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.
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.
ItтАЩs 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 canтАЩt say he canтАЩt 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.
Add Eugene McCarthy vs LBK in 1968. Yes, history shows us that the divided party loses the general. But, as Eleanor Roosevelt put it to the 1940 delegates where the convention was at a standstill and bordered on outright revolt, this is no ordinary time.
"You must know that this is the time when all good men and women give every bit of service and strength to their country that they have to give. This is the time when it is the United States that we fight for, the domestic policies that we have established as a party that we must believe in, that we must carry forward, and in the world we have a position of great responsibility.
"We cannot tell from day to day what may come. This is no ordinary time. No time for weighing anything except what we can do best for the country as a whole, and that responsibility rests on each and every one of us as individuals" (https://fdrlibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/found-in-the-archives-9/).
The Dems united behind Biden in 2020 after his SC win. Pete B won IA and Bernie won NH & NV. No one thought either of them could beat Trump. But they thought Biden could, and once he had that win under his belt, they united. My bet is they will do the same in 2024, when the threat of a Trump win is so much greater than it was in 2020. He hadn't waged his coup yet.
Perhaps it will be our generation's Eleanor Roosevelt - Michele Obama - who's words will shift the disagreeable Dems.
So who is the challenger this time? Biden has the D nomination locked up, only he can alter the situation, should he decide to step down (though he already said he would allow his delegates to vote for whoever). The problem for most Dems, other than Harris, is the lack of recognition and exposure, nationwide.
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.
I'm calling a false equivalency here, Greg D, between the Franken ouster (a disgraceful move that has forever hurt the Democratic Party), and the concerned call for Biden to step down because of the declining health and coherence we can see him suffering.
It is a democratic move because many of us voted for Biden in the 2020 primary with the understanding that he would be a one-term president. Well, the term is ending, and many of us would like to see the torch passed, and our current Vice President should be the receiver. She has earned it, and she can show the world that the forces of racism and misogyny can be defeated at the highest level in this country.
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, BidenтАЩs 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 heтАЩd score a 27-28 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assesment (what you might consider passing). He might be able to get to 25тАжbut I wouldnтАЩt 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 heтАЩs been constantly forgetting that people have died (a gaffe heтАЩs been making for a few years). Because he hasnтАЩt coded the memory of Helmut Kohls death. ItтАЩs a new piece of info he canтАЩt code. But he can easily recall other info about his life as the remote memories in a demented patient stay intact for awhile.
IтАЩve seen multiple posters use his earlier physical as proof that his neurologic function is fineтАжread 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 ParkinsonтАЩs or тАЬascending lateral sclerosisтАЭ (an embarrassing typo) means nothing as it was not performed by a neurologist who would know the subtle signs of Parkinsonism. His arenтАЩt 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.
RтАЩs 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 ЁЯджЁЯП╜тАНтЩВя╕П
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 тАЬhand off his own partyтАЭ, he was kicked out of it by the followers of a demagogic lunatic, and he doesnтАЩt 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. DonтАЩt 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 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.
I think Clinton's assessment is correct. You don't. Fine. But I am not the average voter. You say you are and you see Biden as strong. Also fine.
Your repeated questions to me about Trump are irrelevant to my argument. That's why I'm ending this.
ItтАЩs 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 canтАЩt say he canтАЩt 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.
Add Eugene McCarthy vs LBK in 1968. Yes, history shows us that the divided party loses the general. But, as Eleanor Roosevelt put it to the 1940 delegates where the convention was at a standstill and bordered on outright revolt, this is no ordinary time.
"You must know that this is the time when all good men and women give every bit of service and strength to their country that they have to give. This is the time when it is the United States that we fight for, the domestic policies that we have established as a party that we must believe in, that we must carry forward, and in the world we have a position of great responsibility.
"We cannot tell from day to day what may come. This is no ordinary time. No time for weighing anything except what we can do best for the country as a whole, and that responsibility rests on each and every one of us as individuals" (https://fdrlibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/found-in-the-archives-9/).
The Dems united behind Biden in 2020 after his SC win. Pete B won IA and Bernie won NH & NV. No one thought either of them could beat Trump. But they thought Biden could, and once he had that win under his belt, they united. My bet is they will do the same in 2024, when the threat of a Trump win is so much greater than it was in 2020. He hadn't waged his coup yet.
Perhaps it will be our generation's Eleanor Roosevelt - Michele Obama - who's words will shift the disagreeable Dems.
If Biden dropped out it wouldn't be a challenger situation anymore. Doesn't mean it would work, but this is not a conventional election in any way.
So who is the challenger this time? Biden has the D nomination locked up, only he can alter the situation, should he decide to step down (though he already said he would allow his delegates to vote for whoever). The problem for most Dems, other than Harris, is the lack of recognition and exposure, nationwide.
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.
I'm calling a false equivalency here, Greg D, between the Franken ouster (a disgraceful move that has forever hurt the Democratic Party), and the concerned call for Biden to step down because of the declining health and coherence we can see him suffering.
It is a democratic move because many of us voted for Biden in the 2020 primary with the understanding that he would be a one-term president. Well, the term is ending, and many of us would like to see the torch passed, and our current Vice President should be the receiver. She has earned it, and she can show the world that the forces of racism and misogyny can be defeated at the highest level in this country.
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 . . .ЁЯШЙ
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?
BillтАЩs been saying it for two yearsтАФand 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, BidenтАЩs 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 heтАЩd score a 27-28 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assesment (what you might consider passing). He might be able to get to 25тАжbut I wouldnтАЩt 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 heтАЩs been constantly forgetting that people have died (a gaffe heтАЩs been making for a few years). Because he hasnтАЩt coded the memory of Helmut Kohls death. ItтАЩs a new piece of info he canтАЩt code. But he can easily recall other info about his life as the remote memories in a demented patient stay intact for awhile.
IтАЩve seen multiple posters use his earlier physical as proof that his neurologic function is fineтАжread 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 ParkinsonтАЩs or тАЬascending lateral sclerosisтАЭ (an embarrassing typo) means nothing as it was not performed by a neurologist who would know the subtle signs of Parkinsonism. His arenтАЩt 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
RтАЩs 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 ЁЯджЁЯП╜тАНтЩВя╕П
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 тАЬhand off his own partyтАЭ, he was kicked out of it by the followers of a demagogic lunatic, and he doesnтАЩt 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. DonтАЩt 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?