Democrats "Break Glass in Case of Emergency" Plan - Picking an alternate candidate.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think that's a hell of a lot easier than getting Trump to quit on his self made political party cult.

Absolutely true.

Personally, I think Biden would only drop out if the signs were that his chances of winning were rapidly dropping OR that an alternative candidate has a much higher chance of winning. The problem for Democrats is that it's going to be really hard to demonstrate that an alternative candidate is better - all other options poll worse against Trump than Biden does.

Now, I think it's possible that with a coordinated strategy, a new name with little recognition may be able to increase their chances of winning through a media/ad blitz for the next 4 months. Nobody knows who Roy Moore is, for example, so his numbers head to head against Trump are worse than Biden's - for what little polling exists for such a matchup. But, lets be honest, Biden's poll numbers aren't likely to dramatically increase against Trump. Voters are pretty aware of the candidates and what they represent. The issue in that matchup is voter enthusiasm (Trump favored here) and voter turnout amongst voters who don't pay attention (Trump wins this group by 30 points).

The upside for a new candidate to improve their numbers against Trump is there. At the very least it would energize the base of the Democratic Party even if it doesn't help them with the voters who don't pay much attention. It's a bit of a gamble, but I think it's pretty evident that Biden's chances of winning are getting lower by the day. While still not favored, it's probably better to go with a candidate who has a 35% chance of winning than it does to stick with Biden who only has a 25% at this point. The problem comes with the logistical mechanisms to coordinate fundraising, agreement on a candidate, and public outreach in such a short amount of time.

My best guess is that Democrats don't gamble, they stick with Biden, he does more of his scripted events and doesn't do another debate. They hope that memory of the debate fades from view and that the FED lowers interest rates in September to boost the economy and stock market -> giving him his best shot at winning. I personally think he loses ground to Trump slightly over the summer and suffers a defeat similar to what Democrats did 2016, but this time barely winning the popular vote at all.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The word from trusted insiders is that the Democrats never had a succession plan, no non-Biden scenario. They are going to roll with what they've got. 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

The word from trusted insiders is that the Democrats never had a succession plan, no non-Biden scenario. They are going to roll with what they've got. 

Not really a surprise, because all the other candidates poll worse than Biden does. It's a massive gamble to switch, and it certainly might end up being the right call to go with your 20% chance to win and hope for the best.

 

[teachercd]

The word from trusted insiders is that the Democrats never had a succession plan, no non-Biden scenario. They are going to roll with what they've got. 

That seems really disorganized… I mean no matter what don’t you always have some sort of Plan B just in case of some accident or someone getting sick or just any random act that could change things in a second.

this sort of sounds more like people leaking out that they did not have a back up plan trying to show that they’ve always believed in Joe no matter what. To show strength and solidarity.

 

[TGHusker]

Absolutely true.

Personally, I think Biden would only drop out if the signs were that his chances of winning were rapidly dropping OR that an alternative candidate has a much higher chance of winning. The problem for Democrats is that it's going to be really hard to demonstrate that an alternative candidate is better - all other options poll worse against Trump than Biden does.

Now, I think it's possible that with a coordinated strategy, a new name with little recognition may be able to increase their chances of winning through a media/ad blitz for the next 4 months. Nobody knows who Roy Moore is, for example, so his numbers head to head against Trump are worse than Biden's - for what little polling exists for such a matchup. But, lets be honest, Biden's poll numbers aren't likely to dramatically increase against Trump. Voters are pretty aware of the candidates and what they represent. The issue in that matchup is voter enthusiasm (Trump favored here) and voter turnout amongst voters who don't pay attention (Trump wins this group by 30 points).

The upside for a new candidate to improve their numbers against Trump is there. At the very least it would energize the base of the Democratic Party even if it doesn't help them with the voters who don't pay much attention. It's a bit of a gamble, but I think it's pretty evident that Biden's chances of winning are getting lower by the day. While still not favored, it's probably better to go with a candidate who has a 35% chance of winning than it does to stick with Biden who only has a 25% at this point. The problem comes with the logistical mechanisms to coordinate fundraising, agreement on a candidate, and public outreach in such a short amount of time.

My best guess is that Democrats don't gamble, they stick with Biden, he does more of his scripted events and doesn't do another debate. They hope that memory of the debate fades from view and that the FED lowers interest rates in September to boost the economy and stock market -> giving him his best shot at winning. I personally think he loses ground to Trump slightly over the summer and suffers a defeat similar to what Democrats did 2016, but this time barely winning the popular vote at all.

I think that the issue is not trump gaining any more votes.  By any normal measurement, his debate performance of lying, boasting, exaggeration would have been pretty pathetic, yet it looked strong only due to Biden's ineptness.  With Biden in the race, I think he loses voters who decide to sit on their hands.  As you note above, he may barely win the popular vote if at all.  I agree. HOWEVER,  I do think a new, younger candidate, not named Harris, could shake up the race and get Democrats excited and give Independents and the younger voter something new to consider.   The only motivation to vote for Biden, unless you are a Dem hardliner, is that he isn't Trump.  Any number of Dem governors could put forth the same governing agenda as Biden - but a new and forcefully articulate candidate could energize the base and get people off their hands.   I'm not a Dem but I believe this go around, one HAS GOT TO vote for the Dem candidate to prevent disaster.  

Who would I recommend?  Glad you asked.    Gov Pritzker

He is wealthy enough to finance his own campaign if needed.  Don't need to wait on donors to warm up to the guy.

The Dem convention is in Chicago - sets up perfectly for the Ill Governor to be selected

He understands business - not a career politician.  Taking away Trump's "I'm the greatest business man ever' talk. 

He's balanced the budget while also improving infrastructure and social services.   So he can't be label are far left radical. 

Have Mich governor Whitmer as has VP and you got a strong ticket - perhaps too much Midwest heavy but the Dems need to hold Michigan.  Or have the Ky Gov Beshear or NC governor Cooper as VP to pull in southern votes. 

https://gov.illinois.gov/about/the-governor.html

Governor JB Pritzker was sworn in as the 43rd Governor of Illinois on Jan. 14, 2019. Since taking office, he has accomplished one of the most ambitious and consequential policy agendas in state history.

The governor won bipartisan passage for Rebuild Illinois, the largest investment in state history to upgrade roads, bridges, rail, broadband, and schools. He overcame years of fiscal mismanagement in Illinois by proposing and passing a balanced budget every year, eliminating the state’s multi-billion dollar bill backlog, reducing the state’s pension liability, and achieving six credit upgrades from rating agencies. He took bold action to put state government back on the side of working families by creating jobs, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, protecting reproductive rights, making university and community college education more affordable, and advancing equal pay for women.



Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Pritzker saved lives and livelihoods by prioritizing the health and safety of Illinois residents while supporting families and businesses through the COVID-induced recession. To protect hardworking families from additional hardship, one of the defining features of the governor’s response to the COVID financial crisis was launching the nation’s largest pandemic relief grant program for small businesses and the nation’s largest housing assistance program.

In 2021, Governor Pritzker proposed and signed a comprehensive clean energy bill, making Illinois a national leader on climate action and the first state in the Midwest to pass a law phasing out fossil fuels.

Before becoming governor, Pritzker founded 1871, the non-profit small business incubator in Chicago. Since its creation, Chicago has been named one of the top ten technology startup hubs in the world, and 1871 was named the best incubator in the world. As governor, he continues to expand support for new business creation throughout the state and cut taxes for hundreds of thousands of small businesses while incentivizing job creation. Since 2019, annual new business startups in Illinois have grown by nearly 70%. Illinois now has the largest growth in small business creation among the largest states in the nation, beating states like California, Texas, Florida and New York.

Governor Pritzker and his wife, MK, have been married for more than 25 years, and they are the proud parents of daughter, Teddi, and son, Don.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

That seems really disorganized… I mean no matter what don’t you always have some sort of Plan B just in case of some accident or someone getting sick or just any random act that could change things in a second.

this sort of sounds more like people leaking out that they did not have a back up plan trying to show that they’ve always believed in Joe no matter what. To show strength and solidarity.

Well it's really unfortunate because as we remember the 2020 stakes it was always explained to Dems that Biden would be the guy to defeat Trump, and we would address the age issue later with the strong implication that he was always slated as a one-term President. The wild card, of course, was whether Joe exhibited a visible drop in physical stamina or mental acuity during that first term, which is what happened. 

If that role was originally held for Kamala, and at some point they changed their mind, they are stuck with the terrible optics of shoving her aside. It would be a much easier hand-off if they could just transition to the incumbent VP, but given Harris is polling worse than Joe, that's not gonna happen. I have yet to hear a Dem voter calling for Kamala. They're stuck. An open convention would be a bold and risky move by a timid and tradition-bound party. 

 

[Fru]

can you imagine how big the republican victory would be if they replaced trump and ran a decent candidate instead of a criminal against Biden?

Agreed. As much bemoaning as there is right now about the Dems running Joe, the fact that the R’s are committed to running a twice impeached, convicted felon, who lost the last election, and is actively draining the party’s funds for legal fees is even more insane. 
 

Imagine the juxtaposition of Nikki Haley on a debate stage with Joe. It wouldn’t be close. The R’s have a solution staring them in the face. 
 

And yeah yeah yeah “But his base.” What the R’s would potentially lose from his base they would surely make up for in independent and swing votes. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Absolutely true.

Personally, I think Biden would only drop out if the signs were that his chances of winning were rapidly dropping OR that an alternative candidate has a much higher chance of winning. The problem for Democrats is that it's going to be really hard to demonstrate that an alternative candidate is better - all other options poll worse against Trump than Biden does.

Now, I think it's possible that with a coordinated strategy, a new name with little recognition may be able to increase their chances of winning through a media/ad blitz for the next 4 months. Nobody knows who Roy Moore is, for example, so his numbers head to head against Trump are worse than Biden's - for what little polling exists for such a matchup. But, lets be honest, Biden's poll numbers aren't likely to dramatically increase against Trump. Voters are pretty aware of the candidates and what they represent. The issue in that matchup is voter enthusiasm (Trump favored here) and voter turnout amongst voters who don't pay attention (Trump wins this group by 30 points).

The upside for a new candidate to improve their numbers against Trump is there. At the very least it would energize the base of the Democratic Party even if it doesn't help them with the voters who don't pay much attention. It's a bit of a gamble, but I think it's pretty evident that Biden's chances of winning are getting lower by the day. While still not favored, it's probably better to go with a candidate who has a 35% chance of winning than it does to stick with Biden who only has a 25% at this point. The problem comes with the logistical mechanisms to coordinate fundraising, agreement on a candidate, and public outreach in such a short amount of time.

My best guess is that Democrats don't gamble, they stick with Biden, he does more of his scripted events and doesn't do another debate. They hope that memory of the debate fades from view and that the FED lowers interest rates in September to boost the economy and stock market -> giving him his best shot at winning. I personally think he loses ground to Trump slightly over the summer and suffers a defeat similar to what Democrats did 2016, but this time barely winning the popular vote at all.

If the Democrats replace Biden, the key is going to be the process through which they do it. Biden would need to come out in FAVOR of him stepping down and supporting the new candidate.  

In a perfect world, it would be nice if they could do a new mass primary with two candidates and the party get behind whomever wins.  But, that's not going to happen.

 

[teachercd]

Well it's really unfortunate because as we remember the 2020 stakes it was always explained to Dems that Biden would be the guy to defeat Trump, and we would address the age issue later with the strong implication that he was always slated as a one-term President. The wild card, of course, was whether Joe exhibited a visible drop in physical stamina or mental acuity during that first term, which is what happened. 

If that role was originally held for Kamala, and at some point they changed their mind, they are stuck with the terrible optics of shoving her aside. It would be a much easier hand-off if they could just transition to the incumbent VP, but given Harris is polling worse than Joe, that's not gonna happen. I have yet to hear a Dem voter calling for Kamala. They're stuck. An open convention would be a bold and risky move by a timid and tradition-bound party. 

Do you think "they" ever thought Harris would poll as poorly as she does?

I can't imagine they did, I do think they have done a really bad job with her, she should be out in the public a lot more, not less.  

 

[Fru]

Not really a surprise, because all the other candidates poll worse than Biden does. It's a massive gamble to switch, and it certainly might end up being the right call to go with your 20% chance to win and hope for the best.

Dems have a habit of tearing down rising stars over ticky tack nonsense and then complain about having no one new or younger to vote for. 

 

[Fru]

Do you think "they" ever thought Harris would poll as poorly as she does?

I can't imagine they did, I do think they have done a really bad job with her, she should be out in the public a lot more, not less.  

Probably not. I’ve wondered if her having a low profile was somewhat by design. Just lay low, no controversies, no bad sound bites, then get handed the keys as the nominal, regular, “any other dem” that folks are seemingly always clamoring for but never supporting. 

If there was ever a moment for someone to seize the torch, my god this is it. 
 

I was thinking about the debate this weekend. Why not send Kamala out there? Joe technically hasn’t been picked by the DNC yet. There’s never been a debate this early. The R’s are supporting a convicted felon. It’s obvious political norms don’t matter anymore. Eff it. Send out the VP who’s a former prosecutor and let her light his a$$ up for 90 min. Then have Joe put out a statement or video saying how proud he is of her. 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think that the issue is not trump gaining any more votes.

I don't think this is true. There's a lot of evidence that suggests Trump has made gains among young and minority voters.

In fact, polling suggests that Trump has made such massive gains among Black voters that the numbers are immediately dismissed as outlandish. While I agree with the perception that Trump probably hasn't suddenly gained 17 points among Black voters, it is evidence in itself that there are somewhere between a few and a lot of new Trump voters out there.

I don't think we can say the same for Biden. It may be the case that there are some never-Trump Republicans that were formed after 2020 that may support him, but there isn't that much evidence in polling that suggests these voters weren't already in his camp during the 2020 election.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

If the Democrats replace Biden, the key is going to be the process through which they do it. Biden would need to come out in FAVOR of him stepping down and supporting the new candidate.  

In a perfect world, it would be nice if they could do a new mass primary with two candidates and the party get behind whomever wins.  But, that's not going to happen.

Exactly. Biden would have to voluntarily step down, vocally support the transfer of support to the new candidate, and the new candidate has to be somebody the entire party can agree on without any breaks in their ranks while simultaneously avoiding any candidate with ambition who wants to make a name for him/herself. They have to do all of this within a few weeks and then setup a massive fundraising and candidate raising public/media blitz.

It's not going to happen.

 

[TGHusker]

Imagine the juxtaposition of Nikki Haley on a debate stage with Joe. It wouldn’t be close. The R’s have a solution staring them in the face. 

Missed opportunity by the GOP.   Of course, I wish Nikki didn't back tracked and say she'd support trump.  

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Exactly. Biden would have to voluntarily step down, vocally support the transfer of support to the new candidate, and the new candidate has to be somebody the entire party can agree on without any breaks in their ranks while simultaneously avoiding any candidate with ambition who wants to make a name for him/herself. They have to do all of this within a few weeks and then setup a massive fundraising and candidate raising public/media blitz all within a few weeks.

It's not going to happen.

At this point would it be hard to take Biden's name OFF the ballot in all 50 states?

If for any reason Biden's name is on the same ballot with his DNC approved replacement, you'd lose millions of votes through inattention, confusion and protest. 

Kamala had her chance with Democrat voters, including a fast start in 2019, a tacit DNC endorsement, and first string campaign operatives in her camp. She never even made it to the primaries. When she dropped out she was trailing Andrew Yang in the polls. 

The Dems ignored this, I guess because Harris checked more boxes as a VP than she did as a candidate. But if there was ever a campaign where you looked at the VP nominee as "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" it was the person they chose to back up Joe. Again, the invisibility and irrelevance of Kamala Harris over the last four years is a mystery that requires some explanation. 

Also, in fairness, every new, young and/or exciting Dem you could want was in play during those 2020 primaries, including Corey Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro, Eric Swalwell, Kristen Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, and unlikely star Pete Buttigieg. Outside of Mayor Pete, they didn't get any traction from the voters. I don't think the Party itself exerted any influence until Super Tuesday was upon them, and they had to intervene to stop their leading vote-getter, Bernie Sanders.