The Supreme Court can (and does) interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court can not say the constitution is unconstitutional. I mean it’s right there in the word. If there was an amendment that said you have to be named Biff to be president that would be constitutional because it’s in the constitution.
Like it or not, Biden will be our nominee, barring a health incident or something very strange. He’s not going to just retire – he obviously loves being President and wants to continue. And since I think he’s done a mostly good job, I’m all for it.
Cenk won’t even be a blip, even if he were eligible.
Pulling back a little, worrying about Biden’s age or electability may be a reasonable concern (or maybe not), but it’s irrelevant. There’s nothing anyone can do about it except work hard to try and re-elect him. If he wants to run (and he does), he’ll be the nominee (again, barring a health incident or something very strange). A real challenge (say, from Gretchen Whitmer) would only do real damage to the eventual nominee (which would still probably be Biden). That’s just how our system works.
And putting that aside and presuming he were eligible, Cenk can announce a run for Prez and make his points about how things should be just as much as George Will or Rachel Maddow or Jake Tapper or Joe Rogan could or would… or as much as you or I. Again, “it’s a free (if you squint right) country”.
I think Biden’s been great. My only concern is he might not win. So, yes, there’s nothing to do but help him win. If he drops out for some reason, we can consider alternatives. I’d even consider this Cenk guy, if he were eligible. To address the OP, (I think) I am not in favor of him running as a tactic to get rid of Biden. Biden hasn’t done anything to lose my support. Quite the contrary, he’s exceeding my expectatons.
Well said and I agree completely. Biden has been terrific.
I don’t really want to argue the Constitution or whether the 14th Amendment could potentially be used to moot the natural born citizen requirement. I’m no scholar on that point. Let’s drop it, okay?
Do we take it that a candidacy by a vocal and articulate person, mounted in the hope that heading off someone of known antidemocratic instincts, simply to get a platform to spread his fear that going the path of least resistance will end badly, is unproductive?
How about this: if Cenk Uygur is as articulate, smart, and insightful as you feel he is, given that he is not eligible to become president under the Constitution as it stands today, and that the threat which he (and you, and many of us, see) is looming 12.5 months away, rather than attempting to run against Biden in a quixotic, almost-undoubtedly-doomed-to-failure presidential bid, perhaps Uygur should focus his efforts on driving support for the actual Democratic nominee (almost undoubtedly Biden)?
Biden dies, has a stroke, or drops out for any of a number of reasons. Should we just give the crown to Kamala Harris because it’s her turn? How would she do against Trump?
I think Cenk is saying the Democratic Party needs to support a broader slate of potential candidates. Right now they don’t seem inclined to do so, and it does matter how their thumb is applied to the scale.
Did anyone here say that? There’s been a lot of discussion here, and elsewhere, about Harris, and how good of a candidate she would be.
I don’t disagree, but at this moment, that ship has sailed, and Biden will get the nomination barring illness or disaster.
Barring Biden becoming incapable to run, rather than bitching about the fact that he’s running again (as good as it might feel to bitch), people who are serious about wanting to make sure that Trump doesn’t return to office should consider how useful it is for them to attempt to shoot their own party in the foot.
If Biden should die, the Democrats will indeed need a larger pool of candidate than just President Harris.
But Uygur is not a good candidate for said. Little known and most importantly not eligible. Might as well make the same argument against the age requirement. Taylor Swift is popular, we shouldn’t let her age keep her from office? (Purposely silly candidate to suggest. I’m not even a fan of hers being an old fart.)
These are not battles we need while fending off Trump and wannabe Trumps.
In fact, Swift will turn 35 on December 13th, 2024. My understanding is that the age requirement is applicable at the time of inauguration (in this case, January of 2025), so she’d actually be eligible. 
So sub in Arianna Grande. Leave it to the Dope. 
And I don’t share the view that Biden will lose a year from now, but then I don’t feel any confidence that he’ll win either. Current polling is troubling, but we know better than to rely on that. I want more viewpoints to get a reasonable exposure, right now when it matters. I have no reason to think the DNC will do what’s needed to head off a defeat. Their track record in that regard isn’t very good.
Sadly, very true. But I still think when push comes to shove, Biden will win the election. Once a Republican nominee is out there, it won’t take a lot to pick the apart.
On the contrary. It is almost the sole criteria by which the GOP chooses its candidates, and has been working fairly well for them throughout my lifetime. This despite a thoroughly ridiculous stream of depraved, dissolute, and utterly idiotic officeholders whose work ethics have proven impossible to underestimate.
Name recognition is the primary requirement to win US Federal office.
Other than somehow try to undermine Biden, what are their options “to head off a defeat?”
I assume they’ll run ads, try to get out the vote, do opposition research, etc. What else should they be doing?
I’ll discuss the guy. I’m not a big fan due to certain things from TYT. It has more to do with his cohost, but he supports her.
You see, she has bought into TERF stuff. She bought into the whole “trans people are taking away womanhood” argument because doctors use terms like “people with a uterus” to be inclusive of all people with a uterus. And she then used this to argue trans activist are too extreme. And she went on the offensive like Dave Chappelle did when people were offended. And Uygur did not have the political savvy to stay out of it, but joined with her.
It’s not the worst thing. But I don’t think we need the “Democrats are too progressive” crowd in charge. We’ve got Biden, who not only is holding the line, but seems a bit more progressive than people thought. And I’m not at all worried he’s going to give in at all on the trans issue or similar.
All of that said, I don’t take the fact that he can’t win as a problem. These types of candidates don’t run to win. They run to try and influence the party to some degree, or to help elevate their own political ambitions for later. So the fact that he is constitutionally ineligible (by current interpretations) isn’t really a problem.
I just am very cool on TYT and thus Uygur. I don’t think the direction he wants to push is the right one.
You guys (not all of you, just the ones who think a challenge to the received wisdom that going all-in for the old guy is our only option, and who is this Cenk guy and how dare he raise questions about how this thing could easily go sideways and I’m not gonna listen to your damn interview with Mr. Nobody) have convinced me to order that Cenk for Pres bumper sticker after all. And I don’t even support him, seriously, he’s a bit of a blowhard but damn! he does his bit to engage the public, even if it’s just a cable politics show, and he’s at least as well known as Steve Bannon.
(The more thoughtful of you, thanks for responding, I may be right or wrong about mounting 14th amendment challenges without calling a Constitutional convention, but I know a stupid rule when I see one - maybe we could include ditching that thing as a rider when we get around to abolishing the Electoral College, and other acts of housecleaning, are you with me?)
If you think that Uygur has important things to say, and his stances and policies are worth our time to learn about and understand, then maybe a more concise source, rather than a two-hour interview (or even half of a two-hour interview) might be a better thing to share with us, to enlighten us. But, instead, you’d apparently rather get angry with us for not wanting to spend an hour or more listening to a podcast.
Other than that link in your OP, you’ve not pointed us to a single article or citation which might better summarize Uygur and his views.
I apologize, but I highly doubt this. I like to think that I’m reasonably well-informed on U.S. politics, but I’d not ever heard of Uygur before reading your thread. Bannon, OTOH, has been regularly in the news for years, due to his role as Trump’s advisor, and his legal issues.
You asked for opinions and didn’t like the answers. I’m not sure what you were going for.