Thanks for your comment. The question is - at this stage, with 5 weeks until the convention and 2 1/2 months until early voting, what candidate has a better chance than Biden? It's too late to start a campaign and its risky because even an experienced candidate may crash (see Michael Bloomberg). Perhaps Harris, but she is already part of the ticket, as you indicate. So best to focus on supporting Biden and beating Trump - following your 10% / 90% formula does the trick.
Joe Biden often says, "Don't compare me with the Almighty, compare me with the alternative". There is a total lack of symmetry in our choice. For Biden to be as good as Trump is foul, his goodness would have to be Godlike. So, as much as I like and admire Joe Biden, My vote will be one tenth For Biden and nine tenths Against the criminal fascist Trump.
I was shaken yesterday to read about the trend lines in voter opinion since the debate. If Biden should step aside, the only rational replacement would be his Vice President, Kamala Harris. The primary voters who made Joe Biden their presidential candidate Also voted for Kamala Harris as their vice-presidential candidate; and the primary duty of a Vice President is the responsibility of stepping in to replace the President when that becomes necessary. To choose anyone else is to Disregard the millions of voters who chose this team. In addition, I believe that as part of that team Kamala would have access to all the donations that have been made to Biden-Harris. No one else would have access, so that hypothetical alternate candidate would have to start collecting from zero.
For them to make this decision, they will need an in-depth survey of voter attitude/support for Kamala Harris (compared, obviously, with attitude/support for Joe Biden). This would need to be kept tightly under wraps, since its exposure to the public would be detrimental to confidence in Biden if they decided to stay the course. It would also need to be done very expeditiously, because, as you note, the time is late. (The late date is another reason, if it is determined that a change is called for, for it to be Kamala rather than some other Democrat. She Has been part of the campaign already, and a switch in the voters' focus could happen more quickly and more easily.) If the decision is for change, I think the best time to announce would be after the Republican Convention but before the Democratic Convention, so it could be a coronation, cementing the change in voters' minds. This is not about Joe's ambition! It is about determining, as objectively as they can, the better path for keeping America from falling to a fascist dictator. If they decided that the change was needed, this should figure prominently in his announcement to the public. The voters to focus on will be the independents in the swing states since the committed Democrats will vote for either Joe or Kamala. I wonder if the strong opposition to the Dobbs decision would be more effectively activated by one or the other of them? As a woman, perhaps Kamala would represent the anti-Dobbs opposition more effectively.
(I think your next to the last sentence should begin with "Perhaps Harris, and..." rather than "Perhaps Harris, but...")
Thanks for your comment. The question is - at this stage, with 5 weeks until the convention and 2 1/2 months until early voting, what candidate has a better chance than Biden? It's too late to start a campaign and its risky because even an experienced candidate may crash (see Michael Bloomberg). Perhaps Harris, but she is already part of the ticket, as you indicate. So best to focus on supporting Biden and beating Trump - following your 10% / 90% formula does the trick.
Joe Biden often says, "Don't compare me with the Almighty, compare me with the alternative". There is a total lack of symmetry in our choice. For Biden to be as good as Trump is foul, his goodness would have to be Godlike. So, as much as I like and admire Joe Biden, My vote will be one tenth For Biden and nine tenths Against the criminal fascist Trump.
I was shaken yesterday to read about the trend lines in voter opinion since the debate. If Biden should step aside, the only rational replacement would be his Vice President, Kamala Harris. The primary voters who made Joe Biden their presidential candidate Also voted for Kamala Harris as their vice-presidential candidate; and the primary duty of a Vice President is the responsibility of stepping in to replace the President when that becomes necessary. To choose anyone else is to Disregard the millions of voters who chose this team. In addition, I believe that as part of that team Kamala would have access to all the donations that have been made to Biden-Harris. No one else would have access, so that hypothetical alternate candidate would have to start collecting from zero.
For them to make this decision, they will need an in-depth survey of voter attitude/support for Kamala Harris (compared, obviously, with attitude/support for Joe Biden). This would need to be kept tightly under wraps, since its exposure to the public would be detrimental to confidence in Biden if they decided to stay the course. It would also need to be done very expeditiously, because, as you note, the time is late. (The late date is another reason, if it is determined that a change is called for, for it to be Kamala rather than some other Democrat. She Has been part of the campaign already, and a switch in the voters' focus could happen more quickly and more easily.) If the decision is for change, I think the best time to announce would be after the Republican Convention but before the Democratic Convention, so it could be a coronation, cementing the change in voters' minds. This is not about Joe's ambition! It is about determining, as objectively as they can, the better path for keeping America from falling to a fascist dictator. If they decided that the change was needed, this should figure prominently in his announcement to the public. The voters to focus on will be the independents in the swing states since the committed Democrats will vote for either Joe or Kamala. I wonder if the strong opposition to the Dobbs decision would be more effectively activated by one or the other of them? As a woman, perhaps Kamala would represent the anti-Dobbs opposition more effectively.
(I think your next to the last sentence should begin with "Perhaps Harris, and..." rather than "Perhaps Harris, but...")