It’s maddening to see skepticism of ejecting Biden treated like cultish loyalty. Some of us have been out here saying Biden’s too old for years. The problem is that what is being proposed is a shocking, almost unheard-of remedy, and every historic precedent tells us it’ll end in catastrophe.
I’m struck by how few people even among self-styled experts refuse to grapple with the convention rules and how it would have to play out.
Either we’re overriding the outcome of the primary votes and picking new delegates *somehow* or no one but the 4,700 delegates has any say in the new candidate.
The party gets to decide how to go forward and how to select a new nominee, given that the presumptive nominee is no longer capable of campaigning. Sucks but here we are.
I want to ask this as politely as I can:
Have you actually read the rules governing receiving the Democratic nomination?
Who do you think wrote them, and what specific people do you think can change them?
Why don’t you tell me? Why would a party’s national committee be unable to create an open and transparent process for selecting a limited number of candidates who would then be voted on at the convention? Is there a rule against that?
There is that process, it’s called the presidential primary, it wrapped up in March and state conventions picked delegates.
I’m hoping you understand why the national committee doesn’t have the power to unseat those delegates or change who they’re pledged to vote for, right?
And the idea that the national committee would just say, "We don't like the nominee y'all picked, so you have to pick someone else. Try again." What even is democracy?
Even if there were an override based on “the presumptive nominee is incapable of campaigning” the threshold would be much closer to “dead” than “I don’t think he’s doing a very good job and doesn’t seem as dynamic as I’d like”.
