Why didn't he do this during his first term? Unlike Harris he was actually president and actually did a big tax cut bill for the ultra wealthy.

Trump must've been so disappointed he wasn't able to make a political stunt out of this. That was like, his entire reason for going.

In other news: Harris has her first interview tomorrow. I think she should do several interviews, not just one big one. Too easy for Fox News to demonize if even the slightest phrasing is off. — Mikie

Places like Fox are inevitably gonna move the goal posts no matter how many interviews Harris does but I agree she should be doing more of them if just to clarify her positions. Or get Walz out there doing interviews since he's a better speaker. Apparently he never read from a teleprompter until hitting the national stage which is a very welcome trait considering who the Dems were/are running up to this point.

It's just unfortunate that it's coming from this third side that claims to be above the two party system. As someone who's supportive of more party representation in US politics I think RFK did a disservice to the whole movement by selling out the way he did as apparently some smaller third parties are gonna go under because of his decision. Personally I don't think he ever meant to serve as anything other than a spoiler candidate for the Dems (and I am absolutely not shocked at how this ended up), but based on the reaction from some of his supporters, they seem pretty upset at this. At least the Libertarian and Green parties are still there despite this being their 15th cycle of being irrelevant. Bobby couldn't even last one.

I was willing to give him some attention back when he ran because of his record as an environmental lawyer. Lost it when he said that his approach to climate change was to leave it to the free market. Like it sounds good for the right wing audience on Fox that propped him up, but god they have no idea what progressives care about.

In all likelihood Trump probably promised him a position as the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is where he would likely have influence. So add anti-vaxxer leading the department of health to the growing list of dangers of a second Trump term.

So RFK will drop out on Friday, and will endorse Trump. Big surprise.

Shows what a spineless weirdo he always has been, and now solidifies his place as having one of the worst judgments in history. — Mikie

Funny how he went from being a "useful chaos agent" according to Steve Bannon to ultimately being a drag on the Republicans so much that they had to hang him up. I'm guessing the right by propping him up so much in the media wanted to recreate the Bernie magic that divided the left and got us Trump in 2016. Fortunately they had no idea what actually made Sanders popular and ended up making someone who was more likely to peel votes away from the right instead. The anti-vax stuff wasn't gonna appeal to anyone except the far right who still obsesses over COVID to this day, and although Kennedy could've adopted a more pro-Palestinian stance to contrast with Biden, he ultimately ended up being more pro-Zionist than Genocide Joe.

Price controls. Of all the hare-brained schemes. Even WaPo and CNN are against the idea. Price controls inevitably create shortages and bread lines. Nixon's price controls failed. Price controls always fail. They constrain supply and increase demand. Exactly the opposite of what you want. — fishfry

Politically it will probably work out for her because of how uninformed voters are which is what I suspect her play here is. Say what you want about how viable her policies are but polling does show that people blame corporate price gouging for alot of the inflation and they want the government to do something:



Populism sells and when people see the "experts" at CNN and WaPo balk at these ideas and you have folks like Larry Kudlow on Fox saying that corporate greed is a myth they just see the establishment defending the status quo. I mean if CNN is gonna bring on people like this:

When prices are high, in most cases, the best policy action in response is actually taking no action, Roberts, the chair of Weber State University’s economics department, told CNN.

That would cause consumers who are deterred by, say, high prices of beef, to instead purchase another type of meat or protein. That helps keep beef on the grocery store shelves for people who want it enough to pay the higher prices.

It's hard to see them as not being out of touch with the concerns of consumers. I'm not saying they're wrong but if you're worried about the price of beef this week then that's the last thing you want to hear.

The same goes for her housing policy where first time homebuyers will probably be more excited about direct subsidies over building more housing (though Harris says she's doing both). Remember your average voter doesn't understand the difference between cooling inflation and deflation (what they would call an actual decrease in prices) and still needs to be lectured on how marginal tax rates work. At the end of the day none of these policies will get implemented simply because of how dysfunctional congress is but like her adopting Trump's stance on tips and one upping Vance's $5000 CTC idea with a $6000 CTC, Harris is trying to win an election by promising alot of nice things. Same for Trump too, to be honest. It's all about the vibes.

Depends on the details of her actual policy, though based on what I've read it sounds like antitrust enforcement. Maybe when she sits for an actual interview we'll find out more.

That being said I do think that alot of Harris' policies won't be done at all if only because congress (especially if Republicans keep the Senate as they look likely to do) won't allow it. The issue with Trump's plans on deporting millions of immigrants and imposing a 20% tariff on all imports is that he can do it unilaterally. I'm not worried about him gutting Obamacare because the GOP congressmen are smart enough to not play along with his schemes. He would do it if he had a big red button on his desk to press, but he can't, however such a button does exist for starting a trade war like he did in his first term.

I still feel like this is an issue about Trump's policies that is underdiscussed. People seem to think that Trump will fix inflation somehow but he literally plans to implement a 20% tariff on all imported goods and unlike his other crazy ideas he probably has unilateral authority to do so:

Yes. They still try to avoid screwing with the economy when an election is close. — frank

Well I'd prefer it if they focused on not screwing over the economy because they're worried about the political optics. I suspect that that was the reason why Trump has been getting a pass legally for his multiple crimes. Both the Republicans and Democrats were too chicken to shut him down permanently after Jan 6 and now here we are.

He'd have to install mechanisms for overriding the chairman. I guess he'd give it his best shot. — frank

Trump has made it clear that if he is elected it will have to answer to him. — Fooloso4

Apparently he wants to override the Fed so yeah.

The Fed isn't supposed to make rate changes during an election cycle, but they're probably going to have to in September. They're expected to lower the rate in keeping with jobs data. Wall Street will party and the economy will look good. That's bad for Trump, obviously. — frank

I thought the Fed was apolitical and does whatever it wanted? Their one job is to not let the economy crash regardless of the political narrative it creates. I mean Trump and the Republicans will be mad at a booming economy if it helps their enemies but let's be honest Trump would be harassing the Fed every day to cut rates if he were president right now.

That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined. — fishfry

So some say on the right, but the bill is pretty popular based on the polling I've seen and some swing voter focus groups seem to be upset at Trump for what he did. Harris was smart to use it. They'll be running ads of Lankford saying it's a good bill from now until November. They're not gonna win on the issue of course but they can always muddle it and weaken an attack line.

But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism. — fishfry

Because labels don't matter as much over policies. She's getting rid of the unpopular policies while keeping the popular ones. People care about border security more but they probably don't want kids to starve in school. That's the problem with using a single label to describe a large set of unrelated beliefs.

Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win. — fishfry

That implies that centrists always win which is certainly not true. The centrist coalition of Macron collapsed in France just recently to both the far-right and the far-left.

I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office. — fishfry

It's a pretty extensive record (just coped and pasted a list I found online):

- universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal

I don't think you'll like all of them but there's a reason why progressives wanted him.

He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately. — fishfry

In 2016 he was a new face and people at the very least loved that he shook up politics. Nowadays he's old news which is why I think he's likely to lose. The fundamental contrast in this race where it's old vs. new just doesn't work out to his benefit where it did with Biden when it was strength vs weakness or with Clinton when it was the outsider vs the corrupt insider. Kamala may not be the best candidate but she's a new face in a race where people wanted anything but Biden or Trump again, and that will probably be what will convince those undecided swing voters at the end of the day. People hated the status quo in 2016 and thought they had nothing to lose if they elected Donald, even if they had serious reservations about him.

It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that. — fishfry

People aren't complaining about that as much now. They're complaining about the price of groceries which haven't really gone down with gas and likely won't if it goes down any further.

Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff. — fishfry

Certainly seems like they moved on from tampons and the BLM riots, though we'll see how effective this line of attack is. As a layperson who understands nothing about the military, this whole tactic just comes across as a little gross. If this were a case of Walz just outright lying about being in the military entirely then I can understand but it seems like they're splitting hairs about whether he was in combat or not and seemingly undermining the decades of service he's done otherwise. That and the fact that their guy actively avoided the Vietnam draft due to bonespurs yet feels like he can attack war heroes for what they've done.

I believe his leftism draws attention to the very leftism that Harris is trying to move away from. — fishfry

She's certainly moving right on some issues but not others. One example is the border where she's clearly just attached herself to the bipartisan border bill Trump killed. Walz it seems is going along with that pivot. Same with her pivot on fracking. That being said, she's still in favor of alot of the things that Walz did and is clearly not choosing to moderate on every single issue. I guess she's betting on labels being less important than the actual policies themselves.

In fact I read somewhere that if the voters decide on likability, Harris and Walz win; and if they decide on the issues, the economy and immigration and so forth, Trump and Vance win. — fishfry

I do think Harris and Walz are better on the issues if you go into detail about them, which is why I think it could backfire if the GOP start attacking Walz for legalizing weed or giving Minnesota paid family leave. Trump and Vance are able to win on the issues if it's more vibes based though. People feel like the economy sucks because of high prices. What does Trump actually plan to do about it? Apparently drill more and flood the global market in oil to crash gas prices but that isn't gonna bring grocery prices down obviously. One thing that may make it worse is his idea for a 10% tariff on all imported goods (and 60% on Chinese goods), which if you believe that higher taxes means higher prices for the consumer as it trickles down, would obviously be inflationary to the average voter. Trump assures us that it's not inflationary somehow but...

He did say that socialism is like neighborliness. I expect the GOP to put that on endless loop. — fishfry

Yeah that answer specifically was why I compared him to Bernie. He doesn't adopt the label like he does but he certainly doesn't shy away from it either.

If this issue overall has no impact on voters then there goes one of the biggest lines of attack against Walz.

Then what does she do? For veep, she picks a leftists who is tied to the BLM/Antifa riots. She puts the very issue that the tacked away from, right dead center in her path. Now her role in bailing out violent felons who went on to offend again will come out. Now Walz's 48 hour delay in calling out the National Guard will come out. Kamala was trying to paint herself as a centrist, and Walz reminds everyone of her leftist greatest hit. — fishfry

Yeah I think there's one problem with that:

You can say that about people's impressions about Kamala (at least she's not old and dying) but Walz is genuinely a pretty solid pick if you're a progressive. Also it's already been 2 weeks and it still feels like things are riding high for the Democrats. What's also amazing is how ill prepared Trump was for this obvious possibility. You would've thought he would've come up with a stupid nickname by now, unless he's genuinely going with "Kamabla".

The selection of Tim Walz has been publicly supported, afaik, by AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Manchin and a gang of well-known Never/former Trumpers – across the ideological spectrum from far left to center-right (at least). — 180 Proof

Yeah I'm actually surprised how much the party has unified around him like they did Kamala. Walz sounds like a more effective, relatable, and most importantly younger Bernie, even down to the lack of actual presidential ambition and brushing off the accusations of the "socialism" label (for the record he doesn't adopt it explicitly like Bernie but he seems more focused on whether the policies discussed help people, which I like). I have no idea where the Democrats got him from. People who have been saying that Kamala just picked a younger Biden because he's an old white man are way off, same with the people who compare him to Tim Kaine.

Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign. — fishfry

I've always wondered how Republicans would try to run against a Bernie like figure, which Walz does remind me of. He's a progressive who not only supports but has enacted a number of left policies and more importantly doesn't seem to shy away from it. Hell he even kind of looks like him. The only difference is that instead of a being a grumpy old man he comes across as a relatable dad (plus being more on the large side).

Of course the problem for the GOP is that once you get into the details of his ideas, they're actually pretty popular based on most polling I've seen. I mean the right will still try to paint Walz as a "radical" who would try to turn the Midwest into Venezuela but then again they would literally say for any Democrat even if the VP pick were Joe Manchin. I think there's a good chance such a move could very well backfire on them if they're gonna try saying that popular policies like free school lunches are a bad thing.

Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him. — Michael

I suspect Biden and Trump share the same staff.

Whatever you say.

Could Trump replace JD Vance? Experts explain how it would work

Trump’s Shortest-Term Official Predicts When J.D. Vance Is Out

I Hope Trump Kept the Receipt

Can Trump Replace JD Vance As Kamala Harris Gains Momentum? Experts Warn It Could Be 'Extraordinarily Disruptive

Polls Show Vance Is Deeply Unpopular — Could the RNC Remove Him From the Ticket?

Well, now that the Democrats have gotten rid of Biden, what are the chances that the GOP is gonna get rid of their weirdo? No, not the old one that's 78 and rambles incoherently on occasion but his running mate who apparently is so bad that he's dragging his boss down. It's only been a week since he was chosen but now there's already talk about replacing him.

Just last week: Biden tanking with donors and polls. Trump shot and gets a photo-op. Picks a VP. RNC convention. Elon Musk endorses. One lawsuit thrown out.

Old news. He already peaked, and too early. All downhill from here. Could still pull it off, but what a difference a week makes from the hysterics. — Mikie

I don't think it was intentional but Biden dropping out right after the RNC when the GOP was doing a victory lap with Trump's vanity VP pick was probably the worst time for that to happen to them. The race is reset and the party is now stuck with a flawed running mate, a wasted convention, and thousands of carefully crafted Biden dementia ads that will probably never see the light of day.

He's the old one now. Kam at least has put some youth into our political process. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. — fishfry

If anything we can now test the theory of whether replacing one of the two unpopular candidates would ensure their victory. I mean Kamala is far from a generic Democrat, but it seems like voters don't really know much about her apart from her being VP and both sides are scrambling to define her right now so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

It’s nutty how ruthless the DNC is compared to the RNC, which couldn’t even stop a Trump. — Mikie

To be fair, Trump earned his nomination in 2016 while Biden didn't in 2024. As much as he brags about 14 million votes in the primary he was running as an incumbent against an anti-vaxxer, a hippie lady, a progressive talk show host who wasn't even born in the country, and a no-name guy named Dean Philips. He has no true base of support and because of that it's far more rational to just push him out. The RNC can't do the same with their candidate lest they piss off the cult.

Coming from the same people who until last week denied that JB has dementia. — Lionino

I wonder if the September debate is still on. Of course Trump may dip out of it like he did during the primaries now that he's going up against someone who's not a senile old man but we'll see.

He's out.

I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside. — Echarmion

I think there's starting to become a more organized movement here as more time passes and Biden continues to not reassure his party while pissing them off with his arrogance. It's clear that leadership is not happy with him and are not letting things move on as much as the Biden campaign would like to pretend like nothing happened.

So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do. — Echarmion

There's always challenging him at the convention and putting up somebody else which is an extreme measure that's very unlikely but who knows with a party that finds Biden's presence increasingly unacceptable. One could argue that it may hurt Biden's chances if they continue to complain, but as more and more polling suggests he's a goner anyways and will drag the entire party down with him, then there's also reason to think that it won't matter much anyways so might as well complain.

I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time. — Echarmion

Well like I told Benkei, Bernie tried to run in 2020 but was stopped by the establishment that gave us Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2024. If Trump ends up winning again because of their shenanigans then hopefully we will see such a reformation. I don't blame the Democrat voters for what is happening because the problem really was they never had a say in the process.

The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. — Benkei

There are plenty of reasons why the US isn't a democracy and alot of them involve the SCOTUS, particularly their decisions in 2000, 2010, and this year. Of course the primaries are also pretty terrible too and the way general elections have locked out serious third party contenders since the 90s.

I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. — Benkei

It was actually fear that got us Biden in 2020, not of Trump but of Bernie Sanders. In 2020, there was a point where Sanders was about to run away with the nomination and the entire establishment rallied behind Biden in a matter of a few days before Super Tuesday in order to stop him. Biden wasn't the best candidate but he was the one they settled with because he's the easiest one to rally behind. If Biden ends up dropping out this year then we will see the exact reverse of that, as all the anti-Biden forces will likely coalesce around Kamala this time around, not because she's the best candidate but she's the easiest one to rally behind. The lord almighty have giveth and the lord almighty will have taketh away, to use some of Biden's own words.

That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario. — Echarmion

It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? The donor money has dried up, the polling has gotten even worse for him, the media is completely dogpiling the Biden campaign now, and members of the party have been defecting en masse and increasingly so.

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.

Hopefully, Biden will be eased out of the race and replaced by a more worthy opponent for Trump. Kamala Harris is good at reading teleprompters, but does she have presence of mind and ability to argue off the cuff? — jgill

She's a prosecutor so I'm not worried about her ability to make a factual case. It's her ability to not seem fake that's more worrisome about her. That being said, still better than the corpse we have now.

I think Trump's stance on China and hitting it with tariffs is the only correct stance. It's ridiculous to give an autocratic country that oppresses its own people this much economic power and influence over our own economies, which it only reaches because it's not playing by the same rules as we expect of our own businesses. — Benkei

Sure and Biden has sort of been doing that too but I'm not sure the unilateral way Trump did it was wise. He should've coordinated with other countries and worked out a plan but he's not a man who's known for that. Apparently for his next term, he plans to not only put major tariffs on China, but a global 10% tariff on all imported goods, which doesn't sound like a good idea and will probably worsen the inflation that people will vote him in for.

I think the West's stance on Ukraine is cowardly. If Ukraine is to join NATO and Russia basically (predictably) attacks it because of those NATO statements, they should bear the consequences of those statements. Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. And if we're not prepared to stand up for our own security, we shouldn't antagonised Russia. Who knows what Trump would've done but it hardly could've been more callous than what happened now. — Benkei

I'd support sending them weapons as long to defend themselves as they work out a peace plan, which unfortunately doesn't seem like what the Biden administration is doing (though I can't say I'm aware of what kind of talks are being had behind the scenes). It just seems inevitable that this whole war will end up with Russia not taking over all of Ukraine, Ukraine not taking back Crimea, Ukraine not joining NATO (which could be used as a bargaining chip, and whatever negotiated settlement being determined along the Donbas region.

Although people keep saying that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president, I honestly feel like the opposite is true. Trump is an isolationist who has bad ties with NATO and a bad history with Ukraine's president, so it's not hard to see that Putin would have an easier time if he were in power, and probably sort of bet on him being reelected in 2020 as part of his plans. As for what Trump would do if he got back in power, he'd probably force a peace deal on Ukraine which I support though it's what follows and how this relates to the situation in Taiwan I'm not as sure about.

Not saying you have to agree with this assessment: but preferring Trump (or GOP) over Biden isn't the insanity people like to pretend it is. — Benkei

No, no, I can certainly see why his America First policies are appealing to people, especially in the aftermath of the interventionist and globalist policies of previous administrations. The problem is that he's an idiot so he doesn't really know what he's doing half the time. He pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal and then tried to do make a similar agreement with North Korea for instance.

I still think he should be in jail as well for J6. — Benkei

Well he's gonna be king now, because the Democrats like in 2016 are too incompetent, arrogant, and anti-democratic to mount an effective challenger. And by "Democrats" I really just mean the handful of people in leadership, not the voters who never had a say in nominating an 81 year old man, the majority of whom thought was too old.

Yeah his press conference even if it's rambling shows he's saying something, while Trump doesn't really say anything at all. I'm not saying he's been great on foreign policy, though Ukraine and China are fine as far as I can tell, with his policy on the middle east being more problematic.

I mean, to be fair, he's saying that he's more competent than Trump, which is probably the case. Joe may be dead half the time but that's made up for by Trump's excessive "executive time" and in terms of knowledge Trump knows little to nothing about anything so Biden wins out there because at least he does know something about foreign policy.

If I was religious, I'd assume god really is on Trump's side. — Echarmion

If I was religious I'd be denouncing my own faith about now to be honest.

Well America good luck with your new king I guess. At this point I'm just trying to find a nice seat for myself to watch as society continues to burn itself to the ground.

I would say I am 65/35 that Trump will win if Biden stays in at this point. Historically he always over preformed his polling by a lot and right now he is winning every swing state and even the popular vote. — Count Timothy von Icarus

LOL, I'd say it's 80/20. Trump is gonna get a bump from this whole assassination attempt and be seen as a martyr to his rabid cult. Meanwhile the Dems are running an unpopular uninspiring octogenarian in cognitive decline who's selfishly gambling away our futures for a second term in office.

If that happens, I'm 90/10 sure they are going to abolish the filibuster to push through a lot of new legislation to ensure they are less likely to lose elections in the future. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is less likely since the GOP don't really need the filibuster to do alot of what they want, which is cut taxes for the rich and defunding every government program out there. The Democrats would benefit way more from getting rid of it since their policies tend to be more popular.

A lot of Dem voters would be unhappy and confused. — fishfry

Actually I'd say alot of them would be relieved if Biden were replaced right now. Like I said alot of Dem voters didn't want Biden to run again and the debate has been spread around so much that people know what's going on with Biden. Most of the in person takes from Democrats I've seen seem to be "yeah I'll vote for Joe over Trump because Trump, but honestly I think I will prefer anything else".

Biden had a bad approval rating and was losing the election to Trump even before the debate. — fishfry

Part of what makes me see the debate as a blessing in disguise. I thought Biden's campaign was a dying campaign that was gonna lose before anyways so a disastrous debate performance was just the sort of jolt needed in desperate times. I mean Biden may still stay in but if things were going in a bad direction already then hey gotta take a chance right?

Many of the Dems' policy results such as inflation, unchecked immigration causing blue cities to be overrun with a humanitarian and financial disaster; the two wars, etc etc, are quite unpopular. And Kam is to the left of Joe. I don't see how this solves the Dems' electoral problems. — fishfry

I'm not gonna argue policy but politically Kamala would be wise to try to distance herself from the unpopular policies of Biden's administration and tie herself to the more popular aspects. The Gaza issue for instance is something that is splitting the base right now for Biden, so another candidate who isn't as tied to Biden's actions would be better, if simply for the fact that they won't be seen as having Palestinian blood on their hands as the chief director of an administration's foreign policy.

Trump is 100% the Democrats' fault — fishfry

I don't think alot of Democrats would disagree with that, particularly on the progressive left (the "Bernie would've won" types). The Dems utter incompetence in running an effective candidate against an easily beatable buffoon like Trump is what got us here and may get us to another Trump term. Hilary was unpopular but the DNC decided it was her turn and she was the nominee. Biden was also uninspiring but the DNC decided it was his turn and pulled alot of strings to get more popular candidates like Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him before Super Tuesday, winning him the nomination. And now the DNC is again ignoring the will of it's voters by putting up a man the majority of the country think is too old.

It's funny how apart from Biden the two candidates who won the general elections since 2008 were dark horse candidates in Obama and Trump who genuinely built up a base of support from the ground up. Maybe the Democrat party should take some lessons from that or maybe they'll try to force Kamala down our throats in 2028 since it's her turn next.

The Democrats created all of this. They made a martyr then a hero out of Trump; and they refused to confront reality about Biden's condition. The Dems did this. Not the GOP. Most of the GOP hate Trump, they'd love an alternative. The Democrats forced the GOP to rally around Trump. — fishfry

I'd say the GOP also bears some of the blame too for what happened post Jan 6. They condemned Trump and what he did, rightly so. They could've impeached and gotten rid of him forever but they chickened out, perhaps because they thought that he was gonna go away on his own. The Dems thought the same and also did nothing too.

You may have your own ideas on why it took Garland so long to start an investigation into Trump but I think it's just because they had the same mindset as the GOP: That Trump would simply go away and disappear because there's no way the people would flock back to a loser who tried to pull off that, right? There was no need to start a politically charged investigation into a highly controversial figure which would probably just anger the people at Jan 6. It was just pure incompetence and trust in the public to move on when they clearly seem unable to.

Like I said before, courage is a rare thing for elected officials, and nobody has the guts to actually go after Trump effectively and snuff him out for good, causing him to come back as he always has. It's not that Trump is invincible but everyone else is a coward.

I wouldn't mess with Jill and Hunter. — fishfry

Well at this point they have to talk as much sense into Jill as they do to Joe.

And just now we have Pelosi coming on to Biden's favorite show Morning Joe and laying out that this issue is clearly not over right to Joe's face. She is still saying Biden "needs to make a decision" after he decided to stay on, which is essentially code for "we'll let you do it on your own terms, but get the hell out or else more people will lose confidence in you".

I truly do not understand that talking point. Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy. On the contrary, he got rolled by the bureaucrats and most of the people who worked for him. — fishfry

Well that's the idea. He clearly has a tendency for dangerous ideas given Jan 6, but was stopped by some of the people who were working for him like Mike Pence. I guarantee you whoever he picks for his running mate and his administration won't be professionals who would keep him in check like last time.

I assume we probably are gonna disagree here but I'll just leave things there. I'm not looking to debate Trump's policies or Project 2025 right now.

He's the president of the United States. He doesn't have to do or say a damn thing. He said something the other day I really liked. He said, "If someone wants to challenge me at the convention, let them." He's a tough old bird. I don't like the guy but this might be his finest hour! — fishfry

Similarly nobody in the Biden White House can truly stop the congressional Dems from coming out and distancing themselves from the president, which is clearly something Biden is working hard to avoid. Both sides are lobbing threats at each other and Biden according to one article is promising mutually assured destruction if he is attacked. Of course if the Dems are in a sinking ship anyways then why not pull a mutiny?

The 1968 Democrats had a wild primary that ultimately drove LBJ out. — fishfry

LBJ stepped aside and a chaotic primary ensued where RFK was assassinated.

Wouldn't have to. He can run then turn it over to Kam in 2025. Would have made his point. Kam is not any more likely to win the election than Biden. Kam has high unfavorability. She's a lousy politician, the 2020 primaries showed that. She had to drop out in 2019. She is not the Dems' savior. — fishfry

The average voter just cares about who is at the top of the ticket and a bit about who is running with them. They're not gonna think that far ahead like you are. In fact I imagine alot of them are ignorant of how succession works. Plus it's very unlikely a narcissist like Biden would just hand over the presidency to Kamala as soon as he is inaugurated. He will be in the office most likely until he dies partway through the term at 85.

The party will look like a clown show if they throw over Joe after telling us he was "sharp as a tack" for three years. People will not like that.They don't have to vote for Trump, but enough of them might just stay home.

The message would be, "We said Joe is sharp as a tack but we were lying, so here, vote for highly unpopular Kamala." I don't think that's a winning message for the Dems. Not a partisan point. Biden has a better shot to win than Kamala. It doesn't matter that his mind is gone. He's not Trump, AND the DNC isn't pulling a last-minute switcheroo.

I don't think the voting public is going to like a switcheroo on top of the fraud they've already seen. Hope I made my point that I'm not talking partisanship. I think Kam's a terrible candidate. Her negatives don't go away if they elevate her. — fishfry

I don't think the party will spin it that way. Biden won't make a speech saying "Yeah I've been lying about having dementia for 2 years now so I'm stepping aside", but probably saying something along the lines of "I believe I can serve another 4 months, but not another 4 years, so I'm renouncing my candidacy". The GOP will probably continue with the narrative but as far as the Dems are concerned, they didn't lie and they Biden is just making a personal decision about his next 4 years.

Also more would stay home if given the choice between Biden and Trump. Sure people hate Trump but the DNC is essentially making them walk through glass to vote against him by making the alternative just as despised and with crippling flaws of his own.

Ok, so that's a point we disagree on. But not a partisan point for me. If Trump didn't exist, the Dems should still run Joe. The swicheroo factor, I'll call it. People will feel that they've been played. — fishfry

My perception is people would just be relieved that they won't have to vote for a criminal geriatric and a senile one. You can say the scandal and the coverup is a bad look and the right wing circles will certainly go wild with that, but in an election full of conspiracies and scandals about laptops and documents that people seem to care very little about, at the end of the day the inattentive swing voter will just care about who they're voting for at the top of the ticket. Kamala isn't great, but she's not a corpse or a convicted felon.

I am pretty sure Biden is way beyond embarrassment at this point. And Jill and Hunter surely have no shame. But I see your point. At some point he'll cave to the political pressure of being so unliked. Could happen. Or it could just make him dig in more. He's been in politics over 50 years. Survival is an instinct. We see it all the time. His body knows how to be a politician even if his mind is gone. — fishfry

Yeah Biden has been in politics for 50 years but that has made him an institutionalist. Unlike Trump, he is a man who highly values norms, running on "restoring normalcy" as his 2020 pitch. The idea of running without the full support of your party is certainly breaking one of those norms and sure he may continue to soldier on as the donor network and congressional support dries up, but that is not easy for someone who's been a lifelong Dem. Trump certainly would since he never was a traditional politician, but as much as he tries to imitate him would Biden?

Could happen. And Trump is no spring chicken either. One more Big Mac could do it. — fishfry

If the lord almighty visited Biden and Trump the same day that would be the greatest day in American history where we're saved from this nightmare of an election.

I mean she may be First Lady but that doesn't at all give you any idea of what being president is like.

That being said if Jgill's prediction about Biden stepping aside (which is more likely now after the debate) and endorsing Michelle Obama that will certainly be Trump's worst nightmare. Plus the optics of passing over Kamala for another black woman wouldn't be as severe. Michelle just needs to last 4 months and the election is in the bag. A wonderful fantasy indeed.

Wouldn't she need a sufficiently detailed political program? Or is that no longer relevant? :) — jorndoe

I think we've long since past that this election cycle.

Judging by what I've seen of/from her, I can see her as US president. Surely a whole class above the Clown. From memory, she had some qualms about a normal life with/for their kids. — jorndoe

Honestly I still don't see the obsession people have with Michelle Obama, especially since she doesn't seem to have any political ambitions or policies of her own. Like is it purely because people miss Barack Obama that much?

They had a meeting today. A reporter asked an attendee if they were on the same page, and he said, "We're not even on the same book." Reports that some people were in tears. Lot of misery in the Dem party. Pretty much anything could happen. — fishfry

Yeah the dam didn't break for now, but clearly nobody is eager to unite behind Biden just yet. Bennet's comments recently indicate that Biden isn't gonna be able to ignore and move on from the problem as he usually likes to do.

Right. Rumors they're all pretty upset and no solution in sight. — fishfry

Courage is a rare thing among elected officials which is why Trump wasn't banished from the GOP, despite their occasional concerns about him post Jan 6 and 2022 midterms.

Right again. Nate Silver has an article out implying that Biden is bluffing. Maybe he is. He was at NATO today, didn't embarrass himself. He's hanging in. A politician who's been running for office for fifty years or more isn't going to go out easily. — fishfry

I'd say call the bluff. Biden isn't exactly a guy who embodies strength as we saw during the debate and how he's been handling the Gaza situation. I mean sure he has alot of angry stubborn grandpa energy but Netanyahu has been crossing his red lines repeatedly and he has not done anything to stop him.

At this point I don't know what the congressional Dems have to lose either so they might as well try to improve their party's situation and place themselves on the right side of history in case Biden stays in, Trump wins, and he ends democracy.

One interesting aspect of Biden's ABC interview was that he never really specified how he would react if the congressional Dems turned on him. He outright refused to answer the question and acted like there's no revolt going on. If he was really delusional you would've thought that he would give a non-assuring answer like, "I would sit down and tell them 'We will win'," or something to that effect. That will probably hang over the Dems minds as they contemplate what to do next.

But why didn't the Dems do something sooner? If they'd just have had a competitive primary they'd have replaced him already. — fishfry

Arrogance. They thought they could probably roll with Biden into the next election and dismissed people's concerns about his age. I mean they got pretty far before we saw what happened a week ago... putting aside all those viral videos of Biden having senior moments.

Biden's status, or lack thereof, in the Democratic party cuts both ways. They clearly don't have loyalty to him, but he also has no loyalty to them. That's another reason he's hanging in. He's not thinking of the good of the party, he's taken a lot of disrespect from his fellow Dems over the years. It's the Bidens versus the world at this point. — fishfry

Sounds like great qualities to have in a leader, both for the party and the country.

Definitely not over. This thing's just getting started. Even if they swapped in Kamala, it would not be smooth sailing. The public would have a lot of questions about "What did they know, and when did they know it," as they used to say during Watergate. — fishfry

Yeah, but that would be much better than well, trying to convince the public to vote for a soon to be 82 year old man who clearly has cognitive issues to serve another 4 years in office.

He's gotten much worse just in the past few months. It's heartbreaking at a human level. Especially since none of us are immune. I kind of admire his stubbornness. I'd like to see him stay in and stick it to the party — fishfry

Depends on your political affiliation but as someone who doesn't want Trump winning I have no sympathy for an old man who is selfishly staying in and gambling with his party and country simply to try and get a second term in his 80s.

Not clear a last-minute swap would help. Not entirely clear that Biden's condition is the only reason he's behind in the polls. — fishfry

At this point I can see way more upsides to a new candidate than running with Biden. Biden can't do anything to fix the fact that he's down in the polls but another candidate can.

As Nikki Haley said, in a race between two incredibly unpopular geriatrics, the first party to get rid of their candidate wins the election. Polling seems to back that idea up, showing that a generic Dem or Rep running against either Trump or Biden respectively will easily win. It'll be interesting to see if that theory holds true.

When the GOPs came to Nixon, they told him he was certain to be impeached and convicted. The Dems have no such leverage. This really is a day-by-day situation. Next week is the GOP convention, that might take some of the media attention off the Dems. — fishfry

Yeah but they can severely harm and embarrass him, which at this point Biden frankly deserves. As a narcissist that's something he probably cares deeply about. Leverage isn't the same as having complete control over someone.

BIden is not a good man. His lunchbucket Joe act is just for the public. — fishfry

Yeah doesn't seem like it so far. He's become oddly Trumpian in just about every respect since the debate happened. That being said it could all be a bluff and he may fold if his party lost faith in him. Biden's recent attempt at painting his problems as the elites trying to get rid of him as Trump usually does just isn't believable coming from him, a man who has been propped up by the elites all his life.

I think if the Dems coalesced behind Joe that gives them their best chance. Then Kamala can take over shortly after the inauguration if Joe should win. It's going to be a close election either way. It's very unclear if swapping out Joe actually improves the Dems' chances. — fishfry

They're likely gonna coalesce if Biden lasts until the convention, and the party and the media will never bring up the age or replacement issue again.

Or... maybe they will continue bringing up the issue of replacement if it's possible to swap him out post nomination, though at that point it'd just be Kamala who would be the nominee. Could be possible (apparently there was discussion of Pence taking over the GOP ticket in October of 2016 after the Access Hollywood tapes came out after all). Biden is likely to have a major senior moment in the next 4 months especially during the next debate which may reignite the discussion, or he could just die of old age. He's 81 after all, so it's not a possibility you can definitively rule out.