I need to say something about the intra-Bulwark debate regarding the feasibility of Biden stepping aside. Those in favor point out all the obvious Biden weaknesses and sometimes talk up, in very general terms, other potential candidates. Then, those against (especially Sarah) stipulate to everything but then say "but the political and logistical barriers to mounting an effective campaign with a different candidate in the time available are absurdly high and almost certainly insurmountable!" And then those in favor just kind of state their initial case again without directly responding to what seems like a pretty critical concern. What am I missing?
OK, Terry. You're making a lot of claims here (like she's held to a higher standard than anyone else). No evidence to support them. I don't wish to continue this thread.
Biden's excellent primary performance especially in combination with Trump's dismal performance shows he is not losing Democrats while Trump is losing upwards of half the Republicans. Biden WILL win the popular vote by more votes than he did in 2020. The only question is whether Trump's wins in red states and possibly some swing states will be enough to allow him to slip through the Electoral college like he did in 2016.
People who vote for Trump are objectively repudiating the Constitution and the core American values it represents because Trump is openly running on remaking America into a right-wing authoritarian government. Furthermore, that is what his whole immunity argument is about.
The federal government paid $18M to the Nixon estate in 2000, the "fair value" of the many Nixon-administration papers and recordings which Nixon and his heirs had argued were his personal property.
The Presidential Records Act in 1978 established that, from Reagan forward, most administration records are public property.
“Or President Biden might recognize the widespread discontent out there—and the very real possibility that he’ll lose to Trump—and choose to step aside.”
I call Bullshit! Why do you think that there is a “very real possibility” that Biden will lose to Trump? And please do not talk to me about the seriously flawed current method of polling which is no longer useful to predict outcomes of elections. Ever since the Great Polling Debacle of 2016, I ignore poll results, the positive as well as the negative and urge others to as well. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there are polls. Apologies to Samuel Clemens.
But, if you insist on talking about poll results, there are recent results that you would need to address:
1. Biden out polled Whitmer and Newsom.
2. Trump’s actual primary results under performed the estimates of the polls.
“In any case, there’s clearly interest in—even eagerness for—a younger, different alternative, one way or the other, to Biden and Trump.”
Yeah, I get that. I wish Biden were 20 years younger. Hell, I wish I were 20 years younger. For all the good the wishing does. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
Today is March 1. Election Day is 8 months and change from now. Just who do you think could beat Trump? Where are you going to find this young, smart, knowledgeable, politically savvy, charismatic, dynamic, personable, everything to everyone, knight in shining armor riding to the rescue? Biden is the only one that has ever beaten Trump. There is no one else at this point in time.
Take your Whitmers, your Newsoms, your Harrises, your generic young democrats, and groom them for the run in 2028.
Like it or not, the 2024 race is between Biden and Trump. Anyone who does not vote for Biden will own the consequences of a second Trump term.
It is a 5 alarm fire, all hands on deck, time to circle the wagons. Stop notching and moaning and whining. We cannot afford for the democrats to perform their all too common dance of shooting themselves in both feet as well as the hand not holding the gun, thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
When Charlie was writing Morning Shots, we always knew it was him writing unless it was noted that someone was standing in for him and that was mentioned at the top. Now that multiple people are writing daily, please inform us at the start of each section who is writing instead of at the end like Bill is currently doing. We should know up front whose writing we're reading.
"Entrepreneurs-turned-pundits like Musk and Sacks are effective propagandists because they present themselves as political outsiders opposing the despised Washington “elite.” (If two billionaires with degrees from Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the University of Pennsylvania aren’t elites, then no one is.)"
Isn't it interesting how uber-rich asshats like Musk and Sacks present as populist outsiders fighting the "Elites" despite their CVs? There are at least two other low-lifes trying to wear the mantle of a non-elitist just looking out for the little people:
* Tucker Carlson: Raised in La Jolla, CA where, today, the average income is just under $180k per year. He attended St George's School (a private boarding school in suburban Newport, RI) that accepts only 14% of all applicants:
"The average private school acceptance rate in Rhode Island is 78% per year (2024).
Carlson states that he had family fighting in the Revolutionary War (he doesn't say for which side), and if that isn't proclaiming a "white bread" WASP upbringing IDK what does? He has an estimated net worth of ~$30 million. Elitist, yes or no?
* The Mango Malignancy: Raised in NY by a real estate baron who got rich scamming and tax fraud (like father like son). The Fulvous Flatulence attended the Wharton School at UPenn -- a very elite business school. He has received ~$413 million (today's dollars) from Fred's real estate company -- the eponymous Trump Org, the family business that the Bloviating Butterscotch Buffoon eventually took over -- since his early childhood (self-made billionaire my aunt Fanny):
His current net worth is unknown, it depends on when and who is receiving financials from him, but suffice to say he is extremely rich. Elitist, yes or no?
In his monologue last night, Stephen Colbert declared SCOTUS unconstitutional and all of its rulings null and void. I like Stephen and usually find him funny, but this was not funny. It was irresponsible. The Bulwark writers should get on this and call for him to walk it back.
If in our own opinion a SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided, we should attack legitimacy of the decision, not the Court itself. Destroy the legitimacy of the court and their judicial powers will not disappear – they will be assumed by someone else. Even if “the people” assume it themselves (as Stephen did), a power-hungry executive will quickly take it from them. Once the executive has the judicial power, rule of law is gone, and we have rule of one person – a dictatorship. Trump has been doing all he can to discredit the legal system so he can be dictator when elected President again. Stop helping him. Support the Constitution and the rule of law.
There are some errors in the piece about immigration and the border. Presidents can’t halt border crossings completely (under any circumstances) and Trump didn’t “close the border altogether” under Title 42. It is practically impossible to stop ALL border crossings given the length of our southern border, the natural features of the border itself, and the inability to stop individuals from stepping onto US soil in innumerable places along the border.
What's wrong with Harris? Be specific.
But what EXACTLY is his alternative plan?
I HÂTE Bill Kristol.
I need to say something about the intra-Bulwark debate regarding the feasibility of Biden stepping aside. Those in favor point out all the obvious Biden weaknesses and sometimes talk up, in very general terms, other potential candidates. Then, those against (especially Sarah) stipulate to everything but then say "but the political and logistical barriers to mounting an effective campaign with a different candidate in the time available are absurdly high and almost certainly insurmountable!" And then those in favor just kind of state their initial case again without directly responding to what seems like a pretty critical concern. What am I missing?
OK, Terry. You're making a lot of claims here (like she's held to a higher standard than anyone else). No evidence to support them. I don't wish to continue this thread.
Oh, voters. I think that is even less likely.
Biden's excellent primary performance especially in combination with Trump's dismal performance shows he is not losing Democrats while Trump is losing upwards of half the Republicans. Biden WILL win the popular vote by more votes than he did in 2020. The only question is whether Trump's wins in red states and possibly some swing states will be enough to allow him to slip through the Electoral college like he did in 2016.
People who vote for Trump are objectively repudiating the Constitution and the core American values it represents because Trump is openly running on remaking America into a right-wing authoritarian government. Furthermore, that is what his whole immunity argument is about.
I'm not familiar with Nixon being paid $18 million for "what he had". Is that a lie?
The federal government paid $18M to the Nixon estate in 2000, the "fair value" of the many Nixon-administration papers and recordings which Nixon and his heirs had argued were his personal property.
The Presidential Records Act in 1978 established that, from Reagan forward, most administration records are public property.
Thank you.
“Or President Biden might recognize the widespread discontent out there—and the very real possibility that he’ll lose to Trump—and choose to step aside.”
I call Bullshit! Why do you think that there is a “very real possibility” that Biden will lose to Trump? And please do not talk to me about the seriously flawed current method of polling which is no longer useful to predict outcomes of elections. Ever since the Great Polling Debacle of 2016, I ignore poll results, the positive as well as the negative and urge others to as well. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there are polls. Apologies to Samuel Clemens.
But, if you insist on talking about poll results, there are recent results that you would need to address:
1. Biden out polled Whitmer and Newsom.
2. Trump’s actual primary results under performed the estimates of the polls.
“In any case, there’s clearly interest in—even eagerness for—a younger, different alternative, one way or the other, to Biden and Trump.”
Yeah, I get that. I wish Biden were 20 years younger. Hell, I wish I were 20 years younger. For all the good the wishing does. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
Today is March 1. Election Day is 8 months and change from now. Just who do you think could beat Trump? Where are you going to find this young, smart, knowledgeable, politically savvy, charismatic, dynamic, personable, everything to everyone, knight in shining armor riding to the rescue? Biden is the only one that has ever beaten Trump. There is no one else at this point in time.
Take your Whitmers, your Newsoms, your Harrises, your generic young democrats, and groom them for the run in 2028.
Like it or not, the 2024 race is between Biden and Trump. Anyone who does not vote for Biden will own the consequences of a second Trump term.
It is a 5 alarm fire, all hands on deck, time to circle the wagons. Stop notching and moaning and whining. We cannot afford for the democrats to perform their all too common dance of shooting themselves in both feet as well as the hand not holding the gun, thus snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Have you read JVL's piece in The Atlantic this morning?
The WI primary, which is not competitive, is not an indicator of how the swing voters - Independents and educated suburban - will vote in the general.
I don't understand where Biden is winning in WI. Pls explain.
That was clear. And you could. But the vagueness about numbers is making it nearly impossible to discuss this rationally.
When Charlie was writing Morning Shots, we always knew it was him writing unless it was noted that someone was standing in for him and that was mentioned at the top. Now that multiple people are writing daily, please inform us at the start of each section who is writing instead of at the end like Bill is currently doing. We should know up front whose writing we're reading.
Thanks.
"Entrepreneurs-turned-pundits like Musk and Sacks are effective propagandists because they present themselves as political outsiders opposing the despised Washington “elite.” (If two billionaires with degrees from Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the University of Pennsylvania aren’t elites, then no one is.)"
Isn't it interesting how uber-rich asshats like Musk and Sacks present as populist outsiders fighting the "Elites" despite their CVs? There are at least two other low-lifes trying to wear the mantle of a non-elitist just looking out for the little people:
* Tucker Carlson: Raised in La Jolla, CA where, today, the average income is just under $180k per year. He attended St George's School (a private boarding school in suburban Newport, RI) that accepts only 14% of all applicants:
"The average private school acceptance rate in Rhode Island is 78% per year (2024).
The most selective school in Rhode Island is St. George's School, with an acceptance rate of 14%." https://www.privateschoolreview.com/acceptance-rate-stats/rhode-island
Carlson states that he had family fighting in the Revolutionary War (he doesn't say for which side), and if that isn't proclaiming a "white bread" WASP upbringing IDK what does? He has an estimated net worth of ~$30 million. Elitist, yes or no?
* The Mango Malignancy: Raised in NY by a real estate baron who got rich scamming and tax fraud (like father like son). The Fulvous Flatulence attended the Wharton School at UPenn -- a very elite business school. He has received ~$413 million (today's dollars) from Fred's real estate company -- the eponymous Trump Org, the family business that the Bloviating Butterscotch Buffoon eventually took over -- since his early childhood (self-made billionaire my aunt Fanny):
"[A NY] Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
His current net worth is unknown, it depends on when and who is receiving financials from him, but suffice to say he is extremely rich. Elitist, yes or no?
fnord
In his monologue last night, Stephen Colbert declared SCOTUS unconstitutional and all of its rulings null and void. I like Stephen and usually find him funny, but this was not funny. It was irresponsible. The Bulwark writers should get on this and call for him to walk it back.
If in our own opinion a SCOTUS decision was wrongly decided, we should attack legitimacy of the decision, not the Court itself. Destroy the legitimacy of the court and their judicial powers will not disappear – they will be assumed by someone else. Even if “the people” assume it themselves (as Stephen did), a power-hungry executive will quickly take it from them. Once the executive has the judicial power, rule of law is gone, and we have rule of one person – a dictatorship. Trump has been doing all he can to discredit the legal system so he can be dictator when elected President again. Stop helping him. Support the Constitution and the rule of law.
There are some errors in the piece about immigration and the border. Presidents can’t halt border crossings completely (under any circumstances) and Trump didn’t “close the border altogether” under Title 42. It is practically impossible to stop ALL border crossings given the length of our southern border, the natural features of the border itself, and the inability to stop individuals from stepping onto US soil in innumerable places along the border.
Another reason the border is never closed completely is because of all the legitimate business going back and forth every day.