I don’t think it’s going to steal them in a negative way. These things usually go by very quickly, and it’s unlikely to become a drawn out, bitter affair like the last few primaries have been. If Biden drops out with grace, and the candidates all agree to keep things positive, it could be a huge boon for the party. Ezra Klein covered it in depth on his podcast this week, it’s worth a listen.

You can usually tell how old someone is by whether or not they think, “liberal,” and, “progressive,” are synonyms.

Except that’s not true; the DNC sets the rules for each state, and they make plenty of exceptions when they feel like it. In North Carolina, the DNC will allow someone on the ballot if their candidacy is, “generally advocated and recognized in the news media.” In Tennessee, the DNC chair will accept applications if someone is “a bona fide Democrat.” They’re perfectly willing to rubber stamp a challengers applications based on subjective criteria.

The DNC creates a feedback loop to keep challengers off the ballot; they don’t hold debates, so alternative candidates don’t get any exposure to mount a challenge; without any exposure, they can dismiss the candidates as not having enough media presence to warrant being on the ballot, and tell them they have to gather signatures; without any support from the DNC or exposure from the media, it’s virtually impossible to get the funding and resources to collect signatures in 50 states.

Plus, you will face retribution from the DNC for challenging an incumbent. I mean, just look at what they did to Phillips. They forced him out of his leadership positions, then they found someone to primary him, and now he’s not even seeking reelection. All because he had the audacity to think there should be a real primary. Does this really sound like a fair process?

Call your Senators, Congressman, State Rep, anyone with a D in front of their name. Tell them you’ve lost confidence in Biden and want the party to pressure him into stepping down before the convention. Then we can hold a contested convention, where the delegates will probably take several rounds of voting to decide a candidate. It’s risky, but not as risky as doing nothing. It would also steal the headlines from Trump for a least a few weeks, which could build some momentum for the new candidate.

The problem with Biden is that he’s going to lose to Trump. Voters’ major concern about Biden was his age, and he completely validated those concerns last week. His polls are bad and getting worse, and we can’t wait and see if they get better; we don’t have that much time to waste. We need to replace him.

A contested convention is risky, but it’s our best shot right now. It would dominate the news cycle for at least two weeks and create energy and excitement in the base. As long as we come out with someone generally inoffensive, we have a good shot of winning. My pick would be Gavin Newsom; I don’t particularly like him, but he’s polling on Biden without even campaigning.

It is now very unlikely that Biden will win the election. Acknowledging that isn’t the problem, and ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn’t the solution. We need to accept it and find a solution.

Ah, well, you know those Trump supporters, always being swayed by facts and evidence.

That’s a feature, not a bug. The party leaders like having time to craft a narrative and create momentum behind their preferred candidate. It’s how Biden’s campaign managed to come back from the dead in 2020. If the primaries were all held on the same day, these pundits wouldn’t be telling us to stick with Biden, they’d be telling us Bernie is too old for a second term.

This article is fucking absurd. It holds up the primary as a paragon if the democratic process, even though Biden was the only candidate to have universal ballot access, and ignores the fact that two-thirds of Democratic didn’t want him to run. It compares the Drop-Biden advocates to the January 6th protesters, even though they’re advocating for a contested convention, which is the same process that was used until 1970. And to top it all off, it’s written by Stuart Stevens, AKA Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign strategist. Why should the Democrats be taking advice from a Republican strategist, especially one that’s already botched a presidential campaign?

Williamson was kept off the ballot in almost half of all states. Phillips was kept off the ballot in more than half of them. It’s hard to believe it’s a real primary when only one candidate has universal ballot access.

Yeah, go ahead.

This is such a stupid take that I keep hearing. It’s like saying, “Yes, the captain is steering us towards the iceberg, but the real problem is the iceberg.” Well, we can’t change the iceberg, but there’s still time to change the captain.

God, we’re so fucked. SCOTUS is turning the Presidency into an autocracy, Biden refusing to get out of the way for a capable candidate…that judge sentencing Trump to jail time in the Stormy Daniels case is basically the only thing that can save us from a right-wing theocracy at this point.

Not sure comparing Biden’s performance to the dementia President’s is doing him any favors right now.

Guy who has been acting erratically since his stroke: “Biden seems fine to me!”

I think his point is that, if our only alternative to fascism is to vote for a senile old man who was forced upon voters without a primary, then this system can’t credibly be called democracy.

It’d be like thinking the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about whether America should he a direct or representative democracy.

OK, you’re very clearly just avoiding all the things I say that you don’t want to hear, and honestly, this feels like I’m just punching down now, so I’m just gonna stop. Good luck buddy.

Dude what a politicians does NOW matters

Do you understand how insanely incoherent what you’re saying is? You’re saying that my mistake in voting for Obama was that I listened to what he said instead of paying attention to what he did. But I should only pay attention to what a politician doing NOW, not what they’ve done in the past. So I shouldn’t just listen to what they say they’ll do in the future, but I can’t judge them based on what they’ve done in the past…so how am I supposed to pick a candidate? Use psychic powers to know what they’re going to do in the future!!!

Like, I could keep arguing about Biden; you’re ignoring 20 additional years of racist legislation I brought up, and I didn’t even get to his support for the Iraq War…but I don’t even care about that. Explain how the hell your philosophy of ignoring what a candidate says and watching what they do while ignoring what they’ve done makes any kind of sense.

Your original comment:

Maybe the answer here is to pay more attention to what a politician does than what he says.

Your current comment:

I couldn’t care less what Biden did in the 1970’s.

Maybe the answer here is to not leave condescending replies to other people’s comments if you’re just going to completely contradict yourself and negate your own point.

It really is astonishing how bad her political instincts are. A large majority of her party disapproves of what Israel is doing to Gaza, but she chooses now to call the protesters ignorant? A group of young progressives Biden will probably need in order to win? Who is this for?

Honestly, I’m not even mad about the stupid shit she says anymore, I’m fascinated. Does she know she’s politically irrelevant going forward, so she’s just on some sort of bitter, scorched-Earth tirade? Is the party encouraging her to say crap like this as some sort of testing ground for unpopular messaging? Or does she really just this detached from public opinion?