It feels like the New York Times has dedicated fully 50% of their front page to panicking over Biden’s age and fitness in the past 10 days. Yes, it’s an important story; no, it is not the scandal...
It feels like the New York Times has dedicated fully 50% of their front page to panicking over Biden’s age and fitness in the past 10 days. Yes, it’s an important story; no, it is not the scandal of the century.
I guess what I’m saying is stop giving the NYT clicks.
On one hand, it is a bit much. On the other hand... if you're concerned about a second Donald presidency, (who wouldn't be?), Biden's age and performance do not inspire confidence. Maybe I've been...
On one hand, it is a bit much. On the other hand... if you're concerned about a second Donald presidency, (who wouldn't be?), Biden's age and performance do not inspire confidence. Maybe I've been reading too many NYT articles this last week, but it's hard to argue with the basic logic that someone in their 80s is simply not capable of doing this job well. Even if he can, I think the average American is skeptical enough to hurt him in the election... and the polls don't look good in the first place. I think Biden did a great job and his heart is in the right place, but it's time to take the car keys away from Grandpa. No matter how much he loves his car and flashes the puppy dog eyes and rants that we can take it away over his dead body.
Even if you think Biden is fully capable of being president through his mid-80s, it's time to let someone from any of the newer four generations take the wheel. We don't want a power vacuum when Biden finally does step down.
Honestly I really liked Biden before this debacle, but his reaction makes me even more worried about his mental state. How does he not see our concerns? When people ask him directly, he doesn't even seem to process what they're asking. He just regurgitates his classic stock phrases: "the point is.... the idea that... rattles off highly specific accomplishments of his presidency <flashes smile>" and never engages with the question of his age or health. Oh, yeah, every day you're in office is a neurological check? Well you clearly failed the check at the last debate, Joe, and we're worried about you.
I'm very aware (too aware?) of the issues with Biden's fitness. I personally think he should step down. That does not, however, justify the media's - including the NYT - breathless, wall-to-wall...
I'm very aware (too aware?) of the issues with Biden's fitness. I personally think he should step down.
That does not, however, justify the media's - including the NYT - breathless, wall-to-wall coverage of the post-debate fallout, which has come at the expense of substantial coverage of the insane and terrifying things Trump said during the debate and plans to do in a second term.
They're playing up drama and palace intrigue for clicks, per usual.
I read the NYT every day and completely agree the coverage is crazy. Their print front page doesn't have as much of it, but the digital is just pointless rerunning of articles with little to no...
I read the NYT every day and completely agree the coverage is crazy. Their print front page doesn't have as much of it, but the digital is just pointless rerunning of articles with little to no new information or facts.
In the end, what matters is that I still think Biden is the only person with a chance of winning against Trump. Everyone knows Biden, and they know what to expect: more of the same. The elephant...
In the end, what matters is that I still think Biden is the only person with a chance of winning against Trump. Everyone knows Biden, and they know what to expect: more of the same.
The elephant in the room for all these is "WHO", who exactly is supposed to replace Biden? The answer is usually "democratic convention", like that'll magically engineer a perfect candidate, some fantastical candidate who will not run, like Michelle Obama, or a candidate which everyone can admit is too niche to have a hope of beating Mr. In The Headlines Every Day For The Last 8 Years (AOC, Kamala, and so forth).
Winning against Trump is step 1. Doing things is step 2. Dropping biden is skipping to step 2. Your amazing young presidential candidate with full mental faculties won't do jack shit when they lose in a landslide because no one knows who they are.
For literally any of the democratic rising stars to win the presidency would be an all but impossible task. They don't get a primary season to build fame like Obama or Bernie. They get the incumbency benefit flipped on them, as Trump would be the more incumbent nominee. They don't even get a full campaigning season. It's Joever.
He may not be the president the United States needs, but he's the president the United States deserves.
My sense right now is that most people's answer for "who" is "don't care, just not Biden", and the people engaged enough to argue for a convention are saying that's the (messy, dusty) mechanism by...
The elephant in the room for all these is "WHO", who exactly is supposed to replace Biden? The answer is usually "democratic convention", like that'll magically engineer a perfect candidate, some fantastical candidate who will not run, like Michelle Obama, or a candidate which everyone can admit is too niche to have a hope of beating Mr. In The Headlines Every Day For The Last 8 Years (AOC, Kamala, and so forth).
My sense right now is that most people's answer for "who" is "don't care, just not Biden", and the people engaged enough to argue for a convention are saying that's the (messy, dusty) mechanism by which the question would be settled. There's no requirement that there be a clear favorite ahead of time.
I would argue that there is if you don't want to commit metaphorical suicide. If you make Joe Biden withdraw, it's, as the kids say, Joever. You can't undo that if all the candidates end up being...
and the people engaged enough to argue for a convention are saying that's the (messy, dusty) mechanism by which the question would be settled. There's no requirement that there be a clear favorite ahead of time.
I would argue that there is if you don't want to commit metaphorical suicide. If you make Joe Biden withdraw, it's, as the kids say, Joever. You can't undo that if all the candidates end up being ass. If there's no clear successor, having a massive mess at the democratic convention literally months away from the election is as good as giving Trump the crown. You may as well just not bother running for president this year.
If the people arguing for Biden to withdraw can't name a clear democratic party member which at least half of the United States has heard of, then you shouldn't try to make him withdraw.
If he does end up withdrawing the candidate would pretty much have to be Harris. She gets access to his campaign funds and machinery and anyone other than her would create a mess. Reasonable...
If he does end up withdrawing the candidate would pretty much have to be Harris. She gets access to his campaign funds and machinery and anyone other than her would create a mess.
Reasonable people can of course disagree, but I would take my chances with Harris over Biden at this point. Neither option is particularly compelling, but I don't think you need to be an all-star candidate to beat someone as disliked as Trump.
People need to stop sublimating their fears over Donald Trump’s enduring popularity into other things. It seems like every other week we have some other agent to blame for why Trump is popular,...
Biden's age and performance do not inspire confidence.
People need to stop sublimating their fears over Donald Trump’s enduring popularity into other things. It seems like every other week we have some other agent to blame for why Trump is popular, like Bernie Sanders deflating enthusiasm, Hillary Clinton being a bad campaigner, Biden being old, Kamala being Black, and on and on and on. My novel idea is this. How about we just accept at face value that Donald Trump has about half the country willing to vote for him, that these people are shitbags, and they must be defeated at all costs. How about we put the locus of agency on ourselves, as individual citizens and as an alliance of Democratic Party identifiers with aligned independents, to do something about it? It’s not anyone’s fault that Trump is popular, he simply is. Accepting that fact means accepting that we don’t just beat him with one weird trick, or the perfect candidate who makes a sufficiently compelling West Wing speech. It means the hard work of organizing people to vote!
The media’s approach to the Biden age thing seems like a mindset that fully internalized neoliberal consumerist mindsets onto politics. It’s not about organizing, it’s not about manifesting the democratic will through persuasion of the electorate. It has a very “I DEMAND TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER!” Sort of energy. You can tell it’s spoiled trust fund kids driving this because the idea that life often deals you a not-so-great hand and the only option is to play it out as best you can simply doesn’t occur to them. They expect to just be able to change the rules on the fly to suit what they want, personally, after ignoring how things were going all along and all of a sudden deciding to pay attention because the NYT editorial page decided this was the thing they wanted to wag the dog about.
On one hand, it just looks weak and pathetic. But on a more substantive note the real anxiety is also very clearly being taken advantage of by elite media and the Democratic donor class to push Biden out and it’s worth asking why they have such a bug up their butts about it. Do we think the heiress to the Disney fortune is that existentially concerned about Donald Trump winning? Or do we maybe think that these guys all have it out for the most pro-labor president we’ve had since FDR and the largest expansion of the safety net since LBJ for other reasons?
The elite media’s motivations are a lot more obvious. The Trump era gave them a fresh White House scandal every week. They could reliably get scoops and promote themselves. The Biden era has been so scandal free that they’ve been forced to do actual reporting. Biden simply being old or misspeaking is the most scandal they’ve been able to get and they’re milking it for all its worth. It’s Obama’s tan suit all over again.
All this is not to say that Biden being old isn’t a problem. It’s just that it’s not any bigger of a problem than any other candidate might have once a right wing media attack machine that compiles edits of all their most embarrassing moments will be. And it’s not at all clear that giving up incumbency advantage to have a carnival sideshow that gives journalists and MSNBC addicts more content to consume would help more than it hurts.
The fact is that this is the hand we’ve been dealt. If Biden’s not up to running as strong as he needs to, the party around him needs to strap one on and figure out how to deliver the message it needs to deliver. But I don’t actually think Biden’s not up to it, because the very people pushing him to leave now say he’s “outflanked” them and shut down their attempts to garner support. Which is it then? Is he a sleepy nincompoop or a tactical mastermind who beclowned your asses?
I don't think you do your argument any favors when you insinuate that anyone with concerns over biden's age is: a "trust fund baby" only getting worried about this now lazy and unwilling to put in...
I don't think you do your argument any favors when you insinuate that anyone with concerns over biden's age is:
a "trust fund baby"
only getting worried about this now
lazy and unwilling to put in the "actual" work of beating Donald
I've been concerned about Biden's age since the 2020 election cycle. I'm most certainly not a trust fund baby. And I have volunteered to help candidates in the past (Bernie, then Biden, actually).
I think you make a lot of valid points, otherwise. Yes, these fires are absolutely being stoked by someone powerful. Yes, Biden is very pro-labor. Hell, I would be happy if he won 2024 and got another 4 years! His appointed officials, with a couple of exceptions (Pete...) have done an amazing job and I'd be very OK if they "Weekend at Bernies'd" him until 2028, carrying on with current policy directions. But I really honestly do not think that Biden can win in November, and I am fucking terrified of another Donald presidency. I currently work for a company based out of a European country and there's a massive chance I'll emigrate if he's elected because I expect it to be such a mess.
I mean, I'm fairly up to date on my politics and out of those the only one I recognize is Whitmer. None of those candidates are ready for a presidency run in 4 months. They at minimum need a year...
I mean, I'm fairly up to date on my politics and out of those the only one I recognize is Whitmer. None of those candidates are ready for a presidency run in 4 months. They at minimum need a year of primary campaigning to get their name in the public eye. Having success in gubernatorial or other state and local level elections in swing states does not equate to having success in a national election.
This philosophy contributes to why we now have two year presidential campaigns. And why I look with envy at the length of parliamentary elections in England and France. We can have election...
This philosophy contributes to why we now have two year presidential campaigns. And why I look with envy at the length of parliamentary elections in England and France.
We can have election campaigns that aren't a year, or two. People can get informed in a month or six weeks. Honestly, the participation rate was just at its lowest every in the UK and the United States continues to see a declining participation rate. I honestly wonder without any data if a shorter campaign period in the United States might increase participation in the first few elections thereafter.
Sorry. In today's world, campaigns can easily pierce information bubbles in four to six weeks. And when the ballot still tells you the party letter next to the name, that's the only data point as vast amount of voters even care about in the first place.
It’s not about the campaigning time specifically but more that no one knows who these people are. Donald Trump or Biden wouldn’t need 2 years of campaigning. Whoever “Roy Cooper” does. French...
It’s not about the campaigning time specifically but more that no one knows who these people are. Donald Trump or Biden wouldn’t need 2 years of campaigning. Whoever “Roy Cooper” does.
French runners like Macron and Melechon and Le Pen have a lot of public eye as the leaders of their parties. The US is also a lot bigger.
Everyone democratic who could run is undercooked. They need some national history. This ain’t the cycle.
Having Trump be the opponent makes this election different in many ways. I think a candidate who could offer sanity, normalcy, comparative youth would gain many adherents quickly. Kelly was an...
Having Trump be the opponent makes this election different in many ways. I think a candidate who could offer sanity, normalcy, comparative youth would gain many adherents quickly. Kelly was an astronaut and that would sell.
But if you need more well known politicians, Newsome could do it or Adam Schiff who was a rock star in the January 6 hearings.
The “candidate of normalcy” is an argument for Biden. People know who he is and know what to expect from the people he hires. Newsom doesn’t even have a positive net favorability in California,...
The “candidate of normalcy” is an argument for Biden. People know who he is and know what to expect from the people he hires.
Newsom doesn’t even have a positive net favorability in California, and Adam Schiff is absolutely not big enough of a name.
Can we actually talk about how needlessly insulting this comment is? It's tone deaf to begin with, but like what a great way to split people on your side even more, by implying they're the thing...
You can tell it’s spoiled trust fund kids driving this because the idea that life often deals you a not-so-great hand and the only option is to play it out as best you can simply doesn’t occur to them.
Can we actually talk about how needlessly insulting this comment is? It's tone deaf to begin with, but like what a great way to split people on your side even more, by implying they're the thing they're arguing against just because they don't agree with you.
Nara, I love ya. I've always appreciated reading your thoughtful, intelligent comments. But I really disagree with you on this one. If it was about his pro-labor policies and expansion of the...
Nara, I love ya. I've always appreciated reading your thoughtful, intelligent comments. But I really disagree with you on this one.
On one hand, it just looks weak and pathetic. But on a more substantive note the real anxiety is also very clearly being taken advantage of by elite media and the Democratic donor class to push Biden out and it’s worth asking why they have such a bug up their butts about it. Do we think the heiress to the Disney fortune is that existentially concerned about Donald Trump winning? Or do we maybe think that these guys all have it out for the most pro-labor president we’ve had since FDR and the largest expansion of the safety net since LBJ for other reasons?
If it was about his pro-labor policies and expansion of the safety net, they would've been banging this drum way before the debate fiasco.
The Biden era has been so scandal free that they’ve been forced to do actual reporting. Biden simply being old or misspeaking is the most scandal they’ve been able to get and they’re milking it for all its worth. It’s Obama’s tan suit all over again.
All this is not to say that Biden being old isn’t a problem. It’s just that it’s not any bigger of a problem than any other candidate might have once a right wing media attack machine that compiles edits of all their most embarrassing moments will be.
Let's take a step back for a minute and really assess where Biden is at in terms of his age and mental acuity. Should there really be no concern over how he is going to age during his second term? Here's a comparison between 2012 and 2024. Here he is again in 2020. The difference is staggering.
Anyone who has seen a loved one age like this knows things can go downhill really fast. Two of my four grandparents suffered from dementia and it looked a lot like this. Both of them started fading after their 80th birthday and neither made it past 84. I know this is just my own personal experience, but there are tens of millions of people who have seen the same thing, and polling clearly shows that a vast majority of voters have concerns about his age. Forget about how it affects his ability to campaign, how is he going to perform his duties 3 or four years from now? We haven't had to ask these questions about a candidate in my lifetime, and despite how low the bar is for politics in 2024, there are some people out there still care about that kind of stuff. It's a big deal.
The fact is that this is the hand we’ve been dealt. If Biden’s not up to running as strong as he needs to, the party around him needs to strap one on and figure out how to deliver the message it needs to deliver.
This confuses me the most. First, it's not the hand we've been dealt - at least not the one we have to play in November. Second, this is what the party is doing right now. They gave him a week to turn things around and now we're seeing Clyburn, Pelosi, and Schiff delicately float the idea that he needs to step down. I don't know exactly what the left is trying to do in all of this right now, but the rest of the party appears to be making moves to get him out as quietly and peacefully as possible. They clearly weren't prepared for this, but now it's pretty obvious they're making moves. And if we're going to be organized in all of this, then I think the first thing we need to do is come to terms with the fact that Biden is not the candidate for this election.
On the subject of Biden's competency: I just watched an interview with Bernie this morning to check my assumptions: after all, they're close to the same age. Maybe I'm misremembering how old other...
On the subject of Biden's competency: I just watched an interview with Bernie this morning to check my assumptions: after all, they're close to the same age. Maybe I'm misremembering how old other 80 year olds seem?
Nope. Bernie's still killing it, maybe a little worse at speaking than in the past but still an excellent orator. Shit, my 89 year old grandmother is holding it together better than Biden. Anyone who suggests that Biden is doing OK is participating in the same sad denial that he's stuck in.
On paper his age is not bad compared to the other old people in politics, but when you see a clip of him nowadays, my god he seems like the oldest person in the world.
On paper his age is not bad compared to the other old people in politics, but when you see a clip of him nowadays, my god he seems like the oldest person in the world.
No blood in the water. It’s telling they’re trying to pull a fast one to make Harris not the natural successor as well. They think they’re the ones who get to pick the nominee instead of a primary...
If it was about his pro-labor policies and expansion of the safety net, they would've been banging this drum way before the debate fiasco.
No blood in the water. It’s telling they’re trying to pull a fast one to make Harris not the natural successor as well. They think they’re the ones who get to pick the nominee instead of a primary process.
Let's take a step back for a minute and really assess where Biden is at in terms of his age and mental acuity. Should there really be no concern over how he is going to age during his second term?
The perspective you’re missing is that he’s against someone who is worse than him on every conceivable metric to track mental acuity and continued capability. If he was up against Nikki Haley or something this definitely would have been a conversation worth having, but in the situation we’re currently in it’s senseless. It’s like fixating on a leaky faucet while the toilets are all overflowing with sewage.
It’s also really not that big of a deal. You’re voting for an administration not a man. The country has run with near catatonic Presidents before. It’s not ideal, but it’s also just not a crisis worth stressing over.
First, it's not the hand we've been dealt - at least not the one we have to play in November.
It is. Giving up an incumbency advantage is a big deal. As is making the main story for the rest of the election season “Dems in disarray” and have to have his successor field lines of attack about doing a cover up to hide Biden’s dementia (because him stepping aside will make that claim true even if it is farcical). I frankly don’t really care if he’s no longer capable into his next term, that’s what the 25th Amendment is for.
but now it's pretty obvious they're making moves
Nah this will all be buttoned up by the end of the week. He’s not stepping down and everyone with any juice knows it so they’re gonna play it out.
The fact is that elections swing on a lot of random shit and not qualitative evaluations of candidates like this. People vote on vibes more than anything. If people wanted someone else they would have needed to run a competitive primary, but the fact is they’d have lost. Everyone knows they’d have lost to him which is why they didn’t bother.
The problem is this idea that you just need a magically good candidate. Republicans routinely polish up turds into winning candidates because of their mastery of vibes and media cycles. Meanwhile Democrats constantly try to come up with the magically perfect, flawless candidate and assemble a circular firing squad any time a flesh and blood human turns out to have liabilities and flaws instead of figuring out how to pull a Steve Jobs and make people overlook it.
I'm not from the US, (hi over there!) but from where I'm standing, it looks to me like the incumbent advantage is now in the shadow of his declining mental acuity. The dems are already in...
I'm not from the US, (hi over there!) but from where I'm standing, it looks to me like the incumbent advantage is now in the shadow of his declining mental acuity. The dems are already in disarray. The cat is out of the bag, and if things were tight before, they're lost now. Perhaps, maybe maybe if there hadn't already been public discord amongst the dems he could have weathered this. But with his own party having so openly wondered....
Another candidate is a hail Mary, sure, but I'll happily put money down that trump beats Biden, as catastrophic as that'd be for The West, hell, for the world. Ergo for me it's time to roll the dice on another candidate.
In any case good luck to yous, and god have mercy on us all should Big Orange return.
For those of us who pay enough attention to talk about it here yeah. But I think most voters already viewed Biden the way Dem leadership has just flipped around to so the acuity issue was already...
it looks to me like the incumbent advantage is now in the shadow of his declining mental acuity.
For those of us who pay enough attention to talk about it here yeah. But I think most voters already viewed Biden the way Dem leadership has just flipped around to so the acuity issue was already priced in, hence why the polls haven’t moved much. What’s dragging him down now is a general “vibe” of weakness and chaos. Biden’s whole appeal is that it’s meant to be a no-drama administration and if he can’t keep his own party in line that cuts against that. But it’s still July and, post-convention, I think it’ll simmer down and the polling will tick back up to 50/50 or a slight Biden advantage. The real X factors are just whether we can get the media to stop its senseless crusade and whether Biden has more SOTU address caliber showings.
One thing people outside the US have trouble understanding about the American systems is that our political parties are extremely weak. They’re basically support groups for political candidates but they don’t really call many shots except for circling wagons to protect whoever is in the club from people outside it. So people don’t really vote for the parties that much on high visibility races like the Presidency. Things tend to hinge a LOT on name recognition, and many people just don’t pay much attention. There have been numerous cases (never at the Presidential level though) of literal dead people winning a race on name recognition alone. Lots of children of politicians will go by [Dad Name], [Dad (middle initial) Name], or [Dad Name] Jr. specifically to inherit their seat when they grow up because the name recognition means so much.
This is also why our political seasons are interminable. Because the parties are so weak, hopeful Presidential candidate has to spend a year or more introducing themselves all 350M+ people across the country. It’s a real mess that puts too much burden on voters to be informed IMO. But it’s what we have to deal with.
I'm not sure getting to know a mere two individuals' policies over a year, or even over a month can be called "too burdensome". "A reasonable civic duty and the price of entry of one wants a...
I'm not sure getting to know a mere two individuals' policies over a year, or even over a month can be called "too burdensome". "A reasonable civic duty and the price of entry of one wants a functioning democracy" might be closer to how I'd frame it. Will everyone perform due diligence? Sure, no. But that's not to say it intrinsically asks too much. I'm not even sure how one could ask much less of voters in fact?
In the UK we've websites that summarise a candidates voting record (patterns on various issues, expandable to show specific votes, absences, and abstentions). The civil service maintain one such website themselves at a Dot gov domain. I'd be amazed if the US doesn't have something g similar. A quick read of that tells you enough to form an opinion from my POV. We're talking maybe a half hour commitment, if that. As for the rare non-politician who runs (eg: Trump - no voting record). Well, they're always a flappy mouth celebrity running on a personal brand anyway, and to have made it past the primaries are already firmly in the public consciousness.
The presidential ticket is not the only thing people vote on. Arguably, it’s among the least important (in terms of individual impact on the race) votes people cast. A ballot will have at least a...
I'm not sure getting to know a mere two individuals' policies over a year, or even over a month can be called "too burdensome".
The presidential ticket is not the only thing people vote on. Arguably, it’s among the least important (in terms of individual impact on the race) votes people cast. A ballot will have at least a dozen individual races and additional ballot initiatives.
Keep in mind that the party ID for most people here is very weak and the parties themselves are extremely large coalitions of different factions that would be 3 or 4 separate parties in other...
Keep in mind that the party ID for most people here is very weak and the parties themselves are extremely large coalitions of different factions that would be 3 or 4 separate parties in other countries. There is literally nothing for people to anchor their sense of what a candidate stands for, and there is also basically no nation-wide office like the Presidency. It’s not like in a Westminster system where the minority party has its own “shadow government” that’s spending their entire time in the wilderness saying what they would do differently. We generally have Senators, Governors, or outsiders trying to make a case to voters around their country that their specific and narrow experience in their state or their line of business is relevant to being President. There isn’t even an internal party bureaucracy to decide that they’re capable of working well with others or of running a nation-wide political campaign. There is literally no hard data on who a candidate is or what they’re capable of on a national level until they actually run through the primaries.
I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this because it's going to make me lose my mind faster than Biden is losing his. So instead I'll just cling to the one thing I agree with you on:...
I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this because it's going to make me lose my mind faster than Biden is losing his. So instead I'll just cling to the one thing I agree with you on:
Nah this will all be buttoned up by the end of the week. He’s not stepping down and everyone with any juice knows it so they’re gonna play it out.
Yep. Because the Democrats are so helpless and ineffective they're going to sit back and watch a narcissistic old man with dementia crash and burn while the media, the voters, and most of the party beg for someone else. Democrats - always staying on brand.
The fact is that elections swing on a lot of random shit and not qualitative evaluations of candidates like this. People vote on vibes more than anything.
And as the polling shows, Joe Biden does not pass the vibe check. But hey, maybe Trump will do something so crazy people finally change their mind about him. Fingers crossed.
There is no such thing as “the democrats” capable of making these decisions. There is no decision making body to tell anyone to do anything. The fact is that if the President wants to run and has...
Because the Democrats are so helpless and ineffective they're going to sit back and watch a narcissistic old man with dementia crash and burn while the media, the voters, and most of the party beg for someone else.
There is no such thing as “the democrats” capable of making these decisions. There is no decision making body to tell anyone to do anything. The fact is that if the President wants to run and has enough delegates to get him to run then he’s running and any attempt to force him down is just going to do more damage from prolonged infighting than him staying in would.
There’s no such thing as “The Republicans” capable of doing this either, which is why Donald Trump coasted to the nomination in 2016. The parties are weak. They have no institutional strength. Whatever role they played has been replaced with media, and while the conservative media ideologically crusades for conservative politicians, the liberal media is owned by Russian bots and the mainstream media insists on both sidesing everything. That’s the way things are and you can’t formulate reality based political strategies if you can’t recognize that.
People have also recently watched RBG, Feinstein, and arguably McConnell outstay their welcome to serious detriment as well. "These people are ancient" is in the forefront of just about everyone's...
People have also recently watched RBG, Feinstein, and arguably McConnell outstay their welcome to serious detriment as well. "These people are ancient" is in the forefront of just about everyone's mind.
On top of that, it's been a little darkly ironic to see all the people who swore to me what a scandal Regan's term was bend over backwards to defend, the much older, biden.
I get that he might be the only candidate. I will be voting for him, or for whoever the dems run, and that's as someone who was staunchly against any sort of "vote X no matter what" rhetoric for most of their life.
I just don't understand this fanatical need to be "right" and not call a spade a spade. Trump is so bad I'll vote for anyone, but don't tell me biden is just the spitting image of health because he clearly isn't. He's better than I'd hoped, by a large margin, for a man that's fucking 81 years old, 85 by the end of the term should he win, but that doesn't mean I love the idea of him "running" the country.
In fact, much like regan, I suspect the real reigns of power to be handed over to cabinet picks, which I also don't love.
I'm going to take this moment to point out how the media, especially the right, has latched on to "nobody wants to work anymore" despite low unemployment since 2021 (ish). There's always been...
If it was about his pro-labor policies and expansion of the safety net, they would've been banging this drum way before the debate fiasco.
I'm going to take this moment to point out how the media, especially the right, has latched on to "nobody wants to work anymore" despite low unemployment since 2021 (ish). There's always been anti-labor propaganda, but it's smelling worse these days.
There's also the issue of timing: If you attack an opponent too early in the media cycle, you give enough time for them to mount a defense. If they had been harping on this since 2021 Biden may well have stepped aside by now and it'd be a Kamila/somebody ticket already.
It’s not his age, specifically, it’s his apparent inability to communicate substantive coherent thoughts. This video has a decent breakdown of Biden’s post-debate interview with George...
It’s not his age, specifically, it’s his apparent inability to communicate substantive coherent thoughts. This video has a decent breakdown of Biden’s post-debate interview with George Stephanopoulos. The panic is warranted, Biden’s in bad shape — not just old, but mentally fraying in visible and alarming ways. He is unfit for another term.
What does Carville know about winning exactly? Let's see in 2022 he used every single dollar from a SuperPAC behind the losing candidate and didn't even get the party nomination, losing to...
What does Carville know about winning exactly?
Let's see in 2022 he used every single dollar from a SuperPAC behind the losing candidate and didn't even get the party nomination, losing to Fetterman for a Penn Senate seat.
In 2020 he backed an also-ran Presidential candidate that received a total 1,122 primary votes, failed to qualify for the most debates of all the candidates, and worth noting that there were more write-in votes for Trump in the Democratic primary than actual votes for him. After his candidate lost, he pushed for Pelosi to cancel all the primaries and just appoint the party pick herself.
In 2008 he backed Hillary Clinton, enough said.
In 2004 he backed John Kerry, (see above).
...oh, here it is. We have to rewind 32 years to see where Carville actually did anything of consequence. He was a hanger-on to Bill Clinton's 1992 election, a year where Ross Perot played spoiler to the Republican's George H.W. Bush and therefore the Dems could have ran a loaf of bread and still won.
Also things like: Not that there aren't legitimate concerns or discussions to be had about Biden, but I have no interest in Carville's opinion.
Also things like:
Carville was retained by Palantir Technologies as a paid adviser in 2011, and was instrumental in bringing about Palantir's collaboration with the New Orleans Police Department to quietly deploy predictive policing software in New Orleans.
In February 2020, Carville suggested jettisoning the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses, letting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi select the Democratic Party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and suggested Mitt Romney should "resign from the Senate to save the Democratic Party's ass, and run our convention."
...branded Sanders as a "communist" and pejoratively labeled Sanders' base of support as a "cult", warning of the "end of days" if Sanders were to win the Democratic nomination.[177][178] Carville used his media appearances surrounding the dustup to rail against the ascendance of progressive populist Democratic policy positions such as student loan debt forgiveness[179] and "people voting from jail cells."
Not that there aren't legitimate concerns or discussions to be had about Biden, but I have no interest in Carville's opinion.
Seriously. This guy is a dinosaur who has never done anything of consequence. He represents a line of conservative democrat that needs to die, the sooner the better. He cites a "deep bench of...
Seriously. This guy is a dinosaur who has never done anything of consequence. He represents a line of conservative democrat that needs to die, the sooner the better.
He cites a "deep bench of smart, dynamic, tested leaders" and then lists no one. Who is in that group? Schumer? Pelosi? Hoyer? AOC? Tlaib? Newsom? Hochul(lol)?
Furthermore where were all of these panicking, screeching commentators 9 months ago when it actually would have made sense to, you know, maybe have an actual primary? I think it's way too late to replace Biden.
Sounds like his proposal here will pan out like all his others. Seriously though. I'm with him. The Jig is up. Except: It's Biden. Anyone else would probably simply hand the election to Trump. I...
What does Carville know about winning exactly? [..]
Sounds like his proposal here will pan out like all his others.
Seriously though. I'm with him. The Jig is up. Except: It's Biden. Anyone else would probably simply hand the election to Trump. I think his proposal is generally a good one: More democratic, more visible, better primaries are arguably as important to US democracy as fair presidential elections, seeing as how the election process is quite undemocratic, so more democratically legitimate candidates improve legitimacy. But that needs to be the process from the start, not the ad-hoc response to a perceived crisis. Next time the Dems need a candidate, take a page out of this playbook, pehaps vesting a bit less actual power in the ex presidents.
A transparent process of building consensus within the democratic party will probably help engage politically interested but disillusioned voters. Show them how the sausage is made, and that they can shape both candidate and policy selection. Even if their candidate didn't end up on the ballot, if their policies made it onto the eventual candidate's policy platform in a dilute, but visible way, they'll be more likely to show up to vote.
Has anyone here actually changed their mind on Biden post-debate? Like you were going to vote for Biden, but now you're unsure and might vote Trump or someone else or might not vote at all? I...
Has anyone here actually changed their mind on Biden post-debate? Like you were going to vote for Biden, but now you're unsure and might vote Trump or someone else or might not vote at all?
I understand that that might be too personally revealing, so does anyone know someone else ("SWIM") that is now on the fence with Biden post-debate?
Because I don't. I see plenty of discourse online about this. And in some of my social media circles, I've seen a couple people freaking out about the need to replace Biden. Not necessarily without reason; there's a younger trans person on one of my social media platforms who's rightfully terrified of anything that could lead to a Trump presidency. I can only imagine the fear they have.
But in real life, I don't know anyone in my circles, in my bubble -- which is pretty wide bubble since my friends and family are from various parts of the country -- who's mentioned switching their vote or now unsure if they're going to vote. We've talked and joked about the debate performance (or lack of it), but no one has straight up said they're now not voting for Biden.
Mysteriously, the media is only interested in piling on Biden. I can find cuts of Trump rambling incoherently and slurring while making up nonsensical almost-words, and attestations from medical...
Mysteriously, the media is only interested in piling on Biden. I can find cuts of Trump rambling incoherently and slurring while making up nonsensical almost-words, and attestations from medical professionals that he is exhibiting signs of severe dementia. There was a thread right here on Tildes a few months back.
Even if Biden were at that level, which he's not, you just cross that off both columns and you have a fascist party or a non-fascist party, with a vice president as a backup.
People need to rid themselves of the notion that our system works any different from the Westminster one: we vote for parties, not people, and the actual officials don't matter.
It's not mysterious. Rich people own the media. Don't take my word for it, don't assume I'm memeing; look it up. The wealthy have stepped in over the least two decades and bought up all the...
Exemplary
It's not mysterious.
Rich people own the media. Don't take my word for it, don't assume I'm memeing; look it up.
The wealthy have stepped in over the least two decades and bought up all the newspapers, all the networks. Radio, TV, cable, podcasts, all of it. You have to look to find an indie news source. And, if you find one that is indie and is doing well, you've probably found one a wealthy person (or wealth management fund, or venture capital firm, or investment brokerage, or something similar) is actively attempting to buy.
All of capitalism works this way. Why build a brand? What a waste of time and money. Just buy one someone else built. They probably built it to be bought, like a farmer raising a crop. They just raised a nice fresh from the farm brand, rather than a crop of wheat or beans.
Even with COVID, Trump turned out to be pretty lucrative for wealth and the wealthy. He wasn't doing it to help them, of course. He was doing it to help himself, and perhaps toss a few bones at people who were actively kissing his ass to his face. But when he did those things, allllllllllllll the rich motherfuckers made out better.
They want more of that. So ideology aside (though, I would strongly argue wealth is an ideology when you enter billionaire stratus), it directly supports their interests to see Trump reelected.
Further, a shoe-in election doesn't help ratings or engagement. So even if we assume some (or perhaps even most) media sources actually aren't actively trying to prop up Trump and see him into office a second time, they are trying what media always tries.
To play up controversy.
That's what gets people hot and bothered, gets them clicking and tuning in and calling their friends and sending out tweets and sharing links and generally driving traffic to all those media sources. They don't benefit from a calm, even, drama-free anything. Not an election, not a pandemic, not even life.
Their numbers, and thus their income, thrives off "oh shit tune in or else" mentality. Trump gets people tuning in.
It's like that old line about Howard Stern back in the 80s, when corporate bigwigs were absolutely astounded at how this guy (Stern, who they all hated because he wasn't corporate and wouldn't play the corporate game the way they wanted) was so damned popular. They'd run research and polling to try to figure it out and the answer enraged them.
Why would people tune into Stern? Or Trump? Answer most commonly given: "I want to hear what he'll say next." And people who despised Stern were many times more likely to keep listening than Stern fans.
That's what Trump does for media. Professional politicians have learned to try and tamp down and screen off and eliminate drama. Any kind of drama. They don't all succeed at it, and some of them are determined to keep some very grisly and offensive skeletons deeply buried, but the professional politics goal is to run a clean, boring everything. Clean boring image, clean boring campaign, clean boring life.
Drama creates clicks. Media wants clicks. Trump drives drama, and thus drives clicks. Clicks drives ads, and ads drive revenue.
So even the most wholesome, unpolitical, patriotic, kind and caring media bigwigs still unconsciously want Trump involved in the process. Ratings are higher whenever he's awake and Doing Something. Because, especially if you hate him, you just won't believe what he says next. You'll have to hear it. You'll see a headline and be like "no fucking way" and click, and read or listen or watch, and have to admit "fuck, he really did say that bullshit. Holy hell we're all screwed."
Most of us did that all the way through his damn presidency. I can't even begin to count how many times I saw a link or a headline or a story and thought "bullshit, there's no way ... oh shit, he really did." Over and over and over, he just said and did the most ridiculous stuff. Illegal stuff. Immoral stuff. Openly greedy and selfish stuff.
That he got away with all of it, that he's not in jail, is unfortunately a separate discussion. He should be in jail, he shouldn't be getting away with any of it. But, surprise, Democrats and governments aren't doing their jobs, and Trump is still walking around free to continue spinning bullshit.
But back to media. Most of the media bigwigs aren't nice and wholesome and caring people. They're all wealthy, or sucking up to wealth which is how they got appointed into key managing positions in these wealth-owned media companies in the first place. Which doesn't even touch on the wealthy media owners and media managers who are determined to push their personal ideologies as far and fast as they can (Fox, etc).
Greed is what's destroying America. Here, it's multiple layers of greed. Rich people who don't feel they're rich enough, hungry people of modest success eager to find a fastlane they can climb the ladders on and become not just modest but wildly successful, marketing people eager to pay for engagement which drives the greed of capitalistic media who value money not "The Fourth Estate", and garden variety power hungry scumbags who want power simply because it's power.
All of these people are either backing Trump, not obstructing him, not dealing with him, or not rallying the masses to demonize him. They all want him involved because of their greed.
And even if some of them screw up, if some of them want him around but to not actually win ... if they screw it up and manage to help him to win a second time, oh well. That's what they'll say. All they really did then was guarantee four more years of doomscrolling and "no way ... shit he really did say/do that" clicks from all of America and a good chunk of the rest of the world.
Some of those media managers would probably get fricking promoted for helping Trump win. "Good job Jenkins, ratings have been down since 2020, but now the gravy will flow again. Hope you got your spoon, because we're about to eat good."
This is a truth that the "eat the rich" crowd will never admit. Wealthy people cause harm not because they're greedier than normal people, but because they have the resources for their decisions...
hungry people of modest success eager to find a fastlane they can climb the ladders on and become not just modest but wildly successful
This is a truth that the "eat the rich" crowd will never admit. Wealthy people cause harm not because they're greedier than normal people, but because they have the resources for their decisions to have greater harmful impact.
I think a little column A and a little column B. I think plenty of folks would behave similarly given the opportunity, but I think most probably wouldn't. There will always be folks ready and...
I think a little column A and a little column B. I think plenty of folks would behave similarly given the opportunity, but I think most probably wouldn't. There will always be folks ready and eager to step in to fill those shoes and so the "eat the rich" mantra comes with a silent "and fix our institutions to withstand and disperse future aggregated capital". We got pretty close during the post depression/war time effort in the 40s; but those protective mechanisms can be removed and there will be a new generation of capitalists to fill their shoes. Barring an amendment on wealth acquisition, I don't see a permanent fix.
I don't think what you're saying goes against what most folks who enjoy the mantra "eat the rich" believe, and many of us will happily admit. Humans can be very, very greedy. We need institutions that prevent and disincentivize that sort of behavior and we need to strip the ability for regulatory capture from the hands of the rich - through taxation or potentially violence. It often feels like the former is impossible within our already heavily captured system and so the more violent option gets the attention. And we end up with "eat the rich".
I would even contend: Many people are where they are in life because they chose morals over money.
I think a little column A and a little column B. I think plenty of folks would behave similarly given the opportunity, but I think most probably wouldn't.
I would even contend: Many people are where they are in life because they chose morals over money.
Imagine a huge storm was coming and your neighbor said they aren’t going to evacuate despite advisories telling everyone it’s an emergency and everyone needs to evacuate. You are still going to...
Imagine a huge storm was coming and your neighbor said they aren’t going to evacuate despite advisories telling everyone it’s an emergency and everyone needs to evacuate. You are still going to talk to and about the neighbor. It’s useless to try and talk to the storm.
That’s the problem, Biden was already losing in swing state polls before the debate and he needed a good performance to turn the tide and show that his age wasn’t the issue less dialed in voters...
That’s the problem, Biden was already losing in swing state polls before the debate and he needed a good performance to turn the tide and show that his age wasn’t the issue less dialed in voters already believed it to be.
I’ll vote for Joe Biden regardless because Trump is an unfit, authoritarian, convicted criminal and so will many millions of people. But you need swing state voters that spend less than 5 minutes a month reading political news to vote for you if you want to win. And the debate was one of the best and only opportunities to get through to these people.
This is absolutely the real takeaway. There are a lot of swing staters who take their "I always make my decision based on who is the best candidate!" nonsense pretty seriously, and anyone who even...
This is absolutely the real takeaway. There are a lot of swing staters who take their "I always make my decision based on who is the best candidate!" nonsense pretty seriously, and anyone who even suspected that was Trump before is certain now, which both locks in any shaky Trump voters and likely turns shaky Joe voters into (at least) shaky Trump voters. I don't even know if replacing him fixes the problem, but what's inarguable is that it's worse now.
Oh, yeah, of course. I think that's missing in these discussions because a lot of partisan liberals, particularly young ones, or ones that are online a lot, or otherwise engage with this stuff...
Oh, yeah, of course. I think that's missing in these discussions because a lot of partisan liberals, particularly young ones, or ones that are online a lot, or otherwise engage with this stuff super actively, assume that everyone who supports Biden in the polling supports him because they buy the "we need to stop Trump or we are instantly in real life 1984" narrative. If you assume everyone is in that mode, then, yeah, it doesn't make sense that any of them might stop supporting Biden in this situation. But the issue polling seems to suggest most people are still in normal election mode. They just handwave in the direction of the same "The Economy" stuff they say every election. Clearly voters don't really buy the Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime story. And if they're treating this as a normal election, then you can't assume Biden turnout is a guarantee.
And on that point, to return to the original question, I haven't had a liberal tell me they're not showing up for Biden in November now, but I wouldn't really expect them to. Like, okay, we all know people who just don't vote, and they can tell you that any time of any year. But the people who don't vote don't vote anyway -- they didn't have their mind changed, and if they weren't up for grabs to begin with, then they aren't really part of the analysis of good vs poor turnout.
If we're looking for the people who would vote for Joe but won't now, I think those people would tell you right now that they prefer Joe. Then, when election day comes, they maybe think about it, or maybe not, but they don't get off the couch, or don't bother getting off work, or whatever, because they don't give a fuck. Disengagement is inactive by its very nature. I don't think we can expect it to be expressed actively! Do they still kinda prefer Biden to the point where they would rather he win? Probably! Will they show up? Not necessarily! "Hey, my vote isn't gonna make the difference anyway, why would I take time out of my day to go help out Joe fucking Biden?"
I'm generally skeptical that most voters pay attention to media narratives about the election, and even more skeptical that they really care. So I've been kinda asking around too. I know a handful...
I'm generally skeptical that most voters pay attention to media narratives about the election, and even more skeptical that they really care. So I've been kinda asking around too. I know a handful (5) in real life, who claimed it changed their mind, all Trump-Biden voters. This is out of 12 people I have bothered asking (I only asked them because I knew they were fence-sitter types so obviously that skews this pretty significantly). All of the 5 said they're probably voting Trump now, not just staying home. Most of the rest of those 12 said it was really bad and did some obnoxious "I don't know, I guess we'll just have to see... I don't like to make up my mind ahead of time" nonsense. There's that type of person you might know who makes their thing "I just want a president who can effectively manage the country!", and the people who explicitly told me they had their minds changed by this are also almost all that type (one is a retail manager who literally expressed it in manager terms lol). I don't think anyone is switching to Trump who couldn't have at least imagined themselves doing it beforehand -- this election isn't really about Joe, whom most people in the country already thought sucked. Like I said, the ones I know are 2016 Trump voters. (EDIT: a caveat here is that I live in a red area of a blue state, which is both why I know so many of these bullshit "I just vote for the best candidate!!!" types and why none of these people's votes will ever matter lmao)
I've also asked my friends from law school to survey their circles, but most of these people are very liberal, so they couldn't find examples in their friend groups, but SOME did have family members saying they wouldn't vote for Joe now. Again, though, allegedly these are people who swapped from Trump to Biden in 2020 because Trump wasn't presidential or whatever, who are now switching back because Biden is even less so. I don't think it's possible for literally anyone who voted Biden in 2020 because of the Trump apocalypse foretold by the media to switch because of this, given that those hysterics have only intensified since due to 1/6 and Project 2025.
I suspect but obviously can't prove that some of the polling shift to Trump is liberals deliberately trying to contribute to a polling shift to pressure Joe out because they're afraid of what is going to happen. But I do also think that anyone who was a Trump-Biden voter due to some antiquated "leadership" ideal (rather than fear of the end of days) is up for grabs at this point unless he drops out. And I do think there might -- MIGHT -- be enough of those guys to change something on the margins. I dunno. I think most people vote party, not candidate. Trump changes that, but Trump only changes that in the sense that he individually sucks and drives people away from him. Nobody in the entire country was voting for Joe because they thought he rocked, so nobody is going to have their preconceptions overturned here. On the other hand, if Joe now individually sucks too, then perhaps that negates the advantage literally any other Democrat would have. But again, I dunno. If your mental model of 2020 involved Trump-Biden voters mattering, then I guess I would be a little worried.
On the GOP side, he also changes that by bringing in the ride-or-die MAGA types who only care about electing The Donald, not about traditional nominal GOP values. They just want to own the libs...
Trump changes that, but Trump only changes that in the sense that he individually sucks and drives people away from him.
On the GOP side, he also changes that by bringing in the ride-or-die MAGA types who only care about electing The Donald, not about traditional nominal GOP values. They just want to own the libs and neocons alike.
I strongly doubt whether the Republicans will have a base as activist the moment term limits—whether constitutional or biological—kick Old Donnie out of the picture.
I don't think it's possible for literally anyone who voted Biden in 2020 because of the Trump apocalypse foretold by the media to switch because of this, given that those hysterics have only intensified since due to 1/6 and Project 2025.
You're probably correct. I do wonder if the intensification of hysterics caused many to check out or decide that the press is full of shit.
Project 2025 is one of the most dangerous documents ever produced by an organization that has way more influence at high levels of government than it should. It's kinda like if the Nazis had...
Project 2025 is one of the most dangerous documents ever produced by an organization that has way more influence at high levels of government than it should.
It's kinda like if the Nazis had announced before taking power "Hey guys, we're gonna round up the Jews and gas them, Vote Hitler!"
The polling seems to corroborate what you’re seeing. They’ve barely budged and the undecided voter panel during the debate seems to have come away thinking Biden’s old and slow but Trump is...
The polling seems to corroborate what you’re seeing. They’ve barely budged and the undecided voter panel during the debate seems to have come away thinking Biden’s old and slow but Trump is fucking insane.
It’s the media cycle that’s driving the narrative now irrespective of ground reality. The polling and projections are still 50/50 despite it being probably the floor of Biden’s support.
The real concern is capability to run a campaign, both operationally and motivating GOTV.
I changed my mind about Biden post debate. I’m 100% not going to vote for Trump or 3rd party, but I’m going to abstain from voting in the presidential election. I live in California so I...
I changed my mind about Biden post debate. I’m 100% not going to vote for Trump or 3rd party, but I’m going to abstain from voting in the presidential election.
I live in California so I understand that not voting in the presidential election will likely not mean that Biden loses the California delegates. I’m hoping that low turnout will show both the DNC and RNC that they need to present inspiring candidates instead of just shitting on the other side.
EDIT: I would also like to point out that it wasn’t just the debate performance. It was the horrible debate performance AND Biden saying something along the lines of only God can stop him from running. It’s one thing to be old, but the arrogance from him tipped the scales for me.
I appreciate your candor. And yeah, living in a blue state, the bluest of blues probably, it's as you say, likely NBD. So long as not everyone does the same. Which is probably highly unlikely....
I appreciate your candor. And yeah, living in a blue state, the bluest of blues probably, it's as you say, likely NBD. So long as not everyone does the same. Which is probably highly unlikely.
You're not wrong about the DNC (and RNC) choosing poor candidates. I will personally do my part to try and prevent a Trump presidency. But I get it. Aren't we supposed to be voting for someone and something, as opposed to against someone/something? I remember what it was like when I voted for Obama, both times. Even with Hillary, I still felt some of that. But in 2020, it was primarily an anti-Trump vote for me.
I like Biden enough, I do, but I don't believe he's the only person who can defeat Trump. As Biden (or meme Biden/Dark Brandon) so often says, "that's malarkey!" But I believed that more a year ago. Only because I'm not sure changing horses midstream, this close to the election, is really the correct move. I don't know what the correct move is. And it sucks.
Historian Explains Why Dropping Biden Won’t Help Democrats This historian pops up ever presidential election. He came up with a checklist that has predicted 9 out of the last 10 presidential...
This historian pops up ever presidential election. He came up with a checklist that has predicted 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. According to this ~7 minute video replacing Biden will actually hurt the chances of Democrats winning the election.
Via the historian's checklist, if Democrats can handle possible new military conflicts well they will have enough of his checklist items to win. Democrats have that many other checklist items nailed down so far.
My own opinion is that replacing Biden will help Trump win
it tells the country the Democrats made a mistake
it tells the country that Democrats are incompetent
swing voters will not know the new candidate as well as they are familiar with Trump
That guy also says that the only way the democrats can replace Biden and keep their edge is if he steps down from the presidency, and Harris finishes out his term and takes over the ticket. Which...
That guy also says that the only way the democrats can replace Biden and keep their edge is if he steps down from the presidency, and Harris finishes out his term and takes over the ticket. Which strikes me as exactly the right move - it may be riskier than just running Biden, based on this guy's system, but the risk seems worth the potential reward.
Allan Lichtman has received some criticism for his methodology, in particular, the changing from claiming the keys predicted a popular vote win to claiming they predicted an election win.
Allan Lichtman has received some criticism for his methodology, in particular, the changing from claiming the keys predicted a popular vote win to claiming they predicted an election win.
Some of the concerns about Biden are legitimate, but the media is being incredibly unfair casting a spotlight on his debate performance without even mentioning Trump's incoherence. From...
Some of the concerns about Biden are legitimate, but the media is being incredibly unfair casting a spotlight on his debate performance without even mentioning Trump's incoherence.
During a recent riff about electric batteries, Trump said: “What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery’s underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there? By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately. Do you notice that? A lot of shark … I watched some guys justifying it today: ‘Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry, but they misunderstood who she was.’ These people are crazy.”
And
Trump confused the leaders of Hungary and Turkey during a speech in New Hampshire last fall. A month later, he confused the leaders of China and North Korea.
And
In May, Trump slurred his words at a rally in Wisconsin as he referred to Biden’s “fake infrastrucker, ershure para,” before landing on “a package of infrastructure.” He then went on an incoherent rant about Master Lock.
If we're judging candidates by speaking ability, Trump isn't any better (and even worse if you try to find truth/logic in over half the things he says).
I have also seen claims that the media slammed Hillary Clinton's debate performance at some point through her campaign. However, I'm unable to find specific articles stating this, so either that isn't true, or the media sites have deleted those articles since.
So as cognitive decline sets in a lot of people have various mechanisms for decompensating. Some people learn to slow down a lot and be more deliberate in what they say or do. Other people flip...
So as cognitive decline sets in a lot of people have various mechanisms for decompensating. Some people learn to slow down a lot and be more deliberate in what they say or do. Other people flip and start rambling, often loudly and angrily. This is because anger and volume are generally proxies for confidence and competence so they can feel like they’re in control when the sort of control that matters is slipping away from them. It’s ironic then, that the least helpful way of dealing with receding capabilities, by becoming a bigger and plushies asshole, also seems to be the way that gives you a free pass from the media when running for President. He’s not suffering from cognitive decline, he’s just an angry guy! He’s always been an angry guy see!?
Never mind that in 2016 he was actually funny in a trolling sort of way despite being angry, but then turned into a totally humorless and terrified rageaholic halfway through his term after having a mystery ailment that sent him to Walter Reed for emergency surgery and then almost dying after contracting COVID.
You're spot on with the anger and being loud. Trump excels at being the loudest person in the room, which outsiders (voters) view as a strength, even if the people who work with him despise him....
You're spot on with the anger and being loud. Trump excels at being the loudest person in the room, which outsiders (voters) view as a strength, even if the people who work with him despise him. It's like having a boss who screams at you for doing your job adequately but not making him look good in the process.
I've been around this community for most of its existence and I feel like I've had a pretty good feel for the politics in here. Frankly, I'm shocked by the dismissiveness when it comes to this...
I've been around this community for most of its existence and I feel like I've had a pretty good feel for the politics in here. Frankly, I'm shocked by the dismissiveness when it comes to this issue. Yeah, I get it, no one in here is going to vote for Trump. There's nothing Biden can do or not do to change that. You guys aren't the ones who are going to determine the election though.
The election is going to come down to a few thousand people who, for reasons I will never fully understand, cant seem to pick a side and go purely off of vibes. And for these people, an 81 year old guy with a 37% approval rating who is mentally deteriorating before our eyes is probably not the best candidate.
This election should be a layup for the democrats. But instead of making it about Trump's incompetence, criminality, incredibly unpopular policies, or just his overall threat to democracy, it's now about Biden's declining mental state (and potentially his defiance towards his own party). Since the debate, Biden hasn't done anything to assuage those concerns. In fact, he's probably made it worse with his shaky pre-recorded interview and a stuttering, rambling phone appearance on Morning Joe. No amount of stump speeches is going to make up for that.
Sure, you can wring your hands at the media and Democrats who are focusing on Biden instead of Trump, but I think it's important to recognize that these people are operating under the belief that Trump poses a serious threat to democracy and stability. These are the same people who acted like his 2020 South Carolina Primary victory was the best comeback they've seen since the '04 Red Sox. They want a Democrat. The fact that they can't look away from this train wreck should say a lot about how poor of a candidate Joe Biden is.
Hmm As someone who isn't a particularly ardent adherent to Biden, I found this opinion piece rather unconvincing. I'm not inherently opposed to his replacement and I'm not especially eager for...
Hmm
As someone who isn't a particularly ardent adherent to Biden, I found this opinion piece rather unconvincing.
I'm not inherently opposed to his replacement and I'm not especially eager for Harris to insist on jumping straight to her, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of just handing the (pre-)selection over to Clinton and Obama.
The points regarding the opponent and money/voter engagement essentially also apply for the Biden status quo. Or at least I don't see mention in the essay of why they especially apply for such a replacement method.
I tried to look at the PAC he currently is listed at in the article to see what might be the driver and couldn't identify anything, but it seems somebody else here did a deeper look into him. And I don't think it's particular inspiring...
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have both shared their doubts that Biden can win. The Disney heir and other big donors have called for him to pass the torch. When Nancy Pelosi had her competence...
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have both shared their doubts that Biden can win. The Disney heir and other big donors have called for him to pass the torch.
When Nancy Pelosi had her competence challenged she gave a speech that was clear and coherent for hours demonstrating strength and intelligence. Biden had an opportunity to give a public town hall shortly after the debate if the debate problem was a one off. He can't do it. He is frail and feeble.
I will vote blue regardless but I want a president younger than seventy and I have seen at least ten names that look promising.
He literally did a town hall on the night of the debate and then made a public appearance at a Waffle House. And he’s been doing a town hall or a meet-and-greet basically every other day since in...
He literally did a town hall on the night of the debate and then made a public appearance at a Waffle House. And he’s been doing a town hall or a meet-and-greet basically every other day since in the battleground states.
He has given scripted speeches and interviews where the questions came from Biden's office. He needs to show strength, stamina, intelligence, coherence and persuasiveness. I don't think he can do...
He has given scripted speeches and interviews where the questions came from Biden's office. He needs to show strength, stamina, intelligence, coherence and persuasiveness. I don't think he can do it.
But I will fall in line after the convention regardless.
I would love to have a candidate other than Biden. In an ideal world, we could simply replace him. The risks of replacing him are huge, however. There are a million more unknowns for other...
I would love to have a candidate other than Biden. In an ideal world, we could simply replace him. The risks of replacing him are huge, however. There are a million more unknowns for other candidates. Will people actually rally behind this other candidate? What scandals/skeletons will arise? What message does it send if the DNC has to replace their chosen candidate? Can they raise enough money to be competitive? Is the other candidate actually likable? As an example, I know people love to quote Bernie Sanders polls against Donald Trump, but I have no doubt that if Sanders actually ran against Trump his comments loving communist regimes would play on repeat and shift those results significantly. We know the bar for Biden, we don't know the bar for others. Given, if Biden has one more performance against Trump similar to the last debate, it's done for. That may be a smaller risk than someone completely untested on the national stage.
It’s not even the unknowns of another candidate. If I could just snap my fingers and swap in Harris I would. The problem is there is a huge penalty we pay just to do the switch. In addition to the...
It’s not even the unknowns of another candidate. If I could just snap my fingers and swap in Harris I would. The problem is there is a huge penalty we pay just to do the switch. In addition to the loss in incumbency advantage and name recognition, you get a lot of bad blood engendered from the transition, you pay a penalty in transition time of putting a new person in charge of the campaign and consolidating support from party factions who maybe never liked you. (A primary process, for all its faults, does give supporters of losing candidates some time to process their feelings about it). And on top of that, you’re now stuck defending yourself from allegations of engaging in a “cover up” which puts you on the back foot for the rest of the campaign. The same both-sidesy editorial boards that are drumming up the Biden must resign narrative will seamlessly transition to “who is this Harris person? Nobody knows her! And also she was saying he was fine and then he quit admitting he’s not fine” and in and on.
The switching itself will be suicidal. The best option really would be a novel diagnosis or untimely death that takes Biden out of the running. Then you minimize the switching cost and get a sympathy vote.
For anyone who's actually worried that Biden is going to turn into a vegetable, isn't a vote for the Biden/Harris campaign functionally a vote for Harris anyway?
For anyone who's actually worried that Biden is going to turn into a vegetable, isn't a vote for the Biden/Harris campaign functionally a vote for Harris anyway?
That’s how I see it. But the commentariat arguments are that 1.) It’s not about whether he can do the President job, he clearly can. It’s about whether he can do the running for President job at...
That’s how I see it. But the commentariat arguments are that
1.) It’s not about whether he can do the President job, he clearly can. It’s about whether he can do the running for President job at which he is struggling.
2.) There’s a range of cognitive capabilities that are not great but not vegetable yet and they’d rather not have to worry about where he is on that range.
Not necessarily. This wouldn’t be the first time where the country was run more by the cabinet than the President or the Vice. And it’s not like that’s a comforting thing given the Vice basically...
Not necessarily. This wouldn’t be the first time where the country was run more by the cabinet than the President or the Vice.
And it’s not like that’s a comforting thing given the Vice basically doesn’t get the same exposure or coverage
I keep reading this idea (on here, from you @stu2b50 for example, and elsewhere online) that any candidate that could replace Biden needs to already "be known", or have name recognition. That...
I keep reading this idea (on here, from you @stu2b50 for example, and elsewhere online) that any candidate that could replace Biden needs to already "be known", or have name recognition. That since there aren't any candidates who are already known on a national level, no one can replace Biden.
My basic question is: why does a potential replacement need to already be well known, and why is four months before the election too late for them to gain that recognition?
On one hand, I really do think "the right candidate", if they existed, could go viral in a week. I mean, that's kind of the thing the internet is good at these days, for better or worse. So drumming up an "electoral craze" for the specific, "right candidate", is not the problem.
Then again, maybe it is the problem? Maybe there's a (especially older) core of democratic voters who wouldn't turn out to support our example candidate on such short notice?
I could also imagine fundraising and higher-level politicking within the party to be issues.
I'm interested in reading why people think it's too late or impossible for another candidate, especially a candidate who isn't currently well known, to "pick up the torch", so to speak. I'm not really interested in the aspects of "it would alienate Biden fans" or "Biden is already a known quantity", I specifically am trying to understand why some people don't think four months is enough time for anyone to replace Biden.
Has anyone noticed that the script has been flipped since the 2020 primaries? Back then the corporate centrists were saying "vote Biden, even if you hate his policies, because we need him to hold...
Has anyone noticed that the script has been flipped since the 2020 primaries? Back then the corporate centrists were saying "vote Biden, even if you hate his policies, because we need him to hold the never-Trumper vote and beat Trump" with progressives saying "no, look at Biden's policies, they're crap". But now the progressives are saying "no, stick with Biden even if you hate his policies, we need him to beat Trump" and the corporate centrists are saying "look at Biden's performance at the debate, he is an incapable president and we need someone better".
The corporate centrists have never particularly liked Biden, they just failed to find a compelling alternative candidate and everyone settled on him after South Carolina. If they actually did like...
The corporate centrists have never particularly liked Biden, they just failed to find a compelling alternative candidate and everyone settled on him after South Carolina. If they actually did like him you wouldn’t have needed to wait for SC for the tide to go in his direction.
I’m not sure there’s a good pathway out of this for Dems. Biden was sold as the steady hand on the wheel post Covid, and if he’s not that, I don’t think it matters who you put in because then the...
I’m not sure there’s a good pathway out of this for Dems. Biden was sold as the steady hand on the wheel post Covid, and if he’s not that, I don’t think it matters who you put in because then the question becomes “who is actually in charge, here?” If Biden withdraws, that is a seismic event that runs counter to the event that Dems know what they’re doing, they lose incumbency, and the question becomes how bad was Biden for how long and who knew? If Biden stays in, he wasn’t doing too hot to begin with, and Trump pantsing him on the debate that Trump was begging for, that Biden agreed to on Biden’s terms with homefield advantage is not a good look. If you’re selling the narrative that this is the guy who can beat Trump and stave off a thousand years of darkness, then you can only get so much out of “It’s fine, we know what we’re doing, the alternative is worse.” This might have to be a reset and realignment year for the party, which is ass when the opposing party wants to remake the state in their image chasing a wealth God who will never know their names, but if all the elections are always for all the marbles, eventually we’re going to have to take one on the nose.
The best case scenario is unironically if both Biden and Trump have a heart-attack and die. Then nobody has to concede on the subject of Biden's mental state, SCOTUS can't block dems from...
I’m not sure there’s a good pathway out of this for Dems.
The best case scenario is unironically if both Biden and Trump have a heart-attack and die. Then nobody has to concede on the subject of Biden's mental state, SCOTUS can't block dems from replacing a candidate this close to the election without also blocking Rs, and Rs are in disarray anyway due to Trump being irreplaceable.
This is going to sound, lame? But, If the DNC had any semblance of strategy they would have done two things preparing for this election: Went absolutely heavy in some form of governmental...
This is going to sound, lame? But, If the DNC had any semblance of strategy they would have done two things preparing for this election:
Went absolutely heavy in some form of governmental propaganda espousing the great things the government has done, the great things our country has done over the last hundred years (right to vote, improvements to health, scientific innovation, aerospace, internet, electricity, the whole lot). Just unleashed an entire government-led campaign of America as the innovation capital. I realize they are absolutely opposed to any form of propaganda on philosophical grounds, but its needed. Take back the narrative of "make america great again" and run with "America has always been great (for narrative purposes), but let's make it better, for everyone". Bring back the marketing departments that we all somehow fondly remember of the 1950-70s, the "Got Milk" of it all, and run hard. Stylized, and everywhere you go – The Bernie 2016 campaign got the closest to starting that, and it was well done and incredibly effective . It had style and substance.
Stood in a much younger, incredibly attractive person. I know, that's taboo to openly say, but its what they needed. Someone who would run so incredibly different to Trump that you bring in people who aren't even into politics just wanting to vote for the younger candidate. They don't even have to be a household name like AOC, who I hope runs on 2028, but just anyone younger with a decent clean background. Joe Kennedy III comes to mind just because he has some experience in politics, has a namesake legacy name attached, and is decent.
They really just suck at changing the narrative, or thinking ahead. They are stuck in their echo chambers of political campaigns and rarely think about optics like they used to.
It feels like the New York Times has dedicated fully 50% of their front page to panicking over Biden’s age and fitness in the past 10 days. Yes, it’s an important story; no, it is not the scandal of the century.
I guess what I’m saying is stop giving the NYT clicks.
On one hand, it is a bit much. On the other hand... if you're concerned about a second Donald presidency, (who wouldn't be?), Biden's age and performance do not inspire confidence. Maybe I've been reading too many NYT articles this last week, but it's hard to argue with the basic logic that someone in their 80s is simply not capable of doing this job well. Even if he can, I think the average American is skeptical enough to hurt him in the election... and the polls don't look good in the first place. I think Biden did a great job and his heart is in the right place, but it's time to take the car keys away from Grandpa. No matter how much he loves his car and flashes the puppy dog eyes and rants that we can take it away over his dead body.
Even if you think Biden is fully capable of being president through his mid-80s, it's time to let someone from any of the newer four generations take the wheel. We don't want a power vacuum when Biden finally does step down.
Honestly I really liked Biden before this debacle, but his reaction makes me even more worried about his mental state. How does he not see our concerns? When people ask him directly, he doesn't even seem to process what they're asking. He just regurgitates his classic stock phrases: "the point is.... the idea that... rattles off highly specific accomplishments of his presidency <flashes smile>" and never engages with the question of his age or health. Oh, yeah, every day you're in office is a neurological check? Well you clearly failed the check at the last debate, Joe, and we're worried about you.
I'm very aware (too aware?) of the issues with Biden's fitness. I personally think he should step down.
That does not, however, justify the media's - including the NYT - breathless, wall-to-wall coverage of the post-debate fallout, which has come at the expense of substantial coverage of the insane and terrifying things Trump said during the debate and plans to do in a second term.
They're playing up drama and palace intrigue for clicks, per usual.
I read the NYT every day and completely agree the coverage is crazy. Their print front page doesn't have as much of it, but the digital is just pointless rerunning of articles with little to no new information or facts.
The clicks from people outrage-sharing the articles is what justifies such wall-to-wall coverage: that or some conspiratorial nonsense.
In the end, what matters is that I still think Biden is the only person with a chance of winning against Trump. Everyone knows Biden, and they know what to expect: more of the same.
The elephant in the room for all these is "WHO", who exactly is supposed to replace Biden? The answer is usually "democratic convention", like that'll magically engineer a perfect candidate, some fantastical candidate who will not run, like Michelle Obama, or a candidate which everyone can admit is too niche to have a hope of beating Mr. In The Headlines Every Day For The Last 8 Years (AOC, Kamala, and so forth).
Winning against Trump is step 1. Doing things is step 2. Dropping biden is skipping to step 2. Your amazing young presidential candidate with full mental faculties won't do jack shit when they lose in a landslide because no one knows who they are.
For literally any of the democratic rising stars to win the presidency would be an all but impossible task. They don't get a primary season to build fame like Obama or Bernie. They get the incumbency benefit flipped on them, as Trump would be the more incumbent nominee. They don't even get a full campaigning season. It's Joever.
He may not be the president the United States needs, but he's the president the United States deserves.
My sense right now is that most people's answer for "who" is "don't care, just not Biden", and the people engaged enough to argue for a convention are saying that's the (messy, dusty) mechanism by which the question would be settled. There's no requirement that there be a clear favorite ahead of time.
I would argue that there is if you don't want to commit metaphorical suicide. If you make Joe Biden withdraw, it's, as the kids say, Joever. You can't undo that if all the candidates end up being ass. If there's no clear successor, having a massive mess at the democratic convention literally months away from the election is as good as giving Trump the crown. You may as well just not bother running for president this year.
If the people arguing for Biden to withdraw can't name a clear democratic party member which at least half of the United States has heard of, then you shouldn't try to make him withdraw.
If he does end up withdrawing the candidate would pretty much have to be Harris. She gets access to his campaign funds and machinery and anyone other than her would create a mess.
Reasonable people can of course disagree, but I would take my chances with Harris over Biden at this point. Neither option is particularly compelling, but I don't think you need to be an all-star candidate to beat someone as disliked as Trump.
People need to stop sublimating their fears over Donald Trump’s enduring popularity into other things. It seems like every other week we have some other agent to blame for why Trump is popular, like Bernie Sanders deflating enthusiasm, Hillary Clinton being a bad campaigner, Biden being old, Kamala being Black, and on and on and on. My novel idea is this. How about we just accept at face value that Donald Trump has about half the country willing to vote for him, that these people are shitbags, and they must be defeated at all costs. How about we put the locus of agency on ourselves, as individual citizens and as an alliance of Democratic Party identifiers with aligned independents, to do something about it? It’s not anyone’s fault that Trump is popular, he simply is. Accepting that fact means accepting that we don’t just beat him with one weird trick, or the perfect candidate who makes a sufficiently compelling West Wing speech. It means the hard work of organizing people to vote!
The media’s approach to the Biden age thing seems like a mindset that fully internalized neoliberal consumerist mindsets onto politics. It’s not about organizing, it’s not about manifesting the democratic will through persuasion of the electorate. It has a very “I DEMAND TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER!” Sort of energy. You can tell it’s spoiled trust fund kids driving this because the idea that life often deals you a not-so-great hand and the only option is to play it out as best you can simply doesn’t occur to them. They expect to just be able to change the rules on the fly to suit what they want, personally, after ignoring how things were going all along and all of a sudden deciding to pay attention because the NYT editorial page decided this was the thing they wanted to wag the dog about.
On one hand, it just looks weak and pathetic. But on a more substantive note the real anxiety is also very clearly being taken advantage of by elite media and the Democratic donor class to push Biden out and it’s worth asking why they have such a bug up their butts about it. Do we think the heiress to the Disney fortune is that existentially concerned about Donald Trump winning? Or do we maybe think that these guys all have it out for the most pro-labor president we’ve had since FDR and the largest expansion of the safety net since LBJ for other reasons?
The elite media’s motivations are a lot more obvious. The Trump era gave them a fresh White House scandal every week. They could reliably get scoops and promote themselves. The Biden era has been so scandal free that they’ve been forced to do actual reporting. Biden simply being old or misspeaking is the most scandal they’ve been able to get and they’re milking it for all its worth. It’s Obama’s tan suit all over again.
All this is not to say that Biden being old isn’t a problem. It’s just that it’s not any bigger of a problem than any other candidate might have once a right wing media attack machine that compiles edits of all their most embarrassing moments will be. And it’s not at all clear that giving up incumbency advantage to have a carnival sideshow that gives journalists and MSNBC addicts more content to consume would help more than it hurts.
The fact is that this is the hand we’ve been dealt. If Biden’s not up to running as strong as he needs to, the party around him needs to strap one on and figure out how to deliver the message it needs to deliver. But I don’t actually think Biden’s not up to it, because the very people pushing him to leave now say he’s “outflanked” them and shut down their attempts to garner support. Which is it then? Is he a sleepy nincompoop or a tactical mastermind who beclowned your asses?
I don't think you do your argument any favors when you insinuate that anyone with concerns over biden's age is:
I've been concerned about Biden's age since the 2020 election cycle. I'm most certainly not a trust fund baby. And I have volunteered to help candidates in the past (Bernie, then Biden, actually).
I think you make a lot of valid points, otherwise. Yes, these fires are absolutely being stoked by someone powerful. Yes, Biden is very pro-labor. Hell, I would be happy if he won 2024 and got another 4 years! His appointed officials, with a couple of exceptions (Pete...) have done an amazing job and I'd be very OK if they "Weekend at Bernies'd" him until 2028, carrying on with current policy directions. But I really honestly do not think that Biden can win in November, and I am fucking terrified of another Donald presidency. I currently work for a company based out of a European country and there's a massive chance I'll emigrate if he's elected because I expect it to be such a mess.
Who do you think out of the current democratic party has a better chance of winning against Trump and why?
Not who you asked.
Whitmer, Bashear, Shapiro, Roy Cooper and Kelly have demonstrated success and popularity in swing states which appeals to me.
I mean, I'm fairly up to date on my politics and out of those the only one I recognize is Whitmer. None of those candidates are ready for a presidency run in 4 months. They at minimum need a year of primary campaigning to get their name in the public eye. Having success in gubernatorial or other state and local level elections in swing states does not equate to having success in a national election.
This philosophy contributes to why we now have two year presidential campaigns. And why I look with envy at the length of parliamentary elections in England and France.
We can have election campaigns that aren't a year, or two. People can get informed in a month or six weeks. Honestly, the participation rate was just at its lowest every in the UK and the United States continues to see a declining participation rate. I honestly wonder without any data if a shorter campaign period in the United States might increase participation in the first few elections thereafter.
Sorry. In today's world, campaigns can easily pierce information bubbles in four to six weeks. And when the ballot still tells you the party letter next to the name, that's the only data point as vast amount of voters even care about in the first place.
It’s not about the campaigning time specifically but more that no one knows who these people are. Donald Trump or Biden wouldn’t need 2 years of campaigning. Whoever “Roy Cooper” does.
French runners like Macron and Melechon and Le Pen have a lot of public eye as the leaders of their parties. The US is also a lot bigger.
Everyone democratic who could run is undercooked. They need some national history. This ain’t the cycle.
Having Trump be the opponent makes this election different in many ways. I think a candidate who could offer sanity, normalcy, comparative youth would gain many adherents quickly. Kelly was an astronaut and that would sell.
But if you need more well known politicians, Newsome could do it or Adam Schiff who was a rock star in the January 6 hearings.
The “candidate of normalcy” is an argument for Biden. People know who he is and know what to expect from the people he hires.
Newsom doesn’t even have a positive net favorability in California, and Adam Schiff is absolutely not big enough of a name.
Biden is not assumed to be competent anymore
He is familiar but not normal
Can we actually talk about how needlessly insulting this comment is? It's tone deaf to begin with, but like what a great way to split people on your side even more, by implying they're the thing they're arguing against just because they don't agree with you.
Nara, I love ya. I've always appreciated reading your thoughtful, intelligent comments. But I really disagree with you on this one.
If it was about his pro-labor policies and expansion of the safety net, they would've been banging this drum way before the debate fiasco.
Let's take a step back for a minute and really assess where Biden is at in terms of his age and mental acuity. Should there really be no concern over how he is going to age during his second term? Here's a comparison between 2012 and 2024. Here he is again in 2020. The difference is staggering.
Anyone who has seen a loved one age like this knows things can go downhill really fast. Two of my four grandparents suffered from dementia and it looked a lot like this. Both of them started fading after their 80th birthday and neither made it past 84. I know this is just my own personal experience, but there are tens of millions of people who have seen the same thing, and polling clearly shows that a vast majority of voters have concerns about his age. Forget about how it affects his ability to campaign, how is he going to perform his duties 3 or four years from now? We haven't had to ask these questions about a candidate in my lifetime, and despite how low the bar is for politics in 2024, there are some people out there still care about that kind of stuff. It's a big deal.
This confuses me the most. First, it's not the hand we've been dealt - at least not the one we have to play in November. Second, this is what the party is doing right now. They gave him a week to turn things around and now we're seeing Clyburn, Pelosi, and Schiff delicately float the idea that he needs to step down. I don't know exactly what the left is trying to do in all of this right now, but the rest of the party appears to be making moves to get him out as quietly and peacefully as possible. They clearly weren't prepared for this, but now it's pretty obvious they're making moves. And if we're going to be organized in all of this, then I think the first thing we need to do is come to terms with the fact that Biden is not the candidate for this election.
On the subject of Biden's competency: I just watched an interview with Bernie this morning to check my assumptions: after all, they're close to the same age. Maybe I'm misremembering how old other 80 year olds seem?
Nope. Bernie's still killing it, maybe a little worse at speaking than in the past but still an excellent orator. Shit, my 89 year old grandmother is holding it together better than Biden. Anyone who suggests that Biden is doing OK is participating in the same sad denial that he's stuck in.
On paper his age is not bad compared to the other old people in politics, but when you see a clip of him nowadays, my god he seems like the oldest person in the world.
No blood in the water. It’s telling they’re trying to pull a fast one to make Harris not the natural successor as well. They think they’re the ones who get to pick the nominee instead of a primary process.
The perspective you’re missing is that he’s against someone who is worse than him on every conceivable metric to track mental acuity and continued capability. If he was up against Nikki Haley or something this definitely would have been a conversation worth having, but in the situation we’re currently in it’s senseless. It’s like fixating on a leaky faucet while the toilets are all overflowing with sewage.
It’s also really not that big of a deal. You’re voting for an administration not a man. The country has run with near catatonic Presidents before. It’s not ideal, but it’s also just not a crisis worth stressing over.
It is. Giving up an incumbency advantage is a big deal. As is making the main story for the rest of the election season “Dems in disarray” and have to have his successor field lines of attack about doing a cover up to hide Biden’s dementia (because him stepping aside will make that claim true even if it is farcical). I frankly don’t really care if he’s no longer capable into his next term, that’s what the 25th Amendment is for.
Nah this will all be buttoned up by the end of the week. He’s not stepping down and everyone with any juice knows it so they’re gonna play it out.
The fact is that elections swing on a lot of random shit and not qualitative evaluations of candidates like this. People vote on vibes more than anything. If people wanted someone else they would have needed to run a competitive primary, but the fact is they’d have lost. Everyone knows they’d have lost to him which is why they didn’t bother.
The problem is this idea that you just need a magically good candidate. Republicans routinely polish up turds into winning candidates because of their mastery of vibes and media cycles. Meanwhile Democrats constantly try to come up with the magically perfect, flawless candidate and assemble a circular firing squad any time a flesh and blood human turns out to have liabilities and flaws instead of figuring out how to pull a Steve Jobs and make people overlook it.
I'm not from the US, (hi over there!) but from where I'm standing, it looks to me like the incumbent advantage is now in the shadow of his declining mental acuity. The dems are already in disarray. The cat is out of the bag, and if things were tight before, they're lost now. Perhaps, maybe maybe if there hadn't already been public discord amongst the dems he could have weathered this. But with his own party having so openly wondered....
Another candidate is a hail Mary, sure, but I'll happily put money down that trump beats Biden, as catastrophic as that'd be for The West, hell, for the world. Ergo for me it's time to roll the dice on another candidate.
In any case good luck to yous, and god have mercy on us all should Big Orange return.
For those of us who pay enough attention to talk about it here yeah. But I think most voters already viewed Biden the way Dem leadership has just flipped around to so the acuity issue was already priced in, hence why the polls haven’t moved much. What’s dragging him down now is a general “vibe” of weakness and chaos. Biden’s whole appeal is that it’s meant to be a no-drama administration and if he can’t keep his own party in line that cuts against that. But it’s still July and, post-convention, I think it’ll simmer down and the polling will tick back up to 50/50 or a slight Biden advantage. The real X factors are just whether we can get the media to stop its senseless crusade and whether Biden has more SOTU address caliber showings.
One thing people outside the US have trouble understanding about the American systems is that our political parties are extremely weak. They’re basically support groups for political candidates but they don’t really call many shots except for circling wagons to protect whoever is in the club from people outside it. So people don’t really vote for the parties that much on high visibility races like the Presidency. Things tend to hinge a LOT on name recognition, and many people just don’t pay much attention. There have been numerous cases (never at the Presidential level though) of literal dead people winning a race on name recognition alone. Lots of children of politicians will go by [Dad Name], [Dad (middle initial) Name], or [Dad Name] Jr. specifically to inherit their seat when they grow up because the name recognition means so much.
This is also why our political seasons are interminable. Because the parties are so weak, hopeful Presidential candidate has to spend a year or more introducing themselves all 350M+ people across the country. It’s a real mess that puts too much burden on voters to be informed IMO. But it’s what we have to deal with.
I'm not sure getting to know a mere two individuals' policies over a year, or even over a month can be called "too burdensome". "A reasonable civic duty and the price of entry of one wants a functioning democracy" might be closer to how I'd frame it. Will everyone perform due diligence? Sure, no. But that's not to say it intrinsically asks too much. I'm not even sure how one could ask much less of voters in fact?
In the UK we've websites that summarise a candidates voting record (patterns on various issues, expandable to show specific votes, absences, and abstentions). The civil service maintain one such website themselves at a Dot gov domain. I'd be amazed if the US doesn't have something g similar. A quick read of that tells you enough to form an opinion from my POV. We're talking maybe a half hour commitment, if that. As for the rare non-politician who runs (eg: Trump - no voting record). Well, they're always a flappy mouth celebrity running on a personal brand anyway, and to have made it past the primaries are already firmly in the public consciousness.
The presidential ticket is not the only thing people vote on. Arguably, it’s among the least important (in terms of individual impact on the race) votes people cast. A ballot will have at least a dozen individual races and additional ballot initiatives.
Fair. Though I was referring specifically to the notion that it's difficult for two presidential candidates to introduce themselves to 350m Americans.
Keep in mind that the party ID for most people here is very weak and the parties themselves are extremely large coalitions of different factions that would be 3 or 4 separate parties in other countries. There is literally nothing for people to anchor their sense of what a candidate stands for, and there is also basically no nation-wide office like the Presidency. It’s not like in a Westminster system where the minority party has its own “shadow government” that’s spending their entire time in the wilderness saying what they would do differently. We generally have Senators, Governors, or outsiders trying to make a case to voters around their country that their specific and narrow experience in their state or their line of business is relevant to being President. There isn’t even an internal party bureaucracy to decide that they’re capable of working well with others or of running a nation-wide political campaign. There is literally no hard data on who a candidate is or what they’re capable of on a national level until they actually run through the primaries.
I should say I found your post interesting! Just wanted to dispute a small part in the final paragraph!
I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this because it's going to make me lose my mind faster than Biden is losing his. So instead I'll just cling to the one thing I agree with you on:
Yep. Because the Democrats are so helpless and ineffective they're going to sit back and watch a narcissistic old man with dementia crash and burn while the media, the voters, and most of the party beg for someone else. Democrats - always staying on brand.
And as the polling shows, Joe Biden does not pass the vibe check. But hey, maybe Trump will do something so crazy people finally change their mind about him. Fingers crossed.
There is no such thing as “the democrats” capable of making these decisions. There is no decision making body to tell anyone to do anything. The fact is that if the President wants to run and has enough delegates to get him to run then he’s running and any attempt to force him down is just going to do more damage from prolonged infighting than him staying in would.
There’s no such thing as “The Republicans” capable of doing this either, which is why Donald Trump coasted to the nomination in 2016. The parties are weak. They have no institutional strength. Whatever role they played has been replaced with media, and while the conservative media ideologically crusades for conservative politicians, the liberal media is owned by Russian bots and the mainstream media insists on both sidesing everything. That’s the way things are and you can’t formulate reality based political strategies if you can’t recognize that.
People have also recently watched RBG, Feinstein, and arguably McConnell outstay their welcome to serious detriment as well. "These people are ancient" is in the forefront of just about everyone's mind.
On top of that, it's been a little darkly ironic to see all the people who swore to me what a scandal Regan's term was bend over backwards to defend, the much older, biden.
I get that he might be the only candidate. I will be voting for him, or for whoever the dems run, and that's as someone who was staunchly against any sort of "vote X no matter what" rhetoric for most of their life.
I just don't understand this fanatical need to be "right" and not call a spade a spade. Trump is so bad I'll vote for anyone, but don't tell me biden is just the spitting image of health because he clearly isn't. He's better than I'd hoped, by a large margin, for a man that's fucking 81 years old, 85 by the end of the term should he win, but that doesn't mean I love the idea of him "running" the country.
In fact, much like regan, I suspect the real reigns of power to be handed over to cabinet picks, which I also don't love.
I'm going to take this moment to point out how the media, especially the right, has latched on to "nobody wants to work anymore" despite low unemployment since 2021 (ish). There's always been anti-labor propaganda, but it's smelling worse these days.
There's also the issue of timing: If you attack an opponent too early in the media cycle, you give enough time for them to mount a defense. If they had been harping on this since 2021 Biden may well have stepped aside by now and it'd be a Kamila/somebody ticket already.
It’s not his age, specifically, it’s his apparent inability to communicate substantive coherent thoughts. This video has a decent breakdown of Biden’s post-debate interview with George Stephanopoulos. The panic is warranted, Biden’s in bad shape — not just old, but mentally fraying in visible and alarming ways. He is unfit for another term.
What does Carville know about winning exactly?
Let's see in 2022 he used every single dollar from a SuperPAC behind the losing candidate and didn't even get the party nomination, losing to Fetterman for a Penn Senate seat.
In 2020 he backed an also-ran Presidential candidate that received a total 1,122 primary votes, failed to qualify for the most debates of all the candidates, and worth noting that there were more write-in votes for Trump in the Democratic primary than actual votes for him. After his candidate lost, he pushed for Pelosi to cancel all the primaries and just appoint the party pick herself.
In 2008 he backed Hillary Clinton, enough said.
In 2004 he backed John Kerry, (see above).
...oh, here it is. We have to rewind 32 years to see where Carville actually did anything of consequence. He was a hanger-on to Bill Clinton's 1992 election, a year where Ross Perot played spoiler to the Republican's George H.W. Bush and therefore the Dems could have ran a loaf of bread and still won.
Also things like:
Not that there aren't legitimate concerns or discussions to be had about Biden, but I have no interest in Carville's opinion.
Seriously. This guy is a dinosaur who has never done anything of consequence. He represents a line of conservative democrat that needs to die, the sooner the better.
He cites a "deep bench of smart, dynamic, tested leaders" and then lists no one. Who is in that group? Schumer? Pelosi? Hoyer? AOC? Tlaib? Newsom? Hochul(lol)?
Furthermore where were all of these panicking, screeching commentators 9 months ago when it actually would have made sense to, you know, maybe have an actual primary? I think it's way too late to replace Biden.
Sounds like his proposal here will pan out like all his others.
Seriously though. I'm with him. The Jig is up. Except: It's Biden. Anyone else would probably simply hand the election to Trump. I think his proposal is generally a good one: More democratic, more visible, better primaries are arguably as important to US democracy as fair presidential elections, seeing as how the election process is quite undemocratic, so more democratically legitimate candidates improve legitimacy. But that needs to be the process from the start, not the ad-hoc response to a perceived crisis. Next time the Dems need a candidate, take a page out of this playbook, pehaps vesting a bit less actual power in the ex presidents.
A transparent process of building consensus within the democratic party will probably help engage politically interested but disillusioned voters. Show them how the sausage is made, and that they can shape both candidate and policy selection. Even if their candidate didn't end up on the ballot, if their policies made it onto the eventual candidate's policy platform in a dilute, but visible way, they'll be more likely to show up to vote.
Has anyone here actually changed their mind on Biden post-debate? Like you were going to vote for Biden, but now you're unsure and might vote Trump or someone else or might not vote at all?
I understand that that might be too personally revealing, so does anyone know someone else ("SWIM") that is now on the fence with Biden post-debate?
Because I don't. I see plenty of discourse online about this. And in some of my social media circles, I've seen a couple people freaking out about the need to replace Biden. Not necessarily without reason; there's a younger trans person on one of my social media platforms who's rightfully terrified of anything that could lead to a Trump presidency. I can only imagine the fear they have.
But in real life, I don't know anyone in my circles, in my bubble -- which is pretty wide bubble since my friends and family are from various parts of the country -- who's mentioned switching their vote or now unsure if they're going to vote. We've talked and joked about the debate performance (or lack of it), but no one has straight up said they're now not voting for Biden.
Just curious.
Mysteriously, the media is only interested in piling on Biden. I can find cuts of Trump rambling incoherently and slurring while making up nonsensical almost-words, and attestations from medical professionals that he is exhibiting signs of severe dementia. There was a thread right here on Tildes a few months back.
Even if Biden were at that level, which he's not, you just cross that off both columns and you have a fascist party or a non-fascist party, with a vice president as a backup.
People need to rid themselves of the notion that our system works any different from the Westminster one: we vote for parties, not people, and the actual officials don't matter.
It's not mysterious.
Rich people own the media. Don't take my word for it, don't assume I'm memeing; look it up.
The wealthy have stepped in over the least two decades and bought up all the newspapers, all the networks. Radio, TV, cable, podcasts, all of it. You have to look to find an indie news source. And, if you find one that is indie and is doing well, you've probably found one a wealthy person (or wealth management fund, or venture capital firm, or investment brokerage, or something similar) is actively attempting to buy.
All of capitalism works this way. Why build a brand? What a waste of time and money. Just buy one someone else built. They probably built it to be bought, like a farmer raising a crop. They just raised a nice fresh from the farm brand, rather than a crop of wheat or beans.
Even with COVID, Trump turned out to be pretty lucrative for wealth and the wealthy. He wasn't doing it to help them, of course. He was doing it to help himself, and perhaps toss a few bones at people who were actively kissing his ass to his face. But when he did those things, allllllllllllll the rich motherfuckers made out better.
They want more of that. So ideology aside (though, I would strongly argue wealth is an ideology when you enter billionaire stratus), it directly supports their interests to see Trump reelected.
Further, a shoe-in election doesn't help ratings or engagement. So even if we assume some (or perhaps even most) media sources actually aren't actively trying to prop up Trump and see him into office a second time, they are trying what media always tries.
To play up controversy.
That's what gets people hot and bothered, gets them clicking and tuning in and calling their friends and sending out tweets and sharing links and generally driving traffic to all those media sources. They don't benefit from a calm, even, drama-free anything. Not an election, not a pandemic, not even life.
Their numbers, and thus their income, thrives off "oh shit tune in or else" mentality. Trump gets people tuning in.
It's like that old line about Howard Stern back in the 80s, when corporate bigwigs were absolutely astounded at how this guy (Stern, who they all hated because he wasn't corporate and wouldn't play the corporate game the way they wanted) was so damned popular. They'd run research and polling to try to figure it out and the answer enraged them.
Why would people tune into Stern? Or Trump? Answer most commonly given: "I want to hear what he'll say next." And people who despised Stern were many times more likely to keep listening than Stern fans.
That's what Trump does for media. Professional politicians have learned to try and tamp down and screen off and eliminate drama. Any kind of drama. They don't all succeed at it, and some of them are determined to keep some very grisly and offensive skeletons deeply buried, but the professional politics goal is to run a clean, boring everything. Clean boring image, clean boring campaign, clean boring life.
Drama creates clicks. Media wants clicks. Trump drives drama, and thus drives clicks. Clicks drives ads, and ads drive revenue.
So even the most wholesome, unpolitical, patriotic, kind and caring media bigwigs still unconsciously want Trump involved in the process. Ratings are higher whenever he's awake and Doing Something. Because, especially if you hate him, you just won't believe what he says next. You'll have to hear it. You'll see a headline and be like "no fucking way" and click, and read or listen or watch, and have to admit "fuck, he really did say that bullshit. Holy hell we're all screwed."
Most of us did that all the way through his damn presidency. I can't even begin to count how many times I saw a link or a headline or a story and thought "bullshit, there's no way ... oh shit, he really did." Over and over and over, he just said and did the most ridiculous stuff. Illegal stuff. Immoral stuff. Openly greedy and selfish stuff.
That he got away with all of it, that he's not in jail, is unfortunately a separate discussion. He should be in jail, he shouldn't be getting away with any of it. But, surprise, Democrats and governments aren't doing their jobs, and Trump is still walking around free to continue spinning bullshit.
But back to media. Most of the media bigwigs aren't nice and wholesome and caring people. They're all wealthy, or sucking up to wealth which is how they got appointed into key managing positions in these wealth-owned media companies in the first place. Which doesn't even touch on the wealthy media owners and media managers who are determined to push their personal ideologies as far and fast as they can (Fox, etc).
Greed is what's destroying America. Here, it's multiple layers of greed. Rich people who don't feel they're rich enough, hungry people of modest success eager to find a fastlane they can climb the ladders on and become not just modest but wildly successful, marketing people eager to pay for engagement which drives the greed of capitalistic media who value money not "The Fourth Estate", and garden variety power hungry scumbags who want power simply because it's power.
All of these people are either backing Trump, not obstructing him, not dealing with him, or not rallying the masses to demonize him. They all want him involved because of their greed.
And even if some of them screw up, if some of them want him around but to not actually win ... if they screw it up and manage to help him to win a second time, oh well. That's what they'll say. All they really did then was guarantee four more years of doomscrolling and "no way ... shit he really did say/do that" clicks from all of America and a good chunk of the rest of the world.
Some of those media managers would probably get fricking promoted for helping Trump win. "Good job Jenkins, ratings have been down since 2020, but now the gravy will flow again. Hope you got your spoon, because we're about to eat good."
This is a truth that the "eat the rich" crowd will never admit. Wealthy people cause harm not because they're greedier than normal people, but because they have the resources for their decisions to have greater harmful impact.
I think a little column A and a little column B. I think plenty of folks would behave similarly given the opportunity, but I think most probably wouldn't. There will always be folks ready and eager to step in to fill those shoes and so the "eat the rich" mantra comes with a silent "and fix our institutions to withstand and disperse future aggregated capital". We got pretty close during the post depression/war time effort in the 40s; but those protective mechanisms can be removed and there will be a new generation of capitalists to fill their shoes. Barring an amendment on wealth acquisition, I don't see a permanent fix.
I don't think what you're saying goes against what most folks who enjoy the mantra "eat the rich" believe, and many of us will happily admit. Humans can be very, very greedy. We need institutions that prevent and disincentivize that sort of behavior and we need to strip the ability for regulatory capture from the hands of the rich - through taxation or potentially violence. It often feels like the former is impossible within our already heavily captured system and so the more violent option gets the attention. And we end up with "eat the rich".
I would even contend: Many people are where they are in life because they chose morals over money.
Imagine a huge storm was coming and your neighbor said they aren’t going to evacuate despite advisories telling everyone it’s an emergency and everyone needs to evacuate. You are still going to talk to and about the neighbor. It’s useless to try and talk to the storm.
That’s the problem, Biden was already losing in swing state polls before the debate and he needed a good performance to turn the tide and show that his age wasn’t the issue less dialed in voters already believed it to be.
I’ll vote for Joe Biden regardless because Trump is an unfit, authoritarian, convicted criminal and so will many millions of people. But you need swing state voters that spend less than 5 minutes a month reading political news to vote for you if you want to win. And the debate was one of the best and only opportunities to get through to these people.
This is absolutely the real takeaway. There are a lot of swing staters who take their "I always make my decision based on who is the best candidate!" nonsense pretty seriously, and anyone who even suspected that was Trump before is certain now, which both locks in any shaky Trump voters and likely turns shaky Joe voters into (at least) shaky Trump voters. I don't even know if replacing him fixes the problem, but what's inarguable is that it's worse now.
It’s not just about people deciding who to vote for. To a much larger extent it’s about getting people to decide to vote at all.
Oh, yeah, of course. I think that's missing in these discussions because a lot of partisan liberals, particularly young ones, or ones that are online a lot, or otherwise engage with this stuff super actively, assume that everyone who supports Biden in the polling supports him because they buy the "we need to stop Trump or we are instantly in real life 1984" narrative. If you assume everyone is in that mode, then, yeah, it doesn't make sense that any of them might stop supporting Biden in this situation. But the issue polling seems to suggest most people are still in normal election mode. They just handwave in the direction of the same "The Economy" stuff they say every election. Clearly voters don't really buy the Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime story. And if they're treating this as a normal election, then you can't assume Biden turnout is a guarantee.
And on that point, to return to the original question, I haven't had a liberal tell me they're not showing up for Biden in November now, but I wouldn't really expect them to. Like, okay, we all know people who just don't vote, and they can tell you that any time of any year. But the people who don't vote don't vote anyway -- they didn't have their mind changed, and if they weren't up for grabs to begin with, then they aren't really part of the analysis of good vs poor turnout.
If we're looking for the people who would vote for Joe but won't now, I think those people would tell you right now that they prefer Joe. Then, when election day comes, they maybe think about it, or maybe not, but they don't get off the couch, or don't bother getting off work, or whatever, because they don't give a fuck. Disengagement is inactive by its very nature. I don't think we can expect it to be expressed actively! Do they still kinda prefer Biden to the point where they would rather he win? Probably! Will they show up? Not necessarily! "Hey, my vote isn't gonna make the difference anyway, why would I take time out of my day to go help out Joe fucking Biden?"
I'm generally skeptical that most voters pay attention to media narratives about the election, and even more skeptical that they really care. So I've been kinda asking around too. I know a handful (5) in real life, who claimed it changed their mind, all Trump-Biden voters. This is out of 12 people I have bothered asking (I only asked them because I knew they were fence-sitter types so obviously that skews this pretty significantly). All of the 5 said they're probably voting Trump now, not just staying home. Most of the rest of those 12 said it was really bad and did some obnoxious "I don't know, I guess we'll just have to see... I don't like to make up my mind ahead of time" nonsense. There's that type of person you might know who makes their thing "I just want a president who can effectively manage the country!", and the people who explicitly told me they had their minds changed by this are also almost all that type (one is a retail manager who literally expressed it in manager terms lol). I don't think anyone is switching to Trump who couldn't have at least imagined themselves doing it beforehand -- this election isn't really about Joe, whom most people in the country already thought sucked. Like I said, the ones I know are 2016 Trump voters. (EDIT: a caveat here is that I live in a red area of a blue state, which is both why I know so many of these bullshit "I just vote for the best candidate!!!" types and why none of these people's votes will ever matter lmao)
I've also asked my friends from law school to survey their circles, but most of these people are very liberal, so they couldn't find examples in their friend groups, but SOME did have family members saying they wouldn't vote for Joe now. Again, though, allegedly these are people who swapped from Trump to Biden in 2020 because Trump wasn't presidential or whatever, who are now switching back because Biden is even less so. I don't think it's possible for literally anyone who voted Biden in 2020 because of the Trump apocalypse foretold by the media to switch because of this, given that those hysterics have only intensified since due to 1/6 and Project 2025.
I suspect but obviously can't prove that some of the polling shift to Trump is liberals deliberately trying to contribute to a polling shift to pressure Joe out because they're afraid of what is going to happen. But I do also think that anyone who was a Trump-Biden voter due to some antiquated "leadership" ideal (rather than fear of the end of days) is up for grabs at this point unless he drops out. And I do think there might -- MIGHT -- be enough of those guys to change something on the margins. I dunno. I think most people vote party, not candidate. Trump changes that, but Trump only changes that in the sense that he individually sucks and drives people away from him. Nobody in the entire country was voting for Joe because they thought he rocked, so nobody is going to have their preconceptions overturned here. On the other hand, if Joe now individually sucks too, then perhaps that negates the advantage literally any other Democrat would have. But again, I dunno. If your mental model of 2020 involved Trump-Biden voters mattering, then I guess I would be a little worried.
On the GOP side, he also changes that by bringing in the ride-or-die MAGA types who only care about electing The Donald, not about traditional nominal GOP values. They just want to own the libs and neocons alike.
I strongly doubt whether the Republicans will have a base as activist the moment term limits—whether constitutional or biological—kick Old Donnie out of the picture.
You're probably correct. I do wonder if the intensification of hysterics caused many to check out or decide that the press is full of shit.
Project 2025 is one of the most dangerous documents ever produced by an organization that has way more influence at high levels of government than it should.
It's kinda like if the Nazis had announced before taking power "Hey guys, we're gonna round up the Jews and gas them, Vote Hitler!"
The polling seems to corroborate what you’re seeing. They’ve barely budged and the undecided voter panel during the debate seems to have come away thinking Biden’s old and slow but Trump is fucking insane.
It’s the media cycle that’s driving the narrative now irrespective of ground reality. The polling and projections are still 50/50 despite it being probably the floor of Biden’s support.
The real concern is capability to run a campaign, both operationally and motivating GOTV.
I changed my mind about Biden post debate. I’m 100% not going to vote for Trump or 3rd party, but I’m going to abstain from voting in the presidential election.
I live in California so I understand that not voting in the presidential election will likely not mean that Biden loses the California delegates. I’m hoping that low turnout will show both the DNC and RNC that they need to present inspiring candidates instead of just shitting on the other side.
EDIT: I would also like to point out that it wasn’t just the debate performance. It was the horrible debate performance AND Biden saying something along the lines of only God can stop him from running. It’s one thing to be old, but the arrogance from him tipped the scales for me.
I appreciate your candor. And yeah, living in a blue state, the bluest of blues probably, it's as you say, likely NBD. So long as not everyone does the same. Which is probably highly unlikely.
You're not wrong about the DNC (and RNC) choosing poor candidates. I will personally do my part to try and prevent a Trump presidency. But I get it. Aren't we supposed to be voting for someone and something, as opposed to against someone/something? I remember what it was like when I voted for Obama, both times. Even with Hillary, I still felt some of that. But in 2020, it was primarily an anti-Trump vote for me.
I like Biden enough, I do, but I don't believe he's the only person who can defeat Trump. As Biden (or meme Biden/Dark Brandon) so often says, "that's malarkey!" But I believed that more a year ago. Only because I'm not sure changing horses midstream, this close to the election, is really the correct move. I don't know what the correct move is. And it sucks.
Historian Explains Why Dropping Biden Won’t Help Democrats
This historian pops up ever presidential election. He came up with a checklist that has predicted 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. According to this ~7 minute video replacing Biden will actually hurt the chances of Democrats winning the election.
Via the historian's checklist, if Democrats can handle possible new military conflicts well they will have enough of his checklist items to win. Democrats have that many other checklist items nailed down so far.
My own opinion is that replacing Biden will help Trump win
That guy also says that the only way the democrats can replace Biden and keep their edge is if he steps down from the presidency, and Harris finishes out his term and takes over the ticket. Which strikes me as exactly the right move - it may be riskier than just running Biden, based on this guy's system, but the risk seems worth the potential reward.
Allan Lichtman has received some criticism for his methodology, in particular, the changing from claiming the keys predicted a popular vote win to claiming they predicted an election win.
Some of the concerns about Biden are legitimate, but the media is being incredibly unfair casting a spotlight on his debate performance without even mentioning Trump's incoherence.
From https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-verbal-miscues-presidential-debate-20240706.html
And
And
If we're judging candidates by speaking ability, Trump isn't any better (and even worse if you try to find truth/logic in over half the things he says).
I have also seen claims that the media slammed Hillary Clinton's debate performance at some point through her campaign. However, I'm unable to find specific articles stating this, so either that isn't true, or the media sites have deleted those articles since.
So as cognitive decline sets in a lot of people have various mechanisms for decompensating. Some people learn to slow down a lot and be more deliberate in what they say or do. Other people flip and start rambling, often loudly and angrily. This is because anger and volume are generally proxies for confidence and competence so they can feel like they’re in control when the sort of control that matters is slipping away from them. It’s ironic then, that the least helpful way of dealing with receding capabilities, by becoming a bigger and plushies asshole, also seems to be the way that gives you a free pass from the media when running for President. He’s not suffering from cognitive decline, he’s just an angry guy! He’s always been an angry guy see!?
Never mind that in 2016 he was actually funny in a trolling sort of way despite being angry, but then turned into a totally humorless and terrified rageaholic halfway through his term after having a mystery ailment that sent him to Walter Reed for emergency surgery and then almost dying after contracting COVID.
You're spot on with the anger and being loud. Trump excels at being the loudest person in the room, which outsiders (voters) view as a strength, even if the people who work with him despise him. It's like having a boss who screams at you for doing your job adequately but not making him look good in the process.
I've been around this community for most of its existence and I feel like I've had a pretty good feel for the politics in here. Frankly, I'm shocked by the dismissiveness when it comes to this issue. Yeah, I get it, no one in here is going to vote for Trump. There's nothing Biden can do or not do to change that. You guys aren't the ones who are going to determine the election though.
The election is going to come down to a few thousand people who, for reasons I will never fully understand, cant seem to pick a side and go purely off of vibes. And for these people, an 81 year old guy with a 37% approval rating who is mentally deteriorating before our eyes is probably not the best candidate.
This election should be a layup for the democrats. But instead of making it about Trump's incompetence, criminality, incredibly unpopular policies, or just his overall threat to democracy, it's now about Biden's declining mental state (and potentially his defiance towards his own party). Since the debate, Biden hasn't done anything to assuage those concerns. In fact, he's probably made it worse with his shaky pre-recorded interview and a stuttering, rambling phone appearance on Morning Joe. No amount of stump speeches is going to make up for that.
Sure, you can wring your hands at the media and Democrats who are focusing on Biden instead of Trump, but I think it's important to recognize that these people are operating under the belief that Trump poses a serious threat to democracy and stability. These are the same people who acted like his 2020 South Carolina Primary victory was the best comeback they've seen since the '04 Red Sox. They want a Democrat. The fact that they can't look away from this train wreck should say a lot about how poor of a candidate Joe Biden is.
Hmm
As someone who isn't a particularly ardent adherent to Biden, I found this opinion piece rather unconvincing.
I'm not inherently opposed to his replacement and I'm not especially eager for Harris to insist on jumping straight to her, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of just handing the (pre-)selection over to Clinton and Obama.
The points regarding the opponent and money/voter engagement essentially also apply for the Biden status quo. Or at least I don't see mention in the essay of why they especially apply for such a replacement method.
I tried to look at the PAC he currently is listed at in the article to see what might be the driver and couldn't identify anything, but it seems somebody else here did a deeper look into him. And I don't think it's particular inspiring...
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have both shared their doubts that Biden can win. The Disney heir and other big donors have called for him to pass the torch.
When Nancy Pelosi had her competence challenged she gave a speech that was clear and coherent for hours demonstrating strength and intelligence. Biden had an opportunity to give a public town hall shortly after the debate if the debate problem was a one off. He can't do it. He is frail and feeble.
I will vote blue regardless but I want a president younger than seventy and I have seen at least ten names that look promising.
He literally did a town hall on the night of the debate and then made a public appearance at a Waffle House. And he’s been doing a town hall or a meet-and-greet basically every other day since in the battleground states.
He has given scripted speeches and interviews where the questions came from Biden's office. He needs to show strength, stamina, intelligence, coherence and persuasiveness. I don't think he can do it.
But I will fall in line after the convention regardless.
I would love to have a candidate other than Biden. In an ideal world, we could simply replace him. The risks of replacing him are huge, however. There are a million more unknowns for other candidates. Will people actually rally behind this other candidate? What scandals/skeletons will arise? What message does it send if the DNC has to replace their chosen candidate? Can they raise enough money to be competitive? Is the other candidate actually likable? As an example, I know people love to quote Bernie Sanders polls against Donald Trump, but I have no doubt that if Sanders actually ran against Trump his comments loving communist regimes would play on repeat and shift those results significantly. We know the bar for Biden, we don't know the bar for others. Given, if Biden has one more performance against Trump similar to the last debate, it's done for. That may be a smaller risk than someone completely untested on the national stage.
It’s not even the unknowns of another candidate. If I could just snap my fingers and swap in Harris I would. The problem is there is a huge penalty we pay just to do the switch. In addition to the loss in incumbency advantage and name recognition, you get a lot of bad blood engendered from the transition, you pay a penalty in transition time of putting a new person in charge of the campaign and consolidating support from party factions who maybe never liked you. (A primary process, for all its faults, does give supporters of losing candidates some time to process their feelings about it). And on top of that, you’re now stuck defending yourself from allegations of engaging in a “cover up” which puts you on the back foot for the rest of the campaign. The same both-sidesy editorial boards that are drumming up the Biden must resign narrative will seamlessly transition to “who is this Harris person? Nobody knows her! And also she was saying he was fine and then he quit admitting he’s not fine” and in and on.
The switching itself will be suicidal. The best option really would be a novel diagnosis or untimely death that takes Biden out of the running. Then you minimize the switching cost and get a sympathy vote.
For anyone who's actually worried that Biden is going to turn into a vegetable, isn't a vote for the Biden/Harris campaign functionally a vote for Harris anyway?
That’s how I see it. But the commentariat arguments are that
1.) It’s not about whether he can do the President job, he clearly can. It’s about whether he can do the running for President job at which he is struggling.
2.) There’s a range of cognitive capabilities that are not great but not vegetable yet and they’d rather not have to worry about where he is on that range.
Not necessarily. This wouldn’t be the first time where the country was run more by the cabinet than the President or the Vice.
And it’s not like that’s a comforting thing given the Vice basically doesn’t get the same exposure or coverage
I keep reading this idea (on here, from you @stu2b50 for example, and elsewhere online) that any candidate that could replace Biden needs to already "be known", or have name recognition. That since there aren't any candidates who are already known on a national level, no one can replace Biden.
My basic question is: why does a potential replacement need to already be well known, and why is four months before the election too late for them to gain that recognition?
On one hand, I really do think "the right candidate", if they existed, could go viral in a week. I mean, that's kind of the thing the internet is good at these days, for better or worse. So drumming up an "electoral craze" for the specific, "right candidate", is not the problem.
Then again, maybe it is the problem? Maybe there's a (especially older) core of democratic voters who wouldn't turn out to support our example candidate on such short notice?
I could also imagine fundraising and higher-level politicking within the party to be issues.
I'm interested in reading why people think it's too late or impossible for another candidate, especially a candidate who isn't currently well known, to "pick up the torch", so to speak. I'm not really interested in the aspects of "it would alienate Biden fans" or "Biden is already a known quantity", I specifically am trying to understand why some people don't think four months is enough time for anyone to replace Biden.
Has anyone noticed that the script has been flipped since the 2020 primaries? Back then the corporate centrists were saying "vote Biden, even if you hate his policies, because we need him to hold the never-Trumper vote and beat Trump" with progressives saying "no, look at Biden's policies, they're crap". But now the progressives are saying "no, stick with Biden even if you hate his policies, we need him to beat Trump" and the corporate centrists are saying "look at Biden's performance at the debate, he is an incapable president and we need someone better".
The corporate centrists have never particularly liked Biden, they just failed to find a compelling alternative candidate and everyone settled on him after South Carolina. If they actually did like him you wouldn’t have needed to wait for SC for the tide to go in his direction.
I’m not sure there’s a good pathway out of this for Dems. Biden was sold as the steady hand on the wheel post Covid, and if he’s not that, I don’t think it matters who you put in because then the question becomes “who is actually in charge, here?” If Biden withdraws, that is a seismic event that runs counter to the event that Dems know what they’re doing, they lose incumbency, and the question becomes how bad was Biden for how long and who knew? If Biden stays in, he wasn’t doing too hot to begin with, and Trump pantsing him on the debate that Trump was begging for, that Biden agreed to on Biden’s terms with homefield advantage is not a good look. If you’re selling the narrative that this is the guy who can beat Trump and stave off a thousand years of darkness, then you can only get so much out of “It’s fine, we know what we’re doing, the alternative is worse.” This might have to be a reset and realignment year for the party, which is ass when the opposing party wants to remake the state in their image chasing a wealth God who will never know their names, but if all the elections are always for all the marbles, eventually we’re going to have to take one on the nose.
The best case scenario is unironically if both Biden and Trump have a heart-attack and die. Then nobody has to concede on the subject of Biden's mental state, SCOTUS can't block dems from replacing a candidate this close to the election without also blocking Rs, and Rs are in disarray anyway due to Trump being irreplaceable.
This is going to sound, lame? But, If the DNC had any semblance of strategy they would have done two things preparing for this election:
Went absolutely heavy in some form of governmental propaganda espousing the great things the government has done, the great things our country has done over the last hundred years (right to vote, improvements to health, scientific innovation, aerospace, internet, electricity, the whole lot). Just unleashed an entire government-led campaign of America as the innovation capital. I realize they are absolutely opposed to any form of propaganda on philosophical grounds, but its needed. Take back the narrative of "make america great again" and run with "America has always been great (for narrative purposes), but let's make it better, for everyone". Bring back the marketing departments that we all somehow fondly remember of the 1950-70s, the "Got Milk" of it all, and run hard. Stylized, and everywhere you go – The Bernie 2016 campaign got the closest to starting that, and it was well done and incredibly effective . It had style and substance.
Stood in a much younger, incredibly attractive person. I know, that's taboo to openly say, but its what they needed. Someone who would run so incredibly different to Trump that you bring in people who aren't even into politics just wanting to vote for the younger candidate. They don't even have to be a household name like AOC, who I hope runs on 2028, but just anyone younger with a decent clean background. Joe Kennedy III comes to mind just because he has some experience in politics, has a namesake legacy name attached, and is decent.
They really just suck at changing the narrative, or thinking ahead. They are stuck in their echo chambers of political campaigns and rarely think about optics like they used to.