The post you’re responding to says no one is making good suggestions, just saying “give up and come up with a new last minute plan”. Awful advice. Just awful.
No one cares if you critique anyone. It’s not anyone’s job to take bad plans seriously.
Did you read the post?
Questioning and reevaluating is good, but context matters. No choice exists in a place apart from its surrounding context. That means that sometimes you have to recognize when the context is such that perfect becomes the enemy of good.
Not being able to do that is a huge flaw, and it’s a vulnerability that the wealthy are happily helping Republicans exploit right now.
Yeah. It’s a genuinely pathetic trait for Democratic voters. Republicans think it’s hilarious and weak, and they’re correct. It is. It makes Democratic voters incredibly easy to troll and manipulate with rumor mills such as this thread.
Because it’s a huge undertaking and there are different times for ballot eligibility in every one of the 50 states. When do you think the candidate would be chosen? This week? Ready in the wings already and on the ballots?
These bureaucracies move at such a slow pace there was legitimate concern that BIDEN wouldn’t be on the ballot in time because the DNC wasn’t moving quick enough. That was months ago.
Furthermore there’s the wheels of public opinion and moving those in lockstep with the speed it would take to create an alternative is something that takes so long that candidates often begin campaigning the year before the primaries.
There is no other candidate and this is not a personal take but a logistical one. It’s too late.
Actually pointless. Like, not a figure of speech. It’s too late to legally position a new candidate. It would be challenged. The Heritage foundation is already priming legal challenges, and who was that who owned the courts, again?
Let’s imagine that he does step down. How would everyone agree on where to vote next? What’s the process to get them in the running again? What’s your guess on the timeline to do that unassailably vs serious legal opponents?
I wonder what I would do if I were running a campaign for a felon and I needed to make it happen no matter what. I don’t have a good candidate but I do have propaganda networks and I do own judges everywhere, and my opposition has a hard time agreeing with each other, and they crumple apart like tissue paper on basic purity tests, and their candidate is old and has a stutter- his only seeming drawbacks that play to the media.
I wonder what I could do to improve my position and involve my only remaining power assets.
I wanted to dislike this comment but it was shockingly coherent. And correct. Perhaps too coherent and correct, for some.
And so they are implying the hierarchy of your categories is reversed.
Cool. Agreed. Spending all day churning out memes about it sounds like a job though, huh? Wonder if it pays well.
When all you want is for Trump to win, but your only winning strategy in the playbook is what Reagan did to fuck over Carter back in 1980. Gotta drive those social media vibes and it worked once, right?
Plus you don’t owe that guy’s links a view just to respond to a comment. What nonsense
That’s just more words, not more substance. You’re doing here exactly what AOC is calling out: giving a vague description of the surface of what you think will happen in a best case scenario with no tactical or even strategic consideration for first mitigating the chaos the basic act will create.
The problem isn’t that you need to come up with the play by play, the problem is that no one has. It’s literally the worst kind of plan: no plan at all.
It’s about the dumbest possible move, really, and it’s telling that the only motivation behind it is that he’s old.
Throw out the incumbent advantage, throw out all current strategies months before the election, hand wave away the candidate slate as objectively better with minimal examination, expose us to huge legal vulnerability against the most litigious party I’ve ever seen, who currently seems to have captured the judicial branch, in the highest stakes election I’ve seen so far, and do it all without any inkling of a play by play to create unity and mitigate doubt or even a hint of an acknowledgment of the problems that the move would cause in the best case scenario?
Awful.