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.
If someone needs to cop to being wrong more often, Yglesias would seem to top that list.
the handwashing piece.
I tend to disagree. I think he is smart and generally focused on winning.
But here he gives into the liberal tendency to make it all about our personal feelings. Rs only focus on winning.
Nah he's been an out of touch fool.for decades.
he's a harvard legacy graduate.
has dude ever been in touch with reality?
I tend to disagree. I think he is smart and generally focused on winning.
Agreed.
But here he gives into the liberal tendency to make it all about our personal feelings.
I get the sense here he's given in to his ego and overestimating how much his opinion matters. He's a widely quoted and influential pundit. But he's still just one pundit, and he doesn't occupy prime real estate like the NY Times or an MSNBC prime time slot.
Ever so slight drift... not all that long ago, there was a brief flurry of worry because some state (more than one?) required the presidential candidate for a party be known at least N days before the election, and that deadline was going to be before the Democrats held their election. Doing a bit of web searching suggests that state was Ohio: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/biden-nominated-virtually-ohio-ballot-00160220
And also some other states:
What would a hypothetical dropping-out of Biden mean for all that?
Most of the Great and Good I've been reading suggest, that, if the convention nominates someone other than Joe Biden, that person will make all 51 general election ballots. That sounds right to me, though I'm very far indeed from an expert on any of this.
I think by far the biggest challenge is actually getting Biden off the ticket. Maybe it'll come to pass, but I fear in the last three days we've gone from "He can't survive this" to "The window to remove him is rapidly slipping away."
Although perhaps I'm reading the tea leaves wrong (wouldn't be the first time!).
"I think by far the biggest challenge is actually getting Biden off the ticket."
The issue was settled last week. Biden is staying on the ticket. The sooner people understand that, the better.
"Most of the Great and Good I've been reading suggest, that, if the convention nominates someone other than Joe Biden, that person will make all 51 general election ballots."
Who's saying that? It's not what I'm reading. At best, the matter is settled in the courts, which means unsettled for weeks or months -- which means a tremendous risk if a replacement is on the ticket and the nominee is denied ballot access in a few swing states.
Ballot access aside, replacing Biden means a non-incumbent who will invite the bulk of media scrutiny for the duration of the campaign. That's ultra-risky. Biden, his bad night and all, is a known quantity. Having a more vigorous candidate would fix one problem but create many more.
That's ultra-risky.
It's also risky going into a general election where (1) months of polling strongly suggest the public has grave worries about the 81 year old nominee's health; (2) your nominee is confined to teleprompter events; (3) your nominee is 5-8 points behind where he was at the same point in 2020.
The 2024 race was dead-even before the debate. It's dead-even today.
Per 538:
https://x.com/johnastoehr/status/1810300087274295480
There is no need to panic. Replacing an accomplished incumbent president who won 14+ million votes this spring and has 98% of bound delegates is the definition of panic. Especially when DEMOCRACY is the #1 issue, you'd think Dems would want to respect the ballots cast by voters.
Are Biden's age and debate performance good things? No. But they're not disqualifying either. In fact, after the worst 10 days of his presidency, the damage is manageable. The sooner Dems get behind him, the better the race turns out for the party.
The 2024 race was dead-even before the debate. It's dead-even today
Biden had a lead of several points in July of 2020. He was narrowly behind heading into the first debate this cycle. Here's David Plouffe on that topic:
https://www.facebook.com/msnbc/videos/plouffe-on-biden-performance/476857124747609/
I get it. You like Joe Biden. I do myself. But I'm trying not to allow that regard place me in an information bubble. He's on track to lose. Obviously no one should suggest coming from behind to beat Trump is impossible. I don't think that's true at all (Nate Silver gives Biden about 20% odds of victory; that seems about right). But it's an uphill struggle, and the debate was an opportunity—a lost opportunity—to make up lost ground. But Joe Biden doesn't have the mental alacrity to deliver high quality performances in situations like that. Another outing like that in September's debate (which I doubt will take place) would be the end.
Honest question: who would you prefer that Trump debate in September, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris?
The question answers itself.
Who he, or you prefer in a meaningless debate isn't really a very important question.
Winning the election matters. Getting hung up on your preference for a debate that will impact noone is silly.
Lots of people have feverishly jumped into the Kamala Harris camp behind the crush of media opinion pieces pushing that narrative....its interesting how few (if any) felt she was a good option just a few months ago. But now after the media blitz......
A poll is based on how people would vote today. The 538 tool is a prediction model for how people will vote in November. Not really the same since the prediction is based on more than polling data.
I get that you like Biden too but you're caught up in the media firestorm. It's a crusade to dump Biden not to help Democrats but to show Democrats who's boss. Democrats would be smart to tell the media to fuck off, we stand with our man. The Dems in panic mode narrative is doing more damage than the debate did.
One other point.
I'm a little skeptical of polling (many conflict, and some bounce around), but since polls are often cited by the "dump Biden" camp, then someone needs to square how any conceivable replacement would do better. They might do better in a debate (if there is another debate) but they are all now trailing Biden. There's a lot of wishful thinking going on. Solidifying support for Biden is easier than rallying support for someone who hasn't been tested yet.
https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1810709667154211023
P.S. Since this week is reminiscent of the dump Franken moment a few years ago, I think this is noteworthy:
“I have full confidence that Joe Biden can kick Trump’s butt”
That's Sen. Gillibrand. It looks like Democrats are seeing the light and coming home.
Democracy is the no. 1 issue for Biden supporters. It’s not the no. 1 issue for Trump supporters. (Media interviews of Trump supporters are even more entertaining than before now that they have stopped trying to make excuses for him. My current favorite is the older woman who got angry with the reporter, turned and walked away while screaming, “Shut up about democracy! That’s already been settled!” I forget the location of that gem)
Biden was +9 in July 2020 and now Trump is +5 with RFK Jr in the race so Biden is 14 points behind where he was in 2020.
I wish we had a block function for this obvious troll. As bound by reality as his obvious hero, Trump.
None of those points are true, Jasper.
I get the impression certain people don't know that the Congressional Black Congress said very firmly they stand behind Biden one-hundred percent. They know a railroad job when they see one.
The window was last year.
It would screw it the heck up.
We vote for an administration, and there's no evidence that the administration is faltering.
We vote for an administration, and there's no evidence that the administration is faltering
No, that's true, there isn't. I'm not the least bit worried the administration's ability to govern is compromised, nor are there any doubts about whether the Biden administration is infinitely preferable to the authoritarian vileness we're going to get if Trump wins.
I think there's a fair amount of evidence, though, that candidate Biden is headed for a loss.
Elsewhere on here you seem to suggest you understand that there’s also almost no way to force him off the ballot nor a way to put somebody else on there in his place even if he voluntarily left. So it seems to me that, if there’s almost nothing that can be done to change things, we might want to just stay on the (admittedly dark, flawed, risky) path we’re on instead of wasting time and energy complaining about the path.
But by all means, it’s a free country and you sound like a typical Democrat, so please bleat your concerns over and over again, as far and wide as your voice will carry. That should definitely improve our journey on the path that even you concede is virtually unalterable at this point.
Jasper, I see that you want to pull a 'Democrats in disarra', and are busy makong shit up to do it.
Why?
so the people's liberation army won't take away his vpn.
When the facts change, I change my mind." On June 27 the facts changed
Yep.
I never thought the fact that the presumptive nominee is 81 was ideal. But I thought for a variety of reasons he was either our best and/or only plausible option.
That second part might still be true. Y'all may not have noticed this, but, he seems to have dug his heels in and it's not apparent there's a way to force him out. Even if the cabinet had the stones to invoke the 25th amendment, that only buys us a few weeks.
"So I see no big reason to be embarrassed by defending Biden up through last week. .."
A reason to be embarrassed is if you thought the Biden administration was a reliable source of information about Biden's medical condition. Or to put it another way if you didn't recognize that many of Biden's defenders as well as many of his attackers were motivated more by partisan considerations than by the evidence.
Everyone looks brilliant as a Monday morning quarterback.
"Everyone looks brilliant as a Monday morning quarterback."
The post was about Yglesias himself assessing his performance and finding it wanting. Being wrong is one thing, being wrong because of lazy partisan thinking is another.
But he won’t quit Uncle Kevin! He won’t quit!! ….. seriously though, even if Biden was not •that• bad, I wish he would think about how if he loses, he might end up being seen as a villain. The man who let his ego plunge his country into a 2nd Trump presidency.
I wish he would think about how if he loses, he might end up being seen as a villain.
He doesn't care. He rather explicitly told us a few days ago that he thinks history will show him in a good light provided he "tried his best."
It's painful when those you admire and hold in high regard show their true colors. But I've always preferred reality to fantasy.
Like many an aging politician before him, Joe Biden is either delusional about his situation, or prioritizes personal accomplishment over the national interest. There's also the complicating factor of his diminished faculties and how much of this is actually being driven by Jill and Hunter.
I'm probably about 24 hours from saying, "Fuck it, there's no way to get him out, so Democrats may as well fall in line behind Joe and hope for the best."
The tide does seem to be shifting, but I am not ready to give up.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/replace-biden
There remains a chance to swap in Harris right up until the dem convention.
Yes, but "swap in Harris" as what? Give her the advantage of incumbency!
Biden can "retire" from the presidency immediately, making honorable history. Harris is sworn in (her Jewish husband -- pace AIPAC -- holds Bible). All this timed to throw shade on post-Milwaukee Trump victory parade,
WE get Realistic Job Preview before we start voting. The cabinet, congressional Democrats and governors campaign as a team.
What do you think?
That doesn't work at all, vice Presidents have never had the advantage of incumbents in elections.
Harris is the Vice President and on the ticket already.
Hence, no need to swap anything.
Democrats aren’t the only ones with agency. If we end up with Trump in the White House, it will not just be because Biden had a big ego or Democrats messed up in supporting him. It will also be because 74m ish Americans don’t care at all about preserving democracy or maintaining the rule of law, and another 50m or so Americans couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch and participate in voting at all or insist on voting for a lost cause, like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party.
murc's law rules everything around me. democrats in disarray. dollar dollar bill y'all.
Please people -- read the FULL TRANSCRIPT (it's available on CNN) from Joe Biden's debate (and please don't allow others to cherry pick sentences from it). What we see in print of what Biden says is generally very coherent and responsive to the questions of the interviewers and also to Trump. Taken as a whole -- I can't imagine that an expert in looking at this transcript would conclude that it is indicative of cognitive decline. During the debate, what was salient for many viewers I believe were Biden's stylistic and movement/emotional and prosody/voice cues signaling low energy: those cues affect perceptions but they are not -- at least given the context -- indicative of cognitive decline. They are indicative of fatigue but that can be highly transient -- and we've seen him more energized of late. With less energy..our movements are slower...Joe is older (we knew that; it's baked into the cake) but here he was slower physically...but that's most likely due to situational factors like fatigue, jet lag, and a cold since that changed already by the next day in North Carolina. Transient physical slowness like we saw in the debate is not indicative of cognitive decline. Yes, I'm Ph.D. psychologist and a researcher in related domains (e.g., motivation, personality).
"...Transient physical slowness like we saw in the debate is not indicative of cognitive decline. Yes, I'm Ph.D. psychologist and a researcher in related domains (e.g., motivation, personality)."
At this point I consider the burden of proof to be on Biden. Let him take some tests designed to evaluate the extent of cognitive decline in old people and release the results. Otherwise I will assume the Biden administration isn't doing this because they know the results would be bad news.
"Let him take some tests designed to evaluate the extent of cognitive decline in old people and release the results."
But he HAS. As recently as February.
"The results of this year's exam were detailed in my 28 February letter: 'An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's…'"
Kevin - and the media - will just ignore the medical exam statement from a neurologist.
.
As they did then.
I do think Biden missed a real opportunity in the ABC interview when Snuffleupagus asked him about taking a new exam - the answer should have been "I will be happy to have an exam administered by neutral professionals and results released so long as my opponent does the same,"
And yes, as the TRANSCRIPT of the debate shows - none of this is about mental ability or coherence (he thoroughly trashed Trump that night on both)......it's all about (understandable) horror at physical appearance. From the octogenerian who was literally riding a bike just weeks ago.
"... the answer should have been "I will be happy to have an exam administered by neutral professionals and results released so long as my opponent does the same,""
I consider this a fancy way of saying "I will not have a medical exam administered by neutral professionals".
This is completely insane.
Biden has a yearly physical. In this physical he is seen by neutral professionals, including a specialist in neurological disorders.
He already passed this exam administered by neutral professionals. But this apparently doesnt count because we have a narrative to maintain and people to whip into a frenzy.
Morons. Total morons.
James just wants the guy most likely to beat Trump out of the race. Why would any Democrat take the advice of a Trumper seriously?
And you'd be wrong, as usual. Looks like you really don't want Biden to run. Looks like you're terrified he'll give your man Trump a thrashing. So it goes.
Nah, it's a nuanced, politically acceptable way of saying 'I'm in much better mental shape than THAT train wreck. And HE damn well knows it.'
Yeah, well, who cares what you think? I say the burden of proof is on you to show that biden has suffered significant cognitive declines; we all know you don't want him running and you're basing your extremely inexpert opinion (or so you say) on the strength of his presentation in a debate and not the content. So go for it.
James, you didn't bother to watch the second half of the debate, and no appearances since, so what do you mean, 'the burden of proof is on Biden'. You've refused all evidence.
Oldest trick in the book; he doesn't have to prove he's right, that's for losers and -- ugh! -- scientists. Know he wants us to prove he's wrong. One guess as to who gets to decide 😉
read the FULL TRANSCRIPT (it's available on CNN) from Joe Biden's debate (and please don't allow others to cherry pick sentences from it). What we see in print of what Biden says is generally very coherent
No it's not. Kevin himself posted on this topic a few days ago.
And he posted cherry picked sentences from the full transcript, which is exactly what the comment is arguing against.
Here is a perfect example of cherry picking to serve your own selfish needs.
Very first question
"President Biden, inflation has slowed, but prices remain high. Since you took office, the price of essentials has increased. For example, a basket of groceries that cost $100 then, now costs more than $12; and typical home prices have jumped more than 30 percent.
What do you say to voters who feel they are worse off under your presidency than they were under President Trump?
BIDEN: You have to take a look at what I was left when I became president, what Mr. Trump left me.
We had an economy that was in freefall. The pandemic are so badly handled, many people were dying. All he said was, it’s not that serious. Just inject a little bleach in your arm. It’d be all right.
The economy collapsed. There were no jobs. Unemployment rate rose to 15 percent. It was terrible.
And so, what we had to do is try to put things back together again. That’s exactly what we began to do. We created 15,000 new jobs. We brought on – in a position where we have 800,000 new manufacturing jobs.
But there’s more to be done. There’s more to be done. Working class people are still in trouble.
I come from Scranton, Pennsylvania. I come from a household where the kitchen table – if things weren’t able to be met during the month was a problem. Price of eggs, the price of gas, the price of housing, the price of a whole range of things.
That’s why I’m working so hard to make sure I deal with those problems. And we’re going to make sure that we reduce the price of housing. We’re going to make sure we build 2 million new units. We’re going to make sure we cap rents, so corporate greed can’t take over.
The combination of what I was left and then corporate greed are the reason why we’re in this problem right now.
In addition to that, we’re in a situation where if you had – take a look at all that was done in his administration, he didn’t do much at all. By the time he left, there’s – things had been in chaos. There was (ph) literally chaos.
And so, we put things back together. We created, as I said, those (ph) jobs. We made sure we had a situation where we now – we brought down the price of prescription drugs, which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for – for an insulin shot, as opposed to $400. No senior has to pay more than $200 for any drug – all the drugs they (inaudible) beginning next year.
And the situation is making – and we’re going to make that available to everybody, to all Americans. So we’re working to bring down the prices around the kitchen table. And that’s what we’re going to get done.
TAPPER: Thank you."
That's a perfectly coherent and detailed filled answer. People who already thought Biden was a mindless old man who should not be running, even if not openly stating it, felt reassured in their prior assumptions and went into hair on fire mode. It must feel good when after a long time of thinking there are major issues without any evidence to support your ideas, there's finally some shred of a maybe, so they clutched at the bits that highlighted the terrible optics far more than the actual content of the answers Like the prior commenter said, overall, the majority of his answers were fine once you remove the optics of an old man with a cold trying to zoom through an answer while trying to cram as much detail as possible.
Lie 1: "We had an economy that was in freefall."
The economy was growing at 1% when Biden became President.
Lie 2 and Lie 3: "The pandemic are so badly handled, many people were dying. All he said was, it’s not that serious. Just inject a little bleach in your arm. It’d be all right."
It was the Democrats and their lockdowns that were horrible and Trump never said to inject bleach.
Lie 4 "The economy collapsed. There were no jobs. Unemployment rate rose to 15 percent. It was terrible."
When Biden took office, GDP was increasing at 1% and the unemployment rate was 6.5%.
The geezer lies as well as Trump.
what f*ck*ng lockdowns?
So wait, they're lies only when Biden says them, roboto?
1% is super-bad.
yup.
the 1988-2008 japan piece.
Here is his very first response to Trump's first lie filled answer:
"BIDEN: Well, look, the greatest economy in the world, he’s the only one who thinks that, I think. I don’t know anybody else who thinks it was great – he had the greatest economy in the world.
And, you know, the fact of the matter is that we found ourselves in a situation where his economy – he rewarded the wealthy. He had the largest tax cut in American history, $2 trillion. He raised the deficit larger than any president has in any one term. He’s the only president other than Herbert Hoover who has lost more jobs than he had when he began, since Herbert Hoover. The idea that he did something that was significant.
And the military – you know, when he was president, they were still killing people in Afghanistan. He didn’t do anything about that. When he was president, we still found ourselves in a position where you had a notion that we were this safe country. The truth is, I’m the only president this century that doesn’t have any – this – this decade – doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world, like he did."
Again, coherent and trying to state details.
Third answer of his responding to Trump's boasting about his tax cut and Trump's debt.
"BIDEN: He had the largest national debt of any president four-year period, number one.
Number two, he got $2 trillion tax cut, benefited the very wealthy.
What I’m going to do is fix the taxes.
For example, we have a thousand trillionaires in America – I mean, billionaires in America. And what’s happening? They’re in a situation where they, in fact, pay 8.2 percent in taxes. If they just paid 24 percent or 25 percent, either one of those numbers, they’d raised $500 million – billion dollars, I should say, in a 10-year period.
We’d be able to right – wipe out his debt. We’d be able to help make sure that – all those things we need to do, childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the COVID – excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with.
Look, if – we finally beat Medicare."
Once more a fine answer except for the very last sentence, yet what did the lemmings in the pundits focused on:
"Oh my god, he said we finally beat Medicare, he is certifiable, get him off the ticket, and if possible have him resign as President "
Never mind that the rest of that answer was fine and as if Biden didn't have a life long history of some times saying things that seemed out of place, or made you scratch your head.
I must confess I'm quite looking forward to your rebuttal of Solar's well-documented and most excellent points. Go for it.
Nice to have some facts after all the unfounded speculation. If the experts don’t see cognitive fading, how arrogant do you have to be, like dear Mr. drum, to make a contrary evaluation?
I can’t think of anything that I would be less likely to give a shit about than Matt Yglesias’ feelings.
i would rate peter baker's medical school diploma under matty yglesias's feelings.
“So I see no big reason to be embarrassed by defending Biden up through last week.”
Absolutely agree. But, to be clear, not only do I see no reason to be embarrassed by CONTINUING to support President Joe Biden through his reelection in November, I in fact actively and enthusiastically encourage it.
“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.”
Let me fix that for you. We just held primaries for the Democratic Party in which President Joe Biden crushed his opposition like the gnats they were. He overwhelmingly won his party’s nomination for 2024. He’s also the incumbent presiding over a booming economy; and, as such, remains favored to win.
Also, he is obviously staying in the race. He has repeated as much a dozen times in the last week. He could not have made that point more clear. There simply is no debate about whether he’s staying in or not: he’s in. He has stated, in fact, that the only way he (and the Democrats) can lose is if he steps down. Historical precedent backs up his claims, and I agree with him more or less completely; so.
The only reasons to be embarrassed at this point are if you a.) exist in such a tightly sealed echo chamber that you’re still wasting time debating whether or not Biden will stay in the race, b.) continue to discredit the Left through undemocratic assertions that the will of the voters should be overruled because you know better than everyone else, or c.) actively promote a Trump victory by discrediting, or promoting an alternative to, his strongest opponent: Joe Biden.
Kevin fails at all of the above points. He should, therefore, not just be deeply embarrassed. He and the likes of Matty Yglesias and the NYT should be remembered as the enemies of a free society that they have shown themselves to be.
In a historically challenging moment, history should remember them as the fools that fell straight onto their faces and laughably wound up inadvertently fighting for a second Trump term. History has some clowns in it, but it holds a special place in the carnival row of morons for those on the Left who are currently strengthening Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Also, for reference, Markos Moulitsas is a good example of a commentator currently getting just about everything right. And I say that as someone who typically finds him more than a bit off the mark most of the time. But he knows when and how to draw the line in a knife fight (unlike Kevin, who unilaterally disarms and asks if anyone else would please like to kick the Left while it’s down).
So Kos has written some good columns lately on the need for the Biden campaign to fix what happened in the debate (a completely legitimate point and totally different from announcing defeat by calling for a new candidate), on the pointlessness of switching out candidates at this point in time, and on the strength of Biden’s pro-democracy message in the face of a potentially fascist threat.
Compared to Kos, kevin has the political instincts of a clump of old dirt.
The 538 website created a simulation tool using state and national polls, trends, economic data, demographic data, etc., to predict the election result in November. Before the debate, the tool had the race exactly 50/50. Today, after all the commotion, the tool had the race exactly 50/50. One difference: Biden is now on an uptrend.
We're looking at an even race and all the bedwetters want to replace the guy at the top of the Democratic ticket. It's the craziest panic attack in the history of Democratic panic attacks.
Of course, regular Dem voters are not panicking. No doubt, many have had legit questions the past ten days, but they're wise enough to know the stakes and know the right thing to do.
More than can be said about the commentariat club.
Link:
https://x.com/johnastoehr/status/1810300087274295480
Fixing what happened in the debate is separate from calling for a new candidate?
It is only separable if the debate was a single episode and does not indicate a condition, the distinction Pelosi made.
Hey, I hope that's true. I hope Biden can get out there and run like it's 2020. But if he can't, he can't. And if he can't we are screwed.
Well, Leo, let me return the favor and say this is probably the first time I've been what you said 100%. The NYT is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism.
I say, "Likewise" to the two of you (though not really for the first time).
Leo usually throws in a freebie bigotry. So this is baffling, honestly.
+1
You know, it's entirely possible for Biden to win, but he needs to take big risks: (a) get rid of his stodgy campaign staff; (b) own up to his age; (c) get some of that Adderall, corticosteroids, and some vitamin shots; (d) surround himself with a youthful entourage; (e) let loose Angry Joe directing his laser beam eyes on Trump; (f) stop making this about policy and make it about saving democracy (let down ballot candidates drive the policy choices); (g) adopt a fucking awesome, energetic campaign theme song from the 80s or 90s -- I suggest "Trumpthumping."
You are right, they've been only on the defensive, flip the table. Own the news. Own Trump. Make some noise.
I am less than happy with Leo using 250 words to...to spell out and try to support the basic untruth in his argument:
"We just held primaries for the Democratic Party in which President Joe Biden crushed his opposition like the gnats they were."
President Biden had no primary opposition, it was a coronation waltz...
Politics frequently belongs to the bold...unseasoned Senator Obama, a little known southern Governor, Bill Clinton....and on several counts, recently, Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron...there was bravery:
****
Cooperation among National Rally’s opponents was central to the turnaround. After the first round, over 200 third-place candidates from the New Popular Front and Mr. Macron’s coalition stood down, allowing other candidates clear runs.
*********
To expect such courage and patriotism from Americans may seem outlandish to some...but the possibility of a successful third path remains open and there for the taking. Best Wishes, Traveller
Using the word "third" scares Americans. Connotations of third party, Nader and Perot. Stop throwing gasoline on the fire.
(｡•̀ᴗ-)
@Traveller:
you're perpetuating one of the single dumbest narratives/conspiracy theories currently in circulation:
"President Biden had no primary opposition, it was a coronation waltz..."
Yes, dumbass, that's because he's an incumbent president, and incumbent presidents do not usually face significant primary challenges for their party's nomination. That is a common dynamic.
The fact that Biden drew only weak primary opposition is because he's a strong general election candidate; NOT because he's a weak general election candidate.
Opposition stays away when it sees almost no change of success. They're not kept away by a secret cabal of DNC operatives; they're kept away by a strong incumbent.
Please think twice before promoting self-destructive and ignorant narratives, they help no one.
+1!
we could have at least had the entertainment value of a keith russell judd pulling 40% in west virginia, as he did over obama in 2012.
There are no coronations in US politics. Compare 1968: a little-known college professor turned US Senator from Minnesota took 42% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, then won Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by ever-larger margins, on the strength of opposition to LBJ’s Vietnam war policy. LBJ withdrew. In 2024, Dean Phillips, a little-known Congressman from, wouldn’t you know, Minnesota, got just under 20% in New Hampshire, and fewer and declining percentages of the vote in later primaries. There was some limited opposition to Biden over his Gaza-war policy; little was about other concerns. Biden’s margins were strong and got stronger, and here we are.
Proudly in the 20% since 2016.
Welcome to the club, y’all..
When facts change, Joe Biden does not change his mind. Whether that's due to old age or the hubris he already had as a senator, always the one who knew best even when he got it wrong like about Iraq, I don't know. But it's the problem.
Thus his 1970s vision of Israel helped lead to a Gaza death toll which The Lancet, not exactly an ignorant woke publication, estimates at 186,000, indirect deaths caused by war included. Thus his conception of strength as military leads him to believe he contains China (and is the only one who can do it) while that country openly, statedly, strives to diminish US soft power through dedollarization and with Russia is expanding BRICS until it includes a majority of the world population. And thus he does not see that a speech read forcefully from a teleprompter does not and cannot make up for non-verbal cues that convince people he's too old. The facts have changed. But Biden is staying the course in a brave old world that exists no longer, if it ever did.
As for it being understandable to wake up only after the debate: not quite. No one is his right mind could be sure Biden would remain cognitively fit until 2028. The risk of him being too old was undeniable yet denied.
There is no conceivable person that could’ve made it to the White House in 2020-2024 that wouldn’t have let Israel do exactly what it’s done (or worse). So yes Biden has allowed 186,000 Gazans die. Trump would’ve allowed more. Clinton, Obama, Haley, Rubio, Cruz, etc all would’ve allowed Israel to do the same or more. Nobody that has the ability to reach the White House also has the ability or motivation to militarily or financially cut Israel off
you're absolutely right, joe.
(that's a troy Aikman tribute to his onair relationship with joe buck.)
He let 186,000 die and avoided an all-out full-scale war in the Middle East.
Financially cutting Israel off might not impact their behavior, either.
yup.
bibi could just hit up putin or modi or mbs for replacements.
Noted, someone to show up and tell us that Biden is responsible for Netanyahu, sp that they can get elected the other guy, who is cheering on Netanyahu's genocide.
Statement from the White House neurologist - not that Dems or the media will let REALITY or FACTS get in the way of a good panic:
"The results of this year's exam were detailed in my 28 February letter: 'An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's…'"
Maybe you should let REALITY or FACTS get in your way. Your quote is from Biden's family doctor O'Connor, an osteopath, personal friend and former business associate. Who adds: ""President Biden has not seen a neurologist outside of his annual physical". Google it.
random guy on internet is a better source than a medical dr who is treating the patient.
We often forget this because it is so obvious. Thankfully, random guy on internet will remind us.
internet is great
Heh. I've found in the past when you opine on this or that subject it's usually safest to assume the opposite. Such is your reputation.
Osteopaths are physicians, too. My medical school, which is dominated by allopaths, has several osteopaths on the faculty.
My point was that if you lecture people about facts, you should come with facts. Such as, not calling an osteopath a neurologist.
Your own quote said that he was examined by a neurologist at his regular physical.
You seem very confused by the facts here.
You are the only one mixing up the two Drs.
ruralhobo is an older person.
dementia?
Fact: Biden was assessed by a neurologist.
Fact: ruralhobo didn't read the actual report about Biden's health which detailed every specialist that evaluated him.
"Maybe you should let REALITY or FACTS get in your way"
The irony in this comment of yours is particularly rich.
Next time perhaps you can read the actual document you are ranting about. Thinking before speaking is a good practice you should follow.
Here is the relevant bit:
"This physical has again included specialty consultation with several of our Presidential Specialty Consultants from the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. These specialties have included Optometry. Dentistry, Orthopedics (Foot and Ankle), Orthopedics (Spine), Physical Therapy, Neurology, Sleep Medicine, Cardiology, Radiology and Dermatology. Each of these specialists have independently reviewed the chart, examined the President, and concur with my findings and recommendations. I have also solicited feedback from my respected colleagues - the other physicians in the White House Medical Unit, who see the patient every day. Each of these doctors has reviewed my report for accuracy. My conclusions have been further informed through discussions with several of my fellow professors from the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. "
The quote was ABOUT 'his annual physical' and specifically summarized what the neurologistfound then.
This isn't like the Trump White House where unqualified hack doctor Ronny Jackson tells us Great Orange is the healthiest man who ever lived and then goes back to running an opioid pill mill out of the White House.
Two things to keep in mind:
First, at this point, the only way Biden is not the Democratic nominee, aside from dying, is if he voluntarily drops out.
Second, Biden as President, barely conscious and drooling into a cup, would be far, far better than Dumpster being President.
That last point should be the central message of the Democratic Party for the election.
yup.
My judgement of Biden's fitness did not change much because of the debate performance because I have avoided the fundamental attribution error of thinking that he performed badly because of his cognitive abilities rather than the situation. I believe Biden's reasons for his poor performance.
I challenge anyone here: Give yourself three to four days of sleep that is about half of what you usually need and see how well you do at extemporizing a speech on television while dealing with a barrage of lies, gaslighting and partisan attacks.
As a former hotel night receptionist, raising my kids during the day as a single parent, I know all about having a maximum of three hours of sleep for four nights in a row and still having to function normally. Even when having a cold or worse. Biden had plenty of time to think of the sleep he'd need, and make sure he had it, for the lies and gaslighting and attacks he knew were coming. This was no surprise 3 AM phone call. At the very least his excuses, including a laughable jet lag after 13 days back home, showed poor judgement or self-knowledge prior to the debate.
Another Dunning-Kruger post. *yawn*
That's gibberish, hobo.
"At the very least his excuses, including a laughable jet lag after 13 days back home"
It typically takes about 1 day to recover for each hour difference between the two places of travel.
During the first two weeks of June this were his trips that crossed time zones.
DC to France: 6 hr difference
France to Delaware: 6 hr difference
Delaware to Italy: 6 hr difference
Italy to California: 9 hr difference
California to DC: 3 hr difference
The first trip listed was on June 5, that last trip was on June 18, just 9 days before the debate
Anyone still feeling jet lagged on the 27 of June seems perfectly reasonable given the amount of travel made between June 5-18, and then only having 9 days sticking on the same time zone to recover.
It’s the look more than the words. And I don’t look forward to the September Debates if Biden makes it that far. The Presidency is not a picnic and we need a President who can handle the stress and sleepless nights. It’s the job.
And neither the sociopath/likely psychopath or the 5 minutes of fame RFK qualify for anything other than perhaps a mental hospital.
White House neurologist? That’s almost laughably sad. Is he on the staff full or part time? Never before in American history. Sorry to say something is very wrong with this spin and Biden’s appearance. There is a spectrum of disease and Biden is somewhere on it.
In any case I’m voting against Trump.
Here is the background for Biden's personal physician (omitting military service and training as a flight surgeon):
"O’Connor served 22 years in the U.S. Army, including tours of duty with the 82nd Airborne Division, 75th Ranger Regiment, and United States Army Special Operations Command, and over a decade at the White House.[5] O'Connor has received the Combat Medic Badge.[1] He is on faculty at George Washington University, where he served as the founding director of executive medicine.[3][4] He worked for three years in the George W. Bush administration.[6] In 2013, he was inducted into the Order of Military Medical Merit.[3] He began service as a physician in the White House in 2006 under the Bush administration.[7] In 2009, O'Connor was named physician to the Vice President.[8] In 2017, O'Connor retired from the US Army as Colonel.[7] In January 2020, he was appointed medical director of St. Bonaventure University's Franciscan Health Care Professions program.[2] According to Biden's memoir Promise Me, Dad, O'Connor worked closely with the Biden family during Beau Biden's battle with brain cancer.[6] In 2017, he collaborated with James Biden to create a healthcare program with Americore for veterans.[9]"
From Wikipedia. Notice that he has served both Republican and Democratic administrations and doesn't appear overly partisan.
I have no qualms about the qualifications of any of these guys. I have no doubt that they are competent and loyal. Just the notion of a White House neurologist seems bogus. He goes to the White House to see the President. Walter Reed is a couple of miles away and I’m sure anyone else at the White House goes there.
There is a spectrum of neurological disease and Joe is somewhere on it. Not full fledged anything but something is obviously happening. It’s the reality of aging. I’m 83.
Oh, sure. And mentally, at 41 I wasn't the person I was at 40. What's yer point?
"Walter Reed is a couple of miles away and I’m sure anyone else at the White House goes there."
This is incorrect. Your guess turns out to be wrong.
So does this new knowledge change your opinion? Or do we make up new guesses and pretend to now care about the new item we made up? Motivated reasoning is a powerful thing.
If they didn't have after-the-fact rationalizations they'd have nothing at all.
If you were a real physician, you would know that it is malpractice to diagnose a patient based on TV clips. If you are a physician, you are a quack. I hope you have retired and are no longer a danger to patients.
If there's a spectrum, then yes, that includes 'not having it'.
What a liar you are, Cycledoc.
When I'm in Democratic spaces, I'm fine talking about Biden's issues and I probably favor replacing him with Harris.
Republicans get no grace from me and I feel no obligation to share my true feelings with them: "Biden is fine. You've always been saying this. You're delusional. Screw you."
They get nothing from me.
There really isn't any need to replace Biden with Harris. If we elect Biden, we get Harris.
indeed.
yeah, i was on board with biden till the debate and thought the age issue was a weakness but an exaggerated and surmountable one. then i watched him perform live for 90 minutes vs trump and changed my mind. and that's not just or even mainly because i'm concerned about him being able to perform the duties of the presidency. he has a demonstrably capable, successful staff and if he truly loses it, he has a VP to take over. but he clearly doesn't have what it takes to run as strong a campaign as 2020 and i doubt he can win. it doesn't hurt my feelings to admit this change of heart. and it sure as hell won't hurt my feelings or embarrass me if he stays in and wins, proving me a bedwetting lib who bought into MSM spin. i'd be ecstatic and revel in any mockery from those who supported biden through this controversy. but those who should be embarrassed, should he lose and the rumors of his deterioration prove true, are all the inner circle who knew and covered it up.
No, you didn't. If you watched the debate you'd have seen him get his footing in the second half while Trump's sentences devolved into non-grammar.
Which makes me doubt the veracity of your statement.
if you can find a comment by be saying biden should drop out before the debate i stand corrected. but i certainly don't think i ever did. i may have said there were candidates i would prefer to him, but i'm fine with the primary process picking the nominee despite my personal reference.
+1
You know what? There were obvious and concerning signs that Biden's age was getting to him, and Jon Stewart raised them in FEBRUARY complete with clips from Biden's press conference, alongside concerns about Donald Trump's age and mental fitness for the position of President of the United States.
That was early during the primaries.
You know, the time, surely, when a responsible media would be asking these sorts of questions and candidates would be scrutinized prior to members of their parties voting for or against them.
The political press didn't seem interested at the time. Biden was a lock on the Democratic Primary and they care about the horse race, that's all. No race to see here, only one horse, who cares about its condition. And the idea that anyone can question Donald Trump's mental health, well that's just silly talk.
So here we are, with Biden and Trump as the two nominees, and NOW the political press decides on the basis of a single debate performance that Biden is unfit for office and Uncle Dementia. (Trump is again completely ignored. Let him share the full records of his "perfect test" including why one was administered to him while in office. Why is only the Democrat held to a basic standard of "mentally capable of being president" and the Republican gets a pass? Does anyone really believe it's Trump who is going to quietly be corrected when he has a memory lapse in office?)
I read one story recently where a reporter talked to a few people in Wisconsin. (Where's all those "fly-over country" interviews on this subject?) They'd not watched the debate or heard about the fallout from it. One asked a very good question: "So I'm not going to be able to vote for the candidate who I voted for in the primaries and who won them?"
Maybe, just maybe, if Biden agrees to step down and he and his team are part of the process of picking a replacement, that won't be a big issue for the Democrats on or near Election Day. But how many low-information voters (the swing voters) are going to walk into the voting booth and see Trump and a name they don't expect instead of Biden? How many voters will just stay home? Nobody knows, as far as I can tell, and the coverage couldn't be more "inside baseball" if the reporters tried. Polls could take another month or more to reflect what's happened, and that's assuming they actually catch low information voters.
I think, especially given the latest Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity, that American democracy might well be on the line in this election. Are supporters of the "pro-democracy" party really calling for the party to ignore the presidential primary results and formally nominate someone who DID NOT RUN in the primary as the next candidate for the presidency, on the basis of a single debate performance and a lot of media coverage?
It's even worse if on the basis of "Biden can't win now:" you ignore all the votes cast in the primary and allow POLLS to decide who your candidate is? Why bother even voting in November?
The sheer gall of the political media, who ignored and dismissed a meaningful and serious question six months ago when it mattered as much or more than it does now, and who continue to ignore the question for one of the two candidates, to suddenly intervene in a way designed to change the outcome of the primaries without in any way involving the voters! It's the clearest sign of all that in 2024 America, there's two classes of people: Politicians, the people who operate the parties, their staff and lobbyists, and the donor-class, along with their associated social circles and the political press; and everyone else. When it comes to who runs for election, who the viable candidates are, and what happens with our government, the first group have all the influence and power and the second don't much matter. And the surest sign is that when something seems to be going wrong, the political press focus almost exclusively on the class of people who actually matter and ignore the rest (ie. the people of the United States).
I love democracy. Why do so many of the people most engaged with politics and government seem so disinterested in it?
"Why do so many of the people most engaged with politics and government seem so disinterested in it?"
I think the word you're looking for is "uninterested." Disinterested is a synonym for objective.
Why did the people who raised them in 2020 and 2016 also raise the issues in 2024?
I wonder. Geez.
The problem is who will be able to get the 6% of the vote that matters, not the 94% of the vote that is baked in. And, I don't see Harris or any other viable Democrat improving the vote among the weirdos who can't decide between Biden and fascism. Anyone who sits out this election is even stupider than the undecideds. The real question is how to convince stupid people to vote against the fascists.
The folks touting Harris as a replacement for Biden seem to have forgotten that she already is she's the Vice President, we're electing a ticket.
Exactly. If there's an issue, she's already there.
geez, Kevin.
If you grasp at enough straws you can sink the ship. That's what's going on here, that's why this is being promoted, and a lot of gullible people are buying it.
Someone has found the formula for gullibility in the Democratic vote. Why do you want to fall for it?
Never change horses mid-stream. It's an old saying for a reason...it's apt.
I have seen nothing to suggest any of the alternatives would do better against Trump than Joe Biden, and I suspect they would do worse. Biden can run on his record. No one else can.
One advantage of being old is that I've seen this movie before - many times. Reagan had a disastrous first debate in 1984. Clinton had such a bad first debate he was polling in third place. GWB had a bad first debate. Obama had a bad first debate in 2012.
It's July. President Dukakis would like a word.
I've long criticized Biden for things that could be age or could not be (and always note that) but it was always clear that he is just quite frail and getting worse. I attributed his reluctance to change his FP thinking to age.
hypothetical... if biden stays and loses, how many biden supporters will entertain the notion that they may have been wrong?
I certainly will. Want to bookmark this? Of course, I don't expect the same standard of behaviour from you, so I won't bother to ask.
nah, honor system's fine
and i commend you for not taking the easy way out -- "biden would have won if the doubters hadn't weakened him"
Sigh. No one does the scientific method anymore. They'd rather be right and degrade the process rather than be wrong and upheld the judgement of what is arguably one of the most significant dispute resolution mechanisms in human history.
The Sensible Centrist pundits have long desired to play kingmaker for the Democratic Party, but Biden is staying on the ticket, and I will crawl over broken glass to vote for his reanimated corpse if I have to in order to defeat Trump. I'm surprised Yglesias hasn't suggested replacing Biden with Liz Cheney yet. The Sensible Centrists believe that only the GOP has a legitimate right to govern. You certainly don't see them calling on Trump to drop out despite napping during his trial and confusing Biden with Obama repeatedly.
If they weren't Sensible Centrists they wouldn't be allowed to be pundits.
Hmmm - A Trump-appointed federal judge in Alaska abruptly and with no explanation resigned from his position last Wednesday. Check out this TPM article
Who woulda thunk our PuP (Pervert un-President) TFG would appoint a thorough-going perverted US District Court (Alaska) judge. Seems to have worked out like a fair number of TFG's finest hiring/appointment decisions.
sounds like the hottest great white north romance since sarah palin & levi johnston.
(andy sullivan had it right that trig palin's parentage wasn't what it seemed, but sarah was the mother. it's just that todd wasn't the father.
& bristol's subsequent pregnancy was her avenging her mom's stepping out with her daughter's boyifriend, & the daughter restating her claim to the boi. real brandy vs. monica thing.)
John Fetterman won after he had a massive stroke against exactly the same kind of goofball candidate.
+1
but my concern is that biden is one weak capillary away from something unrecoverable and the republican congress would never approve a democrat to replace harris as vp
(biden had surgery for an aneurism once upon a time, so not entirely out of the realm of possibility)
You know, Republicans never give a shit about what Democrats want, perhaps Democrats should stop giving a shit about what Republ;icans want?
if no dem vp gets approval of both houses, succession would skip to spkr of the house, which is a republican right now
probably not our primary concern, but a president harris should be making sure all the mechanics on AF one are dems 😉
the dick cheney supplying ground crew for paul wellstone piece.
Yglesias, who is a sorta high-functioning autistic person, is wrong all the time about all kinds of things, it had to take an enormous shock to get him to have a glimmer of self-realization. Here's hoping he tries to get more experience with this instead of going back to his usual.
Just listened to the MSNBC Morning Joe radio interview with Joe Biden. Biden makes clear that he is fighting (including fighting the "elites" in the system who want him out and want to over-rule the will of the voters). That fighting language and exhibiting frustration/anger towards elites could have interesting effects: (1) Fighting in that context, with greater voice amplitude/force and speed is all about the approach system and exhibiting dopamine activation (showing energy) to which some will respond very positively (2) Fighting against "elites" and for the everyday voters could play very well among a range of undecided voters (for a variety of different reasons since for many in these undecided groups the "elites" Biden refers to could easily be a common "bête noire"). So, (think Heider's balance theory) if this logic turns out to be correct, the NYT and other elites might end up indirectly (and without that intent) bolstering Joe Biden's presidential bid. Curious to see what happens.
This is exactly what Harry Truman did in 1948, he ran against a "do nothing Congress" and the elites who held the "failed haberdasher from Missouri" in contempt.
This is definitely a year to run against do-nothing Congressional Republicans. Chip Roy (R) has already given Democrats some great video.
@Lynn Miller:
"So, if this logic turns out to be correct, the NYT and other elites might end up indirectly bolstering Joe Biden's presidential bid."
Not only do I think this is possible, but, in a weird sort of way, I think this is the dynamic that is now driving most of NYT's hysterical Biden coverage.
The NYT has invested an astonishing amount of its resources and energy since the debate on driving Biden out of the race. I don't think they realized at first that it would work out this way, but they have now very much put their own reputation on the line. And I'm certain that they are astonished that Biden not only remains in the race but vows to stay in through the election.
The NYT now realizes that it could look very much like the worst out-of-touch, anti-democratic, and elitist fool imaginable when Biden wins reelection in November. So, I believe it is now fighting to salvage its own reputation.
There's simply no question that the NYT (AND Kevin Drum) overstepped by asking Biden to step down (without ever publishing an editorial with a similar request aimed at convicted felon trump!!!). That was the hubris before the fall. Now they're simply growing more and more desperate to drive Biden out before he ultimately gets the chance to prove them wrong.
So there's nothing high-minded about the frenzy the NYT is desperately trying to maintain. At this point, they're just trying to save themselves by destroying an incumbent President they obviously hate.
Thank you!