Pelosi actually cares about the overall position of the party and electability. As a practical politician she’s good at what she does.
Biden’s administration has been pretty progressive so far left Democrats in safe seats are happy to keep him. They have more influence with a weak president.
ETA: politicians from the San Francisco elite like Pelosi, Newsom and Harris tend to have a lot of power within the party because of their ability to bring in big, CA money. Trump’s recent bend towards crypto policy is him undermining them on that point.
My half thought out take is that AOC and the progressive branch don’t want to take the heat from pundits if Trump wins because, regardless of Biden staying or not, they would get blamed for the outcome. Their backing of Biden seems to me their way of saying “we wanted a different nominee in the first place so we refuse to be blamed for Democratic leadership incompetence”
I think it’s more:
1. Whoever they replace Biden with will not be to the left of Biden
2. Biden will repay their loyalty if he wins
3. They’re not even the real decision makers
4. They’re already getting enough shit for the fact that many of their voters are threatening not to vote because of Gaza, so the last thing they want to do is give their base ANOTHER reason not to vote
Haha thank you, though with the formatting it looks like you’re shouting at me (I’m guessing you meant to say “#4” and it formatted everything to header)
For #1, it's hard to tell. Biden has a 50 year track record of being pretty moderate. But his agency heads have been going far left without much oversight through ton of adminstrative code / rulings / suits
Yeah that’s fair, Biden himself might not be particularly left but I was more pointing out that when you think of who the alternatives are that are actually discussed (Harris, newsom, whitmer) its not like the squad is getting a choice of Biden or Bernie
Say what you want about Pelosi, but she understands politics and was famous for getting things done. She knows what it takes to win and understands this is not just about POTUS but also down ballot House/Senate races and state/local races. Democrats staying home because of this will be disastrous in ways maybe some of the newer people in safe districts don't understand.
AOC and Omar are in "vote blue no matter who" districts so they will always push the top candidate regardless of who they are. Nancy doesn't have much to lose at this point by comparison.
It seems like most of the calls for Biden to withdraw have come from representatives of safe Dem seats, so I don’t think that’s a big reason. I also doubt AOC or Omar would suffer electorally if they were to push against Biden—Dem voters are mixed!
Pelosi cares about the party and the downballot Democrats in competitive seats, and knows Biden will lead to a GOP Senate. The Squad are in safe blue seats and have no worries, and think this is their way to influence Biden since he's in a vulnerable position and needs allies. I also think personally that the Squad doesn't really care about legislating and knows that a Trump win will probably help them raise their profiles in opposition and push the party to the left further.
I just don't buy this at all. AOC 100% understands what a second Trump presidency would look like and knows what could've happened to her on Jan 6. There's not a chance she wants Biden to lose.
This is the same woman who pretended to be in handcuffs at a pro choice protest and staged/choreographed crying photos at a border facility.
She would love a 2nd Trump presidency, she knows she'd thrive in it.
That's my somewhat cynical take on it too. They made their political careers as opponents to Trump so maybe they think they can gain more prominence fighting him, rather than supporting Biden. That may or may not be what they're thinking though.
That's a good point. There really hasn't been much in the news about AOC and the others the past couple years and they were in the news all the time when Trump was in the Oval Office.
She stands way more to gain if trump wins tbh. She hasn’t been relevant for a while now but the squad was super vocal and getting attention when trump was in power. If your whole group gets all of your attention from getting upset about random things it’s better to be in a situation where you have more to speak against.
It does because Harris, Whitmer, Newsom and Shapiro are the names in the mix- not AOC. In 2028 she would have time to position herself.
If anyone other than Joe does it, she's looking at running against an incumbent.
I think that's why she's punting until 2028, gives her 4 years to become a leadership figure. I like AOC, she's trying to do things and that's more than many.
I don't think AOC does "normal". She clearly loves being the ultra-progressive "darling" of college kids and social media, and being in a solidly blue district has no reason to moderate. She has about as much a chance of being president as I do
Biden can't run in 2028, every other name in the mix can run - she'd be running against an incumbent if Joe steps aside and another democrat wins. If she supports Joe, 2028 is open no matter what.
In other words, she's ok losing to get her shot in 2028
I think it would be more informative to view it as "Person who probably has 10+ years to live tells person who definitely doesn't have 10 years left that they've aged too poorly to stay in government."
Biden won't yield until he's facing the full force of his own party in unified opposition.
And even then, considering his recent comments, I don't think he'll cede the nomination without a fight at the convention.
They're locked into this weird spot of calling each other's bluff where Biden keeps insisting he's running and Dems should stop talking about it, and Dems keep insisting he should "reconsider" or outright saying he should step down, hoping he'll bend. Amusingly, this discussion continuing to go on for weeks is sinking any chance they have in November worse than either option of Biden staying or being replacing.
This is what I'm saying. I'd rather just have the full weight of the party behind *someone*. If it's still gonna be Biden, fine, and honestly, I thought that's where we were headed earlier this week. But if it's going to be someone else, the time is yesterday.
But this strategy of a few Dems keeping this in the news cycle every week with new wishy washy comments are just the worst of both worlds. It makes Biden look like he has no control over his party, let alone the government.
Yeah, I expected him to drop out Monday like a lot of others were also saying if it was going to happen. Now it's like a slow motion train wreck with all the dem backstabbing and splinturing. Couldn't imagine a worse time for this to start happening either than the last few months before the election. It's like the perfect storm to destroy their own party and they have no one else to blame but themselves.
This is 100% correct. Biden isn't going to simply step aside this time like he has in past elections. He's incumbent, he's finally attained what he has spent his literal entire life trying to get, and he has no interest in giving it up. And given his famously stubborn and confrontational nature no amount of pressure will convince him otherwise. And this isn't even touching on Jill and Hunter constantly whispering in his ears reinforcing his position.
The conspiracy theory surrounding that was he was always pumped full of vitality drugs during those.
I think those have either stopped working and he built a tolerance to them, or his age and decline is accelerating faster than the drugs can keep up.
> You remember correctly. They were much less frequent, but there were signs of decline in '20.
like when he was telling the people of philadelphia how "he was wearing his philadelphia eagles jacket" (which totally wasn't an eagles jacket, nor was it eagles colors, nor did it even have an eagle on it)?
Were those people voting specifically for Biden or just against Trump? Also, Trump has the second most popular votes in the same election. Both appear to be very popular if you take the 2020 numbers at face value.
>Were those people voting specifically for Biden or just against Trump?
I agree with u/reaper527 on how that's irrelevant to how Joe Biden views those figures.
But for what it's worth, I've seen exit polls estimating that up to 15% of Biden's votes were *against* Trump rather than *for* Biden.
Also of note: I'm not aware of polling that shows how many of Trump's votes were *against* Biden.
> Were those people voting specifically for Biden or just against Trump?
irrelevant, because presumably the person you were replying to was referring to how biden will interpret that rather than an objective analysis of how that figure came to be.
as long as i'm interpreting his post correct, he's point out that the 81m figure is something that biden will use to convince **himself** he is popular and can win regardless of what that number really means.
They would have to either change the rules, or pressure the delegates to not vote for him out of "good conscience".
I doubt either of those will ever happen, I think it's far more probable that they are waiting for the next misstep he makes and then will pressure him again but with the full force of the party. The only realistic path I see to a new candidate is Biden stepping down willingly.
If he still doesn't back down, there's a "middle ground" extreme option. I still don't think they'd do it, but they might be willing to bluff about it: get Kamala and half the cabinet to 25th him, then change the party rules to disallow 25th'd candidates. This somewhat gets around the "voters chose Biden" issue of a DNC rule change by framing him as mentally disabled, but at the cost that Biden could fight back and attempt to remain as President, enabled by 1/3 of either the House or Senate.
So the article that's been going around is pretty much false, or at least extremely deceptive. Biden hasn't even been nominated, so if it was past the cutoff, there would be issues even for him!
MOST of what the article is talking about is assuming that Biden is replaced past the nomination, while everyone discussing the idea of Biden being replaced is assuming that would happen at the nomination.
I believe the article claims that Wisconsin's deadline is passed, but I've heard that this is false, as it is the deadline for independents. I think the idea is that the party has to register by then, but the nominee does not. Someone sent me the actual laws claiming there were issues, but when I read what they sent me it actually said that nominees had three days past the convention to register.
Then there is the actual true issue of Ohio, but that is still in the future. I've also heard it claimed that they've since moved their date, but I haven't verified that myself. Even if it's not true, that's still in the future though, just before the nomination, and would realistically only affect downballot votes since Ohio is not going to decide the election.
>it is past the cutoff date for candidates in some states.
False. The issue was two states - Alabama and and Ohio. Alabama changed their deadline on May 2 and Ohio on June 2. It was an issue but was resolved over a month ago.
[https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-07-03-biden-nomination-convention-harris/](https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-07-03-biden-nomination-convention-harris/)
> or pressure the delegates to not vote for him out of "good conscience".
is that even an option? they're pledged delegates that are bound to the candidate.
not super familiar with the intricacies of the DNC nomination process, but they can't just "not vote" or vote for someone else in the first round, can they?
It's been brought to light it's an option in the DNC's laws, though it's not one I see ever happening as I think even the out there possibility of the 25th Amendment + DNC law changes would be less disruptive.
> It's been brought to light it's an option in the DNC's laws, though it's not one I see ever happening as I think even the out there possibility of the 25th Amendment + DNC law changes would be less disruptive.
for what it's worth, many STATES have laws requiring the delegates to vote for the person the primary/caucus results says they are supposed to vote for.
while the constitutionality of those laws is questionable at best, it's on the books and would absolutely turn into a litigious mess that would make the party look like a clown show for a month or two after the convention and leave no clear nominee until september/october since the convention is so late this year.
like you said, probably a moot point since the delegate revolt theory is extremely unlikely. (especially since in many cases the biden campaign would have coordinated with state parties to reward supporters with those spots and make sure they won the various delegate selection caucuses)
every delegate selection caucus i've been to the nominee's campaign had officials handing out slates of the campaign's officially endorsed delegates, and typically those people win. (yes, there was the whole 2012 fiasco where ron paul's supporters were very organized and beat out a lot of romney's picks, but that's not the norm)
>for what it's worth, many STATES have laws requiring the delegates to vote for the person the primary/caucus results says they are supposed to vote for.
Ah, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for the info!
>without a fight at the convention.
The convention is too late. If they're going to replace Biden it has to be this week. Every day that goes by with this in limbo it gets harder to win in November.
Unless that full force is behind another candidate, theres no benefit for the dems in Biden stepping down. A fragmented democratic party is less likely to beat Trump than one backing Biden.
I prefer the Federal Reserve to be independent from politics really, they function better when party politics don’t influence them.
Appearances look like a big part of why interest rates weren’t raised during the years 2016-2019 was Trump putting pressure on the Fed to not do that.
The economy was roaring from about 2014 until the pandemic. The Fed absolutely should be able to disregard what party is currently in charge in order to accomplish its goals.
Had they raised interest rates during that time, they could have lowered them during the pandemic without having to be to completely bottom them out entirely.
That isn’t the only factor leading to the inflation we saw the from 2020-23 but it was definitely a major contributing factor, that rates dropped to such stupid low levels. Others being pandemic spending including the PPP loan program, labor shortages, etc.
Housing costs spiraling so high were definitely driven by those rates and it’s still impacting the inventory in housing today.
So yeah, I don’t care that the President doesn’t meet with the Fed all that much. I almost wish it was dragged away from the President’s purview entirely but I suppose someone has to appoint them.
You are absolutely correct. In Dec of 2015 it stood at .25%-.5% and was raised over the span leading to 2019 up to a whopping 2.25% while things were really rolling. The economy during that period was great and really has continued with the exception of inflation. Job market has remained good, stock market is outstanding still, inflation pesky, for a myriad of reasons, not only the Fed.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/fed-funds-rate-history/
Forbes does a nice breakdown.
In Aug 2019, inexplicably to me, with a booming economy, they started to make “mid cycle rate cuts” and trimmed from 2.25% - 2.5% down to 1.5% - 1.75% in Dec of 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-heaps-pressure-on-fed-and-its-chairman-powell-to-cut-rates-idUSKCN1VB1I1/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20President%20Donald,country’s%20ability%20to%20compete%20economically.
Trump began a heavy push in the news and in his speaking moments to rail against the Fed and demand cuts. He proceeded to demand more and more through the fall of that year.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/31/trump-rails-against-powell-day-after-fed-cuts-rates-for-a-third-time-this-year.html
Even after the three cuts he was still looking for more.
The economy was on solid footing for me and I think that pressure helped lead to those three cuts.
In hindsight, they were really lousy for the Fed because Covid hit the very next spring and the Fed had very little room to move rates without taking them to zero.
You are right that the Fed did manage a slow creep of rate increases. For really no reason to me, they turned in 2019 in a direction that wasn’t warranted by the overall economy and was helped by executive pressure.
Not saying that is specifically a Trump thing but 2020 was an election year. It made sense from Trump’s perspective to pour that gasoline of rate cuts on the economy and Powell acquiesced for me.
As a result of that, we got caught out a bit on the Fed’s ability to react to Covid in a better way.
All in all, again, I wasn’t saying Trump was the only President to utilize that influence for their own benefit. I was just saying in the context of Biden not meeting specifically with the Fed chairman as often, I am good with that. No matter why Biden isn’t, I wish more Presidents would leave the Fed alone to do its on thing outside of election cycles and politics.
Edit: sorry about that lousy second link length and the amp link, also watching the euro semi final and on a phone, should have made them nice text links.
By 2019, the 12-month lagging CPI reading had cooled to below 2% (and GDP growth had also cooled compared to 2018)
I’m not sure why anyone would expect the Fed to not have started cutting rates by that point.
By the time the Fed made its first cut in 2019, both inflation and GDP had cooled compared to the previous year, with the Fed citing a slowing global economy as a reason for the summer cut. Similarly, the ECB cut rates further into negative territory.
People are so ignorant on this topic.
In addition to the fact you just pointed out, the Fed didn’t raise rates until it was way too late, and Biden was president during that time period.
The fact that its board members are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate are the tie that I could do without. It allows a President to have some influence over it. So you aren’t wrong at all when you say what you said, but that aspect is where the ability to lean on the Fed by the President comes in.
I stand by what I said, influence was used to push Fed policy away from where it should have been.
I am not saying Trump is the only President to have used their influence over Fed policy, but the timing of his demands to keep rates low definitely impacted the inflation we saw and I am okay with Biden not meeting with them, let them do their own thing, regardless of the reason.
I agree with what you said but it should be mentioned that Biden was president for quite a while before the fed started raising rates.
In my industry, people follow this quite closely and there were many many people saying rates should’ve been increased well before they were.
It drives me nuts when Biden fans (not saying you) point out that Trump caused rates to remain lower for longer. They’re not wrong. There’s just more to the story.
No worries, I believe he did, made an extensive campaign of it in the media.
It’s ok for our opinions to differ. I personally like the executive branch having no influence over those decisions but due to their appointment manner the President certainly does.
I didn’t like the rate cuts in 2019. Saw them as a bone to Trump coming into an election year and the Fed got caught out when Covid spread across the globe.
I linked a few news articles in my other response where Trump was quoted through out the second half of 2019 just slamming Powell and demanding more cuts. He wasn’t even happy with the .75 they trimmed for him. Again, by his own words (I don’t give any president much credit for their economy, they campaign on it but don’t control it) the economy was the best ever. Most people would say it was good to great, probably not “the best ever”, so ignoring the hyperbole, the economy was in good times.
I am fine with us each having differing opinions of it, they are just that, opinions. It’s also easier to see the folly in the timing of those rate cuts and their influence on inflation in hindsight.
He did make a campaign of it. I believe it had no effect and they ignored him. They weren’t acting crazy out of line with how they had been, and of course they didn’t know COVID was coming.
Yeah, so like I said, we can have a differing of opinion on what level of influence that press campaign had over their decisions.
Either way, I think maybe you would agree with me it’s better to have those decisions entirely independent based solely on conditions and determined only by economists, but the current appointment manner gives the President some level of influence that I don’t think they should wield.
The Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent.
The Fed fights inflation through monetary policy while Congress fights it with fiscal policy. Unfortunately, when things go badly Americans default to blaming the president.
Don't forget the time that [seven WWF fighters](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4to4tZW8AE0unY?format=jpg&name=900x900) and six children posed in the Oval Office.
> Melania should take it to the next level and have a whole entrance of fireworks like she is at wrestlemania.
or just use something completely non-traditional for the theme, like how when glenn jacobs became mayor he used his kane entrance theme when showing up to his victory party.
Kashmir
For my wedding reception I convinced my wife to let me have an instrumental Kashmir as our entrance music.
It works really well as a processional with a red dollar store cape and a Burger King crown
I have no idea why the White House keeps using that phrase. That’s a term opponents condescendingly use as an insult, yet they thinks it’s a term of endearment for some strange reason.
Apparently after Biden's debate and KJP said he would have another press conference soon, journalist Justin Sink asked [“Is that gonna be kind of the real, big boy press conference that we’re used to or…”](https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1808251065575657804)
KJP immediately latched onto the phrase "big boy" and has been using it for everything. "Big Boy Justin over here was asking some big boy questions.”
I think she believes that she's being extremely clever and mocking reporters by saying it, but for those out of the loop it sounds ridiculously childish and for those in the loop it also sounds childish for different reasons.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1e01ftc/nancy_pelosi_signals_biden_should_reconsider/lckievt/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Especially since it puts an image of similarity between Biden and a toddler in the listeners head. Terrible optics for a guy being accused of losing his adult faculties.
Good, good.
Let the continued Democratic party disarray flow through you.
But seriously – the longer the Democrats keep the spotlight on Biden, the longer the media does, and better this gets for Trump. He, for the first time in his political career, *isn't* at the center of a controversy – and he can actually sit back and watch the chaos and just reel in wins from being silent. Shockingly, he's actually doing it to some degree.
>and he can actually sit back and watch the chaos and just reel in wins from being silent. Shockingly, he's actually doing it to some degree.
That's the most surprising part of all of this, to me. Trump is mostly keeping his mouth shut and not acting like an abrasive ass.
I mean, he was also at his most restrained during the debate that we've ever seen him.
He's still Trump. He'll always be Trump – but I wonder if his age has him actually listening to strategists for once or something. Softened him up, maybe.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1e01ftc/nancy_pelosi_signals_biden_should_reconsider/lcjuigg/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I remember when Democrats were celebrating Trump being forced off the campaign trail by his trial in New York. Now they would do anything to get the spotlight back on him.
It’s dizzying how fast this stagnant, uninspiring election has turned into a political drama for the history books.
I know I’m so happy! I really hope Biden runs if it’s this bad now just wait for the next 4 months! Not only is this going to destroy Biden it will destroy the entire democrat party.
Obama was right when he said “don’t underestimate just how bad Joe Biden can fuck things up”.
We the people need a voice. We can't stand by and go along with this. Logistics is not a reason to run an unfit person for president when you're saving democracy.
Democracy is on the ballot, lets send in Joe Biden? Milarkey
I think it's more obvious than ever that democracy is on the ballot, that's why we need to not roll over on this and try to force them to replace Biden with someone we want to vote for. That is democracy. The republicans voted for their guy... we need a voice.
The difference here between Pelosi and Jeffries' earlier comments is interesting. Is there a real difference in opinion between the two, or is Jeffries just playing along with the "we need to rally behind Biden" camp for now while privately wanting Biden out?
Jeffries is the minority leader in the House. His statements need to be about unity regardless of his personal feelings due to pragmatism.
The fact that he said he was going to bring the list of concerns his members had to Biden earlier today is a surprising break there because it is his job to appear all in.
Pelosi is freed from that responsibility and can more easily express a full opinion that is contrarian with less risk. (And she clearly wants Biden gone without having to directly say it)
Even if 50% of elected Democrats come out in opposition to Biden, I don't think that's enough to get him to step down. It would need to be 60% or higher in my opinion.
Even if 100% do, he won't step down willingly. His generation has that stubborn pride that keeps them from ever backing off a dumpster fire rather than jump straight in. That fact that he has been in politics longer than the oldest politicians of other countries have been alive is proof of that. His retirement date was 2016 at the latest.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1e01ftc/nancy_pelosi_signals_biden_should_reconsider/lcjmndr/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
They should've nominated Whitmer. If she is the candidate from the start she easily beats trump in an election. You could also talk about how your party put up the first female president.
I'm a true swing voter, whitmer would've been someone I would be excited to vote for.
The hard part is it's in her best interest to wait until 2028. Jumping in now and likely losing is something that most with a serous chance will avoid (though I could see Newsom trying). Better to wait, build name recognition and not have to deal with the Biden Trump shit storm
I am not so sure. There have been presidents who lost on their first run for President, and then came back. Also, there is no such thing as bad press, this would get her name in front of the public.
> The DNC doesn’t play that game. I think if you challenged Biden in the primary they wouldn’t put any money behind you in 2028
and it's not just you. during the newsom recall elections the state party was telling campaign staff that if they worked on a non-newsom campaign that they'd never work for the party again. this in turn is going to limit the quality of the campaign team a candidate can build.
> The hard part is it's in her best interest to wait until 2028.
Weird. I thought Democrats were certain that a Trump win in 2024 means there will be no election in 2028. Odd how all the possible contenders seem to be acting as if that isn't really a risk at all.
True, though that's likely because of the 4 potential democratic candidates shown (Biden, Harris, Newsom, Whitmer), Whitmer probably has the lowest national name recognition.
If only the DNC actually had a contested primary, where they actually, you know, let the candidates introduce themselves on a national stage and make a case for their candidacy, and allow the voters to choose the best option.
I know I just think it's flawed and based on name recognition. All the states Biden is currently favored to get, whitmer would get as well and she'd get you Michigan.
Everyone says that but I wouldn't call it certain.
Candidate Whitmer means Kamala is pushed aside and there's a 0% chance she goes quietly.
Does her popularity in greater Michigan even offset the loss of pissed off black women voters in Detroit?
I mean, Michigan is neck and neck, so yeah, she would probably get that. But she needs 2-3 more states that Trump currently leads, and I just don't see it. Not saying you are wrong.
Dems only need Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If it was Whitmer Shaprio they would (in theory) grab 2/3 and gain like 2% in Wisconsin. Seems very attainable
Not trying to criticize you for bringing it up or claiming they’re useless, but I’m always skeptical of these polls. Obviously now we’re only a couple of months from the election, but if Whitmer had hit the ground running earlier we don’t know if she’d crash and burn or absolutely kill it on the campaign trail. We only know now how a Whitmer who has never campaigned for this presidency would fare right now. And while it doesn’t look good it really isn’t a fair picture of what her run would look like if given the chance to actually campaign
But if she's a good choice for this year she's better off waiting until 2028 when she'll have a full campaign season and won't be fronting a party whose credibility is currently in flaming tatters.
This is kind of the big problem the "replace Biden" camp has. Any candidate who would be a good replacement won't want to do it because they're going to be starting from so far behind and any candidate who is willing to take that gamble isn't any more likely than Biden to win. The Democrats are really kind of just fucked right now. They pinned all their hope on keeping Biden's true condition hidden and never bothered to make a backup plan.
I'd argue Whitmer could handily whoop Trump, even if she doesn't step in until the DNC next month.
She'd be a breath of fresh air for countless voters, and it'd be incredibly strong move to nominate a women during the presidential campaign where abortion rights is perhaps the most important issue.
Abortion is only [polling as the 5th most important issue in PA](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Marist-Poll_PA-NOS-and-Tables_202406071448.pdf) among independents and 4th most generally. Focusing on abortion is unlikely to swing the election, and should focus on the issues swing voters care about more.
> I don't know. A lot of people, particularly in swing states will remember her Covid tyranny. She even broke her own covid rules IIRC.
that's the first thing that comes to mind when i see her name. banning stores from selling seeds for their gardens, long oppressive shutdowns, revoking the license of that 70 year old barber that didn't want to close.
especially right now, an extremely strong government response candidate would struggle in a lot of key swing states, and that's before taking into consideration that her party affiliation is likely an albatross right now. this is looking like the red wave of 2022 is coming 2 years late.
She had several instances of Covid hypocrisy over her lockdowns / social distancing / mask mandates.
* She took an unauthorized flight by private charter jet to visit family in Florida while her office cautioned against traveling south for the break.
* She broke her own social distancing rules by visiting an East Lansing bar, gathering with a large group of unmasked people.
* Her family tried to take their boat out on Memorial Day despite her office banning boating on Memorial Day. Her husband tried to use his connection to her to get a lockdown exemption.
* She participated in a BLM march and broke her own "6 feet" social distancing rules.
Outside of the over-the-top mandates that she violated, she also:
* Went [all in on school closures](https://www.woodtv.com/health/coronavirus/april-9-2021-michigan-coronavirus-update/) and canceling school sports all the way into mid-2021, which as any parent that cares about education and youth health should, is absolutely disqualifying.
* Had to have her [endless "state of emergency" declarations removed](https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-end-to-michigans-endless-emergency-11601843838) by the Michigan courts because she kept renewing the emergency orders, despite previous rules saying emergencies couldn't last beyond 28 days unless approved by legislature.
* Vetoed a bill that would have shifted elderly people with Covid out of nursing homes in mid-2020. At the time, about 33% of the state's Covid deaths were those living (or working) in nursing homes.
I agree too. I mainly point to the people who say no one would win since it's too late. The polls saying she's 10 points behind Trump is just silly to me. She doesn't lose any state that Biden has as a lean or safely blue, she guarantees you get Michigan and she probably gets you Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All 3 of those states are currently leaning trump.
Any sane person looking at this would replace him. But there are a lot of legal hurdles and issues related to doing so. It’s more lucrative just running him for the party.
It’s about time for Obama to serve Joe with a courtesy 72 hours notice to do the right thing and step down, lest he go public calling for him to.
It’s gotten to that point. That’s the coup de grâce that will end this fiasco
The best part is he can’t step down because of the democrats Kamala is just DEI hire that nobody will vote for 😂
DNC learned nothing from 2016. It’s so over 🔥
We the people need a voice. We can't stand by and go along with this. Logistics is not a reason to run an unfit person for president when you're saving democracy.
Democracy is on the ballot, lets send in Joe Biden? Milarkey
The party rallying around the idea of Biden stepping aside gives me the first hope I've had in a *LONG* time that the dems can potentially beat Trump. It feels like many in the country are *finally* waking up to the insanity that Trump has been surrounding himself with in the run up to this election, as well as the damage he could potentially do to this nation with a federal government fully staffed with his loyalists, Project 2025 plus a SCOTUS that he could have FIVE handpicked judges on.
Harris may not be charismatic, but she doesn't strike me as the loose cannon anti-democratic politician (small d) Trump is and would be in office. I feel like with her in office things would be just as boring, if not even more boring than Biden's term given that we wouldn't be constantly worrying about her age. Plus we'd see additional progress to halt man's climate change impacts and not have either of the old, declining men who currently lead the respective parties leading our global response to international crises.
I want politics to go back to the lower stakes we had during the 2000-2015 era.
I'm incredibly happy to see the left rallying around holding its candidate to some semblance of standards.
>I'm incredibly happy to see the left rallying around holding its candidate to some semblance of standards.
The left is the faction that is *backing Biden*. The Squad and Bernie have all said that Biden is the nominee and that everyone should back him; its the moderates that are freaking out.
What a weird timeline. We’ve got AOC and Ilhan Omar backing Biden and Pelosi suggesting he should reconsider.
Pelosi actually cares about the overall position of the party and electability. As a practical politician she’s good at what she does. Biden’s administration has been pretty progressive so far left Democrats in safe seats are happy to keep him. They have more influence with a weak president. ETA: politicians from the San Francisco elite like Pelosi, Newsom and Harris tend to have a lot of power within the party because of their ability to bring in big, CA money. Trump’s recent bend towards crypto policy is him undermining them on that point.
My half thought out take is that AOC and the progressive branch don’t want to take the heat from pundits if Trump wins because, regardless of Biden staying or not, they would get blamed for the outcome. Their backing of Biden seems to me their way of saying “we wanted a different nominee in the first place so we refuse to be blamed for Democratic leadership incompetence”
I think it’s more: 1. Whoever they replace Biden with will not be to the left of Biden 2. Biden will repay their loyalty if he wins 3. They’re not even the real decision makers 4. They’re already getting enough shit for the fact that many of their voters are threatening not to vote because of Gaza, so the last thing they want to do is give their base ANOTHER reason not to vote
#4 is brilliant and you are the only person I've heard mention it. What a profound observation, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Haha thank you, though with the formatting it looks like you’re shouting at me (I’m guessing you meant to say “#4” and it formatted everything to header)
I do like how it unintentionally makes the exchange between you two pop in the thread. Brings eyes to a good point
Oh yup my b
For #1, it's hard to tell. Biden has a 50 year track record of being pretty moderate. But his agency heads have been going far left without much oversight through ton of adminstrative code / rulings / suits
Yeah that’s fair, Biden himself might not be particularly left but I was more pointing out that when you think of who the alternatives are that are actually discussed (Harris, newsom, whitmer) its not like the squad is getting a choice of Biden or Bernie
Yeah, only Nixon can go to China.
My initial read is The candidates in the conversation for 2024 to replace Biden are not named AOC Sometimes its just Occams Razor
Say what you want about Pelosi, but she understands politics and was famous for getting things done. She knows what it takes to win and understands this is not just about POTUS but also down ballot House/Senate races and state/local races. Democrats staying home because of this will be disastrous in ways maybe some of the newer people in safe districts don't understand.
Pelosi is the only one of these californians i like.
AOC and Omar are in "vote blue no matter who" districts so they will always push the top candidate regardless of who they are. Nancy doesn't have much to lose at this point by comparison.
It seems like most of the calls for Biden to withdraw have come from representatives of safe Dem seats, so I don’t think that’s a big reason. I also doubt AOC or Omar would suffer electorally if they were to push against Biden—Dem voters are mixed!
Ilhan and AOC have a lot more to lose than Pelosi by going against their own party
They're not backing Biden as much as a likely Kamala presidency if Biden manages to win.
Pelosi cares about the party and the downballot Democrats in competitive seats, and knows Biden will lead to a GOP Senate. The Squad are in safe blue seats and have no worries, and think this is their way to influence Biden since he's in a vulnerable position and needs allies. I also think personally that the Squad doesn't really care about legislating and knows that a Trump win will probably help them raise their profiles in opposition and push the party to the left further.
Of course AOC and Omar are. Biden has been catering to them. The “inflation reduction act” was entirely targetted at them.
AOC and Omar want biden to lose so they can claim he wasn’t progressive enough
I just don't buy this at all. AOC 100% understands what a second Trump presidency would look like and knows what could've happened to her on Jan 6. There's not a chance she wants Biden to lose.
This is the same woman who pretended to be in handcuffs at a pro choice protest and staged/choreographed crying photos at a border facility. She would love a 2nd Trump presidency, she knows she'd thrive in it.
That's my somewhat cynical take on it too. They made their political careers as opponents to Trump so maybe they think they can gain more prominence fighting him, rather than supporting Biden. That may or may not be what they're thinking though.
That's a good point. There really hasn't been much in the news about AOC and the others the past couple years and they were in the news all the time when Trump was in the Oval Office.
She is the one who said she thought Ted Cruz was going to be part of a lynch mob killing her, so she has milked her J6 victimhood.
She stands way more to gain if trump wins tbh. She hasn’t been relevant for a while now but the squad was super vocal and getting attention when trump was in power. If your whole group gets all of your attention from getting upset about random things it’s better to be in a situation where you have more to speak against.
I just don’t even know how to reason with these absurd points. AOC is irrelevant and wants Trump to win? Wild takes.
She becomes more relevant if he wins because she can grift and stuff where no one even talks about her much now
AOC is mad because this is gonna hurt her own 2028 position.
Biden stepping down would hurt her 2028 prospects?
My read, and my own opinion, is that this entire fiasco hurts EVERY democratic hopeful for the next 8 years or so.
Exactly.
It does because Harris, Whitmer, Newsom and Shapiro are the names in the mix- not AOC. In 2028 she would have time to position herself. If anyone other than Joe does it, she's looking at running against an incumbent.
There's no way she thinks she actually has a chance at the presidency. She'd poll lower than Harris
I think that's why she's punting until 2028, gives her 4 years to become a leadership figure. I like AOC, she's trying to do things and that's more than many.
I don't think AOC does "normal". She clearly loves being the ultra-progressive "darling" of college kids and social media, and being in a solidly blue district has no reason to moderate. She has about as much a chance of being president as I do
I don’t think Biden is what’s hurting her future chances tbh.
Biden can't run in 2028, every other name in the mix can run - she'd be running against an incumbent if Joe steps aside and another democrat wins. If she supports Joe, 2028 is open no matter what. In other words, she's ok losing to get her shot in 2028
A ham sandwich has a better chance in 28 than she does, her views aren’t popular with most of the country including democrats.
There’s no one voting for her tbh.
AOC and Omar are both idiots, saying this as someone who leans left
AOC/Omar and Pelosi hate each other. This is a behind the scenes power game going on.
84 year old politician telling an 81 year old politician he is too old to be in government is kinda funny when you think about it
I think it would be more informative to view it as "Person who probably has 10+ years to live tells person who definitely doesn't have 10 years left that they've aged too poorly to stay in government."
Senators and representatives being in mental decline is a much less serious issue than if the President is.
Yea, and one of the, if not the youngest politician (AOC) telling him to stay. Very ironic
Strange times we live in.
Yeah, it's just because 85 is the real limit /s
Biden won't yield until he's facing the full force of his own party in unified opposition. And even then, considering his recent comments, I don't think he'll cede the nomination without a fight at the convention.
They're locked into this weird spot of calling each other's bluff where Biden keeps insisting he's running and Dems should stop talking about it, and Dems keep insisting he should "reconsider" or outright saying he should step down, hoping he'll bend. Amusingly, this discussion continuing to go on for weeks is sinking any chance they have in November worse than either option of Biden staying or being replacing.
This is what I'm saying. I'd rather just have the full weight of the party behind *someone*. If it's still gonna be Biden, fine, and honestly, I thought that's where we were headed earlier this week. But if it's going to be someone else, the time is yesterday. But this strategy of a few Dems keeping this in the news cycle every week with new wishy washy comments are just the worst of both worlds. It makes Biden look like he has no control over his party, let alone the government.
Yeah, I expected him to drop out Monday like a lot of others were also saying if it was going to happen. Now it's like a slow motion train wreck with all the dem backstabbing and splinturing. Couldn't imagine a worse time for this to start happening either than the last few months before the election. It's like the perfect storm to destroy their own party and they have no one else to blame but themselves.
They're playing chicken
This is 100% correct. Biden isn't going to simply step aside this time like he has in past elections. He's incumbent, he's finally attained what he has spent his literal entire life trying to get, and he has no interest in giving it up. And given his famously stubborn and confrontational nature no amount of pressure will convince him otherwise. And this isn't even touching on Jill and Hunter constantly whispering in his ears reinforcing his position.
[удалено]
When he was younger and could answer questions intelligently and we were all locked in our homes hearing about how horrible Trump was 24/7.
[удалено]
Yes but if you look at the interviews he did, he was still concise and there.
He was much better four years ago. Not perfect, but better than he is now.
The conspiracy theory surrounding that was he was always pumped full of vitality drugs during those. I think those have either stopped working and he built a tolerance to them, or his age and decline is accelerating faster than the drugs can keep up.
[удалено]
There were definitely signs of decline but compared [this 2020 interview to today](https://youtu.be/kSAo_1mJg0g?si=ozPmtYEK-X9uesJW&t=145).
You remember correctly. They were much less frequent, but there were signs of decline in '20.
> You remember correctly. They were much less frequent, but there were signs of decline in '20. like when he was telling the people of philadelphia how "he was wearing his philadelphia eagles jacket" (which totally wasn't an eagles jacket, nor was it eagles colors, nor did it even have an eagle on it)?
Were those people voting specifically for Biden or just against Trump? Also, Trump has the second most popular votes in the same election. Both appear to be very popular if you take the 2020 numbers at face value.
[удалено]
I mean, good? You know homeless people are allowed to vote, right?
[удалено]
>Were those people voting specifically for Biden or just against Trump? I agree with u/reaper527 on how that's irrelevant to how Joe Biden views those figures. But for what it's worth, I've seen exit polls estimating that up to 15% of Biden's votes were *against* Trump rather than *for* Biden. Also of note: I'm not aware of polling that shows how many of Trump's votes were *against* Biden.
> Were those people voting specifically for Biden or just against Trump? irrelevant, because presumably the person you were replying to was referring to how biden will interpret that rather than an objective analysis of how that figure came to be. as long as i'm interpreting his post correct, he's point out that the 81m figure is something that biden will use to convince **himself** he is popular and can win regardless of what that number really means.
It’s 2024.
How would a fight at the convention even work? Doesn’t he have enough primary delegates to just walk away with it?
They would have to either change the rules, or pressure the delegates to not vote for him out of "good conscience". I doubt either of those will ever happen, I think it's far more probable that they are waiting for the next misstep he makes and then will pressure him again but with the full force of the party. The only realistic path I see to a new candidate is Biden stepping down willingly. If he still doesn't back down, there's a "middle ground" extreme option. I still don't think they'd do it, but they might be willing to bluff about it: get Kamala and half the cabinet to 25th him, then change the party rules to disallow 25th'd candidates. This somewhat gets around the "voters chose Biden" issue of a DNC rule change by framing him as mentally disabled, but at the cost that Biden could fight back and attempt to remain as President, enabled by 1/3 of either the House or Senate.
The heritage foundation plans to sue if the party plans to replace him, as it is past the cutoff date for candidates in some states.
So the article that's been going around is pretty much false, or at least extremely deceptive. Biden hasn't even been nominated, so if it was past the cutoff, there would be issues even for him! MOST of what the article is talking about is assuming that Biden is replaced past the nomination, while everyone discussing the idea of Biden being replaced is assuming that would happen at the nomination. I believe the article claims that Wisconsin's deadline is passed, but I've heard that this is false, as it is the deadline for independents. I think the idea is that the party has to register by then, but the nominee does not. Someone sent me the actual laws claiming there were issues, but when I read what they sent me it actually said that nominees had three days past the convention to register. Then there is the actual true issue of Ohio, but that is still in the future. I've also heard it claimed that they've since moved their date, but I haven't verified that myself. Even if it's not true, that's still in the future though, just before the nomination, and would realistically only affect downballot votes since Ohio is not going to decide the election.
>it is past the cutoff date for candidates in some states. False. The issue was two states - Alabama and and Ohio. Alabama changed their deadline on May 2 and Ohio on June 2. It was an issue but was resolved over a month ago. [https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-07-03-biden-nomination-convention-harris/](https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-07-03-biden-nomination-convention-harris/)
> or pressure the delegates to not vote for him out of "good conscience". is that even an option? they're pledged delegates that are bound to the candidate. not super familiar with the intricacies of the DNC nomination process, but they can't just "not vote" or vote for someone else in the first round, can they?
It's been brought to light it's an option in the DNC's laws, though it's not one I see ever happening as I think even the out there possibility of the 25th Amendment + DNC law changes would be less disruptive.
> It's been brought to light it's an option in the DNC's laws, though it's not one I see ever happening as I think even the out there possibility of the 25th Amendment + DNC law changes would be less disruptive. for what it's worth, many STATES have laws requiring the delegates to vote for the person the primary/caucus results says they are supposed to vote for. while the constitutionality of those laws is questionable at best, it's on the books and would absolutely turn into a litigious mess that would make the party look like a clown show for a month or two after the convention and leave no clear nominee until september/october since the convention is so late this year. like you said, probably a moot point since the delegate revolt theory is extremely unlikely. (especially since in many cases the biden campaign would have coordinated with state parties to reward supporters with those spots and make sure they won the various delegate selection caucuses) every delegate selection caucus i've been to the nominee's campaign had officials handing out slates of the campaign's officially endorsed delegates, and typically those people win. (yes, there was the whole 2012 fiasco where ron paul's supporters were very organized and beat out a lot of romney's picks, but that's not the norm)
>for what it's worth, many STATES have laws requiring the delegates to vote for the person the primary/caucus results says they are supposed to vote for. Ah, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for the info!
Or, you know… he gets ‘worse’
>without a fight at the convention. The convention is too late. If they're going to replace Biden it has to be this week. Every day that goes by with this in limbo it gets harder to win in November.
Unless that full force is behind another candidate, theres no benefit for the dems in Biden stepping down. A fragmented democratic party is less likely to beat Trump than one backing Biden.
[удалено]
I prefer the Federal Reserve to be independent from politics really, they function better when party politics don’t influence them. Appearances look like a big part of why interest rates weren’t raised during the years 2016-2019 was Trump putting pressure on the Fed to not do that. The economy was roaring from about 2014 until the pandemic. The Fed absolutely should be able to disregard what party is currently in charge in order to accomplish its goals. Had they raised interest rates during that time, they could have lowered them during the pandemic without having to be to completely bottom them out entirely. That isn’t the only factor leading to the inflation we saw the from 2020-23 but it was definitely a major contributing factor, that rates dropped to such stupid low levels. Others being pandemic spending including the PPP loan program, labor shortages, etc. Housing costs spiraling so high were definitely driven by those rates and it’s still impacting the inventory in housing today. So yeah, I don’t care that the President doesn’t meet with the Fed all that much. I almost wish it was dragged away from the President’s purview entirely but I suppose someone has to appoint them.
The Fed raised rates 9 times from 2016-2019.
You are absolutely correct. In Dec of 2015 it stood at .25%-.5% and was raised over the span leading to 2019 up to a whopping 2.25% while things were really rolling. The economy during that period was great and really has continued with the exception of inflation. Job market has remained good, stock market is outstanding still, inflation pesky, for a myriad of reasons, not only the Fed. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/fed-funds-rate-history/ Forbes does a nice breakdown. In Aug 2019, inexplicably to me, with a booming economy, they started to make “mid cycle rate cuts” and trimmed from 2.25% - 2.5% down to 1.5% - 1.75% in Dec of 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-heaps-pressure-on-fed-and-its-chairman-powell-to-cut-rates-idUSKCN1VB1I1/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20President%20Donald,country’s%20ability%20to%20compete%20economically. Trump began a heavy push in the news and in his speaking moments to rail against the Fed and demand cuts. He proceeded to demand more and more through the fall of that year. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/31/trump-rails-against-powell-day-after-fed-cuts-rates-for-a-third-time-this-year.html Even after the three cuts he was still looking for more. The economy was on solid footing for me and I think that pressure helped lead to those three cuts. In hindsight, they were really lousy for the Fed because Covid hit the very next spring and the Fed had very little room to move rates without taking them to zero. You are right that the Fed did manage a slow creep of rate increases. For really no reason to me, they turned in 2019 in a direction that wasn’t warranted by the overall economy and was helped by executive pressure. Not saying that is specifically a Trump thing but 2020 was an election year. It made sense from Trump’s perspective to pour that gasoline of rate cuts on the economy and Powell acquiesced for me. As a result of that, we got caught out a bit on the Fed’s ability to react to Covid in a better way. All in all, again, I wasn’t saying Trump was the only President to utilize that influence for their own benefit. I was just saying in the context of Biden not meeting specifically with the Fed chairman as often, I am good with that. No matter why Biden isn’t, I wish more Presidents would leave the Fed alone to do its on thing outside of election cycles and politics. Edit: sorry about that lousy second link length and the amp link, also watching the euro semi final and on a phone, should have made them nice text links.
By 2019, the 12-month lagging CPI reading had cooled to below 2% (and GDP growth had also cooled compared to 2018) I’m not sure why anyone would expect the Fed to not have started cutting rates by that point.
Because the economy was strong. Not doing anything to rates was an option.
By the time the Fed made its first cut in 2019, both inflation and GDP had cooled compared to the previous year, with the Fed citing a slowing global economy as a reason for the summer cut. Similarly, the ECB cut rates further into negative territory.
People are so ignorant on this topic. In addition to the fact you just pointed out, the Fed didn’t raise rates until it was way too late, and Biden was president during that time period.
The FED isnt even part of the government. It's an independent entity
The fact that its board members are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate are the tie that I could do without. It allows a President to have some influence over it. So you aren’t wrong at all when you say what you said, but that aspect is where the ability to lean on the Fed by the President comes in. I stand by what I said, influence was used to push Fed policy away from where it should have been. I am not saying Trump is the only President to have used their influence over Fed policy, but the timing of his demands to keep rates low definitely impacted the inflation we saw and I am okay with Biden not meeting with them, let them do their own thing, regardless of the reason.
I agree with what you said but it should be mentioned that Biden was president for quite a while before the fed started raising rates. In my industry, people follow this quite closely and there were many many people saying rates should’ve been increased well before they were. It drives me nuts when Biden fans (not saying you) point out that Trump caused rates to remain lower for longer. They’re not wrong. There’s just more to the story.
I don’t think Trump had any effect on the Fed’s decisions.
No worries, I believe he did, made an extensive campaign of it in the media. It’s ok for our opinions to differ. I personally like the executive branch having no influence over those decisions but due to their appointment manner the President certainly does. I didn’t like the rate cuts in 2019. Saw them as a bone to Trump coming into an election year and the Fed got caught out when Covid spread across the globe. I linked a few news articles in my other response where Trump was quoted through out the second half of 2019 just slamming Powell and demanding more cuts. He wasn’t even happy with the .75 they trimmed for him. Again, by his own words (I don’t give any president much credit for their economy, they campaign on it but don’t control it) the economy was the best ever. Most people would say it was good to great, probably not “the best ever”, so ignoring the hyperbole, the economy was in good times. I am fine with us each having differing opinions of it, they are just that, opinions. It’s also easier to see the folly in the timing of those rate cuts and their influence on inflation in hindsight.
He did make a campaign of it. I believe it had no effect and they ignored him. They weren’t acting crazy out of line with how they had been, and of course they didn’t know COVID was coming.
Yeah, so like I said, we can have a differing of opinion on what level of influence that press campaign had over their decisions. Either way, I think maybe you would agree with me it’s better to have those decisions entirely independent based solely on conditions and determined only by economists, but the current appointment manner gives the President some level of influence that I don’t think they should wield.
Biden keeping a close eye on the inflation situation.
The Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent. The Fed fights inflation through monetary policy while Congress fights it with fiscal policy. Unfortunately, when things go badly Americans default to blaming the president.
Yes, that is why I joked about him keeping a close eye on inflation.
Jill is going to yell at Nancy now.
"What did Nancy do? LIE!"
It's Dr. Jill, God damn it!
[удалено]
This is so weird. People elected the president, not the first lady.
The president is not really in a position to do much.
[удалено]
One of the founding principles of this country was that the Presidency should very much not be "regal".
My money is on her staying at MaraLago or Trump Towe if she becomes FLOTUS again. She hasnt been campaigning with Trump at all
Melania should take it to the next level and have a whole entrance of fireworks like she is at wrestlemania.
Not too far fetched when you remember Donald Trump was in Wrestlemania 23.
Don't forget the time that [seven WWF fighters](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4to4tZW8AE0unY?format=jpg&name=900x900) and six children posed in the Oval Office.
Buh God that's Melania Trump
BAH GAWD THAT DELEGATE HAD A FAMILY
> Melania should take it to the next level and have a whole entrance of fireworks like she is at wrestlemania. or just use something completely non-traditional for the theme, like how when glenn jacobs became mayor he used his kane entrance theme when showing up to his victory party.
Kashmir For my wedding reception I convinced my wife to let me have an instrumental Kashmir as our entrance music. It works really well as a processional with a red dollar store cape and a Burger King crown
That’s a killer Zeppelin number to come into.
It was the highlight of my day
BAH GOD THAT'S DR JILL'S MUSIC!
Can we at least wait until after the Big Guy's ["big boy"](https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1810381693284667430) press conference tomorrow?
I have no idea why the White House keeps using that phrase. That’s a term opponents condescendingly use as an insult, yet they thinks it’s a term of endearment for some strange reason.
Yeah, who signed off on calling it a "big boy" press conference. I bet is was a joke that some how got mixed in with the official talking point.
Apparently after Biden's debate and KJP said he would have another press conference soon, journalist Justin Sink asked [“Is that gonna be kind of the real, big boy press conference that we’re used to or…”](https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/1808251065575657804) KJP immediately latched onto the phrase "big boy" and has been using it for everything. "Big Boy Justin over here was asking some big boy questions.” I think she believes that she's being extremely clever and mocking reporters by saying it, but for those out of the loop it sounds ridiculously childish and for those in the loop it also sounds childish for different reasons.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1e01ftc/nancy_pelosi_signals_biden_should_reconsider/lckievt/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Especially since it puts an image of similarity between Biden and a toddler in the listeners head. Terrible optics for a guy being accused of losing his adult faculties.
I’m sure when it’s over that Jill will congratulate him again for answering all the questions.
Well, it's before 8pm,so there's a chance it's not a complete disaster.
Good, good. Let the continued Democratic party disarray flow through you. But seriously – the longer the Democrats keep the spotlight on Biden, the longer the media does, and better this gets for Trump. He, for the first time in his political career, *isn't* at the center of a controversy – and he can actually sit back and watch the chaos and just reel in wins from being silent. Shockingly, he's actually doing it to some degree.
>and he can actually sit back and watch the chaos and just reel in wins from being silent. Shockingly, he's actually doing it to some degree. That's the most surprising part of all of this, to me. Trump is mostly keeping his mouth shut and not acting like an abrasive ass.
I mean, he was also at his most restrained during the debate that we've ever seen him. He's still Trump. He'll always be Trump – but I wonder if his age has him actually listening to strategists for once or something. Softened him up, maybe.
Not surprising at all. He knows all of this is to his advantage - especially if Biden stays in.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1e01ftc/nancy_pelosi_signals_biden_should_reconsider/lcjuigg/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I remember when Democrats were celebrating Trump being forced off the campaign trail by his trial in New York. Now they would do anything to get the spotlight back on him. It’s dizzying how fast this stagnant, uninspiring election has turned into a political drama for the history books.
I know I’m so happy! I really hope Biden runs if it’s this bad now just wait for the next 4 months! Not only is this going to destroy Biden it will destroy the entire democrat party. Obama was right when he said “don’t underestimate just how bad Joe Biden can fuck things up”.
We the people need a voice. We can't stand by and go along with this. Logistics is not a reason to run an unfit person for president when you're saving democracy. Democracy is on the ballot, lets send in Joe Biden? Milarkey
It was a bogus talking point to begin with, but now their own actions have rendered it comical.
I think it's more obvious than ever that democracy is on the ballot, that's why we need to not roll over on this and try to force them to replace Biden with someone we want to vote for. That is democracy. The republicans voted for their guy... we need a voice.
The difference here between Pelosi and Jeffries' earlier comments is interesting. Is there a real difference in opinion between the two, or is Jeffries just playing along with the "we need to rally behind Biden" camp for now while privately wanting Biden out?
Jeffries is the minority leader in the House. His statements need to be about unity regardless of his personal feelings due to pragmatism. The fact that he said he was going to bring the list of concerns his members had to Biden earlier today is a surprising break there because it is his job to appear all in. Pelosi is freed from that responsibility and can more easily express a full opinion that is contrarian with less risk. (And she clearly wants Biden gone without having to directly say it)
Even if 50% of elected Democrats come out in opposition to Biden, I don't think that's enough to get him to step down. It would need to be 60% or higher in my opinion.
Even if 100% do, he won't step down willingly. His generation has that stubborn pride that keeps them from ever backing off a dumpster fire rather than jump straight in. That fact that he has been in politics longer than the oldest politicians of other countries have been alive is proof of that. His retirement date was 2016 at the latest.
He should.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1e01ftc/nancy_pelosi_signals_biden_should_reconsider/lcjmndr/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Pelosi is just a beacon of bad press for the party (altho thank the lord she is actually saying something about booting Biden now finally)
They should've nominated Whitmer. If she is the candidate from the start she easily beats trump in an election. You could also talk about how your party put up the first female president. I'm a true swing voter, whitmer would've been someone I would be excited to vote for.
The hard part is it's in her best interest to wait until 2028. Jumping in now and likely losing is something that most with a serous chance will avoid (though I could see Newsom trying). Better to wait, build name recognition and not have to deal with the Biden Trump shit storm
I am not so sure. There have been presidents who lost on their first run for President, and then came back. Also, there is no such thing as bad press, this would get her name in front of the public.
The DNC doesn’t play that game. I think if you challenged Biden in the primary they wouldn’t put any money behind you in 2028
> The DNC doesn’t play that game. I think if you challenged Biden in the primary they wouldn’t put any money behind you in 2028 and it's not just you. during the newsom recall elections the state party was telling campaign staff that if they worked on a non-newsom campaign that they'd never work for the party again. this in turn is going to limit the quality of the campaign team a candidate can build.
It's almost as though they don't *actually* value democracy as much as they value power.
> The hard part is it's in her best interest to wait until 2028. Weird. I thought Democrats were certain that a Trump win in 2024 means there will be no election in 2028. Odd how all the possible contenders seem to be acting as if that isn't really a risk at all.
Latest polls show Whitmer is the worst option: https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/election
True, though that's likely because of the 4 potential democratic candidates shown (Biden, Harris, Newsom, Whitmer), Whitmer probably has the lowest national name recognition. If only the DNC actually had a contested primary, where they actually, you know, let the candidates introduce themselves on a national stage and make a case for their candidacy, and allow the voters to choose the best option.
Who cares about poll numbers. Randos on reddit keep saying it will work so let's do it.
I know I just think it's flawed and based on name recognition. All the states Biden is currently favored to get, whitmer would get as well and she'd get you Michigan.
Everyone says that but I wouldn't call it certain. Candidate Whitmer means Kamala is pushed aside and there's a 0% chance she goes quietly. Does her popularity in greater Michigan even offset the loss of pissed off black women voters in Detroit?
Kamala isn't popular in Michigan so yes.
I mean, Michigan is neck and neck, so yeah, she would probably get that. But she needs 2-3 more states that Trump currently leads, and I just don't see it. Not saying you are wrong.
Dems only need Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. If it was Whitmer Shaprio they would (in theory) grab 2/3 and gain like 2% in Wisconsin. Seems very attainable
There is no world Dems get Pennsylvania. It's already +5 Trump.
That's because his opponent is Biden
Not trying to criticize you for bringing it up or claiming they’re useless, but I’m always skeptical of these polls. Obviously now we’re only a couple of months from the election, but if Whitmer had hit the ground running earlier we don’t know if she’d crash and burn or absolutely kill it on the campaign trail. We only know now how a Whitmer who has never campaigned for this presidency would fare right now. And while it doesn’t look good it really isn’t a fair picture of what her run would look like if given the chance to actually campaign
But if she's a good choice for this year she's better off waiting until 2028 when she'll have a full campaign season and won't be fronting a party whose credibility is currently in flaming tatters. This is kind of the big problem the "replace Biden" camp has. Any candidate who would be a good replacement won't want to do it because they're going to be starting from so far behind and any candidate who is willing to take that gamble isn't any more likely than Biden to win. The Democrats are really kind of just fucked right now. They pinned all their hope on keeping Biden's true condition hidden and never bothered to make a backup plan.
I'd argue Whitmer could handily whoop Trump, even if she doesn't step in until the DNC next month. She'd be a breath of fresh air for countless voters, and it'd be incredibly strong move to nominate a women during the presidential campaign where abortion rights is perhaps the most important issue.
Abortion is only [polling as the 5th most important issue in PA](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Marist-Poll_PA-NOS-and-Tables_202406071448.pdf) among independents and 4th most generally. Focusing on abortion is unlikely to swing the election, and should focus on the issues swing voters care about more.
I don't know. A lot of people, particularly in swing states will remember her Covid tyranny. She even broke her own covid rules IIRC.
> I don't know. A lot of people, particularly in swing states will remember her Covid tyranny. She even broke her own covid rules IIRC. that's the first thing that comes to mind when i see her name. banning stores from selling seeds for their gardens, long oppressive shutdowns, revoking the license of that 70 year old barber that didn't want to close. especially right now, an extremely strong government response candidate would struggle in a lot of key swing states, and that's before taking into consideration that her party affiliation is likely an albatross right now. this is looking like the red wave of 2022 is coming 2 years late.
She had several instances of Covid hypocrisy over her lockdowns / social distancing / mask mandates. * She took an unauthorized flight by private charter jet to visit family in Florida while her office cautioned against traveling south for the break. * She broke her own social distancing rules by visiting an East Lansing bar, gathering with a large group of unmasked people. * Her family tried to take their boat out on Memorial Day despite her office banning boating on Memorial Day. Her husband tried to use his connection to her to get a lockdown exemption. * She participated in a BLM march and broke her own "6 feet" social distancing rules. Outside of the over-the-top mandates that she violated, she also: * Went [all in on school closures](https://www.woodtv.com/health/coronavirus/april-9-2021-michigan-coronavirus-update/) and canceling school sports all the way into mid-2021, which as any parent that cares about education and youth health should, is absolutely disqualifying. * Had to have her [endless "state of emergency" declarations removed](https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-end-to-michigans-endless-emergency-11601843838) by the Michigan courts because she kept renewing the emergency orders, despite previous rules saying emergencies couldn't last beyond 28 days unless approved by legislature. * Vetoed a bill that would have shifted elderly people with Covid out of nursing homes in mid-2020. At the time, about 33% of the state's Covid deaths were those living (or working) in nursing homes.
I feel like most of the folks who are still worried about "Covid tyranny" aren't voting blue any time soon.
agreed. It's not too late for this
I agree too. I mainly point to the people who say no one would win since it's too late. The polls saying she's 10 points behind Trump is just silly to me. She doesn't lose any state that Biden has as a lean or safely blue, she guarantees you get Michigan and she probably gets you Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All 3 of those states are currently leaning trump.
Finally, a real name. Only *checks notes*... 2 weeks to 2 years late.
Even Nancy says reconsider? I’d say pack up your bags. We’re in some fucked up bizarro world.
[удалено]
Any sane person looking at this would replace him. But there are a lot of legal hurdles and issues related to doing so. It’s more lucrative just running him for the party.
It’s about time for Obama to serve Joe with a courtesy 72 hours notice to do the right thing and step down, lest he go public calling for him to. It’s gotten to that point. That’s the coup de grâce that will end this fiasco
The best part is he can’t step down because of the democrats Kamala is just DEI hire that nobody will vote for 😂 DNC learned nothing from 2016. It’s so over 🔥
We the people need a voice. We can't stand by and go along with this. Logistics is not a reason to run an unfit person for president when you're saving democracy. Democracy is on the ballot, lets send in Joe Biden? Milarkey
The party rallying around the idea of Biden stepping aside gives me the first hope I've had in a *LONG* time that the dems can potentially beat Trump. It feels like many in the country are *finally* waking up to the insanity that Trump has been surrounding himself with in the run up to this election, as well as the damage he could potentially do to this nation with a federal government fully staffed with his loyalists, Project 2025 plus a SCOTUS that he could have FIVE handpicked judges on. Harris may not be charismatic, but she doesn't strike me as the loose cannon anti-democratic politician (small d) Trump is and would be in office. I feel like with her in office things would be just as boring, if not even more boring than Biden's term given that we wouldn't be constantly worrying about her age. Plus we'd see additional progress to halt man's climate change impacts and not have either of the old, declining men who currently lead the respective parties leading our global response to international crises. I want politics to go back to the lower stakes we had during the 2000-2015 era. I'm incredibly happy to see the left rallying around holding its candidate to some semblance of standards.
>I'm incredibly happy to see the left rallying around holding its candidate to some semblance of standards. The left is the faction that is *backing Biden*. The Squad and Bernie have all said that Biden is the nominee and that everyone should back him; its the moderates that are freaking out.