A question for Democrats…

First debate. Incumbents often struggle in the first debate. And first debates are never this early. There's still time to recover for Biden. And plenty of ammo to use against Trump, who I think lied every time he opened his mouth last night.

 

That's an odd response to my golf question, but...

 

Well, as you say, I’m a military man, not a political hack. All I was saying was while I could see a plausible scenario where Trump might see no additional value in future debates with Biden (on the rationale that Trump came out so far ahead on that one an additional debate could only give Biden a chance to redeem himself), I see no plausible scenario where Trump would refuse to debate Newsome et al. My advice to the GOP would be if the DNC goes outside of its rules to change their nominee to someone younger and more vigorous (but not the express choice of their primaries), then the GOP should immediately do the same. That would be the country’s win-win.

 

I don’t believe there’s a cure for dementia. It only gets worse.

 

Someone needs to change the title if this is the thread for Biden replacement rumors.

 

No incumbent ever performed as poorly as Joe Biden did last night and if you think his performance in a future debate would be any better, you are living in a dream world. Yes, Trump lied last night (as did Biden on numerous occasions) but the difference is he showed energy and life as opposed to an almost comatose Joe Biden.

It has gotten to the point where Biden’s family and advisers have to do the right thing and have Joe pull out of the race. But after watching Jill be his lead cheerleader afterwards (which was just as cringeworthy as watching Joe on the debate floor), not sure I see that happening.

 

A couple of questions. Which guy was a principle along with his father of the company that was the defendant of the largest racial housing discrimination case in history? Don't think it was Biden. Which guy called for the execution (albeit indirectly) of five black and Hispanic youths alleged to have raped and attempted to murder of a jogger in Central Park and never apologized for doing so after they were exonerated based on DNA evidence? What is Biden's long history of racism? A speech from the early '70s opposing busing to achieve integration? While there was undoubetly a racial component a lot of parents at the time were too keen on having their children bussed to a substandard school miles away when there was a better neighborhood school. Was it Biden's support of 1994 Crime Act? While the act has been deemed racist because it contributed to the mass incarceration of Blacks, it was enacted with overwhelming support from both parties.

 

You pose some interesting questions. I’ll try to answer them as neutrally and unemotionally as I can. A little easier for me since I don’t care for either person politically.

Well, that’s the dilemma, isn’t it? If you’re a key stakeholder, then you have a tough decision to make for which there is no perfect answer. We all agree there is a point at which a candidate, any candidate, cannot perform his or her duties. Let’s say a more extreme example, such as a stroke that left a candidate alive but nonfunctional in terms of speech, motor skills, critical thinking, etc. The party in question would have to act, regardless of the results of the primaries or even the convention if it had already happened. But the stakeholders have to assess if they are at that point, because as you suggest it’s not a free move. Some people are going to have to answer for hiding the President’s true condition, and they are going to have to take a public fall to give plausible deniability to others who need the credibility to crown a new candidate. First one to go to the wall for summary execution (metaphorically) needs to be Jake Sullivan. If anyone knew, he knew. And he deliberately cut off the President from his generals and other national security professionals to pursue his own nonsensical policy based on his religiously held views of liberal internationalism. That theory is as good as any other to explain the woefully unenlightened decisions of this Administration on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Russia, and so on. Jeff Zients, the Chief of Staff, would have to go to the wall as well. The other cabinet members, including State and Defense, can plead that they had restricted access to the President. But Sullivan and Zients would need to be gone for a shred of the credibility necessary to pick a successor.

You are not wrong about Harris. She has been unimpressive in the extremely limited role as VP she has had to this point. But, in the event of nuclear option, I don’t think they could keep her on the ticket, either. And that’s just about political best practices. If the DNC wants Newsom, then his VP probably can’t be another Californian. That’s all about balancing the ticket.

In the end, I don’t think they will replace Biden either, mostly for the reasons you stated, unless he gets so bad there’s no other choice. But just for giggles, an interesting scenario would be if Biden resigned due to ill health, Harris became President but declined to run, and she embraced the role of kingmaker by endorsing Newsom as her successor. I would not be personally thrilled with that scenario, but Trump would have a very difficult time winning that election.

 

If you don't vote for me you ain't black.
I'm not even going to post the dozens of photos of black celebs rubbing elbows with Trump in the 70s 80s 90s 00s many of them civil rights leaders.