Who will replace Biden as the Democratic nominee?

[Frank Underwood]

Republicans:
The Democrats have stitched this up so Kamala will definitely be their party's nominee.

Also Republicans:
Trump will refuse to debate with Kamala until she's definitely their party's nominee.

If you're calling me a Republican, you are incorrect. I've said a million times before that I'm an independent.

Barring acts of God, Harris will be the nominee because the Democrats "stitched this up" for her. Even so, Trump isn't obligated to legitimize her candidacy before it's official.

Also, considering Trump was tricked last time into debating a "presumptive nominee" that they needed to replace, I don't blame him for wanting Harris to be confirmed first.

September's a little over a month away, and two months from the general election. It's suspicious that the Dems want another pre-convention debate. What's the rush?

 

[Angela Channing]

If you're calling me a Republican, you are incorrect. I've said a million times before that I'm an independent.

Barring acts of God, Harris will be the nominee because the Democrats "stitched this up" for her. Even so, Trump isn't obligated to legitimize her candidacy before it's official.

Also, considering Trump was tricked last time into debating a "presumptive nominee" that they needed to replace, I don't blame him for wanting Harris to be confirmed first.

September's a little over a month away, and two months from the general election. It's suspicious that the Dems want another pre-convention debate. What's the rush?

You should know me by now, I don't hide behind words, if I meant you, I would have directed my comment at you. I was speaking generally about Republicans but you are repeating their attack lines and it's one which I don't think will be of much interest to the average voter who just want to see who the choice will be between on 5th November.

In the UK, and other European countries, leaders of political parties are generally chosen by internal party processes and the general public don't have a say. We then can decide whether or not we like the choice when we vote in the general election. This approach is never considered undemocratic.

I don't think Trump was tricked into the first debate because neither candidate was officially nominated by their party to be their Presidential candidate at that point and both sides were happy with the timetable agreed.

The Democrats aren't asking for another pre-convention debate, they want the Republicans to confirm that Trump still intends to participate in the second debate scheduled for 10th September which he appears to be getting cold feet about.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Allowing political parties to choose their leaders internally doesn't sound the least bit democratic to me. I can't speak for the UK, but the parties in the US are always going to select the person who will further the establishment's agenda. If we're going to have government "by the people," then we should have complete say over who are choices are.

If the Democrats want party insiders to choose their nominee (and they clearly do,) then they shouldn't bother with the pretense of a primary. As long as they pretend voters have an actual say in choosing the candidate they want representing them in November, they're going to create backlash. Obviously, you are correct that voters will choose between whoever the two candidates on the ballot are, but Dems can't blatantly meddle in the last three primaries and expect people to believe they care about democracy.

As for Trump, I still say he was tricked. Unbeknownst to him, the debate in June was a set up to get Biden out. I wouldn't commit to debating another "presumptive nominee" either. That said, I wasn't aware that the next debate was scheduled for September. In that case, I believe Trump should agree to it since it's after the Democratic Convention.

 

[tommie]

Allowing political parties to choose their leaders internally doesn't sound the least bit democratic to me.

I think it's the difference between countries that have a multiple party system versus those who effectively have a two party system; it's just not very practical if your country has eight different parties in the parliament to have primaries for each one.

As for Trump, I still say he was tricked. Unbeknownst to him, the debate in June was a set up to get Biden out.

What often drives conspiracy theories in my opinion is that people assume people in charge have better laid out plans than they actually do; I think they pushed for Biden as the presidential candidate because they know that it's uncommon for the sitting president not to get a second term. So they pushed for him and hoped that it was indeed "senior moments" or that at the very least it wouldn't get that bad that quickly. They were essentially just muddling through rather than having a concrete plan to put Kamala as the nominee because believe me - no one wants a new nominee three months before the election.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I think it's the difference between countries that have a multiple party system versus those who effectively have a two party system; it's just not very practical if your country has eight different parties in the parliament to have primaries for each one.

Yes, that makes a difference. I'd be more open to political parties choosing their nominees internally if we had that many options, especially if we also had ranked choice voting.

What often drives conspiracy theories in my opinion is that people assume people in charge have better laid out plans than they actually do; I think they pushed for Biden as the presidential candidate because they know that it's uncommon for the sitting president not to get a second term. So they pushed for him and hoped that it was indeed "senior moments" or that at the very least it wouldn't get that bad that quickly. They were essentially just muddling through rather than having a concrete plan to put Kamala as the nominee because believe me - no one wants a new nominee three months before the election.

The situation is certainly far from ideal, but I find it hard to believe that Biden's inner circle didn't know he was this far gone until after the debate.

Before the debate, some of them were even insisting that Biden was the sharpest he'd ever been! That level of bullshitting is also fueling this conspiracy.

 

[DallasFanForever]

It’s now being reported this morning that Biden is backing Harris only out of revenge because Obama and Pelosi made him step down. If that’s true then that would mean they were originally looking to replace him with someone else other than Harris. I would take this all with a grain of salt of course. I’m not saying I buy into this theory necessarily but I do find it intriguing. Thoughts?

 

[Frank Underwood]

It’s now being reported this morning that Biden is backing Harris only out of revenge because Obama and Pelosi made him step down. If that’s true then that would mean they were originally looking to replace him with someone else other than Harris. I would take this all with a grain of salt of course. I’m not saying I buy into this theory necessarily but I do find it intriguing. Thoughts?

It sounds plausible, especially since Obama and Pelosi held off endorsing Harris until she secured the delegates to get the nomination. There had also been some in-fighting over whether Biden should drop out in the first place, and there was a sense that Harris might have some competition. I was surprised that it was resolved so quickly. I don't think establishment Dems are fond of Harris like they were in 2020, but they'll support her for pragmatic reasons. Perhaps Biden's backing helped her clinch the nomination.

 

[tommie]

The situation is certainly far from ideal, but I find it hard to believe that Biden's inner circle didn't know he was this far gone until after the debate.

Oh, they knew he was declining and fast, but I think they had hoped he'd hang on until they won the election. Again, they have three months now to set up a campaign for Harris. From my experience, people backstage often do not think further than winning the election and are too often making it up as they go along.

 

[CeeCee72]

It’s now being reported this morning that Biden is backing Harris only out of revenge because Obama and Pelosi made him step down. If that’s true then that would mean they were originally looking to replace him with someone else other than Harris. I would take this all with a grain of salt of course. I’m not saying I buy into this theory necessarily but I do find it intriguing. Thoughts?

It's been well documented that Biden resents Obama stacking the deck for Hilary in 2016. Biden wanted to run, Obama told him not to because "it was Hilary's time."

I can't help but wonder what would have happened had Obama not put his finger on the scale way back then. Biden probably would have beaten Trump on 2016 pretty handily. The country and the world would be a much different place.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Obama wasn't the only one putting his finger on the scale in 2016. The DNC did the same thing for Hillary, effectively preventing Bernie Sanders from having a fair shot. They would have done it for Biden too if he ran instead (like they did in 2020.) Assuming Biden had become president in 2016, the biggest difference would be the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be packed with conservative, activist judges like it is now. Roe v. Wade wouldn't have been overturned, and presidents wouldn't have immunity (at least not officially.)

In terms of domestic and foreign policy, I think things would be about the same as they are now. That means billions in war funding and an economy that benefits the rich.

Not surprisingly, it would be a mixed bag. If Trump came close to beating Biden, they likely would have still pushed Russia-gate to prevent him from ever becoming president.

 

[CeeCee72]

Yes, the biggest difference would be the court. Roe would exist and same sex marriage, access to birth control, and re-segregated schools would not be under threat.

There would have been no insurrection. Presidents would not have been crowned king. We would not have alienated almost all of our NATO allies.

To me, that would be a better place than the one the Trump presidency delivered to us.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yes, although the Trump presidency wasn't funding a proxy war in Ukraine or a genocide in Gaza.

Although I despise the decisions these activist, conservative justices have made and are considering making, Biden's increased war mongering is even worse to me.

 

[Angela Channing]

I think it's the difference between countries that have a multiple party system versus those who effectively have a two party system; it's just not very practical if your country has eight different parties in the parliament to have primaries for each one.

Not really. Until very recently the UK was effectively a 2 party system and only the parties MPs picked their leader and in now party members also have a vote. It's the same in so many democracies around the world where there are only 2 parties, such as Jamaica, Malta, Bahamas, Ghana and many others.

 

[CeeCee72]

Yes, although the Trump presidency wasn't funding a proxy war in Ukraine or a genocide in Gaza.

Although I despise the decisions these activist, conservative justices have made and are considering making, Biden's increased war mongering is worse to me.

Can we please not pretend that Trump would not be supporting the slaughter in Gaza? He would be finding it and cheering it in public.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Can we please not pretend that Trump would not be supporting the slaughter in Gaza? He would be finding it and cheering it in public.

I'm well aware of that, and I even said as much in the thread that I started about Biden dropping out. However, I think any administration would continue sending military aid to Israel since we've already committed to it under Biden. In December 2021, Trump said "I think one side would actually like a deal, and I think the other one maybe doesn't want a deal to be honest." To my surprise, he was referring to Israel as the party that didn't want a peace deal. He said, "I don't think Bibi (Netanyahu) ever wanted to make peace."

That doesn't mean Trump wouldn't have pledged indefinite military aid to Israel like Biden did after the Hamas attack, but he certainly has Bibi figured out.

As the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, Harris is now weighing in on Gaza as well after speaking with Netanyahu. According to the Huffington Post, "U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday made her first major statement on the war in Gaza since she became the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee — affirming that she wants to see conditions improve for Palestinians, while still backing the current U.S. approach of simultaneously arming Israel and seeking a cease-fire."

IMO, that last sentence makes Harris the quintessential politician. Straddle the fence, appeal to both sides of the argument, but ultimately continue the policy of aggression.

 

[DallasFanForever]

It's been well documented that Biden resents Obama stacking the deck for Hilary in 2016. Biden wanted to run, Obama told him not to because "it was Hilary's time.

It never made much sense to me that a two-term serving VP wasn’t the party’s nominee when it could’ve technically been his turn. However, looking back on it I can see why they would’ve gone with Hillary at the time.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It never made much sense to me that a two-term serving VP wasn’t the party’s nominee when it could’ve technically been his turn. However, looking back on it I can see why they would’ve gone with Hillary at the time.

I believe Biden could have still run in the primary, but there was no point since he didn't have the endorsement of Obama and the rest of the DNC elite.

I personally don't believe in anointing anybody the nominee, regardless of the position they may have held in the administration. IMO, the nomination isn't "owed" to anybody.

The DNC renders their primaries useless by putting their finger on the scale time and time again. They wanted Clinton, Biden, and Harris, and they got their way each time.

May the odds forever be in their favor.

 

[Seaviewer]

Harris's first campaign ad.
I think the big difference between now an 2016 is that Trump is now a known quantity. He still has his rusted-on supporters but there's no big pool of uncommitteds who might think about giving him a chance. It's now Harris who is the novelty.
I'd say I'm hopeful but not necessarily optimistic.

 

[Angela Channing]

I'd say I'm hopeful but not necessarily optimistic.

There are real grounds for optimism that Kamala will beat Trump the rapist according to a recent poll that shows her leading in key swing states. Before Trump's "rusted-on supporters" claim you can't trust polls from the mainstream media, it's a poll produced for their favourite rusted-on news network Fox News.

 

[CeeCee72]

There are real grounds for optimism that Kamala will beat Trump the rapist according to a recent poll that shows her leading in key swing states. Before Trump's "rusted-on supporters" claim you can't trust polls from the mainstream media, it's a poll produced for their favourite rusted-on news network Fox News.

View attachment 54029

VP Harris has a real shit.

People are bone tired of both Trump and Biden. Trump's core base is rabid in their adulation of the man, but everyone else is just so WEARY.

Any major party nominee NOT named Trump or Biden would have a real shot here.