Also interesting that he said Harris was a good VP but not ready to be president -- seems like that might come back to bite either him or her. Even if he stays in, there can't be many people out there who think he's likely to last four years -- her being ready is part of his story in November but not so much right now.
I watched a few clips. Probably won't change anyone's mind one way or the other -- moments of confusion, some decent answers (though he just seems so old and tired).
Interesting tidbit on the NYT:
People close to Trump are thrilled about Biden’s solid enough performance. It was strong enough, they perceive/hope, to keep his candidacy alive. They foresee a landslide with Biden as their opponent and would rather not have anything happen to introduce risk, change or uncertainty. The status quo is their clear preference, even if they hardly fear Kamala Harris.
This makes sense to me -- I've seen some Blue MAGA types say that Trump wants Biden out (as a reason for Dems to support him), but i can't imagine Trump would be anything but thrilled to have Biden stay in the race. He has a treasure trove of photos and clips and editorials available to use in ads to question his fitness.
I think this is the “Rabbit or Duck” phenomenon that Yglesias was talking about — individually you could explain these away, but after the debate performance it’s hard not to see them all as evidence of his decline.
I saw a tweet asking if maybe we should try unplugging the US and plugging it back in again - both of these guys kicking the bucket before November would be pretty close to that.
Part of the “how we got here” is the specifics of our primary system. Under the old “smoke-filled back room” model, Trump would never have become the R candidate; and yes, Democratic primary voters voted for Biden for 2024, but that was at least partly because (for a variety of reasons, including individual calculations and likely threats from the top) Biden was the only plausible candidate to vote for.
So the republicans gave their electorate too much choice and the democrats gave too little…
In case you haven't seen it, there's a nifty interactive site "The Evolution of Trust" that walks you through iterated prisoner's dilemma concepts (without ever using the term "prisoner's dilemma', as I recall). It's been around for a while but not sure if anyone ever linked it here.
Besides what Jaybird said -- Biden is obviously on a trajectory to get worse and worse as time goes on. It's perfectly reasonable to say he was fine when he was elected, he's just barely good enough for now, but we should not be signing him up for another *four years* given what we've seen & learned.
“Biden’s done a great job and he’s the only one who’s defeated Trump - why would we walk away from him now? You don’t bench your star quarterback at halftime just because he broke both his legs!”
There are a few people here I might put in Blue MAGA territory, but you’re definitely not one of them. It’s the ones who are sticking with “one bad debate!!” “He had a cold!!!” etc who qualify.
Assuming the goal is to get closer to the actual truth, you have to be like a juror and understand that both sides are giving you a mixture of good and bad information based on their motives, and you have to weigh the info and claims against each other. Part of that is making sure you’re hearing the testimony of both sides in the first place, instead of filtering down to just one and guessing where they might be off.
Ok, glad that’s all done and dusted. So at what point does the Biden team feel sure Harris is no longer an immediate threat and start playing her up more to try to provide some reassurance?
I had an idea for a new slogan for the campaign but of course someone already beat me to it - “Vote for the corpse, it’s important.”
That last gloss on his letter is funny - he does sound quite MAGA-y these days. He’s losing a lot of the media elites, will be interesting to see how he fares appealing to the less-sophisticated masses. That’s not been the typical path to success in the Democratic Party.
It’s the best essay I’ve read so far from someone who was for sticking with Biden up until the debate — it’s a true mea culpa. The purpose of the analogy isn’t to excuse his mistake, it’s to help explain how the debate performance changed everything, including the interpretation of many events that came before it.
Though the problem with that particular optical illusion is that it’s very easy to make yourself see one or the other — a better analogy would’ve been one where it takes you a long time to see something but then once you see it, you can never go back. Like the third image in this post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/
Let’s see, 50% of likely voters is about 80 million people… 80,000,000x$117,000.00 = 9 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to buy the election. Can Biden pull this off in just four months?
But of all the efforts by wealthy Democrats, perhaps none is as ambitious as the Next Generation PAC, which plans to create a holding account to support a successor to Mr. Biden atop the Democratic ticket. ....
The new PAC effort is spearheaded by Mike Novogratz, the cryptocurrency billionaire who backed Dean Phillips in the Democratic primary; his aides; and the Hollywood filmmaker Andrew Jarecki, according to three people briefed on the plan, with likely support from the Movement Voter Project. Next Generation PAC, which had not filed federal paperwork as of Thursday afternoon, has told donors it is seeking to raise between $50 million and $100 million but is not planning to officially start until some money is in.
This anybody-but-Biden group intends to hold on to the money until either Mr. Biden steps down as the nominee or the Democratic National Convention concludes, according to materials distributed to donors and reviewed by The New York Times. If Mr. Biden were to leave, the PAC would spend money on ads for the new nominee and against Mr. Trump. If Mr. Biden remains the nominee, the group says, it will spend the cash by helping other Democrats.
I read someplace that there's some crypto billionaire who's spearheading some big fundraising effort for a Biden replacement, with a goal of $100 million.
It's weird, I remember that I played this a lot in high school, and the pic of the splash screen definitely strikes a chord, but I have basically no memory of the actual game play at all. I couldn't even tell you if I ever made it to the lowest floor or saw the final boss. I have a much clearer memory of Ultima.
I've often had similar thoughts of sports convo analogies for some of the discussions here. Here's one I've been sitting on for a while: imagine you and your buddies are watching the game on Sunday afternoon, and at the end of the 3rd quarter your team is down by a TD and is facing a 3rd & 7 on their on 40. And you say "for the love of god, put the ball in the air, don't get cute and try to run it!", and your buddy says "yeah but that's what they'll be expecting", and you get into a little argument about whether they should run or pass. But the decision the actual coach is making goes way beyond "run or pass" -- he's got dozens of plays in the playbook with a bunch of variations, and he's managing a crap-ton of info about his personnel, the opponent's personnel, his and their tendencies for the whole season, what worked well in practice, what his eyes-in-the-sky is telling him, etc.
You can have a great time arguing "run or pass" or even get really worked up about it, and maybe when they try a draw and get 3 yards and have to punt, you yell "fire the coach!" at the TV, but it's all for fun and has practically nothing to do with reality.
These are good points. Nate's observation is certainly not new (see eg this comic) but I think you've captured why that sort of thinking is so much less apt to survive for long in sports world.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/8/2024”
Also interesting that he said Harris was a good VP but not ready to be president -- seems like that might come back to bite either him or her. Even if he stays in, there can't be many people out there who think he's likely to last four years -- her being ready is part of his story in November but not so much right now.
"
I watched a few clips. Probably won't change anyone's mind one way or the other -- moments of confusion, some decent answers (though he just seems so old and tired).
Interesting tidbit on the NYT:
This makes sense to me -- I've seen some Blue MAGA types say that Trump wants Biden out (as a reason for Dems to support him), but i can't imagine Trump would be anything but thrilled to have Biden stay in the race. He has a treasure trove of photos and clips and editorials available to use in ads to question his fitness.
"
I think this is the “Rabbit or Duck” phenomenon that Yglesias was talking about — individually you could explain these away, but after the debate performance it’s hard not to see them all as evidence of his decline.
On “The Arrow of Time, Lodged Deep in Our Political Posterior”
Yeah I know, I just thought it was morbidly amusing.
"
Speaking of, apparently HRC polls better than Harris as a Biden replacement.
"
I saw a tweet asking if maybe we should try unplugging the US and plugging it back in again - both of these guys kicking the bucket before November would be pretty close to that.
"
So you expect him to give you a thoughtful response?
Fascinating.
"
You should've just kept it at the first question and then added "Fascinating."
"
Part of the “how we got here” is the specifics of our primary system. Under the old “smoke-filled back room” model, Trump would never have become the R candidate; and yes, Democratic primary voters voted for Biden for 2024, but that was at least partly because (for a variety of reasons, including individual calculations and likely threats from the top) Biden was the only plausible candidate to vote for.
So the republicans gave their electorate too much choice and the democrats gave too little…
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/8/2024”
What does Trump have to do with the question of who the Democrats should have on the ballot in November?
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/10/2024”
In case you haven't seen it, there's a nifty interactive site "The Evolution of Trust" that walks you through iterated prisoner's dilemma concepts (without ever using the term "prisoner's dilemma', as I recall). It's been around for a while but not sure if anyone ever linked it here.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/8/2024”
Besides what Jaybird said -- Biden is obviously on a trajectory to get worse and worse as time goes on. It's perfectly reasonable to say he was fine when he was elected, he's just barely good enough for now, but we should not be signing him up for another *four years* given what we've seen & learned.
"
“Biden’s done a great job and he’s the only one who’s defeated Trump - why would we walk away from him now? You don’t bench your star quarterback at halftime just because he broke both his legs!”
"
There are a few people here I might put in Blue MAGA territory, but you’re definitely not one of them. It’s the ones who are sticking with “one bad debate!!” “He had a cold!!!” etc who qualify.
"
Assuming the goal is to get closer to the actual truth, you have to be like a juror and understand that both sides are giving you a mixture of good and bad information based on their motives, and you have to weigh the info and claims against each other. Part of that is making sure you’re hearing the testimony of both sides in the first place, instead of filtering down to just one and guessing where they might be off.
On “It’s Time For Biden To Be A Statesman”
Ok, glad that’s all done and dusted. So at what point does the Biden team feel sure Harris is no longer an immediate threat and start playing her up more to try to provide some reassurance?
I had an idea for a new slogan for the campaign but of course someone already beat me to it - “Vote for the corpse, it’s important.”
"
That last gloss on his letter is funny - he does sound quite MAGA-y these days. He’s losing a lot of the media elites, will be interesting to see how he fares appealing to the less-sophisticated masses. That’s not been the typical path to success in the Democratic Party.
On “Open Mic for the week of 7/8/2024”
It’s the best essay I’ve read so far from someone who was for sticking with Biden up until the debate — it’s a true mea culpa. The purpose of the analogy isn’t to excuse his mistake, it’s to help explain how the debate performance changed everything, including the interpretation of many events that came before it.
Though the problem with that particular optical illusion is that it’s very easy to make yourself see one or the other — a better analogy would’ve been one where it takes you a long time to see something but then once you see it, you can never go back. Like the third image in this post: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/12/its-bayes-all-the-way-up/
On “It’s Time For Biden To Be A Statesman”
Let’s see, 50% of likely voters is about 80 million people… 80,000,000x$117,000.00 = 9 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to buy the election. Can Biden pull this off in just four months?
"
Oh here it is in the NYT:
"
I read someplace that there's some crypto billionaire who's spearheading some big fundraising effort for a Biden replacement, with a goal of $100 million.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: The Wizardry Overhaul Is a Home Run”
It's weird, I remember that I played this a lot in high school, and the pic of the splash screen definitely strikes a chord, but I have basically no memory of the actual game play at all. I couldn't even tell you if I ever made it to the lowest floor or saw the final boss. I have a much clearer memory of Ultima.
On “Political Junkies Verses Sports Fans: Who Is More in Touch with Reality?”
I've often had similar thoughts of sports convo analogies for some of the discussions here. Here's one I've been sitting on for a while: imagine you and your buddies are watching the game on Sunday afternoon, and at the end of the 3rd quarter your team is down by a TD and is facing a 3rd & 7 on their on 40. And you say "for the love of god, put the ball in the air, don't get cute and try to run it!", and your buddy says "yeah but that's what they'll be expecting", and you get into a little argument about whether they should run or pass. But the decision the actual coach is making goes way beyond "run or pass" -- he's got dozens of plays in the playbook with a bunch of variations, and he's managing a crap-ton of info about his personnel, the opponent's personnel, his and their tendencies for the whole season, what worked well in practice, what his eyes-in-the-sky is telling him, etc.
You can have a great time arguing "run or pass" or even get really worked up about it, and maybe when they try a draw and get 3 yards and have to punt, you yell "fire the coach!" at the TV, but it's all for fun and has practically nothing to do with reality.
"
No, don’t fall for it - he’s just trying to trick the Democrats into switching!
"
These are good points. Nate's observation is certainly not new (see eg this comic) but I think you've captured why that sort of thinking is so much less apt to survive for long in sports world.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.