One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”
The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.
Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.
A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.
We need ranked choice voting, and this 2 party system is complete bullshit and needs to go. Obviously, neither will happen, but it should.
Just changing the voting system by itself won’t get rid of the two party system, we also need proportional representation. I much prefer Approval Voting and Sequential Proportional Approval Voting because the results are as good, if not better than RCV, they’re easier for the individual to understand, and it’s impossible to submit an invalid ballot using either method. Plus RCV doesn’t actually change the winner the vast majority of the time. Fargo and St. Louis both use approval voting and folks there appreciate being able to vote for everyone they like and know that their full ballot will always be counted.
Just changing the voting system by itself won’t get rid of the two party system
Not immediately, but it is a necessary condition. A third party really can’t exist without ranked choice voting. If allows for a third party candidate to run without pissing everybody off.
There are lots of voting systems that make third parties less damaging to major parties. Approval, RCV, STAR, Score, to name a few. Approval is a better choice because it’s much easier to use and explain to people (RCV disenfranchises minorities, poor people, and under educated voters), while generally agreeing with RCV on the results. Plus, it’s much easier to expand to proportional representation, when we get there.
Sounds nice and fair. Also won’t ever happen. Our options will always be giant douche or turd sandwich.
You start from the bottom and work your way up. Switch your local elections to approval with a referendum campaign, and by the time you get up to the state level you’ll have people in office who have already proven they can win under approval. I’m serious. You should run a referendum campaign.
We’re not trying to force a change in winners though. The elections below president are far more dynamic and the people elected usually win for a reason beyond FPTP.
But also, any kind of proportional representation requires a constitutional amendment. RCV can be installed with a state legislature making a 2 sentence bill.
Really what needs to happen is removing the 100 year old cap on the size of the house. 800 reps would drastically change both presidential elections and representation of people in general. Using 800 reps puts California at 96 members to Wyoming still having 1.
That linked data is collected from local American races. The winner is overwhelmingly the person who won the first round, which is the only round the majority of the time. When people claim RCV will break the two party system they are trying to claim it will change the winners. The evidence largely shows that no voting system can take a single-winner duopoly and break it.
Any new voting system would require only a simple bill from the legislature. “Ballots instructions for every election at every level shall direct voters to select any number of candidates. The candidates with the most votes wins their respective election.”
RCV will end the two party system. France uses runoff and they have more than two parties
That said, I’m partial to the systems in Sweden and Germany, plenty of options to choose from.
-
RCV and two-round runoff are very different in practice because the two round system encourages strategic voting, has a higher potential for spoilers (RCV has them too), and has an intermediate time where the advancing candidates have to fight over all the voters who didn’t pick them in the first round, which is meaningfully different from when they were a part of the pack.
-
France has some amount of proportional representation at the local level.
-
They’re not starting from an entrenched two party system.
-
They’re honestly simply one of the big exceptions, it’s fairly well-established that single-winner methods tend towards two parties pretty much no matter what you do. Typically when you see more than two parties at the national level, it’s because there are regional pockets where only two parties are competitive, but it’s not always the same two parties. I’m not familiar with the details about the French political situation, but yeah, they’ve got a very unusual number of parties for a single-winner dominated structure. Compare them with Australia, who have proportional representation at the national level, and it should be pretty clear they’re just plain exceptional. If you need more evidence, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia already use a two round system for their legislatures but they still have a two party system.
I dunno how much you know about representation and voting systems, but the wiki article on two round systems is pretty good.
Funny how people elected under the two party system aren’t super motivated to change it.
This is why it has to come from the bottom up. All of the people saying “im sitting out of this election” or “i’m voting third party” are just acting in vain. It’s all vanity as they want to pretend they are doing something while not actually doing anything. If you want this system to change, you have to go out in local elections and push for people who will change it to ranked/star voting, and then have that move up. Then you have people who have won under those conditions voting for it, which makes it a ton more likely.
Okay. Go convince the Republicans who control over half the states to switched to rank choice voting.
Bidens about to go down as one of the worst Democrats in the last century because of his hubris if he doesn’t. His decent domestic agenda will be overshadowed by him ushering in another trump presidency by ignoring all the signs for him to drop out. He didn’t early last year when polls repeatedly showed that people thought he was too old. He didn’t when unnamed democrat was leading him by 10 points. He didn’t when his Gaza policy alienated large chunks of his base. If he doesn’t in the next couple weeks when there will probably be polls coming out showing majority support for him stepping down then he’s gone full head in the sand.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
I’m going to blame the people that have been trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Biden was fine.
it wouldn’t be an issue if people didn’t keep saying it
Which is just like ignoring/not testing for covid and calling it over
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
This is one of the core problems of the Democrats: hubris. When Obama had a majority in the House and Senate, he could have easily pushed through a Supreme Court appointee to replace RBG. But she wouldn’t go. Because in her mind, there was no one qualified to fill her shoes. She was convinced that she was the GOAT and that to voluntarily step down when it was safe to do so would be an insult. This is coupled with the fact that Democrats were absolutely, completely certain that they would win every election for the presidency after Obama without trying and that the “coalition of the ascendant” would easily put Hillary into the White House, and then she could be the first female president in US history and have an easy PR win by replacing an aging female supreme court justice.
I’m willing to bet we have the the same problem here, but in one person: Biden probably thinks the Democrats could never field anyone for president better than him and that his victory is a lock without any real effort to campaign for it again.
Fun fact: the last time anything like this happened it was with Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was the 22nd president of the United States who lost his re-election bid the first time around, and then got re-elected to be the 24th president of the United States. We are officially in the second Gilded Age.
But we’re already past the primary period… Are we suggesting having a quick primary anyway? Who should we put in his place? I haven’t heard a single suggestion for who else to elect. Are we saying Harris should step in? Who should she run with?
Newsom; Whitmer; Pritzker; Buttigieg; Shapiro; Khanna; Klobuchar; Walz; Booker.
I even saw someone mention Wes Moore and I was reminded that he’s a pretty good moderate governor of Maryland now instead of “only” a West Point graduate and author.
No mention anywhere of Warren… Did she fail too hard in the primaries?
Gosh I’d love to see her debate Trump. He would never agree to it though, as she’d rip him to logical pieces.
Well, half of those were people who ran against Biden, so that makes sense.
I remember being impressed with Klobuchar, and incredibly impressed with Buttigieg (though sadly he’d lose a lot of the religious vote, sigh). I wish I liked Booker more… But yeah there are some acceptable options there, that’s a relief.
So yeah, lightning primary?
It’s too late for this kind of thinking. We can’t change horses mid stream
I disagree. I actually think you’d see a boost.
-
Acknowledging age concerns of the electorate = good.
-
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = good.
-
Running someone Republicans don’t have their talking-points fleshed out on = good.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = good.
What if no such person exists?
Then you just lose and Trump becomes President by default. Do you have confidence that Democrats can rally behind an actually named person? And if so, what is the name of that person?
I’m no Democrat. But I wouldn’t consider “replacing Biden by somebody” to be a serious option. You need to say “Replace Biden by SPECIFIC NAME HERE”. Otherwise you’re just throwing away the election before it even begins.
You have to understand that the average American functions off of lizard brain impulses. It would be probably go like this:
Acknowledging age concerns of the electorate = show of weakness.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = show of weakness.
Running someone Republicans don’t have their talking-points fleshed out on = show of weakness.
America operates on principles of running someone strong who says they will always be strong and that if they ever become weak while in office and they acknowledge this to be replaced, the entire party goes with them like a tug boat latched to a sinking oil tanker. Trump didn’t win because he’s smart or a decent human being. He won because he exudes baseless confidence like a broken nuclear reactor exudes gamma radiation.
Biden will lose against Trump. Changing candidates this late isn’t ideal but it’s better than guaranteed failure, and it’s better than after the convention if Biden deteroriates from where he’s currently at.
I’m not worried about him “deteriorating”. Anyone who has paid attention to him at all knows that was not reflective of his actual ability to lead. Hell, right after he sounded fine at the after party for anyone still listening.
I’m only worried about people thinking he’s deteriorating. A lot of people have literally only seen that debate from him in the last year and nothing else.
If we stay with Biden, he needs to get really aggressive with his image. Hang out with influencers, go to games, don’t talk about controversial politics while having fun (like with the ice cream).
If we go a different direction it needs to happen now.
I really don’t care which we do. But it’s an important conversation to have. This debate fiasco is 99% on Biden being unprepared. But image is everything for a candidate.
We can change horses if there’s overwhelming pressure to do it and it’s exceptionally well planned.
What we absolutely can’t do is nominate someone else against Biden’s wishes and still have him on the ballot as an independent… that’s how you get folks like Woodrow Wilson.
I, personally, think it’s doubtful that much pressure will materialize, but I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
I see the down votes, but I took this as a Wag the Dog reference. They’re pointing out just how terrible an idea it is for Biden and the democrats to keep trying to sleepwalk through this election while Trump and the republicans pull out all the rhetorical stops.
This is how Bernie can still win! /s
In the off chance they do replace him, they’re going to force the worst possible candidate on us (Kamala?). Because what else are you going to do, let the bad guy win?
Newsome would have to resign as Governor and I’m not sure he wants to do that for a long shot presidential campaign.
Newsome polls very poorly against Trump and he also isn’t very popular in his home state as Governor.
Not worth the risk to lose his governorship for a shot in the dark. I don’t know why the Democrat Party hasn’t been building alternatives for the last 4 years. Hell, I only recall seeing Harris when she was yelling at poor immigrants to stay away. They failed this country.
I really hope not. He is as corpo as it gets, shielding PGE from actual consequences.
She’s not worse than Biden but not great. He should have chosen Stacey Abrams.
She seems vague and even incoherent a lot of the time, I’m not so sure she’s better.
Everyone hates her for very good reasons.
There is a reason California didn’t vote for her.
Why do people just go on the internet and tell lies like this? California elected her attorney general for 8 years and senator once.
Running Kamala would be making the same mistake they made back in 2016. She is polarizing, and extremely unlikeable. Anyone that worked with her or her department when she was in law in CA has nothing but bad things to say about her.
Running Kamala would be giving Trump a second term.
She’s not white and female, those reasons alone mean she’s lost over a quarter of the nation.
Really cool feeling when your state has primaries long after super Tuesday and the candidates were already mathematically locked in before you get a say. I swear I only get a chance to influence presidential primaries half the time or so. It’s strange to watch a ‘democracy’ keep moving when sometimes your voice doesn’t count because of where you’re from.
when sometimes your voice doesn’t count
Humans worship the powerful, not the mundane.
Then it’s simply not a democracy, yet I still often hear politicians, media pundits, and normal people claim it’s the best one. Where does the truth lie?
The truth is that no system of rule is functional long term, anarchism is the only stable system, it worked for 200k years.
So long as the state is how humans organize, there will be boom and bust cycles until either ecological collapse or invulnerable fascism brings us to a new terrible stable state.
The only logical position (in the U.S.) is to vote blue to buy time in hopes that anarchism can be reached by other means.
… Oh, not that kind of truth probably
Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. They stayed mum for three and half years and now they’re reaping the whirlwind.
☝️
Stayed mum? They actively fought against allowing anyone to hold primaries.
They did? That’s weird I remember voting in them just like I do every 4 years.
You weren’t paying attention. Many states banned anyone else from the ballot, even though there wasn’t cause for that by the rules.
There were no debates (Something that would have given Democratic party members time to decide if they thought Biden was electable.)
Some states were told their delegates wouldn’t count.
There was no fair Democratic Party primary. If you think there was you were either not paying attention, or you didn’t want a fair primary in the first place.
This problem is a problem of the Democratic Part{EDIT}y’s own making.
You can generally vote in primaries every year where one is needed, not just every four years fyi, if you’re in to voting and all.
That’s the point - they closed ranks and kept riding the Biden train whilst quietly hoping that no one would notice it was in danger of coming off the rails.
Putin also wins by a landslide. It’s easy to do if you ban all the competition.
He has never sounded like that before and he has the record to show that he can do the job. Republicans tried to say he was on drugs because they heard him actually speak at the State of the Union.
There was no reason to expect him to sound like he did. If they do the second debate, I hope he doesn’t try to recall every single statistic and just stick to the big points. But Trump might just not debate like he did in the primaries. In fact, it would be stupid to give Biden a chance to recoup.
Biden has been conspicuously avoiding speaking at unscripted public encounters for quite a while now, though, and reading from an autocue at SotU is a far cry from having to react on the fly and put together coherent arguments in response to moderator questions and Trump’s lies during a debate. I have the feeling Biden’s staff knew full well that the debate was going to be rough going into it.
I don’t think they were expecting this at all. Otherwise they wouldn’t have had him recite such specific information. You could tell he was flustered. If they knew it was going to be like this, I think they would have done a completely different strategy.
I think the cold threw him off and they couldn’t pivot strategy. It should have been a focus on his image from the start. A few times where he laughed at Trump he looked good. In the after party he even sounded completely fine. That should have been the goal of the debate instead of reading receipts.
