I did read it. But I’m not referring to just this article, but the dozens I’ve seen in just the past week. If the dems are convinced there’s a better candidate, actually convinced, we’d have a name by now. Literally anyone. But there’s been nothing. Just the step down discussion, with no discourse on who should be taking his place.
The idea that some other strategy besides Biden might be better, as nutty as that sounds this late in the campaign, has quite a bit of merit. The idea that him resigning should come first, and figuring out and solidifying that strategy should come second, is clinically insane. Which is why outlets hostile to the Democrats are pushing it, which is why Democrats who have gotten confused into starting to back it themselves should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty sure that is the exact thesis of the article that dude is rudely insisting that you need to be reading.
There’s been no names because they were giving Biden a chance to clear the scandal and watching to see the polls. This was never something that would resolve right away and now it’s around the time we’d expect to see someone being put forward.
Also, this is very clearly a party leader putting Harris’ name forward.
The.article.doesn’t.matter since it’s always been a losing strategy to pivot to a new candidate. I’m thinking less Bernie/Clinton, and more Johnson/Humphries.
It’s still a binary choice: Biden or fascism. Frilly articles about what-if and “but his stammer” mean nothing when it resolves down to the same binary choice.
Removed by mod
I did read it. But I’m not referring to just this article, but the dozens I’ve seen in just the past week. If the dems are convinced there’s a better candidate, actually convinced, we’d have a name by now. Literally anyone. But there’s been nothing. Just the step down discussion, with no discourse on who should be taking his place.
100% agree
The idea that some other strategy besides Biden might be better, as nutty as that sounds this late in the campaign, has quite a bit of merit. The idea that him resigning should come first, and figuring out and solidifying that strategy should come second, is clinically insane. Which is why outlets hostile to the Democrats are pushing it, which is why Democrats who have gotten confused into starting to back it themselves should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty sure that is the exact thesis of the article that dude is rudely insisting that you need to be reading.
There’s been no names because they were giving Biden a chance to clear the scandal and watching to see the polls. This was never something that would resolve right away and now it’s around the time we’d expect to see someone being put forward.
Also, this is very clearly a party leader putting Harris’ name forward.
The.article.doesn’t.matter since it’s always been a losing strategy to pivot to a new candidate. I’m thinking less Bernie/Clinton, and more Johnson/Humphries.
It’s still a binary choice: Biden or fascism. Frilly articles about what-if and “but his stammer” mean nothing when it resolves down to the same binary choice.