NYT and WaPo report Biden is close to stepping down

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:AOC says that the political class (pundits, donors) turned on Biden because of the debate and if they had concerns about age, they should've stated it last year instead of supporting him
She's concerned about legal challenges if Biden is swapped out
states Democrats should not leak their displeasure to journalists, they should "say it with their chest" and go public if they have an opinion
The donors and elites that want Biden to step down, don't want Kamala either. They want a new ticket. Kamala supporters should not get their hopes up!
They have no plan on how to replace Biden and can't answer her questions
Biden does well with old people and unions, and thrives with crowds, struggled due to no audience in the debate
states she's poll skeptic, she has outperformed the polls before, her own private polling had her double digits down from what the result ended up being in the primary this year
says that the Dem members of Congress who want Biden to drop out only voice concern about their donors, not their voters


[youtube] https://youtu.be/mlzNvNFqtBE[/youtube]


The part about the legal challenges is especially worrisome.


And the DNC lawyers had no answers for her as to the legal risk! Insane to even publicly discuss replacing the candidate before identifying the risks and benefits of such a strategy.

They know the answers. They just don't want to share how it will be done.


Lawyer here. No, they don't know the answers. This is uncharted territory.

Rules can be changed and they have a sense as to what those options are.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it ironic that Biden’s own party is trying to cancel him?


Yes. This is what is so flabbergasting to so many rank & file Dems who are not part of the DC-LA-NYC bubble. Don’t tell swing state voters you’re “saving democracy” and then try to force out the sitting President despite him having the primary votes and delegates. It’s offensive that the DC-LA-NYC Bubble Dems believe voters are so stupid to accept this.


This is such a dumb argument. His primary was uncontested because no mainstream Dem who really wants the job would ever run against him. They would get no finding or support from the DNC and would kill any future choices, so it’s really a non-choice when an egomaniac decides he will not pass the baton. This hadn’t ever before means that democracy is working. I mean how many states didn’t have any other candidate on the Dem ballot in 2020 because we have an UNDEMOCRATIC primary system. I wanted to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she wasn’t on my DC ballot.

Presidents have been selected at the convention before. Let the GOP challenge it, it’s legal.


It’s a fool’s errand to ignore the legal issues which are a function of the various state election laws.
What legal issues? The ones Heritage Foundation is trying to push? They are purposely trying to confuse you because they know Trump can beat Biden. It's pure disinformation.

But seriously, list the legal issues. So we can talk specifics.

My take is there's been no DNC Convention, no official candidate, and no ballot in any of the 50 states. Easy and perfectly legal to nominate someone other than Biden.


Nevada:


3.  If a vacancy occurs in a major political party nomination for a partisan office after the primary election and before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held and:
(a) The vacancy occurs because the nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent, the vacancy may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party.
(b) The vacancy occurs for a reason other than the reasons described in paragraph (a), the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
4.  No change may be made on the ballot for the general election after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held. If, after that time and date:
(a) A nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent; or
(b) A vacancy in the nomination is otherwise created, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec165

Now, I don’t know how this provision of Nevada law can be legal in the face of the fact that Presidential nominating conventions last until August. But this would clearly be something that gets mired in prolonged litigation, both at the state and eventually federal level.


The date of the convention has far less legal standing than a ballot date set by state law.


PP here: agreed.


Didn't the Supreme Court already say that a state cannot keep a name off of a ballot?


No. They said only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, not the states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:AOC says that the political class (pundits, donors) turned on Biden because of the debate and if they had concerns about age, they should've stated it last year instead of supporting him
She's concerned about legal challenges if Biden is swapped out
states Democrats should not leak their displeasure to journalists, they should "say it with their chest" and go public if they have an opinion
The donors and elites that want Biden to step down, don't want Kamala either. They want a new ticket. Kamala supporters should not get their hopes up!
They have no plan on how to replace Biden and can't answer her questions
Biden does well with old people and unions, and thrives with crowds, struggled due to no audience in the debate
states she's poll skeptic, she has outperformed the polls before, her own private polling had her double digits down from what the result ended up being in the primary this year
says that the Dem members of Congress who want Biden to drop out only voice concern about their donors, not their voters


[youtube] https://youtu.be/mlzNvNFqtBE[/youtube]


The part about the legal challenges is especially worrisome.


And the DNC lawyers had no answers for her as to the legal risk! Insane to even publicly discuss replacing the candidate before identifying the risks and benefits of such a strategy.

They know the answers. They just don't want to share how it will be done.


Lawyer here. No, they don't know the answers. This is uncharted territory.

Rules can be changed and they have a sense as to what those options are.


Your sense is as good as anyone else's. Let's hear your plan.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:AOC says that the political class (pundits, donors) turned on Biden because of the debate and if they had concerns about age, they should've stated it last year instead of supporting him
She's concerned about legal challenges if Biden is swapped out
states Democrats should not leak their displeasure to journalists, they should "say it with their chest" and go public if they have an opinion
The donors and elites that want Biden to step down, don't want Kamala either. They want a new ticket. Kamala supporters should not get their hopes up!
They have no plan on how to replace Biden and can't answer her questions
Biden does well with old people and unions, and thrives with crowds, struggled due to no audience in the debate
states she's poll skeptic, she has outperformed the polls before, her own private polling had her double digits down from what the result ended up being in the primary this year
says that the Dem members of Congress who want Biden to drop out only voice concern about their donors, not their voters


[youtube] https://youtu.be/mlzNvNFqtBE[/youtube]


The part about the legal challenges is especially worrisome.


And the DNC lawyers had no answers for her as to the legal risk! Insane to even publicly discuss replacing the candidate before identifying the risks and benefits of such a strategy.

They know the answers. They just don't want to share how it will be done.


Lawyer here. No, they don't know the answers. This is uncharted territory.

Rules can be changed and they have a sense as to what those options are.

The only sense I get is that it’s all rigged for Trump. I mean how else can a convicted criminal be on the ballot?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it ironic that Biden’s own party is trying to cancel him?


Yes. This is what is so flabbergasting to so many rank & file Dems who are not part of the DC-LA-NYC bubble. Don’t tell swing state voters you’re “saving democracy” and then try to force out the sitting President despite him having the primary votes and delegates. It’s offensive that the DC-LA-NYC Bubble Dems believe voters are so stupid to accept this.


This is such a dumb argument. His primary was uncontested because no mainstream Dem who really wants the job would ever run against him. They would get no finding or support from the DNC and would kill any future choices, so it’s really a non-choice when an egomaniac decides he will not pass the baton. This hadn’t ever before means that democracy is working. I mean how many states didn’t have any other candidate on the Dem ballot in 2020 because we have an UNDEMOCRATIC primary system. I wanted to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she wasn’t on my DC ballot.

Presidents have been selected at the convention before. Let the GOP challenge it, it’s legal.


It’s a fool’s errand to ignore the legal issues which are a function of the various state election laws.
What legal issues? The ones Heritage Foundation is trying to push? They are purposely trying to confuse you because they know Trump can beat Biden. It's pure disinformation.

But seriously, list the legal issues. So we can talk specifics.

My take is there's been no DNC Convention, no official candidate, and no ballot in any of the 50 states. Easy and perfectly legal to nominate someone other than Biden.


Nevada:


3.  If a vacancy occurs in a major political party nomination for a partisan office after the primary election and before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held and:
(a) The vacancy occurs because the nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent, the vacancy may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party.
(b) The vacancy occurs for a reason other than the reasons described in paragraph (a), the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
4.  No change may be made on the ballot for the general election after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held. If, after that time and date:
(a) A nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent; or
(b) A vacancy in the nomination is otherwise created, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec165

Now, I don’t know how this provision of Nevada law can be legal in the face of the fact that Presidential nominating conventions last until August. But this would clearly be something that gets mired in prolonged litigation, both at the state and eventually federal level.


The date of the convention has far less legal standing than a ballot date set by state law.


PP here: agreed.


Didn't the Supreme Court already say that a state cannot keep a name off of a ballot?


No. They said only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, not the states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf


All SCOTUS rulings have an asterisk that said this does not apply to republicans or anything against trumps interest. So a state keeping Biden off the ballot(ie Ohio) SCOTUS will make happen.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it ironic that Biden’s own party is trying to cancel him?


Yes. This is what is so flabbergasting to so many rank & file Dems who are not part of the DC-LA-NYC bubble. Don’t tell swing state voters you’re “saving democracy” and then try to force out the sitting President despite him having the primary votes and delegates. It’s offensive that the DC-LA-NYC Bubble Dems believe voters are so stupid to accept this.


This is such a dumb argument. His primary was uncontested because no mainstream Dem who really wants the job would ever run against him. They would get no finding or support from the DNC and would kill any future choices, so it’s really a non-choice when an egomaniac decides he will not pass the baton. This hadn’t ever before means that democracy is working. I mean how many states didn’t have any other candidate on the Dem ballot in 2020 because we have an UNDEMOCRATIC primary system. I wanted to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she wasn’t on my DC ballot.

Presidents have been selected at the convention before. Let the GOP challenge it, it’s legal.


It’s a fool’s errand to ignore the legal issues which are a function of the various state election laws.
What legal issues? The ones Heritage Foundation is trying to push? They are purposely trying to confuse you because they know Trump can beat Biden. It's pure disinformation.

But seriously, list the legal issues. So we can talk specifics.

My take is there's been no DNC Convention, no official candidate, and no ballot in any of the 50 states. Easy and perfectly legal to nominate someone other than Biden.


Nevada:


3.  If a vacancy occurs in a major political party nomination for a partisan office after the primary election and before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held and:
(a) The vacancy occurs because the nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent, the vacancy may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party.
(b) The vacancy occurs for a reason other than the reasons described in paragraph (a), the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
4.  No change may be made on the ballot for the general election after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held. If, after that time and date:
(a) A nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent; or
(b) A vacancy in the nomination is otherwise created, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec165

Now, I don’t know how this provision of Nevada law can be legal in the face of the fact that Presidential nominating conventions last until August. But this would clearly be something that gets mired in prolonged litigation, both at the state and eventually federal level.


The date of the convention has far less legal standing than a ballot date set by state law.


PP here: agreed.


Didn't the Supreme Court already say that a state cannot keep a name off of a ballot?


No. They said only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, not the states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf


Does not apply to Ohio keeping Biden off the ballot.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it ironic that Biden’s own party is trying to cancel him?


Yes. This is what is so flabbergasting to so many rank & file Dems who are not part of the DC-LA-NYC bubble. Don’t tell swing state voters you’re “saving democracy” and then try to force out the sitting President despite him having the primary votes and delegates. It’s offensive that the DC-LA-NYC Bubble Dems believe voters are so stupid to accept this.


This is such a dumb argument. His primary was uncontested because no mainstream Dem who really wants the job would ever run against him. They would get no finding or support from the DNC and would kill any future choices, so it’s really a non-choice when an egomaniac decides he will not pass the baton. This hadn’t ever before means that democracy is working. I mean how many states didn’t have any other candidate on the Dem ballot in 2020 because we have an UNDEMOCRATIC primary system. I wanted to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she wasn’t on my DC ballot.

Presidents have been selected at the convention before. Let the GOP challenge it, it’s legal.


It’s a fool’s errand to ignore the legal issues which are a function of the various state election laws.
What legal issues? The ones Heritage Foundation is trying to push? They are purposely trying to confuse you because they know Trump can beat Biden. It's pure disinformation.

But seriously, list the legal issues. So we can talk specifics.

My take is there's been no DNC Convention, no official candidate, and no ballot in any of the 50 states. Easy and perfectly legal to nominate someone other than Biden.


Nevada:


3.  If a vacancy occurs in a major political party nomination for a partisan office after the primary election and before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held and:
(a) The vacancy occurs because the nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent, the vacancy may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party.
(b) The vacancy occurs for a reason other than the reasons described in paragraph (a), the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
4.  No change may be made on the ballot for the general election after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held. If, after that time and date:
(a) A nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent; or
(b) A vacancy in the nomination is otherwise created, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec165

Now, I don’t know how this provision of Nevada law can be legal in the face of the fact that Presidential nominating conventions last until August. But this would clearly be something that gets mired in prolonged litigation, both at the state and eventually federal level.


The date of the convention has far less legal standing than a ballot date set by state law.


PP here: agreed.


Didn't the Supreme Court already say that a state cannot keep a name off of a ballot?


No. They said only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, not the states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf


All SCOTUS rulings have an asterisk that said this does not apply to republicans or anything against trumps interest. So a state keeping Biden off the ballot(ie Ohio) SCOTUS will make happen.

+1 It’s all for Trump. They know they’d lose in a landslide. Screw the polls; people hate the GOP.
Anonymous
Selecting a nominee is party business governed by party rules. That’s the only right answer.
Anonymous
Let's be quite clear-eyed about the fact that this Supreme Court CANNOT be trusted and will have a majority that will rule in favor of Trump and against the DNC regardless of any rules, precedents, et cetera.

Thus the DNC NEEDS to have a solid plan and a solid candidate. NOT this clueless, half-assed knee-jerk navel gazing BS and circular firing squad that we are seeing right now.
Anonymous
Primary voters do not nominate party candidates, delegates do. This is a DNC issue not a legal one.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is it ironic that Biden’s own party is trying to cancel him?


Yes. This is what is so flabbergasting to so many rank & file Dems who are not part of the DC-LA-NYC bubble. Don’t tell swing state voters you’re “saving democracy” and then try to force out the sitting President despite him having the primary votes and delegates. It’s offensive that the DC-LA-NYC Bubble Dems believe voters are so stupid to accept this.


This is such a dumb argument. His primary was uncontested because no mainstream Dem who really wants the job would ever run against him. They would get no finding or support from the DNC and would kill any future choices, so it’s really a non-choice when an egomaniac decides he will not pass the baton. This hadn’t ever before means that democracy is working. I mean how many states didn’t have any other candidate on the Dem ballot in 2020 because we have an UNDEMOCRATIC primary system. I wanted to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she wasn’t on my DC ballot.

Presidents have been selected at the convention before. Let the GOP challenge it, it’s legal.


It’s a fool’s errand to ignore the legal issues which are a function of the various state election laws.
What legal issues? The ones Heritage Foundation is trying to push? They are purposely trying to confuse you because they know Trump can beat Biden. It's pure disinformation.

But seriously, list the legal issues. So we can talk specifics.

My take is there's been no DNC Convention, no official candidate, and no ballot in any of the 50 states. Easy and perfectly legal to nominate someone other than Biden.


Nevada:


3.  If a vacancy occurs in a major political party nomination for a partisan office after the primary election and before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held and:
(a) The vacancy occurs because the nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent, the vacancy may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party.
(b) The vacancy occurs for a reason other than the reasons described in paragraph (a), the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
4.  No change may be made on the ballot for the general election after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July of the year in which the general election is held. If, after that time and date:
(a) A nominee dies or is adjudicated insane or mentally incompetent; or
(b) A vacancy in the nomination is otherwise created, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.


https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec165

Now, I don’t know how this provision of Nevada law can be legal in the face of the fact that Presidential nominating conventions last until August. But this would clearly be something that gets mired in prolonged litigation, both at the state and eventually federal level.


The date of the convention has far less legal standing than a ballot date set by state law.


PP here: agreed.


Didn't the Supreme Court already say that a state cannot keep a name off of a ballot?


No. They said only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, not the states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf


Does not apply to Ohio keeping Biden off the ballot.


Correct. Though I understand Ohio Republicans changed its law in order to prevent the Democrats from having to do a virtual roll call to solidify a Biden candidacy.

So after threatening to not change the law, Republicans suddenly reversed course and extended the deadline once it became clear Democrats were moving forward with the virtual roll call. My take? It seems that Republicans really don’t want Joe Biden on the ballot in November.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:AOC says that the political class (pundits, donors) turned on Biden because of the debate and if they had concerns about age, they should've stated it last year instead of supporting him
She's concerned about legal challenges if Biden is swapped out
states Democrats should not leak their displeasure to journalists, they should "say it with their chest" and go public if they have an opinion
The donors and elites that want Biden to step down, don't want Kamala either. They want a new ticket. Kamala supporters should not get their hopes up!
They have no plan on how to replace Biden and can't answer her questions
Biden does well with old people and unions, and thrives with crowds, struggled due to no audience in the debate
states she's poll skeptic, she has outperformed the polls before, her own private polling had her double digits down from what the result ended up being in the primary this year
says that the Dem members of Congress who want Biden to drop out only voice concern about their donors, not their voters


[youtube] https://youtu.be/mlzNvNFqtBE[/youtube]


The part about the legal challenges is especially worrisome.


And the DNC lawyers had no answers for her as to the legal risk! Insane to even publicly discuss replacing the candidate before identifying the risks and benefits of such a strategy.

They know the answers. They just don't want to share how it will be done.


Lawyer here. No, they don't know the answers. This is uncharted territory.

Rules can be changed and they have a sense as to what those options are.

The only sense I get is that it’s all rigged for Trump. I mean how else can a convicted criminal be on the ballot?


Because everyone understands that his conviction was a scam.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Primary voters do not nominate party candidates, delegates do. This is a DNC issue not a legal one.


Something like 99% of the delegates are bound by DNC rules to vote for Joe Biden in first round of voting at the Convention. So it’s already Joe Biden’s nomination. The delegates are not free to vote their own choice.

This is why they are trying to publicly pressure him to step down.

Democrats need to get off social media. This is completely an astroturfed pressure campaign. Lots of phony enthusiasm for “replace Joe” by bot accounts.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Primary voters do not nominate party candidates, delegates do. This is a DNC issue not a legal one.


Something like 99% of the delegates are bound by DNC rules to vote for Joe Biden in first round of voting at the Convention. So it’s already Joe Biden’s nomination. The delegates are not free to vote their own choice.

This is why they are trying to publicly pressure him to step down.

Democrats need to get off social media. This is completely an astroturfed pressure campaign. Lots of phony enthusiasm for “replace Joe” by bot accounts.


He already said delegates can vote their conscience and if he does step down he’ll release them, still not a legal issue.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Obama was startled by how 'disoriented' Biden appeared during a June fundraising event, NYT reports

During a campaign fundraising event in June, President Joe Biden's disoriented state while onstage left former President Barack Obama "startled," The New York Times reported.

The event in question — a Los Angeles fundraiser hosted by Jimmy Kimmel — included a viral moment where it appeared Obama led a frozen Biden offstage. At the time, the White House dismissed the notion, saying Biden paused for applause.

According to an anonymous former Obama aide who spoke to the Times, the former president was surprised by how Biden had "aged and seemed disoriented."

https://www.businessinsider.com/disoriented-biden-startled-obama-campaign-event-2024-7?amp


Personally I’m tired of hearing about the likes of Jimmy Kimmel and George Clooney having any say, beyond their single vote in the ballot box, about choosing our leadership. That goes too for all the Hollywood and Wall Street donors who think they own us.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: