2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[CharonY]

One thing to consider is what is to be considered fit for office. Clearly, Biden is not in the shape he once was and cognitively there are folks that are better. On the other hand, his opponent is clearly not fit for office. Not only from an ideological standpoint, but he also screwed up one of biggest global challenges of recent times (COVID-19) resulting in way more deaths than necessary. So if that passes the bar for fitness, clearly Biden does too.

Provided that the president puts the right people into place, they might as well nap through the presidency. I don't think the bar is actually lower than that.

But I think the actual question the Dems have is whether Biden is able to beat Trump. And as others already noted, this is quite a bit more difficult to figure out.

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

No, that’s one take being offered up by spin doctors, people asserting opinion as if it were fact, and/or people hoping to sabotage the democrats.

The biggest saboteur at this point is Biden himself.  If you want to beat Trump, we need someone who can appeal to independent voters.  

He's still losing every single swing state, as of 3 hours ago.  Is that a "winning" candidate?  Don't be ludicrous.

10 hours ago, MSC said:

So far you've suggested an 80 year old man is in the early stages of Parkinson's and I've already pointed out a good reason, based on what is known of Parkinson's disease and the average age of onset, why that probably isn't the case, making it an extraordinary claim. What do we say about extraordinary claims? They require extraordinary proof. DaT and MRI.

Nice mental gymnastics.  Too bad you'll miss the Paris olympics this time around.  The notion that Biden may have Parkinson's is in no way an "extraordinary claim", as numerous medical professionals have attested to at this point, no to mention the senior staff of his inner circle who have come forward and said he's not competent to continue.

[MSC]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The biggest saboteur at this point is Biden himself.  If you want to beat Trump, we need someone who can appeal to independent voters.  

He's still losing every single swing state, as of 3 hours ago.  Is that a "winning" candidate?  Don't be ludicrous.

Nice mental gymnastics.  Too bad you'll miss the Paris olympics this time around.  The notion that Biden may have Parkinson's is in no way an "extraordinary claim", as numerous medical professionals have attested to at this point, no to mention the senior staff of his inner circle who have come forward and said he's not competent to continue.

Oh one became numerous since you last made the claim? Again you're grasping at straws and again I've heard nothing from Bidens real Dr, his caninet or his VP. See there is this thing called confirmation bias and you have it hard right now. 

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

He's still losing every single swing state, as of 3 hours ago.  Is that a "winning" candidate?  Don't be ludicrous.

He's still the democratic candidate. Nobody here can change that so quit crying about it. If that changes before the election you can say I told you so. 

And it's still an extraordinary claim to say an 80 year old is showing early signs of Parkinson's, a disease which normally starts around 60, without giving him a medical examination. Can you diagnose cancer by looking at someone? No. You can't do it with Parkinson's either and taking a quick look at someone's behaviour on TV isn't a medical examination. You've accepted as fact that which hasn't been proven and you expect people on a science forum to not point it out? Next joke. If Biden had parkinsons then he'd be in the later stages and would have an uncontrollable tremor. It would be unmistakable. 

Here is the difference between me and you right now; I address everything you say, best to worst points. You can't even respond to the majority of what I said and explain to anyone here why it isn't valid. In terms of effectively convincing someone that what you say is true, you've got a long way to go. Your debate performance is worse than Bidens at this point yet nobody is claiming you have dementia are they?

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

But I think the actual question the Dems have is whether Biden is able to beat Trump. And as others already noted, this is quite a bit more difficult to figure out.

It's more difficult to figure out for anyone else. At least Biden has beaten Trump once already. I had this same debate in 2019 though when the polls showed Trump with a poll advantage and was accused of mental gymnastics then too. Biden still won.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

Biden is not in the shape he once was and cognitively there are folks that are better

In fairness; you could say there were cognitively better choices in all the elections but people can unfortunately only choose from who is running. 

[TheVat]

Biden seemed focused and really on top of foreign policy last night in his press conference.  His decades of expertise showed, something we really needed to see right now.   I didn't see any hand tremors (it would help if they would provide him a glass of water at these appearances - being able to see him lift a glass would provide further confirmation).  He also said he would accept having a neuro exam, if his team of doctors recommended it.  

Best strategy might be to let Kamala out of the basement  i.e. give her more high-profile assignments and public visibility (something many VPs do not get much of), to help us get a stronger sense of her as a potential back-up POTUS.  

(I don't suppose they could just reverse the ticket. )

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, MSC said:

Oh one became numerous since you last made the claim?   See there is this thing called confirmation bias and you have it hard right now. 

We're both human: you're also susceptible to the same confirmation bias that Biden is completely fine.  

Regarding disclosure, the Biden's have zero interest in disclosing the real state of the President's health.   This is the most damaging aspect of their dishonest strategy.

7 hours ago, MSC said:

He's still the democratic candidate. Nobody here can change that so quit crying about it. If that changes before the election you can say I told you so. 

We'll see what happens with his candidacy.  If he remains the nominee, I believe we'll be all be invited to a screening of "Donny Dangerous: Part 2"  in November.

Edited July 12 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Biden's recent behaviour is still evident and can't be disputed. If a person is driving a car erratically, it doesn't matter what caused them to do so, they need taking off the road.

You're right.
His recent behavior over the past year does lead one to believe his mental competency is in decline. But through years of experience, has managed to recognize reliable people he can call upon to run a government much more effectively since 2020, than the previous 4 years.
And I realize it's 'whataboutism', but his opponent in the future election has been acting erratically for the past couple of decades, along with demonstrated criminal behavior, anti-social misogynistic behavior, severe reality denial, and surrounds himself with ass-kissing yes men.
( at least until they realize he may be quite mad )

So who would you suggest should be taken 'off the road' ?

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Biden seemed focused and really on top of foreign policy last night in his press conference.  His decades of expertise showed, something we really needed to see right now.   I didn't see any hand tremors (it would help if they would provide him a glass of water at these appearances - being able to see him lift a glass would provide further confirmation).  He also said he would accept having a neuro exam, if his team of doctors recommended it.  

Best strategy might be to let Kamala out of the basement  i.e. give her more high-profile assignments and public visibility (something many VPs do not get much of), to help us get a stronger sense of her as a potential back-up POTUS.  

(I don't suppose they could just reverse the ticket. )

They think she's unelectable - that America is not ready for a person who represents all that America has pretended to be and wasn't. That's not what's said aloud: she's unpopular. Probably has plenty of opportunity to piss off some people, sure - what effective jurist or legislator hasn't? 

As with Biden's lapses being diagnosed all over cyberland by people who never met him (my current suspicion is a couple of mini-strokes under the stress of campaigning.), the more an opinion is repeated, the more traction it gets. But I think she'd surprise everyone.

People see two old men, each with obvious issues, and they have to wonder about the future, which is going to be rocky, no matter what happens in US politics. The Trump supporters are used to his derangement and don't care. The Biden supporters have always counted on a cool and reasonable leader, so they're panicking. The Trump-averse Republicans don't know what to do.

I think there is much to be gained from presenting a complete antithesis to Trump - a young, energetic, good-looking, personable, smart woman. She just might mobilize the disaffected minorities and youth.   

Edited July 12 by Peterkin

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

We're both human: you're also susceptible to the same confirmation bias that Biden is completely fine

A false dichotomy and a strawman. 

Quote

Regarding disclosure, the Biden's have zero interest in disclosing the real state of the President's health.   This is the most damaging aspect of their dishonest strategy.

And now you’re begging the question. The strategy is only dishonest if they’re hiding something, which you are assuming. 

This does raise the question of why they’d agree to a debate (and a debate before the convention) if they were hiding anything.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You're right.
His recent behavior over the past year does lead one to believe his mental competency is in decline. But through years of experience, has managed to recognize reliable people he can call upon to run a government much more effectively since 2020, than the previous 4 years.
And I realize it's 'whataboutism', but his opponent in the future election has been acting erratically for the past couple of decades, along with demonstrated criminal behavior, anti-social misogynistic behavior, severe reality denial, and surrounds himself with ass-kissing yes men.
( at least until they realize he may be quite mad )

So who would you suggest should be taken 'off the road' ?

Trump, but that's not an option, so if the other lame horse steps aside, a relatively young filly can increase the optical contrast between them and make the voters choice easier. She'd also be the first female Prez, which would be a landmark, just as Obama did. From where I sit Harris would create better optics for the the swing voters who are not overly partisan for either side.

Edited July 12 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Trump, but that's not an option, so if the other lame horse steps aside, a relatively young filly can increase the optical contrast between them and make the voters choice easier. She'd also be the first female Prez, which would be a landmark, just as Obama did. From where I sit Harris would create better optics for the the swing voters who are not overly partisan for either side.

I expect you'd get similar defections from voters not ready for a woman president as you got with H. Clinton.  

[iNow]

Benghazi!

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I expect you'd get similar defections from voters not ready for a woman president as you got with H. Clinton.  

Some, probably. There are still fossils who think no mere female can do the job.

But the two women have very little else in common. Clinton was hampered by her baggage (Bill; past errors) and her personality came across as cold and hard a lot of the time. She was trying to do a Thatcher, I guess, and it didn't work. 

I don't think Harris would make the same impression. Besides, time has passed; some of the fossils have died, more millennials have reached voting age.

[Alex_Krycek]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

A false dichotomy and a strawman. 

Not in the slightest.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And now you’re begging the question. The strategy is only dishonest if they’re hiding something, which you are assuming. 

This does raise the question of why they’d agree to a debate (and a debate before the convention) if they were hiding anything.

A debate with the most overprotective rules in US history, where the opponents mic is cut, and with a measly two minute first answer and 1 minute rebuttal time.  So that tells you they were desperately trying to control the playing field and keep Biden's exposure to a minimum.  That debate was a far cry from Obama / Romney or even Clinton / Trump in 2016.  

Edited July 12 by Alex_Krycek

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So that tells you they were desperately trying to control the playing field and keep Biden's exposure to a minimum. 

No, they were desperately trying to keep Trump from turning it into one of his rallies.

[Alex_Krycek]

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, they were desperately trying to keep Trump from turning it into one of his rallies.

That's plausible.

At this stage it looks like the Dems are working to isolate the President: donors pulling out, congressional leaders refusing to endorse him and openly calling for his withdrawal, his closest allies (Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Clooney) subtly or overtly suggesting he shouldn't run.

Will be interesting to see how long he continues as this isolation increases.  

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I expect you'd get similar defections from voters not ready for a woman president as you got with H. Clinton.  

Hilary blew it with the email thing. It came across as entitled behaviour iirc.

[iNow]

On 7/11/2024 at 7:45 PM, CharonY said:

the actual question the Dems have is whether Biden is able to beat Trump.

The anti-Trump portion of the voting populace is quite a bit larger than the pro-Biden portion of the voting populace.

The challenge (as I cited a while back in this thread) is apathy and people choosing either not to vote or to waste their vote on a 3rd party candidate (de facto making it a vote FOR Trump). 

That lack of energized turnout then has an amplified and disastrous effect by hurting congressional raises in the house and senate down the ballot. Some of those races are exceedingly close and can be won or lost by a few hundred votes… and all of them will get challenged in courts led by Trump appointed judges.

This is where the panic is.  Trump cannot be allowed back into power AND a GOP led congress will only further harm our efforts to curb climate change and avoid reductions in women’s bodily autonomy AND he’d support Putin and pull us out of Ukraine and NATO and ad infinitum. 
 

Gaming this out, I’d like to see the Republican convention happen then finish, Biden announce his stately decision to pass the torch to Kamala Harris at their own Democratic convention, then have Harris choose Gretchen Whitmer as her VP.

A double female ticket will create enough energy to totally reset the narrative, drive tons of excitement and turnout, and they could probably even carry the critical 3 electoral states of Wisconsin, Michigan (where Whitmer is Governor), and Pennsylvania. 

Then Joe gets newly celebrated for once again putting his country first and is considered to be one of the best most selfless presidents we’ve ever had (similar to how George Washington is still celebrated for voluntarily giving up his presidency and setting the example for the next 250 years). 

Edited July 13 by iNow

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

A double female ticket will create enough energy to totally reset the narrative,

It would work for me, but probably not for a lot of middle-aged and older Americans. Balance would probably look better. Newsome looks about right for the press photos - male, white, solid. I don't know much about him. Optics matter a great deal to poorly-informed people with short attention spans and memories. Maybe they'll even go out an vote, if the choice is between two attractive, smiling, racially diverse candidates and that trainwreck of a human being smirking next to a blank oval.  

Edited July 13 by Peterkin

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Newsome looks about right for the press photos - male, white, solid. I don't know much about him. Optics matter a great deal to poorly-informed people with short attention spans and memories.

And for those same reasons, reports suggest he’s who Trump is most afraid of facing if Biden isn’t any longer on the ticket 

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Trump, but that's not an option, so if the other lame horse steps aside, a relatively young filly can increase the optical contrast between them and make the voters choice easier. She'd also be the first female Prez, which would be a landmark, just as Obama did. From where I sit Harris would create better optics for the the swing voters who are not overly partisan for either side.

You and @Peterkin both seem to see the Harris that I do.   And just now @iNow has outlined some of the excitement and fresh interest that could be unleashed by an ovarian ticket instead of the wrinkled testicle tickets presently available.  Seriously, yes, landmarks are a real thing and we need one over here.  Also, full disclosure, I think Kamala is sort of a hottie.  I can envision a Harris/Whitmer rally...

ME:  There's a rally in Denver tonight.  Do you want to jump in the car and drive six hours to see it?

SPOUSE:  What is wrong with you?  You have never gone to a political rally in your entire life.  And you hate long drives.

ME:  They're so.... lovely.

SPOUSE:  What are lovely?

ME:  Um... the mountains!  The mountains are so lovely!

SPOUSE:  You live in the mountains.  Idiot.

 

[StringJunky]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

A double female ticket will create enough energy to totally reset the narrative, drive tons of excitement and turnout, and they could probably even carry the critical 3 electoral states of Wisconsin, Michigan (where Whitmer is Governor), and Pennsylvania. 

Then Joe gets newly celebrated for once again putting his country first and is considered to be one of the best most selfless presidents we’ve ever had (similar to how George Washington is still celebrated for voluntarily giving up his presidency and setting the example for the next 250 years). 

That works for me. The optical contrast between them and Trump would be glaring and probably have more people, especially gender equality-minded women going to vote, not to mention the landmark nature of such a pairing. A Newsome/Harris pairing could work as well. Harris needs to be there as a familiar face in any of the combinations, I think.

Edited July 13 by StringJunky

[iNow]

And unless/until Biden steps down, we’re all just wish casting a wet dream 

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

And unless/until Biden steps down, we’re all just wish casting a wet dream 

What else can we do? The alternative is our collective worst nightmare.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What else can we do?

Take a walk. Spend time with kids. Prepare a meal. Read a book. Basically, just breathe and proceed with life. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Prepare a meal. Read a book. Basically, just breathe and proceed with life. 

I still have a little time left over to speculate on the deluge after me.