As it stands right now, Biden could pull out (voluntarily) of the presidential race as early as this weekend. If that turns out to be the case, then there is a fairly good chance that VP Kamala Harris could run for POTUS.
And a million MAGA aneurysms were burst
I feel as though you didn't watch the video. You should watch it.
There is one particularly insurmountable issue with that.
I watched it. The fear of waffling instead of confidence. I get it. I understand. However, I'm just one person. In the end, the Democratic party will choose what to do. Personally, I believe that it would be disastrous to have Trump (and his cronies) in office again. So, my choice comes down to voting for whoever is the opponent of Trump.
Then you clearly were not paying attention because the number one issue is ballot access. It is too late. No other candidate can be on the ballots in many (if not all states).
That is a full stop no go right there.
The two examples he gave have already been addressed by legislation in those states. There is no issue in any other state as far as I can tell.
How so? The legislation in those states has no mechanism for changing the ballots that I am aware of. You would run a significant risk of have ballots in multiple states with only Trump's name on them.
The legislation extended the date of submission for the candidates to after the DNC. The ballots are not finalized until after that date as far as I can tell.
Well then, I guess you should send the video to the DNC, since some YouTuber apparently knows more than the entire political apparatus that does this for a living and somehow doesn't know how anything about how elections work. Do you really think they would be stupid enough to change everything without first making sure their plan was even possible?
I don't think THEY would be stupid enough, but this was aimed at helping the everyday folk, aka, you and me understand and think of the ramifications..
Ballotpedia has a very detailed explanation of how it would work.
You should read your own source. This is basically saying that if Republicans allow it to happen the name could be changed. Talk about naive.
i'm pretty confident you are not correct that it's too late; in any case, chill out a bit
Your link says Biden may not be on the Ohio ballot.
Yes, that's correct. The article is from a month ago, where Ohio was trying to keep Biden off of the ballot due to DNC / state procedural bullshit.
Swap the candidate for someone else and surprise Pikachu when red states refuse to print them on the ballot.
A. No need for name calling
B. It says there might be lawsuits and contests, not that the GOP has to allow it to happen. From the article:
It is possible for parties and election authorities to change or work around these deadlines. For instance, in 2020, the Republican National Convention took place after the deadlines in Alabama and Ohio. In Ohio, the state legislature passed a law to change the deadline that cycle so it took place after the Republican National Convention, and in Alabama, the state's election authority accepted a placeholder letter from the RNC that said the party would certify a nominee once the official nomination took place.
It is also possible that changing the Democratic nominee could draw lawsuits related to ballot access. On June 21, 2024, the Heritage Foundation said it would file lawsuits in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin if Democrats nominated someone other than Biden.
Please point to the place where I name called someone.
You called them naive.
That's is not calling someone a name. Ffs. That is a descriptor.
"You are being naive"
Is not the same as
"Dumbass"
Still an insult, which falls under name calling in my book
Telling someone that they are being naive is not an insult. You should be old enough to understand that by this point in your life.
Telling someone when they are being naive when they don't agree with you is an insult. It is meant to dismiss them with a hand wave.
You may find it insulting, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect and it most certainly is not name-calling.
If it is a red state, then they could simply refuse. You do realize that there were a couple of states that were trying to keep Biden off of the ballot using the existing deadlines as a method, right???
Not only is that old, it's also a FoxNews article.
It is 1 months old. It's also true. The DNC had to pull some fast changes in order to make it happen.
FOR BIDEN.
Do you want to rest on the good will of the politicians in red states for that "trust me bro" guarantee that your new candidate will be on the ballot?
Yes, and those issue are resolved. Ohio passed legislation to push the date out and Alabama accepted a resolutution saying they would certify Biden. If the red states can refuse anyone, then they would just refuse Biden to begin with. There are legislative deadlines for these things, and all but one is after the DNC, so they would have to sue on very shakey ground. An article from a month does not prove that, it just means the source is behind or did not update the article.
For BIDEN.
Exactly what do you think is going to happen when you try to swap in someone else? The Republicans are known for acting in good faith. I'm sure nothing bad would happen.
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.