I think the party would, but I'm not so sure about the American people.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
Printable View
I think the party would, but I'm not so sure about the American people.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
Agree if the other members of Democratic Party don't want to support Kamela Harris as the nominee ,even though she would be the rightful nominee. And them choosing to go in another direction by picking someone else as their nominee would create a very messy situation,and they would be blamed for disunity within the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I think that most members of the Democratic Party would support Kamela Harris as the nominee,if President Joe Biden made the decision to end his campaign. Some of the american people will,some of them won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Do you believe that Biden can effectively make the case against Trump and perform the job for the next 4 years? If the answer is no, and you also believe that Trump is a threat to democracy, then surely something must be done even if it's risky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Risk aversion is not a good strategy when you are well behind and the stakes are high.
To clarify -my post assumed a Biden victory in November. If for whatever reason Biden withdraws before November, Harris will be President, but the Democrat Convention, whose delegates are there to nominate Biden via the Primaries, will face the question -must they open up the Convention to a 'super Primary' in which the Delegates nominate and then select their Candidate? I don't know the rules so I am making this assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
A hypothetical candidate is not the answer. Of course one can conceive that there is a better candidate, but there has to be a name. And that name has to go through the process of gaining Democratic delegates to get the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Would an interview with George Stephanopoulos count?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
http://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/media/...los/index.html
I guess it's a start, though I don't know what Stephanopolous has been saying. It would be good to have someone who has been sceptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
There also needs to be more than just one. Only four proper interviews in an election year is not good. They have clearly been shielding him from scrutiny.
Have you ever watched a Donald Trump interview?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The fact is that Biden is behind and has been for some time. The onus is on him to change people's minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
The idea that we could ignore Biden's shortcomings because Trump is worse is exactly why we are in this position. Like it or not, clearly not enough voters are convinced.
Kamala couldn't reach 1% support in her home state when she ran in 2020.
Citation needed. The polls I've seen have all been pretty much neck and neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
FiveThirtyEight average of national polls shows Biden was only briefly level and now the gap has opened up again.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...2024/national/
I guess Biden won't be doing any interviews with Carl Bernstein:
Carl Bernstein: Sources say Biden’s debate ‘horror show’ far from a ‘one-off’
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...on-cooper-cnn/
blackchubby, you are a smart guy -what do you think are the Democrats best options? And if you had a magic wand, who would you want to contest the election?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Looks like President Joe Biden is staying in the race til the end. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...tep-rcna160104
Here's another polling average which is even worse - Trump up by 2.9% nationally.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/pol...trump-vs-biden
The picture in the swing states is not good - Trump is well ahead in all but Wisconsin.
Another Question For My Fellow Posters: President Joe Biden says he's not leaving,and will remain in the race til the end,even though most polls have him trailing Donald Trump. Do you think that by him staying the course,is an attempt by him and his campaign
to squash all the calls from Democrats for him to step aside and let somebody else run in his place?
Polling results have not been reliable since at least 2016. Hillary Clinton was supposed to win, according to polls. Since Biden was elected, Democrats were supposed to lose in midterms but didn't. Initiatives to preserve abortions were supposed to fail but didn't. Also, today is July 3rd. The election is in November.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I think if the Democrats won't support their own candidate (who has pledged delegates and millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions) then there's no reason for anyone else to support their candidate. They need to learn to commit and support. Hand wringing won't move the needle.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
Agree 100%. And the reasons Joe Biden isn't stepping down from the campaign trail,is because he defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 Election,and thinks he's the best candidate to defeat him again in the upcoming election. And he also wants to prove to his fellow Democrats that he is the right man for the job,and can serve and complete a second term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
So ignore what we saw last week, assume the voters will also ignore it, assume the polls are wrong and everything's really going fine? Sounds like a great strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
It seems like you would rather Trump be President than admit you have been wrong.
I'm guessing that if Biden was doing well in the polls you would not be telling us to ignore them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
The idea that polls were okay until 2016 but no good since then seems to be a bit of a myth. Polls have always been subject to error, and it can go either way (ie Biden's support could also be overstated). Polls in 2022 were actually better than average historically.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ling-accuracy/
But Hillary Clinton did win in 2026 -the popular vote. What the polls do not or cannot show is how votes in the general election translate into the results of the Electoral College. I don't see how Trump can win in November unless he both retains his share of the Republican vote and increases his support among Democrat and undecided voters. The full impact of the court cases might not be as damaging as the polls suggest, but the only way I see Trump winning is through the manipulation of the vote by state officials, with the prospect that the Supreme Court finds some sophistry to change the outcome. But all this presumes the two candidates are still there in November, and we can't be sure of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
On another level, the polls in the UK in 2017 were wrong because the polling organizations underestimated the 'youth vote', so the organizations are capable of being wrong, though I assume after the 2016 experience they have smartened up their act.
They do because they do polling for the swing states where results have been close in recent elections. Trump is ahead in 6 of the 7 and tied in the other, which would mean a clearcut EC win. Biden probably needs at least Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.realclearpolling.com/ele...eground-states
No one is ignoring what happened on one evening last week. But that was one event that should not determine the entirety of time that follows it. That poor performance did not change what Biden has achieved while in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I do not want Trump to be president. If a non-Biden savior were going to emerge, it would have happened before the Democratic primaries. The Democrats need to rally behind their candidate.
You are guessing wrong. I have been skeptical of the polls since 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
A fair point to make, if scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Kamala Harris -against, in the Guardian, and against, in the Telegraph (consistently anti-Biden-Harris anyway).
If she divides opinion so much, does she have a genuine shot? And then it is possible that she may be moulded by the Office rather than the other way round, and a lot would depend on who she brings in to her White House team, setting aside the claims she is a poor manager of people.
I just don't know enough to make a judgment.
Telegraph also pushing the Michelle Obama argument, perhaps prompted by their American informers?
Who can we blame for Joe Biden’s gamble? Angry Democrats are starting to point the finger | Emma Brockes | The Guardian
Kamala Harris Mocked Over BET Awards Video: 'Cringe' - Newsweek
Republicans launch attack ads over fears Kamala Harris will replace Joe Biden (telegraph.co.uk)
The world must prepare for President Michelle Obama (msn.com)
Michelle Obama has never served in public office. That's a ridiculous fantasy. No matter how much anyone admires her, she does not have the experience necessary to be president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
@Stavros: I would like to hear your thoughts on the question i posted yesterday.
Last night President Joe Biden said that he wasn't leaving the campaign trail,even though he's trailing Donald Trump in the polls in several key battleground states and despite calls from fellow Democratic Lawmakers and Political Pundits to step aside,and let somebody else run in his place. And yes his performance in last week's debate was terrible,and his campaign taking the risk to having the debate in late june was very bad idea that backfired. And a 90 minute debate where he wasn't his best,doesn't erase over 3 1/2 years of the great work that him and his administration has accomplished. If the democrats didn't think that Joe Biden wasn't up too the task of serving and completing a second term,they should have began the process of finding a candidate who they thought had a better chance of defeating Donald Trump in the upcoming election over a year ago,before the democratic primaries. And with the Democratic National Convention over a month away,and the General Election over 120 days, it is too late for him to step aside and let somebody else run. What the Democrats need to do is to help him turn things around,by going out to the battleground states and speak to voters about the upcoming election,and why they should vote for President Joe Biden and tell them about the vision he has for the country. And i sure as hell don't want too see Donald Trump becoming president ever again,because that would be the end of democracy.
@BlackChubby: I would also like hear your thoughts on the comment i posted yesterday.
Their only best option now is to pray and hope Biden doesn't shit his pan..., I mean the bed come November.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
In a perfect scenario, Biden would have pledged to be one term President back in 2020, therefore allowing Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and anybody else who would have been interested to compete in the primaries.
Instead, the Democrats were so concerned about Trump being reelected, that they convinced themselves that despite Biden's obvious flaws, he was the only one who would beat Trump again. But the one thing that they, the media, and many Democratic voters have not realized (or they have and just don't want to admit it) is that if it wasn't for the pandemic, there is a very good chance Trump would have won back in 2020.
Even when you take that into consideration, there was still time to do something about it by people convincing Biden that he accomplished what he set out to do. He realized his goal of becoming President, he beat Trump, and he got the country back on track post pandemic*. Now it was time for him to hand the reigns over to someone else and let them be the Democratic nominee. It would allow him to concentrate on the running the country during a pivotal election year. But they didn’t do that.
There was still time to do something though. Maybe if more people would have the balls to do what Doug Jones did and challenge Biden during the primaries, it could have made a difference. Instead, the guy was dismissed, ridiculed and called a “Putin Puppet” and the Democrats rallied around Biden and declared, “He is our guy”.
So, here we are now and barring some unforeseen circumstances, the Democrats are stuck with Biden. Because even if many of them wanted to change donkeys in midstream, they couldn’t do so without possibly causing a civil war in the Democratic Party. As evident by this statement:
California delegate says Black women will 'blow the party up' if Dems pick a 'White man over Kamala Harris'
http://www.foxnews.com/media/califor...-kamala-harris
In conclusion, we just to have to hope that Biden’s staff does a better job at prepping him before the next debate and that he doesn’t have jet lag. Oh and that there aren't any October surprises.
*-If you don’t count things like immigration and inflation.
Yes, Biden is telling them they have no one else to to turn to and that they need to fall in line.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
Whitmer Disavows ‘Draft Gretch’ Movement — and Delivers A Warning to BidenQuote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
http://www.politico.com/news/magazin...-2028-00165995
Agree,that is exactly the message President Joe Biden is telling the people who are calling for him to step aside,and let somebody else run. And he's their nominee whether they like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Thanks for this, blackchubby. I don't know, but maybe there is a 'system' failure here, just as in 2016 there was criticism of Hillary Clinton as the candidate, not because she actually won the popular vote, but simply because though she had been Senator for New York and Secretary of State she was, well, Mrs Clinton. It looked at the time like Robert Kennedy following JFK, but at the same time one could imagine if it existed, a Democrat Party 'elite' looking after their own, elevating someone on the basis that they had served their time in the trenches and it was now time to step up to the highest office. Even if Clinton would have been a good President, it was also a red rag to Republicans who literally hated both Bill and Hillary -indeed, it has been argued, and not just by me, that it was during the Clinton Presidency that Newton Gingrich began the deeply sectarian war against the Democrats, and that much of the poisonous rejection of bi-partisan politics dates from this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Thus, again, what in the UK we would call the 'men in grey suits' may have rejected the idea of Biden being a one-term President and backed him even though he would be the oldest President in US history with a vulnerability to all of the hazards of old age. Once it was clear Trump was going to be the Republican nominee - and he got in early with his declaration- it should have been clear that a younger, sharper candidate capable of shredding Trump in public, while maintaining the party's policy programme would have been ideal, indeed might secure the Presidency for 8 not just 4 more years.
That said, it is now up to the Democrats to hammer Trump on everything that he is weak on, not just his character. As Heather Cox said in the interview I posted earlier today, the Republican Party is promoting policies on Abortion, Gun Control and Corporate Tax cuts which are not popular, and which leaves Trump vulnerable IF the focus is on the policies he wants that the US public does not, and that is without even bringing in the scorched earth proposals in Project 2025.
It is all to play for, will the Democrats play it right? And play it rough?
I recommend the interview Christian Amanpour had with Heather Cox which I posted earlier today. Cox points out that the only time something similar happened in recent memory (well, mine at least!) was when LBJ in 1968 declined to run in November, and thew the Democrat Party into chaos, with Hubert Humphrey becoming their candidate and losing to Nixon. I recall the chaotic scenes in Chicago, aggravated by protests over the Vietnam War, and the divisions within the Democrats who at that time in the 1960s were discovering 'sectional' politics like it was a new addiction, but with the impression that the party was so divided against itself it was unfit for office, something that persisted to scuttle George McGovern's chances in 1972 -and note too that when the Republicans lost power, it was due to their own behaviour not some external shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0
Everything that happened in the 1960s -'race riots', Martin Luther King, alive in 1963, dead in 1968, Gay Liberation, Feminism, the Voter Registration and Rights Acts, and the humiliation of Nixon between 1973-74 became the foundations of the 'fightback' from the Republican Party, and each time it has met a setback, it has re-doubled its efforts and radicalized its policy agenda so that today the TEA Party 'radicals' look pathetic compared to Trump and Project 2025.
Often in politics, power is lost by the people who have it because of their own failures, not through some external cause -if Biden loses in November, you can't blame it on a pathological liar, convicted criminal and puppet of the autocrats -it will be the Democrats own fault.
Add to that a media that has enabled Trump to bluff his way through blatant crime and contempt for the US political system, and the tragic complicity of the Supreme Court, and the US is truly in peril, the damage that Trump can cause of a kind that will cost a generation of Americans some of the fundamental freedoms that evidently were taken for granted, if not from the 1960s then since 1776.