You're talking about the procedure.

But the reason given does sound entirely democratic to me. People don't want to vote for him, therefore he shouldn't run.

No, it sounds stupid. If people don’t want to vote for him, they shouldn’t vote for him. But they did. Nullifying people’s votes is anti-democratic.

19July24

Interesting. :chin:

Like 2020, don't vote for the man (or the woman); vote for the mission in Roevember 2024 which is to defeat The Neofascist Crininal Clown & his rabid MAGA junta-in-waiting. :victory: :mask:

Informed, intelligent commentary is welcome:
@Mikie @Wayfarer @Benkei @jgill @ssu @frank @jorndoe @Mr Bee @RogueAI @tim wood

Although I was not included in your illustrious list I will comment anyway.

I agree with him regarding "democracy by the polls", but the concern about Biden's current abilities is not simply a matter of what the polls say. I also agree with his criticism of the press, but the press plays a less significant role when a propaganda machine has a significant portion of the population believing that what it tells them is the news and the truth. Lichtman's track record on prediction election outcomes is impressive but I am not confident that Biden will win or that the attempt to get him to step down is self-destructive.

Based on his evaluation of this administration's performance his prediction might have been right up until the debate, Biden's past performance does not matter if he is no longer capable of performing as well as he once did.

I agree with Lichtman's argument on the power of incumbency. If there are no quagmire-conflicts going on, if the voter's 401K's are up and there is no recession, the incumbent is posed to win. And Americans seem to have forgotten that they indeed lost a war in Afghanistan as nobody is talking about it, since it was also Trump's fault also. And yes, there's no billionaire third party candidate running.

And I agree with Lichtman that Democrats are shooting them into the foot, but then again no incumbent running for the second term has been ever so senile (at least in the open). So even Lichtman is unsure of the outcome and waits for the Democratic convention.

However, even if Trump wants to follow the Orban model, as Lichtman says, what this great populist orator lacks is the needed leadership qualities. We already know this from the last time. And the idea that Trump can wreck American democracy, well, just look what happened on January 6th:

Trump wanted to go with his supporters to Capitol Hill, but his own security team simply drove him to the White House. There he watched mesmerized from television how his supporters took over the Capitol Hill building and finally, after calls from his inner circle and family, he just said to his supporters to go home.

Now, sincerely, ask yourself: is a person that acts in this way even capable of overthrowing one of the oldest democracies in the World, if he actually wanted to do it? Because you don't get a better chance ever for an autocoup like January 6th, with your supporters breaking into Capitol Hill. Democrats were totally stopped in their tracks as a deer in the headlights on that day. But then you would have to have a real plan, you would have to have people that support you, understand it's either they go through all the way or they face a life sentences, even capitol punishment. Nothing like that happened.

Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them?

Or does JD Vance, a former marine that wrote in 2016 "Mr. Trump Is Unfit For Our Nation’s Highest Office" among other comments, wants to now wreck democracy of the US? Isn't the last VP of Trump a clear example of the Trump team not having these kind of thoughts?

If you think that the intent of Republicans is this, I disagree with you. I think you taken in too much of the rhetoric which causes the political polarization in the US.

Hence in my view in 2028, even after a Trump presidency, there will be a democracy in the US. What kind of ride would it be to 2028 is a different question.

It’s a tough one. I have to respect Lichtman’s record, so I listen to what he says carefully. It’s true people always say “this time it’s different,” and it certainly looks like the last few years truly have been. The keys will be right until they’re not.

I can’t help but have the feeling like there’s a bit of luck involved with his predictions. But who knows? That’s the point: I don’t. And no one here does either.

Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them? — ssu

You're assuming they think of it as "wrecking democracy". They might instead consider it safeguarding democracy from the mob.

Consider some of the rhetoric right wing pundits have been putting out there: how the USA are not a democracy but actually a republic. And they mean to imply by this that only certain people - true Americans - should be allowed a say. It's a take that relies on very old concerns about the tyranny of the majority, only adopted to feature new villains.

:up: Apologies for the oversight.

That's 3 elections where voting is intended to stop Trump. It's insane the Democrats aren't capable of fielding candidates people actually like. Lichtman only considers this in terms of winning; I think there's more to elections than winning. It's also about why you're winning. This just further entrenches Dem vs GOP and sets up the terms for the next election which will not be about policy (again).

Biden has to go because he's unfit. Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan.

Well said. And arguably the state of the democratic party is more worrying than the state of President Biden. That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.

In retrospect it seems like warning signs have been accumulating since Obama's second term that the democrats are no longer able to effectively coordinate responses to challanges - like the refusal to allow Obama to fill a SC seat.

That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario. — Echarmion

It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction.

That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario. — Echarmion

It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? The donor money has dried up, the polling has gotten even worse for him, the media is completely dogpiling the Biden campaign now, and members of the party have been defecting en masse and increasingly so.

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.

Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan. — Benkei

:up:

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024. — Mr Bee

The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. Entirely uninspired. They deserve the dog piling and the whining it's bad for Biden is not the media's fault but a direct consequence of their own arrogance. Democrats should just rename themselves to "never Trump" because that's what it's been about since Hillary.

Its actually funny that people complain about the DNC and RNC for nominating unlikable and forced candidates. Such things are too important to allow chance or random candidates to get elected.

Yet, as someone pointed out, Trump was a wild card for the RNC in 2016, and still is until he likely is reelected.

The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. — Benkei

There are plenty of reasons why the US isn't a democracy and alot of them involve the SCOTUS, particularly their decisions in 2000, 2010, and this year. Of course the primaries are also pretty terrible too and the way general elections have locked out serious third party contenders since the 90s.

I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. — Benkei

It was actually fear that got us Biden in 2020, not of Trump but of Bernie Sanders. In 2020, there was a point where Sanders was about to run away with the nomination and the entire establishment rallied behind Biden in a matter of a few days before Super Tuesday in order to stop him. Biden wasn't the best candidate but he was the one they settled with because he's the easiest one to rally behind. If Biden ends up dropping out this year then we will see the exact reverse of that, as all the anti-Biden forces will likely coalesce around Kamala this time around, not because she's the best candidate but she's the easiest one to rally behind. The lord almighty have giveth and the lord almighty will have taketh away, to use some of Biden's own words.

It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction. — Fooloso4

Fair enough, but they're running out of time.

It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? — Mr Bee

I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside.

So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do.

Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024. — Mr Bee

I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time.

I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside. — Echarmion

I think there's starting to become a more organized movement here as more time passes and Biden continues to not reassure his party while pissing them off with his arrogance. It's clear that leadership is not happy with him and are not letting things move on as much as the Biden campaign would like to pretend like nothing happened.

So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do. — Echarmion

There's always challenging him at the convention and putting up somebody else which is an extreme measure that's very unlikely but who knows with a party that finds Biden's presence increasingly unacceptable. One could argue that it may hurt Biden's chances if they continue to complain, but as more and more polling suggests he's a goner anyways and will drag the entire party down with him, then there's also reason to think that it won't matter much anyways so might as well complain.

I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time. — Echarmion

Well like I told Benkei, Bernie tried to run in 2020 but was stopped by the establishment that gave us Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2024. If Trump ends up winning again because of their shenanigans then hopefully we will see such a reformation. I don't blame the Democrat voters for what is happening because the problem really was they never had a say in the process.

He's out.

:party:

Interesting.

Living through some extraordinary stuff. The 2020s are looking a little like the 60s/70s in terms of unprecedented events.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/21/us/trump-biden-election

Let's all enjoy this brief window of hope before they undemocratically shove through another centrist loser offering absolutely nothing, guaranteed to lose to the evil clown.

Thoughts about Kamala Harris?

It is Joever.

Thoughts about Kamala Harris? — Shawn

Affirmative action.

21July24

1968 redux? (re: VP Humphery loses to gaslighting "silent majority, law & order, peace candidate" former VP Nixon) :brow:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/biden-drops-out-election-00169980

from 2023 ...

Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux. — 180 Proof

"Defeat from the jaws of victory?" TBD.

edit:

also from 2023 (if & when POTUS drops out) ...

Whitmer for President with running-mate Newsom for Veep works just as well for me too – maybe even better! — 180 Proof

The coup was a success.

Thoughts about Kamala Harris? — Shawn

Not a chance

Fine. My standards are pretty low by this point.

I do not think she will be a strong candidate though. I think she would be a significantly stronger candidate if she hadn't been VP, because Biden's administration is not particularly popular.

There are several people who make better candidates, Dems who have won in deep red states.

If she wants it she can probably get it though because this is the Democratic Party so who is going to want to say: "we need to pass over the Black woman candidate?" All the speculation I've read sort of centers around this.

I think the only way she isn't the nominee is if she pulls herself out.

There are a handful of very moderate Republicans who have won is very Democrat-leaning states who would be good to throw on the ticket to offset the "California liberal" vibes she gives off, but I don't know if either side would be willing to do that. It would be a brilliant move IMHO though. These folks are already exiles for failing to say the election was stolen though, so they might go along with it.

Yes, this sums it up:

I honestly thought at one point Nancy Pelosi was the ideal candidate for Democrats.

There isn't much to like about Harris.

Things are falling into place quickly. Biden—at least we think it was Biden—resigned by tweet. Harris has been endorsed by Dem elites. Delegates voice support for her. The apparatchiks are already out praising Biden’s self-sacrifice. All of this within an hour. You can’t help but admire the craven political ruthlessness of that organization.