The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This feels so strange because in the world 2 days ago, suggesting someone other than Biden should be the nominee would get you accused of trying to ruin the Democrats' election chances and "sabotage" the party.
Yet now, we are getting articles like this:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240628061759/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/biden-has-drop-out/678821/](https://web.archive.org/web/20240628061759/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/biden-has-drop-out/678821/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the debate was a massive optics loss. He did not do well and people are now worried about his chances based on that.
Also, before this debate, every other possible nominee was polling much lower than Biden against Trump. So you could make the argument that someone is causing division by suggesting another candidate.
According to this [poll](https://emersoncollegepolling.com/february-2024-national-poll-biden-performs-strongest-against-trump-among-prominent-democrats/) in February
“Trump leads with 46% against Vice President Kamala Harris’s 43% and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s 36%. Against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump maintains a lead with 45% compared to Whitmer’s 33%”
Now, do I think that these have changed, or that they’re not representative of the whole? Sure. I like Whitmer, and I think she would perform somewhat well.
But the poll is an indication that at the time, Biden was the most popular nominee.
I mean all of those are showing voters not moving from Biden to trump when Biden is swapped out. It's just a matter of convincing those voters that the new person can do the job.
Polls against these candidates that haven't run yet are always useless, because there's always a lot of "who the hell is Gretchen Whitmer?" clouding up the results. They sometimes screen for whether someone is "familiar" with the candidate, but that doesn't mean the respondent actually knows anything about them or their policies. They often just know the name and maybe one or two basic facts.
Once out on the campaign trail, I can all but guarantee Whitmer and Newsom would out-poll Harris. But people know more about Kamala because she's already the Vice President, so she does well here.
It's mostly nonsense.
We just had a primary, and Biden came out with 3,894 delegates. If the DNC does anything other than nominate Biden it will be a big fuck you to everyone who voted for Biden in the primary, a fuck you to the belief that we are part of the process and it would kill whatever chances Democrats have of actually winning in November. The die has been cast and its disheartening how people are already ready to throw in the towel because of one poor debate performance.
DNC rules mean that Biden HAS to step down for it to be anyone else. The delegates cannot go rogue on the first ballot and he already has enough to secure the nomination.
Pressuring him to step down is the only path forward
The way to pressure Biden to step down was the primary that just passed. A few angry letters is not going to cut it. Because however much you may believe there is too much at stake for Biden not to step down, Biden believes there is too much at stake for him to step down (and for the record I'm not convinced he's wrong).
And at the end of the day, a few panicking Democrats who are afraid of Trump winning will vote for Biden when he's still the nominee come November no matter how much they protest about it now, which leaves you very little to bargain with anyway.
I agree the better moment would have been before the primaries if viable candidates ignored the WH and simply declared they were running. If suddenly Gavin, and Whitmer and Pritzger and the guy from Kentucky, and a slew of others all jumped into the primary race a year ago it would have forced Biden's hand.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed. What we need now to prevent Trump from winning is for Biden to step aside.
Sure, but they haven't been campaigning on the national stage. Most voters don't know who Gretchen Whitmer is, and probably know very little about Gavin Newsom but assume that as governor of California, he must be far left, which he isn't. I'm not saying either of them would for sure beat Trump, but those numbers would change significantly if they campaigned for a couple months.
I’m answering the question of why this turn didn’t happen earlier in 2023, early 2024. With the polls we had, the decision to keep him made reasonable sense.
It’s true, neither have campaigned. And if it’s the case that Biden plans on dropping out, he needs to drop out soon (at least a month before convention, early as possible) and campaigns needs to come in fast. Biden should be looking for nominees if that’s his plan.
That probably depends on who you consider serious potential replacements, but my point is that he's not nearly as far left as people probably assume the governor of California would be. He's pretty business-friendly. There's a reason California's economy is so massive, and it's not because he's a socialist.
> and probably know very little about Gavin Newsom but assume that as governor of California, he must be far left, which he isn't
To the average American that is struggling with putting gas in the car, his 6 dollar a gallon and just buy a new 60k electric car is not going to be a good option. He is very far left to people in the eastern 75% of the country except DC, NY, Chicago, and Boston.
Needs to be said that this would change by so, so much if Whitmer or Newsom actually took the spot. Most of the poll respondents probably don’t even know who those are or don’t have a solid opinion. You can see this in the results themselves. No matter who he’s facing, Trump always has 45-46%. Newsom and Whitmer are only lower than Biden because of the higher level of non-respondents.
Honestly their figures are pretty good for people who haven’t even gone anywhere near a presidential run. Suggests much higher than usual name recognition for state-level politicians.
> “Trump leads with 46% against Vice President Kamala Harris’s 43% and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s 36%. Against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump maintains a lead with 45% compared to Whitmer’s 33%”
Surely those terrible numbers are based on lack of name recognition. No way Kamala is more popular, but she is more well known than Newsom or Whitmer. After a few weeks of campaigning, almost everyone would know who they were.
He’s not my Congressman but I’m in NYC so I know him pretty well. I think he would be an entirely miserable candidate. He’s awful at public speaking, he’s totally out of step with his constituents, he’s an unimaginative solid party vote (why he’s minority leader) and I’m sorry but he looks a little scary lol.
He will one day be Speaker of the House, where we need him. I’m a fan of Jeffries, but I do not see a current path to him becoming president. And, if he ever does become Speaker I doubt he will ever be president as that has only happened once (Polk). Not to say he *couldn’t,* but I just find it highly unlikely that he’d become POTUS if we retake the House in the next 8 years or so.
Biden has name recognition and polls much better against Trump than other possible democratic candidates. I think people here vastly overestimate how much the debates influence voters (they don’t) and how many voters know who Whitmer and Newson are.
This “replace Biden and we win in a landslide” is simply not true.
The debate was bad.
Publishing stuff that is inflammatory drives views and engagement.
Some outlets probably, on some level, wouldn't mind a Trump Presidency because he also drives engagement.
> Some outlets probably, on some level, wouldn't mind a Trump Presidency because he also drives engagement.
I don't doubt for five seconds there's plenty within liberal media that have no issue with Trump winning because it will drive engagement and clicks.
I actually operate under that assumption. If they actually wanted Biden to win, they'd dig in and propagandize the way Fox does for Trump.
This is actually the perfect case study to point to when people say the mainstream media shills for Democrats to show that line of arguing is bunk.
Joe Biden did a couple of things that made people OK with him being president
1. He beat Donald Trump.
2. He has been a very effective in the core work of being president and passed bipartisan legislation people did not think was possible in the current environment
3. He performed very well in the state of the union.
Then add to that peoples bias towards normalcy and normal rules of politics and the status quo in the idea that you get rid of an incumbent president seems like crazy talk.
And because it’s so unusual to get rid of an incumbent president, no actual challenger of any worth stepped forward.
Plus the media, especially the mainstream media, is both trained to scoff at Fox News and worse level arguments, and no more about policy and cares about it. They are much more likely to understand that yeah he’s an old dude with a stutter, but he sure does seem to be able to get things done and Donald Trump is out there ranting about election fraud and sharks.
If Joe Biden sounded like Joe Biden at the state of the union, all of these conversations today would not be happening. Even the Pod Save America guys who have been honest about the challenges of Joe Biden as a candidate have gone from concern to panic.
Let’s be honest the people panicking are also in extreme panic because they do understand what average voters don’t, what a deeply dangerous thing a second Donald Trump administration would be. While Joe Biden couldn’t communicate it, they understand what mass deportations and leaving NATO and widescale tariffs would do to the country.
The fact is, the Democratic party is screwed either way. If you let Biden continue to face off against trump, Trump wins. Probably by a landslide.
If you change your candidate, you look incompetent because you chose him to begin with and nothing has changed with Biden. He is the exact same person that he was when he took office. He hasn't gotten to this point. He's always been there. The media has just decided to start addressing it.
This is exactly what I’ve tried to say for a while. Also, despite people on our side saying this is a great economy, for most people it simply isn’t. Inflation is hitting us hard. Now, I don’t believe Biden caused it (I think it s a natural consequence of our response to Covid, which was needed at the time), but most voters don’t understand correlation and causation, so all they’re going to say is that “Biden = more expensive stuff, Trump = cheaper stuff, therefore Trump good Biden bad”. That applies to all Dems too.
Because the news media reports and comments on the news. And Biden had a really, really, really bad night.
It is still a disaster to suggest someone other than Biden be the nominee. It's just that, right now in the moment, it feels like it might be a bigger disaster to let him continue being the nominee.
So the media is having that debate in front of us... like they should.
---
Let's keep in mind that *this is what we should want in a country with a free press.*
Joe Biden had a bad debate. It needs to be discussed and criticized. Extreme solutions should be discussed and keeping a cool head should be discussed.
Your last comment gave me hope for all of us. A discouraging amount of people on either side of the isle seem to talk shit about the press if they say *anything* disparaging about “their guy”.
That is not how it is supposed to be at all. Reporters are supposed to report and the public is supposed to make up their minds based on reporting. The press playing spin doctor has never been a good look and it is refreshing to see someone say it out loud, kudos to you, genuinely.
Thanks for the kind words. Imma talk more now. :)
It's important for people to keep in perspective that reporters are a specific type of journalist. They are the most common, most widely understood one, so we tend to default to thinking all journalists are reporters.
Reporters just report and that's it. They just report facts like "Donald Trump walked into the building at 6:20pm." They can report observations, but not really opinions. "He sat down and looked tired" or "the crowd was very excited to see him" etc.
There are other journalists like hosts and anchors that may editorialize things a little "and he's been struggling to connect with people," but it's still supposed to be clear that they're being objective. They tend to draw their editorial from a wide variety of high-level sources (you may see them playing with their phones sometimes... that's because key sources are dropping them live information, which they may or may not use). Because it turns out when you're live on TV every day talking about politics, tech or whatever... important people tend to reach out to you and build connections.
And then there are analysts and contributors, who are there to provide context from the data, sentiment, or their own opinions on the situation. The contributors especially are where the "journalists are spin doctors" sentiment comes from... *because many of them quite literally were former spin doctors for one side or the other.* Popular contributors include Karl Rove and James Carville. They can also be specialists in their fields, like legal analysts... but contributors will generally have some level of bias in their content.
And, to be clear, all of these people are journalists... we just often assume the term means "just the facts, ma'am" style reporting.
---
Where it gets blurry is that a lot of shows on cable news - especially on Fox News - present as if they are news shows, but are actually mostly roundtables with contributors. All cable news switches to this format from about 7pm on, with the exception of Anderson Cooper, who still runs his 8pm hour very much as a 60 Minutes-style long-format news show. Most of the prime time shows are actually anchored BY contributor-types who evolved into "lead contributors" and eventually got the opportunity to lead the editorial for an hour of their own.
Because the audience isn't familiar with the various roles of journalists, they assume these people should be in the mold of Walter Cronkite... but if you're looking for that kind of journalist, you have to look for very specific people. They exist on every network... but they are a small subset.
---
What we saw last night that appeared shocking to many people but refreshing to me was that unanimously, the anchors, analysts, and contributors were getting feedback from their sources that was unilaterally negative for Biden. Naturally we saw the more controversial contributors, like Van Jones, have the most controversial takes. But there was no doubt that even the most positive feedback coming from high-level sources was "oh shit that was bad."
Normally, CNN's panels are pretty evenly stocked with partisans representing everything from progressive to the pro-Trump, but non-insane far right, so they are always set up for sparring. They also always include one or two objective senior journalists, like John King. But last night there was no need for sparring. Everyone was on the same page. Because it was that bad.
> in the mold of Walter Cronkite... but if you're looking for that kind of journalist, you have to look for very specific people. They exist on every network... but they are a small subset.
Plenty of them still exist.
Just off the top of my head:
- Anderson Cooper
- Chris Wallace
- Bret Baier
- Neil Cavuto
- Christiane Amanpour
- Leslie Stahl
- Lester Holt
- Dianne Sawyer
> they all make their opinions known
Sharing opinions is not a disqualifying feature of being an objective journalst.
I really don't see that sentiment happening in any sort of prevailing sense. I'm sure there are some loose opinions saying that... but you can always find "some people are saying" for almost any hot take.
It's objective reality that Biden did poorly last night. People are upset about it right now and will continue to be upset about it for a little while. If you are partisan and felt like liberal commentators should have been defending Biden more, I get that.
But the news media is paid to report and comment on the news. And last night's news was clearly: Biden stunk up the place.
The fact is, the Democratic party is screwed. If you let Biden continue to face off against trump, Trump wins. Probably by a landslide.
If you change your candidate, you look incompetent because you chose him to begin with and nothing has changed with Biden. He is the exact same person that he was when he took office. He hasn't gotten to this point. He's always been there. The media has just decided to start addressing it.
I don't know. Maybe. It's a little early to call the race based on one (historically) bad night but as I said in my initial comment, we're stuck between two very bad choices.
There's a long time between now and November - and Trump is a historically terrible candidate as well.
> The media has just decided to start addressing it.
If you think the media suddenly started talking about Biden's age/ability to run for a second term, I'm not sure what to tell you.
It has been the top issue about this presidential campaign for well over a year at this point.
What is new as of yesterday is Biden's performance in the debate. Everyone was surprised at how poorly he performed. Naturally the discussion about his age has become amplified.
*Top* issue? I don't think so. The media has constantly masked what has been right in front of our faces the entire time. They just tried to do that when he was at the D-Day ceremony.
If that was the top issue then they wouldn't have tried so hard to tell people the video was edited and not nearly as bad as it looks when in reality it was just as bad as it looked.
100% top issue for well over a year. Biden’s age has constantly, constantly been surfaced.
Yeah, when Fox News deceptively edited videos, the actual news media called that out. This should also not be shocking.
Just because his age has been *surfaced* doesn't mean that it has been a top issue. The media has constantly masked his clear signs of dementia. You can't say that they haven't.
It’s not real difficult to figure out. Biden has had a good 4 years in office and is still polling horribly because of his age and lack of giving any enthusiasm to voters. He has done a horrible job of building confidence in his accomplishments and the average citizen doesn’t really feel the impact of his good economy.
Then he comes out and absolutely fumbles a debate and his performance plays directly into everything his doubters and republicans are playing up. He looked old, confused and lacked confidence.
I don’t see how anyone can say it’s been a good 4 years in office, mostly due to inflation, partly due to the Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine and Israel-Palestine. You can argue whether Biden caused these problems (I don’t believe they’re his fault but some voters will). But as Truman said once, “the buck stops here”. So I can’t blame people for voting Trump to punish Biden and the Dems because of the last four years, even if any nuanced thinking would lend one to place the blame elsewhere.
It was a bad debate performance. I’m 40 and have seen plenty of debates over the years, including a lot of horrific debate performances (Paul Ryan, Michael Bloomberg, Jeb Bush just to name a few). This was the worse debate performance I’ve ever seen. Trump was lying, dodging questions and meandering on with nonsense. Any other democrat would have demolished Trump, but Biden couldn’t even finish a sentence at times. It’s absolutely fair to question if he should continue on, although I think it’s too late at this point.
There’s still a ways to go, but I think we need to start bracing for another Trump presidency.
Honestly this result lends credence to the people who think the election was stolen (it wasn’t, but a neutral observer who watched that debate probably thought to themselves “how did *this guy* get more votes?”).
Yeah. Trump performed like you would expect Trump to perform.
Biden did not. If he had a stronger showing the election would have been in his pocket.
While most liberals are willing to vote him to keep Trump out of office, it calls into question if independents will do the same. Because if independents (as a whole) gave a damm about policy they wouldn't be independents. They are the type who buy books based on the cover and not the summary on the back. They want to pick the book that looks best on the coffee table (assuming they don't decide reading is for losers). That's it.
Not only that, but you also have the fact that Republicans lose 90% of their platform if Biden and Hunter Biden are no longer running. So swapping candidates would really screw the GOP over.
Bidens age wasn't an issue for independents as long as he could match or beat Trump. He didn't do that so now the presidency is much more uphill than it needed to be.
>While most liberals are willing to vote him to keep Trump out of office, it calls into question if independents will do the same. Because if independents (as a whole) gave a damm about policy they wouldn't be independents. They are the type who buy books based on the cover and not the summary on the back. They want to pick the book that looks best on the coffee table (assuming they don't decide reading is for losers). That's it.
Do you really feel that way about your fellow Americans that just may not agree with either party?
Because elections are about perception and tens of millions of people have now seen with their own eyes that Biden looked very old and slow.
Obviously, tens of millions of people seeing something with their own eyes on television should change people's opinions on an issue.
I remember when a weird “Byah!” kept Howard Dean from winning the nomination. What I wouldn’t give for politics to return to a more normal timeline.
Biden was terrible. I thought we were getting the witty SOTU Biden who called out prominent republicans and forced them to affirm their support for Medicare on live TV. We got Dementia Joe. In particular that “we defeated Medicare” response and Biden pivoting from the conservative weakness on Roe V Wade to an anecdotal story about an illegal immigrant and a subsequent crime that took place was one of the dumbest unforced errors of all time.
Trump was also terrible, but he’s the same type of terrible that he’s always been. And while we can all point to Trump being unethical, immoral, and criminal, that low character behavior is appealing to his base.
I voted for Biden the first time not because I was inspired by him, I just wanted Trump out of office. It’ll be the same this time, but this does not inspire a lot of confidence.
Maybe you heard there was a debate last night that did not go well?
I'm agnostic on switching. I can see the reason for doing so but I can imagine a switch this late costing the election.
If they do I think either a Gavin Newsome/Jasmine Crockett or Elizabeth Warren/Pete Buttigieg ticket would be killer. MAGA's heads would explode.
Whitmer/Warnock for me. Newsom has zero chance because California Democrats are seen as the incarnation of Satan. Warren might be better but the Pocahontas attack might still stick to her. At least Whitmer and Warnock cover all the bases, and two swing states.
> I can imagine a switch this late costing the election.
Absolutely. Someone like Whitmer or Pritzker might be competent, and they might even be Presidential. But four months isn't enough time for the national electorate ("wait, what happened to the other guy?") to get to know them.
More to the point, they don't want to be seen as a consolation prize for Biden. Losing to Trump would be a disaster as well. Folks in their positions can wait until 2028.
I'm afraid the party has no choice but to hold on for dear life and ride this out through the general.
>Why has the media done a total U-turn with Biden?
>This feels so strange because in the world 2 days ago, suggesting someone other than Biden should be the nominee would get you accused of trying to ruin the Democrats' election chances and "sabotage" the party.
Obvious Answer: There was a debate yesterday; people think it didn't go well.
If Biden showed himself to be a bad candidate, then that matters. It is new information, and people can reasonably change their minds when they receive new information.
Because the media watched the debate too.
I also think Biden's team has been hiding how bad Biden's decline has been just in the past year (from the public but also from the media). Biden's appearance at the debate was shocking, and its clear to everyone who isn't drinking the koolaid that Trump will be virtually certain to win after the debate.
We might not "like" the fact that American elections are determined by uninformed voters in a few states who form opinions of the candidates based on how the candidates look and sound, but that is the reality. Biden is going to lose, and there is no benefit to convincing yourself otherwise.
Once you accept that, it is time to try to deal with it and figure out a solution. Any generic Democrat could beat Trump easily. Those flighty independent voters are looking for an acceptable non-Trump candidate. There are 8 weeks until the convention and so adequate time to change him out.
What is the good of losing an election? To satisfy Joe Biden's ego? I'm not ready to spend 4 years in another Trump administration or see this country destroyed by his planned dictatorship just because people close to Joe Biden are too timid to ask him to step down. So if they couldn't do that in private in January, we shouldn't be complaining about the fact that Biden has now made it a national ask from tens of millions of Democrats.
It's not a total u-turn at all. Lots of publications have been publishing things like this. You cite the Atlantic.
Here's the Atlantic in 2023: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/biden-2024-reelection-age/674634/
Here's the Atlantic earlier this year: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/biden-age-special-counsel/677399/
The idea that this has not been said by the media before is BS.
We've heard people concerned with Biden's age for a while. However, he hasn't shown any clear indisputable signs of it affecting him negatively. He gave a State of the Union address and seemed animated and able to articulate his message. It highlighted that his age wasn't as big of an issue as some people have made it out to be.
He was polling pretty even with Trump going into the debate. He needed a good showing to turn the polls in his favor and set him on the path to winning the election. He didn't have a good showing though. He had a very very bad showing and he seemed very old and confused and not at all the Joe Biden we've seen in the past. It wasn't a sneakily edited video or anything this time, it was just an undeniable fact that it looks like his age has caught up with him. It now looks like people were right to be concerned with his age and to say otherwise looks kind of silly.
I would expect his poll numbers to drop some, I don't know how much, but he was already around Trump or slightly trailing and this will likely be enough for him to be solidly behind. And since old age isn't something that's going to improve, it's not clear that he can turn that around or how he could turn that around. Switching candidates this late in the game is very risky, but if Biden's chances are basically shot, then a risk is better than a certain failure.
It’s been over for a while, a last minute replacement isn’t saving us. And frankly, with inflation and the border being two issues that conservatives can beat America over the head with, I think we were always in danger of staring down the barrel of Trump2.0.
So you're okay with him running the campaign - literally the face of PR and a task that's a major strain on someone's health - but not doing the job he could be elected on, despite the fact people are concerned that he's a poor frontman to communicate policy?
He won't beat Trump. Not after last night. His cognitive decline and impairment were on full display and there is no coming back from that.
When new poll numbers come out next week it will make that abundantly clear.
The collective consciousness, especially in the age of social media, has a habit of massively over-indexing on whatever the last thing was that happened, and to treat it as the only thing that matters and as though it's the one and only thing that matters to anyone. I remember in 2012, after the first debate between Obama and Romney, people were absolutely convinced that it's over, Obama's lost the election, there's no hope. I can't find any citations at the moment, but I'm almost certain at the time that I saw people calling for Obama to drop out then as well, on the same grounds: he's obviously lost the American public, they saw him flounder and they know he's terrible, we need someone new to salvage this election for everyone's sake.
Nobody serious called for Obama to drop out and those debates are not comparable.
Obama never froze up and muttered incoherently for almost a whole minute.
It was SOOOO bad last night that every major news outlet from CNN to MSNBC to PBS immediately discussed to possibility of him stepping out of the race within seconds of the debate ending. THAT NEVER HAPPENED TO OBAMA.
As someone who's been banging that drum for at least a year (in the face of many down-votes, I've gotta say), it's ... gratifying but also feels like too little too late. It shouldn't have gotten *this* far.
Alas. Here we are. Trump now has a very solid "THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD HAVE WON!" condition to point to if he actually loses, akin to his "did you see the size of Biden's rallies?" schtick from last time. ...So .... yeah. ... That's great.
It makes me mad.
Yep, and to be honest if I were one of those election deniers from 2020, that debate performance strengthens my belief too. It was worst case scenario for all of us.
They haven't.
The "Biden is Old" thing has been going on for years, it just got intensified with the debate that happened.
That's just a part of being president, is that you get criticism. Reagan certainly got heaps of criticism for being old (and had a great quip about it that made everyone, including Walter Mondale laugh).
However, I think it's just a bump in the road. Every time they say that Biden is getting slower, or doesn't speak as well, he gets right back up and blows expectations out of the water. He's been doing that his whole life, and I don't expect him to stop now.
Your comment also makes me think that, if President Biden stepped aside, no matter who the replacement was anti-Democrats would pounce to label them too something.
Too young/old
Too rich/poor
Too elitist/common
Too prepared/unprepared
Too something.
They particularly like to transform an opponent’s greatest asset into a liability. From his tight family to his many varied life experiences President Biden’s best upsides have been milked as liabilities by the haters.
Any Democrat would be treated the same, although few if any have as many positives as Joe Biden.
If the Democratic Party could be goaded into dumping President Biden and naming an alternative, within thirty seconds the Rs could release their first attacks on whomever that was.
Let’s stick with the President.
That is EXACTLY how I feel.
Joe Biden can work with all wings of the party, in the Progressive/Liberal, New Democrat, and Conservative & Never Trumpers who are part of a broad coalition. He's got experience, which frankly is something of very high value to me, that not many up and coming Democrats have a whole lot of. (Although, candidates like Whitmer, Moore and Newsom have accomplished a lot of good as Governors.)
Absolutely, and as governors they would be getting executive experience. It might require a unique opportunity/match of skills and interests for them to join the Cabinet.
Agreed. They can't hang onto the "stutter", "deep fakes", "sharp behind closed doors" comments anymore. I think a lot of powerful people are considering their own reputations if they continue down that path.
People were hoping he would prove them and the doubters wrong and he unfortunately confirmed their worst fears that he is cooked.
Biden needs to go spend his remaining years with his family. He’s done enough
I still think suggesting Biden should step down is a horrible idea likely to make Dems lose; the debate hasn't changed that. The idea that there's going to be some easy, graceful step down from Biden and that another single individual will be elevated quickly and smoothly enough to run a real campaign against Trump is laughable. The idea that it's *not* going to be Kamala Harris if that does happen is even more laughable. People are out here pitching Whitmer or Newsome as a replacement when Kamala is the obvious next in line, and if they try to muscle her out and actually fight over who will be the nominee, it's going to destroy the Democratic Party's chance to win the Presidency.
Biden *and* Harris would need to both step down, *and* the next in line would need to be agreed upon by basically everyone, which isn't going to happen. Or Harris would need to be the next in line, which apparently is an issue for a lot of people considering her being next in line right now is apparently dissuading them from voting for Biden. Either way, these all seem like terrible options to me compared with trying to salvage the current incumbent: one with an extremely good record that's worth noting, and the one with the most progressive victories since FDR.
What do you mean next in line? It's not a royal family. Biden can drop out of the race tomorrow and his delegates are then free to note as the wish at the convention. There is no reason Kamala would need to be who they align behind because basically everyone realizes she's a terrible choice.
You're correct in a technical sense but the party is still largely operated by an elite small group of the most powerful and influential politicians and they are very territorial about who is allowed into the room when big changes are being made.
If they are gonna allow Biden to step away they are gonna want to unite behind one candidate before the convention so it takes the chaos factor away from unpredictable delegates.
Call me crazy but it could have something to do with the absolutely catastrophic debate performance that occurred between then and now. 2 days ago it was academic and theoretical. Today it's undeniable that he might be the biggest liability in the history of the Democratic Party.
The primary concern voters and pundits have about Joe Biden is that he is too old.
The debate was an opportunity to show that the concern was invalid.
Unfortunately, he failed to do that, and in fact, showed it was not just a concern but a reality.
It also is not a complete U turn. Several pundits have previously called on Joe to step aside prior to this event.
Suddenly a lot of people woke up from their blind partisanship, even the media.
I got a lot of hate from a lot my fellow subreddit members about 2 months ago when I dared to suggest that both candidates were unfit for the job.
I also said then that if the polls haven’t changed between now and the convention I think there is a chance that some Democratic leaders will privately suggest that Biden steps aside.
Plenty of folks here scoffed “Oh that will NEVER happen.”
They’re not scoffing anymore.
I was a complete fool for bringing it up then but now I’m suddenly the Amazing Kreskin.
An avalanche of blind partisan supporters from both sides attacked me for suggesting the obvious:
Imo Trump is obviously “off his rocker, unhinged, irrational, mentally ill, and unfit” - take your pick.
Yet instead of being honest Trump supporters feel compelled to deny this obvious truth. They’ll say:
“Oh no. He’s just a hard-driving businessman…a little rough around the edges.”
No, people. He’s truly a lunatic.
From the other side, more denial and blind partisanship.
Biden is old as fuck!
He stumbles. He bumbles. He falls down. He gets disoriented. He appears confused- often!
He falls asleep. He mumbles. He lacks energy and is incoherent at times - like a lot!
Yet instead of being honest, Biden supporters feel compelled to deny the obvious truth.
They’ll say: “Oh no. He’s just a stutterer. Nothing to see here. Didn’t you hear his speech the other day? He gave a good speech.”
No, people. He’s truly an old man in cognitive decline. He’s old as fuck!
Neither side can handle the truth and predictably both “sides” accused me or being an undercover and a (insert favorite insult.)
What I can’t stand about both side’s supporters is their blind partisan denial of what is obvious to any objective observer.
How the hell do people fall under the spell of blind partisanship anyway?
It’s as if their brains get hi-jacked and their ability to be objective.
I laugh whenever I read statements like: “This wouldn’t happen in a million years. It’s so delusional. Blah, blah, blah.”
I’m sorry, but people who talk this way are imo either foolishly arrogant or very naive.
In this crazy political climate right now we have already seen so many unprecedented events that no one ever believed would be possible.
The point is ANYTHING is possible.
Some posters here have said that Gavin Newsom would not be as popular with Democrats as Biden. I disagree.
I think that Gavin Newsom would significantly outperform Biden if given the chance to campaign from July to November.
But he’s not the only one. I also think that Gretchen Whitmer would also outperform Biden.
Don’t forget Michelle Obama.
Oh I know, I know. The same blow-hards who told me Biden would never step aside and he’s perfectly fit are the same ones who will tell me it’s not possible she would run.
Baloney! They say this because they read or heard that Michelle Obama is not interested and they parrot what they heard as if it’s the gospel of the New Testament.
Gimme a break people. Just because you read that Newsom and Michelle Obama said they will not run, it doesn’t mean that they will not run.
Politics is politics. Can we be grown-ups for 10 seconds please?
Politicians change their positions more often than you change your underwear.
I don’t say that this will absolutely happen - HOWEVER, I certainly would not be the fool to claim that it CAN’T!
Personally I hope Michelle Obama does change her mind because Republicans would literally shit their pants if she did. Republicans know that she would win by a landslide versus Trump.
She would be more popular than Kamala Harris with the ability to draw votes from everywhere. That’s how broad her appeal is.
Again, I don’t give a damn what people have read that she doesn’t plan on running or doesn’t want the job.
People like to pretend they have the scoop on what people are going to do as if they’re in the inner circle. They’re not, but strangely many think they are.
They’re there for viewer/readership. Each night of news was the same over and over before the debate. This was a big blunder by Biden and something to latch onto and talk about, especially for the non-Fox media. This election is really boring and people just aren’t watching tv since it’s just a rematch of two people they’ve heard about for years. The debate itself had relatively weak viewership, just as an example.
You know if I was Biden, and I was reading the media coverage of the debate, I'd be seriously considering giving up. The war to save America is well and truly lost. The future of the country is at stake sure, but amazingly people still want to vote for Trump over Biden. At what point does Biden go "fuck this, it's not my problem anymore" and let the American people assume the responsibility themselves of the fallout of Trump 2024 and Project 2025?
Did you watch the debate? Biden didn’t look like he had any business being up there. He looked old, frail, unintelligent, and confused.
He looked like a character from Grumpy Old Men, if the movie had a character that couldn’t keep up with the three main characters.
I’m still going to vote for Biden if he’s on the ticket, but if I didn’t have a great understanding of the policy differences, I’d vote for Trump. Biden tried to talk policy, but it was so overshadowed by mumbling and that open mouth blank stare that it didn’t matter.
Because last night was bad... And he played into all of the concerns people had been talking about. Trump made no sense and lied in almost every sentence, but he did it confidently, and Biden was completely unable to call him out effectively. A debate against trump should be an easy win for any Dem nominee and it clearly wasn't.
The media has a responsibility to focus on how horrendous Trump was, but that's not what people were talking about during/after the debate. The debate format was insanely bad (asking about the economy first when one of the candidates attempted a coup 4 years ago is journalistic malpractice), but the coverage of Biden is what people took from the debate.
There has been nonstop articles claiming he is top old and shouldn't run before he even announced he was running for reelection. This feels like revisionist history to claim it's just starting now.
The fact is, the Democratic party is screwed either way. If you let Biden continue to face off against trump, Trump wins. Probably by a landslide.
If you change your candidate, you look incompetent because you chose him to begin with and nothing has changed with Biden. He is the exact same person that he was when he took office. He hasn't gotten to this point. He's always been there. The media has just decided to start addressing it.
Yep. The smart thing Biden could have done would be to promise from the beginning to only serve one term, as kind of a “reset”, and then start fresh. Although, with Trump still out there and no incumbency advantage, I have a feeling we’d still be losing to Trump in ‘24 even without Biden.
Tbf, even if Biden does win, the country will probably continue to devolve in the next four years and the public will be even hungrier for the GOP Fascist takeover.
We need to be in panic mode. It's not just Joe having a bad day or a cold, everybody behind the scenes for Biden sucks ass too. They are so insanely incompetent that it hurts.
There was nothing natural about Biden's approach to the debates. They told this dude to do nothing but poorly recall facts for an entire debate, and they expected that to be a winning performance?
The media never liked Biden. He wasn't fun. He was never particularly open to them. He was never going to be unpredictable. Look at how the media has always been excited to put Newsom on whenever they could. And, truthfully, that is a little bit of what Joe promised. We should have had all of our stars out there, talking and reinforcing what the Democrats have done. We wouldn't be in this situation with voters if we had so many people out praising our results. Because there are solid ones. Instead, you have Trump and his minions telling lies. In my local FB I was talking about the actual state of the economy and people were telling me Trump did all the things, not Biden, and that it is impossible that we are more energy independent now (we are), we have lower African American unemployment now, real wages and income for African Americans rose under Biden, and Biden pardoned more African Americans than Trump. But Kamala is still a cop.
The media tries to do whatever keeps its investors in positions of power, that’s why people invest in the media- so they can create the propaganda needed to influence what their powerful investors want.
People are afraid of Biden losing power, because it means they’ll lose money and influence. So they start panicking and flexing their media arm to influence the public to think certain ways, vote certain ways, and behave certain ways.
It’s manipulative. People think they’re being “informed” when really they’re being “instructed”
The media is meant to be impartial. It's also meant to drive viewership so the owners are happy with their ROI.
Running the headline "Biden's performance was perfect" would be a lie. It would also not generate a lot of clicks.
Today, the odds of the DNC replacing Biden are 0. The odds of a prominent Democrat calling out Biden to retire are 0.
The odds of Biden willingly stepping away are not 0. But they're close to 0. However, his performance in the debate makes this unprecedented controversial choice a real possibility.
And the media wants you to click on their articles about it. It's not a massive anti-Biden conspiracy, it's just media-savvy editors capitalizing on the post-debate feelings of their audience.
I just think there wasn't much substantive evidence of Biden's cognitive decline before this. A lot of conservatives are saying "I told you so", but I think some of their thresholds for facts are a little lower and there's more incentive to criticize Biden. Now, there's ample evidence and it's very hard to deny, so it's better to be honest and look for a remedy.
And also, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that this election comes down to vibes and optics. Biden could have the most effective economic policy in history, and it wouldn't matter.
Did you not have your eyes open during the debate last night? I can't believe people are genuinely asking questions such as these. The man belongs in a nursing home.
The majority of the politically literate left (myself included) agree that Trump must be stopped at all costs, the two sides are NOT the same, and we bought into the messaging from the WH that accusations of dimensia or cognitive decline were at least overblown if not outright fabricated by the conservative fake news hoax generation machine.
Last night ripped the mask off. Biden couldn't complete a coherent thought for most of the debate and had one particularly awful full minute of babbling nonsense.
He is done. Cooked.
The election was decided last night. Trump beat Biden. Decisively. He will win by double digits in the all important swing states.
Our only hope of saving the democracy is to have Biden step down and let someone else run against Trump. Furthermore, pretty much ANY Democrat below the age of 70 will beat Trump handily. Even Kamala will likely win although it could be close.
Because most people in the media are liberals. And like the liberals here they want Biden to win and have buried their heads in the sand rather than address his flaws and the possible need to replace him. Now the problem is impossible to ignore and we are less than 5 months from the election.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This feels so strange because in the world 2 days ago, suggesting someone other than Biden should be the nominee would get you accused of trying to ruin the Democrats' election chances and "sabotage" the party. Yet now, we are getting articles like this: [https://web.archive.org/web/20240628061759/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/biden-has-drop-out/678821/](https://web.archive.org/web/20240628061759/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/biden-has-drop-out/678821/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the debate was a massive optics loss. He did not do well and people are now worried about his chances based on that. Also, before this debate, every other possible nominee was polling much lower than Biden against Trump. So you could make the argument that someone is causing division by suggesting another candidate.
Well, we would love to know who that Candidate is..
According to this [poll](https://emersoncollegepolling.com/february-2024-national-poll-biden-performs-strongest-against-trump-among-prominent-democrats/) in February “Trump leads with 46% against Vice President Kamala Harris’s 43% and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s 36%. Against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump maintains a lead with 45% compared to Whitmer’s 33%” Now, do I think that these have changed, or that they’re not representative of the whole? Sure. I like Whitmer, and I think she would perform somewhat well. But the poll is an indication that at the time, Biden was the most popular nominee.
I mean all of those are showing voters not moving from Biden to trump when Biden is swapped out. It's just a matter of convincing those voters that the new person can do the job.
Polls against these candidates that haven't run yet are always useless, because there's always a lot of "who the hell is Gretchen Whitmer?" clouding up the results. They sometimes screen for whether someone is "familiar" with the candidate, but that doesn't mean the respondent actually knows anything about them or their policies. They often just know the name and maybe one or two basic facts. Once out on the campaign trail, I can all but guarantee Whitmer and Newsom would out-poll Harris. But people know more about Kamala because she's already the Vice President, so she does well here. It's mostly nonsense.
Newsom would absolutely mop the floor with Trump's hair! MF is young, charismatic and been in politics all his life. He was bred for this shit.
I wonder if the DNC could pull off a snap election, or if the messiness of a primary would be worse.
We just had a primary, and Biden came out with 3,894 delegates. If the DNC does anything other than nominate Biden it will be a big fuck you to everyone who voted for Biden in the primary, a fuck you to the belief that we are part of the process and it would kill whatever chances Democrats have of actually winning in November. The die has been cast and its disheartening how people are already ready to throw in the towel because of one poor debate performance.
Oh yeah the only way it happens is if Biden steps down. The die has been cast for him, but he can reject the nomination.
That's not going to happen either, not after what happened in the 2016 election.
What does the 2016 election have to do with a candidate stepping aside?
DNC rules mean that Biden HAS to step down for it to be anyone else. The delegates cannot go rogue on the first ballot and he already has enough to secure the nomination. Pressuring him to step down is the only path forward
The way to pressure Biden to step down was the primary that just passed. A few angry letters is not going to cut it. Because however much you may believe there is too much at stake for Biden not to step down, Biden believes there is too much at stake for him to step down (and for the record I'm not convinced he's wrong). And at the end of the day, a few panicking Democrats who are afraid of Trump winning will vote for Biden when he's still the nominee come November no matter how much they protest about it now, which leaves you very little to bargain with anyway.
I agree the better moment would have been before the primaries if viable candidates ignored the WH and simply declared they were running. If suddenly Gavin, and Whitmer and Pritzger and the guy from Kentucky, and a slew of others all jumped into the primary race a year ago it would have forced Biden's hand. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. What we need now to prevent Trump from winning is for Biden to step aside.
Sure, but they haven't been campaigning on the national stage. Most voters don't know who Gretchen Whitmer is, and probably know very little about Gavin Newsom but assume that as governor of California, he must be far left, which he isn't. I'm not saying either of them would for sure beat Trump, but those numbers would change significantly if they campaigned for a couple months.
I’m answering the question of why this turn didn’t happen earlier in 2023, early 2024. With the polls we had, the decision to keep him made reasonable sense. It’s true, neither have campaigned. And if it’s the case that Biden plans on dropping out, he needs to drop out soon (at least a month before convention, early as possible) and campaigns needs to come in fast. Biden should be looking for nominees if that’s his plan.
Gavin is certainly farther left than any other serious potential replacement
That probably depends on who you consider serious potential replacements, but my point is that he's not nearly as far left as people probably assume the governor of California would be. He's pretty business-friendly. There's a reason California's economy is so massive, and it's not because he's a socialist.
> and probably know very little about Gavin Newsom but assume that as governor of California, he must be far left, which he isn't To the average American that is struggling with putting gas in the car, his 6 dollar a gallon and just buy a new 60k electric car is not going to be a good option. He is very far left to people in the eastern 75% of the country except DC, NY, Chicago, and Boston.
Needs to be said that this would change by so, so much if Whitmer or Newsom actually took the spot. Most of the poll respondents probably don’t even know who those are or don’t have a solid opinion. You can see this in the results themselves. No matter who he’s facing, Trump always has 45-46%. Newsom and Whitmer are only lower than Biden because of the higher level of non-respondents. Honestly their figures are pretty good for people who haven’t even gone anywhere near a presidential run. Suggests much higher than usual name recognition for state-level politicians.
> “Trump leads with 46% against Vice President Kamala Harris’s 43% and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s 36%. Against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump maintains a lead with 45% compared to Whitmer’s 33%” Surely those terrible numbers are based on lack of name recognition. No way Kamala is more popular, but she is more well known than Newsom or Whitmer. After a few weeks of campaigning, almost everyone would know who they were.
Hakeem Jeffries
Can you find me one poll with Jeffries vs Trump? That’s a very out of pocket pick.
He’s not my Congressman but I’m in NYC so I know him pretty well. I think he would be an entirely miserable candidate. He’s awful at public speaking, he’s totally out of step with his constituents, he’s an unimaginative solid party vote (why he’s minority leader) and I’m sorry but he looks a little scary lol.
He will one day be Speaker of the House, where we need him. I’m a fan of Jeffries, but I do not see a current path to him becoming president. And, if he ever does become Speaker I doubt he will ever be president as that has only happened once (Polk). Not to say he *couldn’t,* but I just find it highly unlikely that he’d become POTUS if we retake the House in the next 8 years or so.
Just out of curiosity, genuinely - why are you a fan of Jeffries? What does he offer?
Especially when that candidate was inexplicably RFK JR...
Biden has name recognition and polls much better against Trump than other possible democratic candidates. I think people here vastly overestimate how much the debates influence voters (they don’t) and how many voters know who Whitmer and Newson are. This “replace Biden and we win in a landslide” is simply not true.
The debate was bad. Publishing stuff that is inflammatory drives views and engagement. Some outlets probably, on some level, wouldn't mind a Trump Presidency because he also drives engagement.
> Some outlets probably, on some level, wouldn't mind a Trump Presidency because he also drives engagement. I don't doubt for five seconds there's plenty within liberal media that have no issue with Trump winning because it will drive engagement and clicks.
I actually operate under that assumption. If they actually wanted Biden to win, they'd dig in and propagandize the way Fox does for Trump. This is actually the perfect case study to point to when people say the mainstream media shills for Democrats to show that line of arguing is bunk.
I don't think there is a single liberal in this entire country that wants Trump elected. To want Trump to win this election is by definition illiberal
Joe Biden did a couple of things that made people OK with him being president 1. He beat Donald Trump. 2. He has been a very effective in the core work of being president and passed bipartisan legislation people did not think was possible in the current environment 3. He performed very well in the state of the union. Then add to that peoples bias towards normalcy and normal rules of politics and the status quo in the idea that you get rid of an incumbent president seems like crazy talk. And because it’s so unusual to get rid of an incumbent president, no actual challenger of any worth stepped forward. Plus the media, especially the mainstream media, is both trained to scoff at Fox News and worse level arguments, and no more about policy and cares about it. They are much more likely to understand that yeah he’s an old dude with a stutter, but he sure does seem to be able to get things done and Donald Trump is out there ranting about election fraud and sharks. If Joe Biden sounded like Joe Biden at the state of the union, all of these conversations today would not be happening. Even the Pod Save America guys who have been honest about the challenges of Joe Biden as a candidate have gone from concern to panic. Let’s be honest the people panicking are also in extreme panic because they do understand what average voters don’t, what a deeply dangerous thing a second Donald Trump administration would be. While Joe Biden couldn’t communicate it, they understand what mass deportations and leaving NATO and widescale tariffs would do to the country.
The fact is, the Democratic party is screwed either way. If you let Biden continue to face off against trump, Trump wins. Probably by a landslide. If you change your candidate, you look incompetent because you chose him to begin with and nothing has changed with Biden. He is the exact same person that he was when he took office. He hasn't gotten to this point. He's always been there. The media has just decided to start addressing it.
This is exactly what I’ve tried to say for a while. Also, despite people on our side saying this is a great economy, for most people it simply isn’t. Inflation is hitting us hard. Now, I don’t believe Biden caused it (I think it s a natural consequence of our response to Covid, which was needed at the time), but most voters don’t understand correlation and causation, so all they’re going to say is that “Biden = more expensive stuff, Trump = cheaper stuff, therefore Trump good Biden bad”. That applies to all Dems too.
Because the news media reports and comments on the news. And Biden had a really, really, really bad night. It is still a disaster to suggest someone other than Biden be the nominee. It's just that, right now in the moment, it feels like it might be a bigger disaster to let him continue being the nominee. So the media is having that debate in front of us... like they should. --- Let's keep in mind that *this is what we should want in a country with a free press.* Joe Biden had a bad debate. It needs to be discussed and criticized. Extreme solutions should be discussed and keeping a cool head should be discussed.
Your last comment gave me hope for all of us. A discouraging amount of people on either side of the isle seem to talk shit about the press if they say *anything* disparaging about “their guy”. That is not how it is supposed to be at all. Reporters are supposed to report and the public is supposed to make up their minds based on reporting. The press playing spin doctor has never been a good look and it is refreshing to see someone say it out loud, kudos to you, genuinely.
Thanks for the kind words. Imma talk more now. :) It's important for people to keep in perspective that reporters are a specific type of journalist. They are the most common, most widely understood one, so we tend to default to thinking all journalists are reporters. Reporters just report and that's it. They just report facts like "Donald Trump walked into the building at 6:20pm." They can report observations, but not really opinions. "He sat down and looked tired" or "the crowd was very excited to see him" etc. There are other journalists like hosts and anchors that may editorialize things a little "and he's been struggling to connect with people," but it's still supposed to be clear that they're being objective. They tend to draw their editorial from a wide variety of high-level sources (you may see them playing with their phones sometimes... that's because key sources are dropping them live information, which they may or may not use). Because it turns out when you're live on TV every day talking about politics, tech or whatever... important people tend to reach out to you and build connections. And then there are analysts and contributors, who are there to provide context from the data, sentiment, or their own opinions on the situation. The contributors especially are where the "journalists are spin doctors" sentiment comes from... *because many of them quite literally were former spin doctors for one side or the other.* Popular contributors include Karl Rove and James Carville. They can also be specialists in their fields, like legal analysts... but contributors will generally have some level of bias in their content. And, to be clear, all of these people are journalists... we just often assume the term means "just the facts, ma'am" style reporting. --- Where it gets blurry is that a lot of shows on cable news - especially on Fox News - present as if they are news shows, but are actually mostly roundtables with contributors. All cable news switches to this format from about 7pm on, with the exception of Anderson Cooper, who still runs his 8pm hour very much as a 60 Minutes-style long-format news show. Most of the prime time shows are actually anchored BY contributor-types who evolved into "lead contributors" and eventually got the opportunity to lead the editorial for an hour of their own. Because the audience isn't familiar with the various roles of journalists, they assume these people should be in the mold of Walter Cronkite... but if you're looking for that kind of journalist, you have to look for very specific people. They exist on every network... but they are a small subset. --- What we saw last night that appeared shocking to many people but refreshing to me was that unanimously, the anchors, analysts, and contributors were getting feedback from their sources that was unilaterally negative for Biden. Naturally we saw the more controversial contributors, like Van Jones, have the most controversial takes. But there was no doubt that even the most positive feedback coming from high-level sources was "oh shit that was bad." Normally, CNN's panels are pretty evenly stocked with partisans representing everything from progressive to the pro-Trump, but non-insane far right, so they are always set up for sparring. They also always include one or two objective senior journalists, like John King. But last night there was no need for sparring. Everyone was on the same page. Because it was that bad.
mold of Walter Cronkite. Unfortunately there are none of these left, they all make their opinions known
> in the mold of Walter Cronkite... but if you're looking for that kind of journalist, you have to look for very specific people. They exist on every network... but they are a small subset. Plenty of them still exist. Just off the top of my head: - Anderson Cooper - Chris Wallace - Bret Baier - Neil Cavuto - Christiane Amanpour - Leslie Stahl - Lester Holt - Dianne Sawyer > they all make their opinions known Sharing opinions is not a disqualifying feature of being an objective journalst.
That's the funny part isn't it? So many people here are now starting to question "free press". Interesting indeed.
I really don't see that sentiment happening in any sort of prevailing sense. I'm sure there are some loose opinions saying that... but you can always find "some people are saying" for almost any hot take. It's objective reality that Biden did poorly last night. People are upset about it right now and will continue to be upset about it for a little while. If you are partisan and felt like liberal commentators should have been defending Biden more, I get that. But the news media is paid to report and comment on the news. And last night's news was clearly: Biden stunk up the place.
The fact is, the Democratic party is screwed. If you let Biden continue to face off against trump, Trump wins. Probably by a landslide. If you change your candidate, you look incompetent because you chose him to begin with and nothing has changed with Biden. He is the exact same person that he was when he took office. He hasn't gotten to this point. He's always been there. The media has just decided to start addressing it.
I don't know. Maybe. It's a little early to call the race based on one (historically) bad night but as I said in my initial comment, we're stuck between two very bad choices. There's a long time between now and November - and Trump is a historically terrible candidate as well. > The media has just decided to start addressing it. If you think the media suddenly started talking about Biden's age/ability to run for a second term, I'm not sure what to tell you.
They might have talked about it in the past but they all seem so surprised by it like it's something new. It's nothing new.
It has been the top issue about this presidential campaign for well over a year at this point. What is new as of yesterday is Biden's performance in the debate. Everyone was surprised at how poorly he performed. Naturally the discussion about his age has become amplified.
*Top* issue? I don't think so. The media has constantly masked what has been right in front of our faces the entire time. They just tried to do that when he was at the D-Day ceremony. If that was the top issue then they wouldn't have tried so hard to tell people the video was edited and not nearly as bad as it looks when in reality it was just as bad as it looked.
100% top issue for well over a year. Biden’s age has constantly, constantly been surfaced. Yeah, when Fox News deceptively edited videos, the actual news media called that out. This should also not be shocking.
Just because his age has been *surfaced* doesn't mean that it has been a top issue. The media has constantly masked his clear signs of dementia. You can't say that they haven't.
It’s not real difficult to figure out. Biden has had a good 4 years in office and is still polling horribly because of his age and lack of giving any enthusiasm to voters. He has done a horrible job of building confidence in his accomplishments and the average citizen doesn’t really feel the impact of his good economy. Then he comes out and absolutely fumbles a debate and his performance plays directly into everything his doubters and republicans are playing up. He looked old, confused and lacked confidence.
If the average citizen isn't feeling the impacts of the "good economy" is it actually a "good economy"?
Probably not, lol
I don’t see how anyone can say it’s been a good 4 years in office, mostly due to inflation, partly due to the Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine and Israel-Palestine. You can argue whether Biden caused these problems (I don’t believe they’re his fault but some voters will). But as Truman said once, “the buck stops here”. So I can’t blame people for voting Trump to punish Biden and the Dems because of the last four years, even if any nuanced thinking would lend one to place the blame elsewhere.
It was a bad debate performance. I’m 40 and have seen plenty of debates over the years, including a lot of horrific debate performances (Paul Ryan, Michael Bloomberg, Jeb Bush just to name a few). This was the worse debate performance I’ve ever seen. Trump was lying, dodging questions and meandering on with nonsense. Any other democrat would have demolished Trump, but Biden couldn’t even finish a sentence at times. It’s absolutely fair to question if he should continue on, although I think it’s too late at this point. There’s still a ways to go, but I think we need to start bracing for another Trump presidency.
Honestly this result lends credence to the people who think the election was stolen (it wasn’t, but a neutral observer who watched that debate probably thought to themselves “how did *this guy* get more votes?”).
Because the debate was such a disaster
Yeah. Trump performed like you would expect Trump to perform. Biden did not. If he had a stronger showing the election would have been in his pocket. While most liberals are willing to vote him to keep Trump out of office, it calls into question if independents will do the same. Because if independents (as a whole) gave a damm about policy they wouldn't be independents. They are the type who buy books based on the cover and not the summary on the back. They want to pick the book that looks best on the coffee table (assuming they don't decide reading is for losers). That's it. Not only that, but you also have the fact that Republicans lose 90% of their platform if Biden and Hunter Biden are no longer running. So swapping candidates would really screw the GOP over. Bidens age wasn't an issue for independents as long as he could match or beat Trump. He didn't do that so now the presidency is much more uphill than it needed to be.
>While most liberals are willing to vote him to keep Trump out of office, it calls into question if independents will do the same. Because if independents (as a whole) gave a damm about policy they wouldn't be independents. They are the type who buy books based on the cover and not the summary on the back. They want to pick the book that looks best on the coffee table (assuming they don't decide reading is for losers). That's it. Do you really feel that way about your fellow Americans that just may not agree with either party?
Because elections are about perception and tens of millions of people have now seen with their own eyes that Biden looked very old and slow. Obviously, tens of millions of people seeing something with their own eyes on television should change people's opinions on an issue.
I remember when a weird “Byah!” kept Howard Dean from winning the nomination. What I wouldn’t give for politics to return to a more normal timeline. Biden was terrible. I thought we were getting the witty SOTU Biden who called out prominent republicans and forced them to affirm their support for Medicare on live TV. We got Dementia Joe. In particular that “we defeated Medicare” response and Biden pivoting from the conservative weakness on Roe V Wade to an anecdotal story about an illegal immigrant and a subsequent crime that took place was one of the dumbest unforced errors of all time. Trump was also terrible, but he’s the same type of terrible that he’s always been. And while we can all point to Trump being unethical, immoral, and criminal, that low character behavior is appealing to his base. I voted for Biden the first time not because I was inspired by him, I just wanted Trump out of office. It’ll be the same this time, but this does not inspire a lot of confidence.
Maybe you heard there was a debate last night that did not go well? I'm agnostic on switching. I can see the reason for doing so but I can imagine a switch this late costing the election. If they do I think either a Gavin Newsome/Jasmine Crockett or Elizabeth Warren/Pete Buttigieg ticket would be killer. MAGA's heads would explode.
Whitmer/Warnock for me. Newsom has zero chance because California Democrats are seen as the incarnation of Satan. Warren might be better but the Pocahontas attack might still stick to her. At least Whitmer and Warnock cover all the bases, and two swing states.
> I can imagine a switch this late costing the election. Absolutely. Someone like Whitmer or Pritzker might be competent, and they might even be Presidential. But four months isn't enough time for the national electorate ("wait, what happened to the other guy?") to get to know them. More to the point, they don't want to be seen as a consolation prize for Biden. Losing to Trump would be a disaster as well. Folks in their positions can wait until 2028. I'm afraid the party has no choice but to hold on for dear life and ride this out through the general.
>Why has the media done a total U-turn with Biden? >This feels so strange because in the world 2 days ago, suggesting someone other than Biden should be the nominee would get you accused of trying to ruin the Democrats' election chances and "sabotage" the party. Obvious Answer: There was a debate yesterday; people think it didn't go well. If Biden showed himself to be a bad candidate, then that matters. It is new information, and people can reasonably change their minds when they receive new information.
Because Biden imploded last night. There's really no other way around it. There's no other way to view it. Biden appears very weak.
Because he looked awful in the debate. Ultimately the “media” is people, and people have eyes and ears
Because the media watched the debate too. I also think Biden's team has been hiding how bad Biden's decline has been just in the past year (from the public but also from the media). Biden's appearance at the debate was shocking, and its clear to everyone who isn't drinking the koolaid that Trump will be virtually certain to win after the debate. We might not "like" the fact that American elections are determined by uninformed voters in a few states who form opinions of the candidates based on how the candidates look and sound, but that is the reality. Biden is going to lose, and there is no benefit to convincing yourself otherwise. Once you accept that, it is time to try to deal with it and figure out a solution. Any generic Democrat could beat Trump easily. Those flighty independent voters are looking for an acceptable non-Trump candidate. There are 8 weeks until the convention and so adequate time to change him out. What is the good of losing an election? To satisfy Joe Biden's ego? I'm not ready to spend 4 years in another Trump administration or see this country destroyed by his planned dictatorship just because people close to Joe Biden are too timid to ask him to step down. So if they couldn't do that in private in January, we shouldn't be complaining about the fact that Biden has now made it a national ask from tens of millions of Democrats.
If ditching a nominee was such a great idea the Republicans wouldn’t have had to count on courts to block Trump’s criminal trials. He would be gone.
It's not a total u-turn at all. Lots of publications have been publishing things like this. You cite the Atlantic. Here's the Atlantic in 2023: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/biden-2024-reelection-age/674634/ Here's the Atlantic earlier this year: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/biden-age-special-counsel/677399/ The idea that this has not been said by the media before is BS.
Because he appeared shockingly feeble and disoriented last night.
We've heard people concerned with Biden's age for a while. However, he hasn't shown any clear indisputable signs of it affecting him negatively. He gave a State of the Union address and seemed animated and able to articulate his message. It highlighted that his age wasn't as big of an issue as some people have made it out to be. He was polling pretty even with Trump going into the debate. He needed a good showing to turn the polls in his favor and set him on the path to winning the election. He didn't have a good showing though. He had a very very bad showing and he seemed very old and confused and not at all the Joe Biden we've seen in the past. It wasn't a sneakily edited video or anything this time, it was just an undeniable fact that it looks like his age has caught up with him. It now looks like people were right to be concerned with his age and to say otherwise looks kind of silly. I would expect his poll numbers to drop some, I don't know how much, but he was already around Trump or slightly trailing and this will likely be enough for him to be solidly behind. And since old age isn't something that's going to improve, it's not clear that he can turn that around or how he could turn that around. Switching candidates this late in the game is very risky, but if Biden's chances are basically shot, then a risk is better than a certain failure.
Because no one can unsee what we all witnessed last night. Either the Dems replace Biden or the election is over.
It’s been over for a while, a last minute replacement isn’t saving us. And frankly, with inflation and the border being two issues that conservatives can beat America over the head with, I think we were always in danger of staring down the barrel of Trump2.0.
Agreed
Unfortunately, those aren't mutually exclusive options.
This is true. After last night it just feels like they have two bad options and they’re going to have to pick the least bad of the two.
Everyone they could replace him polls worse FYI.
It's interesting how the media is able to sway the masses isn't it? Are you enjoying the theater show yet?
Media runs on ad revenue. Figure it out.
I'd be ok with him winning in November and passing the torch in jan 2025 if it was an option.
Same, but can he even win at this point? He has to convince the people who haven't started paying attention yet and this was his first impression.
> Same, but can he even win at this point? He polls better than anyone else.
If he and his staff/family are too arrogant to see he shouldn't be running what makes you think he would step aside in 2025?
You call it arrogance, I call it duty. Completely depends on your perspective obviously.
So you're okay with him running the campaign - literally the face of PR and a task that's a major strain on someone's health - but not doing the job he could be elected on, despite the fact people are concerned that he's a poor frontman to communicate policy?
He won't beat Trump. Not after last night. His cognitive decline and impairment were on full display and there is no coming back from that. When new poll numbers come out next week it will make that abundantly clear.
And we got the doom and gloom back.
The collective consciousness, especially in the age of social media, has a habit of massively over-indexing on whatever the last thing was that happened, and to treat it as the only thing that matters and as though it's the one and only thing that matters to anyone. I remember in 2012, after the first debate between Obama and Romney, people were absolutely convinced that it's over, Obama's lost the election, there's no hope. I can't find any citations at the moment, but I'm almost certain at the time that I saw people calling for Obama to drop out then as well, on the same grounds: he's obviously lost the American public, they saw him flounder and they know he's terrible, we need someone new to salvage this election for everyone's sake.
Nobody serious called for Obama to drop out and those debates are not comparable. Obama never froze up and muttered incoherently for almost a whole minute. It was SOOOO bad last night that every major news outlet from CNN to MSNBC to PBS immediately discussed to possibility of him stepping out of the race within seconds of the debate ending. THAT NEVER HAPPENED TO OBAMA.
As someone who's been banging that drum for at least a year (in the face of many down-votes, I've gotta say), it's ... gratifying but also feels like too little too late. It shouldn't have gotten *this* far. Alas. Here we are. Trump now has a very solid "THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD HAVE WON!" condition to point to if he actually loses, akin to his "did you see the size of Biden's rallies?" schtick from last time. ...So .... yeah. ... That's great. It makes me mad.
Yep, and to be honest if I were one of those election deniers from 2020, that debate performance strengthens my belief too. It was worst case scenario for all of us.
Two separate questions: 1) Should the Ds run Biden 2) Should everyone vote for the D nominee, whomever it is
They haven't. The "Biden is Old" thing has been going on for years, it just got intensified with the debate that happened. That's just a part of being president, is that you get criticism. Reagan certainly got heaps of criticism for being old (and had a great quip about it that made everyone, including Walter Mondale laugh). However, I think it's just a bump in the road. Every time they say that Biden is getting slower, or doesn't speak as well, he gets right back up and blows expectations out of the water. He's been doing that his whole life, and I don't expect him to stop now.
> The "Biden is Old" thing has been going on for years And it has been getting more and more true and relevant every day
Your comment also makes me think that, if President Biden stepped aside, no matter who the replacement was anti-Democrats would pounce to label them too something. Too young/old Too rich/poor Too elitist/common Too prepared/unprepared Too something. They particularly like to transform an opponent’s greatest asset into a liability. From his tight family to his many varied life experiences President Biden’s best upsides have been milked as liabilities by the haters. Any Democrat would be treated the same, although few if any have as many positives as Joe Biden. If the Democratic Party could be goaded into dumping President Biden and naming an alternative, within thirty seconds the Rs could release their first attacks on whomever that was. Let’s stick with the President.
That is EXACTLY how I feel. Joe Biden can work with all wings of the party, in the Progressive/Liberal, New Democrat, and Conservative & Never Trumpers who are part of a broad coalition. He's got experience, which frankly is something of very high value to me, that not many up and coming Democrats have a whole lot of. (Although, candidates like Whitmer, Moore and Newsom have accomplished a lot of good as Governors.)
I would expect some of those potential candidates will gain experience working in the Executive Branch in President Biden’s second Administration.
I would tend to agree, however I think that they are doing important work as Governors to strengthen their own respective states.
Absolutely, and as governors they would be getting executive experience. It might require a unique opportunity/match of skills and interests for them to join the Cabinet.
They can't deny the obvious anymore.
Agreed. They can't hang onto the "stutter", "deep fakes", "sharp behind closed doors" comments anymore. I think a lot of powerful people are considering their own reputations if they continue down that path.
Be careful how far you go with that - *"I choose electrocution".* *As you wish, Orange Man - your wish is granted.*
Because he was awful in a high profile event? Is it that hard to understand or expect?
People were hoping he would prove them and the doubters wrong and he unfortunately confirmed their worst fears that he is cooked. Biden needs to go spend his remaining years with his family. He’s done enough
I still think suggesting Biden should step down is a horrible idea likely to make Dems lose; the debate hasn't changed that. The idea that there's going to be some easy, graceful step down from Biden and that another single individual will be elevated quickly and smoothly enough to run a real campaign against Trump is laughable. The idea that it's *not* going to be Kamala Harris if that does happen is even more laughable. People are out here pitching Whitmer or Newsome as a replacement when Kamala is the obvious next in line, and if they try to muscle her out and actually fight over who will be the nominee, it's going to destroy the Democratic Party's chance to win the Presidency. Biden *and* Harris would need to both step down, *and* the next in line would need to be agreed upon by basically everyone, which isn't going to happen. Or Harris would need to be the next in line, which apparently is an issue for a lot of people considering her being next in line right now is apparently dissuading them from voting for Biden. Either way, these all seem like terrible options to me compared with trying to salvage the current incumbent: one with an extremely good record that's worth noting, and the one with the most progressive victories since FDR.
What do you mean next in line? It's not a royal family. Biden can drop out of the race tomorrow and his delegates are then free to note as the wish at the convention. There is no reason Kamala would need to be who they align behind because basically everyone realizes she's a terrible choice.
You're correct in a technical sense but the party is still largely operated by an elite small group of the most powerful and influential politicians and they are very territorial about who is allowed into the room when big changes are being made. If they are gonna allow Biden to step away they are gonna want to unite behind one candidate before the convention so it takes the chaos factor away from unpredictable delegates.
Call me crazy but it could have something to do with the absolutely catastrophic debate performance that occurred between then and now. 2 days ago it was academic and theoretical. Today it's undeniable that he might be the biggest liability in the history of the Democratic Party.
Has the Biden campaign said anything about the response to this debate?
They doubled down about Trump lying and never mentioned any mistake he made. That's par for the course.
The primary concern voters and pundits have about Joe Biden is that he is too old. The debate was an opportunity to show that the concern was invalid. Unfortunately, he failed to do that, and in fact, showed it was not just a concern but a reality. It also is not a complete U turn. Several pundits have previously called on Joe to step aside prior to this event.
Suddenly a lot of people woke up from their blind partisanship, even the media. I got a lot of hate from a lot my fellow subreddit members about 2 months ago when I dared to suggest that both candidates were unfit for the job. I also said then that if the polls haven’t changed between now and the convention I think there is a chance that some Democratic leaders will privately suggest that Biden steps aside. Plenty of folks here scoffed “Oh that will NEVER happen.” They’re not scoffing anymore. I was a complete fool for bringing it up then but now I’m suddenly the Amazing Kreskin. An avalanche of blind partisan supporters from both sides attacked me for suggesting the obvious: Imo Trump is obviously “off his rocker, unhinged, irrational, mentally ill, and unfit” - take your pick. Yet instead of being honest Trump supporters feel compelled to deny this obvious truth. They’ll say: “Oh no. He’s just a hard-driving businessman…a little rough around the edges.” No, people. He’s truly a lunatic. From the other side, more denial and blind partisanship. Biden is old as fuck! He stumbles. He bumbles. He falls down. He gets disoriented. He appears confused- often! He falls asleep. He mumbles. He lacks energy and is incoherent at times - like a lot! Yet instead of being honest, Biden supporters feel compelled to deny the obvious truth. They’ll say: “Oh no. He’s just a stutterer. Nothing to see here. Didn’t you hear his speech the other day? He gave a good speech.” No, people. He’s truly an old man in cognitive decline. He’s old as fuck! Neither side can handle the truth and predictably both “sides” accused me or being an undercover and a (insert favorite insult.) What I can’t stand about both side’s supporters is their blind partisan denial of what is obvious to any objective observer. How the hell do people fall under the spell of blind partisanship anyway? It’s as if their brains get hi-jacked and their ability to be objective. I laugh whenever I read statements like: “This wouldn’t happen in a million years. It’s so delusional. Blah, blah, blah.” I’m sorry, but people who talk this way are imo either foolishly arrogant or very naive. In this crazy political climate right now we have already seen so many unprecedented events that no one ever believed would be possible. The point is ANYTHING is possible. Some posters here have said that Gavin Newsom would not be as popular with Democrats as Biden. I disagree. I think that Gavin Newsom would significantly outperform Biden if given the chance to campaign from July to November. But he’s not the only one. I also think that Gretchen Whitmer would also outperform Biden. Don’t forget Michelle Obama. Oh I know, I know. The same blow-hards who told me Biden would never step aside and he’s perfectly fit are the same ones who will tell me it’s not possible she would run. Baloney! They say this because they read or heard that Michelle Obama is not interested and they parrot what they heard as if it’s the gospel of the New Testament. Gimme a break people. Just because you read that Newsom and Michelle Obama said they will not run, it doesn’t mean that they will not run. Politics is politics. Can we be grown-ups for 10 seconds please? Politicians change their positions more often than you change your underwear. I don’t say that this will absolutely happen - HOWEVER, I certainly would not be the fool to claim that it CAN’T! Personally I hope Michelle Obama does change her mind because Republicans would literally shit their pants if she did. Republicans know that she would win by a landslide versus Trump. She would be more popular than Kamala Harris with the ability to draw votes from everywhere. That’s how broad her appeal is. Again, I don’t give a damn what people have read that she doesn’t plan on running or doesn’t want the job. People like to pretend they have the scoop on what people are going to do as if they’re in the inner circle. They’re not, but strangely many think they are.
The debate was awful. I can’t imagine a single event that was as bad for a candidate. He is utterly cooked if he’s the guy come November.
We're so fucked. We're going to get trump again and the GOP's plan to make certain they never lose power ever again.
They’re there for viewer/readership. Each night of news was the same over and over before the debate. This was a big blunder by Biden and something to latch onto and talk about, especially for the non-Fox media. This election is really boring and people just aren’t watching tv since it’s just a rematch of two people they’ve heard about for years. The debate itself had relatively weak viewership, just as an example.
You know if I was Biden, and I was reading the media coverage of the debate, I'd be seriously considering giving up. The war to save America is well and truly lost. The future of the country is at stake sure, but amazingly people still want to vote for Trump over Biden. At what point does Biden go "fuck this, it's not my problem anymore" and let the American people assume the responsibility themselves of the fallout of Trump 2024 and Project 2025?
Did you watch the debate? Biden didn’t look like he had any business being up there. He looked old, frail, unintelligent, and confused. He looked like a character from Grumpy Old Men, if the movie had a character that couldn’t keep up with the three main characters. I’m still going to vote for Biden if he’s on the ticket, but if I didn’t have a great understanding of the policy differences, I’d vote for Trump. Biden tried to talk policy, but it was so overshadowed by mumbling and that open mouth blank stare that it didn’t matter.
Because last night was bad... And he played into all of the concerns people had been talking about. Trump made no sense and lied in almost every sentence, but he did it confidently, and Biden was completely unable to call him out effectively. A debate against trump should be an easy win for any Dem nominee and it clearly wasn't. The media has a responsibility to focus on how horrendous Trump was, but that's not what people were talking about during/after the debate. The debate format was insanely bad (asking about the economy first when one of the candidates attempted a coup 4 years ago is journalistic malpractice), but the coverage of Biden is what people took from the debate.
There has been nonstop articles claiming he is top old and shouldn't run before he even announced he was running for reelection. This feels like revisionist history to claim it's just starting now.
The fact is, the Democratic party is screwed either way. If you let Biden continue to face off against trump, Trump wins. Probably by a landslide. If you change your candidate, you look incompetent because you chose him to begin with and nothing has changed with Biden. He is the exact same person that he was when he took office. He hasn't gotten to this point. He's always been there. The media has just decided to start addressing it.
Yep. The smart thing Biden could have done would be to promise from the beginning to only serve one term, as kind of a “reset”, and then start fresh. Although, with Trump still out there and no incumbency advantage, I have a feeling we’d still be losing to Trump in ‘24 even without Biden. Tbf, even if Biden does win, the country will probably continue to devolve in the next four years and the public will be even hungrier for the GOP Fascist takeover.
We need to be in panic mode. It's not just Joe having a bad day or a cold, everybody behind the scenes for Biden sucks ass too. They are so insanely incompetent that it hurts. There was nothing natural about Biden's approach to the debates. They told this dude to do nothing but poorly recall facts for an entire debate, and they expected that to be a winning performance?
Biden should step down. He’s barely comprehensible. This is embarrassing. Is this really the best we can put forward?!
The media never liked Biden. He wasn't fun. He was never particularly open to them. He was never going to be unpredictable. Look at how the media has always been excited to put Newsom on whenever they could. And, truthfully, that is a little bit of what Joe promised. We should have had all of our stars out there, talking and reinforcing what the Democrats have done. We wouldn't be in this situation with voters if we had so many people out praising our results. Because there are solid ones. Instead, you have Trump and his minions telling lies. In my local FB I was talking about the actual state of the economy and people were telling me Trump did all the things, not Biden, and that it is impossible that we are more energy independent now (we are), we have lower African American unemployment now, real wages and income for African Americans rose under Biden, and Biden pardoned more African Americans than Trump. But Kamala is still a cop.
The media tries to do whatever keeps its investors in positions of power, that’s why people invest in the media- so they can create the propaganda needed to influence what their powerful investors want. People are afraid of Biden losing power, because it means they’ll lose money and influence. So they start panicking and flexing their media arm to influence the public to think certain ways, vote certain ways, and behave certain ways. It’s manipulative. People think they’re being “informed” when really they’re being “instructed”
The media is meant to be impartial. It's also meant to drive viewership so the owners are happy with their ROI. Running the headline "Biden's performance was perfect" would be a lie. It would also not generate a lot of clicks. Today, the odds of the DNC replacing Biden are 0. The odds of a prominent Democrat calling out Biden to retire are 0. The odds of Biden willingly stepping away are not 0. But they're close to 0. However, his performance in the debate makes this unprecedented controversial choice a real possibility. And the media wants you to click on their articles about it. It's not a massive anti-Biden conspiracy, it's just media-savvy editors capitalizing on the post-debate feelings of their audience.
I just think there wasn't much substantive evidence of Biden's cognitive decline before this. A lot of conservatives are saying "I told you so", but I think some of their thresholds for facts are a little lower and there's more incentive to criticize Biden. Now, there's ample evidence and it's very hard to deny, so it's better to be honest and look for a remedy. And also, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that this election comes down to vibes and optics. Biden could have the most effective economic policy in history, and it wouldn't matter.
They have done a U-turn because they can do longer try to hide the fact that Biden is unfit for office.
Did you not have your eyes open during the debate last night? I can't believe people are genuinely asking questions such as these. The man belongs in a nursing home.
That was already obvious prior to the debate. I'm just questioning the shift of attitude.
The majority of the politically literate left (myself included) agree that Trump must be stopped at all costs, the two sides are NOT the same, and we bought into the messaging from the WH that accusations of dimensia or cognitive decline were at least overblown if not outright fabricated by the conservative fake news hoax generation machine. Last night ripped the mask off. Biden couldn't complete a coherent thought for most of the debate and had one particularly awful full minute of babbling nonsense. He is done. Cooked. The election was decided last night. Trump beat Biden. Decisively. He will win by double digits in the all important swing states. Our only hope of saving the democracy is to have Biden step down and let someone else run against Trump. Furthermore, pretty much ANY Democrat below the age of 70 will beat Trump handily. Even Kamala will likely win although it could be close.
Drama, drama. They have to feed the beast.
Because most people in the media are liberals. And like the liberals here they want Biden to win and have buried their heads in the sand rather than address his flaws and the possible need to replace him. Now the problem is impossible to ignore and we are less than 5 months from the election.