I will never understand the mindset of somebody who says “this guy who has done the job for four years, but has lost a step scares me more than the guy who is a convicted felon, failed miserably at the job before, tried to overthrow the government, is indicted for being a national security threat , oopenly flirts with dictators, lies inc…
I will never understand the mindset of somebody who says “this guy who has done the job for four years, but has lost a step scares me more than the guy who is a convicted felon, failed miserably at the job before, tried to overthrow the government, is indicted for being a national security threat , oopenly flirts with dictators, lies incessantly, is morally and ethically bankrupt, twice impeached, doesn’t value democracy, and has a 900 page plan to break the government. Oh, then also gut Social Security and Medicare’
While England and France rallied to protect democracy as their number one priority. America, who spent decades, believing their own hype about being the world leader in democracy is on the precipice of giving it away.
I think what most people are saying is, I will definitely vote for him, but I'm afraid low information voters, who sadly decide many elections, won't, so he can't win.
Which is why outlets like the Bulwark are so dangerous. Time and again Biden has proven he's up to the job of being POTUS yet this outlet is still cranking out article after article with the pipe dream that maybe, just maybe, somebody will force Biden out and they will get a different candidate with even less of a chance of defeating Trump. All of this based on a few bad moments in one debate.
If it's true that the only thing that matters is defeating Trump, this time and energy could be spent on educating those low information voters on what should be the very easy job of presenting the stakes of this election and the choice between the two. The choice is a glass of water vs a glass of Draino and half the country still thinks Draino might be the better option. The media needs to start doing its effing job.
Dangerous? The Bulwark isn't dangerous unless you believe it has the power to make YOU vote in a way counter to what you believe. It doesn't have that power over me. Bulwark has consistently explored all sides of Biden and Trump and decided--or most of its individual writers decided--that Biden cannot win and therefore needs to be replaced to save the Republic. Bulwark cites its evidence and shows its homework. What more do you want from an opinion publication?
"Replace Biden because he can't beat Trump" is a valid point of view, and intellectually honest. But it's not the only point of view, and nobody is required to believe it or vote accordingly.
That makes Bulwark not "dangerous," but refreshingly honest. Information is not Drano.
But, like Drano, information can occasionally clear a plug. I would add that the Bulwark staff has burned plenty enough bridge and eaten plenty enough crow to have an opinion regarding the question who can beat Trump. Tim Miller wrote a whole book of crow, for chrissakes... .
I read Tim's book. I have also listened to him tell Democrats to pursue the same GD strategies that drove the Republican party into the arms of nutcases.
I think he meant "dangerous" to Trump, which is what "refreshingly honest" is. I doubt Bulwark will change more than a handful of votes from Trump (or RFK Jr.) to the Democratic candidate (whoever he/she may be) but it might scare more than a few Never-Trump voters against staying home.
Biden, of course. I'm a lifelong Dem. I've never voted R in my life because what the party stands for represents me better than the R party does. Whoever my party chooses as our nominee, I will do all I can to get him or her elected.
Do you really think a long-time and very active Bulwark subscriber would vote for Trump???
Yes, Max. The reality of politics in America is that strong and wrong beats weak and right every time. That's from Bill Clinton. He ought to know, yes?
Bridget, I cannot answer for the vast majority of voters who think he is too old to run for a second term. I'm just saying, by all accounts, they do.
As far as I'm concerned, when he decided to run again in April 2023, I felt he was the only Dem that could beat Trump. He had just come off of a terrific SOTU. I said at the time, "If he keeps this up, he'll win a second term." I didn't think much of Kamala at that time. I thought a great deal of Pete B and Whitmer, but I didn't think enough conservatives would vote for a woman, and I was sure they wouldn't vote for a gay man. I liked Shapiro and Wes Moore, but they had only just been elected.
Biden's abysmal debate performance and the dearth of appearances he made on TV immediately following it to assure the voters that it was an event, not a condition, as Pelosi put it, convinced me he's not the Joe I voted for in 2020 or the Joe at the terriffic SOTU last March and therefore he cannot beat Trump. That is the only thing that matters.
As to the alternative, Kamala is looking way better to me than she did 15 months ago. She's been killing it on the stump, and this podcast convinced me that she had to be something other than the law and order Dem she was known as in 2020 because of the political moment then (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvaxlKuOuE&list=PLdMrbgYfVl-szepgVpArP0obwYgbKdfvx&index=1).
Well thanks for asking a question rather than just blasting me with statements. That's called having a conversation.
But your assumption that if I think Biden should drop out means I'm going to vote for Trump is completley wrong. Clinton's comment is not about me. It's about the average voter. Do you see the difference?
Because Republicans proved they would vote for a used car salesman with no successful experience in anything but inheritance and reality TV over a competent woman.
It’s become unbearable to watch Biden. I was a big fan, and will vote for him. But no longer can he win. NY has become a battleground state? The Democratic Party is crumbling under Biden.
There's a distinction between having the skills to be an effective president and having the ability to be elected president. Unfortunately Joe's electability skills are eroding much faster than his presidenting skills.
Perfect. People don't understand it's two distinct jobs. 1) Running for President; 2) Serving as President. The former is more exhausting than the latter. I ran for state legislature in my early 30s. It was a competitive race (which I lost) and I tell you it was an extremely exhaustive appearance. I remember driving downtown for some event and then afterward sitting down trying to figure out where my car was. I was so tired I couldn't remember where I parked. It's got to be extremely exhausting being President and running for re-election.
Sadly, elected Democrats are doing even worse. I am kinda sick of the perfection level required of a Democrat while the fascist narcissist rapist racist thief fraud felon gets a pass to murder us all if he feels like it.
With respect, Greg, the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that Biden is no longer up to the job of being POTUS, and that is now based on the evidence or more than just one debate. Is a confused Biden preferable to a depraved Trump? Of course! Will the low-information swing voters who may still determine the election come to the same conclusion? I'm afraid they may not. Is there still time for the Dems to come up with a better nominee? . . . I hope so?
It's worth remembering that other countries run general election campaigns in weeks, not months. I think it's also worth remembering that many swing voters are "double haters" who have been clamoring for an alternative to both candidates.
It seems odd to me. The bar of being up to the job of being president is being held up differently for the person actually doing the job, than an unknown imaginary candidate who would replace him.
I think it is fair to say that he may not be the most effective campaign or. Or two question that he has the ability to leave for four more years, but you can’t say he can’t do the job when he is doing it.
There are two considerations here. 1. Is Biden up to the job for four more years and 2. Can he beat Trump? As to #1, if you know anything about people in their 80s (three of my sibs are), being able to do the job today, at 81 years old, does not prove they can do the job at 82 or 83 or 85, so even though he's doing the job now, you can't say he will.
I hear you. Your first paragraph, though, applies to every single Presidential election. We always have to wonder if a fresh face would do better than an incumbent.
Obama was a fresh face. Bill Clinton was once a fresh face. Heck, even Trump and Reagan were once fresh faces. New unknowns beat incumbents fairly often.
They were both introduced onto the national stage well before they had run for POTUS. Reagan and trump were not fresh faces when they first ran for POTUS. They were well known nationally.
Obama was challenger to HRC for the D nomination in 2007-2008. He was not a challenger to Bush, who was term limited. Bill Clinton did challenge GHBush successfully in 1992. One of the reasons why he ran is because other Dems thought, right after Operation Desert Storm, that Bush was unbeatable. Mario Cuomo and Dick Gephardt were among those.
Correct about Obama. My point was there are only a couple of instances where there's been a serious challenger to an incumbent president within his own party and it has only led to the incumbent's party losing. Reagan vs Ford in 1976, Ford lost. Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980. Carter lost. Buchanan vs. Bush in 1992. Bush lost. Not sure I'm ready to test this again with everything that's at stake in this election.
I completely agree with your assessment and that's how it should be in a normal, healthy, primary where actual voters choose their nominee. The voters picked Obama and he proved to overwhelmingly be the right choice. Don't forget, many of the same Dems pushing for Biden's ouster now were the one's propping up Hillary back then. They also pushed out Franken without giving him a trial. Pushing Biden out for anybody else may sound good on paper to the donors and Democratic "elites" but would not be a democratic move.
Well said David! The other day Jon Stewart complained about how France conducts two elections in a month. Britain conducts one in two months while ours starts after each election.
In my personal experience, and in what I remember from reading history, people who label dissidents and critics as "dangerous" instead of welcoming free and open discussion (1) often turn out to be the bad guys and (2) lose in the long run. You just can't manage public debate in that way.
I wish people could stick to one topic at a time. If every time you don't like where a conversation is going you just pick something else to talk about, well we have an endless grab-bag of issues and nobody can spend all day here.
Also, I'm not going to debate with people who can't express themselves without insults. It is glaringly obvious that this is a very difficult challenge with two valid, decent sides. As far as I'm concerned, recognizing that is the price of entry.
I don't want to limit it at all. I don't think anyone else does, either. We're saying talk about it ALL here, this is the space to do that safely. ABC isn't mining Bulwark newsletter comments for content. For example, many of us have been wondering if Harris isn't the stronger candidate. And some of us have mentioned that we didn't get to cast a vote in the primaries because the other candidates withdrew so early.
The Bulwark has been shitting on Trump for something like five years. Much of the mainstream media has been doing the same for something like nine years. And Trump is still ahead of Biden in the polls. Everyone knows what it's like to live in American under both of these Presidents and, to my complete dismay, there appears to be a preference for Trump. I don't see an easy way to solve that problem if Biden is the nominee.
And Biden's support is capped. About 70% of the people say he's too old to run for a second term and lacks the mental acuity to serve again. Many of those people would vote for another Democrat in a heartbeat. But many, who will vote for another Democrat, will vote for Trump or stay home if Biden is the nominee.
Reports of people questioning Biden's competency are not dangerous. If Biden's people had been more honest over the last four years, we'd all be aware, and it would be baked into our political discourse. Instead, they kept him away from unscripted moments and tried to keep the fact that he is aging normally a secret.
People got a surprise at the debate. Justifying it with excuses that further eroded confidence was another bad choice.
That Biden's people made dumb mistakes is their own fault and not the fault of any media outlet that discusses them. "Democracy dies in darkness." We all make the best decisions when we have the best information. All this is 100% necessary.
It is REALLY important for the electorate to come to terms with this sooner rather than later. If this was the October Surprise, then it would be over. Voters deserve to make an informed decision on whether they are voting for four more years of Biden or one of Biden and three of Harris.
I agree that reporting on Biden's competency is completely fair, I just disagree that there is a competency crisis. One bad debate does not automatically mean one is cognitively declining. The Bulwark has been pushing Biden is old for years. It drove me crazy well before this debate. Then he has a solid SOTU address and they jump back on and say "all is well." Then the debate and the sky is falling again.
My belief is we need a lot more evidence that Biden is cognitively unable to be POTUS despite the reality that he's had one of the best presidencies of our lifetimes. I'm not willing to throw the man under the bus after 3 1/2 good years because of a few bad moments in a 90 minute debate. Many incumbent presidents have had bad debates and went on to recover and even thrash their opponent.
Obviously the man is old, has slowed down, and is not the most glamorous candidate. He has also proven himself to be a stabilizing force for good, has already defeated Trump by 7+ million votes, and has a very solid record to run on. He's far from a perfect candidate but I have yet to hear a single compelling argument for why Harris, or especially, some other candidate building a campaign from scratch would be more electable.
My frustration with outlets like The Bulwark is they have to know this but it's been nearly wall to wall pressure campaign against Biden for 2 weeks. If there was overwhelming evidence that Biden isn't the most electable candidate then I would hop onboard in a second, but that's not what we're seeing here. In the absence of such data, and with the stakes of this election, my feeling is it's time to stop this divisive pressure campaign and start uniting to stop the one thing that will destroy everything we all hold dear.
There's evidence but nothing is without risk. Having a candidate who can't speak is too risky given the stakes. Let's fight with all we have rather than with one arm tied behind our back.
The Bulwark dangerous? I have voted democratic my entire life and I can see with my eyes that Biden is struggling. I am tired of holding my breath.
My criticism of the dem party is they appear not to have had back up plans lined up, as evidenced by the fractions. No plans? NO PLANS. That is sheer stupidity and I am incredibly frustrated with them. This is their fault right now. I will continue to hope they get their stuff together.
The Bulwark remains my fave outlet for pragmatic, reasonable, informative discussions. Some sanity while we continue to live in 'The Stupid Times'.
I'm 57 years old and have never missed an opportunity to vote. Always blue. Never split a ticket. I can't in good conscience vote for Biden. I will. But I will not feel good about it. Like many folks my age, I also have a parent experiencing cognitive decline. I struggle with a deep sense of impending loss. I might lose my parent and my country. I am grateful for the truth tellers at the Bulwark.
Your post is exactly why I think the Bulwark's coverage has been dangerous. Do they have any actual proof that Biden is suffering from dementia? Letters from doctors? Something that contradicts the medical evaluation Biden had a few months ago? Not just some clips where he lost his train of thought or misspoke and had to correct himself? He's been a gaffe factory his entire public life but only now is that a sign of dementia to these people. Sadly now we have people who are adamant that he's a dementia patient and can't in good conscience vote for the man and that's 100% coming from the wall to wall coverage from outlets like the Bulwark who are spreading hearsay and innuendo.
My dad was recently diagnosed with dementia as well. Having seen his fast decline has made it more obvious to me that Biden is not suffering from dementia. My father doesn't just lose his train of thought from time to time, he loses it all the time and is completely detached from reality most of the time.
There's no way a person with dementia could hold a press conference and perform the way Biden did last night or maintain his grueling schedule or hold any of the other appearances he has made before or after that infamous debate.
As a neurologist, Major Neurocognitive Disorder (formerly dementia) comes in all shapes and sizes. Unfortunately, Biden’s performance and the particular types of gaffes he makes have been highly concerning to me (and essentially all of my colleagues) for some time. He likely has two separate forms of neurodegenerative decline: both dementia and Parkinsonism. It seems like there has been an acceleration of the latter component in the past few months. This is why he has the masked facial expression, the reduced blink freq, variable hoarseness, and slow/stiff movements.
At this point, I doubt he’d score a 27-28 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assesment (what you might consider passing). He might be able to get to 25…but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Biden struggles with semantic paraphasic errors and this is responsible for his odd word substitutions. He also has great difficulty with coding new memories or what we call anterograde memory formation. This is why he’s been constantly forgetting that people have died (a gaffe he’s been making for a few years). Because he hasn’t coded the memory of Helmut Kohls death. It’s a new piece of info he can’t code. But he can easily recall other info about his life as the remote memories in a demented patient stay intact for awhile.
I’ve seen multiple posters use his earlier physical as proof that his neurologic function is fine…read that report. At no point, is there any mention of a cognitive assessment being performed (not unusual for a routine physical, btw). The blanket statement that he shows no signs of Parkinson’s or “ascending lateral sclerosis” (an embarrassing typo) means nothing as it was not performed by a neurologist who would know the subtle signs of Parkinsonism. His aren’t even subtle.
It's not about Biden suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia, or some other neurological "disorder." It's about the general cognitive decline. I don't think writers at The Bulwark have been hammering the drum that Biden has a cognitive disorder, at least not in any of the articles I've read or podcasts I've listened to.
Many people not only decline physically as they age, e.g., sore joints, inability to physically do the same things they did when they were younger, but they also decline cognitively. You kind of know cognitive decline when you see it. Slower to recall events, tougher to keep things straight, more instances of a person being scrambled with their speech. It doesn't mean they're "not there," just that they're not as sharp as they used to be, and cognitive exercises take a lot more effort.
I don't think a person can watch Biden today VS Biden from 2020 and think, "He's cognitively operating at the same level today as he was back then!"
Four years is a long time - especially as you get older. Declines can be rapid.
I don't think the Bulwark's coverage has been dangerous - it's been honest. And this honesty is really hard, when we really want this to work out, because we can't imagine another Trump Presidency, and Biden's really don't great work in his first 4 years. But at this juncture, he does not inspire confidence that he can do this hard job for another 4 years.
I think almost all of us will vote for him if he's the nominee, but it's going to be much harder than it was in 2020, and many of us will have real questions about his general capacity to serve at 100%.
One bad moment in one debate? Biden has been running behind every well-known statewide Democrat for 2 years now. You don't need a PhD in data analytics or to be Spock to point out the logically consclusion: Biden is extremely weak candidate rather than the Democrats being an extremely weak party.
It's his age. He doesn't get credit when things go well (economy, lowered inflation) because he's viewed as old, which means that people don't see him having a hand in those things. He gets blamed for things he did poorly (Afghanastan) and hasn't recovered from, because, again, age (old and not fully with it).
Fair or not, it's the world we live in and this isn't going away. He isn't going to win and he'll take a lot of others down with him. The data doesn't lie; the ostrich strategy doesn't make problems magically disappear.
"time and energy could be spent on educating those low information voters "
I doubt there ARE any "low information voters". If there are they must be deaf, blind and living under a rock - the last nine years have given voters everything they need to know about both candidates.
There ARE however "misinformed voters" - those who choose to get all their news from Fox and Facebook. How do you suggest we educate THEM?
You seriously believe that of all the Democrats, Joe Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump? Outside of Joe and Jill Biden, you may be the only person on the planet who believes that. And, no, it's not just based on the debate. Surely you know that.
I am the only person who believes that? Historical data clearly points to all other options as being far worse at this point in time.
I think the difference between each side is people are looking at what they wish would've happened vs the reality of where we are. In an ideal world, the incumbent POTUS wouldn't be 81, or would've stepped aside and allowed for a healthy Democratic primary. All of these fantasies about a brokered convention or picking a candidate with little name recognition nationally, without a record to run on, who would need to build up their war chest from scratch is very much a losing proposition 4 months out from the most consequential election of our country's history. Harris is the only serious option and even the Bulwark staff has been seriously down on her for as long as I can remember. The other sad reality is this country's history of voting for women or minority candidates for POTUS.
So yes, I still think Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump.
Definitely not saying that. My view is definitely the minority view among nearly every MSM media outlet. I just expected better from the Bulwark. We've been down this road before and it doesn't end well for us.
R’s have won a ton of elections on fear. But instead of taking a page and having this be about fearing Trump, we are telling everybody why they should fear the successful incumbents age 🤦🏽♂️
Whatever happens next, I think it's a plus that Kamala Harris polled well head to head with Trump. It takes a bit of the edge off the worry about Joe making it another 4 years.
Bush II's case was his cover. 'Im the kind of guy you'd enjoy having a beer with!'. I probably would have too, but since I actually read, I didn't vote for him.
He did not “hand off his own party”, he was kicked out of it by the followers of a demagogic lunatic, and he doesn’t want the entire country to fall to that same fate.
He spent 30 years telling conservative voters that Democrats were socialists. He endorsed Thomas, Alito and Roberts. He deified Reagan.
He primed the voters of his party and courted them with implicit racism and sexism. He ignored immigration and the deficit when Republicans were in office and railed against them when Republicans were out.
His problem was he made a lovely mob mentality only to have it hijacked by a grifter.
He's not the only one but he was a big part of why we're here.
Up to that point he approved , endorsed, and facilitated his party into a position to be taken over by a con man. Do you think with the arrival of trump the GOP, with a snap of the fingers, became fascist? Their flirting with authoritarianism goes back to at least Reagan.
Linda, here's a question for you. Because it's been nagging at me for months.
Bill Kristol, the editors and owners of the WaPo, the NYT, they have been part of the political upper class for decades. Fundraisers, golf, cocktail parties.
And yet no one noticed that Clarence Thomas was taking multiple expensive vacations in 20 years? No one gossiped about how he could afford it?
No one asked a reporter to dig around? No one brought up ethics?
What other questions should we ask Bill Kristol and people like him?
Any place I've worked, people gossip. I want to know why I'm supposed to believe political Washington is different.
The "low-information voters" have likely been all-in for 45/34 for a long time and wouldn't be changing their minds regardless of who the Dem candidate would be. The only 45/34 voters that might change their vote to Blue would be those who are intelligent enough that the scales have fallen from their eyes with regard to what another 45/34 administration would actually mean.
That is apparently the thinking, which is a lot of psychological projection and little reasoning. The people who will vote Biden even if he has to be carried there are afraid for the low information folks. So now they bombard them with all the bad news that Biden is indeed 81 years old just in case they have missed that debate. Don’t underestimate the ability of the low information folks! And then finally give them something better than ageism. The candidate will not get younger, so lean in to what he brings with his age: decency, experience, wisdom, character. What else would be the winning argument here?
I can say that I will vote for a potted plant over Trump and still be angry when the dems take me up on it.
My assessment of Biden is that he is doing okay as president, but can’t possibly complete another term. Or run a convincing campaign. I hear everyone saying, it shouldn’t matter if he’s barely competent as long as he’s running against one of the worst people in the world. And yes, when it comes to the binary choice, I will cast my meaningless blue state vote for him. Probably.
BUT, it is so irresponsible to nominate a man who can’t do a four-year term. What kind of 25th amendment-watch grind are we getting into? Contrast that with how refreshing it would be to have candidates under 60. Gah!
I love your first sentence and agree totally. I share your angst but I'm getting over it. I'm Ridin' with Biden until Joe says No Go. Because that's the hand we are currently dealt and I don't think it's useful to continue to spit on it and worse. (There is always risk involved. But there is no CLEAR alternative other than Kamala and I'm not sure she is ready for the onslaught of the campaign -- and this is about who can win, not who can govern. I think we get behind Joe until he drops.)
What do you mean by run a successful campaign? Do you understand it is not just Joe alone? There is a whole staff, including thousands of organizers and volunteers nationwide working with state and local Dem parties. They have been working hard calling thousands of people and knocking thousands of doors, hosting events, etc. Joe has been on the stump more than a dozen times while you know, running the country since the debate. So this idea that he isn’t up to campaigning—where on earth is that coming from?
Three quarters of the country thinks he’s too old. We aren’t just looking at the number. We are looking at his public performances and the news about his private actions.
It’s not enough to say he’s better than the general election alternative, now I have to say he’s a strong campaigner?
No proof but I’m a practicing neurologist with four active board certifications. All of my neurology colleagues at my academic institution have grave concerns regarding his Parkinsonian features, paraphasic errors, and anterograde memory formation issues.
You sound like a climate change denier arguing with a climatologist.
And a younger candidate gives voters transparency: we would be voting for a person we are hearing consistently. Harris events are not getting the coverage needed to update public perception yet we all know in status quo either she is leader or shadow government...not different than Trump's Project 2025.
I had a similar one, just longer, several weeks ago: I'd rather vote for an old guy who is courteous and rational, than a slightly less old guy who is a bully and irrational.
Yes. 150 million voted in 2020. Not all registered voters voted. Total pop 330 million some of whom can't vote. So I'm thinking 100 million agree with us but not all of them vote. But enough.
Biden being too old has been the Bulwark's favorite story for the past two weeks. If this is what their coverage will look like until November, I'm not sure what the value there is to reading.
I love the community here and discussions, but I am tired of this drumbeat.
For the record: all the pundits would love a brokered Democratic Convention, but it will destroy the unity of the Democratic coalition.
I understand that during the process the differences in the coalition will be evident but afterwards how would it be different than today? For example there are rifts over Israel/Palestine today and likely would be same under new nominee.
That is a straw-man argument. Nobody is saying that.
Trump's awfulness does not *excuse* shortcomings in his opponent, it *makes them more critical*.
The more awful Trump is, the more important it is to put up the strongest possible candidate. And we can argue about who that would be and how that person should be chosen.
But it would be a good idea, when either side in this says "I will never understand," to stop and think "yeah. that is a problem. let's see what I can do about that. because it is kinda my job to understand."
If we can't even do that when we are arguing amongst ourselves, how are we going to do it with the country as a whole?
There are no easy answers.
There are good points on both sides.
Recognizing that should be the absolute minimum starting place for this discussion.
I guess my biggest issue how bill frames this discussion (and many others) is if you are going to say Joe must go than you need to prove to the readers that Kamala is more likely to win (if we go to a brokered convention I’m convinced we will lose). That’s why I find bill’s takes so galling. He wants to force Biden out…fine. But data says that Kamala is a better choice.
Biden campaign is polling on that now. At least they are thinking about the possibility of getting out. CBS is reporting that this weekend will be Brutal for Biden
These are professionals. They have been polling Kamala for YEARS. they know how she looks in the states we need to win. We have public polling that generally shows that Kamala polls a few points behind Biden.
But that is besides the point. Bill, is making the case for dropping out but not telling us why Kamala will win. That’s what he is doing. Calling for someone to dropout and then saying a brokered convention is a cop out. It’s literally a way to cover your own ass because you can’t be wrong because “Dems didn’t choose the right candidate.” This is what I find sooooo frustrating about bill. Tim and jvl don’t do this.
Here is the reason: bill doesn’t think that Kamala can win either and she is the MOST likely candidate to win. Then he usually creates this stupid fantasy where there is a “mini primary.” This is just another word for BROKERED CONVENTION. his hope is kamal loses but if she wins then she is stronger (makes zero sense and he provides no proof).
France rallied to protect democracy--actually, saved the French Republic--by:
(1) Political parties and candidates putting aside individual electoral ambition for the good of the country
(2) Quickly taking unprecedented decisions and actions to unite the anti-fascist, pro-democracy majority
It was unprecedented. No one previously thought anything like this was politically possible. It was possible, and it worked.
We can do it here. Yes we can. But only if someone other than Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee. No skeptical minds were reassured last night. No new votes were won. An interview with Lester Holt will change nothing, except maybe make a bad situation worse. It is past time for Biden to step aside. Leaders of the Democratic party: take this message to thecWhite House *now*.
Nobody's saying that Trump shouldn't scare people more than Biden. It's the founding creed of every part of the criticism.
However, there are a lot of voters who really freak out at the thought of a guy who isn't all there holding the wheel. Everyone, and I do mean, everyone, has had an old relative that they had to gently tell they aren't allowed to drive any more, for their own safety and everyone else on the road. When they see an 81 year old guy "have good days and bad days," that's not a good sign. It doesn't generally get better. It's a sad, but ironclad, part of aging.
And in this case, it's not driving a car, it's giving them the nuclear codes.
So the problem is, there are many voters who are worried that we have a choice between giving the codes to one guy who's actively dangerous due to actual malevolence, and another guy who could be passively dangerous due to age. They're likely to just not vote. Trump won the presidency once on "I don't like either person." This isn't a hypothetical, it's actually happened. So there are critics who believe that Biden should step aside on the chance that, however flawed the prospects of a four month campaign at the last minute, it'll still be better than Biden himself staying in. Many of them feel deceived and see the signs -- that Biden has had the fewest unscripted press conferences of any modern President, for instance -- that his aides likely knew he was starting to fade, even though his 65 mph fastball was still pretty good, and were hiding him from us so we wouldn't see it.
I am, personally, on the fence. I can't deny that the way he's been generally not shown to the public feels a bit sketch. I am very, very skeptical that changing horses this close to an election is going to end well, but I also don't know that keeping the one we've got will end well. I see lots of bad options. And, yes, the other old guy who's actively crazy and malevolent is coming at us like the boulder rolling towards Indiana Jones, and HIS followers are far less reflective about his flaws because he wants to hurt the right people for their tastes. Whether I like it or not, those guys aren't going to change horses.
So... what do we do? I am not convinced that Biden can win. I am not convinced that someone else can win on short notice, either. It IS important that we have a president who can answer the proverbial 3 AM phone call and not mentally look like we just destroyed another Horcrux. I DO have serious questions about whether Biden can make it to 2029.
This is just...a ridiculous distortion of legitimate concerns about Biden's age and capacity to serve. For the millionth time, there's a difference between Biden the POTUS and Biden the candidate. Biden the candidate is losing the race and the campaign has no apparent strategy to turn that around. I would vote for Biden's head in a jar before Trump, but, as the Bulwark has mentioned over and over again, there aren't enough people like that for Biden to win.
It's funny that you mention France since it's an example of a parties making drastic updates to their platforms to upset the far right. They did that in a week and all the people telling us to shut up about Biden's age are screaming how it's too late to replace him.
They do, but it doesn't mean Dems couldn't acknowledge reality, show some leadership, and make a change now. It's very possible, and it would blow up the Trump campaign.
And if President Biden is forced out, what then? Hoping that everything will go well is NOT a plan. As one Biden voter said, “If you’re going to rock the boat, you’d better have a plan to get me to shore.”
What is Biden’s plan now? Hope that enough voters who get their news from Tik Tok ignore an issue they’ve said over and over again they’re concerned about and pull the lever for him anyway? And hope all the polls are wrong? How is that better?
Who in the world is saying that? No one wants Trump to lose is saying Biden hasn't done a good job the last four years. We're saying he can't win running for another term. Biden is almost certain to lose. Why not put someone in the game who has a much better chance to win the election. I really think those "It Must Be Biden" Democrats don't truly think Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. They just think Trump is a worse version of a typical Republican. They don't see Trump as the unique threat we Never Trumpers know him to be.
Donors are freezing $90 million until Biden is replaced. Democrats are seeing polling that indicates safe blue states could turn purple. This is country-wide. Why the resistance to seeing this? People do not believe Biden can do the job for 4 more years.
Biden has been an excellent President. He is not the best choice in our Country for the next 4 years. The World is rapidly changing. We have several wars on the horizon and we have not paid enough attention to Africa. The Chinese Road Project has changed the whole game there. Biden’s Administration is resisting a sudden upheaval that we understand. Have you thought carefully about the possibility of a major decline of Biden’s health 5-8 months from now with both our Nation and the World exploding? Shouldn’t we even consider a younger, more competent Leader now even though it is late? Maybe a journalist should pop the question to Joe, “How do you see Generative AI helping in your next 4 years? Or pose something about warming oceans destroying coastal land so quickly. How will this affect Federal Assistance to different States?
I agree, but we've already seen that isn't going to happen. We can fantasize about a better press all we want, but we have the corporate media recently bought by oligarchs, and that's the landscape we have to accept.
Who in the world is saying that? No one wants Trump to lose is saying Biden hasn't done a good job the last four years. We're saying he can't win running for another term. Biden is almost certain to lose. Why not put someone in the game who has a much better chance to win the election? I really think those "It Must Be Biden" Democrats don't truly think Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. They just think Trump is a worse version of a typical Republican. They don't see Trump as the unique threat we Never Trumpers know him to be.
In evaluating Biden, it is travesty to bring up Trump. To beat Trump, Biden or anybody else must be evaluated separately. Evaluating a candidate is rational and dispositive. Throwing Trump in as an alarm factor is putting the cart before the horse.
It might have something to do with the fact that when voters say they want a new generation of leaders, they aren't referring to the Silent Generation.
It's not fair at all, but it's the reality. Obama and Pelosi are talking and realize what needs to happen. It's not the pundits. Can you imagine the negative ads that are going to come out once Biden formally accepts the nomination at the convention, if that were to happen. Brutal would be an understatement.
I will never understand the mindset of somebody who says “this guy who has done the job for four years, but has lost a step scares me more than the guy who is a convicted felon, failed miserably at the job before, tried to overthrow the government, is indicted for being a national security threat , oopenly flirts with dictators, lies incessantly, is morally and ethically bankrupt, twice impeached, doesn’t value democracy, and has a 900 page plan to break the government. Oh, then also gut Social Security and Medicare’
While England and France rallied to protect democracy as their number one priority. America, who spent decades, believing their own hype about being the world leader in democracy is on the precipice of giving it away.
I don't think very many people are saying that.
I think what most people are saying is, I will definitely vote for him, but I'm afraid low information voters, who sadly decide many elections, won't, so he can't win.
Which is why outlets like the Bulwark are so dangerous. Time and again Biden has proven he's up to the job of being POTUS yet this outlet is still cranking out article after article with the pipe dream that maybe, just maybe, somebody will force Biden out and they will get a different candidate with even less of a chance of defeating Trump. All of this based on a few bad moments in one debate.
If it's true that the only thing that matters is defeating Trump, this time and energy could be spent on educating those low information voters on what should be the very easy job of presenting the stakes of this election and the choice between the two. The choice is a glass of water vs a glass of Draino and half the country still thinks Draino might be the better option. The media needs to start doing its effing job.
Dangerous? The Bulwark isn't dangerous unless you believe it has the power to make YOU vote in a way counter to what you believe. It doesn't have that power over me. Bulwark has consistently explored all sides of Biden and Trump and decided--or most of its individual writers decided--that Biden cannot win and therefore needs to be replaced to save the Republic. Bulwark cites its evidence and shows its homework. What more do you want from an opinion publication?
"Replace Biden because he can't beat Trump" is a valid point of view, and intellectually honest. But it's not the only point of view, and nobody is required to believe it or vote accordingly.
That makes Bulwark not "dangerous," but refreshingly honest. Information is not Drano.
But, like Drano, information can occasionally clear a plug. I would add that the Bulwark staff has burned plenty enough bridge and eaten plenty enough crow to have an opinion regarding the question who can beat Trump. Tim Miller wrote a whole book of crow, for chrissakes... .
I read Tim's book. I have also listened to him tell Democrats to pursue the same GD strategies that drove the Republican party into the arms of nutcases.
Which strategies are you thinking about?
"Democrats don't know how to fight. Democrats don't know how to message to the average American. The average person doesn't care about policy."
Any of those sound familiar or should I go looking for more?
You're spot-on, TomD.
Great comment. Thank yoy.
Much appreciate that, KMD!
Agreed!
Thanks, Dave!
You 're welcome!
thank you
I think he meant "dangerous" to Trump, which is what "refreshingly honest" is. I doubt Bulwark will change more than a handful of votes from Trump (or RFK Jr.) to the Democratic candidate (whoever he/she may be) but it might scare more than a few Never-Trump voters against staying home.
if there;s trashing, it's of his chance to win, period. No one blames him for aging.
Well put!
Biden, of course. I'm a lifelong Dem. I've never voted R in my life because what the party stands for represents me better than the R party does. Whoever my party chooses as our nominee, I will do all I can to get him or her elected.
Do you really think a long-time and very active Bulwark subscriber would vote for Trump???
Just to be clear, Max, I am not talking against Biden. I'm talking against his chances of beating Trump. Do you see the difference?
Yes, Max. The reality of politics in America is that strong and wrong beats weak and right every time. That's from Bill Clinton. He ought to know, yes?
I hope you can see that this is so.
So Joe Biden who went to the beaches of Normandy, went back to the Belleau Woods cemetery, took several campaign events is weak?
Compared to the guy who slept during his trial and needs a golf cart to get around?
Bridget, I cannot answer for the vast majority of voters who think he is too old to run for a second term. I'm just saying, by all accounts, they do.
As far as I'm concerned, when he decided to run again in April 2023, I felt he was the only Dem that could beat Trump. He had just come off of a terrific SOTU. I said at the time, "If he keeps this up, he'll win a second term." I didn't think much of Kamala at that time. I thought a great deal of Pete B and Whitmer, but I didn't think enough conservatives would vote for a woman, and I was sure they wouldn't vote for a gay man. I liked Shapiro and Wes Moore, but they had only just been elected.
Biden's abysmal debate performance and the dearth of appearances he made on TV immediately following it to assure the voters that it was an event, not a condition, as Pelosi put it, convinced me he's not the Joe I voted for in 2020 or the Joe at the terriffic SOTU last March and therefore he cannot beat Trump. That is the only thing that matters.
As to the alternative, Kamala is looking way better to me than she did 15 months ago. She's been killing it on the stump, and this podcast convinced me that she had to be something other than the law and order Dem she was known as in 2020 because of the political moment then (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvaxlKuOuE&list=PLdMrbgYfVl-szepgVpArP0obwYgbKdfvx&index=1).
Well thanks for asking a question rather than just blasting me with statements. That's called having a conversation.
But your assumption that if I think Biden should drop out means I'm going to vote for Trump is completley wrong. Clinton's comment is not about me. It's about the average voter. Do you see the difference?
Max, you missed my point: The average voter prefers a leader who appears strong even if he's wrong. Who I prefer is irrelevant.
I think "kamala will never win" is what's underneath your Biden loyalty. You sure seem sure about that. Why?
Because Republicans proved they would vote for a used car salesman with no successful experience in anything but inheritance and reality TV over a competent woman.
It's not Kamala we have no faith in.
It's you.
I'm ending this thread, Max. You refuse to get this is not about me or what I think.
It’s become unbearable to watch Biden. I was a big fan, and will vote for him. But no longer can he win. NY has become a battleground state? The Democratic Party is crumbling under Biden.
There's a distinction between having the skills to be an effective president and having the ability to be elected president. Unfortunately Joe's electability skills are eroding much faster than his presidenting skills.
Perfect. People don't understand it's two distinct jobs. 1) Running for President; 2) Serving as President. The former is more exhausting than the latter. I ran for state legislature in my early 30s. It was a competitive race (which I lost) and I tell you it was an extremely exhaustive appearance. I remember driving downtown for some event and then afterward sitting down trying to figure out where my car was. I was so tired I couldn't remember where I parked. It's got to be extremely exhausting being President and running for re-election.
This is another reason why incumbent Presidents should not be allowed to run for re-election. They might need to sit out for awhile to recharge.
The difference between 2020 and 2024 are startling
And to say it's a question reasonable minds can disagree about is an understatement.
Good analysis, doc.
Agree with this.
And of course his formidable opponent.
This is a great way to crystalize the problem.
Sadly, elected Democrats are doing even worse. I am kinda sick of the perfection level required of a Democrat while the fascist narcissist rapist racist thief fraud felon gets a pass to murder us all if he feels like it.
"...dishonest, corrupt, incompetent, and cruel."
--Today's NYT.
That is the asymmetry JVL often speaks of.
Amen!
With respect, Greg, the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that Biden is no longer up to the job of being POTUS, and that is now based on the evidence or more than just one debate. Is a confused Biden preferable to a depraved Trump? Of course! Will the low-information swing voters who may still determine the election come to the same conclusion? I'm afraid they may not. Is there still time for the Dems to come up with a better nominee? . . . I hope so?
It's worth remembering that other countries run general election campaigns in weeks, not months. I think it's also worth remembering that many swing voters are "double haters" who have been clamoring for an alternative to both candidates.
It seems odd to me. The bar of being up to the job of being president is being held up differently for the person actually doing the job, than an unknown imaginary candidate who would replace him.
I think it is fair to say that he may not be the most effective campaign or. Or two question that he has the ability to leave for four more years, but you can’t say he can’t do the job when he is doing it.
There are two considerations here. 1. Is Biden up to the job for four more years and 2. Can he beat Trump? As to #1, if you know anything about people in their 80s (three of my sibs are), being able to do the job today, at 81 years old, does not prove they can do the job at 82 or 83 or 85, so even though he's doing the job now, you can't say he will.
#2 is the only one that matters.
I hear you. Your first paragraph, though, applies to every single Presidential election. We always have to wonder if a fresh face would do better than an incumbent.
Doesn't history show us that a fresh face never does better than an incumbent?
Obama was a fresh face. Bill Clinton was once a fresh face. Heck, even Trump and Reagan were once fresh faces. New unknowns beat incumbents fairly often.
They were both introduced onto the national stage well before they had run for POTUS. Reagan and trump were not fresh faces when they first ran for POTUS. They were well known nationally.
Obama and Clinton were challengers to Republican incumbents, not their own party. There is a big difference between the two.
Obama was challenger to HRC for the D nomination in 2007-2008. He was not a challenger to Bush, who was term limited. Bill Clinton did challenge GHBush successfully in 1992. One of the reasons why he ran is because other Dems thought, right after Operation Desert Storm, that Bush was unbeatable. Mario Cuomo and Dick Gephardt were among those.
Correct about Obama. My point was there are only a couple of instances where there's been a serious challenger to an incumbent president within his own party and it has only led to the incumbent's party losing. Reagan vs Ford in 1976, Ford lost. Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980. Carter lost. Buchanan vs. Bush in 1992. Bush lost. Not sure I'm ready to test this again with everything that's at stake in this election.
They had to get through primaries with more formidable opponents. This is a great question, by the way, I'm enjoying thinking it through.
I completely agree with your assessment and that's how it should be in a normal, healthy, primary where actual voters choose their nominee. The voters picked Obama and he proved to overwhelmingly be the right choice. Don't forget, many of the same Dems pushing for Biden's ouster now were the one's propping up Hillary back then. They also pushed out Franken without giving him a trial. Pushing Biden out for anybody else may sound good on paper to the donors and Democratic "elites" but would not be a democratic move.
The only incumbents who lost their bid for a 2nd term, in my lifetime, are Carter and Bush I. Hoover also, but I wasn't around then . . .😉
Well said David! The other day Jon Stewart complained about how France conducts two elections in a month. Britain conducts one in two months while ours starts after each election.
European elections are about courting voters, US elections are about courting donors.
Someone out there is making a LOT of money from US elections. . .
In my personal experience, and in what I remember from reading history, people who label dissidents and critics as "dangerous" instead of welcoming free and open discussion (1) often turn out to be the bad guys and (2) lose in the long run. You just can't manage public debate in that way.
You say dissident.
Great!
What's your solution?
Because people who cause trouble for the sake of trouble aren't dissidents -- they provocateurs.
Or people stuck in junior high school mode.
Bill Kristol throws out too old, needs to be replaced FOUR MONTHS from the election, after the bulk of the primaries have been recorded.
He's definitely in junior high school.
I wish people could stick to one topic at a time. If every time you don't like where a conversation is going you just pick something else to talk about, well we have an endless grab-bag of issues and nobody can spend all day here.
Also, I'm not going to debate with people who can't express themselves without insults. It is glaringly obvious that this is a very difficult challenge with two valid, decent sides. As far as I'm concerned, recognizing that is the price of entry.
The topic is you think we should be having "free and open discussions" about what exactly?
Joe Biden is too old.
But not about what you want to offer instead of Joe Biden? But not about how we throw out all of the primaries?
Please explain how much you want to limit this topic.
I don't want to limit it at all. I don't think anyone else does, either. We're saying talk about it ALL here, this is the space to do that safely. ABC isn't mining Bulwark newsletter comments for content. For example, many of us have been wondering if Harris isn't the stronger candidate. And some of us have mentioned that we didn't get to cast a vote in the primaries because the other candidates withdrew so early.
I would not assume MSM is not reading Substack.
Harris is great as long as we have enough voters who don't think women are incompetent.
What did we learn in 2016?
Anyone else remember the media harping on Hillary's health and the Clinton Foundation?
Bill’s been saying it for two years—and he was right.
Interesting that you believe low information voters are coming here AND not understanding the Never Trump mission. Not impossible but improbable.
The Bulwark has been shitting on Trump for something like five years. Much of the mainstream media has been doing the same for something like nine years. And Trump is still ahead of Biden in the polls. Everyone knows what it's like to live in American under both of these Presidents and, to my complete dismay, there appears to be a preference for Trump. I don't see an easy way to solve that problem if Biden is the nominee.
And Biden's support is capped. About 70% of the people say he's too old to run for a second term and lacks the mental acuity to serve again. Many of those people would vote for another Democrat in a heartbeat. But many, who will vote for another Democrat, will vote for Trump or stay home if Biden is the nominee.
You may be right - but WHY? In the name of heaven, isn't a bar of laundry soap preferable to trump?
Voila!
Reports of people questioning Biden's competency are not dangerous. If Biden's people had been more honest over the last four years, we'd all be aware, and it would be baked into our political discourse. Instead, they kept him away from unscripted moments and tried to keep the fact that he is aging normally a secret.
People got a surprise at the debate. Justifying it with excuses that further eroded confidence was another bad choice.
That Biden's people made dumb mistakes is their own fault and not the fault of any media outlet that discusses them. "Democracy dies in darkness." We all make the best decisions when we have the best information. All this is 100% necessary.
It is REALLY important for the electorate to come to terms with this sooner rather than later. If this was the October Surprise, then it would be over. Voters deserve to make an informed decision on whether they are voting for four more years of Biden or one of Biden and three of Harris.
I agree that reporting on Biden's competency is completely fair, I just disagree that there is a competency crisis. One bad debate does not automatically mean one is cognitively declining. The Bulwark has been pushing Biden is old for years. It drove me crazy well before this debate. Then he has a solid SOTU address and they jump back on and say "all is well." Then the debate and the sky is falling again.
My belief is we need a lot more evidence that Biden is cognitively unable to be POTUS despite the reality that he's had one of the best presidencies of our lifetimes. I'm not willing to throw the man under the bus after 3 1/2 good years because of a few bad moments in a 90 minute debate. Many incumbent presidents have had bad debates and went on to recover and even thrash their opponent.
Obviously the man is old, has slowed down, and is not the most glamorous candidate. He has also proven himself to be a stabilizing force for good, has already defeated Trump by 7+ million votes, and has a very solid record to run on. He's far from a perfect candidate but I have yet to hear a single compelling argument for why Harris, or especially, some other candidate building a campaign from scratch would be more electable.
My frustration with outlets like The Bulwark is they have to know this but it's been nearly wall to wall pressure campaign against Biden for 2 weeks. If there was overwhelming evidence that Biden isn't the most electable candidate then I would hop onboard in a second, but that's not what we're seeing here. In the absence of such data, and with the stakes of this election, my feeling is it's time to stop this divisive pressure campaign and start uniting to stop the one thing that will destroy everything we all hold dear.
There's evidence but nothing is without risk. Having a candidate who can't speak is too risky given the stakes. Let's fight with all we have rather than with one arm tied behind our back.
The Bulwark dangerous? I have voted democratic my entire life and I can see with my eyes that Biden is struggling. I am tired of holding my breath.
My criticism of the dem party is they appear not to have had back up plans lined up, as evidenced by the fractions. No plans? NO PLANS. That is sheer stupidity and I am incredibly frustrated with them. This is their fault right now. I will continue to hope they get their stuff together.
The Bulwark remains my fave outlet for pragmatic, reasonable, informative discussions. Some sanity while we continue to live in 'The Stupid Times'.
I'm 57 years old and have never missed an opportunity to vote. Always blue. Never split a ticket. I can't in good conscience vote for Biden. I will. But I will not feel good about it. Like many folks my age, I also have a parent experiencing cognitive decline. I struggle with a deep sense of impending loss. I might lose my parent and my country. I am grateful for the truth tellers at the Bulwark.
Your post is exactly why I think the Bulwark's coverage has been dangerous. Do they have any actual proof that Biden is suffering from dementia? Letters from doctors? Something that contradicts the medical evaluation Biden had a few months ago? Not just some clips where he lost his train of thought or misspoke and had to correct himself? He's been a gaffe factory his entire public life but only now is that a sign of dementia to these people. Sadly now we have people who are adamant that he's a dementia patient and can't in good conscience vote for the man and that's 100% coming from the wall to wall coverage from outlets like the Bulwark who are spreading hearsay and innuendo.
My dad was recently diagnosed with dementia as well. Having seen his fast decline has made it more obvious to me that Biden is not suffering from dementia. My father doesn't just lose his train of thought from time to time, he loses it all the time and is completely detached from reality most of the time.
There's no way a person with dementia could hold a press conference and perform the way Biden did last night or maintain his grueling schedule or hold any of the other appearances he has made before or after that infamous debate.
As a neurologist, Major Neurocognitive Disorder (formerly dementia) comes in all shapes and sizes. Unfortunately, Biden’s performance and the particular types of gaffes he makes have been highly concerning to me (and essentially all of my colleagues) for some time. He likely has two separate forms of neurodegenerative decline: both dementia and Parkinsonism. It seems like there has been an acceleration of the latter component in the past few months. This is why he has the masked facial expression, the reduced blink freq, variable hoarseness, and slow/stiff movements.
At this point, I doubt he’d score a 27-28 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assesment (what you might consider passing). He might be able to get to 25…but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Biden struggles with semantic paraphasic errors and this is responsible for his odd word substitutions. He also has great difficulty with coding new memories or what we call anterograde memory formation. This is why he’s been constantly forgetting that people have died (a gaffe he’s been making for a few years). Because he hasn’t coded the memory of Helmut Kohls death. It’s a new piece of info he can’t code. But he can easily recall other info about his life as the remote memories in a demented patient stay intact for awhile.
I’ve seen multiple posters use his earlier physical as proof that his neurologic function is fine…read that report. At no point, is there any mention of a cognitive assessment being performed (not unusual for a routine physical, btw). The blanket statement that he shows no signs of Parkinson’s or “ascending lateral sclerosis” (an embarrassing typo) means nothing as it was not performed by a neurologist who would know the subtle signs of Parkinsonism. His aren’t even subtle.
It's not about Biden suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia, or some other neurological "disorder." It's about the general cognitive decline. I don't think writers at The Bulwark have been hammering the drum that Biden has a cognitive disorder, at least not in any of the articles I've read or podcasts I've listened to.
Many people not only decline physically as they age, e.g., sore joints, inability to physically do the same things they did when they were younger, but they also decline cognitively. You kind of know cognitive decline when you see it. Slower to recall events, tougher to keep things straight, more instances of a person being scrambled with their speech. It doesn't mean they're "not there," just that they're not as sharp as they used to be, and cognitive exercises take a lot more effort.
I don't think a person can watch Biden today VS Biden from 2020 and think, "He's cognitively operating at the same level today as he was back then!"
Four years is a long time - especially as you get older. Declines can be rapid.
I don't think the Bulwark's coverage has been dangerous - it's been honest. And this honesty is really hard, when we really want this to work out, because we can't imagine another Trump Presidency, and Biden's really don't great work in his first 4 years. But at this juncture, he does not inspire confidence that he can do this hard job for another 4 years.
I think almost all of us will vote for him if he's the nominee, but it's going to be much harder than it was in 2020, and many of us will have real questions about his general capacity to serve at 100%.
One bad moment in one debate? Biden has been running behind every well-known statewide Democrat for 2 years now. You don't need a PhD in data analytics or to be Spock to point out the logically consclusion: Biden is extremely weak candidate rather than the Democrats being an extremely weak party.
It's his age. He doesn't get credit when things go well (economy, lowered inflation) because he's viewed as old, which means that people don't see him having a hand in those things. He gets blamed for things he did poorly (Afghanastan) and hasn't recovered from, because, again, age (old and not fully with it).
Fair or not, it's the world we live in and this isn't going away. He isn't going to win and he'll take a lot of others down with him. The data doesn't lie; the ostrich strategy doesn't make problems magically disappear.
"time and energy could be spent on educating those low information voters "
I doubt there ARE any "low information voters". If there are they must be deaf, blind and living under a rock - the last nine years have given voters everything they need to know about both candidates.
There ARE however "misinformed voters" - those who choose to get all their news from Fox and Facebook. How do you suggest we educate THEM?
You seriously believe that of all the Democrats, Joe Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump? Outside of Joe and Jill Biden, you may be the only person on the planet who believes that. And, no, it's not just based on the debate. Surely you know that.
I am the only person who believes that? Historical data clearly points to all other options as being far worse at this point in time.
I think the difference between each side is people are looking at what they wish would've happened vs the reality of where we are. In an ideal world, the incumbent POTUS wouldn't be 81, or would've stepped aside and allowed for a healthy Democratic primary. All of these fantasies about a brokered convention or picking a candidate with little name recognition nationally, without a record to run on, who would need to build up their war chest from scratch is very much a losing proposition 4 months out from the most consequential election of our country's history. Harris is the only serious option and even the Bulwark staff has been seriously down on her for as long as I can remember. The other sad reality is this country's history of voting for women or minority candidates for POTUS.
So yes, I still think Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump.
Yeah, yeah dissent is dangerous and must be stopped. Who does that sound like?
As if the Bulwark is the only place where Joe's facilities have been questioned.
Definitely not saying that. My view is definitely the minority view among nearly every MSM media outlet. I just expected better from the Bulwark. We've been down this road before and it doesn't end well for us.
I wish I could like this comment a million times. I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts.
two million times
R’s have won a ton of elections on fear. But instead of taking a page and having this be about fearing Trump, we are telling everybody why they should fear the successful incumbents age 🤦🏽♂️
Then we just have to turn out the vote like never before!!
Whatever happens next, I think it's a plus that Kamala Harris polled well head to head with Trump. It takes a bit of the edge off the worry about Joe making it another 4 years.
Imagine the energy at the Democratic convention if she's the nominee. Crackling.
The energy in 2016 seemed high as well.
Lot of good that did us.
Yes, too many judge a president's ability by the cover, not what's inside the cover. Joe is losing the cover competition.
A cover's got to make a case.
Bush II's case was his cover. 'Im the kind of guy you'd enjoy having a beer with!'. I probably would have too, but since I actually read, I didn't vote for him.
Bill Kristol says nothing else.
Because having handed his own party off to whack jobs, he seems intent on screwing up everyone else.
He did not “hand off his own party”, he was kicked out of it by the followers of a demagogic lunatic, and he doesn’t want the entire country to fall to that same fate.
He spent 30 years telling conservative voters that Democrats were socialists. He endorsed Thomas, Alito and Roberts. He deified Reagan.
He primed the voters of his party and courted them with implicit racism and sexism. He ignored immigration and the deficit when Republicans were in office and railed against them when Republicans were out.
His problem was he made a lovely mob mentality only to have it hijacked by a grifter.
He's not the only one but he was a big part of why we're here.
You left out his approval of Palin, the prototype for Trump.
I've always said Palin was Trump before Trump.
Great point! It was like she was the GOP's way of testing the water on how much idiocy the GOP voter would accept and embrace.
She certainly worked out that way.
Thank you! You put it much better than I did.
Up to that point he approved , endorsed, and facilitated his party into a position to be taken over by a con man. Do you think with the arrival of trump the GOP, with a snap of the fingers, became fascist? Their flirting with authoritarianism goes back to at least Reagan.
Linda, here's a question for you. Because it's been nagging at me for months.
Bill Kristol, the editors and owners of the WaPo, the NYT, they have been part of the political upper class for decades. Fundraisers, golf, cocktail parties.
And yet no one noticed that Clarence Thomas was taking multiple expensive vacations in 20 years? No one gossiped about how he could afford it?
No one asked a reporter to dig around? No one brought up ethics?
What other questions should we ask Bill Kristol and people like him?
Any place I've worked, people gossip. I want to know why I'm supposed to believe political Washington is different.
I'm a middle-aged Dem who has long admired Mr. Kristol. Please don't tell me now this is his fault.
He wants Trump to lose just like the rest of us.
So say we all.
That's it, right there.
Exactly.
Maybe they will just vote for the incumbent as lazy, uninformed voters frequently do. (I am grasping at straws here.)
The "low-information voters" have likely been all-in for 45/34 for a long time and wouldn't be changing their minds regardless of who the Dem candidate would be. The only 45/34 voters that might change their vote to Blue would be those who are intelligent enough that the scales have fallen from their eyes with regard to what another 45/34 administration would actually mean.
That is apparently the thinking, which is a lot of psychological projection and little reasoning. The people who will vote Biden even if he has to be carried there are afraid for the low information folks. So now they bombard them with all the bad news that Biden is indeed 81 years old just in case they have missed that debate. Don’t underestimate the ability of the low information folks! And then finally give them something better than ageism. The candidate will not get younger, so lean in to what he brings with his age: decency, experience, wisdom, character. What else would be the winning argument here?
I can say that I will vote for a potted plant over Trump and still be angry when the dems take me up on it.
My assessment of Biden is that he is doing okay as president, but can’t possibly complete another term. Or run a convincing campaign. I hear everyone saying, it shouldn’t matter if he’s barely competent as long as he’s running against one of the worst people in the world. And yes, when it comes to the binary choice, I will cast my meaningless blue state vote for him. Probably.
BUT, it is so irresponsible to nominate a man who can’t do a four-year term. What kind of 25th amendment-watch grind are we getting into? Contrast that with how refreshing it would be to have candidates under 60. Gah!
I love your first sentence and agree totally. I share your angst but I'm getting over it. I'm Ridin' with Biden until Joe says No Go. Because that's the hand we are currently dealt and I don't think it's useful to continue to spit on it and worse. (There is always risk involved. But there is no CLEAR alternative other than Kamala and I'm not sure she is ready for the onslaught of the campaign -- and this is about who can win, not who can govern. I think we get behind Joe until he drops.)
SHE IS READY
What do you mean by run a successful campaign? Do you understand it is not just Joe alone? There is a whole staff, including thousands of organizers and volunteers nationwide working with state and local Dem parties. They have been working hard calling thousands of people and knocking thousands of doors, hosting events, etc. Joe has been on the stump more than a dozen times while you know, running the country since the debate. So this idea that he isn’t up to campaigning—where on earth is that coming from?
Three quarters of the country thinks he’s too old. We aren’t just looking at the number. We are looking at his public performances and the news about his private actions.
It’s not enough to say he’s better than the general election alternative, now I have to say he’s a strong campaigner?
Three quarters of the chattering class is looking for something to drive traffic.
Biden raised more money in June than Trump with a lot of that coming at the end of the month. After the debate.
His mother was active into her 90s.
He travelled to Europe multiple times in June. He flies over the country for events in June.
His debate against other Democrats in 2020 went badly as well. (Do you remember how he looked when Kamala went after him?)
But here we are after a very successful first term discovering he doesn't debate well.
The youngest president we had in the 20th century was dead before his re-election campaign had even started. The oldest one got re-elected.
Here's a question. If you get a chance to invest with Warren Buffett, do you say no, he's too old?
Not the same
Warren Buffett is 93. And still running one of the most successful investment companies in the world.
So why is that not an apt comparison?
Because one has neurodegenerative disease affecting his hippocampus and basal ganglia and the other doesn’t.
Do you have any proof for that claim?
I mean besides "your brother-in-law knows someone whose neighbor is a doctor and he says. . ."
No proof but I’m a practicing neurologist with four active board certifications. All of my neurology colleagues at my academic institution have grave concerns regarding his Parkinsonian features, paraphasic errors, and anterograde memory formation issues.
You sound like a climate change denier arguing with a climatologist.
Interesting.
Does your state licensing authority know that you’re expressing medical opinions about people you have neither examined nor been consulted on?
And a younger candidate gives voters transparency: we would be voting for a person we are hearing consistently. Harris events are not getting the coverage needed to update public perception yet we all know in status quo either she is leader or shadow government...not different than Trump's Project 2025.
THIS!!!! old guy versus felon - the decision is easy.
Grampa Democracy vs Grampa Dictator!
I'll vote a dead Biden over a live Trump every day! (And I'm fine that he can't make it to 86; he just has to make it to December.)
Suzc, Great slogan! May I use it on a sign?
Absolutely! (I think I swiped it from somewhere too. Or something close.)
I had a similar one, just longer, several weeks ago: I'd rather vote for an old guy who is courteous and rational, than a slightly less old guy who is a bully and irrational.
I have said I would vote for a pumpkin, a rusty nail, a tin can at over Trumpster at various times
I just have to think a third of the country agrees with us, ultimately. And that's enough.
I was never a math major, so I have to guess you are relying on numbers of voters in an election....
Yes. 150 million voted in 2020. Not all registered voters voted. Total pop 330 million some of whom can't vote. So I'm thinking 100 million agree with us but not all of them vote. But enough.
Two things: Your words in the vote counters ears. And get out the vote.
Weekend at Bernies, ah, I mean Bidens. :)
Biden being too old has been the Bulwark's favorite story for the past two weeks. If this is what their coverage will look like until November, I'm not sure what the value there is to reading.
I love the community here and discussions, but I am tired of this drumbeat.
For the record: all the pundits would love a brokered Democratic Convention, but it will destroy the unity of the Democratic coalition.
Can you explain how?
I understand that during the process the differences in the coalition will be evident but afterwards how would it be different than today? For example there are rifts over Israel/Palestine today and likely would be same under new nominee.
The drumbeat is everywhere.
That is a straw-man argument. Nobody is saying that.
Trump's awfulness does not *excuse* shortcomings in his opponent, it *makes them more critical*.
The more awful Trump is, the more important it is to put up the strongest possible candidate. And we can argue about who that would be and how that person should be chosen.
But it would be a good idea, when either side in this says "I will never understand," to stop and think "yeah. that is a problem. let's see what I can do about that. because it is kinda my job to understand."
If we can't even do that when we are arguing amongst ourselves, how are we going to do it with the country as a whole?
There are no easy answers.
There are good points on both sides.
Recognizing that should be the absolute minimum starting place for this discussion.
If we can't get to there, we are going to fail.
Yep. No good choices. Just one big shitshow.
I guess my biggest issue how bill frames this discussion (and many others) is if you are going to say Joe must go than you need to prove to the readers that Kamala is more likely to win (if we go to a brokered convention I’m convinced we will lose). That’s why I find bill’s takes so galling. He wants to force Biden out…fine. But data says that Kamala is a better choice.
Biden campaign is polling on that now. At least they are thinking about the possibility of getting out. CBS is reporting that this weekend will be Brutal for Biden
These are professionals. They have been polling Kamala for YEARS. they know how she looks in the states we need to win. We have public polling that generally shows that Kamala polls a few points behind Biden.
But that is besides the point. Bill, is making the case for dropping out but not telling us why Kamala will win. That’s what he is doing. Calling for someone to dropout and then saying a brokered convention is a cop out. It’s literally a way to cover your own ass because you can’t be wrong because “Dems didn’t choose the right candidate.” This is what I find sooooo frustrating about bill. Tim and jvl don’t do this.
Here is the reason: bill doesn’t think that Kamala can win either and she is the MOST likely candidate to win. Then he usually creates this stupid fantasy where there is a “mini primary.” This is just another word for BROKERED CONVENTION. his hope is kamal loses but if she wins then she is stronger (makes zero sense and he provides no proof).
France rallied to protect democracy--actually, saved the French Republic--by:
(1) Political parties and candidates putting aside individual electoral ambition for the good of the country
(2) Quickly taking unprecedented decisions and actions to unite the anti-fascist, pro-democracy majority
It was unprecedented. No one previously thought anything like this was politically possible. It was possible, and it worked.
We can do it here. Yes we can. But only if someone other than Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee. No skeptical minds were reassured last night. No new votes were won. An interview with Lester Holt will change nothing, except maybe make a bad situation worse. It is past time for Biden to step aside. Leaders of the Democratic party: take this message to thecWhite House *now*.
Will the US follow France's and GB's lead?
Nobody's saying that Trump shouldn't scare people more than Biden. It's the founding creed of every part of the criticism.
However, there are a lot of voters who really freak out at the thought of a guy who isn't all there holding the wheel. Everyone, and I do mean, everyone, has had an old relative that they had to gently tell they aren't allowed to drive any more, for their own safety and everyone else on the road. When they see an 81 year old guy "have good days and bad days," that's not a good sign. It doesn't generally get better. It's a sad, but ironclad, part of aging.
And in this case, it's not driving a car, it's giving them the nuclear codes.
So the problem is, there are many voters who are worried that we have a choice between giving the codes to one guy who's actively dangerous due to actual malevolence, and another guy who could be passively dangerous due to age. They're likely to just not vote. Trump won the presidency once on "I don't like either person." This isn't a hypothetical, it's actually happened. So there are critics who believe that Biden should step aside on the chance that, however flawed the prospects of a four month campaign at the last minute, it'll still be better than Biden himself staying in. Many of them feel deceived and see the signs -- that Biden has had the fewest unscripted press conferences of any modern President, for instance -- that his aides likely knew he was starting to fade, even though his 65 mph fastball was still pretty good, and were hiding him from us so we wouldn't see it.
I am, personally, on the fence. I can't deny that the way he's been generally not shown to the public feels a bit sketch. I am very, very skeptical that changing horses this close to an election is going to end well, but I also don't know that keeping the one we've got will end well. I see lots of bad options. And, yes, the other old guy who's actively crazy and malevolent is coming at us like the boulder rolling towards Indiana Jones, and HIS followers are far less reflective about his flaws because he wants to hurt the right people for their tastes. Whether I like it or not, those guys aren't going to change horses.
So... what do we do? I am not convinced that Biden can win. I am not convinced that someone else can win on short notice, either. It IS important that we have a president who can answer the proverbial 3 AM phone call and not mentally look like we just destroyed another Horcrux. I DO have serious questions about whether Biden can make it to 2029.
That's the dilemma.
This is just...a ridiculous distortion of legitimate concerns about Biden's age and capacity to serve. For the millionth time, there's a difference between Biden the POTUS and Biden the candidate. Biden the candidate is losing the race and the campaign has no apparent strategy to turn that around. I would vote for Biden's head in a jar before Trump, but, as the Bulwark has mentioned over and over again, there aren't enough people like that for Biden to win.
It's funny that you mention France since it's an example of a parties making drastic updates to their platforms to upset the far right. They did that in a week and all the people telling us to shut up about Biden's age are screaming how it's too late to replace him.
France has a much different election process that enables them to do that.
They do, but it doesn't mean Dems couldn't acknowledge reality, show some leadership, and make a change now. It's very possible, and it would blow up the Trump campaign.
And if President Biden is forced out, what then? Hoping that everything will go well is NOT a plan. As one Biden voter said, “If you’re going to rock the boat, you’d better have a plan to get me to shore.”
What is Biden’s plan now? Hope that enough voters who get their news from Tik Tok ignore an issue they’ve said over and over again they’re concerned about and pull the lever for him anyway? And hope all the polls are wrong? How is that better?
They have a parliamentary system (I believe). As does much of Europe.
Very well put, Ed. That should be on billboards, tv, and news ads all over the country. Word for word.
TV and news ads, yep. Three Billboards Outside.... are another story: Too much text.
Who in the world is saying that? No one wants Trump to lose is saying Biden hasn't done a good job the last four years. We're saying he can't win running for another term. Biden is almost certain to lose. Why not put someone in the game who has a much better chance to win the election. I really think those "It Must Be Biden" Democrats don't truly think Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. They just think Trump is a worse version of a typical Republican. They don't see Trump as the unique threat we Never Trumpers know him to be.
Donors are freezing $90 million until Biden is replaced. Democrats are seeing polling that indicates safe blue states could turn purple. This is country-wide. Why the resistance to seeing this? People do not believe Biden can do the job for 4 more years.
Biden has been an excellent President. He is not the best choice in our Country for the next 4 years. The World is rapidly changing. We have several wars on the horizon and we have not paid enough attention to Africa. The Chinese Road Project has changed the whole game there. Biden’s Administration is resisting a sudden upheaval that we understand. Have you thought carefully about the possibility of a major decline of Biden’s health 5-8 months from now with both our Nation and the World exploding? Shouldn’t we even consider a younger, more competent Leader now even though it is late? Maybe a journalist should pop the question to Joe, “How do you see Generative AI helping in your next 4 years? Or pose something about warming oceans destroying coastal land so quickly. How will this affect Federal Assistance to different States?
I agree, but we've already seen that isn't going to happen. We can fantasize about a better press all we want, but we have the corporate media recently bought by oligarchs, and that's the landscape we have to accept.
Who in the world is saying that? No one wants Trump to lose is saying Biden hasn't done a good job the last four years. We're saying he can't win running for another term. Biden is almost certain to lose. Why not put someone in the game who has a much better chance to win the election? I really think those "It Must Be Biden" Democrats don't truly think Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. They just think Trump is a worse version of a typical Republican. They don't see Trump as the unique threat we Never Trumpers know him to be.
In evaluating Biden, it is travesty to bring up Trump. To beat Trump, Biden or anybody else must be evaluated separately. Evaluating a candidate is rational and dispositive. Throwing Trump in as an alarm factor is putting the cart before the horse.
It might have something to do with the fact that when voters say they want a new generation of leaders, they aren't referring to the Silent Generation.
That's a false dichotomy. Of course, if it HAS to come down to Trump vs. Biden, any sane voter would pick Biden.
But maybe some go for Trump because of Biden's current weaknesses. Many voters will just stay home.
The whole point of raising the discussion in the first place is to question whether Biden is still the best candidate to beat Trump. Full stop.
It's not fair at all, but it's the reality. Obama and Pelosi are talking and realize what needs to happen. It's not the pundits. Can you imagine the negative ads that are going to come out once Biden formally accepts the nomination at the convention, if that were to happen. Brutal would be an understatement.