Matt Novak: The people pointing out that nobody can do anything unless Biden decides for himself to step aside are 100% correct. That's the problem.

The problem, as always, is that the U.S. system is uniquely bad among wealthy democracies.

The people pointing out that nobody can do anything unless Biden decides for himself to step aside are 100% correct. That's the problem.

Other wealthy democracies: Bad leader? Have a vote of no confidence and toss them out. U.S.: You're stuck with this guy for at least four years no matter what. It's called freedom.

I'm not sure he'd lose this confidence vote, not least of all because all the people voting see him around regularly and know Thursday night was an aberration. (People who consume politics content all day *should* also know this, but I digress)

You sound like MAGA. You refuse to see what's right in your face. 🤦‍♂️

I dunno man, I saw the speech the speech he gave the day after. One of us is certainly ignoring the full breadth of evidence, I'll admit

Reading a teleprompter isn't the same as thinking on your feet which is a pretty important skill. Apropos of nothing, what time of day was that speech?

I've seen people talk about how sharp he is behind the scenes but we don't see that. Show it! Use a hidden camera or something. "Trust me bro" ain't gonna cut the mustard.

Right, but during the debate, the moments when he was sharp we’re when he was responding to things and speaking off the cuff. He was sluggish during the prepared statements. He may have Al Gore Syndrome, but no one familiar with dementia thinks he has it. He’s just an old man with a cold.

His voice sounded terrible & the strategy of relying on numbers was a mistake. How do explain that Biden gained energy as the night went on? Did you watch the whole debate?

wow this is like kindergarten stuff here Matt, I don’t understand this form you

Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're saying.

The biggest problem with the system is how corrupted it has become by special interests. In other, less important nations the stakes are lower so there has been less infiltration of "bought" politicians. The GOP has been increasingly flooded with these and now they are the "good guys" in the party😳

But we have a good leader. And we will continue to have a good leader, if we only have the sense to re-elect him. To cite but one good recent thing, of the many:

Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration’s Actions to Advance American Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing | OSTP | The White Housewww.whitehouse.gov Through his Investing in America Agenda, President Biden is making a once-in-a-generation investment in our clean energy future. His leadership has spurred a revolution in clean electricity, transport...

That’s a thing that applies to the head of the legislative branch. What you’re describing is executive recall. They’re only a thing in Peru, Ecuador and Japan., two of whom are decidedly not wealthy democracies. Touch grass. Roll around in it.

Just out of curiosity, are you an American?

No and going by your lighting your hair on fire at the first sign of adversity you’re doing a pretty shitty impression of an American too. An old man has a stutter at a June debate and you’re already fitting Pennsylvania Avenue for the Trump Reich inaugural. Put some steel in your spine.

I get that you’re traumatized by 2016 but Americans don’t turn into quivering jellyfish when the going gets tough. A multiply connvicted conman is threatening your country and you’re actin like there’s nothing you can do. You can. Swiching candidates is playing into the bad guy’s hands.

You rally around the flag, call your local field office or district office and say not on my watch. You get off your ass and kick these deplorables to the fucking curb. Stop acting like beaten children. The world wants you to succeed. That requires cohesion but you’re pulling in different directions

I mean, I've been saying for a long time that Biden shouldn't run again. But based on someone else's tweet about you being Canadian, I'm curious what you think a vote of no confidence in a prime minister would be.

In a Westminsterial system (CAN, AUS, NZ, UK) the government governs with the confidence of the House of Commons. This is expressed in a majority of votes on most issues (some are minor). If a governing party or coalition loses a vote, the parliament falls and new elections are called. 1/2

"A stutter" You're not occupying reality. You're swiping at machine elves while trying to type on the keyboard.

Quick scan of his posting suggests Canadian.

Whether they're the "Prime Minister" or "President" doesn't really matter as much as the fact that we're stuck with them.

Founding Fathers just wanted an elected King.

Bet scotus says 6-3 you can replace any dem prez with a republican but not the other way around and somehow if you question their impartiality they’ll shame you for even suggesting they are partisan

A vote of no confidence kicks out a government and *usually* triggers an election, so, little bit different than what you're thinking. Leader stays in place. A leadership review can, at least here, remove a party leader and trigger a new leadership race. Closer to what you'd have in mind, I think?

Also, has any PM anywhere ever been reelected immediately after losing a no confidence vote? I don't know of an example.

I don't know of one off hand - mostly because the other parties would be stupid to force the election if things were likely to work out that way. But they'd be running because there'd be no way for them to not be, and the voters would have that option.

Since we agree a reelected PM is at best extremely rare if not unprecedented... I think we can also agree that early elections after a no confidence vote are basically a guarantee of leadership change

Which, again, isn't much of an answer in the Biden v Trump environment.

I think it's exactly what he has in mind. A no confidence vote requires a parliamentary majority. The resulting elections will have to produce a new Parliament if voters want the same PM back. Same PM with different Parliament is also a leadership change.

Well, no - that would be more like the same President having a different Congress, with the added possibility of another party getting in instead. Whereas, as I'm reading it, this is about the notion of specifically replacing Biden with a different candidate. That's a leadership review.

"You're stuck with this guy for at least four years no matter what" -- sounds like it's about the fixed 4-year election cycle. Parliamentary systems have no constitutional separation of powers. A reelected PM with a new (supportive) parliament backing them is new leadership.

A reelected PM is still the same guy.

I don’t think you’re using that right.

Not quite, in fact that's what so many in the GOP are counting on. If they can become VP. Then once they're in office push Trump out as mentally unfit. They can become president, without being elected. Just like Gerald Ford.

Ford was an unusual case. Anybody with powerful advocates had strong detractors, and Ford's name kept coming up, and he basically got it because nobody really objected, despite the fact that he had no strong advocates either.

Very much the same way Mike Pence became Donald Trump's running mate. Nobody had a viable objection. Which is the problem with every single one of the media's candidates for Donald's running mate. They won't be liked by Donald. Donald doesn't like suck-ups. He likes loyalists.

After Pence refused to break the law by doing something way outside the bounds of his constitutional powers. Problem is anyone who would do that is potentially a threat to Trump himself.

Or until they die.

Well, unless he croaks

the primaries were a blowout. biden did better in his primaries than trump did in his, remember?

I mean, go back in time and then other viable candidates can run in the primary. Maybe even the press takes Phillips seriously. That could (and should) have happened - it didn't have to be a coronation for an incumbent with a low approval rating.

Post