Matt Yglesias has a bit of an odd cri de couer today about Joe Biden's mental state. Except that it's actually more about Matt's mental state:
I really don’t enjoy being wrong. But looking back on Biden’s disastrous debate with the benefit of some time away, I have to admit that I was wrong.... I’ve felt sick to my stomach since the debate, and I get why key decision-makers don’t want to admit they were also wrong.... I feel, personally, hurt and embarrassed about how this played out. I think Biden made me look foolish, and I don’t like it. But it is true that most people were not fooled and will not necessarily react in the same way.
I don't think this garment rending is really called for. First off, it's not true that most people thought all along that Biden was too old. YouGov polled this question a few months ago when the Hur report came out and the result was that 80% of Republicans said he was too old but only 20% of Democrats agreed. It's obvious that most of the believers were motivated not by evidence but by partisan attacks that had been fanned by Fox News for years, regardless of Biden's condition.
By analogy, it's not right to say that most people think the 2020 election was stolen. Or that most people think the economy is terrible. Most Republicans think the election was stolen and the economy is terrible. There's never been any reason to pay any attention to this. It's just partisan hackery at work.
In any case, the Hur report turned out to be obviously exaggerated, and a few weeks later Biden gave a good performance in his State of the Union Address. At that point there was no compelling reason to think Biden had anything other than physical problems.
In the few months since then, evidence started to gather about Biden's condition, but there was still little reason to take it too seriously. Republicans had been impugning Biden's mental health long before it was merited, so their attacks were meaningless. And Biden's public appearances were more or less OK. It really was the debate that changed things.
So I see no big reason to be embarrassed by defending Biden up through last week. The evidence of his fitness for the job was debatable but perfectly reasonable. The only reason to be embarrassed is if (a) you've been attacking Biden forever, long before he deteriorated, (b) you knew about his recent decline and covered it up, or (c) you're continuing to defend Biden even after the debate.
As John Maynard Keynes said (maybe), "When the facts change, I change my mind." On June 27 the facts changed. There's no sin in changing your mind only after that.
The only reason to be embarrassed is if (a) you've been attacking Biden forever
I have been. Politically speaking, you just don't nominate an 82 year old to serve another term.
Most people retire in their 60's. Why should a person who is their 80's be allowed to hold what is perhaps the most important job in the world? Most "ordinary" people can see that he should not. That's why he has never been ahead in the polls. even against a snake like Trump.
"Bridge to a Younger Generation"? Don't make me laugh.
Stupid is as stupid does. And I'm not talking about Biden Zaphod. Now, if that first sentence flew clean over your head, let me know and I'll decode it for you.
I swear, I've never seen so many people who thought so highly of themselves be so damn stupid.
But you can nominate a 78-year old convicted felon though. That's politically acceptable.
Kevin, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a mini-primary, with say 8 candidates elected by the current delegates via ranked-choice voting, followed by a nationwide primary for all registered Dems using ranked-choice voting for the eight plus two write-in slots for those whose faves didn't make the cut. Winner gets the pres nod, second place gets the VP slot. Of course there would also be a "meet the cadidates" phase via debates or structured interviews phase. Seems like the ultimate demo of raw democracy to me and would seat the true favorites on the ticket.
Dan D. , Dem in Colorado
The stupidest strategy in the history of the US, that's what it is. First you surrender the incumbency advantage. Second you piss off Black and female voters by bypassing VP Harris and being disloyal to Biden. It's very anti-Democratic, you are dissing the voter's choice in the primaries. There was strong turnout to vote FOR Biden/Harris in this cycle, more voters turned out then GOP voters did in their contests.
Concur ...all good points.
And they're all so bloody, bloody obvious!
States are in charge of elections so how do you get them to do this? It costs a lot for starters
Well Kevin, you have permission to be not embarrassed when you realize your post-debate attacks on Biden were excessive, over-the-top, and unjustified.
Thank you.
Yeah, but, seriously. Absent a stroke or some other similar event, is it really likely that someone is going to fall off a mental cliff in a couple of weeks? Or even a couple of months.
It really was the debate that changed things. So I see no big reason to be embarrassed by defending Biden up through last week."
Agreed and for people to think or act otherwise so they can scream "BETRAYAL!" or "COVER UP!" is pretty damn immature. Matty's better than than that.
Bottom line is unless there's another "incident" like that debate in the next three weeks, Biden's going nowhere. Because there's nothing than can force him to give up. His family is against it and the only way a Congressional or state or local intervention by Democrat officer-holders would make a difference in his thinking (which, again, was longshot at best) if it was unanimous and it hasn't been close to it. So at this point you're just better off saying you support the President in what he decides to do and leave it at that rather than continue to divide the party.
Pingback: Macron erzählt in hohen Prüfungsräumen kompletten Unsinn über Scheinsiege und Aufrüstung - Vermischtes 11.07.2024 - Deliberation Daily