Who will be the Democrat's candidate come November?

[rogue06]

Simple question. Pretty self-explanatory.

[seanD]

Six twebbers were sure Biden would be the one two years ago, so it will interesting to see the comparison.

Personally, I honestly have no clue. I don't know if there will even be an election.

[Mountain Man]

I'm saying Joe will be the candidate given his insistence that he's going to stick it out until the bitter end, meaning if the Democrats want to replace him, they would have to force him out in what would likely be a bitter convention fight that would leave the Democrats in disarray and potentially hurt the party's reputation with average voters, so at this point, as much as they may not like it after his disastrous debate performance, Joe is their only "safe" option.

But I could be wrong.

[seanD]

I'm saying Joe will be the candidate given his insistence that he's going to stick it out until the bitter end, meaning if the Democrats want to replace him, they would have to force him out in what would likely be a bitter convention fight that would leave the Democrats in disarray and potentially hurt the party's reputation with average voters, so at this point, as much as they may not like it after his disastrous debate performance, Joe is their only "safe" option.

But I could be wrong.

The problem for them is that the veil has been lifted for all to see. They'll look even more absurd than they did before if they try and gaslight us again. So all of Biden's cognitive lapses will be on full display with nothing for them to counter it moving forward.

[Mountain Man]

The problem for them is that the veil has been lifted for all to see. They'll look even more absurd than they did before if they try and gaslight us again. So all of Biden's cognitive lapses will be on full display with nothing for them to counter it moving forward.

They're already laying the groundwork with Obama saying that Joe just had a bad night, and instead of trying to defend Joe, they've pivoted to attacking President Trump, claiming that his performance was just as bad, or even worse. Then there's Chris Matthews with the most bizarre defense, implying that it's not Joe's fault because he isn't fully aware of what's going on in his own administration, and that's the only reason Trump was able to keep him on his heels. And as you've seen, there are "true believers" like JimL who are dutifully parroting the left-wing talking points. I think over the next week, you're going to see the media regroup and start selling the narrative that, "You know, Joe actually didn't do that badly, all things considered," and they're going to blame the initial reaction following the debate on exaggeration by Trump supporters.

[seanD]

They're already laying the groundwork with Obama saying that Joe just had a bad night, and instead of trying to defend Joe, they've pivoted to attacking President Trump, claiming that his performance was just as bad, or even worse. Then there's Chris Matthews with the most bizarre defense, implying that it's not Joe's fault because he isn't fully aware of what's going on in his own administration, and that's the only reason Trump was able to keep him on his heels. And as you've seen, there are "true believers" like JimL who are dutifully parroting the left-wing talking points. I think over the next week, you're going to see the media regroup and start selling the narrative that, "You know, Joe actually didn't do that badly, all things considered," and they're going to blame the initial reaction following the debate on exaggeration by Trump supporters.

With folks like Joy Reid, Joe Scarborough, Chuck Todd, Van Jones, NYT, et all., sounding the alarm is going to make them absurd to fall back on that argument, but I wouldn't put it passed them because we're pretty much in the realm of the surreal at this point.

[rogue06]

With folks like Joy Reid, Joe Scarborough, Chuck Todd, Van Jones, NYT, et all., sounding the alarm is going to make them absurd to fall back on that argument, but I wouldn't put it passed them because we're pretty much in the realm of the surreal at this point.

If that is the course they choose to follow, then in all probability they won't say a word and not be around when others on their respective networks do the dirty work.

[Ronson]

I'm saying Joe will be the candidate given his insistence that he's going to stick it out until the bitter end, meaning if the Democrats want to replace him, they would have to force him out in what would likely be a bitter convention fight that would leave the Democrats in disarray and potentially hurt the party's reputation with average voters, so at this point, as much as they may not like it after his disastrous debate performance, Joe is their only "safe" option.

But I could be wrong.

At this stage, he's sure to lose. So, they have to do something - even if it means disarray.

I still think the D heavyweights will convince Michelle to run. They'll tell her that if she doesn't run that they'll be doomed, that she is their only hope. Barack will need to twist Biden's arm and get him to drop out, then Michelle can pick up his delegates.

Once done, she will not debate (she doesn't have a grasp of the issues or various policies) and Barack will run the show from behind the curtain. A "wink-wink-nod-nod" administration and everyone will know that Barack is in charge.

[seanD]

At this stage, he's sure to lose. So, they have to do something - even if it means disarray.

I still think the D heavyweights will convince Michelle to run. They'll tell her that if she doesn't run that they'll be doomed, that she is their only hope. Barack will need to twist Biden's arm and get him to drop out, then Michelle can pick up his delegates.

Once done, she will not debate (she doesn't have a grasp of the issues or various policies) and Barack will run the show from behind the curtain. A "wink-wink-nod-nod" administration and everyone will know that Barack is in charge.

That will be the only way they can get rid of Harris, unless they somehow bribe her to step away with an offer she can't refuse.

[Ronson]

That will be the only way they can get rid of Harris, unless they somehow bribe her to step away with an offer she can't refuse.

I'm not that familiar with Harris' and her ambitions. Is she determined to be POTUS? Because she seems to be something of a dimwit. AND I don't believe she has a lot of support. People might stay home rather than vote for her.

[KingsGambit]

Agreed that Michelle Obama is the only replacement they could get away with apart from Harris. I don't take her stated strong disinterest in politics as definitive proof she wouldn't do it.

If Jimmy Carter was 25 or 30 years younger, he could be a wild card in there too. Most voters didn't live through his presidency and mainly know him as the volunteer guy.

Actually, one really wild suggestion I think they could just about pull off would be Jill Biden, but it's never been suggested.

[seanD]

I'm not that familiar with Harris' and her ambitions. Is she determined to be POTUS? Because she seems to be something of a dimwit. AND I don't believe she has a lot of support. People might stay home rather than vote for her.

She did run in the primaries. So unless she had a change of heart, I imagine she still has that ambition, especially now that she got a taste of it. As far as political strategy, I don't think Dems have much of a political strategy. If they do, it's likely just either more of the same election rigging, or something else up their sleeve.

[seanD]

Agreed that Michelle Obama is the only replacement they could get away with apart from Harris. I don't take her stated strong disinterest in politics as definitive proof she wouldn't do it.

If Jimmy Carter was 25 or 30 years younger, he could be a wild card in there too. Most voters didn't live through his presidency and mainly know him as the volunteer guy.

Actually, one really wild suggestion I think they could just about pull off would be Jill Biden, but it's never been suggested.

A lot of folks, and I don't think just folks on the right, consider her Joe's enabler and thus an elder abuser. She also comes across to me as having a bit of a screw loose. The way she talked to Joe was like an over-protected mother talking to a toddler, and to a room full of pre-schoolers.

[Ronson]

She did run in the primaries. So unless she had a change of heart, I imagine she still has that ambition, especially now that she got a taste of it. As far as political strategy, I don't think Dems have much of a political strategy. If they do, it's likely just either more of the same election rigging, or something else up their sleeve.

If I was a bigwig Democratic strategist, I'd tell Kamala to "Wait until 2028 to run again. This 2024 election is a shambles and Democrats need a shoe-in at this stage to retain the White House, and Kamala isn't it. For the good of the party, refuse nomination."

[Diogenes]

If I was a bigwig Democratic strategist, I'd tell Kamala to "Wait until 2028 to run again. This 2024 election is a shambles and Democrats need a shoe-in at this stage to retain the White House, and Kamala isn't it. For the good of the party, refuse nomination."

I would just tell her to wait and then 25th Biden.