2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[Alex_Krycek]

Ok, so with last night's debate over, and Joe Biden's cognitive impairment on full display for the world, finally a consensus amongst establishment Democrats is forming that he's got to step down to avoid a catastrophic defeat in November. 

So the question becomes, who should replace him?  I think Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer would be likely candidates, although I'd personally prefer Bernie Sanders, but we all know the corrupt DNC won't let that happen. 

What do you think?  Will the Dems mobilise to replace Biden or will they let him take us all down with him?  If they do plan to replace him, who should be put forward?

 

Edited June 29 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

It should have been K Harris, but they decided to keep her locked up in the basement, and out of sight.

Or maybe, even Democrat Americans are afraid of a strong black woman in the highest office.

[TheVat]

Re Sanders, if age is an issue with Biden then it could be one with Bernie who will turn 83 this September.  Though Bernie, in terms of mental sharpness, seems to be more in the category of superagers like Jerry Brown (who I recently saw give a lecture at the University of Chicago, at age 86, and with the energy and mental acuity of a man half his age).  

Anyway, to your main question, I lean towards one of those Midwest centrists who can approach the political middle without having what some will see as coastal elitism or leftist baggage.  Not because I prefer such but because holy crap dear God sweet fucking jumped up Jesus on a motorbike do we need Trump to lose.  

So I would cast a vote for Whitmer (smart, savvy, plain-spoken and good at bipartisanship...and not too hard on the eyes, imho).  Or Klobuchar, for similar reasons.  

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or maybe, even Democrat Americans are afraid of a strong black woman in the highest office.

I doubt that.  One need only observe how Michelle Obama polls when hypothetical Trump matchups are presented.

Edited June 29 by TheVat
pyto

[MigL]

And introduce legislation already.
No one over 65 can run for office.
That means the oldest President will be a maximum of under 73 years of age.
And don't give me any grief about age discrimination; we already discriminate against people younger than 18, because we don't consider them 'competent' adults.
Did either of those two old farts seem 'competent' to anybody ???

The only thing J Biden has going for him, is that with his years of experience he will appoint/delegate the tough choices to capable people.
The orange haired buffoon will appoint only ass-kissing sycophants, and get rid of them when they try to correct him.

[Phi for All]

This might be the perfect time for a candidate opposing big corporate influence. Republicans are pretending to dislike corporations so they can favor the big businesses that favor them and denounce the businesses that object to their voting restrictions, but much of their base is old enough not to like the fascist signals coming off of leadership.

Most (all?) of the age-appropriate Democratic candidates are all corporate sympathizers banking on populism AND negative reactions to populism. The best that can be said about them is that they won't spend any time dismantling our democracy. 

I think there are a LOT of People who want to spend less time worrying about political leadership. They'd like to know that their numbers count for something, that We the People are worth the big investment other countries make every day, and that the current corruption brought on by the lack of corporate regulations and restrictions can be stopped.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ok, so with last night's debate over, and Joe Biden's cognitive impairment on full display for the world,

Biden had a cold. Kindly stop with the GOP lies/talking points

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4744889-joe-biden-has-a-cold-debate/

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So the question becomes, who should replace him?  

Nobody. It’s too late in the process, and you’d be throwing away the advantage incumbents have (name recognition, track record)

[TheVat]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Biden had a cold. Kindly stop with the GOP lies/talking points

I don't think the perception of cognitive impairment is only with the GOP.   The Hill writer's take on Bidens fogginess is kind, but I don't think it is accurate.  One need only browse through the responses of liberal pundits in such places as the NYT, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Reuters, The WaPo, Politico, et al to see a shift in how Bidens slowness on his feet (and completely missing obvious opportunities to strike back at Trump's nonsense) is being seen.  Here's Tom Nichols, who I quoted over in the sister thread to this one:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/06/the-end-of-the-biden-era/678851/

 

GIFT LINK, NO SUBSCR REQUIRED --->

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/06/the-end-of-the-biden-era/678851/?gift=43H6YzEv1tnFbOn4MRsWYq63Ez881LcDKL8p3Z_YDJE&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

 

 

ETA:  And, afterthought:  This is politics.  Perception is everything in politics.  If an old Lefty like me can admit that I saw a befuddled and often vacant Joe Biden Thursday night, then how easily will that political middle, which may well decide the election in a half dozen swing states, have a similar perception?

 

Here's Matt Bai, well known pundit, in WaPo yesterday...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/28/democrats-should-welcome-convention-floor-fight-chicago/

For the past year, at least, the so-called wisest Democrats in Washington have not simply been telling me that President Biden is a strong candidate for president, or even their best candidate — but also that he is the only candidate who can possibly beat Donald Trump, because he is the only one who has done it before.

This was always a childlike rationale. Trump has only beaten one very flawed Democrat, and his party has lost every national election since, so it’s not like you have to be the love child of Lyndon Johnson and Margaret Thatcher to have a chance at beating him. But within the first 20 seconds of Thursday’s debate, as Biden shuffled slowly and unsteadily toward the lectern, it must have occurred even to the president’s admirers that, far from being the only candidate who can win, he might not even rank in the top 10.

The question everyone’s asking is: What comes next? If the answer is chaos and contention, I think Democrats would be wise to bring it on....

Now, they find themselves in the predictable position of having realized — possibly too late — that the imagery of a Biden campaign will overwhelm anything he has to say about policy or judgment. Democrats committed the age-old political sin of confusing hope with strategy, and the country is now at risk of paying for it.

Biden might yet be persuaded to step aside and let the party choose another nominee. But that would likely mean a scramble for votes and a floor fight at the convention (assuming the party couldn’t unify behind Vice President Harris by the time of a virtual nomination vote in August). This scares Democrats to death. It shouldn’t....

[iNow]

Point 1: Biden won’t step down. Absent that, nobody will replace him. 

Point 2: If his wife Jill convinces him it’s time to go and he reluctantly agrees, his weight will get behind his somewhat unpopular VP Kamala Harris, itself a risk. 

Point 3: He’s not technically the candidate yet since the convention hasn’t happened. It’s slightly possible there’s a contested convention, but extremely unlikely. Bidens delegates are pledged to him and take their pledges seriously. 

Point 4: While I agree a Newsom / Whitmer ticket would perform better, it’s like wishing for snow in Texas in July. It’s liberal wish casting and little more and we need to be realistic about the cards that have been dealt. 

Point 5: Yes, he’s old and yes he had a shit debate that amplified those age concerns, but he’s been a very solid president with a solid team and while that doesn’t excite apathetic voters, it does matter. 

Neither of these guys should be our candidate, and RFK and Jill Stein and Cornel West etc. are playing a dangerous game with zero paths to actual victory for themselves, but the primaries were the place to choose different candidates and voters did not. That ship has sailed. 

Edited June 29 by iNow

[swansont]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I don't think the perception of cognitive impairment is only with the GOP. 

IOW, propaganda is effective

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ok, so with last night's debate over, and Joe Biden's cognitive impairment on full display for the world,

What cognitive impairment? He was tired and had probably been over-rehearsed. For the time being, he's quite compos mentis - very, very far from the condition of that other guy.

Replacing the candidate at this point is extremely risky. The only way I'd attempt it is in full assurance than the other party would follow suit.

Bringing Harris forward now would alienate a lot of conservative-leaning people who actually noticed Biden doing a good a pretty good job, and who still only trust a patriarch to run their country. 

After the inauguration - after the recounts, protests and court challenges - Biden can plead infirmity or exhaustion. Then Harris can step forward legally and appoint a popular white male VP. I think she might actually make a good and energetic president, so long as she has a solid cabinet. 

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Biden had a cold. Kindly stop with the GOP lies/talking points

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4744889-joe-biden-has-a-cold-debate/

Nobody. It’s too late in the process, and you’d be throwing away the advantage incumbents have (name recognition, track record)

Reading today, BBC I think, Two medical pro's have him down as showing Parkinson's.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

IOW, propaganda is effective

GOP propaganda or not, Biden is cognitively and physically declining. The effect on him is global.

Edited June 29 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Reading today, BBC I think, Two medical pro's have him down as showing Parkinson's.

Must be early stages. So he has some functional time left....

That is, assuming we trust a diagnosis made on a television screen, rather than an office visit and lab tests. 

Of course he's declining. So am I. But I'm working another book all the same.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

GOP propaganda or not, Biden is cognitively and physically declining. The effect on him is global.

And what about Trump? The propaganda is, as always, meant to shift focus. Every accusation is seemingly an admission.

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’m leery when these proposals come from folks on the outside. Calls for Biden to step aside from people who can’t even vote or wouldn’t vote for a democrat can easily be bad actors attempting to stir the pot.

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Must be early stages

Must be? Have they examined him? Run tests? There’s no link to any story.

Quote

That is, assuming we trust a diagnosis made on a television screen, rather than an office visit and lab tests. 

Exactly.

The only BBC medical story I can find is about his physical earlier this year, declaring him fit 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68429773

 

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

And what about Trump? The propaganda is, as always, meant to shift focus. Every accusation is seemingly an admission.

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’m leery when these proposals come from folks on the outside. Calls for Biden to step aside from people who can’t even vote or wouldn’t vote for a democrat can easily be bad actors attempting to stir the pot.

Yes, the GOP are making  meal of it, but I think you realize that we here are not pro-Trump and trying to undermine Biden in a partisan manner. It is what what it is, with regard to what we observe. For what it's worth, I would rather have Biden over Trump regardless of his physical and cognitive state. For having just these two as the only choices from a population of 340m is a rather sad state of affairs though. I'm firmly with MigL on setting an age limit to reduce the possibility  of this happening again. There is no place for sentimentality in national and global politics

Edited June 29 by StringJunky

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think you realize that we here are not pro-Trump and trying to undermine Biden in a partisan manner

The evidence does not make this clear. The OP broached the topic of cognitive decline 4 years ago. Biden has done a pretty good job as president despite that alleged decline. Smells like an agenda to me.

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

The evidence does not make this clear. The OP broached the topic of cognitive decline 4 years ago. Biden has done a pretty good job as president despite that alleged decline. Smells like an agenda to me.

What is my agenda? That I want to see a GOP presidency the way they are now?

[MigL]

Let's face it.
D Trump would have had a good 4 years also, if he had appointed capable people and not micro-managed all decisions.
Instead he appointed yes-men who were expected to agree with every one of his stupid decisions.

We know J Biden has people who can get the job done; he's proven it for 4 years, but a President has to inspire confidence; Joe did not do that the other night.

Even though the American electorate is extremely polarized, there are still some swing votes that are needed to avert another 4 disastrous Trump years.
They won't do the analysis of J Biden's last 4 years; they will go on perception from the debate, and other media.

I realize it's too late for a Plan B, but there's a very big chance a liar and a cheat may win the Presidency because he's seen as more competent than a 'shuffling', 'stuttering' old man who has done 4 years of good work.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The only BBC medical story I can find is about his physical earlier this year, declaring him fit 

It was probably one of those panel discussion shows where experts dissect a debate they didn't attend between people they never met. IOW, speculation, conjecture and opinion. 

There have been hundreds of medical opinions about Trump's mental condition. None of them said anything we couldn't all see just clearly. He's been obviously losing memory, vocabulary and syntax. He lost any grip on reality a decade ago - it was already loose a decade before that. I watched a couple of episodes of The Apprentice as I might watch ten minutes of Nightmare on Elm Street - too rigid with horror to change the channel.     

[Alex_Krycek]

This idea that Biden just "had a bad debate" is a delusional understatement.  Did anyone making that statement actually watch the debate on Thursday, or clips of it?

Biden couldn't finish half of his sentences.  When he wasn't struggling to conclude a basic thought he looked confused and bewildered. 

Should we be really surprised that an 81 year old has these issues?  

It's not too late for the DNC to replace him.  The deadline for doing so would be in August.   The NYT Editorial board and other media outlets have officially called for him to step down.  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/opinion/biden-election-debate-trump.html

 

From that Article:

_{^{As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.}}

^{_{Supporters of the president are already explaining away Thursday’s debate as one data point compared with three years of accomplishments. But the president’s performance cannot be written off as a bad night or blamed on a supposed cold, because it affirmed concerns that have been mounting for months or even years.}} 

 

At this point it is woefully unlikely that Biden will be back in office come November.  Frankly, I don't think he deserves to be given his cognitive state.  

The Dems can pick literally anybody else and have a much better chance at victory.  

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Reading today, BBC I think, Two medical pro's have him down as showing Parkinson's.

GOP propaganda or not, Biden is cognitively and physically declining. The effect on him is global.

Yes, I think its fairly obvious which is why the media, other world leaders, and medical professionals are calling it out.  

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The evidence does not make this clear. The OP broached the topic of cognitive decline 4 years ago. Biden has done a pretty good job as president despite that alleged decline. Smells like an agenda to me.

Whether or not the empirical evidence is conclusive is somewhat irrelevant here; this is a presidential election: perception is reality.  On Thursday night the American public saw a man who looks like he deserves to be in a retirement home under 24 hour care, not the leader of the free world.   

Edited June 29 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What is my agenda? That I want to see a GOP presidency the way they are now?

Are you the OP? Did I say you had an agenda? 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This idea that Biden just "had a bad debate" is a delusional understatement.

A G E N D A

Are you eligible to vote in US elections?

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

IOW, propaganda is effective

It can be, but what I saw Thursday night was a gentleman experiencing mental decline, as did many other Biden admirers.  As Tom Nichols described in The Atlantic, opportunity after opportunity to call out Trump passed him by as he garbled a basket of statistics and talking points.   Politics is about perception, as I said earlier, and what was perceived by millions was not propaganda but Joe without editing to conceal his disturbing lapses.  Voters who watched the debate cannot help but wonder if putting Joe in for 4 more years might be elder abuse.  A crack support team is nice, but a POTUS has to lead, meet foreign leaders and show strength and decisiveness in a crisis, engage with domestic issues and crises, spur action, and sometimes miss a lot of sleep.  The support team can't do that for him.  

[StringJunky]

If the result is close as expected, the swing voters/floaters could push Trump over the finishing line.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It can be, but what I saw Thursday night was a gentleman experiencing mental decline, as did many other Biden admirers.  As Tom Nichols described in The Atlantic, opportunity after opportunity to call out Trump passed him by as he garbled a basket of statistics and talking points.   Politics is about perception, as I said earlier, and what was perceived by millions was not propaganda but Joe without editing to conceal his disturbing lapses.  Voters who watched the debate cannot help but wonder if putting Joe in for 4 more years might be elder abuse.  A crack support team is nice, but a POTUS has to lead, meet foreign leaders and show strength and decisiveness in a crisis, engage with domestic issues and crises, spur action, and sometimes miss a lot of sleep.  The support team can't do that for him.  

And we have a thread on the support team Trump will install, to basically dismantle the government from within.

Why is it that we can’t hold both men - who have a track record in office, and whose plans for the next four years are known - to the same standard?

You want a POTUS who can lead and show strength in meeting foreign leaders. Who do you think has the respect of them right now? Is Trump going to magically develop these traits? 

Why aren’t we discussing why the convicted felon, rapist and fraudster, who regularly engaged in corruption, should withdraw?

[TheVat]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why is it that we can’t hold both men - who have a track record in office, and whose plans for the next four years are known - to the same standard?

You want a POTUS who can lead and show strength in meeting foreign leaders. Who do you think has the respect of them right now? Is Trump going to magically develop these traits? 

This is a misunderstanding.  I would never vote for Trump, and have posted extensively here on the horrors of Project 2025.  But I also want a Democrat to actually win.  I am talking about perception of millions of voters who will not make the purely rational choice of Biden based on his track record or how fantastic his brain trust is.  Presidents have to project some energy, and many will not vote for someone who they find wanting in that respect.  Trump, with his fast and forceful blather, will continue to impress those he has conned, and those people vote.  

Edited June 29 by TheVat

[StringJunky]

Just now, swansont said:

And we have a thread on the support team Trump will install, to basically dismantle the government from within.

Why is it that we can’t hold both men - who have a track record in office, and whose plans for the next four years are known - to the same standard?

You want a POTUS who can lead and show strength in meeting foreign leaders. Who do you think has the respect of them right now? Is Trump going to magically develop these traits? 

You are looking at it the wrong way. Biden is not the only option. Nobody here wants Trump to win, so, in order to increase the chances of that nightmare not happening, the Dems need a new candidate. Yes, Biden's record has been fine, but on its own does not qualify him to carry on if some of those attributes are disappearing before everyone's eyes. Nothing and no one lasts forever in one piece. So it is with Biden. C'est la vie. 

I honestly don't believe the core of this situation is propaganda in this case, but the longer Biden carries on now, the less chance there is of turning things around before November. The snowball of concern has been pushed and will only get bigger.