Regardless of whether we believe he's fit or not? I have no interest in running a candidate potntially unfit for office in an election we must win. When the facts change, it's time to reevaluate your course of action. The facts have changed, and it's unfortunate that they changed after votes were cast in uncontested primaries, but incred…
Regardless of whether we believe he's fit or not? I have no interest in running a candidate potntially unfit for office in an election we must win. When the facts change, it's time to reevaluate your course of action. The facts have changed, and it's unfortunate that they changed after votes were cast in uncontested primaries, but incredibly fortunate they changed while there is still time to do something about it. There is something seriously wrong with the president, and it's not going to get any better.
I don't believe he's unfit, and I don't believe that there is anything seriously wrong with him. I also don't think you can evaluate that in a single 90 minute period.
More importantly, we already have a mechanism for dealing with that, so if he's actually unfit, then his cabinet can remove him. Unless they do that, the proper thing to do is to vote for Biden.
With all due respect, the problem isn't what any of us would do. I think it's fair to say, if you're here at The Bulwark, then you're voting for the Not-Trump candidate. It's all of those people that aren't here; those that aren't Democrats; those that, much to our dismay, may be willing to elect a King Trump (given the recent SCOTUS ruling) because Biden seems too old and my eggs are too expensive. Those are the people I fear most; the ignorant with a chip on their shoulder.
I'm voting for him. I don't think he is electable now. I thought he had a decent chance(50 %) until the debate.The age and acuity issue will get worse now.
Welcome to politics! No one knows if a candidate is electable until the votes happen.
But right now, he's the most electable using all the available data we have, and we already went through 'is he electable' in 2020 with him.
The other thing is all 'electable' means is 'will people vote for him.' The GOP understands that anyone is electable if the they put an R next to their name to their voters. If Democrats understood this, then we would not be having a problem. Instead, they kneecap themselves at every opportunity.
Have you been watching him for the last year or so? Do you care about the next 4 years if he wins? I will vote for him too, but only because of his opponent.
The reality is that the future is the future, and the present is the present. Our current situation is not our future situation. Our present requires defeating Trump; if we need to replace Biden after that point that's a different conversation, and one we've had before as a nation.
But if the worry is 'can Harris be president' then perhaps the question is not about replacing Biden but about replacing Harris.
If the only goal is hoping we beat DT, then I agree Biden’s chances are better with KH on the sidelines. I’d like to see Wes Moore considered.
But if we care about governing over the next 4 years, then a change in the top makes sense to me. A governor from a purple state (Michigan?) with Moore as VP would be my choice.
Yes, I have been watching him, with great appreciation. He's older; doesn't move like he used to; still has his stammer; and he did have a miserable non-debate experience about which I'm still unsure we have even part of the story. But importantly, *debate is not what a president does 99.999% of the time*. They govern. He's got a surpassingly positive record that would have been even greater had the Rs not opposed every step. Even without Darth Vader, I'd be for him.
It didn't, because no one wanted to do it. It also didn't work under Reagan. And it wouldn't have worked under Nixon. But it exists, if they believe that's the best option. My point is, removing a president isn't like removing a prime minister in Britain; you're stuck with them for four years. That's how it is. That's how it's always been, and likely always will be.
Regardless of whether we believe he's fit or not? I have no interest in running a candidate potntially unfit for office in an election we must win. When the facts change, it's time to reevaluate your course of action. The facts have changed, and it's unfortunate that they changed after votes were cast in uncontested primaries, but incredibly fortunate they changed while there is still time to do something about it. There is something seriously wrong with the president, and it's not going to get any better.
I don't believe he's unfit, and I don't believe that there is anything seriously wrong with him. I also don't think you can evaluate that in a single 90 minute period.
More importantly, we already have a mechanism for dealing with that, so if he's actually unfit, then his cabinet can remove him. Unless they do that, the proper thing to do is to vote for Biden.
With all due respect, the problem isn't what any of us would do. I think it's fair to say, if you're here at The Bulwark, then you're voting for the Not-Trump candidate. It's all of those people that aren't here; those that aren't Democrats; those that, much to our dismay, may be willing to elect a King Trump (given the recent SCOTUS ruling) because Biden seems too old and my eggs are too expensive. Those are the people I fear most; the ignorant with a chip on their shoulder.
I'm going to vote for him. I'm just not sure he's electable.
I'm voting for him. I don't think he is electable now. I thought he had a decent chance(50 %) until the debate.The age and acuity issue will get worse now.
Welcome to politics! No one knows if a candidate is electable until the votes happen.
But right now, he's the most electable using all the available data we have, and we already went through 'is he electable' in 2020 with him.
The other thing is all 'electable' means is 'will people vote for him.' The GOP understands that anyone is electable if the they put an R next to their name to their voters. If Democrats understood this, then we would not be having a problem. Instead, they kneecap themselves at every opportunity.
Have you been watching him for the last year or so? Do you care about the next 4 years if he wins? I will vote for him too, but only because of his opponent.
The reality is that the future is the future, and the present is the present. Our current situation is not our future situation. Our present requires defeating Trump; if we need to replace Biden after that point that's a different conversation, and one we've had before as a nation.
But if the worry is 'can Harris be president' then perhaps the question is not about replacing Biden but about replacing Harris.
If the only goal is hoping we beat DT, then I agree Biden’s chances are better with KH on the sidelines. I’d like to see Wes Moore considered.
But if we care about governing over the next 4 years, then a change in the top makes sense to me. A governor from a purple state (Michigan?) with Moore as VP would be my choice.
Yes, I have been watching him, with great appreciation. He's older; doesn't move like he used to; still has his stammer; and he did have a miserable non-debate experience about which I'm still unsure we have even part of the story. But importantly, *debate is not what a president does 99.999% of the time*. They govern. He's got a surpassingly positive record that would have been even greater had the Rs not opposed every step. Even without Darth Vader, I'd be for him.
It might not be a great comparison but Cabinet removal didn't work under Trump.
It didn't, because no one wanted to do it. It also didn't work under Reagan. And it wouldn't have worked under Nixon. But it exists, if they believe that's the best option. My point is, removing a president isn't like removing a prime minister in Britain; you're stuck with them for four years. That's how it is. That's how it's always been, and likely always will be.
Removal by cabinet is dead and so is impeachments.Dead and buried by recent histiory.
And those facts changed after last Thursday.