The best way to assess Joe Biden's mental condition would be to sit down and have a talk with him. Unfortunately, most of us never have that opportunity. White House staffers do, but obviously they're biased and can't necessarily be trusted.
But it turns out that "most of us" doesn't include Paul Krugman:
As it happens, I had an hourlong off-the-record meeting with Biden in August. I can’t talk about the content, but I can assure you that he’s perfectly lucid, with a good grasp of events. And outside of that personal experience, on several occasions when I thought he was making a serious misjudgment — like his handling of the debt ceiling crisis — he was right, and I was wrong.
It's instructive that, as far as I know, not a single person who has interacted with Biden personally has ever reported any kind of cognitive decline. This includes Republican leaders who have visited him in the White House, even though they have every incentive to leak dirt on Biden to the press. In fact, I've never come across a comment from anyone, even on background, that describes him as anything other than attentive, engaged, and detail oriented.
If we're going to keep this up, someone needs to describe a conversation with Biden—just one!—where he exhibited any kind of intellectual deficit. Anybody?
Come on. We are part the point where anecdotal evidence is acceptable.
Biden needs to do a cognitive test live on camera, preferentially together with Trump.
This also needs to become standard practice for all presidential candidates.
Which test would you administer and what results would you consider acceptable?
I think people casually repeat what they hear without considering what it is they actually want to know. For the last 30 hours I've heard people repeat the same word all over: Gratuitous.
I think any reasonable test. Preferably one for which practice or knowing the answers in advance will not help.
What's a reasonable test and what are you looking to measure?
- Mensa entrance test
- SAT test
- 6th grade CogAT test
- MoCA
- MMSE
There's no point to blocking someone from practicing or knowing the answers of a cognitive test for ALZ/Dementia.
What's a qualifying test result or minimum qualifying score? What if someone has mild dementia at age 81 -- is that a disqualifying case?
What if someone has a working memory problem because they had a brain injury from a prior stroke years ago, or have ADHD, or from Long-COVID?
What other tests should we require of candidates? Cancer screening? Cholesterol levels? Blood pressure?
If Biden fails a MoCA test, shouldn't he be removed immediately by his cabinet under the 25A? You okay with that?
I would love to see candidates take an SAT test, but in a political environment where many people think the future of the US depends on the next president, how can you convince anyone that the other candidate didn't get the questions in advance?
A better choice might be something more like Jeopardy.
Have representatives from each candidate choose a two digit number, have the operation sequence between addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. First candidate to hit the buzzer gets to answer the question.. and had better get it right.
Make it fast and do at least 50 questions.
There is no disqualifying result... but the American people see it on live TV and use it to inform their voting decisions.
I don't think more than 3% of the population over 70 can get past the 5th highest decile. By the time people retire, most people haven't touched, let alone remember SOH-CAH-TOA in 5 decades.
Quite right. I completed the Calculus series at my local college after I retired, so I have indeed touched SOH CAH TOA recently. But my experience tells me I'm among a very small percentage of my age group.
You can guess on every question in math and still get above 5 the percentile with a minimal effort on English.
Personally, at 56, I had to look up SOHCAHTOA. Not even sure we used that mnemonic. But I 100% remember that SIN(0) is 0 and COS(0) is 1 and that's all you need. TAN is 0 at 0 so it is SIN/COS so cancel out hypotenuse and it is opposite over adjacent.
I can do these calculations in my head instantly without hesitation after 40 years. If I cannot do then at 80 it will be due to mental deterioration, not forgetting.
Biden needs to do a cognitive test live on camera, preferentially together with Trump...This also needs to become standard practice for all presidential candidates.
This is a ludicrous and unworkable idea. Which is probably why no democracy employs it. If we're serious about ensuring a reasonable level of cognitive capacity for our elected officials, we might as well go ahead an amend the constitution to set an age limit. I think given longer life expectancies for our elites (sadly non-elite Americans are dying younger), that time has probably come. I favor 80 for the presidency and 85 for Congress.
Some people have early onset Alzheimer's. On the other hand Charlie Munger and Warren Buffet seem to have been / be very sharp into their late 90s.
What is impractical about public cognition tests?
Yeah! And how about we have 'em compete to see who can do more pushups? After all, it is called the "presidential fitness" test!
And maybe a spelling bee and a talent competition! Oooh, and it could be done as part of a big Game Show type extravaganza!
I like the idea of a spelling bee. Trump's fourth grade functional vocabulary would tank him in ten minutes.
The test should not be chosen based on disadvantaging a particular candidate.
How would you do a spelling bee that is unriggable by political partisans?
… walk unaided a kilometer or two, ride a bicycle …
I am pretty sure Trump can beat Biden on pushups, but that is not an important test of fitness to be president.
A test of mental acuity is an important test of fitness to be president.
A spelling bee would also work.
I don't know how you would reasonably judge a talent competition.
"I am pretty sure Trump can beat Biden on pushups,"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH--whew [wipes eyes].
I have no idea how many pushups Biden can do, but I'd heavily wager that the figure is >0. Whereas with Trump, if he ever got face down on the floor, he ain't getting back up again unless and until all 245 pounds of his 31+ BMI ass are hoisted up by some burly mar-a-lago caddies.
We've seen Bidden fall walking up stairs and tripping on stage. Had anything like that happened to Trump?
Yes. Here’s one from 2020:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-narrowly-avoids-falling-at-a-campaign-event-new-hampshire-2020-8
Um... whole point of the article is that he didn't fall... unlike Biden.
The guy who needs two hands to drink a cup of water? Sounds to me like the person with dementia is YOU.
And swimsuits too?
Good idea! That would be in keeping with the complete non-stupidity of MF's idea.
Are you suggesting that mental competency is as irrelevant to the presidency as appearance in a swimsuit?
Have Democrats given up claiming that Biden is not senile and switched to a claim that it does not matter?
Certainly would have disqualified Reagan for his second term, since he was already showing symptoms of Alzheimers by then.
And how about Mitch McConnell? Should he have to take a public cognition test? Or were his obvious and public freezes sufficient grounds for you to demand his retirement?
Cognitive assessments are administered in a private clinical setting; anything else would have no validity.
Why private? Shouldn't the American people see it?
You need to hammer out a protocol that cannot be cheated.
I've never come across a comment from anyone, even on background, that describes him as anything other than attentive, engaged, and detail oriented.
That's the problem: America wants and needs a screaming, narcissistic, psychopathic madman to outrage, aggrieve and entertain us. The question might rather be, has anyone ever engaged the MAGA base and found it attentive, empathetic, rational, and concerned with getting things done?
I keep thinking of the US government in "Idiocracy." Of course, they couldn't help it.
+1
This is the main storyline for the 2024 election entertainment cycle. Attracting eyeballs and clicks doesn't just happen. The news is boring, information is boring. Americans want drama, entertainment.
This post is correct, but it's like trying to push back against the storylines of any TV series. Making sense isn't the point of the entertainment..... the point is entertainment. The NYTimes needs clicks, not informed subscribers.
Perhaps some serious pushback highlighting the idiocy of the Qpublican caucus, like you can find in any Dana Milbank column. They do more stupid things in a day (one of the very few days that the Republican Congress actually "works") than Gaffy Joe does in a year.
Democrats might fight fire with fire, for a change.
But they would really need to use surrogates to do it. Non-governmental spokers folks. Because people who actually are part of the federal government still need to work with those bozos.
That, in my opinion, is why Mitch McConnell hasn't been flayed over his many public "freezes."
Duping dupes is the business model nowadays.
I personally am appalled by the Biden pile on. I could be crazy, but I wonder if there won’t be some kind of backlash among people so fed up with watching Biden get bullied about his age that his support actually goes up. It’s simply grotesque. I can’t be the only one sickened by a mob screaming for his scalp.
And I would add that the number of times Liberals declared Trump to be done for good were without number. Anyone else remember the bizarre incident about injecting bleach? And yet, to be honest, without several disasters all working against Trump at once (the pandemic, massive 2020 summer protests, an enormous impeachment scandal) he would have won reelection. In modern American history, a party in control of the White House does not lose after one term unless simply everything falls apart.
All that being said, the campaign has not started in earnest yet. It’ll kick off with the upcoming state of the union. Then Biden will spend the summer campaigning in some form or another. And that’s when people will finally start tuning in and taking a good look at him. So we’ll see what happens then.
Good points. Also, for what it's worth, instead of rallying in defense and outrage, lefties also turn on President Biden. Or so the infotainment media assures us.
In a serious conversation and attermpt to find solutions, it's okay to admit you might be wrong or have reservations. But politics is NOT that. It's bloody warfare. Sure, the "blood" is virtual, but the slaughter and devastation that is wrought is still there.
Democrats and sane peopler need to push back, hard, and go after Mr Hur. Assassinate HIS character. Bring out HIS sordid past, his trumpolian credentials. Don't let a day go by without ravaging him on the talking head shows.
And don't forget the Republican's Great Messiah, who's not only demented but nutso.
We could win, but too many of us prefer to be upset
https://www.mattball.org/2024/02/for-you-and-all-of-us-challenge-for.html
We could win, but too many of us prefer to stick with a candidate who is unpopular, and who polling has shown is extremely unlikely to win. In Biden's case, incumbency is not an advantage.
I am not concerned about Biden's memory or his ability to think. I am concerned about his lack of judgement.
Hey, we live in a democracy, right? Why are Democrats falling all over themselves to attack those who think we need a better candidate? In our great Party there are surely those who are qualified. If the best we can do is an 81 year old with suspect judgement, then we ought to disband the Party.
Yes, there is a cult of Trump. The answer is not to create a mirror cult of Biden.
So, who then? Your answer will tell us a lot about who you are, newbie. We really don't know you. Yet.
Newbie? Is the best you can do is personal insult?
How about answering my point that if the Democratic Party really has no credible alternatives to Biden, then they should disband?
But this "newbie" answered your very question on this blog yesterday. The answer I gave was Whitmer, Beshear, Newsom and Dean.
Pardon me for being a devotee of democracy.
Thank you, those are solid and plausible names, except Dean, who hasn't held office in more than a decade.
You don't know much about American History, though. The Democratic Party is the older of the two primary parties, started by the "Anti-Federalists" led by Jefferson in the late 1790's.
Our system of "first past the post" elections has a strong bias toward two parties, one more conservative and the other more liberal or progressive. You can change the name, but both coalitions are pretty constant.
They've swapped geographic regions since the New Deal; that's the big difference. The Segs now dominate the party which fought to free the Slaves. It's weird.
So, what is the basis of your claim that I don't know much about American History? I don't remember stating a different opinion about the origin of the Democratic Party. I don't remember saying anything about it. Why do you assume I wasn't aware of this?
And, I misspoke when I said the name "Dean". I meant Dean Phillips.
Devoted you may be (still TBD), but your 'analysis' such as it is paints you as anything but intelligent. You can't even start with a coherent, explicit goal in mind.
And you can't even start with decent argument, Scent.
Chuckle. You would have been better served by stating a coherent, explicit goal: I would have said, for exmaple, something along the line of making sure Trump is not relected and therefore going with the person most likely to defeat him (or Trump-Lite) in the general election.
But you didn't. Thanks for making my point for me, lightweight.
Good people, none of whom have any foreign-policy experience. The international situation is, as usual, a challenge.
If Newsom ever runs for national office, we’ll never hear the end of the French Laundry jaunt. Was that good judgment?
"Good people, none of whom have any foreign-policy experience.
So, they could appoint Biden as Secretary of State, if Biden's ego would be able to stand that. But if he had the best interests of our country at heart.......
Yes, the Republican thugs would try to smear any Democrat. But, if we had a younger candidate, then Trump becomes the oldest candidate, and Trump then has complete ownership of the "age problem".
And the R smearing would have to start from scratch.
Chuckle. Zaphod thinks that not having an 'age issue', however bogus, would completely stump any Republican trying to insert a negative storyline into the discourse.
Must suck to be as dimwitted as you. But then again, I wouldn't know.
There aren't any institutional obstacles to any of the people you name running to replace Biden as the party's nominee. The plain truth is, only Dean Phillips has stepped forward to offer himself.
I suppose one or more of the others could be coaxed to do so if a draft movement gathered momentum. But it has never been the party's job to make that happen.
Oh, I’m sure we’d have no problem finding a candidate who’s never made a questionable judgment ….
Unless Biden withdraws voluntarily, I’m solidly behind him. Yes, there are lots of qualified Democratic politicians, but Biden has demonstrated an exceptional ability to get programs through a fractious Congress, even with bipartisan votes. He has restored relations with our allies in Europe and Asia. I’m not a cultist, I’m making a rational choice in an imperfect world.
If Biden is the candidate, I will vote for him, no question. But I honestly think that despite my vote, he will lose. I base this on my observations of American politics for most of my 78 years.
Biden did a lot of good as you mention. But what good is a candidate who can't get elected? When Adlai Stevenson was told (in the 1950's, for "newbies") that he would get the vote of every thinking American, he replied, "yes, but I need a majority".
OK, and I think Biden will defeat Trump by a bigger margin than 2020. TFG has done nothing to expand his appeal since then. Biden has the advantage of incumbency this time; there is Dobbs blowback; and an infrastructure bill, climate progress and medical-care cost initiatives, among other accomplishments.
His lack of judgment in what? He seems to be doing pretty well to me.
I like Newsom and Whitmer but seriously doubt their ability to win against Trump. Winning is everything in this election. If we lose it may well be the last.
Well, I will reply honestly, as usual. His worst judgement was in deciding to run again, and not standing by his pledge to be a bridge to a younger generation. He did save democracy in 2020, but 2024 is a different ball game, albeit with the same appearance. Biden's ego now risks that he will be the man whose actions caused the loss of democracy in America.
But, I believe that he also badly misjudged Netanyahu's intransigence in his genocidal actions. What sticks in my mind is his visit to Israel and giving Netanyahu a big hug. And being intransigent in his opposition to a cease-fire.
He is having his Secretary of State trying to negotiate a ceasefire at this moment.
And again, this is a two-party system. The other guy is not going to be less supportive of Bibi; that would cut him off from Mrs. Adelson’s cash.
@Zaphod:
“Hey, we live in a democracy, right? Why are Democrats falling all over themselves to attack those who think we need a better candidate?”
One obvious reason is because the time for a new candidate has passed. The November 2022 Midterm elections essentially served as a referendum on whether or not Biden would seek reelection. If the Dems had done badly, I believe that Biden would’ve announced by the beginning of 2023 that has was not seeking another term. And that would’ve allowed other Dem candidates time to build campaigns for the 2024 primary season now underway.
Instead, the Democrats performed spectacularly well in the 2022 midterms. Defying historic trends, the party in control of the White House gained a Senate seat and lost only a very few house seats. And that wasn’t just with our ostensibly unpopular president Biden in the White House, that was also back near the very height of the post pandemic inflation wave.
So with the Dems performing astonishingly well (under much worse economic circumstances than they face now) any attempt to replace Biden made essentially zero sense. And that basic equation hasn’t changed, no matter how much columnists, pundits, or tweeters may shout and scream otherwise.
+1!
People are all turning into harm-chairs clinicians, diagnosticating Biden based on some moment on TV. There is a big difference between cognitive impairment and misspeaking. Momentarily confusing two names that sound the same, or two countries that are both high on the list is normal. This can be corrected in the next sentence. Spoken language of everyone is ladened with mistakes all the time. This isn't dementia. My mother had progressive dementia, probably over a period of 20 years. I know what it looks like. Early on, you would hit something in conversation that made no sense and she would redirect quickly to go around it. But at some point, there was no going around. The conversation could not make sense and support logical communication. There is zero sign of this occurring with Biden, and nobody who had one on one meetings with him reported this. Trump on the other hand recommended to drink bleach on live TV.
"Spoken language of everyone is ladened with mistakes all the time"
A good illustration would be Thursday's supreme court oral argument. I've listened to a few of these now and am always surprised at how fumble-mouthed and incoherent some of them sound, to the point that I have a hard time understanding how the lawyers can sometimes manage to figure out what a justice is really getting at.
This. If you ever want to be humbled (as an attorney or human being!), listen to a recording of yourself in a hearing/oral argument. Or worse yet, review the *transcript* of the same.
In my mind, I'm eloquent, pithy, and above all, clear. But in reality, there's a cringe-inducingly awful lot of "ums" and abandoned sentence fragments in how I speak; it's mild comfort that that is how we all sound, but it nonetheless is a good reminder of why a bit of humility and charity in evaluating the speech of others is warranted.
We are all to used to actors portraying politicians and attorneys speaking written dialog with gaffs edited out.
Call me when Biden's chief of staff, Secretary of State, national security adviser, and Secretary of Defense all quit in digust and call him a "fucking moron" and state unequivocally that he has no clue what he's doing and that he's unfit to serve. That's a pretty good mental test in my book and if it happens, I'll concede that Biden needs to step aside.
Thank you. The issue is not Biden's "sharpness" (whatever exactly that means) relative to some ideal or arbitrary standard, it's which candidate do people prefer overall? And unfortunately, My Imaginary Perfect Candidate is not on the ballot.
TFN has a battery of concern--Bret Stephens, MoDo, a couple of others--in a box, whilee Krugman--who's actually spoken to the man--is shunted far below.
(The only time I pay attention to MoDo's column is when her moron brother's yearly appearance; it's the only time I expect honesty, however twisted. After her fake John Kerry Nascar quote, I knew nothing could get her fired.)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100204.shtml
Thanks for the link to a story I hadn’t known about. I’ve been questioning if I should renew my online subscription to the NYT, and this has decided it.
just 2 questions for both biden and trump:
what is the day of the week?
who won the 2020 election?
"what is the day of the week?"
This immediately reminded me of a David Frye sketch of a conversation between Nixon and Agnew from his classic I am the President comedy album. As I recall (I haven't heard it in a long time so this is from memory and I'm only a decade younger than Joe), Nixon tells Agnew that as a reward for something or other he's going to teach him to tell time. And Spiro eagerly replies "And the days of the week! And the months of the year!"
I just checked and the album is available for streaming on Tidal, I'll have to give it a nostalgic listen.
Why don't we just reinstitute the Pharonic fitness test? If it was good enough for Egypt...
Joe Biden is clearly in the throes of dementia, which is why he can singlehandedly direct every legal proceeding in Trump's 91 felonies and multiple civil trials.
Well, if he is doing THAT, then how does he also have time to govern AND campaign??? I had no idea that Mr 81 was really superman!
!
I assume that, like me, we all graduated from 4th grade, so we're all as smart as a 5th grader.
I assume that, like me, we all graduated from 5th grade, so we're all experts on their behavior patterns in that we all spent a year imbedded with a classroom full of 5th graders.
I assume that, unlike me, most people who don't support President Biden are smarter than a 5th grader. If someone tells me something that I understand but disagree with, I'm too stupid not to say the quiet part out loud. I tell them why I disagree leaving my assumptions vulnerable to potentially successful challenges.
The downside is I end up disappointed with myself for how often I discover I'm wrong. The upside is don't end up unintentionally enabling the bad behavior of former President Donald and his supporters by failing to support President Biden in every way possible.
Biden has a legacy to protect, and has long shown his willingness to do what is necessary to make sure the Democratic Party has a future.
If the risk of him drooling into a cup was high 4 years from now, the people in his inner circle would have told him it was time to go. Jill and party bigwigs would be able to get him to retire. Biden is not a deranged narcissist.
It's not like he's so individually popular with a cult following that the party thinks it can't possibly survive if they lose him. That is Trump and the Republicans - Trump could pee himself on stage and they'd ignore it.
Biden could be replaced, if necessary, and party leaders know they could have convinced him to go if it made sense to. The fact that he's running suggests to me that he is both considered healthy enough to make it 4 more years, even if he declines a bit, and that no one in the party is an obvious successor who will do better at the polls than Biden. The primaries are bearing this out. There is no fabulously popular Democrat who would easily get more votes than Biden right now.
You can believe that Joe Biden is not mentally addled and still believe that both he and Trump are too old to be President. Remember not too long ago we pointed to the gerontocracy of the Soviet Union as proof there was something wrong with their system.
‘We’?
There is a difference between an elderly dictator who clings to power till his dying day, and a democratically elected President who is subject to a two-term limit.
How is saying ‘X is too old to be President’ different from saying ‘X is too black to be President’?
There’s nothing infirming about being black, age is another matter. As someone past middle age as good as shape as I’m in I’m not as strong fast or quick witted as I was 20 years ago. Wiser arguably (questionably) but don’t pretend that age doesn’t have real negative impacts on the body and mind.
The biggest problem with all of this is that while who is president does matter, what matters more are all the people who come with the president.
All the political appointees, from advisors to cabinet members to agency heads, are the people who actually operate the portions of government that directly affect us every day. And no president makes decisions without receiving lots of advice. The thing to be most concerned about for the 2024 election isn't whether Trump is going to be "dictator on day one," because no president can claim such powers in the absence of people who will obey.
The thing to be worried about is all the other people who come along with these two candidates. Even if Biden were impaired by age, we know the sorts of people he will appoint. And the same with Trump. Trump was barely kept in check by a range of semi-competent advisors in his first term; he's essentially promised to gut the executive and replace everyone with cronies, people who will say and do what he wants and who cares whether they're otherwise qualified.
Biden won't do that.
The surest sign of the contempt with which the American political press holds our government in is its obsession with the presidency as if the entire country is operated by a single person, and that single person is responsible for everything. They don't understand government or how it functions. One wonders if they'd be happier if America were a monarchy.
Bothered me already in 2016, when ‘any fool could plainly see’ the contrast in quality between the likely appointees of the candidates (not to mention between the candidates themselves).
Yes, I think quite a few of our ‘journalists’ would love to have a royal family to gossip about.
Well, look at the breathless coverage of every grunt and twitch of the British monarchy over the last few decades! The political press was creaming its panties over "Princess Di" ... and still is. They totally eat up all the sex scandals and allegations of "racism."
We need reporting that understands the American system of government and helps the readers to comprehend it, too.
this entire Biden/Trump "thing" could have been avoided with a simple age limit in order to be president. is this ageism? I think it's more pragmatic than discriminatory.
both Biden and Trump are too old. IMHO one is sharper than the other but we shouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Sure, anyone can develop early Alzheimers but what are the chances?
We are becoming too entrenched in our thinking of "party". D's think Trump is too old the same way R's think Biden is senile.
No national elected officials over the age of 65. Apply it to the House, Senate and President.
I don’t oppose TFG because he’s too old; I oppose him because he’s too racist, misogynistic and willfully stupid. And he’s an asshole. All of which he has been since his youth.
Having worked to 69-1/2 in a research lab, I’m not keen on an age-65 cutoff. Now in my mid-70’s, I’m working on a solo project involving multiple axes of motion control.
you don't have your finger on the proverbial nuclear trigger
there is a difference
Regardless, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to impose an age limit, which will not happen. In the meantime, it is likely to come down to either Biden’s or Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger. Easy choice.
I agree whole hardheartedly about who's finger I'd like to see on the nuclear trigger
But as for the Constitutional amendment I believe it could pass. There's enough republicans who have criticized Bidens age and Dems have done it to Trump
Presidents who were over 65 when their terms ended: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Truman, Ike, Reagan, HW Bush.
Tango-
the way around this is as follows
over 65 PRIOR to the election? can't run
If you turn 65 while in office you cannot run again
it's not that hard
Or we can just let Americans vote for who they want to have as President, etc.
Oh c'mon. I believe him but Krugs is 100% biased.
Krugman’s 70, so obviously demented himself!!
A few points on President Biden I would like to make:
1). Bill Kristol pointed out on X that when people mean that Biden is "old", especially in comparison to Trump, what they mean is they see a frailty to him on TV or elsewhere. That's why any criticism of Biden forcibly attacking the Special Counsel's report is completely misguided. For the worse thing he could have done is not to say anything at all, and simply reinforce the Counsel's report. By denouncing Hur's work and showing some natural emotion is something that should be encouraged of Biden in this campaign. Anything else is just Washington press corps tut-tutting. Trump gets mad all the time and writes in ALL CAPS yet no one in the press holds that against him because he always does i. It's actual news when Biden gets angry. Perhaps he should do so more often. It's not just MAGA that looks for and appreciates a "fighter"
2). Bill Schrer made the point on Washington Monthly that if the GOP ever "solved" the immigration problem, the Republican Party would come flying apart because its the one topic that allows for Trump to have complete control of the party:
"At the time, Trump’s rejection of the offer was confounding. Why walk away from a deal that would have fulfilled his signature campaign pledge? That question is easier to answer once you grasp that Trump, and now his entire party sculpted in his image, is not interested in problem-solving. If the problems with the immigration system were solved, then Trump would be without his best tool to maintain his grip on the party.
Typically, candidates and parties adapt to changing circumstances. If a problem is solved or a crisis abated, you move on to the next one. But nothing revs up MAGA loyalists like immigration. As Trump said back in 2016 to The New York Times editorial board, “If [a rally] gets a little boring, if I see people … thinking about leaving … I just say, ‘We will build the wall!’ and they go nuts.”
And given what they're planning to do on immigration if Trump gets elected, constant conflict is all but assured.
3). Bad reporters or reporters writing bad stories need to be called out, especially when it comes to the Biden re-election campaign. Thus we have people like Jonathan Martin and Tim Alberta trying to puff up Dean Phillip's chances in New Hampshire or Martin warning about Cornel West ruining Biden's re-election chances even though chances area West will barely get on a handful of ballots due to his eschewing the Green Party nomination. One grants the fact pursuing these non-major party nominations is like stepping into quicksand (as RFK Jr. is about to find out with the Libertarians) but it's a lot easier getting on the ballot with those party nominations than doing so on your own. As for Phillips, I imagine it was tempting given New Hampshire being stripped of its delegates due to its first primary law in defiance of the DNC, that anger over this would propel Dean, but come on, if you can't give away free coffee and donuts in a campaign stop because no one shows up, I'm afraid a McCarthy-like surge is just not in the offing. And besides, a Democratic Party accused of being elitist, the last thing it needs is to have the candidate of the Tech Bros win the nomination
4). Speaking of bad reporting, there's already starting to be written speculation pieces by political writers about Biden being replaced on the ticket and the nomination to be decided by open convention. Yes, this old fantasy rears it's ugly head again, especially after the Hur Report. That's the last thing the Dems need. For all this stupid talk about Joe stepping down to be the "transition bridge" in the party, pray tell how much good would it do the party if a nomination campaign broke out between Vice President Harris, Gov. Whitmer, Gov., Pritzker, Sen. Booker, Congressman Khanna, etc? Nothing! And since there's no real disagreement on policies between the aforementioned, a nomination contest decided by race and class would be a disaster. Biden is the only Dem who can unite the party. Period!
5). I usually agree with a lot of Ruy Texeria writes. But one would think he would be Biden's biggest backer given his position in the center of the party. That he isn't leaves one puzzled. Does he not understand those saying "Genocide Joe" are not exactly centrists or is trying to impress his right-wing bosses with hos contrarianism? He's spent all his time since November of 2022 trying to pretend he wasn't wrong about the outcome of the mid-term elections even though he clearly was!
6). As a former paleo, I often supported the idea of the Presidency taking a step back in terms of its power and media spotlight. I thought a Presidency like Calvin Coolidge's was in order once again instead of Trump's in your face, 24/7 Presidency. All I can say is Go Joe Go!