Democrats Start new group - "Don't run Joe"

That's not a new group. The underlying group RootsAction has been active for many years and opposing Biden since he was elected.

Here's another of their efforts, aimed at reducing US support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Well duh. He's already a million years old; by then he'll be a million and two!

Run Joe ...run

hislegacy said:

Don't Run Joe

We're calling on Joe Biden to announce he's not running in 2024.

dontrunjoe.org

Seems a growing faction in the Democratic Party is getting very vocal.

“On behalf of most Democrats as well as our party’s activist base, we are strongly urging President Biden not to seek renomination,” said Pia Gallegos, board chair of RootsAction.org, which is sponsoring the Don’t Run Joe campaign.​

Click to expand...

At first I thought their objections to him were that he's well past his prime, and will likely lose on the debate stage to a younger GOP opponent, so they felt it's time for him to finally retire...to which, I'd say to them "Agreed" (as would many other voters)

However, in reading through their mission statement, their objection to Biden appears to be rooted in something else.
“Joe Biden representing the status quo in 2024 simply won't cut it.” A third voter warns in the ad that “we can't afford to risk the White House for a Republican who could defeat status-quo Joe.”


That's where they appear to have become a little detached from reality. If they think that Joe's problem is that he's "status quo" or "moderate", then they're mistaken. The only reason Joe did win is because he was perceived as "status quo moderate" who would be a "return to normalcy".

People weren't (and aren't -- if 2022 election results are any indicator) looking for anyone on the far left or right.

I think Georgia was a great purple-state litmus test for where the Overton Window is currently at.

The same group of voters were voting for both races:
Warnock beat Walker
Kemp beat Abrams

That tells me that the "sweet spot" with regards to what'll appeal to the largest segment of voters is someone who's between Warnock<->Kemp on the political spectrum. Going outside of those boundaries on either side is the recipe for losing in 2024.

ThatRobGuy said:

At first I thought their objections to him were that he's well past his prime, and will likely lose on the debate stage to a younger GOP opponent, so they felt it's time for him to finally retire...to which, I'd say to them "Agreed" (as would many other voters)

However, in reading through their mission statement, their objection to Biden appears to be rooted in something else.
“Joe Biden representing the status quo in 2024 simply won't cut it.” A third voter warns in the ad that “we can't afford to risk the White House for a Republican who could defeat status-quo Joe.”


That's where they appear to have become a little detached from reality. If they think that Joe's problem is that he's "status quo" or "moderate", then they're mistaken. The only reason Joe did win is because he was perceived as "status quo moderate" who would be a "return to normalcy".

People weren't (and aren't -- if 2022 election results are any indicator) looking for anyone on the far left or right.

I think Georgia was a great purple-state litmus test for where the Overton Window is currently at.

The same group of voters were voting for both races:
Warnock beat Walker
Kemp beat Abrams

That tells me that the "sweet spot" with regards to what'll appeal to the largest segment of voters is someone who's between Warnock<->Kemp on the political spectrum. Going outside of those boundaries on either side is the recipe for losing in 2024.

Click to expand...

I'm still not convinced that this isn't some astroturfing spoiler campaign.

I've read through their anti-Ukraine war site, and apart from some vague condemnations of Russias attack (foot in the door) they are parotting russian talking points and take pains to make the US out as just as bad in this conflict, if not worse.

Nithavela said:

I'm still not convinced that this isn't some astroturfing spoiler campaign.

I've read through their anti-Ukraine war site, and apart from some vague condemnations of Russias attack (foot in the door) they are parotting russian talking points and take pains to make the US out as just as bad in this conflict, if not worse.

Click to expand...

I originally had thought that too...but the group that's running it:

Their other initiatives are backing Ilhan Omar, petitioning for congress to pass the "college for all act", getting rid of the electoral college, slashing the military budget by 50%, and supporting the Green New Deal.

The guys who run it:


It would seem that these two guys live in the West Coast Progressive "bubble", and think the rest of the country resembles them.

I've noticed when people live in hyper-partisan areas of the country, they tend to have a skewed view of where other large swaths of the country are at on specific issues.

I wish he would not run. I'm so grateful he took Trump out, and he did, but that is a sufficient service to our country. Thank you for your service, Mr. President. Both parties need new faces and, God forbid, new faces with integrity.

Nithavela said:

I'm still not convinced that this isn't some astroturfing spoiler campaign.

I've read through their anti-Ukraine war site, and apart from some vague condemnations of Russias attack (foot in the door) they are parotting russian talking points and take pains to make the US out as just as bad in this conflict, if not worse.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the first thing that came to mind was the #WalkAway stuff, which turned out to be Russian Twitter bots in action. And now this new group is also spreading Russian PR? Seems people should catch on to the pattern at this point ... unless it leads to posts which attack Biden for some reason, then no need for critical thinking, just fire away and hope something sticks.

public hermit said:

I wish he would not run. I'm so grateful he took Trump out, and he did, but that is a sufficient service to our country. Thank you for your service, Mr. President. Both parties need new faces and, God forbid, new faces with integrity.

Click to expand...

"New" is always going to be available in plentiful supply.

"Integrity" may be a little tougher to come by. The guys who try to "play a clean game" tend to get ran over in the primaries.

If you're willing to accept an "Integrity grade" of a C+...that may be feasible lol.

KCfromNC said:

Yeah, the first thing that came to mind was the #WalkAway stuff, which turned out to be Russian Twitter bots in action. And now this new group is also spreading Russian PR?

Click to expand...

If this group's talking points have some small point of overlap with Russian war propaganda, then I would imagine it's purely coincidental.

Per my previous post:
Their other initiatives are backing Ilhan Omar, petitioning for congress to pass the "college for all act", getting rid of the electoral college, slashing the military budget by 50%, and supporting the Green New Deal.

A little history on the two guys running this:
One was a Bernie Sanders delegate in 2016 and 2020

The other is a former communications director for Dennis Kucinich, and has been a writer for both MSNBC and MotherJones.

The two have been collaborating with each other off and on since 1990 and have had some prominence within the Democratic establishment.


If this was some fabricated faux effort/sabotage op by these guys to fracture the Democratic party on purpose, then they've really been playing the "long con" on this one.


I think it's more likely that it's what I referenced before, that these guys really do think that their views in the "progressive bubble" are more popular than they actually are. And they may honestly think Biden's popularity issues are because he's "too moderate and status quo" because that's what the opinions are in their social circles. However, the perceptions of him being a "status quo moderate" are what made him electable.

ThatRobGuy said:

I think it's more likely that it's what I referenced before, that these guys really do think that their views in the "progressive bubble" are more popular than they actually are. And they may honestly think Biden's popularity issues are because he's "too moderate and status quo" because that's what the opinions are in their social circles. However, the perceptions of him being a "status quo moderate" are what made him electable.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, so rather than the OP's claim that this is some "growing faction in the Democratic Party" it's just a few people on the fringe.

KCfromNC said:

Fair enough, so rather than the OP's claim that this is some "growing faction in the Democratic Party" it's just a few people on the fringe.

Click to expand...

I think the OPs statement is an accurate one, technically speaking.

RootsAction started its online activism at the beginning of 2011, and has had near-continuous growth ever since. We grew to 100,000 people by the end of 2011, and 200,000 by the end of 2012, 500,000 by the end of 2014, and over 640,000 in 2015. Today, RootsAction has 1.3 million active members.

100k members in 2011.
640k in 2015.
1.3 million currently.


So I guess that would constitute a growing faction.

However, I don't know exactly how that would translate to voting patterns.

A lot of times, simply having a membership to an activist organization doesn't always equate to "wouldn't vote for another candidate push comes to shove". For instance, PETA has over a million members in the US. And I'm pretty sure their "perfect party & candidate" would be one that advocated for banning zoos, hunting, leather, and red meat sales, but I suspect that many of them still went ahead and voted for whoever Democrat was on the ticket.

With 1.3 million members in RootsAction, I don't think that would be quite enough to get a major US political party to partially gut and revamp their policy platform at a national level. They may have be able to have some success at a regional or state level depending on the locale.

That's where, in politics, multiple playbooks are required.

There's one playbook for: Mayor/City Council/House Rep
There's another for: Senate/Governor/President

The strategy that can produce a landslide victory in a solid blue/red house district or very progressive/conservative city, could entirely flop if that exact same strategy were used in a Senate or Governors race.

A good example to highlight that would come from my own state of Ohio.

Jim Renacci had back-to-back landslide victories when he ran for House Rep, when he tried his hand running for Senate, he lost by 300k votes, and when he decided to take a run for Governor, he couldn't even win the primary. I suspect the more partisan members of either party (Like the AOCs and Jim Jordans of the world) would likely run into the same challenges if they tried to run for Senate on the same playbook that got them their House seats.