Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Technicalities aside it is still too late. At best if Biden steps back immediately there's a four month uphill battle to connect with US voters. He's evidently not going to be stepping back.
Let's be honest here, Biden should have sidestepped the race a year ago and he didn't, so the Dems never bothered with lining up a succession candidate or formulating a plan B.
Why is it insulting? Clarence Thomas for one is a disgrace, and his wife's position in the attempted fixing of the result in Georgia in 2020 is well documented with much video evidence. Any other country where the President in effect had the power to appoint justices to its Supreme Court would be regarded as banana republics. If they only ever vote in the way the party that appointed them wants, then the 'stooge' epithet is valid. The overthrow or Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court in 2022 by 6:3 was textbook stooge compliance.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Technicalities aside it is still too late. At best if Biden steps back immediately there's a four month uphill battle to connect with US voters. He's evidently not going to be stepping back.
Let's be honest here, Biden should have sidestepped the race a year ago and he didn't, so the Dems never bothered with lining up a succession candidate or formulating a plan B.
It can't be too late. If Biden died tomorrow (and who knows he won't?) the Democrats would have to find another candidate. Very little can alter the due date of that Autumn election. They need to get their finger out and find someone both able and willing to wear the mantle and get that person beamed into every living room pretty damn quick. It's not just worth the time, incredibly hard work and pain of the Democrats they owe it to anyone in the USA who values the preservation of democracy, and not just the Democrats. Biden should do a Thatcher, call in his underlings and advisors and be told the brutal truth.
Why is it insulting? Clarence Thomas for one is a disgrace, and his wife's position in the attempted fixing of the result in Georgia in 2020 is well documented with much video evidence. Any other country where the President in effect had the power to appoint justices to its Supreme Court would be regarded as banana republics. If they only ever vote in the way the party that appointed them wants, then the 'stooge' epithet is valid. The overthrow or Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court in 2022 by 6:3 was textbook stooge compliance.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It can't be too late. If Biden died tomorrow (and who knows he won't?) the Democrats would have to find another candidate. Very little can alter the due date of that Autumn election. They need to get their finger out and find someone both able and willing to wear the mantle and get that person beamed into every living room pretty damn quick. It's not just worth the time, incredibly hard work and pain of the Democrats they owe it to anyone in the USA who values the preservation of democracy, and not just the Democrats. Biden should do a Thatcher, call in his underlings and advisors and be told the brutal truth.
All of them are , openly. That's why I am glad we have parliamentary sovereignty and not have our law decided permanently by someone appointed for life by a president 20 years ago
It's rather disappointing that so much of the liberal media has been denying that he has a problem for several years, when it's been obvious that he isn't up to the job (he may be some of the time but that's not good enough)
It's rather disappointing that so much of the liberal media has been denying that he has a problem for several years, when it's been obvious that he isn't up to the job (he may be some of the time but that's not good enough)
Hm. It’s interesting to see how the news cycle has moved on in the last 24 hours (nothing to see here, everything is fine!).
This is - geo politics wise, probably the biggest issue that the west has faced since the fall of the Berlin Wall, yet here we are, being nice and giving someone who’s clearly well past it the benefit of the doubt when the obvious route to take is to be as ruthless as the other side.
This is a dirty game right now and it’s time to step out of the normal parameters and fight for democracy before it’s too late.
The Biden family are on a pre-planned visit to Camp David this weekend. If there is to be a “not running” announcement or other, it will be this week - well before the DNC.
In 1968, after LBJ withdrew and Robert Kennedy was deceased. The Democrats went with Hubert Humphrey, the Vice President who was no match for Richard Nixon.
LBJ thought so little of Hubert Humphrey that he was going to choose another running mate. Also, Hubert Humphrey wanted to be involved with foreign policy and LBJ did not nominate him to be the representative at Winston Churchill's funeral.
This is - geo politics wise, probably the biggest issue that the west has faced since the fall of the Berlin Wall, yet here we are, being nice and giving someone who’s clearly well past it the benefit of the doubt when the obvious route to take is to be as ruthless as the other side.
I see your wider point but "ruthless as the other side" isn't correct. Trump has the Republican Party in a headlock, even appointing his daughter-in-law to run it. There are several "never Trump" Republican groups making a noise (such as Meidas Touch) and probably many other Republicans who wish they were rid of him but can't say so in public. Many anti-Trump Republicans were "primaried" when they spoke up.
The debate was very early on in the election year, much earlier than normal, so there are lots of theories that it was set up by the Democrats to expose Biden and force him to stand aside before the convention.
But I agree with above, it is late in the day for a new candidate to connect with voters, though maybe it's a bit easier this year given how many are repulsed by Trump but might not have consciously voted for Biden either.
The debate was very early on in the election year, much earlier than normal, so there are lots of theories that it was set up by the Democrats to expose Biden and force him to stand aside before the convention.
But I agree with above, it is late in the day for a new candidate to connect with voters, though maybe it's a bit easier this year given how many are repulsed by Trump but might not have consciously voted for Biden either.
Committed Democrats will still vote for Biden regardless, and the Trump base will vote for him. Neither of these is enough to get a majority and much of the group in the middle is likely to be swayed by the perception that Biden is incapable.
If Biden steps down then those who would have voted for him anyway will almost certainly vote for whoever the Democrats put forward as the substitute. The group in the middle are probably more likely to vote for the substitute, but may be strongly influenced by whether the swap is done cleanly and amicably or ends up as a big squabble in the party between now and the Convention.
Who is apparently even less popular than Biden, although those figures will pre-date Thursday's events.
I think the only way forward here, assuming Biden stands down, is an intensive mini-competition to woo the delegates ahead of a vote at the Convention. If that happens I just hope it won't get too nasty and turn voters off.
California is a complete outlier in terms of US politics (a bit like - say - Utah on the opposite end of the spectrum - not at all typical). Being liked in California tells you very little about how well you'd be liked in any other state.
It seems to me that Biden had a bad night, and Trump had a good one. If anything Trump has already degenerated mentally to a far greater extent than Biden though, and has quite a few bad days where he can barely put together a coherent stump speech. In terms of running the country though, very few decisions stand or fall on the ability to deliver snappy debate responses.
While I don't think the debate demonstrates a problem with running the country right now, neither of them should be running for election, since they are clearly both on a rapidly downhill curve, and I suspect they are both quite likely to get seriously ill or die before the end of the next term.
I suspect a chunk of the democrats were rather hoping that Biden could get elected and then hand over to Harris mid-term. Getting any woman elected directly in America right now is probably going to be harder than it was even when Clinton failed. On top of this Harris also has to contend with losing votes due to her ethnicity whilst not really gaining very many votes on the basis of it.
I would guess that the democrats will manage to push through a replacement candidate in advance of the election. There are a few non-awful ones to choose from, and Harris can probably be convinced to stand as vice president, so they will still be able to describe it as a continuity ticket.
Getting any woman elected directly in America right now is probably going to be harder than it was even when Clinton failed. On top of this Harris also has to contend with losing votes due to her ethnicity whilst not really gaining very many votes on the basis of it.
Is that really the case? |You seem to be saying that it's much harder for a woman or a non-white candidate to win. But as far as I can make out, Hilary Clinton lost in 2016 largely because she'd made herself unpopular as a person, so there's no reason to think that would apply to other women. And Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 appear to demonstrate that non-white ethnicity is not a barrier to winning elections in the US.
The world order is already changing and only the Democrats and Jill Biden can now prevent that rate of change accelerating by replacing Biden. It also ensures Biden goes down in history for what he has achieved rather than risking that being undone.
Is that really the case? |You seem to be saying that it's much harder for a woman or a non-white candidate to win. But as far as I can make out, Hilary Clinton lost in 2016 largely because she'd made herself unpopular as a person, so there's no reason to think that would apply to other women. And Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 appear to demonstrate that non-white ethnicity is not a barrier to winning elections in the US.
I think the amount of misogyny that younger male voters are exposed to online is making the gender problem worse at the moment. This appears to be a somewhat global problem. I don't have any specific stats for the US, but from what I remember reading across various countries, it's definitely not a situation which has got better in the last 8 years.
On the race side, it's less about being non-white in general and more about which non-white ethnicity and heritage. Attitudes to women in different ethnic groups can also be quite variable. Again it's not a slam-dunk, but there are reasons to believe that Harris would not be received as warmly as Obama.
I agree that Clinton didn't do a lot to endear herself to voters, coming across as rather standoffish and a little inhuman. That was combined with a pretty consistent and vicious campaign of lies from Trump. I don't think Harris is light years better in this respect, and she will be facing a very similar onslaught from Trump.
I'd very much like to believe that Harris was a credible contender for president, and it's pretty worrying to see social attitudes heading in what I'd regard as a deeply retrograde direction. I honestly don't think she'd be an improvement on Biden though in terms of ability to win the election.
Is that really the case? |You seem to be saying that it's much harder for a woman or a non-white candidate to win. But as far as I can make out, Hilary Clinton lost in 2016 largely because she'd made herself unpopular as a person, so there's no reason to think that would apply to other women. And Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 appear to demonstrate that non-white ethnicity is not a barrier to winning elections in the US.
California is a complete outlier in terms of US politics (a bit like - say - Utah on the opposite end of the spectrum - not at all typical). Being liked in California tells you very little about how well you'd be liked in any other state.
I think the amount of misogyny that younger male voters are exposed to online is making the gender problem worse at the moment. This appears to be a somewhat global problem. I don't have any specific stats for the US, but from what I remember reading across various countries, it's definitely not a situation which has got better in the last 8 years.
On the race side, it's less about being non-white in general and more about which non-white ethnicity and heritage. Attitudes to women in different ethnic groups can also be quite variable. Again it's not a slam-dunk, but there are reasons to believe that Harris would not be received as warmly as Obama.
I agree that Clinton didn't do a lot to endear herself to voters, coming across as rather standoffish and a little inhuman. That was combined with a pretty consistent and vicious campaign of lies from Trump. I don't think Harris is light years better in this respect, and she will be facing a very similar onslaught from Trump.
Though surely your average middle American (i.e. a non-MAGA) would prefer Harris to Trump.
Trump is worse than Farage, worse even than the RN - I find it extremely hard to understand why anyone apart from the MAGA zealots would vote for him. He is unhinged, unstable, uses hate speech against his opponents, a recently-convicted felon awaiting a possible prison sentence, and belongs (IMO) firmly in the far-right. Particularly if the opposition is someone like Harris or Newsom who are presumably both sharp enough to cope with the responsibilities of the presidency.
Surely your average American would go with the "Anyone But Trump" candidate.
I will say, though, that after years of being depressed about UK politics the fact that we are likely to have a much better outcome in our election than some other western countries is restoring my faith in the UK somewhat.
The decision means the January 6 case will return to a lower court, likely further delaying the former president's election interference trial.
www.bbc.co.uk
Chief Justice says presidents have 'absolute immunity' for official acts
Writing the court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts says: "The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution" for official acts taken as president.
The document stipulates that courts would need to distinguish between what were official and unofficial actions.
The Supreme Court's decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative justices leading the six to three split decision.
Yes - they have created a King. it is a very sad and worrying day for American democracy. The only limitation is if the act is an ( undefined) "unofficial" act outside of his constitutional duties.
The dissenting opinions are worth a read. Very powerful. Remember: these guardrails were supposed to limit Trump.
It is now more important than ever that Trump be beaten in the election. I worry he wont be and for that that will mean.
Yes - they have created a King. it is a very sad and worrying day for American democracy. The only limitation is if the act is an ( undefined) "unofficial" act outside of his constitutional duties.
The dissenting opinions are worth a read. Very powerful. Remember: these guardrails were supposed to limit Trump.
It is now more important than ever that Trump be beaten in the election. I worry he wont be and for that that will mean.
Very worrying. Potentially the offences he is accused of might be deemed unofficial (certainly trying to defeat the election process looks that way). But as a minimum there's yet another round of legal battles, potentially back up to the Supreme Court again, to decide that question before it progresses to trial.
Yes - they have created a King. it is a very sad and worrying day for American democracy. The only limitation is if the act is an ( undefined) "unofficial" act outside of his constitutional duties.
The dissenting opinions are worth a read. Very powerful. Remember: these guardrails were supposed to limit Trump.
It is now more important than ever that Trump be beaten in the election. I worry he wont be and for that that will mean.
Of course Democrats have to take some blame. Bill Maher a well known media personality and progressive- liberal (donated over 2 million $ to Obama campaign) has recently called Biden “Ruth Bader Biden”. RBG should have retired during the Obama presidency so that he could have picked her successor. Instead, she thought she would live forever but died during the Trump presidency and he picked Amy Coney Barrett to replace her. So one hard left replaced by one hard right.
Democrats should have constantly had private chats with Biden and tried to persuade him not to run.
Democrats should never have changed the rules so that lower court judges just needed a simple majority. Republicans thus changed the rules so that it was the same for supreme court justices too.
Democrats should never have changed the rules so that lower court judges just needed a simple majority. Republicans thus changed the rules so that it was the same for supreme court justices too.
Appointment of judges in the US is a political process. Nominations for positions at a federal level are made by the executive (i.e. the president), and have to be confirmed by a vote in the Senate.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.bbc.co.uk
