It would be an incredibly risky thing to do with no guaranteed upside but pundits need to justify their existence somehow and apparently writing articles about how Trump is going to make himself dictator has been ruled out by their editors
this is what has convinced me. even lib pundits (and a whole bunch of leftists) simply can't stop themselves from arguing about this shit 24/7, and I see no sign they are going to stop ever
Nobody knows how incumbency advantage *really* works, but it's very possible you'd be giving it up with a move like that. And given Trump was president once already, it might go to him
People are just being way too flippant about this idea overall. It's especially maddening given that we have exactly zero hard evidence that the race has changed. Just a bunch of freaking out
All in all, not a fan of doing something wholly unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics because a bunch of smart boys with anxiety disorders decided it was our only choice 30 minutes into a debate in *June*
The tell for me is that Harris or any other candidate are going to have downsides that are seemingly hand waved away by the Biden Replacers - sure let’s talk about replacing Biden but nobody making that case acts like there is any potential downside!
The talk of replacing Biden at this point is stupid for a variety of reasons, and the people making the point that he should drop out and be replaced should be called stupid.
People who love dressing up messy gossip as hard hitting political news would love it.
I'd hardly say that makes it a good choice for the party or the country.
Yes, this is driven by people who need drama to get clicks- there is no move that can placate them to stop rocking the boat because they want the boat to be rocking
kind of side note to this. supposing for the sake of argument that the best bet is harris. an obvious question that will be raised: if joe can’t finish the campaign then why is he still president?
You say that you are confident you can still serve as a good president but it's clear that a lot of his supporters have doubts about the next four years. So for the good of the country you're stepping aside to focus on the more important job of serving a President now.
It's not that hard.
I think you can (as best you can square the circle saying “last time I ran for president I also did not have a full time job—as president. My focus needs to be on the job, and I realized I can’t do that now and run a full time campaign. I have to choose one, and I choose continuing to be president
2024 biden is incumbent and loves doing the job and carrying responsibility. Thats extracted a heavy price, steering into campaign mode is obv not a smooth shift for him at this point, and revolving door of campaign/admin staff which can be in conflict doesn't help.
being president is a 60-80 hour a week job, but at least 90% of it is you being the boss in your office attached to your mansion. running for president is also a 60-80 hour week job but it’s running around the country to meet with millions of
your bosses.
What's harder, being President for 6 more months or 4 years after that?
In any case, the people who want him to step aside as candidate are mostly worried he will lose, not that he's incapable of being the President.
The best argument for Biden to step down as candidate, but serve out his term is that the fascists clearly intend to try to seize power regardless of the vote count. We need a President who will resist the coup without the appearance of a self-serving attempt to stay in power for himself.
An incumbency advantage doesn’t work when 80% of people believe he is too old to do the job. That precedent has never ran up against an 81 year old president who most people assumed would only serve one term
The mechanism of the incumbency advantage is very mysterious, but I think generally it's the fear that change could make things worse so let's keep the status quo.
I don’t think a new candidate changes this dynamic it just takes a different form. I wonder if any of this media freak out even penetrates the consciousness of the average voter all that much, especially compared to even a few years ago.
If Harris gets shoved on the ballot the tone will immediately 180 into "shrill, inexperienced Harris not ready for spotlight; dem insiders want her to meet with the KKK to smooth things over but she won't listen, she's such a bitch, pull her funding"
Pundits need to be eaten.
Then we've already lost because they'll also wet their pants on something with Harris. Fortunately some of the dumbest and most cowardly people in the world aren't calling the shots
The pundits are obsessed with making this only a race to beat Trump—which is exactly the race Hillary lost in 2016 (and Romney lost against Obama in 2012, and Kerry lost against Bush in 2004, and Dole lost against Clinton in 1996, and Mondale lost in 1984…)
