I have been a Democrat my whole life but I have found my political home at the Bulwark. JVL, I love you and Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller and Bill Kristol stc. You all are fighters - not like the wimpy Dems who are becoming “resigned” to Trump winning in Nov.
Here is my thought: despite your prediction of a jailbreak (which I too have been expecting), it is still not happening - and I am reading/hearing more about Dem office holders just accepting Trump’s likely victory (“after all, how bad could it be?”). In the absence of enough strong Dem leaders “persuading” Biden to withdraw, I believe we need a TSUNAMI OF REGULAR VOTERS TELLING BIDEN WE WANT HIM TO WITHDRAW AS THE CANDIDATE. The poling has become crystal clear that Biden is losing in the critical swing states (and also losing ground in key states like Minnesota, NH, etc.) I am certainly not resigned to a Trump victory - too much is at stake. So I will be trying to organize my friends to send letters (even telegrams) to Biden telling him “it is time.”
I believe you and others at The Bulwark should encourage your readers to do the same. I understand you may be reluctant to do so — but democracy is on the line. This is a time for bold action by patriots such as you and ofher Bulwark editors. Please give this idea serious consideration. Thank you!
So the Tim Alberta piece has me breathing into a bag. I have two major frustrations that are boiling over this week:
1. I don't understand is why the Democrats are so f-ing befuddled about having a succession plan in place for Biden. We should have gone into this election season preparing for the unfortunate scenario if he passed away. The average age men reach before they pass away in this country is 73, which is younger than when Biden took office.
2. Where have these keyboard warriors been for the last three years of this administration when JVL marked his territory as Biden's number one fan?? I'm so frustrated at these people turning up in my feed to bully our friends at the Bulwark- many of whom sacrificed their careers in Republican politics because they refused to board the Trump Train. And why did it take Biden horribly fumbling the debate for the party surrogates to turn up and start supporting Biden in the media??
WOW! Now I am officially terrified. I honestly had NO idea that it was that bad. I will stop talking and start listening to the experts. How do we change this?
Let's start with Tim Alberta's piece about Trump's campaign being built around Biden running and making the race about strength vs. weakness. They are counting on Biden continuing as the candidate.
If Democrats select a new candidate then one thing to consider is who would be the most disruptive to that strategy? The Democratic message of democracy would not change and perhaps be enhanced by taking it so seriously that they switched candidates over it. That at least stands a chance of putting the Trump campaign off balance while they figure out what to do. It's not unreasonable to think Trump cannot remain disciplined and start saying even crazier things. He can't coast any more.
If Democrats are choosing the least bad option (dare I say the lesser evil) then it makes sense to pick one that Trump is the least prepared for.
Two points in response to the most recent comments: 1) the polls were NOT wrong in previous elections. Go look it up; and 2) we can't focus on Trump as long as the issues of Biden's abilities are prominent.
I would have liked to have had a younger candidate. I feel that it is too late for a replacement. And I am even less sure that Harris can beat Trump. And to be fair to her, could anyone at this late date? She will want to run in 2028. If she runs now and loses, it will damage her.
The polls have been spectacularly wrong over the past few elections, so polls do not comfort me. And I feel that this public battle-which some incorrectly call a conversation-is making us look like a bunch of fools.
I will vote for the Dem nominee. But I have never felt so uneasy in my life.
Marist/NPR's latest poll had Biden up by 2. 50 percent to 48 percent. Biden did well at his press conference but now the Biden must go crowd is seeming to demand he perform an Iron Man competition. I was reading the NY Times political reporters comment on his press conference and it was largely embarrassing. It read like a mean clique from Middle School that makes life miserable for everyone.
Biden's not dropping out. Everyone who thinks he will anyday now is in fantasy land. Let's change focus and work on defeating Trump.
My opinion, a year ago, was for Biden to serve one term as a successful 'bridge' president who saved the country from Trump and the pandemic. Then, President Biden would enjoy time with his family after a long, successful career. That didn't work out. Now Biden, due to the reality of age, must step aside and allow Kamala Harris to lead us to victory over the delusional felon, Trump.
What irks me is that I read years ago that he viewed this as a one-term deal so he could right the ship, get us out of Covid, and turn down the temperature. Mission accomplished.
In his press conference last night President Biden opened the door to a way that he might gracefully withdraw from the race in November. And, at the risk of repeating myself from an earlier comment, that would be by saying that his doctors have told him that he needs to have a complete workup for what appears to be early dementia, in order to assess his prognosis for the next four years, and then undergoing that workup - including an in-depth battery of cognitive function tests, state-of-the-art blood tests, a CT scan and possibly even an MRI. I know it is unfair for him to have to do so and not Trump, but as you have eloquently laid out in this post, it is what it is. Biden's medical exam report from February (the 6-page one) lists at least two possible etiologies for his cognitive decline that might not be as worrisome as the symptoms of early dementia that he has been showing, depending on how long these have been present before he began therapy. One is his atrial fibrillation, for which he began therapy with Eliquis since his previous physical exam in order to prevent cerebral emboli. One or more small embolic strokes, which would show up on an MRI, could explain his combination of cognitive and motor symptoms. The other possible etiology for his symptoms that was mentioned in the report of his February exam is obstructive sleep apnea, which can be associated with dementia and which was confirmed in a sleep laboratory study (I believe this is an overnight procedure) and for which he now utilizes a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) mask at night. This had also been newly diagnosed in the year before his February exam. One does not know how long these had been present before treatment began. The conditions everyone is worried about that might cause dementia are Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The February report stated that he did not have Parkinson's, possibly because of the absence of tremor. But Alzheimer's remains a possibility. As I know from my experience with my own late husband, a catastrophic stressful event can cause Alzheimer's to worsen at a vastly greater rate than it had manifested prior to the event. In Biden's case this could be the horror of 10/7, given that Biden has been a passionate Zionist all of his life, followed by the equal horror of the war in Gaza, and the images of dead and mutilated children on the nightly news, together with the death toll of women, children and other civilians, incuding medical and aid workers. That some of the hostages are Americans, and that the left wing of his party blames him for supplying the weapons to Israel for this carnage, has to have increased the stress on Biden, who is famous for his compassion and empathy, to unfathomable levels. All this can have caused Alzheimer's to have become apparent in a way that it was not when Biden made his decision to run again, which I believe occurred prior to 10/7. The amusing gaffe that Biden made last night, saying Vice President Trump instead of Vice President Harris, revealed one of his reasons for making that decision, namely that his staff had convinced them that she could not beat Trump.
You know the answer to this as well as I do, so I suppose it's some kind of bait for me to give the obvious answers (e.g., Kamala or an open Convention). Feel free to disagree with me, but it seems to me that the odds of Biden winning are near zero. So any candidate chose at the Convention would have a better chance. I personally believe that the passion for beating Trump is so great that any young, energetic voice would be very exciting and immediately become a credible threat to win. Biden was barely tapping that passion before the debate, and has gone backward since. I personally think we have to try.
Donald Trump has been running for election since 2015. Half his time even while serving as President was still running for election. If he wins again, probably again while losing the popular vote, he will continue to run. He doesn’t enjoy accomplishing anything other than promoting himself. His lackeys and enablers will do all the work of ruining our country. He will produce the show.
We are all born in "sales mode" and gradually learn "service mode," and how it is a "win-win" method, better for all in the long run than the "zero sum game" of sales mode. But some, like Trump, never leave "sales mode."
Everyone is wringing their hands decrying that Biden is "too infirm, "too unfit (whatever that means specifically)", "too shaky (presumably commenting on his gait)" to be President for four more years. While I do not remember the Presidential election eighty years ago (I doubt Joe does either even though he was alive then), I do know that the Democratic candidate had guided the nation through a world war (not unlike COVID, Inflation, and rallying the west against Russia, while establishing new alliances in the Pacific against China), travelled to many foreign lands without the benefit Air Force One comfort, overseen the Manhattan Project, and kept the faith with the American people enough to be overwhelmingly re-elected even though he did all that from a wheel-chair. Physical infirmity comes with age and is less important in being the leader of the Free World than mental acuity, wisdom, and experience in dealing fairly with all.
The election of 1944 and that of 2024 was/is about preserving the democratic concept of government as known in the United States of America for generations. November 5, 2024 there will be a binary choice on the ballot: An amoral, corrupt, convicted felon or someone else. We have a known quantity for that someone else, who has delegate support, donor support, knowledge, experience, empathy and overall human decency. Why change?
Your comparison with the 1944 election falls short in a couple of important areas. First, there's a difference between physical infirmity and mental infirmity. If Biden had slowly shuffled to the debate podium and then lambasted Trump with his verbal acuity, no one would have said anything about his gait. That's not what happened. The appearance was not just of physical issues, but also mental ones. That's a significant consideration for the public.
Second, what people saw at the debate is something they can relate to personally. I don't have numbers, but I strongly suspect more than half of us have interacted with a person at or close to Biden's age. We know what they can be like. This isn't an "I didn't know a person in a wheelchair could play basketball" thing. It's a "my gosh, Biden looks and sounds just like Uncle Eddie did before we moved him to the long-term care facility" thing. The personal experience with the elderly is going to counteract almost any spin that a political campaign comes up with. No argument or event will be able to contravene what people see in their own lives.
Yet again: my concern, and that I've heard here and elsewhere, has nothing to do with Biden's ability to *be* president. It's about his ability to win the election.
Joe Biden in any condition, including coma, is a better president than Trump. But to *get* there, he has to be upright, coherent, and persuasive to a lot more voters than he is right now.
So, it is only whether he can beat CFT on 5 November that is the question, not whether he can fulfill the job description? He did it once, then did a heckuva fine job in tough circumstances including but not limited to the Chaos Caucus, and family issues blown out of proportion by "supporters" of CFT who did not want to talk about how much Joe did get through the legislative morass that is the Republican House. And now, because his age is showing in the glare of 24/7 media coverage (where is that on CFT, by the way, in the interests of fair jounalism?), he suddenly can't win an election on that record?
My answer, unfortunately, would be he can't win the election solely on his record.
To be fair, he was already going to be challenged to win the election just on his record. Even though he has one of the better records of an incumbent, people don't *feel* that their lives are better under his administration. And feelings, like it or not, matter when it comes to elections.
But beyond that, Americans don't like their leaders to project as frail. The president reflects on the country and the citizenship believes that strength is their defining attribute. They would rather have a strong, crazy president than a frail, brilliant one. And you're not going to be able to craft a campaign message to counter what they feel in their heart.
I understand your points, and could agree but for the, IMHO, over-the-top generalization that "Americans ... would rather have a strong, crazy president than a frail, brilliant one." Granted, some do, but many don't. What the winning/losing percentages are will only be known on 5 November, when the choice is likely to be either a bullying, corrupt, lying, convicted felon or someone else. I'd vote for someone else.
FDR was paralyzed by polio. He was so energetic that people who met with him reported, afterwards, that he "rose to greet them." He was 51 when elected president and his mind was sharp. Joe Biden is no FDR.
Susan, I would have problems delivering cogently and coherently for an hour in the spot-light, and I am younger then either Joe or CFT. By the way, when was the last time TV cameras and reporters hung on every single word CFT made in a true press conference? There is little doubt that he would do as poorly or worse than Joe did. Remember his meet/greet and fleece of the CEOs recently? The reports from that, by people who were probably inclined in CFT's favor, were certainly no better, if not worse, than are being delivered about Joe. So much for journalistic true fairness.
I have seen nonstop reporting of Trump's idiocy, ranting, racism, misogyny, etc. for 8 years. For some reason it makes no difference to his supporters and has even attracted new supporters. I guess Dems just have to be more perfect to win. It's an unfair world.
I hear you, but what has there been about CFT recently, in the past, say, five months, actually showing him, seeing him, rather than "reporting". And which news outlets did you see or hear take him to task for his constant spewing of lies, falsehoods, etc. on CNN (I will not call it that "de" word; I know what it really means, and that display was anything but).
And, even if there were actual TV coverage of CFT, would it be in the context of a news story, or just another "Oh, it is just Trump being Trump". That, in itself, is a condemnation, but that is another rant.
I think, to beat Trump, a candidate has to run against Trump. Right now, we have a guy who doesn't do many campaign speeches -- and when he does, they're short and not particularly good -- makes very few televised appearances, rarely sits down for a real interview and, when he does do a press conference, it's covered globally because it's so rare. And did he go after Trump? A little, but not really. Does anyone think the Trump campaign, this morning, is worrying about how to respond to Biden's remarks last night? I don't.
I'm waiting for a line like, "I'm running for President to make this country better, to support our allies around the world and to be a beacon of hope to everyone in the world struggling against totalitarianism. Donald Trump is running to keep himself out of prison."
Trump is running to make America a better place for the rich, white,pseudo-Christian male. I don't know what the answer is. I just hope Dem voters aren't turned off so much they skip voting altogether and we lose down-ballot races.
See? You can articulate why Trump is running and why rich, White, pseudo-Christian males should vote for him. His message reached you and you can restate it concisely.
Those voters will vote for him because they want a better place for themselves and his vision looks like what they want.
What's Biden's concise case? When Bill Clinton ran, he could articulate his message in three simple statements: 1) change vs more of the same, 2) it's the economy, stupid and 3) don't forget about healthcare. Biden needs a similar message and he ain't got it.
I normally don't listen to podcasts, they are too time consuming... I can read faster. That being said, based on your recommendation, I listened to this one.
Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment. Neither participant, nor the moderator, distinguished themselves. It eventually devolved into an old SNL skit.
I have been a Democrat my whole life but I have found my political home at the Bulwark. JVL, I love you and Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller and Bill Kristol stc. You all are fighters - not like the wimpy Dems who are becoming “resigned” to Trump winning in Nov.
Here is my thought: despite your prediction of a jailbreak (which I too have been expecting), it is still not happening - and I am reading/hearing more about Dem office holders just accepting Trump’s likely victory (“after all, how bad could it be?”). In the absence of enough strong Dem leaders “persuading” Biden to withdraw, I believe we need a TSUNAMI OF REGULAR VOTERS TELLING BIDEN WE WANT HIM TO WITHDRAW AS THE CANDIDATE. The poling has become crystal clear that Biden is losing in the critical swing states (and also losing ground in key states like Minnesota, NH, etc.) I am certainly not resigned to a Trump victory - too much is at stake. So I will be trying to organize my friends to send letters (even telegrams) to Biden telling him “it is time.”
I believe you and others at The Bulwark should encourage your readers to do the same. I understand you may be reluctant to do so — but democracy is on the line. This is a time for bold action by patriots such as you and ofher Bulwark editors. Please give this idea serious consideration. Thank you!
Well this triad on black swans aged pretty well pretty quickly. Add another swan to the list.
Let the Democrats who think Biden is too old join the Republicans who think Trump is sane and start a new party.
So the Tim Alberta piece has me breathing into a bag. I have two major frustrations that are boiling over this week:
1. I don't understand is why the Democrats are so f-ing befuddled about having a succession plan in place for Biden. We should have gone into this election season preparing for the unfortunate scenario if he passed away. The average age men reach before they pass away in this country is 73, which is younger than when Biden took office.
2. Where have these keyboard warriors been for the last three years of this administration when JVL marked his territory as Biden's number one fan?? I'm so frustrated at these people turning up in my feed to bully our friends at the Bulwark- many of whom sacrificed their careers in Republican politics because they refused to board the Trump Train. And why did it take Biden horribly fumbling the debate for the party surrogates to turn up and start supporting Biden in the media??
WOW! Now I am officially terrified. I honestly had NO idea that it was that bad. I will stop talking and start listening to the experts. How do we change this?
Let's start with Tim Alberta's piece about Trump's campaign being built around Biden running and making the race about strength vs. weakness. They are counting on Biden continuing as the candidate.
If Democrats select a new candidate then one thing to consider is who would be the most disruptive to that strategy? The Democratic message of democracy would not change and perhaps be enhanced by taking it so seriously that they switched candidates over it. That at least stands a chance of putting the Trump campaign off balance while they figure out what to do. It's not unreasonable to think Trump cannot remain disciplined and start saying even crazier things. He can't coast any more.
If Democrats are choosing the least bad option (dare I say the lesser evil) then it makes sense to pick one that Trump is the least prepared for.
Two points in response to the most recent comments: 1) the polls were NOT wrong in previous elections. Go look it up; and 2) we can't focus on Trump as long as the issues of Biden's abilities are prominent.
I would have liked to have had a younger candidate. I feel that it is too late for a replacement. And I am even less sure that Harris can beat Trump. And to be fair to her, could anyone at this late date? She will want to run in 2028. If she runs now and loses, it will damage her.
The polls have been spectacularly wrong over the past few elections, so polls do not comfort me. And I feel that this public battle-which some incorrectly call a conversation-is making us look like a bunch of fools.
I will vote for the Dem nominee. But I have never felt so uneasy in my life.
If Trump wins, there might not be an election in 2028. :(
Marist/NPR's latest poll had Biden up by 2. 50 percent to 48 percent. Biden did well at his press conference but now the Biden must go crowd is seeming to demand he perform an Iron Man competition. I was reading the NY Times political reporters comment on his press conference and it was largely embarrassing. It read like a mean clique from Middle School that makes life miserable for everyone.
Biden's not dropping out. Everyone who thinks he will anyday now is in fantasy land. Let's change focus and work on defeating Trump.
My opinion, a year ago, was for Biden to serve one term as a successful 'bridge' president who saved the country from Trump and the pandemic. Then, President Biden would enjoy time with his family after a long, successful career. That didn't work out. Now Biden, due to the reality of age, must step aside and allow Kamala Harris to lead us to victory over the delusional felon, Trump.
What irks me is that I read years ago that he viewed this as a one-term deal so he could right the ship, get us out of Covid, and turn down the temperature. Mission accomplished.
In his press conference last night President Biden opened the door to a way that he might gracefully withdraw from the race in November. And, at the risk of repeating myself from an earlier comment, that would be by saying that his doctors have told him that he needs to have a complete workup for what appears to be early dementia, in order to assess his prognosis for the next four years, and then undergoing that workup - including an in-depth battery of cognitive function tests, state-of-the-art blood tests, a CT scan and possibly even an MRI. I know it is unfair for him to have to do so and not Trump, but as you have eloquently laid out in this post, it is what it is. Biden's medical exam report from February (the 6-page one) lists at least two possible etiologies for his cognitive decline that might not be as worrisome as the symptoms of early dementia that he has been showing, depending on how long these have been present before he began therapy. One is his atrial fibrillation, for which he began therapy with Eliquis since his previous physical exam in order to prevent cerebral emboli. One or more small embolic strokes, which would show up on an MRI, could explain his combination of cognitive and motor symptoms. The other possible etiology for his symptoms that was mentioned in the report of his February exam is obstructive sleep apnea, which can be associated with dementia and which was confirmed in a sleep laboratory study (I believe this is an overnight procedure) and for which he now utilizes a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) mask at night. This had also been newly diagnosed in the year before his February exam. One does not know how long these had been present before treatment began. The conditions everyone is worried about that might cause dementia are Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The February report stated that he did not have Parkinson's, possibly because of the absence of tremor. But Alzheimer's remains a possibility. As I know from my experience with my own late husband, a catastrophic stressful event can cause Alzheimer's to worsen at a vastly greater rate than it had manifested prior to the event. In Biden's case this could be the horror of 10/7, given that Biden has been a passionate Zionist all of his life, followed by the equal horror of the war in Gaza, and the images of dead and mutilated children on the nightly news, together with the death toll of women, children and other civilians, incuding medical and aid workers. That some of the hostages are Americans, and that the left wing of his party blames him for supplying the weapons to Israel for this carnage, has to have increased the stress on Biden, who is famous for his compassion and empathy, to unfathomable levels. All this can have caused Alzheimer's to have become apparent in a way that it was not when Biden made his decision to run again, which I believe occurred prior to 10/7. The amusing gaffe that Biden made last night, saying Vice President Trump instead of Vice President Harris, revealed one of his reasons for making that decision, namely that his staff had convinced them that she could not beat Trump.
You know the answer to this as well as I do, so I suppose it's some kind of bait for me to give the obvious answers (e.g., Kamala or an open Convention). Feel free to disagree with me, but it seems to me that the odds of Biden winning are near zero. So any candidate chose at the Convention would have a better chance. I personally believe that the passion for beating Trump is so great that any young, energetic voice would be very exciting and immediately become a credible threat to win. Biden was barely tapping that passion before the debate, and has gone backward since. I personally think we have to try.
Donald Trump has been running for election since 2015. Half his time even while serving as President was still running for election. If he wins again, probably again while losing the popular vote, he will continue to run. He doesn’t enjoy accomplishing anything other than promoting himself. His lackeys and enablers will do all the work of ruining our country. He will produce the show.
We are all born in "sales mode" and gradually learn "service mode," and how it is a "win-win" method, better for all in the long run than the "zero sum game" of sales mode. But some, like Trump, never leave "sales mode."
Everyone is wringing their hands decrying that Biden is "too infirm, "too unfit (whatever that means specifically)", "too shaky (presumably commenting on his gait)" to be President for four more years. While I do not remember the Presidential election eighty years ago (I doubt Joe does either even though he was alive then), I do know that the Democratic candidate had guided the nation through a world war (not unlike COVID, Inflation, and rallying the west against Russia, while establishing new alliances in the Pacific against China), travelled to many foreign lands without the benefit Air Force One comfort, overseen the Manhattan Project, and kept the faith with the American people enough to be overwhelmingly re-elected even though he did all that from a wheel-chair. Physical infirmity comes with age and is less important in being the leader of the Free World than mental acuity, wisdom, and experience in dealing fairly with all.
The election of 1944 and that of 2024 was/is about preserving the democratic concept of government as known in the United States of America for generations. November 5, 2024 there will be a binary choice on the ballot: An amoral, corrupt, convicted felon or someone else. We have a known quantity for that someone else, who has delegate support, donor support, knowledge, experience, empathy and overall human decency. Why change?
Your comparison with the 1944 election falls short in a couple of important areas. First, there's a difference between physical infirmity and mental infirmity. If Biden had slowly shuffled to the debate podium and then lambasted Trump with his verbal acuity, no one would have said anything about his gait. That's not what happened. The appearance was not just of physical issues, but also mental ones. That's a significant consideration for the public.
Second, what people saw at the debate is something they can relate to personally. I don't have numbers, but I strongly suspect more than half of us have interacted with a person at or close to Biden's age. We know what they can be like. This isn't an "I didn't know a person in a wheelchair could play basketball" thing. It's a "my gosh, Biden looks and sounds just like Uncle Eddie did before we moved him to the long-term care facility" thing. The personal experience with the elderly is going to counteract almost any spin that a political campaign comes up with. No argument or event will be able to contravene what people see in their own lives.
I hear you. My concern is what is said by E2, just below this post (at the moment) and to which I also responded.
Yet again: my concern, and that I've heard here and elsewhere, has nothing to do with Biden's ability to *be* president. It's about his ability to win the election.
Joe Biden in any condition, including coma, is a better president than Trump. But to *get* there, he has to be upright, coherent, and persuasive to a lot more voters than he is right now.
So, it is only whether he can beat CFT on 5 November that is the question, not whether he can fulfill the job description? He did it once, then did a heckuva fine job in tough circumstances including but not limited to the Chaos Caucus, and family issues blown out of proportion by "supporters" of CFT who did not want to talk about how much Joe did get through the legislative morass that is the Republican House. And now, because his age is showing in the glare of 24/7 media coverage (where is that on CFT, by the way, in the interests of fair jounalism?), he suddenly can't win an election on that record?
My answer, unfortunately, would be he can't win the election solely on his record.
To be fair, he was already going to be challenged to win the election just on his record. Even though he has one of the better records of an incumbent, people don't *feel* that their lives are better under his administration. And feelings, like it or not, matter when it comes to elections.
But beyond that, Americans don't like their leaders to project as frail. The president reflects on the country and the citizenship believes that strength is their defining attribute. They would rather have a strong, crazy president than a frail, brilliant one. And you're not going to be able to craft a campaign message to counter what they feel in their heart.
I understand your points, and could agree but for the, IMHO, over-the-top generalization that "Americans ... would rather have a strong, crazy president than a frail, brilliant one." Granted, some do, but many don't. What the winning/losing percentages are will only be known on 5 November, when the choice is likely to be either a bullying, corrupt, lying, convicted felon or someone else. I'd vote for someone else.
I don't think the physical infirmity is what people are worried about.
FDR was paralyzed by polio. He was so energetic that people who met with him reported, afterwards, that he "rose to greet them." He was 51 when elected president and his mind was sharp. Joe Biden is no FDR.
Susan, I would have problems delivering cogently and coherently for an hour in the spot-light, and I am younger then either Joe or CFT. By the way, when was the last time TV cameras and reporters hung on every single word CFT made in a true press conference? There is little doubt that he would do as poorly or worse than Joe did. Remember his meet/greet and fleece of the CEOs recently? The reports from that, by people who were probably inclined in CFT's favor, were certainly no better, if not worse, than are being delivered about Joe. So much for journalistic true fairness.
I have seen nonstop reporting of Trump's idiocy, ranting, racism, misogyny, etc. for 8 years. For some reason it makes no difference to his supporters and has even attracted new supporters. I guess Dems just have to be more perfect to win. It's an unfair world.
I hear you, but what has there been about CFT recently, in the past, say, five months, actually showing him, seeing him, rather than "reporting". And which news outlets did you see or hear take him to task for his constant spewing of lies, falsehoods, etc. on CNN (I will not call it that "de" word; I know what it really means, and that display was anything but).
And, even if there were actual TV coverage of CFT, would it be in the context of a news story, or just another "Oh, it is just Trump being Trump". That, in itself, is a condemnation, but that is another rant.
I think, to beat Trump, a candidate has to run against Trump. Right now, we have a guy who doesn't do many campaign speeches -- and when he does, they're short and not particularly good -- makes very few televised appearances, rarely sits down for a real interview and, when he does do a press conference, it's covered globally because it's so rare. And did he go after Trump? A little, but not really. Does anyone think the Trump campaign, this morning, is worrying about how to respond to Biden's remarks last night? I don't.
I'm waiting for a line like, "I'm running for President to make this country better, to support our allies around the world and to be a beacon of hope to everyone in the world struggling against totalitarianism. Donald Trump is running to keep himself out of prison."
It's not happening. Trump is running unopposed.
Trump is running to make America a better place for the rich, white,pseudo-Christian male. I don't know what the answer is. I just hope Dem voters aren't turned off so much they skip voting altogether and we lose down-ballot races.
See? You can articulate why Trump is running and why rich, White, pseudo-Christian males should vote for him. His message reached you and you can restate it concisely.
Those voters will vote for him because they want a better place for themselves and his vision looks like what they want.
What's Biden's concise case? When Bill Clinton ran, he could articulate his message in three simple statements: 1) change vs more of the same, 2) it's the economy, stupid and 3) don't forget about healthcare. Biden needs a similar message and he ain't got it.
I had never heard of Allan Lichtman, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House. By this test, Biden is a shoe-in. Of course, past results are no guarantees of future success.
Mona wiped the floor with him in their debate. He's a hack.
I normally don't listen to podcasts, they are too time consuming... I can read faster. That being said, based on your recommendation, I listened to this one.
Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment. Neither participant, nor the moderator, distinguished themselves. It eventually devolved into an old SNL skit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM
Choppy seas. One destination. No Trump; democracy too.