No, instead we had smoke-filled rooms and party bosses, and by 1944 they were concerned enough that FDR was going to die that they convinced him to push Henry Wallace off the ticket and replace him with the reliable party man and relatively moderate Harry Truman.
Now all the rooms are non-smoking, party bosses don’t have that kind of power anymore and we’re the ones openly fighting over the political and practical implications of a President who people are afraid won’t last another term.
Messy? Uncomfortable? Divided? Worried whatever you decide will blow up in your face? Welcome to politics.
I think we need to be interested in a candidate that can campaign well, well enough to win in a come behind fashion, against a narrative that paints you as too old.
THAT requires someone who can speak well. Something that Biden always had issues with, worse now.
I have always been of the opinion that Biden has been underestimated and has been an incredibly good President. I have also been sick enough and tired enough to be incoherent enough on the telephone to worry my friends. I really was concerned about Biden after the debate and I am happy every time I see him doing well in an interview or at a rally. However, I do see a decline. I know a lot of people are just concerned with beating Trump and I agree that is of the greatest immedicate importance but my concern is that even if Biden is able to govern now, I don’t know if he will be in four years.
However, enough insiders are coming forward now to make me think that there is some fire beneath this smoke.There are enough people who say that the Biden they saw at the debate is the same Biden that they see at other times and that is worrisome.
Meanwhile, there are politicians that I know have good judgement and absolutely love Biden, like Pelosi. If Nancy Pelosi thinks he should step aside then I am seriously worried. I also think that the talk of him not being able to win and the public losing faith in him is a way of them helping him to save face a little. Asking someone to step down for the good of the party is a lot more respectful than telling someone that they are not mentally up to the job.
With respect to the possible Harris Vice-Presidential candidates listed, I really don’t know about the two governors listed. No way are the Democrats winning either of those states but they may be able to swing some moderates. Mark Kelly is also an excellent choice. He is younger than Biden but not too young. He has only slightly more political experience than Vance but a ton of more life experience. He counters the Vance military background with actually serving in combat and a slew of medals. Also astronaut! (America loves astronauts)… Also stood by his wife after her shooting and during a long and difficult rehab. Can counter Trump’s shooting with a long consistent history of gun control advocacy. Also astronaut!!!
According to current DNC rules, in order to be placed into nomination, a candidate must submit a petition signed by at least 300 delegates, no more than 50 of whom may come from one state. Given that there will be on the order of 5,000 delegates to the DNC, this is a pretty low bar to clear.
All apologies if I phrased that badly; what I want to ask is: if, as you say, it’ll be seen as ‘his fault’ in case of a loss in either scenario, then why wouldn’t the president, to whom it’s up, select the candidate that — without actually knowing the future, of course — he figures has the best odds against Trump?
And I just read that John Kennedy married Elvis in a secret ceremony back in the 60’s.
Or in other words, what was the source, and was this source in a position to actually know what (if anything) was said?
