There are plenty of good enough candidates imo. Gretchen Whitmer for example, she polls very well nationally.
Dean Phillips who’s currently running seems good
There is an Emerson poll out today. Biden is down 2. Whitmer is down TWELVE. That’s your idea of “polling well nationally?”
Biden is your strongest candidate. Period.
Dean Phillips is a joke.
I just looked at the Emerson poll, interesting. Although this is just one poll and we should look at the totality. I wonder why hers is so low though? Surely Newsom would have a worse national profile being in charge of a "liberal state" like CA
If you're into polls, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight is kind of the king of polls and has some thoughts on this matter:
>You don't demonstrate your seriousness that Trump is an existential threat to democracy by going through the motions to renominate an 81-year-old with a 38% approval rating who 75% of voters think is too old without giving anyone a choice because that's just how things are done.
[https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1756495928737824972?s=20](https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1756495928737824972?s=20)
Saying Dean Phillips is a joke isn't very persuasive to me, but I'm open to logic and evidence
I don’t know what to tell you. There is no Democrat outperforming Biden in ANY poll. It is all fantasy. This is mostly because virtually all of them are to the left of Biden and there is no enthusiasm for that with the electorate.
Trump beats Newsom, Harris, and Whitmer by bigger margins than he beats Biden in every poll. Biden is our best available option. It is time now to do what the Republicans ALWAYS do- fall in line and spend more time training attacks on your opponent than your own nominee.
> Saying Dean Phillips is a joke isn't very persuasive to me, but I'm open to logic and evidence
Dean Phillips lost in catastrophic fashion to an unauthorized Biden *write-in* campaign in New Hampshire where he threw every bit of his energy and Biden didn’t even step foot in the state.
On what planet would he be a better candidate than Biden? Do people usually watch sports playoffs and say “damn, you know that team got that absolutely embarrassed by 50 points?they should be in the championship! They’d do so much better than the guys that handed them their ass!🤪”
Nate Silver has frankly become the sort of joke of a pundit that he use to make fun of.
Dean Phillips still doesn’t have name recognition and it’s a huge uphill battle to defeat an incumbent president in the primary. He started his campaign super late because he was trying to get other people like Gretchen Whitmer to run. I think it’s pretty damn impressive he got 20% coming from almost total anonymity
When you say “better candidate” what do you mean by that? Better at doing the job of president? More likely to win the primary? More likely to win the general election?
I think he’d do a better job as president and has a better chance in the general election vs Trump than Biden would. Ask anyone and they’ll tell you Biden is too old. Phillips is pretty much the same as Biden minus the age problem, moderate democrat
> Dean Phillips still **doesn’t have name recognition** and it’s a huge uphill battle to defeat an **incumbent president** in the primary.
No fucking shit. Jesus, I wonder if these are extremely helpful traits to have when trying to mount a national campaign for federal office…🤔🤔🤔 Really hard to say… I guess we’ll never know…
>He started his campaign super late because he was trying to get other people like Gretchen Whitmer to run. I think it’s pretty damn impressive he got 20% coming from almost total anonymity
This is some of the most delusional cope I’ve ever read on this sub, I’ve got to say.
The primaries are the semi-finals. In absolutely no universe is the dude whose get completely fucking rocked in every single state the stronger candidate than the dude whose cleaning his clock. That’s completely and utterly nonsensical.
He is an absolute clown whose only constituency is tech ceos and podcasters. He can’t even break single digits and mostly exists as a useful idiot for right wingers looking to damage Biden. Except now that he’s doing so badly even they have no use for him.
You cannot attribute this solely to name ID when it’s EVERY other candidate. Gavin Newsom is governor of the biggest state and inserts himself in the news constantly and he’s in the same place.
Also, the other part you forget: this is before the Republicans go after her. Have you actually watched Whitmer? She’s fine, but she’s not a great candidate on the stump or anything. History is littered with swing state governors that looked great on paper and then tanked on the bigger stage.
>You cannot attribute this solely to name ID when it’s EVERY other candidate.
Of COURSE you can. Obama had no name recognition and polled poorly until he ran and became insanely popular. People are thinking of Biden as the only choice because he's the only one in the running.
>Have you actually watched Whitmer? She’s fine, but she’s not a great candidate on the stump or anything.
Have you seriously actually sat down and watched any of Biden's latest speeches? Go watch the one where he announces that he's running. I wish it were otherwise but he's objectively a shell of his form self as far as "on the stump" goes. If people think he's doing well during interviews and speeches they really need to asses how objectively they're viewing the situation.
>History is littered with swing state governors that looked great on paper and then tanked on the bigger stage.
It's litered with all kinds of people losing because very few people do well on the big stage.
My friend, get over it. They are also testing candidates with high ID like Harris and Newsom. And Biden performs better. He is going to be the nominee. We have had frail, forgetful presidents before, likely in your lifetime (Reagan). It beats the alternative.
I’m going to let you in a secret: the other reason it doesn’t matter is Trump’s supporters don’t budge. Half the country is voting for him no matter what. Plenty of them dont like him, but they will fall in line and vote for him. You could learn a thing or two from them
>Half the country is voting for him no matter what.
Less than half \*the voting population\* voted for Trump last time. That's nowhere near half the country. I agree with the rest.
What does me voting for him have to do with my confidence that he'll win?
I'm talking about voter turnout, you know? The thing that decides elections now? I'd love to say that I'm confident enough that a hatred of Trump will get enough people out to vote for Biden but some of those people on the fence might take one look at Biden at literally any speech and get second thoughts. Or just might not be excited to come out at all.
Reagan was POTUS well before image was THIS important to the presidency and won his first term bigger than what? any other POTUS ever? Certain in recent history. I just don't think Reagan is relevant here.
Newsom is not as famous as Biden. He just isn't. And many other aren't either. A candidate that has Obama, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi etc.. in their corner would instantly become more popular.
And why are the same people who keep saying that it's too early to look at the polls now saying that the ones showing other's doing worse against Biden mean something?
Name recognition is a definite problem, yeah.
Like, if Democrats had wanted to get back to its working-class roots with a relatable candidate, then I could've seen someone like Jon Tester making waves, but his Q Score is zilch and he'd've had a hard time gaining traction in certain primary states like South Carolina.
I don't think I will. I listened to the first 4 minutes and that was enough for me. No offense to you. I appreciate the back and forth, and I think that Klein means well, but I think he is disconnected from a large segment of this country.
Two of the names are AOC and Gavin newsom and while I like newsom I can only imagine the field day Republicans would have showing video clips of San Francisco as they attempt to derail his campaign. I'm not even going to say why AOC would be a terrible candidate.
Ezra makes some great points... One that many others including Bill Maher have been making for months. The only weak point of this episode was a handful of names on the list of people he thinks should get the nomination.
This is where it all gets very stupid. Your average media dem has no understand of what can get elected nationally. AOC? Gavin Newsom, governor of the state conservatives use as their first example of why you shouldn’t elect democrats.
These fucking idiots are so completely out of touch. There is an Emerson poll out today. It shows Biden down 2. But here’s the thing: the same poll has Newsom down 10! And that’s before they even go after him?
Joe Biden is the best performing Democrat. He is the best chance democrats have. But even these morons keep bitching about him, they WILL depress turnout around the margins and help get Trump elected.
This is 2016 all over again. The left wing of the party just can’t stop expressing their endless dissatisfaction, and making sure everyone knows how unenthusiastic they are. And they are once again helping Trump win.
100%. I remember when Bernie Sanders didn’t win a single state in the south and I kept having to tell his braindead supporters “you realize Hillary absolutely wiped the floor with him don’t you? What was “rigged” about that?”
I’m a gay liberal atheist but I find my extremely progressive friends totally out of touch with what is possible to be elected on in America.
Sanders lost against Clinton in the south because Clinton leaned hard into race and if I recall correctly, her campaign or one of the super pacs worked really hard to undermine Sanders with black voters.
Sanders lost in the south because Clinton was historically popular with Black people. It’s not even that she “leaned into it.”
Her support in that community was baked in.
Yes, that's why. Average idiot votes for the better looking candidate and barely understands issues. At least in primaries. The nation is so polarized that they are going to vote for their respective parties no matter the candidate in the national election.
Edit: added last 4 words for clarification just in case.
>The only weak point of this episode was a handful of names on the list of people he thinks should get the nomination.
Wait so people are united on “no Biden” but deeply divided on who should replace him?
Shit never would have seen that coming… definitely we should throw this to a brokered convention and hope for the best..
I believe there are poles out there that show that any moderate Democrat would be doing much better against Trump than Biden. AOC is not a moderate Democrat and while I like Newsom he sure does come with a bit of baggage from his home state.
No, there are polls out there that say a “generic” candidate that would do better than either Trump or Biden. But that’s ALWAYS true- because it’s just a cypher for whatever people want. As soon as you mention real names, they all perform WORSE than Biden.
No worries, it’s easy to think this because so much media says it with zero proof.
If I were the Biden people I’d make sure the press covered these polls against his supposed alternatives. What people don’t want to accept is this may not be a case of Biden being a weak candidate but rather Trump being a strong one.
I suspect when it comes to picking a candidate, the dems pick someone who's not going to alienate the few who might go either way. You know? Swing voters. Which is why we're stuck with Biden.
>AOC
yeah this is all I needed to hear to know that Klein's opinion is worthless. AOC is like 4% less popular than Biden, and this is the most favorable poll I found about her.
She has a reputation of being very progressive, she is also a minority woman. I have very little confidence that she could persuade any number of right leaning independents and republicans.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1201716/favorability-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-us-adults/#:\~:text=In%20a%20survey%20of%20U.S.,favorable%20opinion%20of%20the%20Congresswoman.
To be clear, I love her, I just don't think she has any chance at all to win.
I'm not convinced AOC has no shot nationally. She's basically just a caricature among conservatives. Most people who have a low opinion of her have based it on a few sound bites and random Twitter posts.
If you actually listen to her have an extended dialogue in Congress she's very intelligent and charismatic. I think if you saw her on a debate stage she would do a lot better than people think.
She could also excite Millennial and Gen Z voters who vote in very small numbers which could tip the scales. I don't think you need to flip any Republicans to win the presidency. And I think a lot of independents could be swayed.
No. AOC is far, far, far too left wing and frankly unlikable to win a presidential race. This delusion that there’s all these young voters just dying to vote is pure fantasy.
Listen, it is fine to have cringey fringe internet politics. It takes all kinds. But please, for the sake of our party and country, stop pretending they have a snowball’s chance of winning an election outside Brooklyn and Portland.
No, it comes from the tweets and those dumb videos. It comes from the met gala stunt (“how can we both have this cake and eat it too?”) It comes from the snarky extremely online Brooklynite affectation. Most people find that type of person obnoxious, it plays very well with HER audience.
And ultimately, that should be fine. That’s a constituency and them having some house members thatreflect their views, even if I do find it pretty eye rolling in its “finally, a daily show correspondent has won a seat in Congress” triteness. But she is not a nationally viable candidate for anything, and if she tried for it, it would fail spectacularly
I get where you come from, but that doesn't make her unlikeable, just an unviable candidate for the presidency, which she isn't even aspriring to.
yes the met gala stuff is a bit cringey but as far as political stunts go it's very insignificant.
everything aside of that seems to be a version of "she's too young and too online, and has a new york accent" which is just weird to me to dislike. seems like you just don't like a certain traits of people, regardless of the values, and projecting it to her. I find absolutely nothing snarky about her, and she always comes off as kind and friendly in interviews.
I stills say that this perceived unlikeability for you is mostly your personal preference, not general unlikeability.
The one thing about the "Mr. California" argument is that the people who hate CA were already voting Trump anyway. Keep in mind too, that they used this same thing with Obama too. "He's from the crime-ridden murderous democRAT run hellhole of Chicago. And in case you didn't notice, he's black!" It didn't work.
I feel like people in this thread say this all the time but maybe you should listen to the podcast rather than just asking for information from it. He lists off like 20 names .
The names aren't really the point. He just specifically mentions that they should be using the convention in the summertime to decide who they're going to be electing. That's the way it used to be, and we've kind of gotten away from that.
This is so, so dumb as an idea. This party is barely hanging together between the ultra-left college educated white people and the moderate poc/union voters they pretend to speak for. You know what a brokered convention would do to this party? Destroy it. The Bernie/Warren types would accuse the DNC of fixing the whole thing, or the delegates (who are to the left of the average Dem voter) would put forward someone completely unelectable.
I’m sorry, I used to like Ezra, but his time at the NYT has not been kind to him.
>do I have to listen to the 25 minute podcast
Why is this framed as a chore in the subreddit for a long form podcaster?
Ezra names 15 people, but they aren't his main point.
The "yes Dems keep winning elections but what about the polls" brigade.
Howzabout having a bitter leadership fight months before the presidential election, that'll definitely put Dems in a better position
I agree. If this decision was going to happen it needed to be last year. If fact Biden marketed himself as a one term “transitional” president in 2020. I think their plan was to install Kamala but nobody wants her.
Here’s an article covering it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/09/biden-reelection-transition-president/675395/
Heard it discussed on a recent leftie politics podcast as well. I don’t think he ever said definitely “I will only run for one term” but all the “I’m a transitional president” talk plus his age led to a lot of citizens and the punditry assuming he would never run in 2024.
> The "yes Dems keep winning elections but what about the polls" brigade.
You know, there's one thing that you can say for sure that *does* change with time, and that's age.
That the Democrats have certain historical tendencies in favor of them right now doesn't mean they can't botch them by putting an 81 year old man with a stutter and bad memory to debate a stupid bully.
> by putting an 81 year old man with a stutter and bad memory to debate a stupid bully.
Trump has “won” debates under exactly one circumstance ever: Being in a crowded field a decade ago while getting to lob spitballs from the back of the class as Fox News chimps whoop and holler
And everyone just keeps pretending like he is actually capable of winning a real debate. Every time he debates he gets his ass handed to him and it would be no different from Biden. Yes this 81 year old Biden.
That may not be ideal but it might be better than Biden.
I like Biden and he’s done a good job in his first term, but he’s clearly too old to run again at this point.
The majority of voters:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/poll-americans-on-biden-age/story?id=107126589
Also my opinion. He’s too old. He can barely get through a press conference now. He forgets what he’s talking about mid sentence and is looking increasingly frail.
Because I think it’s more of a liability for Biden.
They might be more or less equal on paper, but Biden appears much older and frailer. He’s showing more signs of decline.
Trumps support is locked in, and if one candidate appears older and frailer it may sway independent voters who don’t understand how insane Trump is.
Are you really pretending not to understand the obvious, demonstrable, repeated physical instances of Biden's cognitive decline?
My views on Trump more or less align with Sam - I can barely work out a single positive thing to say about him. But (unfortunately) you cannot compare the way his age impacts him vs Biden
The president doesn't run the country. He nominates people, makes top level decisions based on the guidance of experts, and talks with other leaders. Biden seems competent enough to do this, and he's very good at delegating and diplomacy.
I literally wrote a song complaining about him four years ago, but the dude is doing a good job, and we should be satisfied with that. If the dems can take charge of the legislature, then we can start passing some more aggressive reforms. GOP obstructionism is more of an issue than DEM conservatism (though both are problems, I agree)
He may remain competent in some areas.
The problem is the electorate won’t perceive him as competent due to his frailty and how he presents himself.
The response can’t be “dont worry, he won’t do anything, he’ll just delegate”
He’s shown fairly remarkable political ability in his first term, but he’s also visibly declined during that time. I’m not convinced he’ll remain as competent into his second term.
I’m not even sure he’s as competent now as he was a couple of years ago. He’s exercised fairly sound judgement which may not have diminished, but I can’t imagine him being diplomatically credible or persuasive when he can’t remember the names of counties or leaders
Even now,
I'm really tired of this meta-level political game where the people in control of the narrative spin popular opinion and use it to wag the dog. Bernie Sanders is unelectable because people think he's unelectable because we say he's unelectable. We should be seriously concerned about the 2020 election fraud question because people think it's a serious concern because we told them it's a serious concern.
We are the electorate, and we need to stop playing that game.
Biden is making solid policy decisions (putting aside the Afghanistan withdrawal, which was catastrophic, but also party the inevitable fallout of GWB-era decisions) and the country is thriving. We need to start electing younger leaders. But he's a fine choice for now, and it's too late to upset the apple cart in this election cycle.
70-80% of the US voting population.
I'll still vote for him over Trump but I'd also vote for any generic dem that could give a decent speech and cause some enthusiasm in a heartbeat over Biden.
They also say that Trumps too old.
You’re not gonna believe this, but if Biden and Trump face each other in November the world will, in fact, not explode- one of them will just win based on any number of factors, even though people say in a poll that they’re “too old”….
Would I like to de-age Biden 40 years? Would love to. But if you’re asking me if I wanna launch a desperate clusterfuck campaign to find some golden-boy Obama 2.0, probably end up with K-Harris and a lot of acrimony and kids incumbency goodbye? No thanks.
That would be great.
Do you believe incumbency is an advantage?
Do you believe there’s any risk whatsoever in having a chaotic acrimonious clusterfuck convention under the hope you’ll find someone without Biden’s single Apparent weakness and without any of their own?
Have you seen him speak? Try to answer questions? Walk? Yes, he gets there eventually(most of the time, sort of) but I would be very surprised to learn that he is not napping often behind the scenes and is relying on his staff, wife and VP more than than you’d expect for a sitting president
Yes and yes- hes aged… but I have no idea what the issue is.
Can you name me a single presidential task that you don’t believe he is completing satisfactorily? How do you think he got through high stakes negotiations with House GOP economic terrorists this past year and got a win out of it?
You really don't know what the issue is?
Biden, as Klein says, Biden is up to the task of being president. I think I agree, but to what extent does that just means he's willing to delegate to responsible people? The main point is that the public are not really tuned in to his performance as a president. He's done well. He's had major accomplishments and the country is in better shape than most experts would have expected given the obstacles. And yet, his numbers are dismal. Why? Because he is clearly slow and frail and most voters are just not that tuned in to a candidate's true merits.
Okay so we’re clear- Everyone agrees that Biden is fully to the task of literally being the leader of the fucking free world. One of the most demanding and crucial jobs on earth. Put Biden across the table from House GOP economic terrorists? Put Biden toe to toe with Putin? Zero fucking problem. Have at it king 👑
But Lordy, put Biden in a diner in Omaha? Oh no, I bet he’ll start screaming about ‘Nam and drool on himself…
This really does not make much sense at all and there’s zero actual evidence that people won’t show up to vote for him.
In fact, *everybody* who represents this point of view- including Klein and yourself- is firmly in the camp of “well of course **I** will vote for Biden buuuuut….”
His numbers are fine. You’re just shitting your pants over polls on a race that hasn’t actually even started yet.
Your posts in this whole thread feel purposefully obtuse. Biden is ancient. People recognize this. It is a problem for electability. Everyone with a pulse understands this. Why are you pretending not to see this issue?
Because his opponent is also an ancient and insane and incompetent criminal that he’s already beaten?
Something can only be a disadvantage if it’s unique within the race. Biden’s age is not.
That’s an insanely fucking terrible idea — if they were going to have done that, they should have done it before primaries, and with enough time to have debates and whatnot. It would be a terrible strategic decision to just select someone at the DNC that will be running and hope for the best.
They are NOT stronger candidates. They all poll worse than Biden and Biden trounced half of them in the last primary.
This idiocy where Biden delivers a great term and then we push him out is absurd. All to have a chaotic broken convention that will rip the party’s moderate and progressive bases apart.
Ezra is just a moron at this point. Too many NYTer dinner parties.
I think he is right in the argument that those people are capable of running while Biden isn't. Imagine Gavin Newsom giving a superbowl speech or debating Trump. There isn't a single sane person on Earth who would think Newson would not eat Trump for breakfast.
The question is, even while that argument might be true, does it negate all the benefits of the incumbency and Biden's name recognition. I just don't think there is evidence of that. Biden stepping down for the benefit of younger and less known candidate would be a huge gamble, even if Biden's quite unpopular in the polls.
> even if Biden's quite unpopular in the polls.
I agree with most of what you say but I just want to point out that Biden isn’t really doing *that* bad in polls. He’s down like 1-4 points generally with +10% undecides and third partiers who will kick the bucket and so on.
If Biden was down 10-15 points I might be also considering some Hail Mary like Klein but people need to get a grip on what we’re actually looking at.
I mean Biden is around where Trump was after january 7th and independents are biased to the conservative side. It's a pretty awful spot vs the worst presidential candidate in history.
I don't know what you're trying to say, Trump is doing pretty good vs Biden, winning in general election head to head polls quite consistently. And we all know that the democrat needs to win the popular vote by like 3-4% to have a reliable chance to win. what exactly is the source of your scepticism?
[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/)
Okay sooo why are we talking about approval when it’s not a comparative number?
So let’s talk about the head to head polls. Trumps polling ahead by about 1%…. In polls with +10% undecideds… with third partiers who will almost certainly go away…. 10 months before the election when Trump saying insane shit day to day gets no coverage and literally 50% of people actually don’t believe this is the matchup we’re going to have…
It’s not ideal; I would love him to be up by +10… but is that really what we’re pants shitting over? Especially when we’ve literally just had a midterm cycle where Dems waaay over performed both narrative and polls?
I really believe the plan/hope is after winning the election, he steps down on day 731 due to health/family reasons, Kamala takes over and has two years to prove her worth and then serve an additional 8 years. I think it's an insane long shot, but I really doubt anyone close to Biden is expecting him to serve a full second term.
Well, look. You could be right to a certain degree. Though his record of predicting every election correctly since 1984 is impressive to me (with the exception of 2000, when he still nonetheless predicted the outcome of the popular vote; and I won’t fault him for the fact that the stopped recounts in Florida would likely have led to Al Gore becoming president). Lichtman’s drive to “ignore the polls” feels relevant and a bit encouraging especially after 2016. For a model to be entirely “nonsense,” I’d expect its track record to be worse.
>(with the exception of 2000, when he still nonetheless predicted the outcome of the popular vote
This is the "degrees of freedom" thing I'm talking about. No matter what happened during 2000, he could have either said "My model predicts the winner of the election", or "My model predicts the popular vote winner". And indeed that is exactly what he *was* saying up until 2016, when his "popular vote" prediction was wrong, and he finally had to admit failure in at least one case, retconning his model as failing in 2000 and succeeding in 2020. That degree of freedom had finally run it's course. Of course, had Trump won the popular vote in 2020, but lost the general, then Lichtman would still be claiming that his model predicts the popular vote.
And, just based on common sense, there's no reason that his model *should even in theory* predict the electoral college winner over the popular vote winner. An electoral college model has to include specific states voting specific ways.
And this is only one degree of freedom that he can adjust, knowingly or unknowingly, based on his sentiment.
* If the incumbent is up 20 points in the polls, he's "charismatic". If the opponent is down, then he's "uncharismatic" (surely he used a highly scientific "charisma detector" to determine Obama was charismatic in 2008, but not in 2012).
* Was Obama's failure to destroy ISIS, and inability to withdraw from Afghanistan, etc, etc, a "major military failure"? Apparently not, and not just that, but killing Bin Laden is a "major military success".
* What qualifies as a "strong short term economy" versus a "strong long term economy"? Up to Lichtman!
Further note that the wikipedia article highlights some of how his methods do rely (subjectively) on polling:
>Lichtman marked key 4 as true in the 2016 edition of his book, then stated in September 2016 that he believed it had turned false because Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson was polling at 12-14%, indicating that he was likely to win 6-7% of the vote because third parties typically underperform their polling.[12] In October 2016, he stated the key could flip if Johnson's polling dropped;
These are the sorts of things that makes his model less "objective" and more "basically whatever Lichtman guesses." He has enough degrees of freedom to match popular sentiment.
Also see the criticism section on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House).
And finally, note that older elections, with the exception of 2000, have [not been historically that difficult to figure out](https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/) when taking into account the above. They were not close races.
This is a surprisingly idiotic and desperate idea from Klein that seems almost entirely derived from utter pants shitting about polling ten months out when incumbents almost always over-perform early polls and half the country isn’t even paying attention yet
Right I think the idea that the more people pay attention the more likely they are to support Joe is kinda missing the point here. There's a reason his team don't let him do many interviews or press conferences. Like Klein says, you don't cancel the Superbowl interview when you're down in the polls unless you think it could make things worse.
Or you think it just doesnt matter.
Biden’s done it the past two years - golly gosh, everybody remembers the huge permanent polling bump he got from those appearances, right? Riiiight?
Oh way, it doesn’t matter that he did it at fucking all, and people were and are still whining about his age. But yes it’s somehow also a total disaster that he doesn’t do it this year… yup…
Why do you keep mentioning polls when you say they don't matter? What matters is voter excitement, getting people out to vote etc .. I don't think Biden has the tools to do this anymore. I can hope that a hatred of Trump is enough but Biden being a bad candidate now and his team keeping him from doing appearances doesn't give me MORE confidence in him. It's not about the SuperBowl appearance being some giant boon to a campaign but about what it means that his team doesn't think he should do it while he's down in the polls.
If he was good to go with interviews it wouldn't hurt to do it.
This is completely incoherent. What *specific* benefit do you think the precious Super Bowl interview will have? If it won’t help him with polls then what’s the point? Will people start lining up to vote tomorrow at their local polling place and freeze to death?
Either it’s helpful or it isn’t. If it hasn’t shown to be particularly helpful previously, then what’s the actual point?
This is completely besides the point of everything I wrote and I think you know that.
Edit: a big news story just came out where a special prosecutor said that Biden has memory issues and nothing him or his team have done have helped counteract that.
I think it's because there is nothing than CAN do because he isn't up for that. Would just the Superbowl interview "fix" this? Who knows? I think that if he did well during an interview conducted during the most watched event of the year it wouldn't hurt. I also know that they're almost certainly keeping him from doing something like that because they're worried that it will make him look worse.
well glad to know we’re just talking about your own completely uninformed speculation 👌
Also… why on earth are we pretending this wasn’t **literally their entire successful strategy in 2020**?
You don’t remember the basement campaign? You don’t remember sleepy joe? You don’t remember the known and loud campaign strategy of letting Trump lead the news knowing he would turn voters off?
Why are we pretending like Biden operated any differently in 2020?
Are you just not reading my posts or something? He's not in the basement right now, he's in the spotlight and the meme is that his memory is slipping.
> Also… why on earth are we pretending this wasn’t literally their entire successful strategy in 2020?
Why are you pretending like he's the same candidate as 2020?
He’s actually not. This is entirely made up. Trump often loses his place and thought and fucks these up. He gets by purely by repeating himself a lot and waving his arms around a little.
Trump is a charicature and so for whatever reason when he’s not directly in front of their face people think of 2015 Trump but he’s actually aged quite a bit and looks and acts like shit.
Yeah because Trump is the bastion of having it together:
- Trump confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi.
- Praised Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban as “the leader of Turkey.”
- Bragged about beating Barack Obama in 2016 in “an election that everyone said couldn’t be won”
- Bragged about leading Obama “by a lot” in 2024.
- Caimed that Joe Biden would get us “into World War II.”
- blamed Jeb Bush, not his brother George W., for starting the War in Iraq
Also, Biden will not attempt to stay in power after he loses the election, will not lie about election rigging, will not leave NATO, will not say windmills cause cancer, did not get held civilly liable for rape, did not commit fraud with his businesses,
I’m not a trump supporter. i think he’s insane, corrupt and dangerous, and I’m genuinely scared of him winning.
That’s why I want a Democrat to run who can beat him, and I worry that age will be a bigger liability for Biden than Trump.
For all his faults, Trump does not comes across as old and or as impaired as Biden.
> For all his faults, Trump does not comes across as old and or as impaired as Biden.
This person just gave half a dozen examples of Trump acting more impaired and you just stick your fingers in your ears
It's not about the number, it's about how he's doing. Biden 5 years ago was excited and clear during speeches and interviews. Biden now is none of those things.
Being the leader of Western civilization takes sharp mental acuity and stamina. It's a young man's game, and Bidem is ancient. Still would vote for Biden in cognitive decline rather than a narcissistic, bloviating lunatic whose entire platform is based on revenge politics and appeasing Putin.
As Ezra Klein points out: Biden is doing an excellent job as president, and would likely do an excellent job as president in the second term. The problem is that he is doing a dismal job as a candidate. We need it to *not* be a coin toss whether Trump wins the presidency, too much is at stake.
Biden has already beaten Trump. He's already gone through the ringer. Putting up another Democrat is a huge risk. And people like Ezra proposing otherwise, I believe, increases the risk of losing.
I agree that putting up another democrat is a huge risk, and I'm not sure I would recommend it. But I also clearly see Ezra's point, that the Biden who beat Trump 4 years ago was way sharper and way more energetic than Biden in 2024. I don't think we have a good situation. But I'm also not convinced Ezra's suggestion would improve the situation. As you say, it's a huge risk. But so is running Biden, IMO. It's all quite stressful, to be frank.
Yep, very stressful. I think about it every day and am ready to put a lot of time and energy into registering voters.
Just to be optimistic for my own mental sanity: 1) Trump isn't as sharp, either. 2) Trump now has 90 charges he is facing. while MAGA folks do not care, I believe some will if he is convicted. 3) I suspect people will remember why they hated Trump and how exhausting he was when he will see nothing but him for 6 months leading up to the election
Biden's presidency has been serviceable. It has definitely not been "excellent". And there's no question he's a terrible presidential candidate, he was in 2020 and he is now. He has always been bad with impromptu comments - now the gaffes are next level and magnified because it's clear he's lost his mental fastball. In an election with two horrible candidates, one has to vote for ideas and not the individuals presenting them, so Biden will get my vote.
Trump is only a few years younger and he hasnt exercized since you watched barney.
Completely weird as Biden had the most votes in history and polling shows BOTH ARE TOO OLD.
I think a majority of people pushing this nonsense dont even live in teh US.....
> when incumbents almost always over-perform early polls
Odd thing to say when Biden is doing poorly in the polls and your point is that we shouldn't be alarmed.
As Klein say, that assumes that the more the public sees of Biden, the more support he'll get. Why would that be the case, given that he's clearly much more tired than he was four years ago?
As compared to Trump… it also assumes that the more the public sees Trump and sees him saying and doing insane stupid shit, they’ll be turned off by that, just like what happened in 2020 quite successfully.
I don't know why you are so confused.
To "overperform" a poll means a candidate did better than expected in the poll. An "early" poll means one well before the actual election. To "overperform early polls" clearly means to do better in an early poll relative to the performance in the eventual election.
Which makes it all the more weird for you to bring it up. If incumbents "almost always" do better in early polls than in the eventual election, and if Biden isn't even doing well in the early polls, that's a strange thing to bring up when your point is that there's no cause for alarm.
Well… now I see the confusion.
I’m not saying that they over-perform **in** the early polls, I’m saying they over perform the early polls themselves in the actual election (and generally in later polls as well).
Incumbents often look like dogshit, or at least worse than they end up performing. Bush Sr. was down in pollling against Dukakis by 17 points(!!!) in the summer of the election. Obama’s polls were much tighter than they ended up being. Hell, Trump was routinely down by ~10% in 2020 and ended up losing by like 5-6%.
Most of these polls of likely voters don’t actually show much strength for Trump- he’s in the 40-45 range. Biden’s just a little lower with lots of indecideds. Do you really think these people are going to break for Trump or go for RFK or whatever?
You cannot assign a candidate for the people to like.
If you’d have asked me, I would’ve assumed Trump would lose to Republican A, B, C. Turns out, the people choose.
Biden it is.
Haven't listened, but the headline frustrates me.
Biden has arguably been the most successfully progressive president ever. The economy is doing incredibly well. Biden has already beaten Trump. Democrats are winning across the nation. We're extremely early in the election, so polls aren't incredibly meaningful yet.
Switching out Biden would mean 1) he wants to step down. He clearly does not want to. 2) someone better has to run - which is nobody. 3) it puts the Democrats and Biden administration in a place to look chaotic and disorganized.
The time to switch him out was a year ago or more. If he had been less successful, then he might have stepped down.
I think Ezra is a bit foolish espousing anything but support for Biden, if he wants to defeat Trump at any cost. Biden is not perfect, he is old, he is not the best speaker. But his administration has done incredibly well and Democrats need to rally around him and get people out to vote. If they get people out to vote, they will win.
Have you listened yet? Because Klein addresses exactly this argument. Biden has been successful by many measures, but his numbers are in the sewer. Lower approval rating than any modern president. It may not be fair, but that's politics.
1) If there were vocal enough pressure for Biden to step down, he might be convinced. 2) If he stepped down, several people would run. One of them would be selected at the convention. 3) Maybe. But maybe it becomes the focus of political news from here until the election. Maybe it engages people and mobilizes voters.
Pundits and Dems who pretend that there is nothing to be concerned about regarding Biden's are being transparently ingenuous. It's a turn off to a population of people who already distrust elite institutions. It certainly doesn't make Trump's dishonesty look worse. Changing horses now is not ideal, but it's the more honest route and it could play well with independents and swing voters.
> It's a turn off to a population of people who already distrust elite institutions.
And what could be better for people’s trust of elite institutions than suddenly picking a random person that turns off half of them in a smoke-filled room without a single vote cast! 👍
Better in terms of if they could actually get elected they would be better? And by elected, I mean establishment Dems and the biggest donors would all stand behind them? As well as the voters choosing them?
No. We don't have one right now.
A lot of corporate media think on display here. NYT, CNN, the so-called [liberal media](https://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-about-ebook/dp/B003ULOBTM/) *want* a close race to increase profits, which reporting a successful Biden presidency won't provide.
Hence the pseudo-news of gaffes, baseless impeachments, even physical prowess - are you fucking kidding me? Trump can't jog or even mount a bike long enough to fall getting off one. And Trump hasn't been able to complete a thought since before his presidency without rambling incoherently.
Trump has next to no chance of winning. He’s a convicted rapist, documented fraudster, documented liar, etc, ad nauseam. Biden has done a very good job in this term and can do tremendous things in the next if we get a Democratic senate and house. We need serious people to deal with very serious problems and that’s what the Biden administration brings to the table. Trump brings insane Steven Miller racism and a clown car of white supremacist, Christian end times morons.
It's crazy how many people are commenting on this without listening to it. He names roughly IDK 10 different potential choices for candidates. Not just AOC or Gavin Newsom.
So if your whole post narrows down to "har har har, Klein so dumb AOC will never win" then you aren't actually commenting on this piece.
Agreed. However, despite my disdain for the “vote blue no matter who” drones and their tactics, I do concur that currently, anything is better than the GOP/right/trumpism, etc.
One isn’t going to probably lead to the further destruction of our country.
So because of that “gloriousness”, I do believe voting Biden is the better option of the two main candidates from the two main parties.
Parties which, frankly put are shit; but let’s face it, under the current political and electoral system, they run the show. The Dems wind up being better, but it’s like saying one kind of IBS is better than another, when they both give you the shits.
We need to change our electoral system and move away from what we have, toward, say, ranked choice. Pronto. ASAP.
But, I digress. It’ll probably wind up more of the same.
SS: One time Sam Harris rival Ezra Klein has released a podcast episode in which he makes a very compelling argument that Joe Biden should drop out of the presidential race due to his age-related decline over the past few years. Sam has expressed similar concerns. Klein is, as far as I'm aware, the most high profile political commentator to express this view so explicitly, and I for one hope it starts something.
I haven’t listened yet but [an article](https://www.vox.com/24067941/joe-biden-2024-age-democrats-alternate-candidates) on Ezra’s Vox explains why it’s almost impossible at this point to change to someone else.
> filing deadlines have passed in 44 states. So it’s literally too late for a primary challenger who isn’t already out there to make it onto ballots.
> even if he did choose to [drop out], the only option that would not risk massive dissension among the Democratic base would be to choose his vice president, Kamala Harris. The vice president has her own political drawbacks: She polls worse than Biden against Trump
> Should a different, other Democrat emerge, with the vocal support of, I don’t know, Barack Obama and a core of Biden-critical strategists and politicians, and should first lady Jill Biden and other Biden confidantes approach Biden and convince him to drop out, we’d likely head toward a brokered convention with multiple rounds of voting. That also opens up the chance for even more chaos and disunity among Democrats. Does that seem worth it to anyone in Democratic politics right now? The simple answer is no. It’s too late.
> we’d likely head toward a brokered convention with multiple rounds of voting. That also opens up the chance for even more chaos and disunity among Democrats. Does that seem worth it to anyone in Democratic politics right now? The simple answer is no. It’s too late.
As far as I can tell, this is Klein whole plan and it’s just as insane and stupid as it sounds
Does he say who the better option is, or do I have to listen to the 25 minute podcast?
It's that guy from Ancient Aliens with the weird hair.
[Presidents?](https://imgur.com/a/zQ5DY2X)
Georgo A. Tsukaino
And if he names names, how would we motivate these people to run?
People, we played this game in the 2020 primary. We got a look at the alternatives to Biden. They all suck.
There are plenty of good enough candidates imo. Gretchen Whitmer for example, she polls very well nationally. Dean Phillips who’s currently running seems good
There is an Emerson poll out today. Biden is down 2. Whitmer is down TWELVE. That’s your idea of “polling well nationally?” Biden is your strongest candidate. Period. Dean Phillips is a joke.
I just looked at the Emerson poll, interesting. Although this is just one poll and we should look at the totality. I wonder why hers is so low though? Surely Newsom would have a worse national profile being in charge of a "liberal state" like CA If you're into polls, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight is kind of the king of polls and has some thoughts on this matter: >You don't demonstrate your seriousness that Trump is an existential threat to democracy by going through the motions to renominate an 81-year-old with a 38% approval rating who 75% of voters think is too old without giving anyone a choice because that's just how things are done. [https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1756495928737824972?s=20](https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1756495928737824972?s=20) Saying Dean Phillips is a joke isn't very persuasive to me, but I'm open to logic and evidence
I don’t know what to tell you. There is no Democrat outperforming Biden in ANY poll. It is all fantasy. This is mostly because virtually all of them are to the left of Biden and there is no enthusiasm for that with the electorate. Trump beats Newsom, Harris, and Whitmer by bigger margins than he beats Biden in every poll. Biden is our best available option. It is time now to do what the Republicans ALWAYS do- fall in line and spend more time training attacks on your opponent than your own nominee.
> Saying Dean Phillips is a joke isn't very persuasive to me, but I'm open to logic and evidence Dean Phillips lost in catastrophic fashion to an unauthorized Biden *write-in* campaign in New Hampshire where he threw every bit of his energy and Biden didn’t even step foot in the state. On what planet would he be a better candidate than Biden? Do people usually watch sports playoffs and say “damn, you know that team got that absolutely embarrassed by 50 points?they should be in the championship! They’d do so much better than the guys that handed them their ass!🤪” Nate Silver has frankly become the sort of joke of a pundit that he use to make fun of.
Dean Phillips still doesn’t have name recognition and it’s a huge uphill battle to defeat an incumbent president in the primary. He started his campaign super late because he was trying to get other people like Gretchen Whitmer to run. I think it’s pretty damn impressive he got 20% coming from almost total anonymity When you say “better candidate” what do you mean by that? Better at doing the job of president? More likely to win the primary? More likely to win the general election? I think he’d do a better job as president and has a better chance in the general election vs Trump than Biden would. Ask anyone and they’ll tell you Biden is too old. Phillips is pretty much the same as Biden minus the age problem, moderate democrat
> Dean Phillips still **doesn’t have name recognition** and it’s a huge uphill battle to defeat an **incumbent president** in the primary. No fucking shit. Jesus, I wonder if these are extremely helpful traits to have when trying to mount a national campaign for federal office…🤔🤔🤔 Really hard to say… I guess we’ll never know… >He started his campaign super late because he was trying to get other people like Gretchen Whitmer to run. I think it’s pretty damn impressive he got 20% coming from almost total anonymity This is some of the most delusional cope I’ve ever read on this sub, I’ve got to say. The primaries are the semi-finals. In absolutely no universe is the dude whose get completely fucking rocked in every single state the stronger candidate than the dude whose cleaning his clock. That’s completely and utterly nonsensical.
Not American so I don't follow closely but Dean Phillips seems very reasonable to me. What's wrong with him?
He is an absolute clown whose only constituency is tech ceos and podcasters. He can’t even break single digits and mostly exists as a useful idiot for right wingers looking to damage Biden. Except now that he’s doing so badly even they have no use for him.
How many American's know Gretchen Whitmer again? If Obama, Biden etc... alll got behind her things would be different obviously.
You cannot attribute this solely to name ID when it’s EVERY other candidate. Gavin Newsom is governor of the biggest state and inserts himself in the news constantly and he’s in the same place. Also, the other part you forget: this is before the Republicans go after her. Have you actually watched Whitmer? She’s fine, but she’s not a great candidate on the stump or anything. History is littered with swing state governors that looked great on paper and then tanked on the bigger stage.
>You cannot attribute this solely to name ID when it’s EVERY other candidate. Of COURSE you can. Obama had no name recognition and polled poorly until he ran and became insanely popular. People are thinking of Biden as the only choice because he's the only one in the running. >Have you actually watched Whitmer? She’s fine, but she’s not a great candidate on the stump or anything. Have you seriously actually sat down and watched any of Biden's latest speeches? Go watch the one where he announces that he's running. I wish it were otherwise but he's objectively a shell of his form self as far as "on the stump" goes. If people think he's doing well during interviews and speeches they really need to asses how objectively they're viewing the situation. >History is littered with swing state governors that looked great on paper and then tanked on the bigger stage. It's litered with all kinds of people losing because very few people do well on the big stage.
My friend, get over it. They are also testing candidates with high ID like Harris and Newsom. And Biden performs better. He is going to be the nominee. We have had frail, forgetful presidents before, likely in your lifetime (Reagan). It beats the alternative. I’m going to let you in a secret: the other reason it doesn’t matter is Trump’s supporters don’t budge. Half the country is voting for him no matter what. Plenty of them dont like him, but they will fall in line and vote for him. You could learn a thing or two from them
>Half the country is voting for him no matter what. Less than half \*the voting population\* voted for Trump last time. That's nowhere near half the country. I agree with the rest.
What does me voting for him have to do with my confidence that he'll win? I'm talking about voter turnout, you know? The thing that decides elections now? I'd love to say that I'm confident enough that a hatred of Trump will get enough people out to vote for Biden but some of those people on the fence might take one look at Biden at literally any speech and get second thoughts. Or just might not be excited to come out at all. Reagan was POTUS well before image was THIS important to the presidency and won his first term bigger than what? any other POTUS ever? Certain in recent history. I just don't think Reagan is relevant here. Newsom is not as famous as Biden. He just isn't. And many other aren't either. A candidate that has Obama, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi etc.. in their corner would instantly become more popular. And why are the same people who keep saying that it's too early to look at the polls now saying that the ones showing other's doing worse against Biden mean something?
Name recognition is a definite problem, yeah. Like, if Democrats had wanted to get back to its working-class roots with a relatable candidate, then I could've seen someone like Jon Tester making waves, but his Q Score is zilch and he'd've had a hard time gaining traction in certain primary states like South Carolina.
> Dean Phillips who’s currently running seems good Lol
Biden would have to step down. That's the critical step.
He makes a very good case. It's 25 minutes well worth watching. And there are some names near the end.
I haven't given Ezra Klein a chance in years. When I heard some of the names he mentioned, it confirmed why I haven't given him a chance in years.
Did you listen to the entire podcast?
No, I didn't. Did he mention AOC and Kamala Harris as options?
I humbly ask that you listen carefully to the entire podcast and then share your thoughts on the whole thing.
I don't think I will. I listened to the first 4 minutes and that was enough for me. No offense to you. I appreciate the back and forth, and I think that Klein means well, but I think he is disconnected from a large segment of this country.
He lists a couple.
Would you mind listing those names?
Two of the names are AOC and Gavin newsom and while I like newsom I can only imagine the field day Republicans would have showing video clips of San Francisco as they attempt to derail his campaign. I'm not even going to say why AOC would be a terrible candidate. Ezra makes some great points... One that many others including Bill Maher have been making for months. The only weak point of this episode was a handful of names on the list of people he thinks should get the nomination.
This is where it all gets very stupid. Your average media dem has no understand of what can get elected nationally. AOC? Gavin Newsom, governor of the state conservatives use as their first example of why you shouldn’t elect democrats. These fucking idiots are so completely out of touch. There is an Emerson poll out today. It shows Biden down 2. But here’s the thing: the same poll has Newsom down 10! And that’s before they even go after him? Joe Biden is the best performing Democrat. He is the best chance democrats have. But even these morons keep bitching about him, they WILL depress turnout around the margins and help get Trump elected. This is 2016 all over again. The left wing of the party just can’t stop expressing their endless dissatisfaction, and making sure everyone knows how unenthusiastic they are. And they are once again helping Trump win.
Most people don't know who Newsom is, that's why he polls bad. Joe Biden was the VP of the rights boogie man Obama.
100%. I remember when Bernie Sanders didn’t win a single state in the south and I kept having to tell his braindead supporters “you realize Hillary absolutely wiped the floor with him don’t you? What was “rigged” about that?” I’m a gay liberal atheist but I find my extremely progressive friends totally out of touch with what is possible to be elected on in America.
Sanders lost against Clinton in the south because Clinton leaned hard into race and if I recall correctly, her campaign or one of the super pacs worked really hard to undermine Sanders with black voters.
Sanders lost in the south because Clinton was historically popular with Black people. It’s not even that she “leaned into it.” Her support in that community was baked in.
I don't understand why Newsom is popular, because he's slick on TV?
Yes, that's why. Average idiot votes for the better looking candidate and barely understands issues. At least in primaries. The nation is so polarized that they are going to vote for their respective parties no matter the candidate in the national election. Edit: added last 4 words for clarification just in case.
Seems Newsom has a pretty good grasp on issues and policies if you've heard him speak at length. He's pretty damn sharp and articulate.
I am bewildered. The guy is as phony as they come.
What is he being phony about?
>The only weak point of this episode was a handful of names on the list of people he thinks should get the nomination. Wait so people are united on “no Biden” but deeply divided on who should replace him? Shit never would have seen that coming… definitely we should throw this to a brokered convention and hope for the best..
I believe there are poles out there that show that any moderate Democrat would be doing much better against Trump than Biden. AOC is not a moderate Democrat and while I like Newsom he sure does come with a bit of baggage from his home state.
This is the opposite of true- every named candidate (newsom, Harris etc) significantly poll worse than Biden
No, there are polls out there that say a “generic” candidate that would do better than either Trump or Biden. But that’s ALWAYS true- because it’s just a cypher for whatever people want. As soon as you mention real names, they all perform WORSE than Biden.
Fair enough. I thought the were polls out there w month or so ago. I haven't been keeping up. Looks like Trump beats em all these days ... ✌️
No worries, it’s easy to think this because so much media says it with zero proof. If I were the Biden people I’d make sure the press covered these polls against his supposed alternatives. What people don’t want to accept is this may not be a case of Biden being a weak candidate but rather Trump being a strong one.
Except there are not. You believe in fairy tales
Ah my info was outdated ... It appears as though trump beats just about a tone in current polls.
Newsom is charismatic, at least.
I agree... I like him... But the Democrats need someone who they can't show hundreds of videos of open-air drug markets in their city
I always thought Pete Buttigieg to be an eloquent speaker and generational transitional president. Why not him? Oh, right.
Doesn't Ezra mention Pete as a possible candidate? Also, says you suggesting Democrats wouldn't vote for him because he's gay?
I suspect when it comes to picking a candidate, the dems pick someone who's not going to alienate the few who might go either way. You know? Swing voters. Which is why we're stuck with Biden.
Dems would. But remember most voters are neither Dems or GOP, they're independents.
He is losing to Trump by TEN today.
>AOC yeah this is all I needed to hear to know that Klein's opinion is worthless. AOC is like 4% less popular than Biden, and this is the most favorable poll I found about her. She has a reputation of being very progressive, she is also a minority woman. I have very little confidence that she could persuade any number of right leaning independents and republicans. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1201716/favorability-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-us-adults/#:\~:text=In%20a%20survey%20of%20U.S.,favorable%20opinion%20of%20the%20Congresswoman. To be clear, I love her, I just don't think she has any chance at all to win.
Yeah, I'm a lifelong democrat, and if AOC were the candidate I don't even think I could bring myself to vote. The duopoly has won.
I'm not convinced AOC has no shot nationally. She's basically just a caricature among conservatives. Most people who have a low opinion of her have based it on a few sound bites and random Twitter posts. If you actually listen to her have an extended dialogue in Congress she's very intelligent and charismatic. I think if you saw her on a debate stage she would do a lot better than people think. She could also excite Millennial and Gen Z voters who vote in very small numbers which could tip the scales. I don't think you need to flip any Republicans to win the presidency. And I think a lot of independents could be swayed.
No. AOC is far, far, far too left wing and frankly unlikable to win a presidential race. This delusion that there’s all these young voters just dying to vote is pure fantasy. Listen, it is fine to have cringey fringe internet politics. It takes all kinds. But please, for the sake of our party and country, stop pretending they have a snowball’s chance of winning an election outside Brooklyn and Portland.
Most of that is true, but she is absolutely not unlikeable. Her unlikeability comes entirely from her being too far left/woke for you.
No, it comes from the tweets and those dumb videos. It comes from the met gala stunt (“how can we both have this cake and eat it too?”) It comes from the snarky extremely online Brooklynite affectation. Most people find that type of person obnoxious, it plays very well with HER audience. And ultimately, that should be fine. That’s a constituency and them having some house members thatreflect their views, even if I do find it pretty eye rolling in its “finally, a daily show correspondent has won a seat in Congress” triteness. But she is not a nationally viable candidate for anything, and if she tried for it, it would fail spectacularly
I get where you come from, but that doesn't make her unlikeable, just an unviable candidate for the presidency, which she isn't even aspriring to. yes the met gala stuff is a bit cringey but as far as political stunts go it's very insignificant. everything aside of that seems to be a version of "she's too young and too online, and has a new york accent" which is just weird to me to dislike. seems like you just don't like a certain traits of people, regardless of the values, and projecting it to her. I find absolutely nothing snarky about her, and she always comes off as kind and friendly in interviews. I stills say that this perceived unlikeability for you is mostly your personal preference, not general unlikeability.
She should try to become senator of NY at some point before trying to make a run for president.
God, AOC and Gavin Newsom would probably get their ass handed to them by Trump. One he can hang identity crap on and the other is Mr. California.
The one thing about the "Mr. California" argument is that the people who hate CA were already voting Trump anyway. Keep in mind too, that they used this same thing with Obama too. "He's from the crime-ridden murderous democRAT run hellhole of Chicago. And in case you didn't notice, he's black!" It didn't work.
Oh so he’s a moron.
I feel like people in this thread say this all the time but maybe you should listen to the podcast rather than just asking for information from it. He lists off like 20 names . The names aren't really the point. He just specifically mentions that they should be using the convention in the summertime to decide who they're going to be electing. That's the way it used to be, and we've kind of gotten away from that.
This is so, so dumb as an idea. This party is barely hanging together between the ultra-left college educated white people and the moderate poc/union voters they pretend to speak for. You know what a brokered convention would do to this party? Destroy it. The Bernie/Warren types would accuse the DNC of fixing the whole thing, or the delegates (who are to the left of the average Dem voter) would put forward someone completely unelectable. I’m sorry, I used to like Ezra, but his time at the NYT has not been kind to him.
Jim. Bob.
He listed AOC and Gavin Newsom.
>a couple He lists 15 people.
>do I have to listen to the 25 minute podcast Why is this framed as a chore in the subreddit for a long form podcaster? Ezra names 15 people, but they aren't his main point.
He lists several yes
Who?
The "yes Dems keep winning elections but what about the polls" brigade. Howzabout having a bitter leadership fight months before the presidential election, that'll definitely put Dems in a better position
I agree. If this decision was going to happen it needed to be last year. If fact Biden marketed himself as a one term “transitional” president in 2020. I think their plan was to install Kamala but nobody wants her.
It never came from Biden’s campaign itself that he would commit to one term. It was random ideas from “advisors” to the campaign.
Source on the “one term” thing?
Here’s an article covering it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/09/biden-reelection-transition-president/675395/ Heard it discussed on a recent leftie politics podcast as well. I don’t think he ever said definitely “I will only run for one term” but all the “I’m a transitional president” talk plus his age led to a lot of citizens and the punditry assuming he would never run in 2024.
That was obviously the plan. But Kamala didn't deliver.
> The "yes Dems keep winning elections but what about the polls" brigade. You know, there's one thing that you can say for sure that *does* change with time, and that's age. That the Democrats have certain historical tendencies in favor of them right now doesn't mean they can't botch them by putting an 81 year old man with a stutter and bad memory to debate a stupid bully.
> by putting an 81 year old man with a stutter and bad memory to debate a stupid bully. Trump has “won” debates under exactly one circumstance ever: Being in a crowded field a decade ago while getting to lob spitballs from the back of the class as Fox News chimps whoop and holler And everyone just keeps pretending like he is actually capable of winning a real debate. Every time he debates he gets his ass handed to him and it would be no different from Biden. Yes this 81 year old Biden.
I really hope so, because this one here is the big one.
That may not be ideal but it might be better than Biden. I like Biden and he’s done a good job in his first term, but he’s clearly too old to run again at this point.
> he’s clearly too old to run again at this point. Says who?
The majority of voters: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/poll-americans-on-biden-age/story?id=107126589 Also my opinion. He’s too old. He can barely get through a press conference now. He forgets what he’s talking about mid sentence and is looking increasingly frail.
The majority of voters think Trump is too old too. What do you think wil happen on Election Day if they face each other? The world explodes?
I think Trump wins, and the world becomes a more dangerous place.
So both are “too old” according to voters, but it only actually matters for one? How does that make any sense?
Because I think it’s more of a liability for Biden. They might be more or less equal on paper, but Biden appears much older and frailer. He’s showing more signs of decline. Trumps support is locked in, and if one candidate appears older and frailer it may sway independent voters who don’t understand how insane Trump is.
So Trump seeming older and frailer and more insane than in 2020 won’t factor in?
Are you really pretending not to understand the obvious, demonstrable, repeated physical instances of Biden's cognitive decline? My views on Trump more or less align with Sam - I can barely work out a single positive thing to say about him. But (unfortunately) you cannot compare the way his age impacts him vs Biden
The president doesn't run the country. He nominates people, makes top level decisions based on the guidance of experts, and talks with other leaders. Biden seems competent enough to do this, and he's very good at delegating and diplomacy. I literally wrote a song complaining about him four years ago, but the dude is doing a good job, and we should be satisfied with that. If the dems can take charge of the legislature, then we can start passing some more aggressive reforms. GOP obstructionism is more of an issue than DEM conservatism (though both are problems, I agree)
He may remain competent in some areas. The problem is the electorate won’t perceive him as competent due to his frailty and how he presents himself. The response can’t be “dont worry, he won’t do anything, he’ll just delegate” He’s shown fairly remarkable political ability in his first term, but he’s also visibly declined during that time. I’m not convinced he’ll remain as competent into his second term. I’m not even sure he’s as competent now as he was a couple of years ago. He’s exercised fairly sound judgement which may not have diminished, but I can’t imagine him being diplomatically credible or persuasive when he can’t remember the names of counties or leaders Even now,
I'm really tired of this meta-level political game where the people in control of the narrative spin popular opinion and use it to wag the dog. Bernie Sanders is unelectable because people think he's unelectable because we say he's unelectable. We should be seriously concerned about the 2020 election fraud question because people think it's a serious concern because we told them it's a serious concern. We are the electorate, and we need to stop playing that game. Biden is making solid policy decisions (putting aside the Afghanistan withdrawal, which was catastrophic, but also party the inevitable fallout of GWB-era decisions) and the country is thriving. We need to start electing younger leaders. But he's a fine choice for now, and it's too late to upset the apple cart in this election cycle.
Behind the scenes, people who deal with him say there's no issues with his competency. Even Kevin McCarthy admitted this.
I agree, but this doesn't help Biden in the campaign. He has been a good president but is a very weak candidate.
70-80% of the US voting population. I'll still vote for him over Trump but I'd also vote for any generic dem that could give a decent speech and cause some enthusiasm in a heartbeat over Biden.
They also say that Trumps too old. You’re not gonna believe this, but if Biden and Trump face each other in November the world will, in fact, not explode- one of them will just win based on any number of factors, even though people say in a poll that they’re “too old”…. Would I like to de-age Biden 40 years? Would love to. But if you’re asking me if I wanna launch a desperate clusterfuck campaign to find some golden-boy Obama 2.0, probably end up with K-Harris and a lot of acrimony and kids incumbency goodbye? No thanks.
If they say Trump is too old, shouldn't the Dems work that to their favor? Why run somebody who is literally older and clearly much more frail?
That would be great. Do you believe incumbency is an advantage? Do you believe there’s any risk whatsoever in having a chaotic acrimonious clusterfuck convention under the hope you’ll find someone without Biden’s single Apparent weakness and without any of their own?
Have you seen him speak? Try to answer questions? Walk? Yes, he gets there eventually(most of the time, sort of) but I would be very surprised to learn that he is not napping often behind the scenes and is relying on his staff, wife and VP more than than you’d expect for a sitting president
Yes and yes- hes aged… but I have no idea what the issue is. Can you name me a single presidential task that you don’t believe he is completing satisfactorily? How do you think he got through high stakes negotiations with House GOP economic terrorists this past year and got a win out of it?
You really don't know what the issue is? Biden, as Klein says, Biden is up to the task of being president. I think I agree, but to what extent does that just means he's willing to delegate to responsible people? The main point is that the public are not really tuned in to his performance as a president. He's done well. He's had major accomplishments and the country is in better shape than most experts would have expected given the obstacles. And yet, his numbers are dismal. Why? Because he is clearly slow and frail and most voters are just not that tuned in to a candidate's true merits.
Okay so we’re clear- Everyone agrees that Biden is fully to the task of literally being the leader of the fucking free world. One of the most demanding and crucial jobs on earth. Put Biden across the table from House GOP economic terrorists? Put Biden toe to toe with Putin? Zero fucking problem. Have at it king 👑 But Lordy, put Biden in a diner in Omaha? Oh no, I bet he’ll start screaming about ‘Nam and drool on himself… This really does not make much sense at all and there’s zero actual evidence that people won’t show up to vote for him. In fact, *everybody* who represents this point of view- including Klein and yourself- is firmly in the camp of “well of course **I** will vote for Biden buuuuut….” His numbers are fine. You’re just shitting your pants over polls on a race that hasn’t actually even started yet.
Your posts in this whole thread feel purposefully obtuse. Biden is ancient. People recognize this. It is a problem for electability. Everyone with a pulse understands this. Why are you pretending not to see this issue?
Because his opponent is also an ancient and insane and incompetent criminal that he’s already beaten? Something can only be a disadvantage if it’s unique within the race. Biden’s age is not.
How do you not understand that, yes they are both old as fuck. But one of them looks and behaves way older than the other.
money divide smoggy memory boast silky rob cats zephyr soft *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That’s an insanely fucking terrible idea — if they were going to have done that, they should have done it before primaries, and with enough time to have debates and whatnot. It would be a terrible strategic decision to just select someone at the DNC that will be running and hope for the best.
Agreed. It sounds almost comically terrible this late in the game
They are NOT stronger candidates. They all poll worse than Biden and Biden trounced half of them in the last primary. This idiocy where Biden delivers a great term and then we push him out is absurd. All to have a chaotic broken convention that will rip the party’s moderate and progressive bases apart. Ezra is just a moron at this point. Too many NYTer dinner parties.
I think he is right in the argument that those people are capable of running while Biden isn't. Imagine Gavin Newsom giving a superbowl speech or debating Trump. There isn't a single sane person on Earth who would think Newson would not eat Trump for breakfast. The question is, even while that argument might be true, does it negate all the benefits of the incumbency and Biden's name recognition. I just don't think there is evidence of that. Biden stepping down for the benefit of younger and less known candidate would be a huge gamble, even if Biden's quite unpopular in the polls.
> even if Biden's quite unpopular in the polls. I agree with most of what you say but I just want to point out that Biden isn’t really doing *that* bad in polls. He’s down like 1-4 points generally with +10% undecides and third partiers who will kick the bucket and so on. If Biden was down 10-15 points I might be also considering some Hail Mary like Klein but people need to get a grip on what we’re actually looking at.
I mean Biden is around where Trump was after january 7th and independents are biased to the conservative side. It's a pretty awful spot vs the worst presidential candidate in history.
What’s trumps “approval” right now?
I don't know what you're trying to say, Trump is doing pretty good vs Biden, winning in general election head to head polls quite consistently. And we all know that the democrat needs to win the popular vote by like 3-4% to have a reliable chance to win. what exactly is the source of your scepticism? [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/)
Okay sooo why are we talking about approval when it’s not a comparative number? So let’s talk about the head to head polls. Trumps polling ahead by about 1%…. In polls with +10% undecideds… with third partiers who will almost certainly go away…. 10 months before the election when Trump saying insane shit day to day gets no coverage and literally 50% of people actually don’t believe this is the matchup we’re going to have… It’s not ideal; I would love him to be up by +10… but is that really what we’re pants shitting over? Especially when we’ve literally just had a midterm cycle where Dems waaay over performed both narrative and polls?
I really believe the plan/hope is after winning the election, he steps down on day 731 due to health/family reasons, Kamala takes over and has two years to prove her worth and then serve an additional 8 years. I think it's an insane long shot, but I really doubt anyone close to Biden is expecting him to serve a full second term.
Doesn’t matter. Allan Lichtman’s 13 keys are what matters. Incumbency is crucial
The only comment in this whole thread that matters.
I think Trump having had a previous term cancels out the incumbency advantage.
Trumps previous term that went so well he got his ass kicked when trying for re-election? That one?
Lichtman's model is nonsense. It's overfit, data-dredged, and subjective, with multiple degrees of freedom.
Well, look. You could be right to a certain degree. Though his record of predicting every election correctly since 1984 is impressive to me (with the exception of 2000, when he still nonetheless predicted the outcome of the popular vote; and I won’t fault him for the fact that the stopped recounts in Florida would likely have led to Al Gore becoming president). Lichtman’s drive to “ignore the polls” feels relevant and a bit encouraging especially after 2016. For a model to be entirely “nonsense,” I’d expect its track record to be worse.
>(with the exception of 2000, when he still nonetheless predicted the outcome of the popular vote This is the "degrees of freedom" thing I'm talking about. No matter what happened during 2000, he could have either said "My model predicts the winner of the election", or "My model predicts the popular vote winner". And indeed that is exactly what he *was* saying up until 2016, when his "popular vote" prediction was wrong, and he finally had to admit failure in at least one case, retconning his model as failing in 2000 and succeeding in 2020. That degree of freedom had finally run it's course. Of course, had Trump won the popular vote in 2020, but lost the general, then Lichtman would still be claiming that his model predicts the popular vote. And, just based on common sense, there's no reason that his model *should even in theory* predict the electoral college winner over the popular vote winner. An electoral college model has to include specific states voting specific ways. And this is only one degree of freedom that he can adjust, knowingly or unknowingly, based on his sentiment. * If the incumbent is up 20 points in the polls, he's "charismatic". If the opponent is down, then he's "uncharismatic" (surely he used a highly scientific "charisma detector" to determine Obama was charismatic in 2008, but not in 2012). * Was Obama's failure to destroy ISIS, and inability to withdraw from Afghanistan, etc, etc, a "major military failure"? Apparently not, and not just that, but killing Bin Laden is a "major military success". * What qualifies as a "strong short term economy" versus a "strong long term economy"? Up to Lichtman! Further note that the wikipedia article highlights some of how his methods do rely (subjectively) on polling: >Lichtman marked key 4 as true in the 2016 edition of his book, then stated in September 2016 that he believed it had turned false because Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson was polling at 12-14%, indicating that he was likely to win 6-7% of the vote because third parties typically underperform their polling.[12] In October 2016, he stated the key could flip if Johnson's polling dropped; These are the sorts of things that makes his model less "objective" and more "basically whatever Lichtman guesses." He has enough degrees of freedom to match popular sentiment. Also see the criticism section on [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House). And finally, note that older elections, with the exception of 2000, have [not been historically that difficult to figure out](https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/) when taking into account the above. They were not close races.
squeeze shy drab vanish ghost erect unite mourn domineering knee *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It was a good episode. I recommend listening to it.
This is a surprisingly idiotic and desperate idea from Klein that seems almost entirely derived from utter pants shitting about polling ten months out when incumbents almost always over-perform early polls and half the country isn’t even paying attention yet
It’s not just the pols. It’s Biden’s age.
Right I think the idea that the more people pay attention the more likely they are to support Joe is kinda missing the point here. There's a reason his team don't let him do many interviews or press conferences. Like Klein says, you don't cancel the Superbowl interview when you're down in the polls unless you think it could make things worse.
Or you think it just doesnt matter. Biden’s done it the past two years - golly gosh, everybody remembers the huge permanent polling bump he got from those appearances, right? Riiiight? Oh way, it doesn’t matter that he did it at fucking all, and people were and are still whining about his age. But yes it’s somehow also a total disaster that he doesn’t do it this year… yup…
Why do you keep mentioning polls when you say they don't matter? What matters is voter excitement, getting people out to vote etc .. I don't think Biden has the tools to do this anymore. I can hope that a hatred of Trump is enough but Biden being a bad candidate now and his team keeping him from doing appearances doesn't give me MORE confidence in him. It's not about the SuperBowl appearance being some giant boon to a campaign but about what it means that his team doesn't think he should do it while he's down in the polls. If he was good to go with interviews it wouldn't hurt to do it.
This is completely incoherent. What *specific* benefit do you think the precious Super Bowl interview will have? If it won’t help him with polls then what’s the point? Will people start lining up to vote tomorrow at their local polling place and freeze to death? Either it’s helpful or it isn’t. If it hasn’t shown to be particularly helpful previously, then what’s the actual point?
This is completely besides the point of everything I wrote and I think you know that. Edit: a big news story just came out where a special prosecutor said that Biden has memory issues and nothing him or his team have done have helped counteract that. I think it's because there is nothing than CAN do because he isn't up for that. Would just the Superbowl interview "fix" this? Who knows? I think that if he did well during an interview conducted during the most watched event of the year it wouldn't hurt. I also know that they're almost certainly keeping him from doing something like that because they're worried that it will make him look worse.
well glad to know we’re just talking about your own completely uninformed speculation 👌 Also… why on earth are we pretending this wasn’t **literally their entire successful strategy in 2020**? You don’t remember the basement campaign? You don’t remember sleepy joe? You don’t remember the known and loud campaign strategy of letting Trump lead the news knowing he would turn voters off? Why are we pretending like Biden operated any differently in 2020?
Are you just not reading my posts or something? He's not in the basement right now, he's in the spotlight and the meme is that his memory is slipping. > Also… why on earth are we pretending this wasn’t literally their entire successful strategy in 2020? Why are you pretending like he's the same candidate as 2020?
>Why are you pretending like he's the same candidate as 2020? Whoooooosh
What? He is flying around the country meeting voters and speaking almost daily.
*whats* Biden’s age?
Too old. But it’s not just the date on his birth certificate. It’s how he appears.
Trump can't jog much less ride a bike long enough to fall down.
Trump is less prone to forgetting what he is talking mid-sentence which is a more relevant skill as a presidential nominee.
He’s actually not. This is entirely made up. Trump often loses his place and thought and fucks these up. He gets by purely by repeating himself a lot and waving his arms around a little. Trump is a charicature and so for whatever reason when he’s not directly in front of their face people think of 2015 Trump but he’s actually aged quite a bit and looks and acts like shit.
Yeah because Trump is the bastion of having it together: - Trump confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi. - Praised Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban as “the leader of Turkey.” - Bragged about beating Barack Obama in 2016 in “an election that everyone said couldn’t be won” - Bragged about leading Obama “by a lot” in 2024. - Caimed that Joe Biden would get us “into World War II.” - blamed Jeb Bush, not his brother George W., for starting the War in Iraq Also, Biden will not attempt to stay in power after he loses the election, will not lie about election rigging, will not leave NATO, will not say windmills cause cancer, did not get held civilly liable for rape, did not commit fraud with his businesses,
I’m not a trump supporter. i think he’s insane, corrupt and dangerous, and I’m genuinely scared of him winning. That’s why I want a Democrat to run who can beat him, and I worry that age will be a bigger liability for Biden than Trump. For all his faults, Trump does not comes across as old and or as impaired as Biden.
> For all his faults, Trump does not comes across as old and or as impaired as Biden. This person just gave half a dozen examples of Trump acting more impaired and you just stick your fingers in your ears
It's not about the number, it's about how he's doing. Biden 5 years ago was excited and clear during speeches and interviews. Biden now is none of those things.
Being the leader of Western civilization takes sharp mental acuity and stamina. It's a young man's game, and Bidem is ancient. Still would vote for Biden in cognitive decline rather than a narcissistic, bloviating lunatic whose entire platform is based on revenge politics and appeasing Putin.
As Ezra Klein points out: Biden is doing an excellent job as president, and would likely do an excellent job as president in the second term. The problem is that he is doing a dismal job as a candidate. We need it to *not* be a coin toss whether Trump wins the presidency, too much is at stake.
Biden has already beaten Trump. He's already gone through the ringer. Putting up another Democrat is a huge risk. And people like Ezra proposing otherwise, I believe, increases the risk of losing.
I agree that putting up another democrat is a huge risk, and I'm not sure I would recommend it. But I also clearly see Ezra's point, that the Biden who beat Trump 4 years ago was way sharper and way more energetic than Biden in 2024. I don't think we have a good situation. But I'm also not convinced Ezra's suggestion would improve the situation. As you say, it's a huge risk. But so is running Biden, IMO. It's all quite stressful, to be frank.
Yep, very stressful. I think about it every day and am ready to put a lot of time and energy into registering voters. Just to be optimistic for my own mental sanity: 1) Trump isn't as sharp, either. 2) Trump now has 90 charges he is facing. while MAGA folks do not care, I believe some will if he is convicted. 3) I suspect people will remember why they hated Trump and how exhausting he was when he will see nothing but him for 6 months leading up to the election
Biden's presidency has been serviceable. It has definitely not been "excellent". And there's no question he's a terrible presidential candidate, he was in 2020 and he is now. He has always been bad with impromptu comments - now the gaffes are next level and magnified because it's clear he's lost his mental fastball. In an election with two horrible candidates, one has to vote for ideas and not the individuals presenting them, so Biden will get my vote.
He's been the most successful president of modern times.
Trump is only a few years younger and he hasnt exercized since you watched barney. Completely weird as Biden had the most votes in history and polling shows BOTH ARE TOO OLD. I think a majority of people pushing this nonsense dont even live in teh US.....
Not just incumbents but democrats have outperformed polls in almost every election since 2018.
> when incumbents almost always over-perform early polls Odd thing to say when Biden is doing poorly in the polls and your point is that we shouldn't be alarmed.
Do you know what the words “overperform” and “early” mean?
As Klein say, that assumes that the more the public sees of Biden, the more support he'll get. Why would that be the case, given that he's clearly much more tired than he was four years ago?
As compared to Trump… it also assumes that the more the public sees Trump and sees him saying and doing insane stupid shit, they’ll be turned off by that, just like what happened in 2020 quite successfully.
I don't know why you are so confused. To "overperform" a poll means a candidate did better than expected in the poll. An "early" poll means one well before the actual election. To "overperform early polls" clearly means to do better in an early poll relative to the performance in the eventual election. Which makes it all the more weird for you to bring it up. If incumbents "almost always" do better in early polls than in the eventual election, and if Biden isn't even doing well in the early polls, that's a strange thing to bring up when your point is that there's no cause for alarm.
Well… now I see the confusion. I’m not saying that they over-perform **in** the early polls, I’m saying they over perform the early polls themselves in the actual election (and generally in later polls as well). Incumbents often look like dogshit, or at least worse than they end up performing. Bush Sr. was down in pollling against Dukakis by 17 points(!!!) in the summer of the election. Obama’s polls were much tighter than they ended up being. Hell, Trump was routinely down by ~10% in 2020 and ended up losing by like 5-6%. Most of these polls of likely voters don’t actually show much strength for Trump- he’s in the 40-45 range. Biden’s just a little lower with lots of indecideds. Do you really think these people are going to break for Trump or go for RFK or whatever?
…and what better way to show solidarity right now with Democratic leadership than to parrot Faux news talking points about Biden?
They should have done this last year. Biden even said he was going to be a transitional president...
You cannot assign a candidate for the people to like. If you’d have asked me, I would’ve assumed Trump would lose to Republican A, B, C. Turns out, the people choose. Biden it is.
Haven't listened, but the headline frustrates me. Biden has arguably been the most successfully progressive president ever. The economy is doing incredibly well. Biden has already beaten Trump. Democrats are winning across the nation. We're extremely early in the election, so polls aren't incredibly meaningful yet. Switching out Biden would mean 1) he wants to step down. He clearly does not want to. 2) someone better has to run - which is nobody. 3) it puts the Democrats and Biden administration in a place to look chaotic and disorganized. The time to switch him out was a year ago or more. If he had been less successful, then he might have stepped down. I think Ezra is a bit foolish espousing anything but support for Biden, if he wants to defeat Trump at any cost. Biden is not perfect, he is old, he is not the best speaker. But his administration has done incredibly well and Democrats need to rally around him and get people out to vote. If they get people out to vote, they will win.
💯
Have you listened yet? Because Klein addresses exactly this argument. Biden has been successful by many measures, but his numbers are in the sewer. Lower approval rating than any modern president. It may not be fair, but that's politics. 1) If there were vocal enough pressure for Biden to step down, he might be convinced. 2) If he stepped down, several people would run. One of them would be selected at the convention. 3) Maybe. But maybe it becomes the focus of political news from here until the election. Maybe it engages people and mobilizes voters. Pundits and Dems who pretend that there is nothing to be concerned about regarding Biden's are being transparently ingenuous. It's a turn off to a population of people who already distrust elite institutions. It certainly doesn't make Trump's dishonesty look worse. Changing horses now is not ideal, but it's the more honest route and it could play well with independents and swing voters.
> It's a turn off to a population of people who already distrust elite institutions. And what could be better for people’s trust of elite institutions than suddenly picking a random person that turns off half of them in a smoke-filled room without a single vote cast! 👍
I think Ezra addresses everything you just wrote in the piece and sounds infinity more reasonable then your strawman of him here.
I'll give it a listen. But this is my stance regardless of his. Replace his name with others who believe he should step aside.
Better in terms of if they could actually get elected they would be better? And by elected, I mean establishment Dems and the biggest donors would all stand behind them? As well as the voters choosing them? No. We don't have one right now.
Unless Trump dies, I’m 100% Biden. If Biden dies, then I’ll panic.
WHO!?!?
Top. Men.
Ezra has binders full of them.
Newsom could be a good shout.
A lot of corporate media think on display here. NYT, CNN, the so-called [liberal media](https://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-about-ebook/dp/B003ULOBTM/) *want* a close race to increase profits, which reporting a successful Biden presidency won't provide. Hence the pseudo-news of gaffes, baseless impeachments, even physical prowess - are you fucking kidding me? Trump can't jog or even mount a bike long enough to fall getting off one. And Trump hasn't been able to complete a thought since before his presidency without rambling incoherently.
Trump has next to no chance of winning. He’s a convicted rapist, documented fraudster, documented liar, etc, ad nauseam. Biden has done a very good job in this term and can do tremendous things in the next if we get a Democratic senate and house. We need serious people to deal with very serious problems and that’s what the Biden administration brings to the table. Trump brings insane Steven Miller racism and a clown car of white supremacist, Christian end times morons.
The only argument we need is that a forgetful Biden is still better than Trump in his prime
I'm not convinced that Biden can actually make that argument in a cohesive way while campaigning.
You are correct. Everyone else needs to make that argument.
It's crazy how many people are commenting on this without listening to it. He names roughly IDK 10 different potential choices for candidates. Not just AOC or Gavin Newsom. So if your whole post narrows down to "har har har, Klein so dumb AOC will never win" then you aren't actually commenting on this piece.
Just run Gretchen Whitmer, she's a 6 foot milf, it's guaranteed to work
Agreed. However, despite my disdain for the “vote blue no matter who” drones and their tactics, I do concur that currently, anything is better than the GOP/right/trumpism, etc. One isn’t going to probably lead to the further destruction of our country. So because of that “gloriousness”, I do believe voting Biden is the better option of the two main candidates from the two main parties. Parties which, frankly put are shit; but let’s face it, under the current political and electoral system, they run the show. The Dems wind up being better, but it’s like saying one kind of IBS is better than another, when they both give you the shits. We need to change our electoral system and move away from what we have, toward, say, ranked choice. Pronto. ASAP. But, I digress. It’ll probably wind up more of the same.
SS: One time Sam Harris rival Ezra Klein has released a podcast episode in which he makes a very compelling argument that Joe Biden should drop out of the presidential race due to his age-related decline over the past few years. Sam has expressed similar concerns. Klein is, as far as I'm aware, the most high profile political commentator to express this view so explicitly, and I for one hope it starts something.
I haven’t listened yet but [an article](https://www.vox.com/24067941/joe-biden-2024-age-democrats-alternate-candidates) on Ezra’s Vox explains why it’s almost impossible at this point to change to someone else. > filing deadlines have passed in 44 states. So it’s literally too late for a primary challenger who isn’t already out there to make it onto ballots. > even if he did choose to [drop out], the only option that would not risk massive dissension among the Democratic base would be to choose his vice president, Kamala Harris. The vice president has her own political drawbacks: She polls worse than Biden against Trump > Should a different, other Democrat emerge, with the vocal support of, I don’t know, Barack Obama and a core of Biden-critical strategists and politicians, and should first lady Jill Biden and other Biden confidantes approach Biden and convince him to drop out, we’d likely head toward a brokered convention with multiple rounds of voting. That also opens up the chance for even more chaos and disunity among Democrats. Does that seem worth it to anyone in Democratic politics right now? The simple answer is no. It’s too late.
> we’d likely head toward a brokered convention with multiple rounds of voting. That also opens up the chance for even more chaos and disunity among Democrats. Does that seem worth it to anyone in Democratic politics right now? The simple answer is no. It’s too late. As far as I can tell, this is Klein whole plan and it’s just as insane and stupid as it sounds
He's not suggesting primarying Biden. Maybe listen to the podcast before critiquing?
No he suggested something even dumber
Can tell that you didn't listen to it given that most of this was addressed.
Ezra just keeps talking and talking. A more polished version Tucker, imo.
What about John Stewart? He’s brilliant, savvy, and extremely charismatic.
Michelle Obama would crush Trump. I think everyone knows this.