I’m not sure I can keep reading and listening to you guys if your entire focus remains on forcing Biden out of the race. As you noted in your conclusion “What we do need is sustained efforts, both private and public, to persuade and, yes, to pressure Joe Biden to open the door wide—and to walk through it.”. Seriously? In other words, wha…
I’m not sure I can keep reading and listening to you guys if your entire focus remains on forcing Biden out of the race. As you noted in your conclusion “What we do need is sustained efforts, both private and public, to persuade and, yes, to pressure Joe Biden to open the door wide—and to walk through it.”. Seriously? In other words, what we do need is to keep telling people how incompetent JB is while not focusing our energy on beating Trump. Don’t you see how counter intuitive this is? I don’t doubt your intention that you are doing this in order to beat Trump… but if that’s your main goal maybe you should focus directly on doing so instead of trying to force JB out of the race. At the end of the day, if he does what he says and stays in the race, all you have done by being so stubborn in your view that he should step down is all but guarantee a Trump victory.
Exactly. This is so frustrating. Until Joe says he’s done, he’s the nominee. And the public pressure campaign isn’t only hardening his resolve, it’s telling swing voters that both candidates are incapable so it doesn’t matter who wins. When it couldn’t matter more in 2024. The so called pro democracy “former” Republicans and wishy washy Dems will be responsible for fascism coming to America.
Beg to differ. Biden did more damage to his own electability with his debate performance than any of his nay sayers. He flat out proved their point and Trump's messaging in front of a national TV audience.
And nothing since—not his 20 plus appearances, not the NATO summit nor his speech, not the press conference or sit down with ABC can negate that one event. This is all about personal bias. The media has long disliked Joe and were thrilled when he did poorly in Iowa and NH. They were shocked when Clyburn endorsed him and flabbergasted when he won state after state, uniting the Dem party. A lot of voters who wanted Bernie or anyone else held their noses and voted for him and obviously still don’t like him.
Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it’s been open season on Joe for the media, which is why every bit of good news is followed by “why that’s bad for Biden” and why Americans believe we are living in the upside down where inflation is high, crime is up, and wages are down. It’s the same as more than 70 percent of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 before the Iraq War. Obviously nothing will satisfy the press and pundits, so the best thing is to tune them out and work hard to get the Dems elected.
I have heard JVL say that running Biden wouldn't be as big a deal if the opponent was someone like Romney or Haley so I hear about the threat all the time on here. That is why the pro democracy side should not also run a declining old man. Mean demented crazy vs old experienced crazy is risky.
I don't actually believe is crazy; I was distilling the issue down to a sentence from perspective of casual voter
I believe Joe is old and he's been a rambling gaffe machine his whole career. Mixing up Harris and Trump is not very far outside his norm versus Trump talking about electric boats sinking due to heavy motors or injecting bleach to cure COVID. The post debate challenge is those gaffes are perceived differently and he cannot get back on track from his own tangents.
He can govern for another 6 months no problem but he can't campaign.
Option 1 is that the Bullwark writers just care so much about winning that they’re doing this incessant hit job out of loyalty to country. That’s the charitable option.
Option 2 is that they care more about being seen as right / smart political operatives than anything else. If Biden does bow out and Harris goes on to lose because America can’t stomach voting for a black woman to be in charge, they’ll still get to pat themselves on the back for getting the strategy part “right.” Most of these people aren’t hurting for money, so the fallout won’t hit them the way it will regular people.
Option 3 is that they are actively pulling punches against Trump because they expect him to win, and they plan on crawling back and kissing the ring when that happens. “Oh Dear Leader, we’re sorry about being so mean before, but look how we destroyed Joe Biden for you”.
I really, really hope it isn’t option 3. Then again, these are a bunch of current/former republicans who spent many years taking actions that got us to this point. Maybe when someone shows you who they are over and over again you should believe them.
I will come to the defense of the Bulwark crowd because even through this I don't doubt their intentions and motives. I respect them all and especially those who made large sacrifices by continuing down this path of "Never Trump-ism", especially Sarah who has been consequential in efforts to defeat DT. With that being said, that has made these past couple weeks all the more confusing. I do believe that it is option 1 with perhaps a sprinkle of option 2, but I just don't understand their logic. As I said, if they are so concerned with beating DT then they should focus on THAT instead of focusing on getting JB out of the race so that they can then turn their focus to beating Trump. I was hoping that after a couple days and especially after this press conference we would get back to regularly scheduled programming so I am disheartened to see them doubling down.
It is Option 1. I won't speak for everyone on the staff, but from what I've heard and read, most of them are convinced that there is no pathway for Biden to win, and they do not want Trump to win, therefore, the best way to defeat Trump is to convince Biden to step down. It's perfectly logical to me.
I definitely want to believe in Option 1, or at worst your theory of mostly Option 1 with a little from Option 2. But every day that this continues the little voice inside that talks about Option 3 gets a bit louder.
Hilary, I think their intentions are noble. I think their methods are "iffy" at best.
Most importantly to me, I feel their lack of humility in addressing how much theiy contributed to the current nightmare through their decades of defending and promoting the Republican Party is disqualifying.
Their expectation that 30-40 years of outright propagandist lying can be "turned around" in 5-8 years is belieiving in unicorns.
They created this monster and now they are trying to tame what they so meticulously built.......apparently not as easy as thought. I am tired of Democrats having to clean up the messes that Republicans make.
Trump has changed party affiliation 5 times. What if he decided to take over the Democratic Party instead of the Republican, and actually accomplished that? Would you feel that everyone who had ever been a Democrat was complicit?
Have you met the Democratic Party……their raison d’etre is to NOT fall in line. Historically speaking, the R party falls in line, the D party falls in love. I’m not saying it could never happen Linda, but as Will Rogers famously said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
They weren't in 2020. They were clear about the threat to the country of a Trump win and united around Biden. Nancy Pelosi was a great Speaker and so is Leader Jeffries. Why should they not unite around the candidate who has the best chance to defeat Trump in 2024?
Who besides Harris has the national reputation to lead a ticket? Half the people floated for her VP I had to look up because their names were vaguely familiar but I couldn't tell you who they really were. Others, as in Leader Jeffries, who have national name recognition are needed where they are now. If the Dems get a House majority Jeffries needs to be there to be the Speaker. I believe he would be an outstanding Speaker and maybe an outstanding POTUS if he wants the job.
I'm not proposing Leader Jeffries run for the nomination. I mentioned him only as an example of where the Dems were NOT the proverbial disorganized party.
I am also not advocating an alternative candidate other than Harris.
I don't believe the orange one would ever try to take over the Democratic party. It's too diverse (realtor years - no renting to Black people!), too much for the common good (bodily autonomy), social net expansion (he wants to trim Soc Sec.). Democrats want to expand the government to serve people Republicans (pRo-lIfE!) want to drown that baby.
It started with nixon, took off like a rocket with reagan. I'm old, I remember. We are softies, they want raw power - looking at you Mitch McConnell. Knowing what we know about his life, the Democratic party wasn't even a stop on his route.
He did try, along with a third party. He saw that the gopers were a bunch of obedient little sheep who will willingly vote against their own best interests and the rest they say is history.
Hilary: consider an Option 4. They are all people who have lost friends and livelihoods over opposition from the word go to the ascendancy of an authoritarian who is morally, democratically, and psychologically unfit to be President, and have pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to his defeat.
Yes, Linda. Add to this closing of the Declaration: At the signing, Franklin reportedly quipped "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". If Trump wins, they will all surely be if not be hanged, investigated and harrased.
Really, Hilary? Would you be saying "Maybe when someone shows you who they are over and over again you should believe them" if they were urging Biden to stay in the race?
No, you wouldn't. You'd applaud them. It's only because they're not cheerleading for Biden that you accuse them of that ugly Option 3.
Let me present an option you forgot: Option 4: Bulwark writers came to the conclusion, after dispassionately examining all available evidence, that American voters might rather elect a lively, animated, and boasting tyrant/entertainer as president over a man highly regarded and effective but looks and acts old, enfeebled, and in early stages of dementia. (Whether he has that is irrelevant. Optics reign in politics.) Bulwark writers are so alarmed at Choice No. 1 that they wish to replace Choice No. 2 with someone younger, stronger, and far more vigorous on the campaign trail.
It's a fair conclusion for Bulwark to make. A lot of Americans worry after seeing Biden in the debate and, to a lesser extent, at the NATO press conference and the Stephanopoulos interview: with Biden, there's less THERE there than even a few months ago. So it's fair for Bulwark opinionists to pick "Joe Gotta Go" over "Joe Mo and Mo."
Now me, I'm Ridin' With Biden till his Corvette crashes into the Oval Office, because Trump must have a stake driven through his heart and Biden is still the best hammer. That said, a Biden win no sure thing because of the damage Biden caused himself in just the past two months, and because he's no longer up to demolishing the gish-galloping, lying, smirking, smarmy, racist, incurious, babbling, narcissistic, rapist Trump.
Yes, I prefer Biden stay in the race. Yes, I would vote for Ebola over Trump--Ebola is more likable and less willing to destroy our Republic. Ebola doesn't have Project 2025 nihilists hanging onto it like leeches. But "Joe's Gotta Go" is a valid opinion backed by evidence.
To suggest that Bulwark writers are engaged in Option 3--crawling back to Trump in hopes of the Great Man's Pity and Favour--is nauseating. I've read Bulwark writers for a long time and see no evidence they're setting themselves up to be players in Trump II: Orange Boogaloo.
I wouldn't take a position if they were merely "urging" one way or the other. That's all fair in political commentary. I also wouldn't take a position if I saw more humility from all of the Bulwark writers suggesting that they don't actually *know* the best path forward, but here's how we deal with the situation whatever way it works out.
Instead, what I've seen is two weeks of virtually uninterrupted screeching that they are absolutely certain that Biden needs to drop out now, now, now. When it's every article they write it starts to get a bit absurd.
JVL for one has been very humble. He's also been Biden's biggest cheerleader at the Bulwark for the past 4 years and up until the debate really thought he was the best option going forward. He's made clear time and again that every option is a risk, and nothing is certain.
Certainly JVL has acknowledged that he may be wrong. Not so much Tim and Sarah, but they have substantial experience in political communications. You sound like a conservative anti-vaxxer who feels expertise is plot to control you.
There is no actually knowing in politics, as you put it. There is no knowing the outcome until the voters vote. It's all risk assessment, based on reasoning and facts. Maybe uncertainty makes you uncomfortable.
Well said Shane. As i read the comments, i can see the democrats (yes i am one) rallying around the idea The Bulwark was all just a false flag operation. What a load of horseshit. I get it, you want Biden to stay in the race; irrespective of whether he can do the job...or more importantly (at this point) campaign well enough to win.
In the end, The Bulwark community will not, WILL NOT, be the deciding factor in Joe's decision. Sorry, none of us are that important. President Biden will make that decision in conjunction with the top democrats. It won't be an emotional, knee-jerk action because Bulwark authors forced him to go.
The one thing Joe said last night that was true was this; the campaign hasn't started yet. Everything we are seeing and hearing is just foreplay to the really juicy crap that will be hitting the fans come Sept and Oct.
Brace yourselves; because if you all are getting this excited over a bit of differences of opinion amongst this community, i cannot begin to fathom how you will take the 24/7 commercials showing Joe staring off into space and spewing nonsense.
Well-said yourself, Bill, and thanks. Thing is, most American voters do not pay the slightest bit of attention to politics--even presidential--until the kids are back in school from summer vacation. If even then. Most of the shouting we hear is by one group of laser focused political interests to another group of same. Maw and Paw America won't tune in until September, earliest.
It is not Option 3, you can disregard that one. These people risked their careers by turning against Trumpism and rejecting their political tribe, they aren't going back.
The Bulwark starts throwing around terms like "Blue MAGA" and then they're going to act surprised that garbage like "Blue QAnon" starts showing up here.
Fair enough, I apologize. I was not being snarky; I am sincerely curious as to how you arrive at the conspiracy in option 3. This community brings together different people and I want to understand how people think.
To start, I don't view it as a conspiracy. That's the wrong framing. I'm not suggesting that all of the Bulwark writers got together in a room, wearing hooded robes, and decided that this was going to be their strategy going forward.
What I am suggesting (and, I should emphasize, I offered it as one of three options because I am truly uncertain as to which of them is the truth) is that the writers here might be hedging their bets by pulling their punches.
I read an article somewhere recently that talked about why CEOs, who are aware that Trump is completely incompetent and potentially ruinous for the economy, are so silent on the election. The conclusion of the author was that the CEOs calculated that there was no benefit, only downside, to supporting Biden. If they stayed quiet and Biden won, well, it's status quo ante for their business, because Biden and the Democrats aren't going to take retribution. On the other hand, if they vocally support Biden and Trump wins, their company could end up targeted by the new administration. I think a similar calculus could be playing out in the back of the minds of the writers here.
For what its worth, I don't think that it's only the Bulwark writers that could be making this mental calculation. I think it's entirely applicable to the upper echelons of the NYT, WaPo, and CNN among others.
Hilary, I don't think they are making any kind of calculation. Why? Because after 8 years of Trumpism, I think I have a good grasp of what a persuasive argument is, and I trust my ability to recognize one. I've listened to and read them for years. They make persuasive arguments. I trust them and I trust my perception.
You are mistrustful in a lot of situations, I suspect.
Indeed. And, still, no one has produced a viable candidate to replace Biden on the ticket. Viable meaning someone that the majority will get behind. If they really want VP KH to be president, it's going to have to be his succession; otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.
I would love to see Harris as President. Hell, I wanted to see HRC as POTUS. But I know the country I served for 38 years. It's the worse dysfunctional family you could dream up. "The Hills Have Eyes" kind of family.
I agree. She would have a problem in a normal campaign with her at the top of the ticket, let alone a shortened race. Misogyny anyone? It is one of those idiotic issues people have in this country. I think her succession to POTUS after 2 or so years may help qualm the irrational fears that Americans have for women presidents. It will also solve today's question of who she will pick for VP. She'd have her own record to run on as a very strong incumbent in 2028.
Yep. This has been my biggest issue with bill’s analysis. It’s Biden drops out something something something…we win (btw, all something’s are somehow GREAT for dems).
Right? Once or twice, you've given your opinion and make your point. Move on. Three-plus times a day every day constitutes an agenda, the goal of which is implicit in the message. In this case, rat-fucking the Democratic Party.
Complaining that Bulwark writers are telling the truth is self-defeating. If Joe Biden is the nominee, I will vote for him (and so will the Bulwark writers). But there are voters out there who simply cannot vote for a guy who is noticeably deteriorating day by day. Any new candidate will have a better chance of picking up voters who don’t want Trump. And here’s one white woman who will definitely vote for Kamala Harris for president.
Donors are freezing $90 million until Biden is replaced. Democrats are seeing polling that indicate safe blue states could turn purple. This is country-wide. People do not think Joe Biden can do the job for 4 more years. This is not because of what the Bulwark is writing. Why the resistance to seeing this?
I’m not sure I can keep reading and listening to you guys if your entire focus remains on forcing Biden out of the race. As you noted in your conclusion “What we do need is sustained efforts, both private and public, to persuade and, yes, to pressure Joe Biden to open the door wide—and to walk through it.”. Seriously? In other words, what we do need is to keep telling people how incompetent JB is while not focusing our energy on beating Trump. Don’t you see how counter intuitive this is? I don’t doubt your intention that you are doing this in order to beat Trump… but if that’s your main goal maybe you should focus directly on doing so instead of trying to force JB out of the race. At the end of the day, if he does what he says and stays in the race, all you have done by being so stubborn in your view that he should step down is all but guarantee a Trump victory.
Exactly. This is so frustrating. Until Joe says he’s done, he’s the nominee. And the public pressure campaign isn’t only hardening his resolve, it’s telling swing voters that both candidates are incapable so it doesn’t matter who wins. When it couldn’t matter more in 2024. The so called pro democracy “former” Republicans and wishy washy Dems will be responsible for fascism coming to America.
Beg to differ. Biden did more damage to his own electability with his debate performance than any of his nay sayers. He flat out proved their point and Trump's messaging in front of a national TV audience.
And nothing since—not his 20 plus appearances, not the NATO summit nor his speech, not the press conference or sit down with ABC can negate that one event. This is all about personal bias. The media has long disliked Joe and were thrilled when he did poorly in Iowa and NH. They were shocked when Clyburn endorsed him and flabbergasted when he won state after state, uniting the Dem party. A lot of voters who wanted Bernie or anyone else held their noses and voted for him and obviously still don’t like him.
Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it’s been open season on Joe for the media, which is why every bit of good news is followed by “why that’s bad for Biden” and why Americans believe we are living in the upside down where inflation is high, crime is up, and wages are down. It’s the same as more than 70 percent of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 before the Iraq War. Obviously nothing will satisfy the press and pundits, so the best thing is to tune them out and work hard to get the Dems elected.
I have heard JVL say that running Biden wouldn't be as big a deal if the opponent was someone like Romney or Haley so I hear about the threat all the time on here. That is why the pro democracy side should not also run a declining old man. Mean demented crazy vs old experienced crazy is risky.
I don’t see evidence that Biden is crazy. What do you think suggests that conclusion?
I don't actually believe is crazy; I was distilling the issue down to a sentence from perspective of casual voter
I believe Joe is old and he's been a rambling gaffe machine his whole career. Mixing up Harris and Trump is not very far outside his norm versus Trump talking about electric boats sinking due to heavy motors or injecting bleach to cure COVID. The post debate challenge is those gaffes are perceived differently and he cannot get back on track from his own tangents.
He can govern for another 6 months no problem but he can't campaign.
Agree.
"Until Joe says he's done" chills me frankly. The U.S. President is only and always elected to a term.
Too much deference is being given to his incumbency.
Option 1 is that the Bullwark writers just care so much about winning that they’re doing this incessant hit job out of loyalty to country. That’s the charitable option.
Option 2 is that they care more about being seen as right / smart political operatives than anything else. If Biden does bow out and Harris goes on to lose because America can’t stomach voting for a black woman to be in charge, they’ll still get to pat themselves on the back for getting the strategy part “right.” Most of these people aren’t hurting for money, so the fallout won’t hit them the way it will regular people.
Option 3 is that they are actively pulling punches against Trump because they expect him to win, and they plan on crawling back and kissing the ring when that happens. “Oh Dear Leader, we’re sorry about being so mean before, but look how we destroyed Joe Biden for you”.
I really, really hope it isn’t option 3. Then again, these are a bunch of current/former republicans who spent many years taking actions that got us to this point. Maybe when someone shows you who they are over and over again you should believe them.
I will come to the defense of the Bulwark crowd because even through this I don't doubt their intentions and motives. I respect them all and especially those who made large sacrifices by continuing down this path of "Never Trump-ism", especially Sarah who has been consequential in efforts to defeat DT. With that being said, that has made these past couple weeks all the more confusing. I do believe that it is option 1 with perhaps a sprinkle of option 2, but I just don't understand their logic. As I said, if they are so concerned with beating DT then they should focus on THAT instead of focusing on getting JB out of the race so that they can then turn their focus to beating Trump. I was hoping that after a couple days and especially after this press conference we would get back to regularly scheduled programming so I am disheartened to see them doubling down.
It is Option 1. I won't speak for everyone on the staff, but from what I've heard and read, most of them are convinced that there is no pathway for Biden to win, and they do not want Trump to win, therefore, the best way to defeat Trump is to convince Biden to step down. It's perfectly logical to me.
I definitely want to believe in Option 1, or at worst your theory of mostly Option 1 with a little from Option 2. But every day that this continues the little voice inside that talks about Option 3 gets a bit louder.
That's your cynical devil on your shoulder voice. Don't listen to it. Listen to reasons and facts.
Hilary, I think their intentions are noble. I think their methods are "iffy" at best.
Most importantly to me, I feel their lack of humility in addressing how much theiy contributed to the current nightmare through their decades of defending and promoting the Republican Party is disqualifying.
Their expectation that 30-40 years of outright propagandist lying can be "turned around" in 5-8 years is belieiving in unicorns.
They created this monster and now they are trying to tame what they so meticulously built.......apparently not as easy as thought. I am tired of Democrats having to clean up the messes that Republicans make.
Millennia-old divide and conquer has become divide and blame (or shame) on the socials. So many harmful things are potent.
Trump has changed party affiliation 5 times. What if he decided to take over the Democratic Party instead of the Republican, and actually accomplished that? Would you feel that everyone who had ever been a Democrat was complicit?
Have you met the Democratic Party……their raison d’etre is to NOT fall in line. Historically speaking, the R party falls in line, the D party falls in love. I’m not saying it could never happen Linda, but as Will Rogers famously said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
Will Rogers was right. For the Dems, sometimes it's a blessing, sometimes it's a curse. Too many times the Dems have been their own worst enemy.
They weren't in 2020. They were clear about the threat to the country of a Trump win and united around Biden. Nancy Pelosi was a great Speaker and so is Leader Jeffries. Why should they not unite around the candidate who has the best chance to defeat Trump in 2024?
Who besides Harris has the national reputation to lead a ticket? Half the people floated for her VP I had to look up because their names were vaguely familiar but I couldn't tell you who they really were. Others, as in Leader Jeffries, who have national name recognition are needed where they are now. If the Dems get a House majority Jeffries needs to be there to be the Speaker. I believe he would be an outstanding Speaker and maybe an outstanding POTUS if he wants the job.
I'm not proposing Leader Jeffries run for the nomination. I mentioned him only as an example of where the Dems were NOT the proverbial disorganized party.
I am also not advocating an alternative candidate other than Harris.
Sorry. I misunderstood your point.
I don't believe the orange one would ever try to take over the Democratic party. It's too diverse (realtor years - no renting to Black people!), too much for the common good (bodily autonomy), social net expansion (he wants to trim Soc Sec.). Democrats want to expand the government to serve people Republicans (pRo-lIfE!) want to drown that baby.
It started with nixon, took off like a rocket with reagan. I'm old, I remember. We are softies, they want raw power - looking at you Mitch McConnell. Knowing what we know about his life, the Democratic party wasn't even a stop on his route.
He did try, along with a third party. He saw that the gopers were a bunch of obedient little sheep who will willingly vote against their own best interests and the rest they say is history.
Great question, Linda.
Hilary: consider an Option 4. They are all people who have lost friends and livelihoods over opposition from the word go to the ascendancy of an authoritarian who is morally, democratically, and psychologically unfit to be President, and have pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to his defeat.
"But her emails" part deux coming to a campaign near you.
Yes, Linda. Add to this closing of the Declaration: At the signing, Franklin reportedly quipped "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". If Trump wins, they will all surely be if not be hanged, investigated and harrased.
Really, Hilary? Would you be saying "Maybe when someone shows you who they are over and over again you should believe them" if they were urging Biden to stay in the race?
No, you wouldn't. You'd applaud them. It's only because they're not cheerleading for Biden that you accuse them of that ugly Option 3.
Let me present an option you forgot: Option 4: Bulwark writers came to the conclusion, after dispassionately examining all available evidence, that American voters might rather elect a lively, animated, and boasting tyrant/entertainer as president over a man highly regarded and effective but looks and acts old, enfeebled, and in early stages of dementia. (Whether he has that is irrelevant. Optics reign in politics.) Bulwark writers are so alarmed at Choice No. 1 that they wish to replace Choice No. 2 with someone younger, stronger, and far more vigorous on the campaign trail.
It's a fair conclusion for Bulwark to make. A lot of Americans worry after seeing Biden in the debate and, to a lesser extent, at the NATO press conference and the Stephanopoulos interview: with Biden, there's less THERE there than even a few months ago. So it's fair for Bulwark opinionists to pick "Joe Gotta Go" over "Joe Mo and Mo."
Now me, I'm Ridin' With Biden till his Corvette crashes into the Oval Office, because Trump must have a stake driven through his heart and Biden is still the best hammer. That said, a Biden win no sure thing because of the damage Biden caused himself in just the past two months, and because he's no longer up to demolishing the gish-galloping, lying, smirking, smarmy, racist, incurious, babbling, narcissistic, rapist Trump.
Yes, I prefer Biden stay in the race. Yes, I would vote for Ebola over Trump--Ebola is more likable and less willing to destroy our Republic. Ebola doesn't have Project 2025 nihilists hanging onto it like leeches. But "Joe's Gotta Go" is a valid opinion backed by evidence.
To suggest that Bulwark writers are engaged in Option 3--crawling back to Trump in hopes of the Great Man's Pity and Favour--is nauseating. I've read Bulwark writers for a long time and see no evidence they're setting themselves up to be players in Trump II: Orange Boogaloo.
I wouldn't take a position if they were merely "urging" one way or the other. That's all fair in political commentary. I also wouldn't take a position if I saw more humility from all of the Bulwark writers suggesting that they don't actually *know* the best path forward, but here's how we deal with the situation whatever way it works out.
Instead, what I've seen is two weeks of virtually uninterrupted screeching that they are absolutely certain that Biden needs to drop out now, now, now. When it's every article they write it starts to get a bit absurd.
JVL for one has been very humble. He's also been Biden's biggest cheerleader at the Bulwark for the past 4 years and up until the debate really thought he was the best option going forward. He's made clear time and again that every option is a risk, and nothing is certain.
Certainly JVL has acknowledged that he may be wrong. Not so much Tim and Sarah, but they have substantial experience in political communications. You sound like a conservative anti-vaxxer who feels expertise is plot to control you.
There is no actually knowing in politics, as you put it. There is no knowing the outcome until the voters vote. It's all risk assessment, based on reasoning and facts. Maybe uncertainty makes you uncomfortable.
Well said Shane. As i read the comments, i can see the democrats (yes i am one) rallying around the idea The Bulwark was all just a false flag operation. What a load of horseshit. I get it, you want Biden to stay in the race; irrespective of whether he can do the job...or more importantly (at this point) campaign well enough to win.
In the end, The Bulwark community will not, WILL NOT, be the deciding factor in Joe's decision. Sorry, none of us are that important. President Biden will make that decision in conjunction with the top democrats. It won't be an emotional, knee-jerk action because Bulwark authors forced him to go.
The one thing Joe said last night that was true was this; the campaign hasn't started yet. Everything we are seeing and hearing is just foreplay to the really juicy crap that will be hitting the fans come Sept and Oct.
Brace yourselves; because if you all are getting this excited over a bit of differences of opinion amongst this community, i cannot begin to fathom how you will take the 24/7 commercials showing Joe staring off into space and spewing nonsense.
Well-said yourself, Bill, and thanks. Thing is, most American voters do not pay the slightest bit of attention to politics--even presidential--until the kids are back in school from summer vacation. If even then. Most of the shouting we hear is by one group of laser focused political interests to another group of same. Maw and Paw America won't tune in until September, earliest.
Agree, it is truly nauseating. I don't understand such thinking.
It is not Option 3, you can disregard that one. These people risked their careers by turning against Trumpism and rejecting their political tribe, they aren't going back.
I disagree with Hilary and particularly with her Option 3. But Blue Qanon she's not.
"Blue Qanon" is way out of line. To quote JVL, "we don't do that here." You owe an apology.
Blue Qanon? oooookay.
Yeah, no, that's so offensive I'm not even going to bother answering your question.
The Bulwark starts throwing around terms like "Blue MAGA" and then they're going to act surprised that garbage like "Blue QAnon" starts showing up here.
Actually, it was Tim yesterday on his pod with David French who said "Blue QAnon" instead of "Blue MAGA". That's why it's showing up here.
Fair enough, I apologize. I was not being snarky; I am sincerely curious as to how you arrive at the conspiracy in option 3. This community brings together different people and I want to understand how people think.
To start, I don't view it as a conspiracy. That's the wrong framing. I'm not suggesting that all of the Bulwark writers got together in a room, wearing hooded robes, and decided that this was going to be their strategy going forward.
What I am suggesting (and, I should emphasize, I offered it as one of three options because I am truly uncertain as to which of them is the truth) is that the writers here might be hedging their bets by pulling their punches.
I read an article somewhere recently that talked about why CEOs, who are aware that Trump is completely incompetent and potentially ruinous for the economy, are so silent on the election. The conclusion of the author was that the CEOs calculated that there was no benefit, only downside, to supporting Biden. If they stayed quiet and Biden won, well, it's status quo ante for their business, because Biden and the Democrats aren't going to take retribution. On the other hand, if they vocally support Biden and Trump wins, their company could end up targeted by the new administration. I think a similar calculus could be playing out in the back of the minds of the writers here.
For what its worth, I don't think that it's only the Bulwark writers that could be making this mental calculation. I think it's entirely applicable to the upper echelons of the NYT, WaPo, and CNN among others.
Hilary, I don't think they are making any kind of calculation. Why? Because after 8 years of Trumpism, I think I have a good grasp of what a persuasive argument is, and I trust my ability to recognize one. I've listened to and read them for years. They make persuasive arguments. I trust them and I trust my perception.
You are mistrustful in a lot of situations, I suspect.
Thank you for sharing, Hilary.
I recall the CEO article you are referencing.
Indeed. And, still, no one has produced a viable candidate to replace Biden on the ticket. Viable meaning someone that the majority will get behind. If they really want VP KH to be president, it's going to have to be his succession; otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.
I would love to see Harris as President. Hell, I wanted to see HRC as POTUS. But I know the country I served for 38 years. It's the worse dysfunctional family you could dream up. "The Hills Have Eyes" kind of family.
I agree. She would have a problem in a normal campaign with her at the top of the ticket, let alone a shortened race. Misogyny anyone? It is one of those idiotic issues people have in this country. I think her succession to POTUS after 2 or so years may help qualm the irrational fears that Americans have for women presidents. It will also solve today's question of who she will pick for VP. She'd have her own record to run on as a very strong incumbent in 2028.
Yep. This has been my biggest issue with bill’s analysis. It’s Biden drops out something something something…we win (btw, all something’s are somehow GREAT for dems).
*via succession. Trust no one. Especially autocorrect.
As my TI told me in Basic Training, stainless steel isn't, permanent press isn't. I guess a new one could be, autocorrect doesn't.
I just find the same old article being written everyday for 2 weeks. It’s like once or twice was enough but everyday
Right? Once or twice, you've given your opinion and make your point. Move on. Three-plus times a day every day constitutes an agenda, the goal of which is implicit in the message. In this case, rat-fucking the Democratic Party.
Yeah I wouldn’t even mind if everyday they had small blurb updating us but then moved onto a few other issues. It’s just the same article recycled
*made your point
Complaining that Bulwark writers are telling the truth is self-defeating. If Joe Biden is the nominee, I will vote for him (and so will the Bulwark writers). But there are voters out there who simply cannot vote for a guy who is noticeably deteriorating day by day. Any new candidate will have a better chance of picking up voters who don’t want Trump. And here’s one white woman who will definitely vote for Kamala Harris for president.
1,000,000 likes!
Donors are freezing $90 million until Biden is replaced. Democrats are seeing polling that indicate safe blue states could turn purple. This is country-wide. People do not think Joe Biden can do the job for 4 more years. This is not because of what the Bulwark is writing. Why the resistance to seeing this?
BUH BYE