One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”

The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.

Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.

A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    Isn’t it too late to get a new democrat as candidate anyway, right? I mean you need to register in all states before a deadline no?

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      There, a candidate must win support from the majority of “delegates” - party officials who formally choose the nominee. Delegates are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the results of each state’s primary election. This year, Mr Biden won almost 99% of the nearly 4,000 delegates.

      According to the DNC rules, those delegates are “pledged” to him, and are bound to support his nomination.

      But if Mr Biden were to drop out, it would be a free-for-all. There is no official mechanism for him or anyone else in the party to choose his successor, meaning Democrats would be left with an open convention.

      Presumably, Mr Biden would have some sway over his pledged delegates, but they would ultimately be free to do as they please.

      That could lead to a frantic contest erupting among Democrats who want a shot at the nomination. Source

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m pretty sure he could step down and hand it to Kamala. Maybe he could even run as VP. That might rock the boat the least, and while I don’t like Kamala, I have more faith in her to actually do the job.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I always figured the role of president was more of a figure head.
        I get the buck stops with them, they can do their veto and special powers thing, and I’m sure there are other “ultimately this is your decision” type things.
        But it’s the administration you are voting on.

        I’m sure it feels amazing to have “that one guy” steering your country. But, I’m sure they mostly do what their advisors tell them to

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I want a president who has a vision and some form of understanding, but who knows what he doesn’t know and knows how to get that information. I want someone who I know has the best team guiding them and has sound judgment.

          I can’t fucking believe this is an impossible ask. :(

        • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, that’s partly true. From my keeping up with politics, some of the candidates actions are their own but about 80% of the job is what you described. Your party recommends actions to you and congress sets you up for most of your actions. Vetoing things is only common when the opposition holds congress.

          I’ll highlight though that lately the presidents have seized more and more power and continue to do so. It started with Bush basically declaring war without congress and lately it’s been Biden doing things like canceling student loans and blocking the border up. Which I get that’s all power they’ve always had, but they’ve been reluctant to use it improperly because it’s so abusable. Now those robes are off and so trump will come into office and immediately write laws by himself basically

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            The US has been on a governance crisis for some time now. It is slow and gradual, but they already had a coup attempt. It is the sort of things that is surreal and only possible to see when you look at it from a multi decades POV. Like Asimov’s foundation, it will take centuries and lots of things can happen in the mean time, but you can already see the empire imploding, rotting from within. Rome took almost 3 centuries to fall, and it was more like an erosion rather than crumble. I can see something similar.