama had is nonsense. Obama was in his 50s when he had his bad day and indeed it was a singular event. Biden is 81 years old. This is the norm with him and the polls are going to show that he will be pasted.
We need a REALLY solid candidate and my recommendation is Gretchen Whitmer (I also love Kamala Harris, but I think we need a candidate who will hold the swing states and Whitmer is from Michigan and has big fan bases in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania too). We will win the states that Biden won before with almost anyone. Right now, the Dems need a candidate who will hold the swing states and that person is Whitmer.
Thanks for your comment. But you seem not to have actually read my post, which explains why the scenario you pose is both unfeasible and impossible.
It is also interesting that you think jettisoning Kamala Harris and replacing her with Whitmer would bring in more votes - without considering the huge number of votes that would be lost with such a move.
The propensity of some people to dismiss the first black vice president is both troubling and worthy of some self-assessment by those who are so quick to disregard the will and the votes of Black voters as If we don't exist or don't matter.
BTW, my reason for picking Whitmer over Harris has nothing to do with Harris' being black. It has to do with the politics of swing states. Harris comes from California and the Democrats don't need to win California, they would win California if they put a mongoose on the ticket. The Democrats need to win (very specifically) Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Those are the six states that hold the magic key to winning the next election based on electoral votes (the same states that made the difference in 2016 and 2020, by the way). Whitmer would be a big draw in Michigan (she is governor) and Wisconsin (a neighbor state). She would probably also get big support in Pennsylvania. Arizona and Georgia are more difficult to determine, but she could win one of those maybe both. Nevada is a real toss-up. But my point is that Whitmer would draw there, and Harris doesn't have anything that suggests she would be a draw there.
Stephanie, this is politics not a party game. It requires a measure of truth and while I LOVE Kamala Harris (I voted for her in California several times for District attorney in SF, Attorney General in CA and Senator) I don't think she has the right credentials to help us win the white house in 2024. I think Whitmer does. It has ZERO to do with her being black.
So please PLEASE don't play a race card with me. My bonafides as a supporter of Democrats (both white and black and hispanic) are pretty solid going back 50 years. We are playing a game to win and when you need a pinch hitter, you choose the BEST pinch hitter you have FOR THE SITUATION. You don't put in a left-handed hitter when there is a left-handed pitcher on the mound. That is tantamount to what putting Harris in as the Presidential candidate would be... a handicap that while it might NOT be fatal, could be and I don't think we should be taking that chance.
"BTW, my reason for picking Whitmer over Harris has nothing to do with Harris' being black"
Whoosh! Way to completely miss the explicitly stated point.
"this is politics not a party game"
How ironic. You are sitting at home at your keyboard typing furiously about your preferences ... that *is* a game--an ego game--it's not actual political engagement.
"It has ZERO to do with her being black."
So, as accused, you completely ignore *the black vote*.
Thank you for sharing the information about the Guardian piece. It does nothing to change my mind in relation to sticking with Pres. Biden, and trust that he'll win—just as reelection-seeking predecessors Reagan, W. Bush, and Obama also crashed in their initial reelection debates. I don't know of any party, switching candidates in the middle of an election, that went on to win. But VP Harris is a strong addition to the Biden-Harris team, and who knows if she may end up as our first Female U.S. President, by the time 2024 & 2028 are over.
□ You write, "Biden...is past his 'Sell By' date." History, from 1984, 2004, and 2012, tell a different story. In those three elections, the candidates for reelection (Reagan, W. Bush, Obama) all crashed and burned at their first debate of the season. Oh, I was glad when Pres. Reagan and Pres. W. Bush looked so bad. However, I was aghast when Pres. Barack Obama palled against Mitt Romney. It looked like Romney would have the thing in the bag. In the next debates, Obama showed as well as we knew he should have the first time.
□ This time around, when Biden looked admittedly horrific, I thought of those other times. I'm willing to be you just about anything, the this time around—no matter what other debates, if any, Mr. Trump will show up for—even Mitt Romney will be voting for President Biden.
□ By any chance did you see the follow-up on Pres. and Dr. Biden when they went to a debate-watching party after the debate? If you didn't see that, you can probably find it on the Web: Pres. Joe looked like he's more than ready to go.
□ Also: Google "the Gish gallop," if you're not familiar with it. It gives a good clue to part of what through the President off his game.
(a) I have read all you have mentioned, trust me. I am a compulsive political reader and that is why I am here.
(b) You are completely missing the obvious distinction between the various first debate failures of Reagan, Bush and Obama and that of Biden. The first three had their first debate failures when they were 73, 58 and 51 respectively. None of the three were seriously invalid or elderly at the time (Reagan was the oldest). Those first debate failures were clearly adjusted the next time out. Biden is already 81, 8 years OLDER than the oldest example and you are being completely ignorant to ignore this fact. Biden's failure in the debate was also chronic, he continually failed to make solid points and his vocal struggles were so obvious. None of the other three had quite such a serious problem. Finally all three of the others were leading in the polls when they had their first debate failure. Their polls dropped after that but they didn't lose the lead. Biden was already BEHIND at the time of the first debate and NEEDED to be successful. His failure just puts a nail in his political coffin. And it suggests that he will get worse, not better, over time.
(c) I watched the after-party, where Biden looked a bit better, but so what? Most people didn't see that, and they are going to keep in mind the horrific performance in the actual debate. Biden had to "show up" and he failed. The Democrats, if they actually want to win, need a new candidate.
I rest my case. Sorry if we disagree. I am a fervent Democrat of 50+ years. I take no pleasure in this, Biden has been a terrific President, but he is JUST TOO OLD.
Now I, in return, have read and considered all that you have said in this comment. (I know I have another one from you, but I’ll try to treat them separately.) My greatest thought relating to your point is that neither of us truly knows the answer to the situation. I read what you say about Pres. Biden’s age; I don’t see it *inherently* to be the impediment that you see it to be. I’m hopeful the case will be made, successfully, that the three-point-X difference in ages between Biden and Trump is far-outweighed by the old-age craziness of Trump.
I just learned about the “Gish gallop.” It explains to me what happens when this “Firehose of Falsehood” technique is used against persons of good faith. I wonder if we’ll get to see a second debate, or if Trump will have the wisdom to back out. If the debate goes forward, I’ll look, and hope, to see an entirely different President.
I appreciate the “Sorry if we disagree.” I’d say that all of us do. At least, all reasonable, respectable, pro-Democracy Americans do.
Whatever the result in relation to the Biden reelection candidacy, let’s hope that the Good Guy or Gal wins!
Thanks for sharing the earnest, concerned thoughts.
"He can't put full sentences together when he is confounded or confused, he can't walk up or down a two step platform without help (Jill had to hold his arm)"
These claims simply aren't true. Here is NYPost, no friend of Biden,
saying "Biden, 81, managed to mount the steps without issue"
As for the rest, in addition to your completely ignoring the points in this post,
who the heck is "they"? Biden isn't quitting and the party can't choose another candidate without his approval, so your preferences are just pointless noise that continues this massive deflection and detraction. Put your energy into supporting Biden and attacking and exposing Trump.
Pres. Biden has "exceeded all expectations" by several country miles, around our extended household of some dozen, active Democratic voters.
How can our fellow Americans, let alone our fellow Democrats, not recognize the subtle genius behind his cross-the-aisle successes????
Elsewhere in the Social Media universe, MAGA post that Pres. Biden is a—Well, I won't repeat the two, common insults posted to me, but both of them clearly do not touch the President—and as-clearly point to Mr. Trump.
We have a winning candidate. It's a shame that, even here on the Left, so many of us willingly succumb to the kind of divisive nonsense that even the presumably neutral news outlets put out.
"Genius" is not entirely hyperbole when it comes to President Joe. Jeez, Folks! How much success can one troubled nation take?
Did you read the article you're commenting on? Biden is that viable candidate ... for 3.5 years he has topped the most competent and effective administration in decades. Even if that weren't the case, running someone other than the incumbent is a losing proposition, which is why other leading Democrats had the good sense not to enter the race. So we had a primary with Biden, Dean Phillips, Jason Palmer, Marianne Williamson, and a few others. Biden won 96% of the delegates.
Thank you *very* much for making crystal clear what the disastrous results would be of trying to put forward a fantasy candidate in place of President Biden, and for explaining just how perilous and damaging it is even to engage in such a discussion now. In addition to the logistical impossibilities you articulate above, there’s also the fact that many general election voters are VERY low information and have never even heard of the people whose names are being tossed about as possible candidates. And just imagine what would happen once the GOP oppo machine gets rolling against them. The utter irresponsibility and cavalier attitude toward our fragile democracy that these media pundits (and now the NYT and AJC editorial boards) are showing is truly appalling.
What I have been posting on this topic is a simple question:
People need to start asking themselves what they really need in a presidential skill set:
1. The ability to discuss policies comprehensively within a 2 minute strict time limit or
2. The ability to have the ability to support and promote policies that benefit the American people AT ALL
As several people have noted--how many time in a presidency does performance depend on a decision made in two minutes in the face of a onslaught of disinformation aka lies?
I'm still not seeing much, if any, mention of similar reelection-debate debacles by Ronald Reagan (1984, v Mondale), by George W. Bush (2004, v Kerry), or by Barack Obama (2012, v Romney). Am I the only American/Democrat who remembers that those four predecessors (two GOP; one Democratic) were counted out, too? Just like Pres. Biden?
Most Americans pay little attention to these things. If Biden were successfully replaced (by no one knows whom), how the Heck would run-of-the-mill, disengaged American voters even learn the new candidate's name?
These predecessor successes should give Americans hope. Did everybody see what Pres. Biden looked and sounded like, and how he moved, at the after-debate party? It was a disaster of debate, yes. And we don't understand it, no. But choosing between an old, angry, crazy con man and an old, accomplished American president, or even just staying home and not voting, ought not be a challenge for even the most-disengaged, pro-American voter. (As for the shrinking array of misinformed, venal, or both, on the GOP side, there's no use counting on them for anything, any way.)
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo
Excellent piece. This needs to be widely read so that people understand that the media is actively trying to undermine our democracy. Whether for profit or a more nefarious purpose, it’s dangerous.
I disagree with you but you made some great points.
However, you need to fix one thing that is VERY SERIOUSLY WRONG in your post. There is NO QUESTION AT ALL about "ballot access" for anyone who is nominated by the Democratic party. Remember that for President (and VP), the actual person running isn't even technically "on the ballot" anywhere, just the electors who represent that person are on the ballot. And the ballot access is to the PARTY who nominates that person. Your argument would hold water if you were talking about running an independent candidate separate from a party that has already qualified for the race, but the Democrats have OBVIOUSLY already qualified (for several centuries now) in every state of the union, so if we decided (as I recommend) that we nominate Gretchen Whitmer for President, she in fact WILL appear on EVERY ballot in every state in the union without any question.
To suggest otherwise is simply and purely misleading and you should fix it because it is most definitely NOT the way things work.
Voters vote for candidates' electors, but it is the candidates' names that appear on the ballot.
And no, in most states, the nominee/electors cannot go on the ballot until the nominee is officially nominated at the party's convention. Just winning the primary is not enough to get the nominee on the ballot.
If Whitmer were nominated instead of Biden, she would not automatically be added to every state ballot. She would not be added until her nomination was certified and submitted to the state.
Please research the process of you want to better understand it. But your assumptions are not correct
How many disengaged American voters, Democratic or otherwise, do you believe know who Gretchen Whitmer is? From everything I've seen and heard of this fine politician, I believe she will make an excellent Democratic candidate for president when her turn comes. But for now, I believe that most of us, who pay attention to politics, can't grasp how-little attention the majority of Americans pay, and how under-informed most of them are. A democracy where so-few of us bother to follow politics, let alone show up at election time to vote, is always at risk of an unsavory, Trump-like, GOP-like takeover. This time around, we're going to go with Pres. Biden, and hope that we keep working as hard as we can, to get our fellow-minded—but stay-at-home—voters, to vote.
(($; -)}™
First, I expect quite a few know who Whitmer is. Her victory in Michigan was given wide coverage. But that is beside the point. How many people knew who Obama was when he ran in 2008? Very few, but he was young, exciting, clear-headed, dynamic and all the other characteristics that people like to vote for as well as being a solid liberal Democrat. Many people made the same point about Obama vs Hillary that you are making here, but Obama beat Hillary and won two terms. He was not yet 60 when he LEFT office. Biden is EIGHTY ONE YEARS OLD! He is 8 years older than Reagan was when he won his second term. He can barely put two sentences together that make sense. And he is politically handicapped as well with his fervent support of Israel (I support Israel myself, but I recognize that in the US today, that is a rough position to take given the polarization). From where I sit, Whitmer has all the attributes needed... she is governor of one of the major swing sstates that could easily support Trump against Biden but would almost certainly support Whitmer and the Michigan people know her VERY well even if a lot of others don't. Ditto for Wisconsin voters. She would have to get more exposure in Pennsylvania but she is a very dynamic speaker and SHE IS YOUNG (or at least MUCH YOUNGER).
Sorry, I just think you need to face the reality. Biden is done and he needs to graciously step down (as other Presidents have in the past) and let someone who can beat Trump take his place.
Here, I come now to your second comment in reply to one of mine:
First, my sad experience is that the vast majority of the American people are woefully indifferent to our political landscape. I think that, no matter who the Democratic candidate turns out to be (and I, for one, ardently hope we stick with, and build on, Biden), finding someone who Adds to the attraction, without Subtracting any of what has already been built, would be nigh impossible.
Do you recall at what stage in the nominating process Barack Obama appeared on the scene? I believe it was prior to primary season, as I seem to recall a whole lot of controversy in relation to some aspect of how he clinched the nomination.
I'm a big, big fan of Gretchen Whitmer; make no mistake. At this point, my sight is on some combination of Whitmer and Buttigieg. Won't it be gratifying to have both a first Female president and a first Gay president at one time? This assumes, of course, that Trump doesn't somehow manage to upset things and do away with democracy all together.
I can't think of anything more you can say, to enlighten me on this subject. However, if you do have more to say, and you post it, I'll read it. Meanwhile, I've got a ton of pro-Biden postcards to write. Just in case.
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo
Gozo is correct, you are wrong. And reality is spelled out in Stephanie's post.
Also, the party of Presidents who have stepped down has always lost.
"How many people knew who Obama was when he ran in 2008?"
A great many, from his killer speech at the 2004 Dem convention. And Obama didn't start running in July of 2008, well after the primaries were held and someone else won 96% of the delegates. Your arguments are extremely poor.
"I disagree with you"
But you can't point out any error or offer a counterargument. And in re the thing you call out in all caps, you are completely and utterly wrong about ... electors are not on the ballot. Sheesh.
Separately from my question, I would like to note that several of the MSNBC hosts have been very explicit about the impossibility of President Biden being replaced by any means allowed under Party rules or current election law. There was a couple of hours of OMG MY PHONE IS OVERWHELMED WITH UNNAMED PEOPLE ASKING WHAT WE CAN DO? That didn’t really last long.
Only a small portion. The rest goes to Harris.
If Biden dropped out, would he be able to transfer his campaign funds to the DNC?
I believe he could transfer the funds to the DNC, but he cannot transfer the funds to another candidate.
Note that I am not hoping that this will happen, but, if a sitting Presidential candidate died or dropped out, whether before or after a nominating convention, could their campaign funds be passed along to the sitting VP and announced candidate on their ticket? If this happened in 2024, would Harris appear on all state ballots as the Democratic Presidential candidate? If this is not really practicable, how can we risk having the conventions so late?
If the vice president became the presidential candidate I believe she could use the funding because it would be the same campaign the funding, although, as I said, I would need to confirm that. But if she remained vice presidential nominee while someone else was put in over her as the presidential candidate, that would then be a different campaign and they could not use the funding.
But if Kamala Harris were passed over and someone else put on the ticket above her, you can bet the Democrats would lose the election as tens of millions of people - especially African Americans - would be furious about the first black female vice president being insulted that way.
As for the ballot access, Harris's name is already going to appear on all of the ballots as the vice presidential nominee, so if she were to become the presidential nominee, her name would remain.
Mehdi Hasan has a good piece on Harris in yesterday's Guardian (3 July).
As ususal, you are 100 percent correct.
Actually NOT "100%". In particular, this is completely wrong and misleading about the access to state ballots that a different nominee would have. First of all, NO ONE (not Biden or anyone else) has YET qualified to be on any state ballot for President. That won't happen until the convention nominates him. The Democratic party is qualified on every state's ballots in the US as they have been one of the two major parties for decades. WHOEVER the Democrats nominate will be on every ballot in the US. Period. And any statement to the contrary is 100% wrong.
That's not true. Parties don't qualify for state ballots, individuals do.
Not all states base base ballot access on the convention vote. Some states require the candidate to actually have been nominated by the delegates before their name can appear on the ballot.
But some other states permit parties to certify their presumptive nominee prior to the delegates' official vote in order to be added to the ballot in time to meet an early deadline if it occurs before the convention. This is how Biden, the presumptive nominee based on the primary results, will qualify for ballots in states where the deadline occurs before the convention.
And that's why before the convention, Biden will already have qualified for the ballots in numerous states whose deadlines will have passed before the convention starts. Anyone taking his place (besides possibly Harris, whose name will appear with his on the ballot) after those deadlines will be unable to qualify for the ballot in those states.
You are SO completely wrong about this that I do not even know where to start. First of all, "persons" are not nominated for state ballots for President and VP. States elect "electors" (that's because the President and VP are voted upon by the Electoral College which is stated in the Constitution). States put slates of electors on their ballots. Those electors are, most states, pledged to specific candidates of their parties, but the parties do not even MAKE those selections until their party conventions, so there is NO WAY to know who they will be pledged to until the respective conventions. Even if someone SWEPT all their party's primaries, there is always the possibility (even if very rare in modern times) that the convention could nominate someone else.
I could go on to explain to you how this works in most (or even all) states, but it would be a waste of time since you obviously have gotten VERY WRONG and MISLEADING facts about how the election of Presidents and Vice Presidents work. I will leave it to you to read more about this in the hopes that you could correct your obviously completely wrong impression of how this works. I don't know where you get your sources from (if any) but they are completely wrong.
There IS a question about MONEY for candidates, i.e., whether a replacement candidate such as Whitmer could use the money raised by Biden and Harris for their election. I believe that in most cases, that money would have to be returned to the donors (or used by the designated candidate(s)), it can NOT simply be moved from the Biden/Harris ticket to a replacement ticket. So if the Democratic convention chose to nominate Whitmer/Fedderman for instance, they would have to start raising money themselves immediately (although the Democratic party itself would have some money to contribute to this effort).
But there is NO QUESTION AT ALL, that if the Dems DO replace Biden at the convention (whether he chooses to step aside or not) with Whitmer, she and her slate of electors will appear on EVERY STATE'S ballots in November. You are simply 100% incorrect about this and I hope you do some reading and figure out how you got this so wrong.
You're hilarious ... and rude and completely and utterly wrong. Anyone who has ever voted in the U.S. knows that candidates, not electors, appear on ballots. States do not elect electors, parties select them, and states have no say in who is selected. The states *certify* the slate of electors of the party whose candidate won the election. The Constitution says that the electors are free agents but things have changed considerably and nowadays electors are pledged to the candidate (with some rare exceptions of unfaithful electors).
This is Civics 101 and it's bizarre that you are so adamant about your radical misstatements.
And by the way, your whole point about "deadlines passing" before the convention makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE if you think about it. The CONVENTION chooses the candidates. They are NOT chose BEFORE the convention so HOW could Biden's name be put on states' ballots BEFORE the convention even takes place? That is just nonsensical reasoning. The CONVENTION CHOOSES the candidates for their party, all the primaries and caucuses do before the convention is choose delegates who are pledged to some candidate. In many states, those delegates do not even have to stay pledged to their candidate, they can choose anyone they want. Of course, that hasn't happened in over 70 years (the last time any party had a really open convention was 1952) so I understand how you could be misled, but clearly you should study the FACTS about how conventions work even in modern day when we typically have candidates selected LONG BEFORE the conventions. This might turn out to be the first exception to that in a long long time.
You are free to believe whatever you like, regardless how uninformed your opinion may be.
But you are not free to come into my Substack and spread misinformation with a degree of arrogance that is directly proportional to your ignorance on this topic.
You are now blocked.
Goodbye.
Spoken truth. Like, I'm mad that the DNC didn't work the last three years to find, build, bolster a viable candidate. But they didn't. So just get behind Biden, and vote for him to win.
I'm not "mad" at the DNC at all. President Joe Biden is the absolute strongest possible candidate to run against Trump, bar none. No one has been able to name another candidate who he brings to this race - other than being younger.
It's easy for someone to look perfect on paper or in the abstract. But when you hold them up to the light, no one shines like Biden.
I have been a long supporter of the party AND of Biden, but it is clear he is past his "Sell By" date. I assume you watched the debacle that was the last debate. He can't put full sentences together when he is confounded or confused, he can't walk up or down a two step platform without help (Jill had to hold his arm), and he clearly can't handle the challenge of face-to-face debate any more. And the notion that this was a one-time bad day like Obama had is nonsense. Obama was in his 50s when he had his bad day and indeed it was a singular event. Biden is 81 years old. This is the norm with him and the polls are going to show that he will be pasted.
We need a REALLY solid candidate and my recommendation is Gretchen Whitmer (I also love Kamala Harris, but I think we need a candidate who will hold the swing states and Whitmer is from Michigan and has big fan bases in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania too). We will win the states that Biden won before with almost anyone. Right now, the Dems need a candidate who will hold the swing states and that person is Whitmer.
I hope they make this decision.
Thanks for your comment. But you seem not to have actually read my post, which explains why the scenario you pose is both unfeasible and impossible.
It is also interesting that you think jettisoning Kamala Harris and replacing her with Whitmer would bring in more votes - without considering the huge number of votes that would be lost with such a move.
The propensity of some people to dismiss the first black vice president is both troubling and worthy of some self-assessment by those who are so quick to disregard the will and the votes of Black voters as If we don't exist or don't matter.
I recommend reading this: https://open.substack.com/pub/stephaniejones2/p/the-biden-replacement-theory-and
Have a good day.
BTW, my reason for picking Whitmer over Harris has nothing to do with Harris' being black. It has to do with the politics of swing states. Harris comes from California and the Democrats don't need to win California, they would win California if they put a mongoose on the ticket. The Democrats need to win (very specifically) Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Those are the six states that hold the magic key to winning the next election based on electoral votes (the same states that made the difference in 2016 and 2020, by the way). Whitmer would be a big draw in Michigan (she is governor) and Wisconsin (a neighbor state). She would probably also get big support in Pennsylvania. Arizona and Georgia are more difficult to determine, but she could win one of those maybe both. Nevada is a real toss-up. But my point is that Whitmer would draw there, and Harris doesn't have anything that suggests she would be a draw there.
Stephanie, this is politics not a party game. It requires a measure of truth and while I LOVE Kamala Harris (I voted for her in California several times for District attorney in SF, Attorney General in CA and Senator) I don't think she has the right credentials to help us win the white house in 2024. I think Whitmer does. It has ZERO to do with her being black.
So please PLEASE don't play a race card with me. My bonafides as a supporter of Democrats (both white and black and hispanic) are pretty solid going back 50 years. We are playing a game to win and when you need a pinch hitter, you choose the BEST pinch hitter you have FOR THE SITUATION. You don't put in a left-handed hitter when there is a left-handed pitcher on the mound. That is tantamount to what putting Harris in as the Presidential candidate would be... a handicap that while it might NOT be fatal, could be and I don't think we should be taking that chance.
You are very defensive, and accusing me of saying things to you I did not say.
Because I don't tolerate attempts to gaslight me on my own page, I will politely end our conversation here.
Have a good day.
"BTW, my reason for picking Whitmer over Harris has nothing to do with Harris' being black"
Whoosh! Way to completely miss the explicitly stated point.
"this is politics not a party game"
How ironic. You are sitting at home at your keyboard typing furiously about your preferences ... that *is* a game--an ego game--it's not actual political engagement.
"It has ZERO to do with her being black."
So, as accused, you completely ignore *the black vote*.
Mehdi Hasan has a good piece on Harris in yesterday's Guardian (3 July).
Thank you for sharing the information about the Guardian piece. It does nothing to change my mind in relation to sticking with Pres. Biden, and trust that he'll win—just as reelection-seeking predecessors Reagan, W. Bush, and Obama also crashed in their initial reelection debates. I don't know of any party, switching candidates in the middle of an election, that went on to win. But VP Harris is a strong addition to the Biden-Harris team, and who knows if she may end up as our first Female U.S. President, by the time 2024 & 2028 are over.
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo
□ You write, "Biden...is past his 'Sell By' date." History, from 1984, 2004, and 2012, tell a different story. In those three elections, the candidates for reelection (Reagan, W. Bush, Obama) all crashed and burned at their first debate of the season. Oh, I was glad when Pres. Reagan and Pres. W. Bush looked so bad. However, I was aghast when Pres. Barack Obama palled against Mitt Romney. It looked like Romney would have the thing in the bag. In the next debates, Obama showed as well as we knew he should have the first time.
□ This time around, when Biden looked admittedly horrific, I thought of those other times. I'm willing to be you just about anything, the this time around—no matter what other debates, if any, Mr. Trump will show up for—even Mitt Romney will be voting for President Biden.
□ By any chance did you see the follow-up on Pres. and Dr. Biden when they went to a debate-watching party after the debate? If you didn't see that, you can probably find it on the Web: Pres. Joe looked like he's more than ready to go.
□ Also: Google "the Gish gallop," if you're not familiar with it. It gives a good clue to part of what through the President off his game.
(($; -)}™
(a) I have read all you have mentioned, trust me. I am a compulsive political reader and that is why I am here.
(b) You are completely missing the obvious distinction between the various first debate failures of Reagan, Bush and Obama and that of Biden. The first three had their first debate failures when they were 73, 58 and 51 respectively. None of the three were seriously invalid or elderly at the time (Reagan was the oldest). Those first debate failures were clearly adjusted the next time out. Biden is already 81, 8 years OLDER than the oldest example and you are being completely ignorant to ignore this fact. Biden's failure in the debate was also chronic, he continually failed to make solid points and his vocal struggles were so obvious. None of the other three had quite such a serious problem. Finally all three of the others were leading in the polls when they had their first debate failure. Their polls dropped after that but they didn't lose the lead. Biden was already BEHIND at the time of the first debate and NEEDED to be successful. His failure just puts a nail in his political coffin. And it suggests that he will get worse, not better, over time.
(c) I watched the after-party, where Biden looked a bit better, but so what? Most people didn't see that, and they are going to keep in mind the horrific performance in the actual debate. Biden had to "show up" and he failed. The Democrats, if they actually want to win, need a new candidate.
I rest my case. Sorry if we disagree. I am a fervent Democrat of 50+ years. I take no pleasure in this, Biden has been a terrific President, but he is JUST TOO OLD.
Everyone needs to face this. Now.
"Biden's failure in the debate was also chronic, he continually failed to make solid points"
False: https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/by-obsessing-over-tv-visuals-rather
"Everyone needs to face this. Now."
Bugger off.
Now I, in return, have read and considered all that you have said in this comment. (I know I have another one from you, but I’ll try to treat them separately.) My greatest thought relating to your point is that neither of us truly knows the answer to the situation. I read what you say about Pres. Biden’s age; I don’t see it *inherently* to be the impediment that you see it to be. I’m hopeful the case will be made, successfully, that the three-point-X difference in ages between Biden and Trump is far-outweighed by the old-age craziness of Trump.
I just learned about the “Gish gallop.” It explains to me what happens when this “Firehose of Falsehood” technique is used against persons of good faith. I wonder if we’ll get to see a second debate, or if Trump will have the wisdom to back out. If the debate goes forward, I’ll look, and hope, to see an entirely different President.
I appreciate the “Sorry if we disagree.” I’d say that all of us do. At least, all reasonable, respectable, pro-Democracy Americans do.
Whatever the result in relation to the Biden reelection candidacy, let’s hope that the Good Guy or Gal wins!
Thanks for sharing the earnest, concerned thoughts.
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo
"He can't put full sentences together when he is confounded or confused, he can't walk up or down a two step platform without help (Jill had to hold his arm)"
These claims simply aren't true. Here is NYPost, no friend of Biden,
saying "Biden, 81, managed to mount the steps without issue"
https://nypost.com/2024/05/08/us-news/joe-biden-forced-to-steady-himself-while-boarding-air-force-one-en-route-to-wisconsin/
And here is Seth Abramson pointing out how utterly false is this nonsense about not being able to put together sentences: https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/by-obsessing-over-tv-visuals-rather
As for the rest, in addition to your completely ignoring the points in this post,
who the heck is "they"? Biden isn't quitting and the party can't choose another candidate without his approval, so your preferences are just pointless noise that continues this massive deflection and detraction. Put your energy into supporting Biden and attacking and exposing Trump.
Pres. Biden has "exceeded all expectations" by several country miles, around our extended household of some dozen, active Democratic voters.
How can our fellow Americans, let alone our fellow Democrats, not recognize the subtle genius behind his cross-the-aisle successes????
Elsewhere in the Social Media universe, MAGA post that Pres. Biden is a—Well, I won't repeat the two, common insults posted to me, but both of them clearly do not touch the President—and as-clearly point to Mr. Trump.
We have a winning candidate. It's a shame that, even here on the Left, so many of us willingly succumb to the kind of divisive nonsense that even the presumably neutral news outlets put out.
"Genius" is not entirely hyperbole when it comes to President Joe. Jeez, Folks! How much success can one troubled nation take?
Regards,
(($; -)}™
Gozo
Did you read the article you're commenting on? Biden is that viable candidate ... for 3.5 years he has topped the most competent and effective administration in decades. Even if that weren't the case, running someone other than the incumbent is a losing proposition, which is why other leading Democrats had the good sense not to enter the race. So we had a primary with Biden, Dean Phillips, Jason Palmer, Marianne Williamson, and a few others. Biden won 96% of the delegates.