: “I worked in five presidential campaigns for Republicans and helped elect Republican senators and governors in more than half of the country. For decades, I made ads attacking the Democratic Party. But in all those years, I never saw anything as ridiculous as the push, in the aftermath of last week’s debate, to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.”
“For many in the party, the event raised genuine concerns about the incumbent’s fitness for a new term. But a president’s record makes a better basis for judgment than a 90-minute broadcast does. Biden has a capable vice president, should he truly become unable to serve. The standard for passing over Democratic voters’ preferred nominee should be extraordinarily high—and has not been met.”
I can’t read the article myself due to the paywall. But presumably these quotes are by the same individual? Why would any Democrat campaign take the advice of someone who has spent decades helping to get Republican presidents elected? Why would he offer his advice to them at all? Certainly not in good faith. And why would he be an expert at what makes a good choice regarding nominees? His campaigns have presumably lost as many as they’ve won and their electorate is motivated by fundamentally different things. And never has there been a situation like this for either party during an election, a former president and convicted felon and current president circling the drain.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but given the source I don’t give the slightest fuck what his view point is on matters of the Democratic Party.
Stuart Stevens is fairly well known as Mitt Romney’s top strategist. He is a straight shooter, and his opinion is in good faith.
It’s funny to see someone that is such a neolib that they’d characterize a guy who ran a botched presidential campaign as “straight shooter”.
DNC Leadership: We won’t have a real primary, that’ll weaken the incumbent, who’ll probably win anyway. And remember, if you don’t get behind our anointed candidate, you’re anti-democratic.
The numbers are already coming in, the debate hurt Biden, and badly. Why does “Democracy is on the line” only mean voters are required to show up to vote for whoever DNC Leadership chose for us? Why do they have no obligation to put their best foot forward?
They’re gonna bet democracy on “We don’t really have a plan to turn this around, we’re just gonna keep doing what we’ve been doing and hope things get better.” The man is ancient, his brain is not gonna suddenly start improving. People know how aging works, and know that even if he never flops that badly on camera again, it’s just because he was never on camera at the wrong time.
It’s 4 months before the election.
Edit: Look at this - a classic case of a basic fact being down voted on Lemmy.
And the national convention hasn’t happened yet. He’s not officially the candidate until appointed at the convention.
I guess the point is that to replace Biden would drive chaos that would last longer than 4 months and be self defeating.
Any more brilliant political insight?
Long story short is splitting up the Democrats is exactly what conservatives want, to the point I wouldn’t be surprised if media moguls are spending millions to protect their billions by giving this movement any traction at all.
Ditching Biden is the only way to unite two important groups of Democrats: those with some grasp of reality, who recognize that Biden is far too old to run again, and those who still have their head in the sand about the issue, but will rally around anyone who isn’t Trump.
If we stick with Biden the election is lost. This will not be the last time Biden has a poor showing in public, revealing just how hard it is for him to speak and think at his advanced age. Every time it happens, more voters pay attention, and his poll numbers will sink more.
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?
I voted uncommitted for a lot of reasons, and this is one of them. Getting Biden out and having a brokered convention certainly expresses my democratic will.
