I see that some here think that Biden should step aside, but who specifically do you think should step up to do the job of beating Trump this fall? If there is a consensus here on a particular candidate then perhaps my mind could be changed, but what I don’t want to see is someone posting a list of possibles-just pick the one person you think could do the job of winning.
I don’t think Biden should step aside.
But if he did step aside, Harris would be the obvious choice to replace him. As VP, she’s essentially the front runner after Biden and that makes her the only choice that there’s any hope of the Democrats being able to unite behind. If they didn’t choose Harris, they’re essentially re-starting the primary season seven weeks before the convention.
I’m another who doesn’t think he should step aside even though his performance last night was deeply unsettling. After reflection I realize it is likely illness and the format that contributed to what happened. But as stated above VP Harris would be the only reasonable replacement at this point in the race.
One of the roles of the VP is to be ready to step in if the POTUS can’t fulfill their duties. And at multiple times in US history they’ve had to do so, either temporarily while the POTUS is unavailable, or for the remainder of the term when the POTUS passes away in office. So in effect, every VP that runs is running for that position. That’s one of the most significant things about that position.
Harris has been the “runner-up” for years now, and is effectively the backup POTUS for this campaign for the Democrats. She would absolutely be the natural one to step in. I personally would be okay if it had to happen.
I’d prefer for Biden to run, and win, and for her to be available if indeed he does suffer a medical issue during his second term which either takes his life or diminishes his capacity enough that he can no longer serve. Though I also very much hope that none of that comes to pass.
Put me down for Harris, as well. For one thing, if “they” picked anyone other that the sitting Vice President - Biden’s hand-picked choice to succeed him if something happened to him - it would rupture the party.
She won’t make the progressives happy, she’s not the most charismatic politician out there, yadda-yadda. But if she wants the job and is passed over, it will create more problems that it solves.
Why…?
- Because I think it is a little late in the game to start all that jockeying for position all over again.
- 'Cause I said so.
OK, I’ll play. But I don’t buy your premise that it’s too late for jockeying. And I’m not sure Biden should step down either.
But assuming he did step down, I’d take a hard look at Gretchen Whitmer. She could speak to the concerns of women who lost their reproductive rights. And she could help the Dems stay competitive in the Blue Wall states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. She would like deliver Michigan. And I think she would play well in the Upper Midwest.
That’s who I would take a hard look at.
There are others obviously. But she would be my top pick because of “where” she is from…that upper midwest is where Biden has to win, as well as any Dem.
If Joe resigns, there should not be a total rush to anoint one individual prior to having the leading candidates debate. If the whole reason Biden resigned is poor debate performance, this is essential.
There are 52 days until the convention. This is enough time to have two or three debates among the remaining leading contenders. This would be a good addition to the early/mid twentieth century process that gave us FDR Stevenson, and JFK (idea stolen from Nate Silver/Maria Konnikova podcast). Yes, Stevenson lost, but I’m sure Trump is less popular than Eisenhower.
You can’t pick who you think is the best prospect? O.K.
I like my native son, Josh Shapiro.
But the party needs a process to test whether he would be the best.
As a Democrat, I think that my party would seriously consider the half dozen or so names that often get mentioned.
The NYT is panicking:
along with columnists Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman.
They conspicuously don’t offer any suggested replacements, though.
Do you have one?
I don’t think there is one, at least not right now. Of course Kamala Harris should be president, but I don’t think she’s electable at this point. I’d like to be made wrong, though.
No, autocorrect, if I wanted to type delectable instead of electable, I would have.
I don’t think Biden should step aside because of the debate. But I do think the Democratic candidate should be polling even or better with a very flawed opponent.
An Economist article suggests (gift linked in the debate thread, link below may be paywalled):
The obvious choice to replace Mr Biden is his vice-president, Kamala Harris. Unfortunately, she does not inspire confidence and voters sense it. There are better options, including cabinet members such as Pete Buttigieg and Gina Raimondo and swing-state and red-state governors such as Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Blue-state governors, including Gavin Newsom of California and Jared Polis in Colorado, may fancy their chances. Raphael Warnock, a senator from Georgia, also deserves a look. If Mr Biden can summon the grace to invite this contest within his party, such candidates would at last be free to put themselves forward not as an act of treachery, but of patriotism.
As a Canadian, I do not really know three of these names.
No, but I would hope that the DNC might be encouraging some new blood. I’m not knocking Biden, who is doing an excellent job under very difficult circumstances and whose major failing seems to be that he got older. I think it’s pretty irresponsible for the NYT to call for him to step down without making a very powerful endorsement of another potential candidate who could beat DJT.
Never heard of him. A man with zero name recognition is not a suitable presidential candidate.
Having elites from the New York Times dictate who would be the Democratic nominee would be a terrible idea. I almost think that their naming someone, especially before Biden has even dropped out, would destroy that person’s chances.
We need debates to see who shines. Unfortunately, there’s no time for new primaries, but post-debate polls would give some non-elite input into which candidate is best. Nate Silver and Maria Konnikova suggest there might even be time, in the next seven weeks, to set up a few advisory caucuses in key states.
Trump does anything to grab attention away from the Democrats. This would grab it back. Every day the big news is about who the Democrats will nominate is one less day when it is about Trump.
I agree. It falls a bit short of the “… just pick the one person you think could do the job of winning.” qualification.
Would it be possible to take this side conversation about multiple candidates, debates etc. elsewhere?