Speaking as a gay man married to a black man I think I have plenty of skin in the game but I also reject the identarian framing in general. Biden is not a messiah or a great thinker, he's the nominee of our party and he owes his party members his very best. If last night wasn't his very best, he needs to demonstrate he can still deliver better and if he can't he needs to make way for an alternative candidate. As Chip said, the country is potentially at stake.
I'm not saying Biden must go. I'm saying that a major fish up happened last night and Biden's previous strategy of low visibility has to go or he'll have to step down. This is quite the opposite of learned helplessness. This is a concerned member of Bidens' party and a personal fan of his saying "step up or step out sir. It's one or the other."
I'm thinking more about the times the Republicans tanked their own border security for Ukraine aid bill because the Dems had the temerity to agree to it personally.
If Joe Biden can't ameliorate concerns about his performance and steps down for someone else, whether that is Harris or other, I'm confident the Dems would not suffer a 1968 debacle at the convention.
Resilience is a thing for the 11th hour. It's 10:55 right now and the question of this hour is "would our odds be better if Joe stepped down and let someone else take his place as nominee?" Joe Biden is not owed the nomination, he performed unsatisfactorily last night and he has a responsibility to either demonstrate that it was a fluke or else step down. And I say that as a rock solid fan of his performance the last four years and as a moderate ideological fellow traveller.
Saul, this isn't a question of if Biden lost the debate- he did but that is secondary- it's that he barely seemed functional. If this was an off night- a cold or something temporary then the Biden policy of low profile and silence needs to end so he can get out there and demonstrate that he's still got it.
And if he can't... then he should consider stepping aside. If what we saw last night is Bidens' norm then replacing him with Harris would be a lift. She is a former prosecutor. I think she could debate Trump pretty well.
After last nights debate I am thinking Harris would be preferable. If last night was just an off night then Biden needs to get out there and show it. If not, he should make some tough decisions. Unlike many, while I am unenthused, I do not profoundly fear a Harris candidacy.
25ing him and keeping him on the ticket would be simply handing the election to Trump.I, frankly, ignored that one because it's the solution to a problem we don't have. Biden has been running his administration perfectly fine, but he seems to not have the oomph for the even more demanding job of presidential campaigning.
And as for the notion of back room deals being made with the GOP for the good of the country? I'll be civil and not scornfully laugh at that idea the way it deserves.
It is -not- armchair pundit talking. I am a member of the Democratic Party of this country. This is a question of the ability of the presumptive nominee of my party for the Presidency to run in such a way as maximizes odds of victory. I am neither detatched nor view from nowhereing. I want to win, very badly. I have always been a yellow dog Democrat and the years of the GOP's decay and descent have not lessened those inclinations. We need to win.
As to your statement I'd say the same damned thing as you at the 11th hour. But right now, in this moment, we're in the late minutes of the 10th hour. So the thing i am saying now is "Replace the doddering old guy, it's important." Then if that doesn't happen then when the clock strikes eleven I'll switch to "Vote for the doddering old guy, it's important."
I'd say what I'm saying now. First: to contribute the tiny microscopic scintilla of an atom worth of pressure I can contribute to the force welling upwards pushing the party deciders to decide.
Second: to demonstrate to an undecided persuadable voter that I and my party are reality based and non-insane.
And, yes, if Biden hangs in there, if the party deciders make the call to continue backing him, yes if it's the eleventh hour I'll probably say what you're saying to an undecided voter.
Yes, agreed and if it comes to that choice in November you certainly know where I'd vote.
The question on the table for the party, right here, right now, is "Is Biden the candidate most likely to win in November or would our odds of winning increase if Biden quit/was pushed out and replaced by another candidate?)."
Absolutely David, I agree which is why I still think Biden is solid for the job of Presidenting. His circle, cabinet and admin is very much a part of that.
For the next few months, though, job #1 is Winning Presidential Candidate and on that metric there're serious substantive worries.
Sure they could, but noone has the authority now that the votes are in. It's going to have to be a conversation by Bidens inner circle and the party's inner circle. Ultimately only Biden can make the call. They can't force him out without violating the rules and bylaws of the party.
It was fair on her part and agonizing for us in his party. A terrible shame. Some grieving is allowed but either an emphatic refutation performance by Joe is required or else some kind of decision at this point. I don't think his team can punt this.
It seems, barring some convincing performance by Biden otherwise, that the best time to replace Joe would have been a year or so back, but the next best time may be now.
Chip, plenty has changed. We are supposed to be the working reality based party so we have to acknowledge reality and do some work. I have little doubt, and the past four years have shown conclusively, that Joe Biden has been and is up to the job of being President but the job in question right now is the job of Presidential Candidate and that debate performance suggests extremely strongly that Joe isn't up to that job- and it's a vitally important job.
Your own comment underlines that point- our side will support and defend the Constitution and Trump can be credibly charged with, at the minimum making noises about, destroying the republic. That makes the job of Presidential Candidate vitally important. Joe can't be President if he fishes up the Presidential Candidate job for the next, sweet agnostic jebus, three and change months.
Perhaps Joe had an off evening? One fishing heck of a time to have an off evening. If that is the case then Joe will -have- to emerge from his controlled spaces and confront the media circus himself. Only repeated public engagements are going to make any progress to beating back the damage this debate did to him.
And if Joe can't do that? Then a serious conversation has to be had about alternatives. Worse, that conversation won't involve much of the party- at this stage Joe has the nomination locked down if he chooses to take it. The delegates are elected and bound. The only way Joe doesn't get the nomination is if he does something- turns it down, dies, etc... So Joe has to either demonstrate- conclusively- that he is up to the job of Presidential Candidate of our party or he has to step down. This is for all the fishing marbles for fish's sake.
And I type all this with great regret verging on physical illness. I was not just a Biden supporter once he got the nod but an enthusiastic Biden supporter. I still can remember the thrill I felt when he obliterated Bernie on Super Tuesday in 2020.
In absolute numbers I doubt they're exactly what we'd call a powerful voting block. In terms of ideology, clout and control of what the GOP actually does they're huge though their grasp is a little weaker now than it was pre-Trump. I can't think of any other constituency of the GOP that more reliably gets what they want than they.
I don't know if you and I were disagreeing to begin with. The GOP group who cares about tax cuts communicates their tax cut desires directly & privately and gets their assurances the same way. It's not some secret; they just don't trumpet it from the rooftops the way they did during the Bush II era.
Sure, doesn't change that the GOP reliably does it every time they get an opportunity to do so. There's no reason to talk about it- it's unpopular with the voting masses even within the GOP. The GOP politicians don't market it publicly to their voters for that reason. They just assure their wealthy donors in private meetings that the tax cuts will come- and they always do.
Judges? Judges wobble this way and that. Immigration? I'm not even going to bother laughing at that one it's so sad how vast the divide is between what the GOP says about immigration and what they do. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder. What the GOP does is cut taxes on the wealthy.
Of course they don't talk about taxes. Cutting taxes on the wealthy isn't popular and hasn't been popular for quite some time. But that's still the one north star the GOP can always, always, always be relied on to adhere to. Taxes on the wealthy will always be cut, whatever the year, whatever the situation, whenever the GOP has the power to do it.
Defining every GOP voter as anti-democratic, racist facists is both too pat and also too simplistic. No small number of them simply think Trump will cut their taxes and accomplish little else. Some vote GOP because they always have and think no more about doing so every four years than one does picking up milk every time they go to the grocery store. Some have genuine policy beefs with Dems and the further left that Dems get branded by and vote against them rather than for the GOP. The list goes on and on.
On “About Last Night: Debate Debacle Edition”
Speaking as a gay man married to a black man I think I have plenty of skin in the game but I also reject the identarian framing in general. Biden is not a messiah or a great thinker, he's the nominee of our party and he owes his party members his very best. If last night wasn't his very best, he needs to demonstrate he can still deliver better and if he can't he needs to make way for an alternative candidate. As Chip said, the country is potentially at stake.
"
I'm not saying Biden must go. I'm saying that a major fish up happened last night and Biden's previous strategy of low visibility has to go or he'll have to step down. This is quite the opposite of learned helplessness. This is a concerned member of Bidens' party and a personal fan of his saying "step up or step out sir. It's one or the other."
"
I'm thinking more about the times the Republicans tanked their own border security for Ukraine aid bill because the Dems had the temerity to agree to it personally.
"
Well they'll likely have to suck it up because the overwhelming likelihood is that if the old man steps down she'll be the next nominee.
"
If Joe Biden can't ameliorate concerns about his performance and steps down for someone else, whether that is Harris or other, I'm confident the Dems would not suffer a 1968 debacle at the convention.
Resilience is a thing for the 11th hour. It's 10:55 right now and the question of this hour is "would our odds be better if Joe stepped down and let someone else take his place as nominee?" Joe Biden is not owed the nomination, he performed unsatisfactorily last night and he has a responsibility to either demonstrate that it was a fluke or else step down. And I say that as a rock solid fan of his performance the last four years and as a moderate ideological fellow traveller.
"
Well speaking only for myself, if last nights performance is indicative I am 100% okay with replacing Joe with Kamala.
"
Saul, this isn't a question of if Biden lost the debate- he did but that is secondary- it's that he barely seemed functional. If this was an off night- a cold or something temporary then the Biden policy of low profile and silence needs to end so he can get out there and demonstrate that he's still got it.
And if he can't... then he should consider stepping aside. If what we saw last night is Bidens' norm then replacing him with Harris would be a lift. She is a former prosecutor. I think she could debate Trump pretty well.
"
After last nights debate I am thinking Harris would be preferable. If last night was just an off night then Biden needs to get out there and show it. If not, he should make some tough decisions. Unlike many, while I am unenthused, I do not profoundly fear a Harris candidacy.
"
25ing him and keeping him on the ticket would be simply handing the election to Trump.I, frankly, ignored that one because it's the solution to a problem we don't have. Biden has been running his administration perfectly fine, but he seems to not have the oomph for the even more demanding job of presidential campaigning.
And as for the notion of back room deals being made with the GOP for the good of the country? I'll be civil and not scornfully laugh at that idea the way it deserves.
"
It is. I had so hoped for a rerun of Biden/Ryan 2008. That was a good time.
"
It is -not- armchair pundit talking. I am a member of the Democratic Party of this country. This is a question of the ability of the presumptive nominee of my party for the Presidency to run in such a way as maximizes odds of victory. I am neither detatched nor view from nowhereing. I want to win, very badly. I have always been a yellow dog Democrat and the years of the GOP's decay and descent have not lessened those inclinations. We need to win.
As to your statement I'd say the same damned thing as you at the 11th hour. But right now, in this moment, we're in the late minutes of the 10th hour. So the thing i am saying now is "Replace the doddering old guy, it's important." Then if that doesn't happen then when the clock strikes eleven I'll switch to "Vote for the doddering old guy, it's important."
"
None of which would work considering that the Dems don't control all the legislatures that such schemes would require.
But the party can pressure him to step down and I think that, absent some serious remediative performances right quick, they should do so.
"
I'd say what I'm saying now. First: to contribute the tiny microscopic scintilla of an atom worth of pressure I can contribute to the force welling upwards pushing the party deciders to decide.
Second: to demonstrate to an undecided persuadable voter that I and my party are reality based and non-insane.
And, yes, if Biden hangs in there, if the party deciders make the call to continue backing him, yes if it's the eleventh hour I'll probably say what you're saying to an undecided voter.
But not now, not yet.
"
Yeah frankly I don't think anyone has any place to complain much about the moderators or the format.
"
Yes, agreed and if it comes to that choice in November you certainly know where I'd vote.
The question on the table for the party, right here, right now, is "Is Biden the candidate most likely to win in November or would our odds of winning increase if Biden quit/was pushed out and replaced by another candidate?)."
"
Absolutely David, I agree which is why I still think Biden is solid for the job of Presidenting. His circle, cabinet and admin is very much a part of that.
For the next few months, though, job #1 is Winning Presidential Candidate and on that metric there're serious substantive worries.
"
Sure they could, but noone has the authority now that the votes are in. It's going to have to be a conversation by Bidens inner circle and the party's inner circle. Ultimately only Biden can make the call. They can't force him out without violating the rules and bylaws of the party.
"
It was fair on her part and agonizing for us in his party. A terrible shame. Some grieving is allowed but either an emphatic refutation performance by Joe is required or else some kind of decision at this point. I don't think his team can punt this.
"
It seems, barring some convincing performance by Biden otherwise, that the best time to replace Joe would have been a year or so back, but the next best time may be now.
"
Chip, plenty has changed. We are supposed to be the working reality based party so we have to acknowledge reality and do some work. I have little doubt, and the past four years have shown conclusively, that Joe Biden has been and is up to the job of being President but the job in question right now is the job of Presidential Candidate and that debate performance suggests extremely strongly that Joe isn't up to that job- and it's a vitally important job.
Your own comment underlines that point- our side will support and defend the Constitution and Trump can be credibly charged with, at the minimum making noises about, destroying the republic. That makes the job of Presidential Candidate vitally important. Joe can't be President if he fishes up the Presidential Candidate job for the next, sweet agnostic jebus, three and change months.
Perhaps Joe had an off evening? One fishing heck of a time to have an off evening. If that is the case then Joe will -have- to emerge from his controlled spaces and confront the media circus himself. Only repeated public engagements are going to make any progress to beating back the damage this debate did to him.
And if Joe can't do that? Then a serious conversation has to be had about alternatives. Worse, that conversation won't involve much of the party- at this stage Joe has the nomination locked down if he chooses to take it. The delegates are elected and bound. The only way Joe doesn't get the nomination is if he does something- turns it down, dies, etc... So Joe has to either demonstrate- conclusively- that he is up to the job of Presidential Candidate of our party or he has to step down. This is for all the fishing marbles for fish's sake.
And I type all this with great regret verging on physical illness. I was not just a Biden supporter once he got the nod but an enthusiastic Biden supporter. I still can remember the thrill I felt when he obliterated Bernie on Super Tuesday in 2020.
On “Has The Election Turned A Corner?”
In absolute numbers I doubt they're exactly what we'd call a powerful voting block. In terms of ideology, clout and control of what the GOP actually does they're huge though their grasp is a little weaker now than it was pre-Trump. I can't think of any other constituency of the GOP that more reliably gets what they want than they.
"
I don't know if you and I were disagreeing to begin with. The GOP group who cares about tax cuts communicates their tax cut desires directly & privately and gets their assurances the same way. It's not some secret; they just don't trumpet it from the rooftops the way they did during the Bush II era.
"
Sure, doesn't change that the GOP reliably does it every time they get an opportunity to do so. There's no reason to talk about it- it's unpopular with the voting masses even within the GOP. The GOP politicians don't market it publicly to their voters for that reason. They just assure their wealthy donors in private meetings that the tax cuts will come- and they always do.
Judges? Judges wobble this way and that. Immigration? I'm not even going to bother laughing at that one it's so sad how vast the divide is between what the GOP says about immigration and what they do. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder. What the GOP does is cut taxes on the wealthy.
"
Of course they don't talk about taxes. Cutting taxes on the wealthy isn't popular and hasn't been popular for quite some time. But that's still the one north star the GOP can always, always, always be relied on to adhere to. Taxes on the wealthy will always be cut, whatever the year, whatever the situation, whenever the GOP has the power to do it.
"
Defining every GOP voter as anti-democratic, racist facists is both too pat and also too simplistic. No small number of them simply think Trump will cut their taxes and accomplish little else. Some vote GOP because they always have and think no more about doing so every four years than one does picking up milk every time they go to the grocery store. Some have genuine policy beefs with Dems and the further left that Dems get branded by and vote against them rather than for the GOP. The list goes on and on.