mtutiger

It's all so disingenuous when you see how apocalyptic and violent the rhetoric can be from their own side as well. Obviously this is a horrible event and should not have happened. We do not want to live in a world where political violence is the norm. But I worry a lot about a toxic political culture in this country that has led to a break down of civility in how we disagree... And this event, awful as it is, is just downstream IMO

Deeply deeply irresponsible statement from soon-to-be VP nominee

This raises questions as to whether Biden can win the coveted Papa Roach endorsement

I understand that some will cast doubts on this given who is sharing it, but it's still coming from Heritage Foundation's lips....

Meanwhile, on the heels of Donald Trump calling Milwaukee a horrible city....

Would be far more beneficial than nebulous proposals on eliminating taxes on tips, but will get less ink most likely.

That's a big part of what he did tonight in his remarks that feels like should have been done earlier, unrelated to any issues as to his age: talking about what he will do in the next term. Even before the debate, that was my biggest problem with this campaign.... the two sentence sales pitch. It hadn't landed to-date, but we started to see it come out tonight. I think we need to see a lot more of it going forward if he intends on sticking this out.

Love it... Keep going at this line

He should feel free to add Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon to this line in future rallies

Biden's bull case is Harry Truman in 1948... And the clips tonight are the first time I've seen a glimmer of that level of fight

And it's substantive... Real world outcomes that are likely to happen if Trump were to win, regardless of who the nominee is. At some level, that stuff should matter right? It seems like it's gaining traction organically, but that has been in spite of a media that seems more focused on style over substance

I don't profess to speak for the median person out in the country, but I've alluded to this throughout this thread since the debate: I think people can have serious reservations about Biden and his ability to move forward while also looking at the reaction to it from the media and many folks and see it as combinations of self-flaggelating, not productive or even unfair (especially given how people are just throwing around terms like "dementia" or "Parkinsons" without any real reason). And it's one thing when Trump's campaign or his supporters do it, but when you have actual professionals drawing paychecks from the NYT or the Washington Post doing it, and promoting their brand off of it (*cough* Astead Herndon), it's hard not to feel there isn't an agenda involved. It really pisses me off.... I just don't think collectively, in the age of social media, we are able to process this with the seriousness it deserves. MC's post above, showing his emails from the NYT, is a perfect example.

I need to see more evidence, but if we've learned anything about this latest era of politics, "feeding frenzies" can often lead to backlash the longer and longer they go on.

The simple answer is that the nomination hasn't actually happened yet.... if Biden were to drop out, he would release his delegates and endorse Kamala Harris, and the Lions share of said delegates would vote for her. There are no ballot access issues as there is, technically, no nominee. There's a reason the media uses the term "presumptive nominee" until the actual Convention, because that is when the actual nomination is conferred.

It was never good enough for a lot of the critics to just take what we saw at face value at that debate, an old man who brought forward questions as to whether he has the energy to do this, to finish this campaign and beat Donald Trump. It had to turn into "he's got dementia", "he's hiding Parkinson's", "there was a CONSPIRACY to cover it UP!".... I expect that stuff from Trump's campaign, but there are a lot of people in media engaging in this sort of talk, and it reflects *very* poorly IMO.

So, when is Trump's policy presser coming?

In a better world it would end any talk or speculation about dementia - he just doesn't have it or else he wouldn't have performed as he did on the substance. And certainly should end speculation about whether, today, he can do the job. But that's a different question than the question of holding up during this campaign... I don't think he can unring that bell IMO.

What's really getting lost in this conversation is that a person can get older and slow down without having dementia. I've been told within my own family from a family member (who doesn't have dementia) who has made the transition from 79 to 83 and how much of a difference it's made even for his stamina. But instead, the Twitter experts are throwing diagnoses because of course they are.

What if he doesn't? I think the innuendo about dementia, without any basis of proof or fact, has only done a disservice to those who are arguing that he should step aside

I don't think he has dementia, and I really dislike how mainstream speculation about various ailments has become during this process fwiw.

I just see way too many commentators mention "brokered conventions" and "mini primaries" and all that other crap, even two weeks on, and it does such a disservice to consumers. Even the politicians like Sen. Peter Welch, in his statement, mentions Harris and (paraphrasing) "other talented Dem politiicans. Like, FFS guys.... these are supposed to be serious people who *know* better and yet they aren't treating this situation seriously at all.

I'm more Biden-skeptical than you at this point, but I do 100% agree here. There is really only one alternative to Biden at this juncture that allows them to avoid a ton of landmines, from party disunity to campaign finance issues to legal issues, etc., and that's Kamala Harris. It's endlessly frustrating that you have so many pundits (and even politicians) who don't recognize that.

I understand what you are saying, but this just ignores the obvious issues that would accompany any candidate, whatever their perceived strength, would have in challenging an incumbent President running for reelection. It's less about "the elites" and more about the incentive structure that exists for Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom or whoever in undertaking that possibility. Newsom in particular is rumored to have undertaken polling sometime after the 2022 Midterms and, from what I remember reading, found he would have gotten smoked in the primary. I haven't seen that story confirmed, but I'd be shocked if he or others hadn't polled it and found that result. And if any of us were in their shoes, I guarantee you none of us would risk our careers on that sort of kamikaze mission. If you shoot for the King, you best not miss... as they say.

I don't think Trump has lost a ton of support since 2020 but, to the extent that he has, you'd likely see it in suburban districts. Even with all of the issues that Biden and Democrats have right now, there's still a lot of people out here who hate his guts and will walk across glass to vote against him. The bigger issue in this election is less about persuasion and more about turnout. Both sides will likely see a drop in this regard (ie. less people will vote in 2024 than in 2020) and, to the extent that Trump is having success right now, it's a combination of polls picking up a larger likely turnout of his voters relative to Biden and otherwise Dem voters withholding their votes in polling and either saying "unsure" or picking a third party candidate. Which is reflected in polling averages even since the debate, at least in national polling.... the increase in margin is more due to Biden dropping than it is Trump gaining share.

The Democratic Party hasn't officially nominated a candidate and won't until their virtual convention vote on August 7. So not clear how any decisions made now would impact any ballots until the actual nomination happens