This is a struggle for the soul and identity of our party

[Amishman]

We are the Democratic party.

Democracy is literally in our name. We the people choose our nominee.

Chuck Schumer doesn't pick who gets to represent us in the election. Nor does Adam Schiff, George Clooney, or any of the others who seem to think are more equal than others.

We the people voted Joe Biden as our nominee. He was selected the landslide winner of a fair and thorough Democratic process. He has made it clear he feels up for the job.

Joe is our guy, the people have spoken. To me, even if he steps down I won't believe he did it of his own free will. That kind of 180 simply isn't in a man of such confidence and conviction. If he is coerced out, then there is no spirit or soul of Democracy in the Democratic party.

There is no choice to be made - it was already made by the people.

[iemanja]

1. As much as we respect Joe Biden

Our party is not defined by one man. In twenty years, our president will be someone else, and our party will still have meaning.

[edisdead]

4. Our party is defined by the process

If these pols are intent on trashing that process then they need to go. Of they won’t go, and the party won’t get rid of them then we have some searching to do.

Been a dem my whole life. This reeks of absolute corruption to me. I hope to all thats good it is only a few pols.

[progressoid]

12. The process?

Is that the same process that pushed Lyndon Johnson away? Or Thomas Eagleton?

[Amishman]

6. It's about a Democratic identity, which is larger than Joe Biden

Joe is a great man, but greater than his virtues as an individual is that he is the one the voters chose to represent them.

Opposing him as our nominee is opposing the will of the people, and a fundamental betrayal of a principle so fundamental that it's literally the root of the name of our party. If taken to fruition, I'm not sure there is any coming back from such a damning perversion of the principles that we are supposed to hold dear.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

11. I agree that if these party leaders were to somehow make someone else the nominee...

... by ignoring the will of the delegates, then obviously that is undemocratic.

But is it undemocratic to say to Joe Biden, "The situation is bad. I think you're going to lose, and we'd have a better chance with someone else? Let the delegates nominate someone else"? He's free to agree or disagree, and it seems that he disagrees.

[hume]

2. Right on!

100% with you. Well said.

[3catwoman3]

3. Damn right!

Well said.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

5. Hypothetical question

If one year our presumptive nominee announced they've become a Republican, or was discovered to be a mobster, or had a scandal so bad they dropped to 10% in the polls, would it be okay to have the convention delegates vote for someone else? On the one hand-- the democratic process. On the other hand-- do we really have to just go with it and lose the election because the primary has already happened?

I'm obviously not comparing Joe Biden's debate performance to any of these hypotheticals. But I am wondering-- are there any circumstances in which a primary election winner can be replaced? Or is it that once the primary is settled, then we're stuck?

[Amishman]

7. That is the final check provided by the delegates

If the presumptive nominee manages to turn the stomaches of his delegates - who are always chosen from his most dedicated supporters - to such an extent that the majority break ranks, then I would consider that legitimate.

But that is a rather nasty little straw man, and completely irrelevant to our current reality.

[AllyCat]

8. So many threads! What is going on??

[JI7]

9. No, everyone still agrees on the issues

We aren't disagreeing over what things we should support .

[BlueCheeseAgain]

10. In the 2002 Senate race in New Jersey...

Incumbent Dem Senator Robert Torricelli was unopposed in the Dem primary in June. Later on, he became embroiled in scandal, and was trailing the Republican nominee in polls. In September, he withdrew from the race. The Democrats scrambled to find a replacement, and eventually found former senator Frank Lautenberg to run instead. The Republicans filed a lawsuit to prevent the change, but the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed it, and Lautenberg ended up winning.

(One of the people briefly considered to replace Torricelli was then-House member Robert Menendez-- the same guy just convicted of bribery in the case of gold bars and cash. New Jersey sure knows how to pick them.)

Now, let me be clear that I'm not comparing a debate to corruption (though Torricelli wasn't ever convicted of anything), but was this an abrogation of the people's will?

[Bev54]

13. Yes that is the system whereby elections are held for the people to vote for the nominee unlike

a parliamentary system where the party chooses its leader.

[Aepps22]

14. Fear is a Powerful Motivator

What we are seeing is what happens when fear overtakes people and when decisions are made by fear. I have no problem with discussions being had with Joe and party leadership about the best path to beat Trump. What I fundamentally don’t respect is the weak and cowardly way our leaders are going about these discussions. All of these discussions should be had behind closed doors with no media leaks. What I suspect is happening is that when leadership doesn’t get the response they want from Joe they run to the media to force him out. Statements about how much they respect and owe Joe fall flat when instead of respecting his decision you run to the media which not only hurts Joe but hurts our chances to win. I don’t want us to become a cult like the bad guys but the media leaks and other nonsense are cowardly and pathetic. We should be above this.