mtutiger

Guessing the campaigns would have had to agree to that...

I didn't watch on CNN (I watched on WGN locally here), but my understanding is that they had Daniel Dale do a pretty thorough segment going through all of the candidates lies.... but, naturally, that segment didn't air until something like 11:45 pm eastern. Like, maybe run that segment immediately at the conclusion of the debate? Do we really need an hour of their hack panels before cutting through some of the BS? I understand Eric's point here, most of it falls on the candidate, and it's like drinking through a firehose when you are going against a profligate liar like Donald Trump. But CNN shouldn't escape scrutiny here.... both in terms of moderation and in terms of production, they could have done better to highlight the falsehoods that were thrown around in a way that would have served the viewer better.

The more fact checking of both candidates, the better

People have their issues with Axelrod (myself included), but he's right here.... there aren't going to be public calls for him to step down. Maybe there's a few party elders (ie. Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi, Clyburn) *behind close doors* who can have the conversation with him, but ultimately it's a decision that he's going to have to make, in consultation with his family. Expecting a jail break from rank and file or Dem surrogates (ie. Whitmer, Shapiro, Pritzker, etc.) is unrealistic. And there is no mechanism to force him off the ballot that doesn't involve him making that choice. And in the unlikely event that it happens, it will be Kamala Harris. If you are advocating he step aside, be comfortable with that.

I believe that. The overall lack of conversation about the substance really stands out in political media though, and the fact that I hear and see more conversation from more normie / non-political types about the substance than from people who are paid to cover this stuff for a living should be really embarrassing

Not a columnist, but Jonathan Martin is also the worst. Probably makes at least 5x what I make and yet keeps suggesting "West Wing" BS that even novices like any of us know cannot happen in reality

More like Oz's abortion comments in his Fetterman debate (ie. More or less ignored by the media but far more consequential than acknowledged in real time)

My hottest take from what happened last night is that the "black jobs" comment is going to hurt Trump a lot more than people realize. Especially when you consider that a lot of the polling shows Trump overperforming with AAs/Latino voters, and that his polling lead, to some extent, rests on that. We always assume that it's only about style, but on substance, this likely hurt him a lot with a group he has polled relatively well with during this cycle.

Based on everything I know about Tater, he will be advocating for Biden and against Trump going forward.

And it dates back years.... this isn't new. This is the same editorial board that excoriated Joe Biden when interviewing him during the 2020 primary and whose elevator operator went viral with Biden going down after the interview. I stand behind my earlier comments about this and that I have concerns about Biden's candidacy going forward, but I'm just not going to pretend that the Times, or the Post, or many other journalists are completely straight when they cover Joe Biden. They weren't during the last primary season, and IMO, it's explained in part because he's not an Ivy Leaguer and came from a different class than many of them did. And it mirrors their inability to really capture the median American in their coverage IMO

I hate to pick on the NYT because it went beyond them, but if we are sitting here two weeks from now and it's status quo or close to status quo in this Presidential race, given how far out over their skis they got.... like, how do you walk that back? They aren't going to let up, but jeez, it would make them look a lot more irrelevant.

Have they written their "To Serve His Country, Donald Trump Should Leave the Race" editorial yet? For the record at least?

The same New York Times who will not utter a word about Trump using "Palestinian" as a slur.

I think there's legitimate concerns coming out of last night, but it gets exhausting watching guys like Wasserman, Astead Herndon with NYT, others in the national press who have *never* liked Biden even dating back to 2019/2020 act impartial about this stuff. They just are not. I would say not moving the needle isn't good even if it's the best case scenario here (Biden needed to use this debate to help gain on his current standing), but given the freakout from the pundit class, it would be kinda hilarious if their hysteria amounted to a hill of ****. Truly some of the most cloistered people in society.

It's amazing how this stuff just gets ignored by the media. Just normalized now

Jesus H Christ

538/Ipsos panel suggests minimal change post debate...

My theory (has been suggested elsewhere today) on the Univision panel MB shared earlier all thinking Biden did better is that there were likely subtitles involved. If you were reading that debate off of subtitles, that likely swings the entire view of what took place lol

When you consider that his polling rests a lot on relative strength with black and Hispanic voters at the moment, there are changes within groups that can happen on account of this debate that may not help him.

Interesting thread. The one thing I've really come around on is that while Biden had a terrible night, Trump did himself zero favors as well, particularly with Black voters (ie. "black jobs), with how he came across last night.

August to November doesn't provide a whole lot of time for fundraising.... and Kamala Harris would be the only candidate who can avail themselves of the $212 million that the Biden campaign is sitting on right now. People can joke about "replacing Baez with McKinstry" all they want as if these are excuses, but these are real issues that people just avoid when dealing with these hypotheticals that extend beyond Kamala Harris. It just is what it is.

Would you want a Democratic Senator from Georgia replaced with a Republican, Lee? lol

Brian Kemp is white, he's a Governor, and he'd be replacing Warnock on Earth 2.0 if Warnock won as a candidate on a D ticket Or are we just gonna throw names out like this is fantasy baseball some more without thinking about the second order effects?

The Democratic Party isn't a cult built around Joe Biden, that seems like a pretty significant difference.