I hate coincidence! I am remembering that the 1968 Democratic Convention was held in August of 1968. Just two months after the assassination of their preferred candidate–Bobby Kennedy. He was assassinated in early June 1968. Seems strange to see Biden make it clear that he is not competent approximately the same length of time to the next Democratic CHICAGO convention!
SO . . .maybe the question is why have the Democrats chosen Chicago for this year’s convention? This is only their second return to Chicago since 1968. The second convention was in 1996 (Al gore). It seems the Dems go back about every 30 years–why is that?

OOOH!! OOOOH!! I KNOW THIS ONE!!

Nope. Not even applicable. The Dems argued — in court, no less — that they are not required to follow their own rules for how to handle/process the votes. That they (“The machinery”, aka Those In Charge) can pretty much put up any candidate that they want to, and how people voted is totally irrelevant.

The example is not exactly the same as your question, but pretty sure they can change things on a whim as long as it gives them power.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

A: I’d sooner have watched The Acolyte.

(Mic Drop) 😀

I dunno.

1 — I think everyone on the Left would breathe a sigh of relief at this point. They’d have a candidate who might be able to win without glaringly blatant cheating.

2 — I’d assert that the real question is whether the shadow cabal currently running things would be able to find a suitable puppet to put up who would follow their anti-American agenda and continue to push for irrationality and insanity in government actions.

3 — Anyone who did get their hat thrown into the ring would likely be assured of having The Fixing Machine fully in their camp, regardless of the answer to “2”. They have no choice, they HAVE to have a pro-left candidate, even if s/he’s not a total puppet. Anything else is to invite disaster, as one or more non-partisan investigator is put into play over the events of the last 4 years, looking to charge multiple people with crimes we all (i.e., all non-partisan hacks) have considerable certainty have occurred.

}}} Is Kamala assured the VP slot this time around or is that the open question that should make her hire a new food taster?

I do not believe there is any way in Hell Harris is on the ticket no matter who the PotUS nom is. This is hardly the first time in history for the presidency to change the secondary horse in mid-stream. Hell, FDR did it twice, first from Garner to Wallace in 1940 and then to Truman in 1944. But that’s hardly the only historical example. An easy overview can be had just by looking at the various PotUS Wiki entries — the summary sidebar on the right has their veeps listed. If it changed, they list that.

You can bet that, whomever their veep candidate is, they’ll be picked as a puppet figurehead for the current shadow cabal’s continued control over the executive office.

I agree they will do what they will if they decide to replace him, and they do not respect the law, let alone their own party’s rules. But the big issue is IF the DNC does want it. In many cases the DNC or at least several factions of it believe he is their best chance.

For democrats, the ends justifies the means.

Imagine that Michelle Obama announces she will run for president but she also makes it very clear that all her policies and decisions if elected would be made by her husband.
In effect, he would be a third term president.
The democrats would have no qualms about doing this if they believed it would prevent a Trump presidency.
True, this is really a crazy scenario, but not for demonkrats.

Your gaslighting is nothing new, nor is the midwittery or the TDS, but even I have to admit it is something to see all three intersect in QUITE such a spectacular fashion. So it’s worth breaking them down and dissecting in a way beyond references to Orange Whales or Concerned Conservatives.

It’s hard to see how Democrats can stand-by and allow Biden to be the candidate in November.

In some ways, sure. But on the other hand it isn’t hard to see how Democrats can consider it when once accepts a few things.

Starting with.

A: Many Democrats starting from Kamala on down haven’t been standing by, and have indeed been fighting the Bidens for not just control over the administration but also succession for years now.

B: Biden has often been viewed (wrongly or rightfully) as a “moderate” and “safe” masthead or seatwarmer (which is one reason why he has remained around for so long).

C: His continued holding of the office indicates that many of those seeking to replace him, have not been able to find a suitably “acceptable” candidate to win over enough of the Nays, including those we would logically expect such as Kamala.

I have to believe that they will find a way to convince him to stand down.

“Have to believe”? Very curious wording indeed. You see, I *CAN* Believe that the Dems will find a way to convince Biden or those holding his strings to stand down (and this latest PR offensive is obviously aimed at doing so). I cannot even rule out that some kind of accidental or intentional “accident” shall happen that will force him out, whether “to spend more time with his family” or to spend more time with grave.

But I don’t “HAVE TO” believe that. After all, I’ve been around these last several years and seen how several camps within the Left have tried to get Biden to step down or aside (whether resigning, or declining to run for 2024, or so on) and have FAILED TO DO SO. Now to be fair they didn’t have quite as strong a headwind in public as they do now…. but they ALSO don’t have things such as the Ohio Ballot Registration issue limiting their legal options, which might at least hypothetically threaten the Dems to be unable to get their Presidential Ticket on Ohio Ballots (as unlikely as that may be), especially if Biden gets ditched.

I have not ruled out the possibility Biden will be forced to step aside, nor have many others here. But I also haven’t ruled out the possibility (and even probability) he will not. Because I am trying to approach the issue as a matter of analysis and rational conjecture, not belief. You on the other hand seem to not be.

All of the arguments about the divisiveness of an open convention, Kamala’s weaknesses, or the damage to the party of trying to replace her are out the window now.

No, no they’re really not. As shown by some of the skirmishing we’re seeing in the press so far, as well as the very basic issue of the Ohio Ballot Registration that forced them to have their “Virtual Convention” earlier.

I think they came to understand last night that their bait-and-switch strategy of goading Republicans into nominating Trump has failed. If Joe is the nominee, Trump will be elected in November.

I think that holds true for many of the factions, and there were even more involved that already wanted to see Biden (really the Bidens) gone for various reasons like ambition, climbing up the ladder, viewing them as not “Pure” or radical enough, optics, or so on. But many others cling to him precisely because of those factors, *and others do not view a pathway to victory without him.* Including several of those that I might add have access to far better data and more resources than we do.

Any replacement, even Kamala, will pull ahead of Trump instantly and hold that lead through November.

Art Deco was correct calling this wishcasting nonsense, and it is easy enough to break this over your leg. ANY replacement? Even Kamala (who is so weak that the Dems didn’t Article 25 Biden for the optics of having a young “POC” woman as President)? Even Hillary?

Of course not.

Now I imagine you MIGHT try to dodge out of the way by arguing Hillary isn’t a “replacement” because she isn’t viable (which has some truth to it but ignores A: You were the one who said “any replacement” and B: Why isn’t she viable when Kamala is?). But that’s just avoiding.

Not a wish cast. Just the view outside of the bubble.

Bauxite, WHO IN THE FLYING FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GASLIGHT WITH THIS?!?!

And yes, that is PRECISELY what this is. Gaslighting. A very BAD, INCOMPETENT attempt at gaslighting.

“The view from outside the bubble” you say?

We have views from outside “the bubble.” We can ALL SEE the barrage of orchestrated media outlets badmouthing Biden’s performance from reliable leftist outlets and a good number trying to argue he should stand down or step aside. Doubtless a major power play by people with connections making a volley.

And that’s nonwithstanding personal experiences. I live with someone who loudly and vehemently insisted the deficit was due to “Tax Cuts”, in spite of how obviously ludicrous this is.

I will not completely reject the idea of a “Right Wing Bubble” or that there aren’t people in it, but it’s been MUCH THINNER and MUCH SMALLER than the Left Wing OneS for at least half a century now. Which makes your posturing about supposedly unique or almost unique insight “outside the bubble” comic, even before we factor in your track record with predictions and tenuous relationship with honesty (including sometimes even basic statistical accuracy).

The reason that this debate even happened was because of what Neo pointed out. IN SPITE of Months of attempts to undermine Biden and co or replace him by a host of different camps, they couldn’t or wouldn’t. And that’s because – as Neo pointed out –

Getting rid of Biden as candidate won’t be easy, though. As I’ve said many times, if it were easy and the solution obvious, they would have done it sooner. That’s the big stumbling block. But waiting this long, even if they finally accomplish it, isn’t a good look for the party. The cynically deceptive game they’ve played has become more clear, as has the risk in which they’ve put the nation and the world.

The Democrats have been working the con for four years, ever since Biden was anointed the 2020 nominee. But after last night, I think the con is up – and most of them seem to think so, too. Now it’s time to get a new candidate and/or a new con, and they’re not so sure they can pull it off. I certainly hope they can’t.

This reminds me of the Monty Hall Problem, and how many people tripped over Selven and vos Savant’s explanation with the basic situation: that other actors not only have information, but have better or more specialized information than us and – along with their agendas – will act as they think the situation warrants.

Which is why your “analysis” isn’t analysis, it’s wishcasting. If you wished to claim that X Replacement Candidate or even many or most replacement candidates would “pull ahead of Trump instantly”, you MIGHT have a case, however difficult to prove or even incorrect. Indeed, I have considered similar (though usually less radical, since political balances rarely change “instantly”).

But you didn’t.

Which is why this can be discarded.

I don’t want Kamala to be president, except that she might set the table for a right-of-center revival in 2028, or not, depending on whether D’s win Congress.

This is what we call wishcasting, especially given how blasé you are about other peoples’ livelihoods and freedom over the course of those hypothetical 4 years, like we discussed regarding those persecuted on Jan 6th and others. Especially given the political persecution and overreach we’ve seen.

I believe you don’t want Kamala to be President, but I also believe you haven’t seriously examined the situation because TDS, and your contempt and condescension for almost everybody else in this thread (indeed, this blog) by assuming you are “outside the bubble” compared to the Plebs, and willing to gaslight many that so much as differ with you.

Fortunately, I made the decision to watch the Timcast stream of the debate, which took the edge off of my usual irritability.

And I hope we get some good memes about Biden challenging Trump to some time on the golf course. ??

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2024/06/28/yes-democrats-can-replace-biden-with-newsom-heres-how-n2176094

Empty suit, photogenic, able to fundraise quickly… check, check, check. Who knows?