Biden had to drop out because of the perception that he couldn't face the rigors of a campaign. That perception was decisive whether true or not. (FWIW, it looks true to me, but it was still the perception that was politically important, not whatever the reality may be or when it became the reality, if it did.) Whether Biden can run his government is an entirely different question, because running a government requires a very different set of skills than campaigning, and, at this point, there is no reason to think those skills have deteriorated enough to be problematic. I would assume that he has lost his fastball, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that he can't get folks out with his off-speed stuff. Quite the contrary. Until there is a perception that he can't run the government, especially now that he doesn't have to campaign, there isn't a pressing story. Eventually, memoirs, biographies, and histories will get us more detail about the decline of his fastball and the effectiveness of his off-speed stuff, but that will be in the "nice to know" category, not the "holy shit" category.
I think by "fallen," JB simply means that Snopses's take has "dropped." It matches what I understand to be JB's take on the matter, and the reasons for it. Of course, I'm taking some risk in trying to parse out what JB means, but that's my best guess.
To whom? As Abraham Lincoln said when asked for a blurb on a forthcoming book: People who like this sort of thing will find it to be exactly what they like.
Sometimes. But people notoriously get the basic facts of their own lives wrong often, and politicians, pundits, and scam artists can exploit that easily.
Why would you think that? Just because factually things are pretty good and getting better doesn't mean that large numbers of voters understand either the larger economy or their own situations. Vibes and all that.
He may want to, but he can't. The Supreme Court said so in Texas v. Johnson in 1989. Surprisingly, it was only 5-4 with a bizarre dissent by Justice Stevens, but it was really an easy case to anyone who was actually thinking rather than sputtering.
Yes, there is "some question." But there doesn't seem to be a great deal of interest in the answer given the unassailable fact that the guy shot at Trump and tried to kill him. Whether Trump was hit by a bullet or by shrapnel would be nice to know, but it wouldn't tell us anything useful. I suppose if someone put a gun to my head and demanded that I plunk down $100, at even money, on one of the two possibilities, I know which I'd pick based on what we know so far. But what pick I'd make with a gun to my head doesn't interest me, and I can't imagine that it would or should interest anyone else. My guess is we'll know one way or the other in the not-too-distant future. But maybe we won't, and that will be fine too. Grown-ups can live with uncertainty.
I'm surprised to hear that TFG was hot for Burgum. I thought he wouldn't want to run the risk of being overshadowed by a legitimate, and self-made, billionaire.
Is there a gameplan for how we treat the people demanding that Biden stay in for as long as he did? Do we want to make that more costly in the future?
The "gameplan" for how "we" -- presumably Democrats -- treat people who stuck with Biden longer than some of us think they should have is to take the win, encourage their work and their votes for the new ticket, and gracefully accept them. There is no obvious reason to make "that" -- whatever "that" is beyond mere disagreement on handling what is more than likely a one-off situation we will never see again in our lives -- more "costly" in the future. Especially if there is no obvious benefit to offset the cost.
Presidents don't spend their time debating. Verbal quickness and avoidance of gaffs are good for instilling public confidence, but what Presidents do is consider and absorb information from their aides and cabinet officers and chiefs of staff and applying deliberate judgment to come up with a sensible course of action. That they get someone's name wrong -- I'm a good bit younger than Biden and I do it myself more than I used to -- or speak slowly has little to do with how they perform their substantive jobs.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “None Dare Call It A Conspiracy, Because It Wasn’t”
Can you imagine answering North's actual question?
"
So, No.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/22/2024”
And they always manage.
On “President Biden Addresses the Nation Regarding Not Seeking Re-election”
Biden had to drop out because of the perception that he couldn't face the rigors of a campaign. That perception was decisive whether true or not. (FWIW, it looks true to me, but it was still the perception that was politically important, not whatever the reality may be or when it became the reality, if it did.) Whether Biden can run his government is an entirely different question, because running a government requires a very different set of skills than campaigning, and, at this point, there is no reason to think those skills have deteriorated enough to be problematic. I would assume that he has lost his fastball, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that he can't get folks out with his off-speed stuff. Quite the contrary. Until there is a perception that he can't run the government, especially now that he doesn't have to campaign, there isn't a pressing story. Eventually, memoirs, biographies, and histories will get us more detail about the decline of his fastball and the effectiveness of his off-speed stuff, but that will be in the "nice to know" category, not the "holy shit" category.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/22/2024”
Oops.
"
Trump is a p****y.
"
I think by "fallen," JB simply means that Snopses's take has "dropped." It matches what I understand to be JB's take on the matter, and the reasons for it. Of course, I'm taking some risk in trying to parse out what JB means, but that's my best guess.
"
To whom? As Abraham Lincoln said when asked for a blurb on a forthcoming book: People who like this sort of thing will find it to be exactly what they like.
"
Sometimes. But people notoriously get the basic facts of their own lives wrong often, and politicians, pundits, and scam artists can exploit that easily.
"
Why would you think that? Just because factually things are pretty good and getting better doesn't mean that large numbers of voters understand either the larger economy or their own situations. Vibes and all that.
"
He may want to, but he can't. The Supreme Court said so in Texas v. Johnson in 1989. Surprisingly, it was only 5-4 with a bizarre dissent by Justice Stevens, but it was really an easy case to anyone who was actually thinking rather than sputtering.
"
Was there even a "description of the author" to turn to? (The article is behind a paywall.) And would it have mattered if there weren't?
"
Yes, there is "some question." But there doesn't seem to be a great deal of interest in the answer given the unassailable fact that the guy shot at Trump and tried to kill him. Whether Trump was hit by a bullet or by shrapnel would be nice to know, but it wouldn't tell us anything useful. I suppose if someone put a gun to my head and demanded that I plunk down $100, at even money, on one of the two possibilities, I know which I'd pick based on what we know so far. But what pick I'd make with a gun to my head doesn't interest me, and I can't imagine that it would or should interest anyone else. My guess is we'll know one way or the other in the not-too-distant future. But maybe we won't, and that will be fine too. Grown-ups can live with uncertainty.
"
Why would we have to "admit" that? And is it even true? Or does any of that matter?
On “The Next Candidate To Be Dumped?”
I'm surprised to hear that TFG was hot for Burgum. I thought he wouldn't want to run the risk of being overshadowed by a legitimate, and self-made, billionaire.
On “Democrats in Array as Harris Consolidates Support”
Demonstrating how little we have missed.
"
Projection doesn't happen only at the movie house.
"
Recognizing reality is an actual thing.
On “The Case for Gratitude That Joe Biden Stepped Down”
Is there a gameplan for how we treat the people demanding that Biden stay in for as long as he did? Do we want to make that more costly in the future?
The "gameplan" for how "we" -- presumably Democrats -- treat people who stuck with Biden longer than some of us think they should have is to take the win, encourage their work and their votes for the new ticket, and gracefully accept them. There is no obvious reason to make "that" -- whatever "that" is beyond mere disagreement on handling what is more than likely a one-off situation we will never see again in our lives -- more "costly" in the future. Especially if there is no obvious benefit to offset the cost.
On “Joe Biden Announces that he is not Running for Re-election”
Grading your own papers again, Pinky?
"
We can revisit this in a few months, during which Biden will be Presidenting rather than campaigning.
"
So let's not bite.
"
Maybe we can just refuse to engage when he doesn't.
"
Yes, right. Glad we agree.
"
Presidents don't spend their time debating. Verbal quickness and avoidance of gaffs are good for instilling public confidence, but what Presidents do is consider and absorb information from their aides and cabinet officers and chiefs of staff and applying deliberate judgment to come up with a sensible course of action. That they get someone's name wrong -- I'm a good bit younger than Biden and I do it myself more than I used to -- or speak slowly has little to do with how they perform their substantive jobs.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.