The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Would you vote for her? Personally I would take Kamala Harris over Biden right now, but I'm not sure the rest of the Democratic party feels that way.

i would take a literally any sane person with any shred of morals over trump.

I doubt it would change anything.  Biden doesn't exactly have a huge fan club.  Basically Biden's number one selling point is "NOT Trump"  If you replace Biden with Harris or anyone else it doesn't change the fact that they are not Trump. 

Someone in the Biden campaign needs to start cutting videos of every deranged senile moment Trump has had on the campaign trail, like how he keeps calling Biden "Obama" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/04/campaign-confusion-trump-mistakes-biden-obama/72841597007/), or how he said Nikki Haley was in charge of the Capitol on Jan 6 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-confuses-nikki-haley-pelosi-talking-jan-6-rcna134863), or how he said Biden is going to cause World War II (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-warns-impaired-biden-may-cause-world-war-two.html).

Every single question about Biden's mental fitness needs to be responded to with a question about why Trump talking about being electrocuted or eaten by sharks isn't getting this kind of coverage.

I would definitely vote for Kamala over Biden (and over Trump).

This...exactly and emphatically.

I think the egos involved are too large, but the correct move for the country is for Biden to resign the presidency, then for Kamala to run as a pseudo-incumbent.  Whether she's my favorite of the choices doesn't really matter, as her path in terms of support and money and staff is so much clearer than an outside candidate.

Even if he decides to drop out of the race (which he should not), Biden definitely shouldn't resign the presidency.  Harris will be busy campaigning, and he can continue to do the job he has been doing just fine for the last 3.5 years.  Dropping the presidency on her during the middle of a campaign would not help.

I have been happy with the Biden presidency.  Very much so, in fact.

However, we saw something at that debate that wasn't normal.  If he's dropping out of the race because he isn't there, mentally, it would seem logical that he also shouldn't be running the country.  It would be better for Harris, also.

Look, I am happy with Joe Biden, but I don't OWE Joe Biden.  If he can't do the job because he's old and having memory loss or whatever, I understand -- go.  Be old.  Have a wonderful life and thank you for your service.  But I'm not concerned about his legacy or any of that.  I want someone in the chair who can handle their business and from what I saw, he was unable to speak, which is, frankly, not acceptable.

He is too old.

He was too old 4 years ago.

He was too old 15 years ago.

I just want what's best for the country.  Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy, so whatever it takes to beat that back, do it.  But after what I saw at that debate, I can't say that Biden is the best person to take that on.  Can you imagine 4 years of that past now?

The double standard here is wild.  Again, when Trump talks about Biden causing World War II, no one cares.

This is But Her E-mails all over again: everyone was pretending that we care about best practices in information security because that's the story the media ran with, and the day the election was over, no one gave a shit about it any more.  For four years, Trump ran around with an unsecured, off-the-shelf iPhone while Jared and Ivanka used Gmail to conduct international diplomacy, and not a peep was heard.  But Hillary had a private e-mail server and can we really trust her with the nation's secrets?

None of the people clutching their pearls about Biden's debate performance have the slightest thing to say about Biden's competency in his actual job performance.  None of the media had anywhere near this level of concern when Trump was unable to tell the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley, or Joe Biden and Barack Obama.  But the moment Biden stumbles and bumbles through ONE debate, he needs to be promptly removed from office?

Dave, the difference between the left and the right is that when their guy catches 34 felony convictions, their response is, "What do I think about it? Fuck you, that's what I think. Trump 2024," while the left sees Biden have one bad debate and our response is "HE MUST DROP OUT AND RESIGN FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY."

You think Biden dropping out and resigning will make this better, but it will make things far worse.  The media will turn into a non-stop circus about the collapse of the Biden campaign and How Democrats conspired to hide Biden from the public, and it will be the only thing we see until November. You cannot satisfy fake concerns manufactured by the media to sell a horse race; the only viable path forward is for Democrats to hammer Trump on all the incoherent senile nonsense he regularly says at his rallies, and ask the media why they don't pursue the same "mental fitness" angle with Trump.

At some point you have to grow a spine.

Although Biden definitely shows signs of decline, but even if the ONLY issue was cognitive ability Biden is more qualified than the guy who thinks Obama is president and that George Washington siezed the airports.

The argument isn't about Biden vs. Trump.  It's about the promise of replacing Biden vs. Trump.

Or it's about, even if we beat Trump, why have we chosen to put someone to lead the country for four years that doesn't have all his scruples today?  ...not to mention what he's going to look years down the line.

I feel like I'm being asked to ignore what my eyes are seeing, which is that the person who I support isn't able to fully do the job.  Even though I'm happy with many parts of his administration and am very happy with the accomplishments, communicating confidence to the American people is a portion of that job and in that regard, he gets an F-. 

The primaries are over. The nominees are Biden and Trump.  Somebody could have challenged Biden beforehand but not now.

I am not really worried if an increasing number of decisions are made by staff.  The most important decisions Biden or any president makes occur between the election and taking office -- the choosing of cabinet and staff. 

Ronald Reagan was not in charge during his second term and while I am not a fan of his administration there isn't a single thing I can think of where I think it mattered.  His staff had the same thinking.

The whole concern about Biden when he has better cognitive than Trump is hypocricy.

It isn't someone challenging Biden.  This is about whether Biden and his team and his advisors are willing to step aside for the betterment of the country.

I foresee that he is not fully capable of carrying out the job for 4 years.  As a progressive, if I think that, I know that swing voters think that.  We are potentially marching into a slaughter.

I am no closer to supporting Trump and I think he completely destructive to America.  I just think that we can do better than Joe Biden, because it has become apparent to me that he isn't fully cognitive at all hours of the day.  We live in a post-debate world.  I saw an old man unable to form cogent sentences and I feel like I'm being asked to ignore that.

No, this argument is literally about the election.  To wit:

Your concerns have nothing to do with how Biden has done his JOB.  If Biden were not running for re-election (and had not participated in the debate) you would be as silent as the crypt right now.  Biden's job performance has been just fine.

Your concerns are about this election debate performance, and how it impacts this election.  And you acknowledge this:


Everyone ignores Trump's senile statements on the regular, and no one on the right is pooping their pants about how it is ruining their chances to win.
Grow a spine.

I don't think Biden dropping out helps the democrats and could potentially hurt them significantly.  If Biden steps aside Harris doesn't automatically become the nominee.  It will become a floor fight at the convention.  AOC will almost certainly get some delegates, so will Porter, and Newsom and Hillary and Sanders and Whitmer and Beshear maybe even Warren. 

Now we have a fight that could fracture a party that is pretty unified in defeating Trump.

If Biden and team decides that he doesn't have enough in him for another four years, he can retire on Jan 20th.  Immediately after Harris is sworn in as VP. 

It seems to me that the concern isn't whether or not Biden can do the job - he has been doing it for 3+ years.

The concern, for me, is if the outward perception of incoherence AT ONE DEBATE is enough to sway the election toward Trump.  There is no question that Trump is primed to destroy the country and its nearly-300-years of history to favor himself.  It is a grave scenario.  So the Democrats need to pull out everything they can to defeat him in the election.  Because the "yeah but he's old" independent voters will sway the other way.

And to Spider's point, Trumps mental decline is well documented but he doesn't have to be mentally sharp when the guy across the aisle speaks with a stutter with no bass in his voice.  The only thing that matters is outward appearance and voter perception.

I believe that the goal of the Biden campaign (and the Democratic Party more broadly) should be to make this proposition explicit.  People like Dave imply that all this is about mental sharpness when it's actually about who is speaking more forcefully, because Trump has been confidently and forcefully saying absolutely nonsense for months.

And when I say "absolute nonsense," I don't mean stuff like injecting disinfectant to cure disease or George Washington invading airports.  Everyone already knows Trump's a moron; that IS actually baked in to the comparison.  I'm specifically talking about Trump forgetting that he's running against Biden instead of Obama, or forgetting that Nikki Haley was the governor of SC and not the speaker of the House, or thinking Kim Jong Un is in charge of China.  Those are things that Trump knows, but forgot because he's old.  And those are the types of things that the Biden campaign should hammer relentlessly until the NY Times and the rest of the quasi-centrist media gives up on this "Biden is senile" angle.

So if you want to vote on who talks tougher then that's a choice, but let's be clear that that's the choice we're discussing, not mental fitness.

You keep saying “grow a spine” but I’m not sure what that means

I don’t think Joe Biden is fit to be president.  What’s that have to do with a spine?

When you say that you "no longer believe Biden can do the job," you aren't saying that based, in any way, on the job he is doing as president.  Because you love the job he's doing as president!

No, you're saying it because, for one 90-minute debate, he looked old and forgetful.  And based on that one debate and literally nothing else - no part whatsoever of his performance in the office of President - you've decided that "we are marching into a slaughter" so Biden must be replaced.

What I'm trying to tell you is that this capitulation and appeasement won't work.  It will, in fact, make things worse in every regard, from the media feeding frenzy on the collapse of the Biden campaign, to the VP newly taking on the entirety of the Oval Office while also trying to run for President.

So maybe instead of wetting our pants over what is literally a bad debate performance, for an office in which bad debaters regularly win, perhaps a bit of intestinal fortitude is warranted.  Even on his best day, Trump is far less mentally fit than Biden... yet his supporters would never consider abandoning the race because Trump shit the bed in one debate (or all of them).

The question before us, Dave, is not whether Biden is the best person to be running the country.  The question is, was, and will remain:

Is Joe Biden a better choice to run the country than Donald Trump?

You might want it to be a different question, but it's not.  And, just like voting for a third-party, attempts to change the question will only make the outcome worse.

I am happy with the things that he and his cabinet of workers have provided from when he was elected to present.  So, on the results, he's been great.  I do not have confidence that he will continue to be great.  Also, this makes me question how directly involved he is in the day to day and it scares me to think of what might happen if he was called to a crisis in the evening.

He is older that he was when he took office and now that same person appears not to be able to string together a sentence.  Time exists.  People age.  Biden can't talk.

Yes, Biden is a better choice to run the country than Trump.

But EVEN BETTER THAN THAT is if Biden quits or dies and we have a person that can run the country better than Trump AND that can talk and form thoughts after 9PM.

It takes a lot to call that simply a bad debate performance.  The man couldn't create sentences. Jesus fucking Christ, man.  I am getting gaslit as if I didn't watch a old person who was sundowning right before our eyes.  On threads, the excuses are insane.  It's the media.  He had a cold.  It's a stutter.  The moderators didn't do enough.  Today, it was because his something to do with his mic.


The. Man. Cannot. Speak.

I am really shocked by all of this.

You're going to support running a candidate that cannot talk or form thoughts in front of 50 million people and then when he loses by 8 points, you're going to blame people like me for not pretending I didn't see it.

Dave, what happens if Biden dies tomorrow?
And, on a somewhat related note, who do you think should replace Biden on the ballot?

If it's the same person, what are we even talking about here?

In 2000 and 2016, I watched certain groups of people on the left scream "Democrats are running a terrible candidate" for months, and then act surprised when others on the left blamed them for successfully convincing voters of their message.

You have agency for your own actions.  You can spend the next four months insisting that Biden is senile while ignoring Trump's daily unhinged statements; that's up to you.  I choose to focus my energy on pointing out that the 34-time felon who committed hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud, tried to overthrow our democracy, and promises to become a dictator if he wins... is also quite forgetful when he's not outright lying.

And just to reinforce the point here: you are not talking about anything of substance.  You have no issue with how he has carried out his job as President, and the only person who can logically replace him if he drops out is the same person who will automatically replace him if he becomes physically unable to continue.  The only reason for Biden to drop out (and resign?) is you think it will help in the polls.  And not only is there no reason to believe that's true, there's plenty of evidence to believe it's false.

The most recent precedent for replacing someone on the presidential ticket this late in the cycle is the 1972 Democratic ticket, a blowout loss.
The most recent precedent for an elderly incumbent president with questions about his declining mental fitness - questions that were later proven to be well-founded! - was the 1984 Republican ticket, a blowout win.

One more thing:

I see this discussion as a difference in election strategy.  An incredibly significant and consequential difference, to be sure, but ultimately a question over what helps win the election.  And I think you're trying to artificially boost the gravity of your position on election strategy by saying stuff like "it scares me to think of what might happen if he was called to a crisis in the evening," while simultaneously conceding that you have absolutely no objection to the manner in which Biden has fulfilled his job duties as president.

This is unnecessary and counterproductive.  You should probably stop trying to "win the argument" by fearmongering about whether the republic is safe with Sleepy Joe at the helm.

I'm not sure what this question is for, short of Socratic method, but I think we both know that Harris becomes president.



I think the easiest choice is Harris, because she already would have access to the funds.  But also, I think she's the choice that would have the least in-fighting, has already been fully vetted, etc.



Your strategy is having the opposite effect on me than you might expect.  I don't like being told how to think.  I thought Biden was too old 4 years ago and I was vocal about it.  Now, that's super apparent, after I watched him put his sundowner's disease on full display, and then somehow I'm called spineless for saying the things that I see with my own eyes.

We have a limited opportunity to win this election by not picking a person who is clearly mentally unfit.  It doesn't mean that I don't respect what he's done or that he wouldn't be better than someone who is also mentally unwell but also actively trying to destroy our democracy.  But I won't pretend it's all well and good.

Biden isn't fit to lead.  Trump is going to lead us in the opposite direction.

If you want to talk about it being bad election strategy, fine.  Make that point and maybe you're right.  But don't try to convince me that I didn't see an old man who couldn't fucking function for 90 minutes and I cringed every time he moved or opened his mouth.  And I'm his base!!!!!  Imagine those who need to be convinced still.

mod edit: fixed broken tag

Dave--Are you really so naive as to think that if Biden was to step aside that Harris would get the nomination at the convention without a floor fight.

I don’t think Biden has dementia but that’s what it looked like at the debate and that’s all that matters is perception.

Fascism doesn’t deal in truth it deals in looking strong and making your opponent look weak and Trump did that.

I think Biden stepping down now is too late and the replacement would likely lose, but Biden is going to lose. I see no way he can salvage this.

It’s h fair because he’s been a great president but this is where we are.

I think that if she were already in office that there would be no momentum for a floor fight.  And that other viable candidates wouldn't want the job, anyway.

But I also don't care.

I just think you lose the moral high-ground to run someone who isn't capable.



I don't want to be like the MAGA crowd.  This is our Jan 6th.  We saw it, so we can't pretend that it was something it wasn't.  I'm not interested in talking myself into thinking that was OK.  I don't have loyalty towards one man.  I don't owe anyone anything and even though I'm happy about the accomplishments, it's clear to me that he isn't all there mentally.  It isn't a sports team that I have to support no matter what.  I can' put the toothpaste back in the tube.

There is an opportunity to make a change, this is the moment to do it, so I think that we should.


If you want to argue that Biden is the best chance to win, I'll listen to you.  But I don't like being told that he is fine and that was just a bad performance.

1. You are living in a fantasy world if you think "the democrats" can just replace Biden, he would need to choose to step aside.

2. I would be surprised if the delegates to the democratic convention would choose Harris.  Harris is a right leaning moderate who is general despised by most progressives.  The delegates are left leaning progressives.  Being a delegate is a reward for being an active volunteer in the democratic party, these folks generally aren't moderates.  And my fear isn't a viable candidate challenging Harris but a non-viable one, and there is a very decent change that if the delegates choose the nominee they might pick AOC.  And then we get Trump. 

Your thinking of demanding perfection from the democratic candidate plays right into the hands of the Republicans and is the exact dynamic that lost the dems in both 2000 and 2016

And make no mistake about it you are demanding perfection,  Biden has always had a stuttering problem and has been a gaffe machine, he had ONE bad debate,  If ONE bad debate disqualifies you are demanding absolute perfection. 

I am aware of the logistics.  I am in the camp that he should step aside.  Those in power (and those not) can apply pressure.  I'm afraid we are drawing dead.  We were behind and needed to gain voters.  We did the opposite.  There is an opportunity now, but it won't last for long.

There's a reason that you aren't hearing anything from those on the right.  They don't want Biden to step aside because they know he's so much easier to beat.


I don't think this is reasonable.  If Harris is the party choice, I think she'll have the support.  But even if they picked AOC at the convention, AOC isn't doing that.  You'd have to have a candidate willing to run.  And if we do that, we lose.  It will take a series of good decisions.  But sticking with the person you believe cannot win is the first bad decision.  It's just not a winning strategy.


I think you're in denial.  I am not asking for perfection.  This isn't stuttering.  Did you watch the debate?  I refuse to be gaslit.  He had a stutter 4 years ago.  This is inability to communicate and I think it's much worse.  He reminds me of my Dad.  He had good days and bad days, but you needed to catch him at his best in the morning.

Look, man....we are on the same side of this, but I think we've been lied to.  They've been covering him up.  There's a reason why the administration hasn't been able to tout their accomplishments, because they don't trust their messenger.  They've been hiding Biden for a long time.  Who knows how long this has been going on?  It's right in front of your face.  We saw him act a doddering old fool and I'm just not going to make excuses for that.

His debate performance didn't cost him any votes  But the continued questioning of his fitness by DEMOCRATS will almost certainly cost him the election.   . 

I hope you're right.  I will personally do the best if Biden wins --- I have a pretty good amount of money on him, in addition to us not devolving into a fascist hellhole.

I am afraid you're already fit to blame his loss by those of us who voted for him, but refused to lie on his behalf.

If he's going to lose because I'm calling him out on his lack of fitness, maybe I'm not the problem; maybe it's his lack of fitness.

From NY Times:

"Mr. Trump now leads Mr. Biden 49 percent to 43 percent among likely voters nationally, a three-point swing toward the Republican from just a week earlier, before the debate. It is the largest lead Mr. Trump has recorded in a Times/Siena poll since 2015. Mr. Trump leads by even more among registered voters, 49 percent to 41 percent."

And how many of that 3 point swing consisted of people who watched the debate and changed their support because of the actual debate and how many heard that democrats were considering replacing Biden?

I don't know; what's the difference?

I would imagine that a lot of people saw that debate and thought that they couldn't vote for a person who was unable to form thoughts, but that's just me... 

Maybe the polls are wrong.  Maybe it's the mainstream media.  Maybe it's bad microphones.  Maybe Joe had a cold.  Maybe Trump was talking with his mic off and it was distracting.  Maybe Joe's stutter was acting up.  Maybe it was a bad night.  Maybe he took the bait.  Maybe it's the other Dems in the party.   Or maybe, just maybe the Emperor has no clothes.

Maybe this is generational.  I am getting a ton of pushback from (presumably) younger people than me online.  But in my day to day life, the conversations I've had with my similarly aged friends, family, and coworkers have been pretty much the same.

To your point, none of them have told me that they're not voting or that they're switching to Trump.  But they all think that Biden is cooked.

The difference is huge,  Almost zero undecided voters watch a presidential debate in JUNE,  The audience was almost entirely committed supporters of one or the other. 

But what the undecided voters saw was democrats saying Biden needs to be replaced, when what they should have been seeing from their democratic friends is all the lies Trump spewed

Yeah the “window” of him being the best is worrisome and dementia patients often get worse at night and whether he does or he doesn’t have dementia that awful debate looked like he did.

It was sad to watch and I had to start heavy drinking to squash the panic attack I was having when I realized what was unfolding.

I think it’s possible he may have had a stroke sometime in the last 4 years and that’s been covered up.

I don’t know. I never thought he had dementia before the debate, I thought all the chatter was just republican lies and chatter. All I saw was an older man who was never a great speaker or very charismatic that’s why he lost every other time he ran for president.

But quite often during that debate he looked like either a dementia patient or a stroke victim and there i don’t see any way he can win at this point, unless the old dog has the pee tape or the slur tape and is waiting to leak them.


I wish Biden would have pledged one term to begin with, we would have had a healthy primary and a nominee who would beat Trump in a landslide, instead we are on the verge of handing the country over to a vengeful petty little wanna be dictator who himself is likely suffering dementia or syphilis madness who is backed by handmaid tales style theocrats

OK, fine.  I won't tell you how to think.  In fact, I'll let you tell me how to think:

OK, so four years ago, you were convinced Biden was too old to do the job, but Democratic primary voters ignored you (and those who agreed with you) by nominating Biden, who won.  And your job evaluation of Biden's performance?

"I have been happy with the Biden presidency.  Very much so, in fact."
"I'm happy with many parts of his administration and am very happy with the accomplishments [...]"
"I am happy with the things that he and his cabinet of workers have provided from when he was elected to present.  So, on the results, he's been great."

This means one of two things:

a) Four years ago when you vocally insisted that Biden was too old to do the job, you were wrong and Biden has competently executed his charge
b) Four years ago when you vocally insisted that Biden was too old to do the job, you were right, but the team he put around himself has been covering (quite effectively!) for him

If the former, your ability to evaluate Biden's age as it relates to his job competency has been proven to be poor.
If the latter, Biden's mental state is irrelevant, as he did a great job in spite of your accurate assessment.

Let us stipulate that you have accurately assessed Biden's lack of mental fitness, and that he is incapable of functioning at the level a normal adult.  If this has been the case for some time, and you have been "very happy" with the outcome, then why are you calling this "our Jan 6th"?  It's the status quo, which you wildly approve of!

Is your argument here that Biden has been of sound mind for the last 40 months and just now fell to pieces at the debate?  If not, then why isn't the same political/government apparatus that has been propping up Biden for some indeterminate time worth voting for?  Your own evaluation of the performance of Biden's team is that they are doing a great job.  So why shouldn't you - why aren't you - convincing people to vote for it, instead of desperately trying to convince people that it's not worth voting for?

Dave, I'm granting you all of your Biden premises.  Even if every assessment of Biden you have is true and accurate, there is a very straightforward argument to make for re-electing the same administration that YOU BELIEVE has been very successful.  You choose not to take that approach.  I don't know whether you're trying to get some sort of "I told you so" moment from four years ago, or what... but it is counterproductive to the goals you profess.

In July of 1988 (https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2020/08/a-look-at-1988-shows-just-how-much-presidential-polls-can-shift/), a Gallup poll showed Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis leading George H.W. Bush (then the incumbent vice president) by 17 percentage points.

As you recall, Bush ended up not only winning the election but in a relative landslide (by 8 percentage points in the national popular vote and carrying 41 states).

It's July.  Polls change.

And not for nothing, but on this same date in 2016 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/), Hillary led Trump by five-and-a-half points, with that lead growing to seven-and-a-half points by August.  Of course, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans understand winning elections is more important than being able to say "I told you so" after the candidate you didn't want loses.

Two things:
1) Curious to Dave's response - If Joe Biden gets up in another debate and speaks with authority, makes clear points, and debates like he did 20 years ago in the Senate, would that change your mind?
(FWIW, I only remember one specific instance of him not being able to finish his thought while searching for words.  Aside from that instance, the outward perception of the "soft voice" was what got me.  Which, if he had a cold, is a plausible condition.)

2) The more publicity Project 2025 gets, the worse it looks for Trump.  In fact, Trump realizes this, as he is trying to distance himself from the whole notion.  But we all know that he only sees that as bad for him electorally, but once in office, his tune wil change.
 

This is a fair question, and that's kinda my whole point.  The answer is "no".  This isn't fixable.  Maybe it's my relationship with my Dad, but I saw what it was like to have him slip and have spaced out moments.  It doesn't mean that some other moment days later wouldn't be great.  You have good moments and bad moments.

Look, I'm not a doctor, but what I saw wasn't a bad performance.  It was like some kind of medical episode.  Once that happened, my opinion of the situation has changed.  I think that it's best that he step aside.


To Spider,

I think more than one thing can be true at a time.  I thought Biden was too old 4 years ago.  I stand by that.  I still think he is too old and I still think he was too old.  He was the best option in front of me, so it's the one I supported, but I still don't think he's as good as he should be.

I also think it's fair to change your thinking when you get new information.  All this time, the opposition has been telling us that Joe is a puppet and he's out to lunch.  I dismissed it.  But after that episode on TV, I think there may be something to that.  Maybe he has a good staff and it's Weekend At Biden's in the White House.  I just don't know.

Also, we haven't had a big crisis -- what if that terrible call comes in the middle of the night and he's doing whatever he was doing during that debate?

Being a president is about leadership, not just in the laws you help enact, but in how you carry yourself, represent your country, instill confidence, tout your accomplishments, and bring others to your cause.  Yes, I'm happy with the stuff they've gotten done, but not in the other stuff.

I'm going to try to make this simple.  You don't have to believe these things, but understand that I do and you can't browbeat me out of my feelings with a point-by-point rebuttal.

1) I now am confident that Joe Biden is not mentally cogent at all hours of the day.
2) I feel that having a president that is not mentally cogent is not acceptable.


None of this means that Trump is better.  But we have an opportunity now to not be like them.  I am not going to be Blue MAGA.  We can force a change of our candidate when we see something wrong with him, when they refused to do so.    Or at least we can call a spade a spade.  I also have a separate belief that doing so gives us a better chance to win the general election.

What is the definition of a "big crisis" in this context?  Biden took office during the biggest crisis in 75 years, and handled it admirably.  Since then, we have dealt with the aftermath of an attempted government coup, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the unprecedented Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, and Israel's genocidal response in Gaza.

I ask you again because you didn't answer: do you believe that Biden has been of sound mind for the last 40 months and just now fell to pieces at the debate?

One more thing [re: can a better debate fix this?]:

Can a medical evaluation by a certified professional convince you otherwise, or is this literally about that one debate and nothing else?

"I know better than medical professionals based on my common sense" would sound like a version of MAGA to me.

I don't know...invasion or something like that???  The old "who do you want answering the phone" question from the 1980s.  I don't want him answering the phone.


I don't know.  My guess is that he's probably been slipping for a while but has been kept away from the public at his most vulnerable times.  Maybe he did fall to pieces at the debate and that was the worst of it.  Whatever the case, what I saw was not acceptable from what I expect from leadership.


Sure, a medical evaluation would make me feel better, I guess.  But probably not all the way better.  Even if he was tip-top (which I don't believe he is), I think that 82 years old is too old to take on a new term.  Whatever was going on at that debate with him -- I don't want the President of the US having that happen to them.  Whether that was senility or a stroke or he got distracted by the lights....whatever it was, wasn't good.  For me, my confidence in him is no longer there.  I don't believe I trust the sources that would try to convince me otherwise, because it appears that they may have been complicit in hiding it from me in the first place.

If you've made up your mind and can't be convinced otherwise no matter what, it is what it is.  I'd hope that you would refrain from trying to convince people to stay home instead of voting for Biden, but I realize "I told you so" is a powerful motivator.

I would like you to consider that 8 years ago, people saw this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wWZIFZraw) and decided that Hillary clearly had Parkinson's and was medically unfit to be President.

I disagree with you about Biden's mental state, but even if I agreed with you, I believe that the administration he has in place has proven competent and effective in the most challenging term since I was born.  To reject and discard (what we both agree has been) a proven-effective administration based solely on bad vibes from a debate is a take I cannot get on board with.

Bernie Sanders suffered a heart attack while on the campaign trail in 2019, and you've never expressed as pessimistic of a view about his health as you currently are about Biden; if Biden had suffered a heart attack on stage, I think you would be calling for his resignation right now.  Like much of the media, I think you are using this event as a sort of vindication of your previous "Biden is too old" takes.

There's one more thing I need to address here.  When it comes to the "safety of the republic" argument (as opposed to the "best chance to win the election" argument):


I'm not sure what you believe the stakes of this election are; in my opinion, given Project 2025 and the associated plans, the stakes are democracy itself.

You say that you don't want to be like the other side and vote for somebody that you don't believe is fit for the job.  And guess what?  That's why they won and we lost in 2016.  If you would prefer to slide into fascism rather than "violate your principles," consider that after fascism arrives, your principles won't mean dick.

And, most importantly: no one is asking you to support a ticket that has governed in a way you oppose.  You aren't being asked to support children being stolen from their parents, or an attempted government coup, because you want tax cuts or whatever.  You are being asked to support a candidate who you suspect (but, notably, don't know, because you are not professionally qualified to make such an assessment) may be mentally impaired.

Whether you would rather have fascism than "become Blue MAGA" is ultimately up to you.

Just because people want Biden to drop out because he is unfit, doesn't mean Trump is automatically going to win the Presidency.  The Democratic nominee would be chosen at the National Convention.  And at this point I'd bet whoever that is would beat Trump more easily than Biden would.

In practice, it's no different than people screaming "Hillary is a neocon" because they want Bernie to replace her.

People like Dave made the argument that Biden was too old back in 2020.  The voters rejected it.  And now, since they can't convince Democratic primary voters to reject Biden, they're trying to do an end-around and replace him via the heckler's veto.

Unlike the media figures who have been desperately and unsuccessfully trying to push this "Biden is old" narrative for the past year, I don't think that Dave is doing this out of pure vindictiveness at being scorned (either by the candidate or the voters).  I think he does actually believe it... just like he believed it in 2020.  But in practice, he's simply enabling those who are cynically pushing this narrative... just like those who insisted they could never vote for a lesser evil because it violates their principles in 2016.

Voting for a second term of the current administration is not just like MAGA devotion to Trump.  That is an artificial and false comparison, made by those who need to inflate the "danger" to justify their opposition to Biden.

Here is an hour-plus-long interview with Biden and Howard Stern from all the way back in May of this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz45sMb4js8

The idea that we must ONLY consider the worst Biden appearance (among multiple appearances THIS YEAR) as fully representative of his mental fitness is absurd.  It's no different than seeing Hillary stumble into a car once in 2016 and declaring that she is irredeemably medically unfit to serve.

People are choosing which narrative they want to believe.

I don't think this is fair to me.  I am not suggesting anyone stay home.  I certainly wouldn't suggest it.  If Biden is the nominee, I'll do everything in my power short of lying about things, to make sure he's elected.  Also, in terms of "I told you so", that's again not fair.  We are both making a guess about what we think is better for the state of the race.  It's like you're giving yourself an out at my expense.


I can't speak for "people".  I never thought Hillary had Parkinsons and I think that was probably not an argument made in good faith.


I am not asking you to get on board.  If you think that Biden is tip-top, do you.  But I definitely do not.  I think that there are a lot of people who interpret whatever that "performance" was as some kind of mental issue and it's potentially going to cost us a winnable election.


Sanders is also too old.  All of these people are too old.
If Sanders had a heart attack on stage, I never knew about it.

Also, it's not just health.  It's mental acuity.  If I thought Sanders was showing signs of dementia, I would say the same of him.

It's not like I have some kind of outlandish take.

It's pretty basic:  I think Biden is demented and I want to change the bus before the wheels fall off.  I think that Kamala is a more obvious choice than some of you, apparently.  And I think her chance of winning a general is much higher, since she is mentally fit.

Looks like Biden has something in common with Obama:

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad479be3dbed2f53f1267bd21d6802f6f5248d607251e1a1378225701a1f39d2.jpg?w=800&h=689)

Note that this was on NPR via a Washington Post writer.

On a related note, did you guys hear (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/us/politics/parkinsons-expert-white-house.html) that a Parkinson's expert has visited the White House eight times in the last eight months?  More conclusive evidence that Biden is already incapacitated.

...or it could be because the Biden Administration had been working on a Parkinson's bill that he just signed into law (https://www.parkinson.org/blog/awareness/national-plan).

There may be honest, sincere people who had valid concerns about information security in 2016 and were troubled by Hillary's decision to maintain her own private e-mail server.  These people were later misled by cynically excessive coverage of Hillary's e-mails by a media looking for clicks and eyeballs; a media that dropped the issue the day after the election and never once considered best practices in information security a concern during the following four years.

I read that there have been over two hundred stories about Biden's mental acuity over the last week.  I am forced to wonder how many stories were devoted to Trump being found liable for sexual assault, or being fined hundreds of millions of dollars after being found guilty of fraud, or even all the insane things he says every time he gets in front of a mic.

We are in the But Her Emails cycle once again.

Let’s take your worst case example:

It is 3 am and Jeff Zients wakes up Biden and tells him, “China has launched a full scale invasion of Taiwan, General Brown wants to know how you wish to respond”.

Biden responds, “Covfefe, I like Covfefe“.  What happens next?  Very simple: Zients says to Gen. Brown, “the President authorizes you to use your best judgment”

What would be the ideal response? Biden saying, “What is Brown’s recommendation? �

That scenario basically already happened with Ukraine and Biden did fine, so I have to guess that's not what Dave means by "a crisis." I guess it means WW3?

Not quite.  With Ukraine Biden asked the experts for their opinion, understood it  and made the decision to follow it.  In the worst case scenario Biden is unable to comprehend the experts advice and their advice is followed without any real involvement from Biden.

My point is that because Biden delegates to experts (as opposed to Trump who knows more about waging war than generals, more about diplomacy than the state department, more about health issues than doctors, etc.) His involvement is really not that important. 

But the entire premise of this discussion is that we don't know this.

Unless the argument is that Biden suddenly went senile right before the debate, then he's been incapacitated for some unknown period of time, potentially including the invasion of Ukraine, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the appearance at the union picket line, etc.  The premise is that Biden is, was, and continues to be propped up by his handlers who are hiding his mental unfitness from us, and if we accept that premise as true, anything "he" has done could have been implemented by Biden's shadow government.

He's an empty suit just reading off of teleprompters, which sounds strangely familiar...

It isnt a dichotomy of Biden either being perfectly fine or being completely incompetent.  There are signs of decline.  Once the decline begins it gets worse sometimes rapidly. 
president on
It is foolish to tp pretend that there aren’t signs of decline. Rather it shouldn’t be put in context:

1.  Both men are showing signs of decline. But the guy who thought Obama was president on 9-11, thinks George Washington ceased the airports, and routinely gets lost mid sentence is given a pass unlike Biden

2. The guardrails exist in a Bden administration that the country could survive Biden going senile as he is surrounded by experts who will make sure the right steps are taken.  Trump is surrounded by loyalists and nepotism.  Trumps erratic decisions are never put in check.

At this point the only thing that matters to democrats is making sure the country doesn't devolve into a fascist dictatorship, wherein we have a leader who's only interest is to keep himself from being tried and potentially convicted of an additional 60-or-so felonies.

If Biden is the vehicle to saving the country from the opposition, then fine.  If Biden gets a second term and steps aside within the first 20 days of his second term, also fine.  The question is really - who has a better chance of accumulating the votes needed to win?

Joe Biden has made about 18 public appearances since the debate and has not had another public episode like we saw that night.

I want to say one last thing, but then I'm going to step away from this conversation.  I don't want to be accused of costing the eventual candidate, so I'm not going to sour grapes my way into being or encouraging others to be a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass, of old).

Also, in the last 48 hours on Threads, I've seen a sea-change of support towards Biden from the big liberal social media presences with which I'm familiar.  I've been called "someone who has never met a stutterer", "someone who doesn't have experience with sundowning", a Nazi, a White Supremacist, "someone who hates Democracy", a bot, "must be a millennial", spineless, among other, more traditional name-calling.

So, I think this is set, unless things behind closed doors change.

I also think that the online discourse is now filled with bad-actors, both pro and anti-Biden-stepping-down.  I see some takes so bad that I can only assume that they're being levied to weaken the position that they're trying to support.  And people are dug in.  And frankly, I'm just exhausted.

I will leave you with this:

* I believe that Joe Biden is in a state of mental decline.  I am probably an ageist and I also probably have this hit close to home because I saw this same song and dance with my Dad.  This was something I thought was possible before, but was solidified with whatever happened at the debate.  I have not felt better seeing him since -- the Stephanopolous interview was still hard to listen to and his answers are not only scary, but they are also nonsense politically.  He isn't doing a good job advocating for himself.  Admittedly, I'm not sure even if he seemed coherent (which he doesn't) that I would change my opinion.  I also recognize and have been very outspoken about our geriocracy and Biden is the culmination of that bad trend, but it stretches to so many other politicians.  I just don't believe that we should have politicians working well into their twilight years.  He's not just too old.  He's 15 years too old.

* Given that I think that he is in a state of mental decline, I can either choose to care about that or ignore it.  But I care about that.  I don't want to be the blue version of the cult that I accuse MAGAs of being.  Truth matters to me, or at least I think it should.  I found myself having to explain why I thought it was dangerous to have a senile person in office and then I realized that we're just not on the same page if I'm trying to be talked into that being acceptable.

* I know that polls aren't everything.  I know that sometimes the panic exacerbates the story.  But I know what I'm feeling.  And I have checked in with several friends of mine in varying demographics and every single one of them is thinking what I'm thinking.  These are people I don't talk to regularly, but I reached out to get perspective.  Maybe it's because they're more my age or that my views are partially defined by the similar nature of our backgrounds...who knows?  But polling suggests that this is a major problem and it's also what I'm seeing, though anecdotally.  Therefore, I think that politically, a switch gives us the best chance to win.  However, after seeing the response from the rapid Biden-supporters, now I'm not so sure.  I think we may be damned if we do, damned if we don't.  In a strange twist, some part of this has shifted the narrative to Trump's craziness.  I've heard more about Project 2025 and seen less about Gaza complaining since this fallout.  Maybe, in some weird way, this is energizing his base.

* And the last thing, though I've said it before, I'll say it again.  I will gladly vote for Joe Biden if that's the name on my ballot and I will encourage anyone I know to do the same.

anyone watch the press conference last night ?

One commenter I like said that *if* Biden steps aside it should be *after* Trump names his VP

If you watch the NATO press conference, Biden is talking quite capably, in detail, about US strategy in foreign policy... but no one cares because he said "Vice President Trump," or because he mixed up Zelenskyy and Putin's names once.  (Never mind that Trump has repeatedly referred to Biden as "Obama.")

This ongoing "scandal" is the media with its teeth set on a bone.  In 2016, when the president of CBS, Les Moonves, said, "Trump may not be good for America, but he's good for CBS," it was emblematic of the problem we still see today: our media no longer understands how to do anything but chase for more clicks and eyeballs, and the continuance of this "Biden must withdraw" coverage gets more views than covering, say, Republicans' intent to implement fetal personhood.

I didn't see his NATO address, but I did see his address regarding the shooting of Trump, I also recall how Trump responded to the attack on Paul Pelosi.  One was Presidential, one was the ramblings of a deranged old man. 

It’s all over now

Yep. The Murdoch media is in overload covering Biden gaffs as an old Mitch McConnell Dementia effected old man... and Trump's miracle assassination attempt. It's all over.

The Rowe court case appeal was too long ago... as was the stacked Supreme Court and everything else. There are guys here who will maintain the rage... but in the real numbers who actually go out there and show up to vote when it counts? Where it counts in the rust belt states... If you assholes really want to brag to be the best democracy in the world, you are going to have to actually get off your asses to do it. I can't see it happening. Which is bad news for the rest of us assholes.

I just wanted to step in here after everyone had their say and point out that my question was really about whether you would vote for Harris or really any woman as President. I believe that there's a pretty strong contingent of voters that won't vote for a woman president at this time. That's just my opinion. I realize now that I worded my original question poorly, so I didn't bother to stop the discussion.

Yep, there are total idiots among voters...nothing new.

While I won't deny sexism exists,  I don't believe that it is more prevalent than racism.   In the early 2000s I was discussing with friends  which would happen first: a black president or a female president.  We all agreed that we would likely see a female president relatively soon but that we were decades away from a non-white president.  Obviously we were wrong.  But I still stand by the idea that the prejudice against blacks is greater than the prejudice against women.  And we did elect an AA.

Hillary wasn't a good candidate.  Obama was an outstanding candidate.  I could see Katie Porter as president. 

Yes.  I've voted for a woman before.  I will vote for Harris.  I will vote for women in the future.

In this election, I will vote for the candidate in direct opposition to Donald Trump, man or woman, alive or dead.

ding-ding-ding...we have a winner (I sure hope so anyway).

I think y'all are crazy if you don't run a Harris-Obama ticket.

Harris is the clear front-runner here when Biden steps down. Newsom has plasticface and so does Whitmer and their states are either covered poorly (CA) or not really cared about (MI). Can't run Hillary again - too old and lacks energy, plus all the in-built oppo from 2016.

That said, I don't think Kamala has any appeal to most of your base, (she couldn't even come close to winning the 2020 primary despite a lot of unwarrantedly positive coverage) and she gives off crazy ex-wife vibes. I'm sorry - she does, and a lot of independents see it.

So you have to shore her up with someone who is charismatic - Obama is the guy. There's nothing AFAIA stopping him from being nominated as the vice president except that it looks like a cheap ploy. Your side will eat it up tho, and some of the more ignorant independents will go along with it.

Michigan is one of the most important states.  There are essentially 7 states that matter.  It's one of them.

You cannot elect a Vice President who is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, which is the case for Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton, and Dubya).

Not to mention that he'd never do it, anyway.  That's West Wing thinking.

If it goes down, Harris is the smoothest choice.  It's not my personal favorite option, but it has the least procedural baggage.  If Biden doesn't endorse and it's an open convention, I would personally be most excited about Whitmer, but I realize that there are risks with making the switch.

This attitude got Bush 2 elected in 2000 (WV flipped) and Trump in 2016 (she didn't care about middle america much).

I think it's still an open question and would go to SCOTUS and God knows what they'd decide.

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/1012/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20relevant%20constitutional,that%20office%20to%20the%20Presidency

If Obama's charisma is the key to winning the white house and it would be legal for him to be VEEP.  Than rather than Biden stepping aside he should replace Harris with Obama and leak his intention to resign on Jan 21, 2025.

And that is why it is almost certainly unconstitutional for Obama to be the VP. 

What might not be a bad idea is to give Obama a white house job as a senior advisor to the President. 

To say that it's legal for a termed-out president to run as VP is to sidestep the 22nd Amendment altogether, as you could perpetually just run as "VP" and have your "President" resign immediately after inauguration.

What I'm saying is that we should expect the Supreme Court to rule that Trump can run as VP in 2028 if he wins in 2024.

Rupert Murdoch must be lying there in his Vampire's Crypt laughing his head off...

There's on old saying in Australian politics: disunity is death (maybe it's worldwide, but it's been particularly poignant in this country)

Murdoch has sown the seeds of doubt, it's spread right across the mainstream media, and the Democrats are in a total mess right before the election. Up until the first debate, they didn't think they had anyone good enough to replace Biden to contest against Trump - or maybe they thought they could just coast it in on the back of his court cases?

Donations are reportedly drying up for the Democrats campaign, which spells real trouble. If someone does step in for Biden, it could potentially be a poisoned chalice.

Well, Dave, you got your wish... now it's time for 3 months of "When will Biden resign?" and "How long did Kamala Harris and the Democrats conspire to hide Biden's senility?" coverage.

The sickly hilarious part will be if the Democratic nominee is down 7 points on Labor Day (while Biden's polling has recovered, because he's not running) and the backstabbers start asking if there's a way to put Biden back on the ticket.

Overall, this has been a clinic on the media's ability to simply discard a primary winner by simply drowning them in negative press; a useful blueprint for the future.  Next January, ask yourself why you didn't see this kind of coverage when Trump won the GOP primaries in 2016, and you'll have an idea of why things are the way they are.

No, it is time to get out the message that the DNC is capable to recognize and fix problems.  Something the RNC has failed to do multiple times starting with "grab them by the pussy" to coffevve to Jam 6, to separating children from their parents to suggesting drinking bleach for covid to using a sharpie to alter a hurricane.   

Is your argument that unwavering Republican support for their candidate is a... mistake?
Does it feel like a "mistake" right now?  Do you expect Republicans to be punished for this "mistake," or rewarded (again)?

So is your intent to undermine democratic candidate because you didn't think Biden should step aside and if Trump wins you get to say "I told you so"?

I am saying that the message should be that there are adults in the room at the DNC but not the RNC.   

I will have little patience for lectures on loyalty from the backstabbers who just successfully overturned the primary results.
If the Democratic nominee is down 5 points on Labor Day, while these same cowards will likely be frantically thrashing about trying to figure out if we can Do Something about the ticket, I will continue to work to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated on Election Day, just as I did in 2020 and 2016.

That message is at odds with the claim that winning is important (or, for that matter, that democracy is important).
Just ask the Republican Party.

It seems like you're projecting with the "I told you so", Spider.  You accused me of wanting to do exactly what it looks like you want to do, which is to come at this with sour grapes.

This isn't a game to me.  I didn't think that Biden was capable of running the country for 4 1/2 more years.  And I thought he was gonna get his ass-whooped because of it.  So I spoke out and asked for him to step down.

Now, we may still lose, but I personally am invigorated and at least I think there's a possible path to victory now.

Also, it isn't backstabbing.  People used their free speech to ask him to walk away.  He polled so poorly, reflective of his own supporters wishes, and he did.  We didn't overturn a vote.  He chose to leave because the writing was on the wall.

Biden is a fucking American hero for what he did.  I'm glad I don't have to watch him get stomped and his legacy tarnished.

I didn’t want Biden to step aside.  And they weren’t backstabbers who overturned the primary.  They were people who convinced Biden that it would be in the best interest of the country for him to step aside.  Either Biden being of sound mind agreed.  In which case it was his decision to make and I accept it.  OR he is a feeble old man who was easily manipulated.  If it was the latter than probably a good idea anyhow.

 

Biden did the right thing. It sucks because he is a great president, but elections are about optics. The public is stupid and doesn’t understand policy, they only can understand optics.

Harris may not win but Biden was not going too. That’s a fact. We have a shot now and we can make history. We can save this country try electorally and I will do all I can for VP Harris.

Dave, I know you want to make this into a "You said [x] when you thought you were going to win, so now that I've won, I'm going to say [x] now" thing.  But here's the thing: you and I are not the same.  For example, I didn't threaten to stay home if Bloomberg won the 2020 primary (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=26079.msg366148#msg366148), nor did I threaten to quit the party if Bernie won the most delegates but was not made the nominee (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=26079.msg366094#msg366094) (the absolute irony of the content in the latter linked post is simply amazing today).

See, I'm not one of these "Democrats" who believes that if I don't get what I want, I'm taking my ball and going home.  I understand what's at stake; I vote blue, no matter who.  And I'm absolutely not going to be lectured about "loyalty" from people who have no problem whatsoever discarding the primary results if they think the primary winner doesn't have the best shot in the general... especially when many of these same people were throwing fits about the mere possibility of this happening to Bernie.

There is no reason to believe your support for the eventual Democratic nominee will be any more durable than your "support" for Biden; it may crumble based on the next debate, or any point between now and November.  You are a weathervane, swinging with the polls.  Ultimately, your support cannot be trusted, and should be considered transitive and transactional from this point forward. (edit: unproductive comment; the situation is what it is)

Yes, y'all used your constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech to backstab the primary winner, attacking and undermining him until he felt the assault from his own "allies" was not survivable.

This is the precedent that has been set: if the media and the donors decide that a candidate must go, and their efforts successfully drive down his poll numbers, even an overwhelming primary victory shall be cast aside as his allies abandon him.  The democratic process of selecting a nominee is now optional, subject to a veto from the media if they so choose.

This entire episode has made one thing crystal clear: the media is absolutely willing and able to laser-focus wall-to-wall negative coverage on a candidate until he is forced to withdraw.  The reason why they didn't do it to Trump in 2016, or 2020, or right now is quite simple:

They don't want to.

To be fair, this is the assumption any and all politicians should work under. That's the only possible way a representative democracy can run. If they aren't representing you, then damn right your support should be considered transitive and transactional.

Voters don't owe a single thing to those they elect, in fact it's the opposite.


This is the predictable outcome of late stage capitalism, media consolidation and unlimited campaign contributions. Money talks.

If you want to fix this, support those who want to change this status quo. Vote for those who want public election funding, ranked choice voting and those that want to do away with corporate personhood.

Spider, you're right -- we are not the same.

I don't have any loyalty to the Democratic party.  I never have and I don't know why you have that impression.  I don't owe anything to any politician and if they started doing things that I thought were bad, I'd drop them in a heartbeat.  That isn't the insult that you think it is.  In fact, often I dislike the Democratic party and have only voted for it because it's the closest of the options.

In my life, I'm not "blue no matter who".  I have only voted for Dems state and federally, but I've voted away from the party in local elections, usually for someone more progressive or without scandal or something.

You can cherry pick a comment about Michael Bloomberg that I said in frustration 4 years ago AFTER HE WAS OUT AND IT WAS A TOTAL HYPOTHETICAL (I never threatened anything), but ultimately I have told you that I'm sure I would've voted for Bloomberg anyway, but yes -- it would have pissed me off and I'd had to have held my nose.  ...and who knows...I'm not in a contested state, so maybe I would have sat out.

Edit: Since Jan 6th, I do think that I have to vote for any Democrat at any level from President to dog catcher no matter how much I dislike them.  I hope that won't always be the case.

But for Bernie, yes -- that's true.  I would've still voted for Hillary in that scenario (where she lost the vote, but were awarded the delegates anyway), but I would have changed my registered party affiliation.  

You and I may want to end up in similar places, but our strategies to get there might not be the same.  I am such a proponent of ranked choice voting and this is partially why.  I want to be able to expand past the Democratic party.  In terms of backstabbing, I don't even know what you mean.  Who's back did I stab?  I never had Joe's back in the first place to stab.  I would turn on any politician in a heartbeat if I thought they weren't the best option anymore.

You know Spider maybe you're just wrong.

It's not just Republicans that have noticed the decline in Biden, a lot of people on both sides have seen it. Now, it's overblown on the Republican side that's for certain, but honestly I think this was the best thing to have happened. The Democratic party needed to find someone for the future and Biden isn't it. If the Democratic party can't nominate someone that would actually make a decent candidate than that's on the party. I'm hopeful that the Democratic party can figure out a way to actually put a decent candidate on the ballot that will easily defeat Trump. If it doesn't happen well at least there was the attempt.

This is what is supposed to happen. It should have happened on the Republican side a LONG time ago. This is what's wrong with the Republican party. Sticking way too long with someone who's popular with the voters but has zero business being the President. They ALL KNOW IT, but they're too damn scared to admit it. Is that what you want from the Democratic party too? This is why the Democratic party is better off, because they're actually able to look at themselves in the mirror and say "is this really the right thing to do"? This is a great example of Biden and the party putting the needs of the people over the needs of the party. I think your heart is in the right place but you're actually not looking at this logically. It needed to happen. Maybe it will be for the best and maybe it won't, but it needed to happen.

Let's also be honest about calling Biden the primary winner. He was the default because his decline was being covered up. It was visible to anyone who looked but the exact extent was undoubtedly covered up. Had there been transparency I think you would have seen this same reaction sooner and there would have been an actual primary.

you know, i didn't really follow the democratic primary debates, how did Biden do in those debates with the other democratic challengers ?

Let's make no mistake, it wasn't just Biden's name on the ballot in the primaries either, Harris was the presumptive VP as well. If she becomes the Democratic nominee then in essence the winner of the primaries is still on the ballot albeit as the President instead of the vice President. While that may not mean much, I still think it means something.

And lets be honest the election in November is as much about voting against Trump as it is voting for either Biden or someone else. I too have my doubts that Harris can win the election but that's mostly because of her gender which was my whole reason for bringing up this thread, but actually the comments in this thread has made me feel better about her. I honestly think she *might* be a better President than Biden was. I know she'll be a better President than Trump was. I personally think it would be a mistake for her not to be the nominee, but that's just me. I'll admit that I'm not really all that political.

That varies state by state and I am willing to bet that in most states it wasn't.

The veep name is not normally on primary ballots because typically the VP is not announced until the nominee is secured.  It is also not uncommon for the VP candidate to be a candidate who dropped out. 

Yeah, I thought twice about that and changed it after I posted. Thanks for pointing it out tho. In this case though a vote for Biden as President was assumed to be a vote for Harris as VP as well, that's probably a better way to say it.

"Decline"?  "Cover up"?

The "Biden is old" story has been continuous since 2020, back when people were making silver alert (http://-http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=26079.msg366126#msg366126) jokes here.  Yet he still won that election and managed to govern quite effectively.

It's also somewhat disingenuous for people to say "The primary doesn't really count" after the fact, when during the primary lots of people were insisting that 12% of Michigan Democrats voting for Uncommitted meant Gaza was an election-losing policy for Biden.

The problem with platitudes like this is that voting for your favorite person in the general election - say, the Green Party candidate that promises ranked choice voting, public election funding, and a pony - helps elect Republicans, who appoint judges that make all of those things less possible.

I feel like we have a fundamental disagreement on how one wins elections in a democratic republic.

That's not what this is.

All of the Biden backstabbers have no concern with how he has been able to perform his job (which is not the same thing as agreeing with all of his decisions).  This is purely, 1000% a "We think the voters won't like this" decision; if Biden were up 5 right now, none of this would have happened.

And that's my problem with how Democrats have handled this.  The lesson that should be learned from Republicans is not to run racist criminal sexual predators for office; it's that a unified front allows you to bulldoze your way past concerns about voter perception that don't REALLY matter.  "Voter perception" is not policy.  If you are fine with how Biden is running the country, you shouldn't let yourself be bullied into "But what do voters think?" navel-gazing by a cynical media that only wants to drive clicks.  And once you have surrendered to this tactic and confirmed its viability, like any bully, this won't end it; it'll make it worse.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this One Weird Trick will finally make the media actually start covering Donald Trump like a guy who is promising to be a dictator "on day 1," and not simply replace Biden with Harris in the manufactured scandal of the day.

It's not the election we're talking about, it's who are the nominee's that we're talking about and yeah you're probably right about that.

I can't speak for anyone else but I couldn't care less what the polls say. All I know is that I watched the debate with my wife and our reactions were the same; that neither of these guys should be President of the US. She was born and raised in Texas and her family are staunch Republicans if that means anything to you. She's been hoping the Republican party would replace Trump with a decent candidate for the last 8 years.

You don't know that.  It is possible that decision was made based on purely on electability vs. ability.  But it is also possible that people who actually interact with him on a regular basis and were encourage him to step aside are in fact worried about his declining health and ability to lead.   It was learned after the fact that Reagan was not running the government during his last term.

The reason why I lean toward the second theory is that I tend to believe that *IF* the debate was one bad night much more of his inner circle would have said so and defended his continuing in the race.  But if he was showing signs on a regular basis of decline and the debate was actually a good day, than I would expect the near universal support for him to step aside.  This many members of the leadership didn't tell Biden to step down because one poll had Harris 3 points higher.  

The best eveidence for the latter theory is that    

And yet only one of them faced non-stop coverage about whether he should withdraw.
Only one of them was forced out of the race.
And Trump won't hear this question from the media again.

That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Trump is good for ratings and Biden being consistent and level headed is boring. The media is there for $$ and nothing else.

Than the Harris campaign manager ought be fired.

One of the central themes of this election is the mental fitness of candidates.  Harris needs to double and triple down on that. Half the ads for Harris should be clips of Trump rambling incoherently.

Yeah, I haven't heard a single media person talk about how Trump isn't fit to run the country in the last 4 years. Are you kidding me? That's all I've heard non stop for the last 4 years. There's even been some legal cases about it. That horse has been beaten to death, it's not happening.

Exactly. Only one party was actually willing to go to their candidate and ask them to withdraw and only one candidate was actually willing to do what was best for the country. If Trump and the Republican party had .1% of the accountability that Biden and the Democratic party has shown Trump would have withdrawn from the race a long time ago. Again I understand where you are coming from, but it's not from a place of higher ethical standards. I don't agree with this idea that all that matters is winning and then we'll figure it out later, no we won't. Smart or not the Democratic party has taken the high road here.

Yeah and can we make it a rule that you have to actually answer the questions posed to you in the debate or your cut off? Anytime that Trump doesn't want to answer a question he just changes the question. As soon as he does that his microphone should be turned off. At the very least can we coach Harris to do the same thing?

And here you are, offering excuses as to why equal media coverage about a Trump withdrawal is now unnecessary.  It's ALWAYS unnecessary... the media is so tough on Trump already!

There were over 200 NYT articles about Biden's mental state in just the first week after the debate, questioning his fitness to run.  There has never been anything remotely similar for Trump.

The Republican Party is more interested in winning elections, because they've figured out that voters don't actually care about any of this shit.

The Democratic campaign's choices about ad curation do not control what coverage the media chooses to focus on.

Changing your argument now. Now the media should attack Trump even though it's not going to change anything. For what purpose?

Please. They've tried bringing lawsuits against the man and failed and you think that media coverage is the reason why? The truth is that the reason there were so many articles is because there was real concern. Now that there's no reason for that concern the media coverage is going to stop and maybe the media will get back to actually talking about the issues again? That's where the Democratic party does best. Let that work for them rather than against them.

The only thing that's gonna get rid of Trump is to elect someone else and the only way to do that is to have a better candidate. You're blaming the media because Biden had a bad debate. How is that the media's fault? You have Biden to thank for that. I didn't think it was possible, but Biden made Trump look like the better candidate, that's how bad it was and if you don't think it was that bad I think you are in the minority. It's not just the debate either. There have been other signs. There have been people close to Biden who've seen it. It's not just the media, it's within the party too. You can turn a blind eye to it if you want but some people aren't willing to go that route. I think you're in denial about this topic.

I agree that the Republican Party is more interested in winning elections because their voters don't actually care about any of this shit, but the reality is that it DOES matter and there's still plenty of people in the Democratic party that believe that it matters. It's bad enough that one of the parties has gone down that path, let's not follow their lead or we really will see an end to democracy.

Thank you for proving my point: the media shouldn't attack Trump because Republicans will ignore them, but they SHOULD attack Biden because Democrats will definitely capitulate.  And what is the result of this dynamic?  The media relentlessly attacks Biden but ignores Trump when both candidates have the same problem (as you put it).

And to answer your "For what purpose?" question: the media is supposed to be reporting the news, not playing a game of "Which candidate can we force out?"  If Biden's mental fitness merits 200 articles of coverage in one week, Trump's mental fitness should merit the same, regardless of whether Republicans will ignore it or not.

While the candidates don't control the media, the candidates definitely can influence it.

I think you might be ignoring the fact that it's possible that all of this will bring a candidate to the Democratic party who's better equipped to beat Trump in November. I'm not certain about that, there's a lot of things that can happen still. I would have preferred that none of this occurred, meaning that Biden wouldn't have had a huge meltdown in the debate in the first place and shown signs of being unable to meet the demands of the job, but you seem to be very concerned that this will be what gets Trump elected and my feeling is sort of just the opposite that this might be what actually prevents Trump from being elected. It's possible that the reason the polls were as tight as they were was mainly because Biden wasn't as strong of a candidate as we would have liked him to be.

No, I don't want to set the precedent that if you don't like the candidate you try to get him removed, but I don't think that's the precedent that's being set here. The precedent being set is that if at some point a candidate is unable to continue, he should step aside and let the party have a chance to find someone else that gives their party the best chance to win in November.

I don't think we need to be giving the Democratic Party all these platitudes about how moral and great they are for getting Biden to step down.  Biden was on a path to LOSE, and that's the only reason they were after him to step down.  If Biden were 10 points ahead in the polls he continues on.

On the other hand maybe Biden would have been 10 points ahead in the polls if he's 10 years younger.

The backstabbers and arsonists need to praise Biden's noble decision for the good of the country as validation for their treachery.

Do you really believe this vitriol?  That leaders of the party did this as some sort of plot against Biden. That they were angry at Biden for something.  If so for what? 

This was the kids taking away dad's car keys as an act of love because they didn't think it was safe for him not to drive anymore not as revenge for being grounded when they were 17.

 

They were angry (or upset, or disappointed, whatever) at Biden for being down in the polls.
So they replaced him with someone they hope will do better in the polls.

Purely transactional.
The primary?  It didn't really even count, or something.

My aunt was county chair for the democrats for years,  I’m a lifelong democrat and only a few people made mad at this. Biden should have not sought a second term months ago, he was going to lose and you know it. No democrats are upset at this because we understand we have a chance now to win.


Harris raised 80m in small donations in 1 day, we are back in the game. We want to win.

No this is not fair but neither is life and we have a chance to seal the deal and put Trump behind us forever.

What primary?  Biden ran unopposed. 

And it was Biden's choice to step aside.  He wasn't forced out.  He wasn't threatened with article 25. After multiple people he respected all gave him the same advice he made the choice.  But it was his choice.   

You're the third person in this thread to discount the outcome of the primary.  The 2028 primary is going to be... innovative, no matter what happens in November.

Biden voluntarily stepped down after a month of non-stop attacks from his "allies," amplified by the media, successfully drove down his poll numbers to the point where he determined it was no longer worth continuing.  And now the arsonists are cheering that Biden bravely recognized the fire had grown too large to put out.

The only thing that matters is defeating Donald Trump and even before that disaster of a debate he was behind in every metric.

The only thing that matters is beating Trump, that may not happen but Biden was not going to win. It’s not fair because Biden has been a great present the only thing that matters to the public is optics and Biden looked liked an Alzheimers patient to anyone who honestly watched that debate.

If Harris wins and has a good term the 2028 democratic primary will likely be as exciting 2024, 2012, and 1996.
 

After the 2024 experience - with an incumbent, mind you - the 2028 primary will be significantly different.
How different depends on whether Harris wins.

Looking good so far. 

Record breaking fundraising. 
Early reports are that enough delegates support her to win the nomination.
No major democrat is challenging her.

On the republican side they haven't said much about her on policy or leadership rather.  Instead you have people who don't understand the Constitution claiming she can't be president because her parents weren't naturally born citizens so basically a rehash of the losing "birther" argument.  And they are circulating an video of at a meeting with disabled people in which she describes what she looks like.  If you don't know the context of the video she looks a bit goofy, but once you know the context the person sharing it is revealed to be disgusting for claiming it is too woke to tell a blind person what you look like. 

We have a chance to see Harris win this election, but if you really believe that would put Trump behind us forever, I think you're insane.  He is the stink that just won't wash out in the laundry.  Even after he croaks (sooner than later, preferably), he will still be inspiring the MAGA idiots.

Between my age and my health, I truly don't expect to see another election that ISN'T influenced by Trump.

I don't agree, Stroke.

Trump is a cult of personality, but he's also a loser, politically.  He beat Clinton in one election under some very specific circumstances.  Since then, they've literally underperformed for 7 years of election cycles.  His endorsements are losers, too.  He lost the White House, the House, and the Senate.  The MAGA wing gets outvoted.  He has power from appointments he made and norms he broke, plus his willingness to attack anyone in his own political environment that challenged him, but he's deeply unpopular.

The Republicans side with him because they fear him politically, but another loss will be the death of him, I think.

Trump's political death will not happen during his lifetime.
He is the Republican Party for the rest of his days. 

Well if he doesn't win this year he might be going to jail. It's gonna be tough to run for office from jail I would think, but who knows I thought 4 years ago he would have been barred from ever seeking reelection after what he did so what do I know.

Though he should rightly be in prison for the rest of his life, I can't imagine Trump incarcerated come 2028 in any event.

There seems to be more excitement for Harris then there ever was for Biden.

I would love to disagree with you, but honestly, I am afraid to say anything about Trump, in terms of predictions.  I was gravedigging my own posts and I've been historically so wrong about him over and over again.  I just can't seem to pin him or his supporters down.  I always think that the road to get off is just ahead, but it is never taken.

If you bet on a streak to continue, you can be right many times, but you can only be wrong once.