The first presidential debate is done and the aftermath has not been good for the incumbent, Joe Biden.

Some Democrat politicians and operatives reportedly texted CNN commentators with hopes that Mr Biden, 81, would step aside. Some floated the possibility of going to the White House and publicly stating concerns about him remaining as candidate.

But if Mr Biden were to drop out, it would be a free-for-all. There is no official mechanism for him or anyone else in the party to choose his successor, meaning Democrats would be left with an open (Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago from August 19-22.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’d go for Bernie myself.

    I mean just imagine that! In a year of some of the worst and craziest ‘first-time-evers’ Sanders could be the DNC’s candidate.

      • Drag it thru daGarden@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I think it’s Bernie’s competency that’s appealing. Sure he’s older, but he’s in touch with reality and has never stopped fighting for tangible as well as progressive ideals.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I think at this point he has a lot going for him, ie: he’s recognizable, he’s popular with a large segment of Americans, he can play the game well (as seen when he graciously accepted the DNC’s bs in 2015), he’s kind, he’s rarely (if ever) been known to publically lie, he’s smarter than at least half of Congress and the House of Reps, etc etc.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          You can’t simultaneously argue that Biden is too old to be president and that we should have someone even older instead.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Good luck convincing all the people who have spent months saying that Biden is too old to be president to accept someone even older.

              • imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                You do realize that age is not a perfect proxy for mental competence? A good number of people remain mentally sharp well into their 90s, while others experience rapid dementia as early as their 60s.

                I’m not saying his age wouldn’t be a talking point, but I’m damn sure Bernie could express his platform with more clarity and vitality than Biden at this point. Unfortunately I dont think it’s a real possibility, but it’s stupid to act like the the actual birth date matters. It’s the signs of cognitive decline that are problematic.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  When people are repeatedly arguing that Biden (and Trump as well) are too old to be president, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t matter.

                  • imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Uhh, I just explained why. People can argue whatever they want, but the actual behavior and performance of the candidate supercedes their biological age as a barometer for electability.

                    Also I never said it wouldn’t matter, in fact I specifically acknowledged that it would be a talking point, then explained why that wasn’t the most important factor at play.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            I never argued Biden was too old.

            But if I had I would have argued that of any candidate in that age group, Bernie could defy the odds as far as ageism goes.

        • tamal3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I hear you buddy, but I think that chance was squashed by the DNC last time around. He was old when he ran, and he’s 8 years older than that now. Besides, “the South won’t vote socialist” is still just as true now as then.

          I wish it weren’t so!

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Bernie is still mentally sound. He’d make for a far better candidate, and would easily mop the floor with Trump in a debate.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Once again, we agree.

        Why always with the old white men, when we have prominent politicians like Yang, Buttigieg, Klobuchar? And as for Bernie, if you want a firebrand who’s going to alienate moderates, why not AOC? Well, she’s too young to run, but she’s not the only truly liberal option. Warren is old enough, progressive enough, and a woman. But, no, Bernie Bros gotta Bro.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m honestly trying to think of who they could run this late and I’m coming up short. Gavin Newsom is terrible idea in my opinion. Like you said, AOC is too young. Kamala Harris? People hate her.

          • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            4 months ago

            The age specifics might be important. AOC turns 35 in October, before she’d take office if elected. And therefore might actually be eligible.

              • citrusface@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                ·
                4 months ago

                There’s no battle to be had. You can be elected at 34 and you have to be 35 to serve. As long as you are 35 before inauguration, you are good. There is nothing to challenge. It’s cut and dry.

                  • citrusface@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    In this case - it is.

                    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

                    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

                    There is NOTHING that prevents anyone from campaigning or running for president that is younger than 35. You have to be 35 to serve as president. There is no ambiguity.

          • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Tim Walz. Minnesota has been kicking ass with progressive legislation these past few years, and here in Minnesota we’ve been wondering if he’s been quietly trying to get his name out there to run for President. (And the general consensus is that we don’t want to lose him as governor, but I guess we’ll give him up to save US democracy, lol.) On paper he’s fairly moderate too.

              • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Is that really a bad thing, though? Generic Democrat polls really well against Trump. The people who know of Walz really like him, even the more reasonable rural Republicans here grudgingly admit that while they don’t agree with him politically he clearly cares about Minnesotans. Newsom doesn’t have that. The past couple of years have seen some semi-viral quotes from him poking at politicians in red states, mostly along the lines of “we fed children, what have you done?”, and I’ve seen them posted here. The people who know him like him. For the people who don’t, he’s Generic Democrat. He’s well spoken enough to handle the discussions around the George Floyd protests (which already came up in the first debate but Biden didn’t address directly). He’s well spoken, smart, kind, and down to earth - everything Trump isn’t.

                Also, I hadn’t heard of Obama before he ran for president. For a sufficiently likable candidate, it’s not a deal breaker.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Then there’s this little time to campaign? I’d say yes. You had a lot more time to learn about who Obama was.

          • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            Agreed, and agreed.

            Why not Klobuchar? She’s got some national recognition from the 2019/20 cycle, politics are acceptable to moderates, progressive (enough), and she’d eat Trump for lunch in debates and on social media. Plus, she’s from the Midwest, and might pick up some folks for regional loyalty, and could play against the “slick New Yorker” which might still work.

            The bases are going to vote party lines. I think undecideds and wavering moderates are the pick-up points, and I think Klobuchar could do that.

            I like Yang’s politics, but he’s got a popularity problem, and Buttigieg - Trump would just harp on his sexual orientation, and I’m not confident enough that America’s ready yet to vote for a gay president. Hell, we can’t even get a woman into office.

            IMO Klobuchar’s the safest bet against Trump.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Klobuchar is definitely a good idea. Although I’m not convinced that replacing Biden this late in the game is going to save the presidency either. I don’t know what should be done.

              • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                The only reason to vote for Biden at this point is anti-Trump and Blue No Matter Who. Those still apply to anyone else that the DNC puts forward, as a base score, with any actual merits, charisma, or vigor adding to that. This should have been an easy decision six months ago and doing-nothing-and-hoping-for-the-best doesn’t seem to be making the prospects any better.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  anti-Trump sounds like a pretty damn good reason for me. Unless you think there’s a good reason to let a dictator win.

                  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    If that were all it took to win, we wouldn’t have been worried before the debate and twice as worried after. Not-Trump isn’t the autowin the establishment wishes it was.

                  • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    You clearly didn’t read what I wrote, but you sure took the time to start talking some more.

                    The only reason to blindly insist on Biden as the only possible nominee, a bad-mouth someone who discusses an alternative approach, is if you want Trump to win.

                  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    The problem is that upvotes serve two conflicting proposes. Upvoting raises visibility, so one use is to say, “this is a post people should see.” In that case, you may not necessarily agree with the content of the post, but rather believe it’s worthy of debate. A good example of this is c/unpopularopinion, where the community rules specifically state to upvote if you agree it’s an unpopular opinion, not whether you agree with the opinion.

                    The other, conflicting, use is to signal approval or disapproval.

                    You can’t do both at the same time. It’s a flaw in design Reddit had, which they fixed but monetized. Lemmy did not learn from Reddit’s mistake and instead repeated it.

                    Two conflicting uses for the same action is terrible UX design.

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              Trump won’t agree to a debate with a new candidate. I doubt that there be another debate at all as is.

              • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                For sure. But there will be a lot of indirect debate on social media, because Trump can’t keep his burger-hole shut, and Klobuchar’s free to murder him (metaphorically) on public platforms. Even if he only posts to TruthSocial, everything he says gets parroted on X and Facebook, and that’s still where the most eyeballs are.

                And old school public media picks this stuff up and repeats it - that’s mostly what they’ve been reduced to -but it still reaches a lot of eyes and ears.

                And: Trump refusing another debate, she could just hammer on his cowardice, over and over. That’d be a win.

                Klobuchar is tough. If nothing else, I’d love to see that fight. Only slightly less than I’d love to see an AOC v Trump fight; that’d be like watching a skinny junkie enter the MMA ring against Holly Holm. It’d be hilarious. But AOC is too young, and Trump will be either dead or in a home by the time she’s old enough to run. I just hope Bernie is still active enough by then to support her. I don’t know that she could get elected - she’s too polarizing - but it would be a marvelous spectacle.

                Anyway, I prefer Yang’s politics, and I’d be thrilled to see Buttigieg in the White House, but I stand by Klobuchar as the best bet.

                • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  AOC turns 35 before the election, so she’s eligible. She might be “too young” to vote for but not too young to run.

                  • She was born in October; shit, you’re right. She’ll be barely legal in time for the election, and certainly eligible by the time she’d take office. So she won’t be too young to vote for by the time of the general election.

                    Wow.

    • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is a fella with unquestionable principles. I love the guy.

      But we really need someone like you know, younger or were gonna run into the same cryptkeeper problems very soon.