mtutiger

Yeah...

I do agree with you here, this doesn't look over to me at all

A couple of points: 1. Given that Biden is an incumbent, a competitive primary would have actually gone *against* precedent. Trump 2020, Obama 2012, Bush 2004... None of those guys got big name challengers did they? We can argue whether or not the situation with Biden is distinct, but let's not act like this isn't basically normal. 2. I imagine that Whitmer, Newsom, Pritzker and others did polling on this race (Newsom in particular is rumored to have fielded a poll) and they found they would get their ass kicked. Maybe it plays out differently in reality, but the incentives weren't there for any of these guys and gals to throw their hat on the ring and risk their political careers

Food for thought.... I still don't think Biden's out of the woods, but the lack of a unified response by those wishing for him to step aside was a mistake. And at some level, it goes back to the fact that many of the folks who had spent months leading up to the debate making arguments about Biden stepping aside never leveled with their readers with the reality that Kamala Harris, for many reasons that don't need to be rehashed, is pretty much the only realistic option. When you look at who Biden's strongest soldiers are at the moment in Congress (the Congressional Black Caucus), one wonders whether these many pundits who dreamed aloud of Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro may have impacted the thinking.

I liked him back in the day, but I was also a lot less pragmatic and understood the world a lot less 15 years ago than I do now. Things like understanding how my experience might be different from others experience, not projecting my views onto others with different experiences, etc. I will give him credit in that he's a really good and tough interviewer, especially with people with opposing views. At least compared to Bill Maher.

I would just add that if people are unable to engage in the tradeoffs and risks associated with both sticking with Biden but also switching horses and either going with Harris or (even more fantasyland) having a firehouse primary in Chicago, it's going to be really hard to engage in good faith on this. I watched a clip of Jon Stewart's show last night discussing his preferred fantasyland scenario - absolutely zero self reflection as to the downsides of his hypothetical scenario, it's all perfect and good and that's that.

Thanks.... that's interesting.

Yet Emerson also released a poll today that asked about a number of different alternatives and, lo and behold, none of them are really doing better than Joe Biden. Some of that is name recognition, but the idea that any other candidate would be matching Tammy Baldwin in a hypothetical Wisconsin poll is, at best, an unproven assertion at this point.

What were the dates on that poll?

The question of succession is hairy - we don't know if Joe Biden will die within the next four years, and if he would, we don't know if he will die suddenly or if he just becomes unable to do the job and gradually passes. That's why the age thing matters - I would vote for him regardless, but I would vote for a package of Koegel's hot dogs over Trump because Trump is *that* terrible on policy and in terms of temperment. But it's what the rest of America thinks given their choice. And having seen within my own family how hard it can be at the end to give in to the lifestyle changes that come with old age in my own life, when people are evaluating the choice, it's hard not to think about that stuff when voting for President too. For the record, at the same point that Biden is now within this term, Trump would be older than Biden is currently if he is reelected and doesn't die.... he somehow gets a pass on his age, and he really shouldn't if we are being intellectually consistent here.

Really good thread as to Donald Trump's plans related to education....

I think what frustrates me is that, unlike some others, the real questions *do* remain about Biden IMO. And they are likely to remain until November happens, for better or worse... I differ with some others on that, and whether him even staying in is the right thing to do. I honestly do not know, and continue to go back and forth on it. But the zeal that we are seeing from the WH Press Corps not only isn't necessary with the story as it exists today (ie. one can believe that Biden is too old and not up to this without baselessly making any sort of diagnoses), but when they **** it up on something like this, it undermines their credibility. To the extent that the style of reporting is motivated on their part by a desire to effectuate a different outcome (vis a vis the Dem nomination), their **** ups only make it harder.

I doubt this will stop the conspiracy theorists in the WH Press Corps lol

He ain't wrong

Ideologically Biden comes from a different wing than Bernie or Liz, but the same people coming at Biden right now are the same ones who generally have always come at their wing.

Lost in the frenzy is the fact that Biden just signed legistlation related to Parkinson's research. It would not surprise me if a Parkinson's doctor who has been on the WH Medical team over multiple administrations were involved or consulted on said legislation.

On this score, despite the self-righteousness of a lot of the "Biden must drop out" crowd, I don't think they are helping. Even though they think they are. Today on X dot com, they are currently debating about "the elites" being responsible for Biden still being in it, despite the fact that may of the loudest commentators (the Matt Yglesias's and Bulwark types) *are* elites themselves and have written extensively on this subject for months. It's just inane. The biggest issue is the sense that, even if he steps aside, what then? You look at the Bill Kristol types (not even a Democrat lol) who have made their entire identity into this subject over the course of the last few weeks, and when they discuss the possibility of him actually stepping aside, they launch into fantasies about a firehouse, last second primary among delegates in Chicago, as if that's the answer to everything. As if that purportedly respects the actually will of the voters. I still don't know what's going to happen here, but my overall takeaway is that a lot of people have done a great job in showing their *** throughout all of this. I just hope, whether it's Biden or Harris (and yes, it will be one or the other), they can somehow unify. That's the biggest casualty in all of this.

Not saying I agree with it totally, but the idea is that Trump and the media have a "Sam and Ralph" relationship where they are enemies but, ultimately, are in a mutually beneficial relationship where Trump gets attention and to run against them and where media entities drive consumers to their product. It is worth noting that news media, across all platforms, has seen precipitous declines in ratings and clicks over the last four years.... without a doubt, they will gain numbers if Trump gets back into the White House. I honestly the situation goes beyond this, though, in the sense that the media and Biden have never had a great relationship either (the whole NYT interview in 2020 and the fame gained by the elevator attendant afterward is case in point of the dynamic there).

I don't love how casually it's being thrown around either. I hope it doesn't create or accentuate stigmas around the subject.

These guys are starting to get a little over their skis

To your point, Project 2025.... it has gained a lot of steam in the zeitgeist, and that is in spite of a media that can hardly be bothered to mention it.

My revelation on this happened before this fiasco broke out, but it's the fact that so many of these guys (most of them based in New York or Washington) feel they are explainers for everything going on in "Middle America"... when you actually read these publications and you actually *live* in Middle America and it doesn't line up with what you are seeing day to day, it's hard not to ask questions as to the utility of the reporting. It's independent to the larger questions about Biden's candidacy, but most of these guys don't have any special insight as to what's going on in the field IMO

Yet another thing that got lost in the coverage of the debate, given that the pundits apparently can't walk and chew gum at the same time, is the Trump "truth" about Project 2025, backing away from it. They saw the comments from Heritage coming out, they are seeing it break through. When you have Presidential allies talking about a second revolution that will be bloodless "unless the left allows it to be", aren't you gonna ask some questions about that? Put it on A1, above the fold? Something? Anything? It's just a total failure on their part.... the inability to compartmentalize and cover actual substance is a dereliction of duty. At this point, the only question is whether it's intentional or not.

I've gone back and forth on whether it would be right for him to step aside or not, and if he did would support Kamala 100% without question. However, seeing the likes of both Nate Silver and Alex Thompson (yesterday) suggest that the same people calling for Biden to step aside in the media would turn questions on her about his age (and being "complicit" or whatever) is really revealing... and it really pisses me off. I honestly don't know the correct answer on this one, but one thing is clear: I would not be looking to media figures for guidance on this at all.