I was stargazing last night and mostly out of cell phone reach, so I didn't see the big interview with Joe Biden until I got home this morning. Now I have, and it seems like a big meh.
Biden was OK. He had plenty of facts and figures at his command. He denied he was in big trouble and denied Trump was ahead, but that had nothing to do with him being in denial. That's how all politicians act when they're behind in the polls.
But I doubt the interview did much to change any minds. Biden said six times that he just had a "bad night" during the debate, but that's not enough. It was way more than just a bad night, and the almost unanimous claim of the insiders who have commented about Biden over the past few days is that his performance is highly variable and getting worse. So one acceptable-ish interview won't set any minds at ease. He needs to do this over and over to prove the insiders wrong.
I don't get the impression he plans to do that.
Biden's polls on upward trajectory through the swing states, Trump on a downward trajectory,
https://x.com/SnarkyLibruhl/status/1809739337913024975/photo/1
To the mystification of the corporate media! They've been trying so hard!
the taraji p. henson effect.
states where blacks in urban areas compose a considerable amount of the population are rethinking their apathy, now that they know the reconstruction amendments are on the chopping block in john mc entee's our heritage is hate wetdreamscape.
The media simply do not know what they are talking about with respect to cognitive decline indicators (i.e., from Biden's performance in a single debate) ...the harm is that their ill-informed views don't just affect our politics but seriously mislead the public about such indicators (i.e., when they consider their own family members or friends for example). ...please seriously talk to top experts on cognitive and mental functioning and decline (e.g., in Clinical Psychology; Gerontology). Yes, my Ph.D. is in Psychology (Personality Science) which touches on these topics.
my gerontology expert is the korean barry scheck robert hur.
my dna expert is barry scheck.
Kevin really needs to chill out on his TV remote diagnostic fever dream. Biden is old and slow but his team is fine. too disruptive to change candidates now. if he is really sick then it can happen
kevin drum bringing that bill frist diagnosing terri sciavo energy.
This discussion would all be different, IMO, if it didn't seem so likely that VP Harris would get beat in WI, PA, and AZ. And probably NV.
That's my problem with the Biden pile-on.
Which is precisely why they're piling on Biden, obviously so.
"Biden needs to go out and show he's fine! That he isn't on TV is proof he's unstable!"
Later....
"Going on TV and looking fine doesn't really count. He needs to do it over and over until we decide to change the narrative!"
Gotta feed the chosen narrative.
To synthesize the comments, and also what's on social and mainstream media: Biden will get enough support to feel he shouldn't drop out, and not enough enthusiasm to win. The worst possible scenario for Democrats, including downticket.
But as I write this, I notice I am presuming Biden has no agency left. As do others, both those who say "he must be pushed out" and those who say "it's okay because he has a good staff". Not, to be sure, those who think he knows what he's doing, but are they right? Because, I think, he doesn't realize that what viewers saw was not a competent man with a cold.
Meanwhile, you're going to do nothing but sit on your ass and complain while Rome burns. Yeah, we know your type. Too well, unfortunately.
Keyboard Kommandos!
i saw them on the ska against racism tour revival in 2013. good mix of throwback first wave ska & post-third wave postskacore.
The question in my mind is how the Democrat punditocracy can successfully push Biden out if he doesn't want to go (and, more importantly, how this could conceivably be done without crippling both Biden and his chosen successor). If the people who strongly want Biden to resign either because they genuinely think he not up to the job or because they see an opportunity for themselves continue to keep up the pressure, they might be successful in forcing him out by September or October but that means no Democrat (including Biden) will be focused on campaigning against Trump almost until Election Day.
Biden's clear that he's not resigning the presidency. But it's also clear that from now on every word he says is going to be treated (fairly or not) as proof that he's not up to the job. I don't see a way out of this mess. I think that the Democratic pundits have basically decided to show how "smart" they are by sinking Biden instead of taking a wait and see attitude.
Mitch-
Setting aside popularity.
Does a younger Dem candidate automatically throw the press' narrative back on to Trump being too old? Then we sit back and watch his campaign self implode as he makes one gaff after another. Or does it NOT matter to ALL republicans? I say all because it would take ALL republicans for Trump to win (same goes for Biden and the DEMs)
Is causing no harm good enough to get Harris elected?
Given our current environment I'd say no. She is qualified of that there is no doubt - but she seems to be far short on the popularity charts. So, if she decides she is going to run if Joe decides NOT to seek re-election AND SHE loses. Is it her fault? The party's fault or the voters fault?
Trump has brow beat the republicans into supporting him. DEMS don't brow beat. So just what does she campaign on? The standard do nothing vice presidency? (Joe at least had a picture of him in the situation room the night Osama bin Laden was killed - giving him a huge boost in the "importance department".
The problem here is that the GOP is willing to accept Trumps inexperience and previous mistakes because THEY have a plan.
Do the DEMs?
Harris' problem is that she is CURRENTLY operating in Joes shadow. And in Joe's 36 years as a US senator he has reached across the aisle a "time or two" to get things done. Harris cannot claim to have done this.
Again is claiming to have done no harm going to beat Trumps lies?
So, it boils down to a popularity contest that Harris will lose - along with losing the Senate and the house.
Or can she admit she doesn't have the star power Michele Obama has, and runs as Michele's VP? THAT might do more to enhance Harris' standing with the population than being Joe's VP has.
Michele (and Barack) Obama have a unique opportunity to cement their place in U.S. history by being the first married couple to have each won the presidency. Heck Michele could do it for one term only! THEN let Harris run.
Yes I am aware that Michele would have to want to do this. If the DEMs called - would she answer? Or allow the GOP to extort a severe price on the population? Given what the GOP is thinking of proposing does Michele ignore the gains blacks and women have made in the last 50 years? I think we could be looking at a 16 year stretch of DEM rule. 4 years Biden, 4 years M Obama, and 8 years of K Harris. Add in a Dem congress or 3, ALONG with 3 or 4 retiring SCOTUS justices and you could see a very good stretch of U.S. history being made
I think that would be an opportunity that would be hard to pass up.
To begin with. The media seems to have made a collective decision not to say or disclose bad things about Trump. Just as a for instance, there’s a story out now based on documents from the Epstein investigation about Trump’s sexual abuse of very young girls. Hasn’t been picked up by any domestic news outlet.
Also, I don’t see anyone else but Harris as being able to step in for Biden if he drops out or resigns. Partly for the reasons I’ve already mentioned about her having been vetted and put through the Fox News meat grinder. And partly because a majority of Americans voted for her to be the replacement for Biden should the occasion arise.
But David Frum made a very good point that the proposed combination “speed dating” and “beauty pageant” that the pundits are advocating for is subject to manipulation by Trump’s supporters. Nothing would stop them from choosing a weak Democrat candidate and giving him tens of millions of dollars to capture the nomination. Interestingly, the guy who supposedly gave Trump’s campaign $50 million also gave RFK, Jr. about $20-30 million.
Basically, either we accept that Biden and old guy with some probably minor issues that could be taken care of by the 25th amendment or we push him out and replace him with Harris. But one of these two things needs to happen right now because every day between now and November is precious.
Kevin saw Biden's interview as "OK". I did not. Although as a lifelong lib I would, as someone said above, "vote for Biden's corpse over Trump", I would far rather vote for someone else. Here's why.
I am within a few months of Joe Biden's age. I live in a Senior Residence along with nearly 200 others my age and older. By accident of history and location, the majority of my neighbors are retired professionals -- doctors, university deans, bankers, professors, and techies like me -- a bunch of geriatric over-achievers. I live among, talk with, eat meals with, people age 80 to 105, and many of them are as articulate, smart, funny, creative as they ever were, as, I hope, am I.
But I also daily see evidence of cognitive decline. When it hits, it's quite clear; and the rest of us give each other the side-eye and tsk-tsk over how Fred or June will be moving to assisted living pretty soon.
If the Joe Biden who talked to George Stephanopulous were one of my neighbors, talking to me over a meal in our dining room -- I would instantly pick him as one who'll be needing care in the memory unit pretty damn soon. Set among my neighbors, Joe Biden looks, and speaks, older than his age.
Because I can compare him to the people I see daily, I can be confident that he is in a state of mental decline and should retire. If Kevin or others in this comment stream could spent more time with real oldsters, it would be clear to them also.
It's a huge pity there are so few other choices after him. On the other hand, a genuinely open Convention, with multiple possible candidates contending for delegate votes, would be epic political theater, and would rivet national media attention and send the chosen candidate off with a massive popular boost.
A genuinely open convention would be a huge risk. Except for Harris, none of the potential candidates have been vetted and some would be truly horrible like RFK, Jr. And it’s not clear that it would have a happy ending either. There can be only one winner but potentially many unhappy losers. Who would have possibly many unhappy fans who might feel cheated.
And there’s a distinct possibility that an open convention might bypass Vice president Harris. Remember, a majority of Americans voted for her as Biden’s successor and replacement (if necessary). She’s the only candidate who has already been through the Fox News/New York Times mill and she is the only candidate to have won a national election.
Concur Mitch. I remember the "food fight" in the late 60's following Johnson's withdrawal as a candidate. Huge mess... democrats lost presidency (to Nixon) and 6 senate turnovers to republicans (losing supermajority status in senate). Democrats should not wish that on the party again. And I agree that last thing the democrats want to do is ignore the votes of democrats that have already been cast nationwide.
& then the literal foodfight at miami '72 with the yippies pying anyone they could.
I'm a professor in my 70's at a major University...many of my colleagues don't retire until they are in their 80's. Thanks so much for your observations...you are suggesting we need to assess people over time and look for changes over time. I couldn't agree more..but bear in mind that beyond looking at changes in behavior over time there is a consideration of context/situational and current state (dynamic) factors (e.g., urinary track infections (UTI), other infections including colds, lack of sufficient sleep, dehydration, reactions or interactions with medications, etc.) can also produce what may appear as difficulties with cognitive functioning that can be transient if given proper care. On top of that it's important to consider the context of Biden's debate performance. It is unlikely that too many of us would deal well with a situation where a (1) a "debate" competitor (here Trump) talks out load (albeit muted to the audience) as Biden tries to respond (2) that competitor's statements are strewn with lies at a rapid-fire rate-- something that is not allowed in "real" debates and (3) one has little time to respond (please add a cold, too much debate prep that creates hoarseness, probably some cold medication, and little sleep following major jet leg along with a high stakes stressful situation and other atypical stressors (e.g., Hunter Biden's trial)) and we have a "perfect storm" brew. I encourage you to try this as an experiment with your retired friends who are not in cognitive decline in their 80's+... Record these performances and tell us the results in terms of pronounced difficulties responding (distraction from the competitor (eye movements, rate of responding, etc.) vigor indicators (including sub second movements indicative of same), organized thought patterns, coherent counter arguments., etc.) and compare that to normal circumstances in having a dinner conversation with these same friends. I also note that for the bulk of the debate a transcription of Biden's speech would suggest that most of it is very coherent. A lot of the behavior I believe most folks were looking at to suggest cognitive decline for Biden were tied into "vigor" indicators that can be due to many situational and current state factors for individuals (and not indicative of cognitive decline). PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE ENTIRE DEBATE TRANSCRIPT...NOT ALLOW OTHERS TO CHERRY-PICK IT. I think you may change your mind about his cognitive abilities even in this debate...Our opinions I believe are being unduly biased by the vigor cues -- that are potentially transient.
the big interview with Joe Biden until I got home this morning. Now I have, and it seems like a big meh.
You're right and that's why it was a disaster.
In order for it not to be a "big meh" one of two things had to happed: 1). Biden faceplants, which means even his staunchest backers have to admit he has to go including members of his family who have the most influence on him or 2). He comes across as lucid and in charge and in command and puts aside all doubt. He did neither. When you can't even remember whether watched the debate or not, I mean, I don't know what to tell you.
So unless something dramatic happens in the next few weeks, Biden is going nowhere, because only he can make the decision to drop out and there's no incentive or compelling reason for him to drop out. So long he can give speeches and interviews semi-coherently and seem to function, why would he drop out? The commetariat can bellow all they want and other politicians can do same. I think Joe gets a kick telling them to fuck off. And so long as he has supporters out there pumping for him online and at rallies, why should he let them down? And to be even more frank. to step down also probably means resign the Presidency itself to give Kamala Harris the benefit of incumbency. I don't think Jill or Hunter is ready to leave the White House just yet because that's what they would have to do. Again, no incentive.
So the bottom line is, either support Biden, or shut up and give your money and support to your local Democrat candidate and hope Trump by his vile nature is his own check on his power, facing a Democrat Congress and having him in the White House to continue to reduce the ranks of Republican office-holders over the next four years. Honestly, if Trump wins I hope he wins both the popular vote and the Electoral College because only then will American people will have to bare the full responsibility for what they have done and there can be no doubting it as electoral fraud or whatever. Maybe disaster will finally knock some sense into them. It happened before with Bush II, it can happen again.
Either support Biden or shut up? Hardly.
The wheels are turning. Adam Schiff says that Kamala can beat Trump soundly. Even two Biden-entrenched writers, Jennifer Rubin and Josh Marshall are suggesting that the question is not if, but when Harris replaces Biden.
St. Patrick, this is not the Catholic church, where it is customary to tell people to shut up. We live in a democracy.
Besides, you are not the Pope.
Well, since we all know you never supported Trump ...
What the hell? Of course I never supported Trump.
I guess even the good guys have their share of idiots.
Apologies; that should read, since you never supported Biden. [1] Which you didn't.
[1] Of course, we all know that you knew exactly who I meant; but when your back's to the wall you go with what you got, namely simulated obtuseness.
"We live in a democracy."
Isn't that the issue of the day? Yet a lot of people like you want to ignore the votes of 14+ million Democrats who voted for Joe Biden to be the party nominee. No one else got close to a million. Biden has 3905 bound delegates of 1975 needed. Per the Bloomberg poll this weekend, 67% of Democrats want Biden to stay in the race.
By any measure, the expressed will of Democratic voters is that Joe Biden ought to be at the top of the ticket this November. You're in the minority and not winning the issue with the people that matter. Maybe you should concede the point, because:
We live in a democracy.
P.S. Schiff was not endorsing a switch to Harris. He says that the debate raised legitimate questions, that the president should talk with people he trusts, and that he's confident that Biden will make the right decision.
As it stands, Biden is in it and not going away.
But I read both Rubin and Marshall and I understand them to be saying that Biden going eventually is inevitable because it's impossible to stop the flood of leaks and pundit talk. But, as I read them, neither one thinks that changing candidates so close to the election is a good idea. Which is basically where I am, too.
Biden seems quite dug-in and very reluctant to go. Maybe the pundits and the New York Times, etc can force him out but, honestly, every day between now and November is precious and needs to be devoted to fighting against Trump and pressuring the media to vet him like they would any normal candidate. If Biden doesn't quit, it's clear that he was beaten not by his Republican opponent but rather by his Democratic friends.
We live in a democracy.
Harumpf! And in this said "democracy" you wish to have a bunch of journalists invalidate the will of millions of voters who chose Joe Biden to be the nominee of the Democratic Party for President. Lovely!
BTW, I've cancelled my subscription to the NYT over this lame attempt to make 'fetch' happen. Sulzberger is an outstanding example why owners should have exactly zero editorial control over content.
Cancelled mine too. So did my academic husband...for the same reasons... the press/media should inform the public (preferably with data, logic, and other evidence and background/context that adds to our understanding) not try to manipulate us for their own fame/fortune.
Does anyone want to offer their theory of how TFG wins? He lost the last election as an incumbent, while the economy was already in recovery. He’s got a ceiling of less than half the popular vote, and while the undemocratic Electoral College can give a win to the popular-vote loser, he’s already hit that lottery once. How does he do it again? Yes, some polls show him exceeding his vote ceiling in some states. I take that as grounds for skepticism for the polls. I just don’t see that he has done anything to broaden his appeal beyond his cult. Convince me otherwise.
I would argue that the Democrats need to sharpen their attacks on TFG as a loser, and focus on key issues that will increase turnout: reproductive rights, and the environment. And run a coördinated campaign for Congress and the Presidency.
Trump has always done worse when the public's attention is focused on him and his craziness. At the moment, he's getting a pass from the media because all of the attention is focused on Biden and his every word or gesture. The Democrats (and especially the pundits and the consultant class) have totally lost the thread. They've stopped focusing attention and Trump and are basically just working hard to do the "West Wing" thing and find another candidate to get behind. So the campaign isn't likely to restart until Biden's gone or maybe in September or October if all of the concerns about Biden's health basically fade away.
Yeah, we always knew Sulzberger had it in for Biden. But he shot his wad way early and November is geological eons away. All he's accomplished is throwing automatic disrepute on any negative Biden story published by this owner-dictated editorial slant rag of it's former self paper.
Good point about Trump.
Yes, Trump does worse when he's under scrutiny.
But switching Harris for Biden doesn't mean the focus of scrutiny moves to Trump. It moves to Harris. The media will spend the rest of the campaign scrutinizing her every action and utterance. The switch-out doesn't solve the media problem. It creates a host of new problems. Which is why it's a stupid idea.
Absolutely true about what the media chew toy would be.