They Both Lost. What Now?
Biden and Trump each needed to reassure the small flock of undecided voters that the country would be safe in his hands for the next four years. They failed in different ways, but they both failed.
The headlines Friday morning summed things up pretty well: Biden stumbled, while Trump lied. If you were worried that Joe Biden is too old to do the job, he did nothing to give you confidence in his vigor. But if you were worried that Donald Trump can't be trusted to respond to the real problems America faces, rather than issues spawned by his dark imagination, he also did nothing to ease your mind.
The news coverage has tended to make more of Biden's failings, stoking talk of replacing him on the Democratic ticket (which we'll get to down the page), but it's not clear that Trump's were any less significant. It's too soon to see much post-debate polling, but while most observers said Trump won the debate, the first post-debate head-to-head Morning Consult poll showed Biden gaining a point, leading Trump 45%-44% after being tied pre-debate. I wouldn't count on that result holding up as more data comes in, but it does indicate that few minds were changed.
Overall, Biden was low energy and not sharp. His voice was raspy and he frequently had to clear his throat. (His people afterwards said he had a cold.) His lifelong trouble finding words was worse than usual, leading to occasional incoherent statements like this:
For example, we have a thousand trillionaires in America – I mean, billionaires in America. And what's happening? They're in a situation where they, in fact, pay 8.2 percent in taxes. If they just paid 24 percent or 25 percent, either one of those numbers, they'd raised $500 million – billion dollars, I should say, in a 10-year period.
We'd be able to right – wipe out his debt. We'd be able to help make sure that – all those things we need to do, childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the COVID – excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with.
Look, if – we finally beat Medicare. [time's up]
Trump, meanwhile, seemed incapable of simply telling the truth. Here's CNN's post-debate fact checker:
Trump made more than 30 false claims at the Thursday debate. They included numerous claims that CNN and others have already debunked during the current presidential campaign or prior.
Trump's repeat falsehoods included his assertions that some Democratic-led states allow babies to be executed after birth, that every legal scholar and everybody in general wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, that there were no terror attacks during his presidency, that Iran didn't fund terror groups during his presidency, that the US has provided more aid to Ukraine than Europe has, that Biden for years referred to Black people as "super predators," that Biden is planning to quadruple people's taxes, that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 National Guard troops for the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, that Americans don't pay the cost of his tariffs on China and other countries, that Europe accepts no American cars, that he is the president who got the Veterans Choice program through Congress, and that fraud marred the results of the 2020 election.
Trump also added some new false claims, such as his assertions that the US currently has its biggest budget deficit and its biggest trade deficit with China. Both records actually occurred under Trump.
Sadly, that kind of fact-checking was totally absent during the debate itself, as the moderators showed no interest in whether candidates answered their questions truthfully, or even answered them at all.
Democratic panic. Republicans seemed to worry not at all about Trump's lies, just as they have not worried about his criminality. They long ago decided to nod their heads to whatever he says or does rather than worry about whether he's talking about anything real. Some of them actually believe claims like the nonsense listed above. Those votes are not up for grabs, but I think it's a mistake for Democrats to worry about them. They're not a majority and Trump can't win with the MAGA cultists alone.
Democrats, meanwhile, were shocked and saddened by Biden's performance. Former Democratic Senator (and frequent MSNBC contributor) Claire McCaskill's response was typical:
I have been a surrogate for some presidential candidates in my time, and I know what the job is after a debate for a surrogate. And I've never wanted to be a surrogate more than I do right now. Because when you're a surrogate, you have to focus on the positives. But, as I have said very clearly and very plainly — and my job now is to be really honest — Joe Biden had one thing he had to do last night, and he didn't do it.
The president had to reassure America that he was up to the job at his age. And he failed. … Based on what I'm hearing from a lot of people, some in high elected offices in this country, there is a lot more than hand-wringing going on. I do think people feel like we are confronting a crisis.
This debate felt like a gut punch to most people in this country, especially to those who are paying close attention and know how dangerous Trump is. And I think it'll take a couple of days for people to recover from that punch.
From months now I've been chronicling the New York Times anti-Biden slant. So naturally they picked this moment to pile on. Their editorial board called on Biden to "leave the race", and were echoed by NYT columnists Thomas Friedman, Frank Bruni, Nicholas Kristof, Maureen Dowd, and Lydia Polgreen. Jamelle Bouie, Michelle Goldberg, Bret Stephens, and Patrick Healey had a round-table discussion, with only Bouie expressing any doubt about the advisability of replacing Biden on the ticket. Ezra Klein, Michelle Cottle, and Ross Douthat had an even more one-sided conversation on Klein's podcast. The NYT had to go to a guest essayist, Lincoln Project's Stuart Stevens, to make the don't-panic case.
The Times, of course, was not the only source of Biden-needs-to-quit thinking, which at times seemed to hit panic levels. I got up Friday morning feeling like something needed to happen right now. But then the voice of experience spoke up: For most of my life, decisions that I've made out of that sense of panic haven't turned out very well.
We need to think about this.
Excuses for Biden. Hardly anybody is denying that the debate went badly for Biden. But the people who think it wasn't that bad make a number of points.
- The appearance was worse than the substance. Despite occasional moments like the one I quoted above, where words didn't come together for Biden and he ran out of time, reading the transcript leaves me with a very different impression than watching the video. In the video, Biden's voice is soft and raspy, he has to keep stopping to clear his throat, and he fails to deliver his lines with the proper force. In the transcript, he often does the things it seemed like he wasn't doing: calling out Trump's lies and countering with the appropriate examples. There was a problem, but it wasn't with his mind.
- He had a bad night. It happens. (In particular, it happened to Obama in his first debate with Romney in 2012.) But Biden did much better the next day at a rally in North Carolina, where (despite still needing to clear his throat) he forcefully delivered the sound bite I think his campaign needs to center on: "I know I'm not a young man, to state the obvious. I don't walk as easy as I used to. I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done."
- He had a cold. This sounds like a lame excuse, but it does match what we saw and heard: raspy voice, low energy, etc.
- There's time to fix this. Obama came back from his debate failure, which happened after the convention in early October.
But that last point raises an important question: Is Biden's problem fixable? Did he indeed just have a bad night, or did the debate reveal who he really is now?
How I'm thinking about this. Three weeks ago, I wrote a piece called "To Stop Fascism, Unite Around the Old Guy" in which I argued against the view that Biden should withdraw from the race. Much of what I said then is still true: Biden has a good record to run on, there's no obvious savior waiting in the wings to replace him, and an open convention would risk splintering the party. [1]
But the first point I made is now open to question: "Biden is fine." Is he? I was basing my analysis on the idea that the Biden-is-losing-it theory was a right-wing construction equivalent to Hillary's emails. I had been impressed by the State of the Union address, and believed that he would continue to rise to the occasion whenever he needed to. I urged people to watch the upcoming debate: "If you're expecting Biden to be a doddering old man, I think you'll be surprised."
That prediction doesn't look so good now. The debate was an occasion, and Biden didn't rise to it. Going forward, is that the exception or the rule? If we can count on Biden having a good second debate, a good convention speech, and a bunch of rallies like Friday's, then the first debate will be a distant memory by the time people vote in November. In short, we're fine if this is the real Biden, and not the man we saw Thursday night.
But is that true?
And this is a point where I have to admit that I'm not in a position to know. Other people are. Jill is, obviously. The White House staff is, and probably most of the cabinet. So are major elected Democrats like Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, and several others.
What I'm noticing is that, after reacting with uncertainty Friday morning, those people are circling the wagons around Biden. The Biden-should-quit voices are mainly coming from outside his circle, people who probably don't know any more than I do.
You might say, "Of course the party leaders and his staff have to say that." But (other than Harris, who would hurt her own prospects by appearing disloyal) they don't, really. Party leaders could be non-committal, saying things like "I trust President Biden. I think he'll make the right decision now the way he always does, and I'm going to support him either way." [2] They could be converging on the White House to do an intervention, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Similarly, staffers can't express their doubts in live interviews, but they could leak. We could be seeing Washington Post stories about "informed sources in the White House" getting increasingly worried about Biden. But we're not.
You might suppose that the insiders have an affection for Biden and don't want to hurt his feelings. And I might believe that about Jill (though I suspect even she would rather see him avoid humiliation, if that's what's coming). But picture Nancy Pelosi for a moment. Do you think she'd sacrifice an election because she didn't want to hurt somebody's feelings? That's not the woman I've been watching all these years.
In short, I think I have to trust the insiders here. That's not a comfortable position to be in. But it's the one that makes sense to me.
[1] Replacing Biden with Harris could happen fairly cleanly: Biden endorses her and his convention delegates follow his lead. Done right, Biden's exit could generate a wave of positive emotion that he could transfer to Harris, who would be stepping up to answer the call of History.
But Harris also has a low approval rating and didn't run a great primary campaign in 2020, so many Democrats don't feel confident in her beating Trump. Those people call for Biden to endorse no one and let an open convention choose among many candidates.
Jamelle Bouie spelled out the problem with that plan:
There is a real risk that the process of choosing a new nominee could tear open the visible seams in the Democratic Party. I have noticed that only a handful of calls for Biden to leave are followed by "and Vice President Harris should take his place." More often, there is a call for a contested convention. But why, exactly, should Harris step aside? Why should Harris not be considered the presumptive nominee on account of her service as vice president and her presence on the 2020 ticket? And should Harris be muscled out, how does this affect a new nominee's relationship with key parts of the Democratic base, specifically those Black voters for whom Harris's presence on the ticket was an affirmation of Biden's political commitment to their communities?
Elie Mystal put it more bluntly:
Listening to white folks blithely talk about pushing Biden off a cliff, skipping over Harris, and trotting out some white person like ain't nobody gonna notice that is some *hilarious* shit. Some of y'all need to phone a friend. A black one.
The nominee is going to be Biden. And if he doesn't want to run anymore (and I don't think he thinks a bad 90 minutes is career altering, even if others do) it's going to be Harris. And that is the sum total of viable options. Send your Aaron Sorkin script back for editing.
And race is only one issue. If multiple candidates ran, they would face pressure to differentiate themselves from each other. So, for example, we might have the pro-Israel candidate and the anti-Israel candidate. Picking either one would alienate a slice of the party the nominee would need in November.
[2] Friday morning, a few were making those non-committal statements. But by Saturday they had gotten behind Biden. Hakeem Jeffries, for example, made a classic non-commitment statement on Friday:
I'm looking forward to hearing from President Biden. And until he articulates a way forward in terms of his vision for America at this moment, I'm going to reserve comment about anything relative to where we are at this moment, other than to say I stand behind the ticket.
Yesterday, though, he described the debate as "a setback", but
A setback is nothing more than a setup for a comeback. And the reality is, Joe Biden has confronted and had to come back from tragedy, trials, from tribulations throughout his entire life.
Comments
Thank you Doug. I've been hearing lots of criticism about Biden's performance, with hardly anyone mentioning that Trump basically spent the evening confidently spouting nonsense.
The very fact that high-profile Dems are recommending that he retire should be all you need to know. This isn't coming from Fox, these are his long-time supporters. Knowing that this election is beyond critical (e.g., three openings on the Supreme Court), the Dems cannot afford to lose. Biden's support this morning is at 37%, and there is no way he's going to win at that level. People keep wanting to focus on content rather than appearance in the debate, but they miss the fact that the debate is 98% appearance. No one is reading the transcript, no one is fact-checking, they are looking to see who appears fit and ready. Biden no longer does. So, keep thinking there's plenty of time, nothing to worry about here, and let's all bookmark this page to come back to and reminisce about when Biden loses and Trump rolls back into town with Project 2025. There will be no going back.
As an 82 year old man just now recovering from a week long viral illness with fever, etc, I can understand Biden's status Thursday. There has been some speculation that he received an antihistamine. If so, that fully explains his feebleness followed a few hours later with a vigorous speech. Antihistamines have inordinate reactions in 80 year olds. These include lethargy, short term memory impairment, and even psychosis like reactions. We in this age group should never take them
It is possible to treat colds and sude effects. It. Is not possible to treat pathologic lieing, narcicism, and desire to be an autocrat. I will never vote for Donald Trump. While I was not a strong supporter of Biden, I recognize that he has implemented several major policies beneficial to me and my progeny. I will vote for him.
Hi Doug, I'm a long time reader and appreciator of the Sift. I do think we're in for a poor campaign from Biden as his age is further revealed. He can stump speech fine enough. But we all know that we're lowering the bar and being as generous as we can to him. Biden only works if the insider Democrats present a united front and force the public to be kind to him.
The problem with trusting the insiders and their lack of leaks is that they DO have a vested interest in keeping Biden as the nominee. I think staffers have a lot more control with him as President precisely because his agenda is to let them do their work and not intervene. Status quo is a strong motivator and the Democratic faction is held together by the thin thread of nobody making waves. I also believe they misrepresent how many Dems will not vote due to ambivalence and fatigue this year.
In the same way that the Trump team is the scariest part about his potential presidency, Biden's team is the strongest call to keep him as President. Trump's people are only the grifters at this point, so are incompetent and will do whatever he wants. Biden pulls the best available from the Democrats. Indeed the only pro-Biden argument I'm personally comfortable with (instead of anti-Trump) is that he will be well guided by the people around him for four years as he continues to decline.
I always appreciate the integrity with which you write and appraise your previous work. Unfortunately, I think your worries about the upcoming election will grow as candidate Biden tries to prove himself.
Thanks, Mike
I haven't come across anyone who says they're changing their vote from Biden to Trump based on the debate, or that they even know anyone who plans to do that. The panic is based on an existential threat from an unknown group of hypothetical voters whose motivations can only be guessed at. A brokered convention would give us a candidate hated by a large portion of the Democratic electorate, and would give the impression that the Democrats are in disarray. If the goal is to stop Trump from getting a second term, sticking with Biden is our only option. I suspect the polls that come out in the next few days will reflect that Biden didn't lose any support because of his performance.
No Republicans are calling for Trump to be replaced because of his felony convictions or the three other criminal cases he's facing. In the end, you're not voting for a man, you're voting for an administration and a governing philosophy. Despite his appearance of vigor, Trump is far less competent than Biden and will surround himself with Federalist Society hacks who will do their best to turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship. It's a choice between that and Biden, not that and some imaginary perfect candidate.
I get the sense that this blog is read by an older demographic, so let me say this as someone under 40 who works with high-schoolers every day: There is a huge chunk of younger voters who are already livid with Biden over the genocide we are complicit in, over rapidly rising cost of living and wildly out of control housing costs, and over this administrations feeble whimper of protest as the Supreme Court that Trump and the Republicans so brazenly stole tries its best to drag us back to the middle ages.
The fact that Biden can't even get us on a debate stage and call Trump a liar is nothing short of pathetic. It leaves open the whole possibility that Biden's inaction over Gaza is the result of inability rather than apathy, and I can't actually decide which would be worse. Media and the Democratic party tell us non-stop that this election is about our democracy (so was the last one and so will be the next one), but the fact that I can't vote against genocide tells me that we never had much of democracy to protect.
So you're right that I and many like me won't be voting for Trump in November. But I doubt that I'll be voting for Biden either…
My hope lies with the ability of the Biden campaign to reach into the younger demographics and provide enough education to temper their naiveté and absolutist thinking. The Biden Administration has done incredible, once-in-a-generation things that many dismiss out of ignorance — both of what has been done and how difficult they were to accomplish. The situation in Israel and Gaza is heart breaking and complex. There can be no doubt that while Biden is not doing enough to end the carnage as some would like, Trump would likely be actively encouraging it, so too with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
@Anonymous On July 1, 2024 at 2:26 pm
Please invite the high-schoolers to join this discussion. I'm interested in what they have to say. I suspect that others are, too.
Historians will confirm that Joe Biden was not just a good President but an exceptional one. And were he to be elected in 2024, I stand with those who believe he'd be great again. But he has to be elected first and this is the problem.
I agree with Ezra Klein (NY Times) that there's a big difference between being President and being a candidate for President. Joe Biden is a terrible candidate. He's going to make the Democrats lose in November and the USA will gave a neofascist in the White House.
Nancy Holm in Denmark on July 1.
Here is an excerpt from a message I sent my senators and US rep on 6/28:
Several weeks ago I sent you this message:
"Is the Democratic Party incapable of preventing this disaster? It is obvious that President Biden is sliding into incompetence. The prospect of him on national TV debating sly Donald is terrifying." Unfortunately, last night's debate debacle was even worse than I expected. [End of message to senators/reps]
Biden not only lost to Trump, he also showed obvious incompetence. The debate seemed to show deep deficits in: (1) his memory. (2) His ability to listen and respond. (3) His ability to monitor his own visual presentation. An experienced and mentally competent public speaker will know not to stand there with his mouth agape. (4) His ability to sum up a few key ideas with even minimal clarity. Biden must have rehearsed a closing statement of some sort, but his closing was one of his least coherent moments, almost as disheartening as his first statement of the debate. I would love it if this debate turns out to be an aberration, and I agree with Doug Muder that "insiders" know him better than we can. But I find it hard to think he should be President – except that a Trump presidency is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable.RE: "They Both Lost. What Now?"
Joe Biden has been an outstanding President, and were he to serve a 2nd term, he'd undoubtedly be great again. But he has to be elected first, and to be elected, he has to be an effective candidate. He isn't. He's a terrible candidate.
Ezra Klein (NY TIMES) was the first to point out the difference between being President and being a candidate. I agree with him and wish that those who counsel Biden did as well. Instead they'll talk him into running on his excellent record, blind to his inability to sell himself. He´ll lose in November and the USA will get a neofascist in the White House.
I do wish they would run real time debate fact checking in the lower third of the screen, but the team doing that would have to be really careful. One slip-up would feed the "enemy of the people" rhetoric.
Another idea is to give a second cutoff time for off-topic content. So if the total time limit was 60 seconds there would be a second timer for off-topic content, maybe 20 seconds, which someone would have to carefully start and stop like a game clock. The speaker is done when either clock runs out. Not easy but maybe worthwhile.
I like the idea of a shorter cutoff time for off-topic comments. There were places where Trump completely ignored the question and talked about whatever he felt like.
For example, for anyone concerned about the overdose crisis, Trump has no plan. He didn't even address the question.
It can be difficult to know in real time when a reply is on-topic; sometimes it's not obvious at first but people eventually tie what they start off with to an on-topic conclusion. So an alternative is to give the whole 60 seconds (or whatever) and deduct any off-topic response time from the next time period.
That would give a minute or so to assess. But a completely off topic reply would wipe out the next time slot, so maybe some scaling is needed. There has to be some way so that off-topic replies are not zero cost.
We're starting to get leaks from Biden's aides, and it turns out that Biden Literally sundowns:
"Between the lines: Biden's miscues and limitations are more familiar inside the White House.
– The time of day is important as to which of the two Bidens will appear.
– From 10am to 4pm, Biden is dependably engaged — and many of his public events in front of cameras are held within those hours.
– Outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued, aides told Axios."Luckily for the Biden Campaign, the voters understand that the president only needs to be functional 6 hours a day!
Wait, no, it turns out that voters want a president whose mind functions 24/7, and now 72% of them recognize that Biden's brain is too bad to be president. He does even worse on that question than Trump!
The Democrats have two options at this point. They can continue to pretend that they just fell out of a coconut tree and insist on keeping Biden as his brain melts, or they can recognize that they exist in the context of all in which they live and what came before them and run Kamala. The clock (which Biden can't draw anymore) is ticking.
Until this morning when I awoke to my 58th wedding anniversary, I supported Joe Biden staying in the race to be re-elected president. I thought, "I am 80 and I'm functioning well and Joe is in better shape than I." And I thought, "Reagan proved that you can be president by functioning only four hours a day. He slept late, took naps, and we learned after the fact that he had developing Alzheimer's."
This morning I didn't feel so well. I was feeling every day of my 80 years. I realized that I have never shuffled, looked so terrible, or failed to speak clearly about things important to me. I may not find the right word or someone's name, but I can still preach a sermon. I couldn't live with a president's daily schedule or be alert for many meetings on many difficult situations. I trust that he has surrounded himself with a good staff and advisors, but being president would be hard.
One newspaper at least has asked Trump and not Biden to step down from the position of nominee. It isn't just Joe that's the problem, and in truth Trump can't even speak it. He isn't qualified in any way to be president. Yet all the onus of being fit is placed on Joe, who is probably the most experienced and prepared person to be president in the country. He has flaws, but he knew how to deal with Covid, the economy, and the threat of Russia.
I am more distrustful of the media than ever. There is no way that a television performance should be the deciding judgment for political office. I predict that there will never be another presidential debate. They don't work. I heard Nixon and Kennedy on the radio in 1960, and thought Nixon won, but those who saw it on TV gave it to Kennedy.
We have a solution. The Constitution provides for a vice-president, and we have Kamala Harris. The Biden campaign should put her out prominently every day until the election. We need to know more about her and how she thinks. She has a low approval in polls, but that seems only based on misogyny, racism, and mostly that she has been so invisible up to now. We need to elect Biden and Harris. Few remember the State of the Union speech a few months ago, and memories of this debate will be "trumped" by speeches and maybe debates to come.
"One newspaper at least has asked Trump and not Biden to step down from the position of nominee." If you have link, I'd like to read that.
This is the same President whose State of the Union speech was outstanding! How can everyone forget about how great he has been as our President for the past 4 years, and how cogent he was just awhile back? I've seen many people unable to respond well to a shit-storm of lies. Irrationality is so foreign to a rational mind that it can be very difficult to respond adequately. My bet is at the second debate Joe comes out swinging, and KOs the liar. And I don't say that just because I like Biden. I think he is up to the task, now that he understands it.
there's no second debate. Why would Trump allow that? And even if Biden were better, it could be too late. The R's were already running cheap fakes of Biden looking out of it. Now they can just pound the airwaves with this one issue for the next 4 months using REAL video . Many voters welcome a chance to decide their vote based on one easy to understand, clear, issue. Biden's age was already that issue for many. Add millions to that group after the debate.
I feel taken advantage of. The leaders of the Democratic Party have been hiding this from us. Now I realize, I've been averting my eyes when I encountered writers like Ezra Klein saying Biden should not run again. There were a few voices pointing out how few interviews he gave, how seldom he took questions. I ignored that. I loved it when he did big things like his trip to Ukraine, and I focused only on those stories. I feel played.
I too would have said that Biden's team is a great reason—one of many—for reelecting him. But today I feel the opposite. These are the people who may well have misled the rest of us. The Democrats didn't give us a choice. As soon as Biden said he wanted to run again, that was it, no primary (effectively). We voters were given no choice. Now I want a choice, even though the hour is late and the risk is high.
I don't see mentioned here the most obvious and important aspect of Biden's diminishment. He will get worse. You don't get cured of old age. And you also don't always decline on a cleanly sloping line, either. My mother's mind retreated in a stairstep fashion. The most obvious precipitating event was a flu with a fever spike. She became delirious, and never made much sense after that. Eventually there were no good days. And this all happened in less than four years. People here are so focused on the smaller picture, how could Dems change course now, how would that work technically, what about Kamala and factionalism….we have to force ourselves to take the macro view. What are people outside our insulated circle seeing?
They are seeing that Biden has limited capacity now, and is asking them to give him 4 more years of the greatest power on the globe. That's just plain gaslighting. They know they'd be electing his team, not him. The very team that's been lying and protecting him. They know he'd be only a figurehead. Never ever ever has any American wanted their President to be a figurehead. Or thought of him that way. Presidents are our protectors, they are father figures. For some, authoritarian fathers. But always right there when you need them.
They will see he cannot serve. The very idea of leaking that Biden is fine until later in the day—that's supposed to make us feel better? Hey Putin, get a load of this—Biden's out of it after 4 PM, just FYI! They will not vote for him. They will be incredulous that we are running him, trying to gaslight them. They will be beyond not voting for him. They will be pissed off.
And one more thing, someone here said Biden will "be up to the task" in the second debate "now that he understands it." This whole weird June exercise was his idea—or that staff of his. He totally understood the task, to reassure us all that he is not too old. He failed miserably at the crazy, swing for the fences, high risk gambit he set up for himself. He was massively prepared. He asked us for this opportunity. All that, and he crumbled.
BTW, R's are pissing their pants worried Biden will get replaced with someone younger. They are totally prepared for Biden, but not for someone substantially younger than Trump.
With a name of "Anonymous" and the flip flop from ardent Biden to anti-Biden, I can't help but wonder if you are real. Could you be a Russian Bot?
After reading the SCOTUS decision we have no choice but to overwhelmingly support Biden. The US can't take a chance on someone who can now commit literal crimes and get away with them. So disappointed in their giving immunity to the "periphery" of official duties…who the hell is going to separate the duties…They and only They? which is what it sounds like. American's will in the future have to really look closely at the morals and character of the person they vote for.
Hi Doug and All,
In regard to JB stepping down, the call for alternative candidates seems to be ignoring the power of Brand recognition in presidential elections.
If it weren't for some electoral conference quirks the US could have ended with 9 presidential terms of people with only 3 surnames over the last 36 years! (B, B, C, C , B, B, O,O, C)
To me the Dem problem is not "is there anyone more suitable to be president than JB", it is, "is there any Dem with a nationwide (or more importantly – swingstate wide) Brand recognition good enough as JB to take on JT".
[As brilliant as people such as: Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg are, could they stand, in the eyes of the voter, against DJT in the states where it matters?]
B.
I'm seeing a lot of compliments for Biden's record and reassurances that he can surely still be up to the task of running the country for another term here in the comments. That's great, but it feels like many Sift readers can't put themselves in the shoes of an average American.
I'm pretty sure most of us who come here every week would still vote for Biden even if he was dead on election day because we understand the severity of the situation and the fact that the presidency installs many MANY more people in the government than just the name at the top of the ticket. But no matter how hard we work to share that understanding with the world, the vast majority of people making a decision in November will be making that decision based on whatever likely small amount of information they have allowed themselves to take in about the race, and there's no way that debate performance doesn't stick in people's minds.
My concern lies in voter apathy. I don't think people are going to run from Biden to Trump. But there's an enormous cloud of apathy hanging over this election and that only benefits Trump. Maybe a changeup in the ticket this late in the game wouldn't produce a huge upswell in turnout to get us over the finish line first, but I'd rather go out swinging for the fences than get annihilated while we sit around and cross our fingers.
End of the day, though, none of us in this comment section have any power to make any change in this election, so all I can do is watch and hope.
"none of us in this comment section have any power to make any change in this election, so all I can do is watch and hope."
I totally disagree with that assessment. None of us has the power to single-handedly change the election, but there are lots of ways that any of us could put our thumb on the scale.
As just one example: support a down-ballot candidate in a swing state. If someone decides to vote because they are interested in getting a good Democratic candidate into the state legislature, or the city council, they will also likely vote for President while they are voting – even if they aren't motivated enough to vote because of the presidential race.
And you don't need to be in that state to support a down-ballot candidate. Calls can be made from anywhere, and contributions can be made from anywhere.
That's just one example.
It's been a tough week especially when you consider how SCROTUS (sic) is interacting with the election and Project 2025 and demonstrated that they are firmly in the Cristo-Fascist camp.
We are not just voting for Joe Biden; we are voting for his team! Here's how I'm framing this battle:
Team Biden vs Team Trump
Team Democracy vs Team Autocracy
Team Competency vs Team Felony
Team Secularism vs Team Christian Nationalism (Team Christian Nazism? Team Christo-Facists?)
Team Labor vs Team Management
Team Rule of Law vs Team Pardon Supporters
Team 99% vs Team 1%
Team Rainbow vs Team White Male
Team Science vs Team Magical Thinking
Team NATO vs Team Putin
Team Legal Immigration vs Team Undocumented, Underaged Labor
Team Roe vs Team Forced Birth
Team Level Playing Field vs Team Corporate Socialism: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
SCROTUS is from Giordano at TheJuiceMedia in Melbourne Australia who two years ago wrote and produced an excellent view of how SCOTUS could undermine our 2024 election: Honest Government Ad | The Supreme Court: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL5LaLT2BJM&list=LL&index=108&t=44s>Enjoy!
Newsweek had an article by a Yale Dean and a Yale Professor of Medicine suggesting that Biden may have been on cold medicine the night of the debate. That would certainly explain his fuzziness that night and his much greater energy the next day. I've taken enough antihistamines in my life to know that the ones that will knock out cold symptoms can also really knock you for a loop. The only thing is, if this is the case, why doesn't his staff say so? That would clear up the picture a lot!
Anonymous On July 1, 2024 at 9:25 pm
They Both Lost. What Now?
Biden and Trump each needed to reassure the small flock of undecided voters that the country would be safe in hi...
They Both Lost. What Now?
Biden and Trump each needed to reassure the small flock of undecided voters that the country would be safe in hi...
As you have argued for so long, you are back to backing the sure loser. Did you read that Biden blasts the SC decision today? Well, his poor handling of Thomas' Senate hearing, and Biden's 'do nothing' about the vile way the last 3 jurists got on the court ensured this would happen. And I could make a long, long list of his other shortcomings, but you aren't open to hearing them. I wonder what your newsletter will read when Biden is blown away in November? I'll bet you'll still be arguing that Biden was the right candidate
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment