mtutiger

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

It would start with the ability to take matters into their own hands and fight back against the relentless attacks... It all starts at the top. And given how the past two weeks have gone, I cannot say that I have a ton of confidence in Biden in being able to fight back against those questions going forward. I cannot stand the Pod Bros, and yeah, they've always been on the other side of the divide within the D Party of Biden. The journalists have shat the bed too, no doubt... But one can compartmentalize those thoughts and recognize that Biden has serious flaws as a candidate. And has, to-date, not shown the kind of energy needed to push back against the biggest strike on his record (his age). You will probably disagree with me, but that's why we are here today... The inability to put the fire out within days of it breaking out. It has now emphasized a liability that, given how time works, Biden will never be able to outrun so long as he is in this race. And if the candidate himself cannot fight back against those attacks, it's an even harder ask for everyone below him to do it.

Ladies and Gentlemen... The front-runner

Maybe you're right, but one can't also assume the poll numbers would only go up once people got to know them better. With the non-Harris candidates in particular, setting aside the bloody mess that going with any of them would create, you'd be introducing them for the first time to the American public less than 120 days before an election. Not fully vetted. I'm not making any assumptions about how America as a whole takes that or responds to that

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