Will Oremus: It's been interesting to see the consensus on this site harden in realtime around the idea that not only is sticking with Biden the obvious correct choice for Dems no matter what other facts might emerge, but that anyone who suggests otherwise is either dishonest, an idiot or a handmaiden of fascism

It's been interesting to see the consensus on this site harden in realtime around the idea that not only is sticking with Biden the obvious correct choice for Dems no matter what other facts might emerge, but that anyone who suggests otherwise is either dishonest, an idiot or a handmaiden of fascism

Is sticking with Biden the correct choice for Democrats? Quite possibly! I can see compelling arguments both ways. No doubt it would be chaotic to replace him at this point. Also seems clear he's a weaker candidate than 4 yrs ago. But few folks on here seem afflicted with any degree of uncertainty.

i definitely cant tell the future but what i am certain about is op eds dont vote

I…have not had this experience, I have seen deep conflict and disagreement, mostly leaning reluctantly towards “he’s gotta go,” I think it’s possible your (reasonable) dislike of the position of status quo certainty is making it stand out more more

you mean bc i've posted some things that question biden's fitness, i'm bringing out the folks most certain that it's treason to do so? that is quite possible if so. it is all too easy to mistake one's personal experience of a platform for a representative sample, and i'm sure i'm no exception.

and I’m sure I’m seeing it from the perspective of someone a little more ambivalent/trepidatious about the prospect of a switch and on the less Biden-hostile end of the set of people I follow, so the certainty of “he’s cooked, what now” sticks out a little more to me!

fair! i also have to keep reminding myself that for a certain set of folks, the "washington post" in my bio probably triggers a whole bunch of priors that are very understandable, especially if they don't realize i have no role in my employer's day-to-day coverage of national politics or elections

It's also because your first post on this thread restates one of the most objectionable things about the Post's agenda.

Oh, honey. They don't pay you because they think they can tell you what to write. They pay you because you don't need telling.

Maybe a certain set of folks believe that contributing to a media company that has lost any semblance of integrity is in itself a questionable choice 🤷🏻‍♀️

Maybe. One could argue that Trump is an even weaker candidate than he was 4 years ago, eclipsing Biden’s weaknesses.

it seems like a reasonable person would indeed argue that

agree trump is a weaker candidate too. wild to think four years ago there were still folks deluding themselves into thinking he was some kind of closet moderate

id go further to not just a weaker candidate but the weaker candidate

i'm not sure i see this as a consensus on this site. i see a lot of commentary along the lines of: we could use a better candidate; we don't have much time or process to make that happen so that a dem wins; biden has to convince dems he's up for it; he hasn't yet; we're screwed either way.

I mean at this point it literally shouldn't matter who is the Dem candidate, this is very much an election now where people aren't voting for the candidate they like, but about everything else. SCOTUS fucked everything. If people still do not get this by election it won't matter who the Dem is.

There is literally no way for them to have a primary process before the convention. They have to nominate someone before that convention to make sure they're on all ballots It's the certain choice because it's the only one.

The only choice MAYBE is Harris, but most of the people calling on Biden to step down are *oddly* (read: not oddly) forgetting this. Meanwhile SCOTUS said that the president is king, bribery is legal, and they can overrule government agencies. So hypothetical nominees is not as important

The people who have certainty are usually the loudest but much of us have no clue on how best this election should play out. Currently waiting/hoping for some form of new chaos to save or wipe the playing field in an advantageous way.

Biden is the ham sandwich that puts to test "I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Trump."

lol! i actually think you can make a solid case he's been a pretty effective president in achieving dem priorities against a lot of headwinds. but as the shady investment advisers are required to say, past performance is not a guarantee of future results

Of course. Pro Publica's release of the Harwood interview from last fall suggests Biden might be rapidly declining. The newspaper of record certainly seems alarmed.

The newspaper of record gave glowing reviews of Hitlers ascendancy to power before WWII. They want it to be a major story because otherwise they have nothing to balance "Trump running on becoming a literal dictator (in his own words)" against

Objective journalism in the 21st Century.

I saw no shortage of uncertainty, but most of them have gotten over it. It probably reflects my follows but people had the discussions, considered the options, heard the dissents, and then came to a reasonable decision.

Everyone is talking themselves into their corners in realtime. No one is as sure as they’re pretending to be.

Part of the issue is that the majority of people on social are unwilling to recognize nuance on *any* topic. Everything is always "the best thing ever!" or "The worst thing ever!"

Agreed on Biden - good arguments each way. More people really need that particular affliction.

"seems clear he's a weaker candidate than 4 yrs ago." Based on what? From my perspective all these arguments are the exact same ones were making 4 years ago and we now have 4 years of evidence that they weren't true.

I think it depends on your timeline. I lean slightly Biden stay because I think there are a lot of replacement hurdles that have little to do with the candidate (Biden or anyone else.) But so far there’s only one guy confidently yelling at me that no one wants that because Gaza

(And I oppose Biden’s position on Gaza but think it’s better than Trump’s, which is basically, what’s wrong with genocide? All the best people did a genocide!)

i can't find the "skull sobbing blood" reaction emoji on here so you'll just have to imagine it

Society needs that emoji

The exigencies of the whole situation (congress, public opinion largely, AIPAC, etc) I think lean towards none of the likely replacements doing much better. Maybe Whitmer. None of the rest though. The shiny new candidates lose their sheen pretty fast.

I’m more worried about rollout, technicalities—new candidate (and let’s assume it’s someone with name ID) getting on all of the ballots, fundraising money transferred so that a new candidate can use it without violating campaign finance rules and so on

Because let’s be honest: Rs will totally ratfuck (term of art in politics) this bureaucratically if it happens

Appropriate term. I believe it comes from Nixon's cronies, & the Court has just validated Nixon's using executive power to ratfuck

Heritage Foundation is already threatening lawsuits to block a ballot replacement. (Wouldn't ordinarily cite Fox News, but on this subject, who better?) Of course, if Biden stays on the ballot, with a commitment to step aside for Harris... they at least have to get creative.

Heritage Foundation working on election legal challenges in case Biden pulled from DNC nominationwww.foxnews.com The Heritage Foundation, a major conservative activist organization, is prepared to start legal battles in multiple swing states if Democrats try to swap Biden out of the party nomination.

And Whitmer has made it clear she's not going to toss MI aside and toss Biden under the bus. Other governors might though. That said she's a strong future candidate, assuming we have a future that allows it.

The amount of rage I received a couple weeks ago for this sentiment... I know it's hard to look at the horrors in Gaza and think "could be worse!" but it could be and I believe it would be.

I mean some people didn’t listen to what Trump said in the last term about Gaza. I did and also worked for Jared Kushner when I was at the NYO and he was still a putative Democrat. They were completely aligned with Bibi, which is unsurprising because Netanyahu is friends with the Kushners

He literally stayed in Jared’s bedroom when he visited them in NJ. If you want to know what Trump would do, it’s whatever Bibi already wants to do

Yes! Like could be PERMANENT until no Palestinians are left and meanwhile Joe is desperately trying to get everyone agree to a good ceasefire agreement. But sure, exactly the some. I think it's like the OG skeet says: too many people too certain of things they have no business being certain about.

I'd argue that Trump's stance goes past that into "Why aren't you doing more genocide? We can do the genocide for you if you want!" territory. :-/

“No matter what other facts might emerge” is very straw man. Biden is old; he’s also an incumbent with, overall, a strong record. Forcing him out would signal panic; not promoting Harris would show misogyny/racism; introducing a new candidate nationally is risky. The consensus is pragmatism.

Obviously there are scenarios where Biden is unelectable. But when “convicted felon and rapist who tried to overturn an election” is electable, why attempt the first post-primaries switch on an unwilling President? Having said that, Mehdi lays out a viable path: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Kamala Harris may be our only hope. Biden should step aside and endorse her | Mehdi Hasanwww.theguardian.com It is with some surprise, reluctance and even trepidation that I am now writing these words: Joe Biden should stand aside and endorse Kamala Harris

This is not what I'm seeing. All depends on who you follow/who follows you.

fair. always worth keeping in mind

You are not seeing what I’m seeing.

Honestly I think when the NYT pushes an agenda so aggressively folks push back

I personally am not sold either way