Post New

....This Morning with Mria Bartiromo

Democrat strategist and political commentator on CNN MSNBC and other Dem stations

1. The Democrat party hs gone too far to the left
2. Gavin Newsome looks too "thin" to be considered a viable candidate for President
3. Biden is no longer mentally prepared to be President
4. Thinks the Dems need to find a Centrist candidate if they want to win
5. Likes Joe Manchin or a similar candidate if the Dems hope to win

and a few other rational and sane observations.

I dont know a thing about Manchin's executive skills.

But - I think it would be a pleasure to vote for him for President.


IN the end, I'm actually more interested in 2028 in that I feel 2024 is only meaningful to finish the Trump era in politics. TRUMP-ISM will go on due to the conceit of the Establishment, and conceit of the Google Link Jockey here. But in 2024 Either trump wins - - and in 4 years he's over, OR he loses, and he's over.

Also, in 2028 you people get closer to more fun things such as the Coastal Liberals taking more jobs from blue collar Americans via A.I. Also it'll get closer to the day when Medicare and Social Security has to be cut in some way shape or form. If Biden, Hillary, Sticky Nikki and her Israeli masters haven't mired America in another suicidal and homicidal war, there will be *real* issues on the table. We'll know if Progressives sold out, got bought off by Israel, OR if Israel politically lynched the women of color and Progressives and got rid of them. ON THE RIGHT.....we'll know if the Pro-Life cause was partial birth abortion'ed and extinguished. We'll know if MAGA was vanquished, and the anti-base Google Jockeys took over in the traditions of Romney, Bush, Haley, etc.

And the bench is interesting. Newsom? Yeah, on my radar for a decade on TMF.

I continue bullish on Beshear (you people will be talking about him later.

There's others I'm sure, I just dont watch tribal politics like I used to.

But, I'm more interested in 2028 than I am in 2024, for sure. Or FOH-SHOW- as American culture nowadays would say.

Democrat strategist and political commentator on CNN MSNBC and other Dem stations

1. The Democrat party hs gone too far to the left

Absurd. The GOP went so far to the right a dictatorship is on the horizon and it's possible.

2. Gavin Newsome looks too "thin" to be considered a viable candidate for President

Nothing of substance to talk about I see. Newsome is good Presidential timber.

3. Biden is no longer mentally prepared to be President He's been doing well so far. All ya got is pretend mental state?

4. Thinks the Dems need to find a Centrist candidate if they want to win

Biden is centrist. Ya mean centrist like Orban is centrist?

5. Likes Joe Manchin or a similar candidate if the Dems hope to win No thanks. I'll go with Newsome.

and a few other rational and sane observations.

Saying Newsome is too thin is rational?
ra·tion·al 1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

That observation is typical when there is nothing of real substance to say. So - ya got nothing it appears.

"That observation is typical when there is nothing of real substance to say. So - ya got nothing it appears"

Given that Epstein is and has been for many years and campaigns a leading Dem strategist it is interesting that he would come and say these things, and on FOX at that. If you have disagreement with these thoughts take them up with him, killing the messenger is as old as time. It may be a signaling of the long knives coming out from the Dem establishment for a Biden removal and replacement.

"...it is interesting that he would come and say these things, and on FOX at that."

The Money Honey on Fox as a meaningful source for discussion???

TV has rotted your brain.

Boater: Democrat strategist and political commentator on CNN MSNBC and other Dem stations

Literally never heard of him. When I looked him up I only see clips with him talking to Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo on Fox. Evidently he was an adviser during the Bill Clinton impeachment, so what, 25 years ago?

In any event, anyone who suggests Joe Manchin as a viable presidential candidate is nuts, especially considering Manchin was 13 pts behind his opponent in WVA before he decided to quit the race and is seriously underwater in job approval in his own state.

It may be a signaling of the long knives coming out from the Dem establishment for a Biden removal and replacement.

As we've discussed before, that's not feasible.

What you are seeing are people setting themselves up to deliver some "I told you so" statements if Biden loses re-election. That's still a bad sign for Biden, for a lot of reasons - but losing the nomination isn't really one of the things he needs to worry about.

"The Money Honey on Fox as a meaningful source for discussion???

TV has rotted your brain."

reading comprehension is not your strong suit. These were Epstein's thoughts..Run along now little boy.

"Literally never heard of him."

That figures, I never thought you were particularly well informed. . .

"As we've discussed before, that's not feasible."

It is Biden voluntarily takes himself out of the race. Epstein making these comments is an interesting because
he is openly stating things contrary to the party line which so unlike him.

It is Biden voluntarily takes himself out of the race. Epstein making these comments is an interesting because
he is openly stating things contrary to the party line which so unlike him.

But Biden isn't going to take himself out of the race. He's already made the decision to run. It's too late to change his mind.

Look, the Iowa caucuses are in a month. Super Tuesday is two months later. At least a half dozen states have already closed their primary ballots to any new entrants. There just isn't time anymore.

Pointing out that Another Democrat might be a better candidate than Joe Biden (whether Another Democrat is Joe Manchin or Gavin Newsome or anyone else) isn't the right question, because that's not the choice Democrats have. They don't get to choose between Biden and any single other person any more. They only get to choose between having Joe Biden and having a chaotic, last-minute scramble for a dozen wannabe-nominees to start a Presidential campaign from freaking **jump** less than five weeks before the Iowa caucus. A process that is most likely to result in the nominee being Kamala Harris, because she's the Veep and the only one with a national infrastructure already available to her as a member of the Biden-Harris ticket.

Biden knows this. Everyone in the Democratic party knows this. There's just no more time to make a change.

So people like Epstein aren't actually trying to convince the Democrats to do anything different, but rather just laying the groundwork for a well-placed "I told you so" if Biden loses.

"But Biden isn't going to take himself out of the race. He's already made the decision to run. It's too late to change his mind."

Maybe yes maybe no, the election is a long way off and many unforeseen events could come up before then.

"These were Epstein's thoughts."

Comprehension is but one of your weak suits.

Epstein airs his deep thoughts on money honey's set because she and her producers know it titillates viewers like you.

TV has rotted your brain.

you really are full of yourself. Back to the kiddies table for you

you really are full of something, and it ain't yerself.

I believe you said this:

and a few other rational and sane observations.

So I am disagreeing with your idea that the observation that "Newsome is too thin" is rational and sane. You don't seem to understand your own writing.

"The Money Honey on Fox as a meaningful source for discussion???

TV has rotted your brain."

reading comprehension is not your strong suit. These were Epstein's thoughts..Run along now little boy.

And there's the Poisoning the Well fallacy in action.

To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:

"Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." (Abusive)
"My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)
Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

One could argue that the stupidity routinely flung about when it comes to sources is merely another form of an ad hominem attack and that's a fine thing to point out. The exact name of the attack isn't really relevant; it's the behavior - and resulting lack of intellectual beef of any kind - that is.

Maybe yes maybe no, the election is a long way off and many unforeseen events could come up before then.

Well, sure. There's always the chance that Biden (or Trump, who is no spring chicken) develops some health complication that makes it impossible to continue campaigning.

But other than circumstances that force Biden out of the race, he's not going to choose not to run. That time has passed.

But Biden isn't going to take himself out of the race. He's already made the decision to run. It's too late to change his mind.

Look, the Iowa caucuses are in a month. Super Tuesday is two months later. At least a half dozen states have already closed their primary ballots to any new entrants. There just isn't time anymore.

There's always time. Right up until the democrat convention next summer.
Biden has some form of dementia. That's obvious, and undeniable: his mental acuity is vastly reduced over what it was even 6 years ago.

What happens when (not if) he declines further? Harris is the next in line, and she's not up for the job.

"So I am disagreeing with your idea that the observation that "Newsome is too thin" is rational and sane. You don't seem to understand your own writing."

Not my words, Epstein after the Desantis debate sad Newsom he had too " thin" substance to be a Presidential candidate.

"And there's the Poisoning the Well fallacy in action."

That is why that poster is destined to remain at the kiddies table.

"But other than circumstances that force Biden out of the race, he's not going to choose not to run. That time has passed."

Agreed, that why it was so interesting that Epstein would be saying the things against Biden as he is a staunch Democrat party loyalist.

Not my words, Epstein after the Desantis debate sad Newsom he had too " thin" substance to be a Presidential candidate.

I think he took the word "thin" literally. Meaning, his waistline isn't big enough for him to be President ;)

Apparently Lapsody is also a literal thinker LOL

Club 401K Taliban here doesn't want to hear anything different --- they are Q'Anon Shaman - only dressed in rainbow hoods.

Let Club 401K bluster away. In the end - like they did with Biden - they will shut up and vote as they are told.

In the end, they are Goldman Sachs and Northrop Grumman Dems now anyways :)

They just like to pretend they had no choice.

There's always time. Right up until the democrat convention next summer.

No, there isn't. There's not enough time for anyone else to spin up a presidential campaign. And neither party's convention is institutionally set up to choose a nominee other than the person who received the most delegates.

If Biden withdraws, the Democrats cannot pick a replacement candidate in anything other than a chaotic - and almost certainly hotly disputed - fustercluck. Which is why Biden will not choose to withdraw. Even if he were a heavy underdog to win the general, the party's got a better chance with him than with the chaos that his withdrawal would create.

No, there isn't. There's not enough time for anyone else to spin up a presidential campaign. And neither party's convention is institutionally set up to choose a nominee other than the person who received the most delegates.

You are 100% correct in terms of the mechanics of a Presidential Campaign.

If Biden withdraws, the Democrats cannot pick a replacement candidate in anything other than a chaotic - and almost certainly hotly disputed - fustercluck. Which is why Biden will not choose to withdraw. Even if he were a heavy underdog to win the general, the party's got a better chance with him than with the chaos that his withdrawal would create.

It depends.
The hilarity of the current campaign is that...all those criminal charges against Trump? They're actually helping him. But not in the way that people think.

By being in court all the time and not able to let his Trump Freak Flag Fly, Trump is basically forced to adopt the 2020 Biden Basement Strategy of letting your opponent do all the talking.

Biden is the President now. He can't campaign from his basement this time. He can't hide behind the press and pretend he doesn't have an actual record. He HAS to do the one thing that Joe Biden isn't really capable of doing: coherently arguing a vision for the nation based on a sterling set of accomplishments.

Trump, by being UNABLE to run his mouth...is NOT doing the one thing that DOOMED his campaign last time: Saying off the cuff extemporaneous things that would remind the public what a chaotic and emotionally draining Presidency he had.

Which leads me to this - the dems' real nightmare of a scenario. It would play out like this:

1. Trump essentially is off the campaign trail all the way through June due to his various court cases
2. The public forgets about his stupid Tweets, dumb insults and Way Out There brash New Yorker behavior
3. The democrats make him a martyr in the eyes of millions of voters
4. Because of 1-3, Trump cruises through the primaries without having to exert much effort or spend much money and exits with an extremely solid base who can't be convinced to vote any other way.

Now, then. If that happens then Biden will be in the vicious circle position of having to go out there MORE and talk MORE about why he's a better alternative...thus doing That One Thing he really sucks at. And That One Thing that his increasing frailty won't allow for.

And then we arrive at the convention, where a potentially desperate democrat party is faced with 3 options:

a) Ride or die with Biden, who's not up to it
b) Promote Harris to the top of the ticket
c) Get someone else

The option c) "someone else" is clearly Gavin Newsom. Option b) is a non starter because Harris would hurt more than she would help. The delicious part there is that if they dump her or sideline her they will pay the intersectionality toll.

Chicago...what a fun time it will be.

Boater:

1. The Democrat party hs gone too far to the left
2. Gavin Newsome looks too "thin" to be considered a viable candidate for President
3. Biden is no longer mentally prepared to be President
4. Thinks the Dems need to find a Centrist candidate if they want to win
5. Likes Joe Manchin or a similar candidate if the Dems hope to win

and a few other rational and sane observations. <--- These are your words, not Epstein's words.


This states that you think #2 above is rational and sane. I disagree with your contention about #2, that simple. So I took up your words with you. Easy to follow. Adios!

I think he took the word "thin" literally. Meaning, his waistline isn't big enough for him to be President ;)

No. Though there is that too. :) Newsom has as much as De Santis, not as much as Christie or Hally, but much more than Ramaswamy. It's not rational. He has almost as much as Reagan had. Governorships are great stepping stone to the Presidency. And especially California, which is actually a small country.

No, there isn't. There's not enough time for anyone else to spin up a presidential campaign. And neither party's convention is institutionally set up to choose a nominee other than the person who received the most delegates.

So what happens if Biden dies in office, say, in the next six months. Are the Dems necessarily doomed to lose in 2024? Is no "rally around Kamala" possible?

And then we arrive at the convention, where a potentially desperate democrat party is faced with 3 options:

Again, I think this fundamentally misunderstands the changed nature of party nominating conventions.

They used to be able to exercise control over who the nominee was. Back in the old days, the parties (meaning the institutional organizations) got to choose who their candidates for President were. Some of them would hold primaries or caucuses in some states, but only so that the party poobahs could get some input into who their voters might prefer. Ultimately, though, the choice was to be made by the parties - not primary voters.

That era is gone. They changed the rules. The convention rules for both parties don't allow the party leaders to pick the nominee any more. The delegates are required to vote for the individual who won their states' primaries/caucuses. The convention is a party and organizing and campaign event, not a venue in which the delegates are actually choosing among alternatives.

So the Democrats in Chicago won't have three options. They'll have one option, and the convention will be a celebration of Biden's re-election campaign.

"-- These are your words, not Epstein's words."

No=pe, sorry but you are wrong,.. Those are Ep]steins words.

Again, I think this fundamentally misunderstands the changed nature of party nominating conventions.

No it doesn't. I've already granted you the point that it's out of the ordinary.
But there is a REAL ISSUE as to whether or not Joe Biden is up for the job of campaigning.

At some point, you have to address that. What if Joe Biden is basically reduced to being awake for Matlock reruns and a pudding cup? He's not far from that right now.

The democrat party is not going to go with a 2024 version of Weekend at Bernie's. If it becomes clear they can't let Biden out in public for fear of him drooling on himself, they *will* take action at the convention.

So what happens if Biden dies in office, say, in the next six months. Are the Dems necessarily doomed to lose in 2024? Is no "rally around Kamala" possible?

If Biden dies in office prior to the convention (or after the convention, for that matter), they're in a world of trouble.

No, a "rally around Kamala" isn't really possible. I mean, it's theoretically possible - it doesn't violate the laws of physics or anything - but it just won't happen. Sure, as the Veep she's got a strong position to try to grab the nomination. But she's just not popular enough to be the nominee by acclamation - and it's too important a political asset for everyone to step back and let her (or any other person) take it in order to avoid a fight. Someone will fight her for it. Probably a lot of someones.

If Biden actually died, they could probably get consensus to change the convention rules to release the delegates. It would probably be pretty chaotic, and it might be brutal.

But even if it weren't....you end up with a nominee that's then has to build a national campaign from scratch in only three and a half months. They walk out of Chicago with no national staff, no fundraising in place, no ad buys locked up, no campaign calendar, no groundwork.....just starting from jump.

Yep....doomed to lose.

But there is a REAL ISSUE as to whether or not Joe Biden is up for the job of campaigning.

At some point, you have to address that. What if Joe Biden is basically reduced to being awake for Matlock reruns and a pudding cup? He's not far from that right now.

The democrat party is not going to go with a 2024 version of Weekend at Bernie's. If it becomes clear they can't let Biden out in public for fear of him drooling on himself, they *will* take action at the convention.

They won't, because they can't. The rules don't allow it. There are processes to change the rules, but they're onerous and difficult and won't happen unless Biden has chosen to withdraw from the race.

If he died prior to the convention, they'd have the ability to change the rules. But just because he's not "up for the job of campaigning" in the eyes of his detractors? Not a chance.

Yep....[the Dems are] doomed to lose [in 2024 if Biden dies in office].

Well, that's depressing. I still don't quite believe it though.

Well, that's depressing. I still don't quite believe it though.

What do you think could happen instead?

Biden is certainly old, but from what I've seen I don't think he has one foot in the grave yet. Of course, what people saw of FDR back in the day gave no clue that he was crippled (polio, I think). Anything could happen in the next 12 months. But short of that, it's almost certainly going to be Biden v Trump again. Unless some states can ban Trump from their primary ballots, though Colorado already failed to do that. So I'm not optimistic on that front.

What do you think could happen instead?

Kamala is really the only option. If people fight it, they guarantee a loss. She would be best positioned to step into the campaign machine. Whether she could win enough votes in the general is another matter. But, pragmatically, she would be the only chance for Dems if Biden was unable to continue.

Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg...none of them could wind up quickly enough, and it would be a very fractious fight for the nomination.

They won't, because they can't. The rules don't allow it. There are processes to change the rules, but they're onerous and difficult and won't happen unless Biden has chosen to withdraw from the race.

So...with:

1. The Presidency on the line in and of itself
2. The fact that an underperformance on the top of the ticket depresses turnout downticket and would potentially be painful down to the state level,
3. The ability to replace Clarence Thomas and maybe 1 other
4. The fact that if Trump wins the BAD ORANGE DEMOCRACY DESTROYING HITLERMAO DICTATOR TAKES OVERANDTHECOUNTRYASWEKNOWITISOVER happens (and recall this is the narrative that the democrats have been selling for 4+ years)

...you think that the people who make the rules won't somehow find "exceptions".

Spoiler alert: Yes they will.

The exact name of the attack isn't really relevant; it's the behavior - and resulting lack of intellectual beef of any kind - that is.

There's plenty of fact-laden 'intellectual beef' on this board refuting the incessant, cultish output of RWEs* . Beef has no impact on RWEs.

Recognizing that lengthy beefy threads engaging with cultists is tantamount to throwing pearls before and then wrestling with pigs, my posts are designed to express an opinion with minimal expenditure of time and effort. Thank you for recognizing that.

* RWE - right wing extremist

Not my words, Epstein after the Desantis debate.....

Wait, what? You found 'Epstein's words' to be so unfathomably stupid you just had to cut and paste them?

Brava.

...you think that the people who make the rules won't somehow find "exceptions".

That is correct.

The rules say that the nominee is the person who gets the most delegates. The delegates are bound to vote for the person who wins their state's nominating contest (primary or caucus). Biden will have won all those contests. Ergo, Biden will be the nominee.

The rules are there to prevent someone from finding an "exception" - to prevent another candidate from trying to get the nomination in the stead of the person who has the most delegates from winning nominating contests. They have been drafted specifically to resist the machinations of intelligent power-hungry political actors armed with lawyers (ie. every national candidate seeking the Presidency) and not have any "exceptions."

There's no "higher power" within the Democratic party that can step in and just decide to ignore the results of the actual primaries. That's not how the system works any more. The primary elections matter, and the results of the primaries are what will determine the nominee - not the convention. Even if you wish it were otherwise, if only for the entertainment value.

There's no "higher power" within the Democratic party that can step in and just decide to ignore the results of the actual primaries. That's not how the system works any more. The primary elections matter, and the results of the primaries are what will determine the nominee - not the convention. Even if you wish it were otherwise, if only for the entertainment value.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.
You're underestimating the power of the if Trump wins the BAD ORANGE DEMOCRACY DESTROYING HITLERMAO DICTATOR TAKES OVERANDTHECOUNTRYASWEKNOWITISOVER effect will have on democrat voters. You can't sell the vision that the country is literally over if Trump wins and then roll over at your convention if your primary candidate isn't good to go.

The democrats have sold that vision for 4 years now; they've painted themselves into this very corner.

Let's put it this way. Consider this board and the lefty posters on it.

Let's say that every single one of them votes for Biden in their respective caucus/primary *but* it becomes clear next summer that Biden is physically unable to run for President.

Do you think a single one of these people would hesitate to say, "Please run Gavin Newsom" in that case, if it was obvious that Trump was going to otherwise win?

What do you think could happen instead?

Well, as 1pg said, it would have to be Kamala or no one. And it would then be Kamala -vs- Trump. But in that case, what is the cohort of people who would have voted for Biden over Trump who would now vote for Trump over Kamala? I can't believe it would be many at all! But perhaps I'm overestimating the average Biden voter's rationality.

Let's say that every single one of them votes for Biden in their respective caucus/primary *but* it becomes clear next summer that Biden is physically unable to run for President.

Do you think a single one of these people would hesitate to say, "Please run Gavin Newsom" in that case, if it was obvious that Trump was going to otherwise win?

If the rules prevent that, then it doesn't matter what we say. Unlike Trump, we have rules and we (usually) follow them.

I'm not familiar with all the rules regarding nomination, but if there is no exception then there is no exception. Period. Hopefully there is something in the rules that allows for a nominee who becomes incapacitated or dies, but maybe there isn't.

I agree with albaby that for the Dems it is Biden or no one. No one else could rev-up a campaign in that short of a time, and the party would be very fractured with little time to get behind the eventual winner.

I was reading, and tend to agree, that the Dems need they need to talk abortion, and stuff like that. Threats to freedoms and autonomy, which the right is big into lately. Throw stuff that Trump says back in his face, but don't focus on him.

Let's say that every single one of them votes for Biden in their respective caucus/primary *but* it becomes clear next summer that Biden is physically unable to run for President.

Do you think a single one of these people would hesitate to say, "Please run Gavin Newsom" in that case, if it was obvious that Trump was going to otherwise win?

It doesn't matter. If you're in an early primary state (like New Hampshire), and you cast your ballot for one candidate, and later in the primary cycle you wish a different candidate had won your state's primary, you don't get to go back and change your vote. You don't get to "undo" their primary victory, or their allocation of delegates.

These processes are set up to render final decisions. Once the votes are cast, it's done. The delegates are bound to those votes.

Again, it's not like the old system. The old system had nonbinding primaries, that existed just to provide information to the delegates. The voting was what happened on the convention floor - not in the primaries. That's not the system any more. The delegates don't pick the winner - the winner is picked in the primary elections (and caucuses).

That's not the system any more. The delegates don't pick the winner - the winner is picked in the primary elections (and caucuses).

I understand lawyers love hypotheticals! ;-)

1) what if Biden has (for example) a stroke next week...what happens?

2) what if Biden has that same stroke part way through the primaries?

3) what if Biden has that same stroke in October?

I assume that after November, Kamala takes over as part of the Constitutional line of succession.

onepoorguy: 1) what if Biden...

2) what if Biden...

3) what if Biden...

Funny, isn't it, that everyone assumes Biden's going to kick the bucket but not Trump, the guy who doesn't eat breakfast or lunch every day but when he does he eats bacon and eggs and meatloaf sandwiches. He drinks, what, 12 cans of diet coke a day? And his dinner is usually, according to Corey Lewandowski, "a full McDonald’s dinner of two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, and a small chocolate shake." He also likes pizza (no crust) and KFC. His doctor conveniently placed his weight one pound below obese (and about 30 pounds below reality). When feeling fancy, it's a well done strip steak and three jumbo shrimp cocktails followed by chocolate cake and two scoops of vanilla ice cream. For snacks he likes Lay’s potato chips and Doritos.

Frankly, I'm surprised the guy ever has a bowel movement.

It doesn't matter. If you're in an early primary state (like New Hampshire), and you cast your ballot for one candidate, and later in the primary cycle you wish a different candidate had won your state's primary, you don't get to go back and change your vote. You don't get to "undo" their primary victory, or their allocation of delegates.


Uh, huh. Name me a single blue state that would put up the least bit of resistance to swapping out the democrat candidate if the situation called for it.

I'll answer for you: None of them will.

No, that's not the obstacle that will present itself. The states that raise objections will be your red and purple states who will immediately disqualify the new candidate from the ballot. The national machine would swing into action, noting that The Will Of The People Was Made Clear At The National Convention and all that.

You keep referring to 'the old system'. What did the old system say about, mail in ballots? There were laws about how those were handled in places like Pennsylvania. Were those laws followed? Were old ways of doing things changed at the last minute?

Spoiler alert: Yes they were.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServic...

Again, if it comes down to a choice between Weekend at Bernie's or an emergency Gavin Newsom campaign, the powers that be inside the democrat party will do what their constituents expect them to do: Find a way to put a potential winning candidate on the ballot.

They'll do it, and every Biden voter on this board will be in full-throated support of it despite what they might say now.

Unlike Trump, we have rules and we (usually) follow them.

Your party favors power and expediency towards getting more/retaining power over all else.

Want proof? Then ask yourself why Jamaal Bowman and Bob Menendez are still in Congress while George Santos is not.

Funny, isn't it, that everyone assumes Biden's going to kick the bucket but not Trump, the guy who doesn't eat breakfast or lunch every day but when he does he eats bacon and eggs and meatloaf sandwiches. He drinks, what, 12 cans of diet coke a day? And his dinner is usually, according to Corey Lewandowski, "a full McDonald’s dinner of two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, and a small chocolate shake." He also likes pizza (no crust) and KFC. His doctor conveniently placed his weight one pound below obese (and about 30 pounds below reality). When feeling fancy, it's a well done strip steak and three jumbo shrimp cocktails followed by chocolate cake and two scoops of vanilla ice cream. For snacks he likes Lay’s potato chips and Doritos. - CO

----------------

Say what you will about the man, but damn that MAGA menu sounds delicious (except for the Dorito's).

No one else could rev-up a campaign in that short of a time, and the party would be very fractured with little time to get behind the eventual winner.

If Biden stroked out during the campaign but remained cognizant, isn't it possible that he and his VP could rally together behind Klobuchar or Whitman?

A smart moderate Democrat woman could generate a lot of emotional support on the obvious fronts.

I don't know the rules from Reps, either. But if he kicks it before the convention, then someone else will be chosen. If after, I'm assuming (yeah, dangerous to assume) that the VP choice would step-up. Or maybe chaos would ensue if it's after the convention. It's also an interesting question, but I'm less concerned about chaos in the Rep ranks.

Well, as 1pg said, it would have to be Kamala or no one. And it would then be Kamala -vs- Trump. But in that case, what is the cohort of people who would have voted for Biden over Trump who would now vote for Trump over Kamala? I can't believe it would be many at all! But perhaps I'm overestimating the average Biden voter's rationality.

In my system, the country still needs go go left and that has priority. :)

Frankly, I'm surprised the guy ever has a bowel movement.


Maybe that's why he's so full of sh*t.

Frankly, I'm surprised the guy ever has a bowel movement.

Well...we know he's full of shit.

I understand lawyers love hypotheticals! ;-)

Yes! And the only thing we love more than answering them is clarifying them!

So I'm going to assume two different scenarios - a stroke severe enough to incapacitate (or kill) Biden, and one that's not so severe that he has to stop being President but one where he withdraws from the race.

The first one is easy, under all the scenarios. Harris becomes President (immediately), and the Democratic party rallies around her new Presidency. There's still important work they need the President to do, and so they have to make even a year (or half-year) of her Presidency work. With that, none of the candidates-in-waiting-for-2028 and their donors (Newsome, Booker, Buttigieg, etc.) are likely to gamble on trying to wrest the nomination from the now-incumbent Harris in a weird cycle.

If Biden stays President, though, the different time frames result in different degrees of chaos. The worst is if he bails out next week. There's not enough time for anyone to get enough delegates to win the nomination. There is enough time for the well-established players to get on enough ballots for a non-trivial plurality of delegates, and argue at the convention that whoever gets the most delegates should be nominated. But because some candidates will try but fail to get on a lot of state ballots, there will be lawsuits and recriminations and arguments galore.

If Biden has a stroke partway through the primaries (say, late February) it's easier in many ways. No one will have delegates (the ballot deadlines close in early March). They'll just throw open the convention. It will be messy, but less messy than the first scenario.

And if he has a stroke in October, the Democrats will simply lose the election. Early voting will have started in some states, there's no process for replacing Biden at the top of the ticket, there's no constitutional rules for what happens if a dead person gets votes or electors, and without a candidate there's just no way the election day GOTV works.

Again, if it comes down to a choice between Weekend at Bernie's or an emergency Gavin Newsom campaign, the powers that be inside the democrat party will do what their constituents expect them to do: Find a way to put a potential winning candidate on the ballot.

There is no way to change the candidate. That's what I keep telling you.

You keep imagining that there's a "the powers that be" that has the ability to overrule Biden's choice to keep running. But there simply isn't, because the most powerful folks within the Democratic party right now are Biden and his allies. He's the President. He's the biggest "power that be" in the party. His faction is the dominant faction in the party. The rules are specifically set up to prevent the other factions in the party from being able to veto the primary nominating process, and if Biden is unwilling to withdraw from the race, there's no mechanism by which the other factions can change the rules to take the nomination away from him.

Again, in the pre-1968 days, the rules of the parties allowed the convention delegates and party poobahs to choose the nominee, and primaries weren't binding on their decisions. The modern rules require that the nomination be awarded to the person who wins the most delegates, and require the delegates to follow the results of the primary contests.

There's not some "behind the scenes" group of people that have the power to just overrule the results of the election to choose the party's nominee and take it away from Biden. That's just not the case.

There is no way to change the candidate. That's what I keep telling you.

And I keep telling you there's no way that's going to be allowed. They will find some loophole.

There's not some "behind the scenes" group of people that have the power to just overrule the results of the election to choose the party's nominee and take it away from Biden. That's just not the case.
****

YEAH!

There's no behind the scenes group. Everything is transparent and by the rules.

Like when President Reagan but Bush on the ticket.

Had nothing to do with party bosses or establishmentarians.

And there are not big money interests that can, in the background cut side deals to make things happen indirectly.

Everything as we learned in the textbook at the symposium on campus.

And I keep telling you there's no way that's going to be allowed. They will find some loophole.
*******

Loophole isn't in my textbook.

No way it exists.

Frankly, I'm surprised the guy ever has a bowel movement.

Maybe that's why he's so full of sh*t.

But perhaps with all the BS he spews, he never even NEEDS to have a bowel movement.

And I keep telling you there's no way that's going to be allowed. They will find some loophole.

Who is "they"? And loophole in what?

Remember, The Powers That Be in the Democratic party are dominated by Bidenworld right now. He's the President, his allies are in all the federal appointed position. His faction is the strongest one in the Democratic party right now. If he wants to run for President, there's no "they" that is going "not allow" it.

There's no "loophole" in the party rules that would allow the convention to choose someone other than the person who won the most delegates (assuming that such person has died or something). That's the way the party chooses its nominee - through having primary elections. There's no mechanism for just ignoring them.

TOLD YOU, it's not in the textbook.

TOLD YOU, it's not in the textbook.

Of course it's in the textbook. Loopholes are the stock in trade of us lawyers.

But just because loopholes exist generally doesn't mean that any particular rule has a loophole. And loopholes are almost never broad enough to have the type of significant, results-changing effect that Dope is talking about. Biden will walk into the convention with close to 99% of the pledged delegates, and control of all of the party committees that hold the power to consider amendments or changes to the rules. There's no "loophole" that would allow the out-of-power factions in the party to overcome that.

Remember, The Powers That Be in the Democratic party are dominated by Bidenworld right now.

The Powers That Be in the democrat party...are Obama people.

And if it becomes obvious that Joe is too infirm to be on the ticket, Barack won't hesitate to Order the Code Red.

And if it becomes obvious that Joe is too infirm to be on the ticket, Barack won't hesitate to Order the Code Red.

Biden's the POTUS, and Obama is not. Biden's got far more power within the party right now than Obama.

But specifically, what do you think that means? Without using metaphors or generic terms like "loopholes" - how do you think in practice Barack Obama could deprive Biden of the nomination if Biden has won all of the primaries, and thus has 99% of the pledged delegates?

And loopholes are almost never broad enough to have the type of significant, results-changing effect

Ah, the enigmatic "loop hole", that spatial-temporal-gravitational anomaly in the same class as black holes and white holes, but still as yet only conjectured in the fever dreams of Brian Greene.

😊

Dope1: Barack won't hesitate to Order the Code Red.

albaby1: ...how do you think in practice Barack Obama could deprive Biden of the nomination...


In an earlier post this morning, "The lunacy of Trump love," ges provided an interview of a Trump cultist who said the same thing, that Obama is in charge:

TRUMP CULTIST: "He's not running the country."

INTERVIEWER: "Who's running the country then?"

TRUMP CULTIST: "Barack Obama."

INTERVIEWER: "He's running the country?"

TRUMP CULTIST: "Yeah. From behind, behind the scenes. Yep."

As difficult as it is to believe the cultists are that stupid and that deeply brainwashed, it's a fact. They are Jonestown Kool-Aid stupid.

In an earlier post this morning, "The lunacy of Trump love," ges provided an interview of a Trump cultist who said the same thing, that Obama is in charge

It actually reminded me more of the constant theorizing during the 2016 GOP primaries, where people were absolutely convinced that there was no way The Powers That Be in the Republican party would intervene to keep Trump from being the nominee. I have no doubt that back in 2016, TPTB in the GOP would have loved to do that to Trump. But both parties have fine-tuned their rules over the last fifty years (the shift from autonomous delegates at party conventions to binding election primaries) to proof them against shenanigans.

So there was no way for them to do that, but quite a few folks were convinced that there had to be someone behind the curtain that had the power to overrule the primary results. But as we all saw, there just wasn't.

Biden's the POTUS, Heh. Okay.

Biden's got far more power within the party right now than Obama.

Sure about that?

You know how you can tell you're crazy?

When you insist that everyone else is.

Seek help. Seriously.

Sure about that?

Yeah, pretty sure. He's the President. That comes with enormous power within your party. Almost all of the top positions in government are filled with people that he appointed, and that he can replace instantly. He has tremendous ability to direct funds and resources to states and state-level politicians.

After they're both out of office, Obama may end up being more influential in the party in the long term. But merely holding the office gives Biden a degree of personal power and influence within the Democratic party that cannot be matched by any other faction.

Dope1: Barack won't hesitate to Order the Code Red.<\i>

Dope, it sounds like Albaby has an insiders look into party politics, or at least an inside read. It isn’t a Tom Clancy novel. It’s fascinating that the nomination works this way. Think about it, it now makes a lot of sense that you start two years ahead to have your chance.

Al: Throwing open the convention sounds fascinating. Ifdelegates are bound to vote with the primaries, how might an alternate selection method come about? Superdelegates aren’t bound, so would they determine? Wher can I read about this?

So there was no way for them to do that, but quite a few folks were convinced that there had to be someone behind the curtain that had the power to overrule the primary results. But as we all saw, there just wasn't.

I wonder if this is related to the "deep state" mentality, i.e. the belief that there is some cabal running things behind the scenes. Like in X-Files, with the Smoking Man and his group of conspirators. Makes for a cool story, but isn't terribly realistic.

Sure about that?

Yes. 100%.

Actually, I almost wish Dope was correct. If it were allowed, I'd have voted for Obama for a third term. I didn't agree with everything he did, but I think he was the best POTUS of at least the past century. I would rather have him in charge than Biden. And, of course, ABT ("anyone but Trump").

Al: Throwing open the convention sounds fascinating. Ifdelegates are bound to vote with the primaries, how might an alternate selection method come about? Superdelegates aren’t bound, so would they determine? Wher can I read about this?

If Biden were to die from a stroke or otherwise, then you could see a successful amendment to the pledging rules to allow them to vote for another candidate (the rules may already cover this). Bidenworld and his allies (including the far progressive wing of the party) have more than enough representation to keep that from happening against his will....but if he's passed away, there would be unanimity that the convention would have to pick someone else.

I have no idea how that would actually look in practice, other than to speculate that they would just try to run it like the old days - different rounds of voting until someone got a majority.

The Powers That Be in the democrat party...are Obama people.
***

Nothing in the textbook says that when David Axelrod speaks bluntly, it's coming from Obama.

It's common sense, it's sort of protocol....but the book doesn't say it.

I even checked the student union.

Nothing in the textbook says that when David Axelrod speaks bluntly, it's coming from Obama.

100%. If a guy like Axelrod says stuff like this out loud

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/18/axelrod-b...
Democratic strategist David Axelrod still doesn’t think the Biden camp should get too comfortable about the president’s reelection prospects.

“I think he has a 50-50 shot here, but no better than that, maybe a little worse,” Axelrod told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. “He thinks he can cheat nature here and it’s really risky. They’ve got a real problem if they’re counting on Trump to win it for them. I remember Hillary doing that, too.”

...then you know the rest of Team Obama is thinking about it.

INTERVIEWER: "Who's running the country then?"

TRUMP CULTIST: "Barack Obama."

This speaks to so many things. Included among them is what seems to be a fundamental difference between the current right and the left in their view of the structure of government. Republicans (at least the Trump-supporting ones) seem to believe that there is one person, the President, or in this case former President, who "runs" everything. Which is just what Trump wants them to believe, because that's what he wants to do. This is why his opposition views him as a threat to become a dictator.

Was Obama "running" the country even as President, in the sense that I believe it is meant here--which is to say able to do whatever he wants and get his way on everything? "Leading" yes, "running" no. When working properly, the country is "run" by a variety of people, institutions and entities, each doing their part with checks and balances. Trump has tried to short-circuit that, and will try a lot more if re-elected. He's made that clear through both words and deeds.

Yep. Like before the Iraq War when Brent Skowcroft spoke opposing it -- - obviously HW Bush green lighted it.

But that isn't in the text book.

Maybe next semester or during sabatacle or whatever.

INTERVIEWER: "Who's running the country then?"

TRUMP CULTIST: "Barack Obama."

And the subtext in the cultist reply: "The country is being run by that damned ******** who is not even a citizen of this country."

And the subtext in the cultist reply: "The country is being run by that damned ******** who is not even a citizen of this country."
***

Nope.

THAT is from inside a typical. White, Racist Liberal who wears a hood of rainbows, not white. Big deal.

Paternalistic Liberals can't stop seeing Obama, or anyone else as just a man, an equal human, it always goes back to "black" and "people of color".

Stop it.

Blacks, Latinos, Asians - are just plain human beings and slowly they are sick of White Liberal Racism and slowly they are waking up to it.

Your plantation needs more guards.

...without a candidate there's just no way the election day GOTV works.

So, in general, if the nominee dies in October, the other party's nominee is running unopposed? The VP-nominee doesn't come into play in any way? Interesting.

That would encourage some bad behavior in some people. Or is that why the nominees get secret service protection as soon as they're the nominees?

So, in general, if the nominee dies in October, the other party's nominee is running unopposed? The VP-nominee doesn't come into play in any way? Interesting.

Replying late, but I just saw this.

I think some states allow the party to substitute in a new name if the candidate has died - at least if the ballots haven't been printed yet and/or if early voting hasn't started. But I wasn't really even thinking about whether you could switch the candidate, but whether a replacement candidate could possibly win. There's so many moving parts to a multi-state Presidential campaign, so much outreach and building relationships with different constituencies, that switching out the candidate with a month before the election will be so damaging that it's hard to see any campaign recovering.

That's if the candidate passes from natural causes. If the person were assassinated, that would create such an emotional reaction in the electorate that all bets would be off.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.