🦄 The Casual 2024 Presidential Election

[NewNinetyNine]

The ramp up time to launch an invasion of Taiwan would take months. A presidential transition is a trivial thing compared with the positioning of troops and logistics necessary for such an endeavour.

Israel can handle itself.

Honestly this is all nonesensical FUD especially compared to the alternative of having Trump at the helm instead. At least with Biden, you'd have competent people staffing all the relevant agencies and not the incompetent sycophants that Trump would chose.

Keeping Biden on the ticket is rolling out a red carpet to a Trump presidency. He was losing before the debate and his polling is plummeting, afterwards. As of yesterday, New Hampshire is in play, which likely means Virginia and New Mexico are winnable. Ethics of a known-cognitively-declined president aside, this is a "break the glass" electoral situation.

I'm also floored that such a thoughtful and articulate person is writing off concerns that a president navigating cognitive decline, potential serious health issues, and potential death in office as "nonsensical FUD." Biden's Ukraine coalition shows how instrumental a functioning president can be to rallying allies and Americans to a cause. And we're watching in real time how a president too feeble to campaign well is failing to be a bulwark against Trumpism as a party leader, a candidate, and a president.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

If Urmurrikan elections are a popularity contest, Democrats would be stupid to eject the man who's been in politics for half a century, who was VP for eight years and is on his fourth year of actually being POTUS. No other potential candidate has name recognition anywhere close to that, unless you count Michelle Obama. That's why her name keeps coming up--people know who she is. Whereas I, a supposedly well informed voter, can barely picture what Newsom or Klobuchar look like.

That's why the GOP is hoping Biden will get jettisoned in favor of some relative unknown who will promptly be defined by Trump, who is platformed beyond all comprehension.

Name recognition without popularity is a fatal combination. Many of Biden's alternatives poll lower than he does in a head-to-head matchup due to national voters not knowing enough about them to say one way or the other. Every voter knows Biden, and they really, really dislike him. He's less popular than Trump was at this point in 2020, as a reference.

Someone like Whitmer will get every camera in the world chasing her if she gets the nomination, and she has a huge ceiling to improve her national numbers. Indeed, an alternate candidate selection process might be the one positive thing that can suck oxygen away from 24/7 Trump coverage. Biden is completely known and his no room to improve. But he would have a lot of chances to show cognitive decline and lose the election by larger margins.

The options aren't "mind wipe the country and return to losing by a plausible amount on 6/26" and "new candidate." They are "embrace Trump through Biden's flailing campaign and plummeting polling" and "new candidate."

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I think people have become inured to our government.

I still think allowing people that have no fucking clue what's going on to have a say at the table is really really fucking stupid. I guess it's comfort that a lot of folks don't have say for at least the president side of it. My vote doesn't count but Fat Charlie's vote in CA doesn't either so I guess that's a wash.

OK, come up with a method for evaluating who "has a fucking clue" and can participate that can't be abused by nefarious actors.

I would go in the opposite direction with mandatory voting that shifts power away from the most zealous partisans.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I'd be fine with all positions randomly selected. Everyone has to sign up for 'service' and one day you might be a senator for a year.

How does that work with SCOTUS's recent ruling that a bribe given after a favor is legal? It would be trivial for Acme Corporation to bribe 535 people who were previously averaging ~$75k per year.

Bribery aside, this idea just doesn't scale past something like a settlement level where there is strong social accountability and a direct stake in outcomes. At a US Federal level, the problems are much more complex and the power concentrated into individual offices is staggering, while accountability is non-existent. OK, my uncle that thinks we should "nuke the Middle East" is now commender in chief, and people who can't even read at a high school level are writing legislation under the watchful eyes of lobbyists.

Sortition always feels like someone who is yearning for a less complex world instead of facing the challenges of the empirical world.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I thought it was only the President that was allowed to take bribes.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken. Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that state and local governments already regulate gifts to officials, and so the federal law “does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities.”

The question came to the court in the case of James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Ind., who was convicted and sentenced to 21 months in prison for violating the federal law at the center of the case, known as Section 666. That law bars state and local government officials from “corruptly” accepting “anything of value of any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act. In 2014, Snyder received $13,000 from a truck company that had recently received contracts totaling over $1 million for new trash trucks for the city. Snyder maintains that the payment was for consulting services, but federal prosecutors called it an illegal gratuity.

Congress could pass a new law to regulate gratuities, but...well...Congress.

Kavanaugh closed his opinion by noting that “Congress can always change the law if it wishes to do so” – but it has not, since 1986.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Someone on the 538 subreddit put together a swell swing state tracker that shows the 538 average of polls by swing state on one tab and recent 538-recognized polls on the other tab. It's so much better than going state by state through their drop-down:

https://swingstates.vercel.app/

 

[NewNinetyNine]

This is covered in the Biden dropping out thread, but Biden's cognitive history is receiving a lot of reporting recently. He also operated at a level where he completely overcame his stutter in the 2008 and 2012 debates, getting back online in a fraction of a second.

Biden himself said to donors this week that his issues were due to traveling (over a week before his debate) and the resultant fatigue, and that "I almost fell asleep on stage." Is that a symptom of stuttering?

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Yes, the wisdom to fight to retain the filibuster in early 2021 after BLM and before Dobbs, appoint the world's weakest AG who fails to get Trump indicted in time, slow-rolling advanced Ukrainian weapons during their very limited window of opportunity before being crushed, and facilitating all the war crimes in Gaza. All before gifting Donald Trump the presidency, because he'd rather gaslight us for a 1 in 10 chance for a second term.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Nobody meets that requirement.

It's a spectrum. Would you say that Obama's cognition was ever questioned? No one is ever perfectly focused either, but we still sack surgeons who show up drunk.

Joe Biden has stuttered all his life.

And a lot of pixels have died in these threads to demonstrate to you that Biden's performance was not consistent with any of his previous stuttering or demonstrated skills. Joe Biden 2012 would have eviscerated both 2024 candidates with a big ol' grin.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Michelle Obama is not running and the only person that will convince me she is is Michelle Obama.

Can we just like...throw a sack over her head and dump her on stage at the convention? Sometimes the country comes first. (Not serious, but it's amusing how much enduring popularity the Obamas exhibit. I wonder if it's nostalgia for our last true bout of stability? Or maybe because they weren't part of the gerontocracy?)

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Another aspect that makes it difficult to believe Trump has suddenly pulled ahead the "swing" State senate races. In Nevada, Rosen is polling 5-15 points ahead of Brown. But Trump is polling 3-5 points ahead of Biden. In Arizona Gallego is polling 1-5 points ahead of Lake. But Trump is leading by about 5 points. In Michigan, Slotkin is polling 2-5 ahead of Rogers, but Trump leads Biden by about 3 points.

If the polls are accurate, there seem to be a lot Rosen/Trump, Gallego/Trump and Slotking/Trump split ticket voters.

Minnesota is even more skewed, Klobuchar is at least +10, but Biden and Trump are polling even. I won't believe it is possible there are that many Klobuchar/Trump voters until it actually happens.

Voters are screaming at us that they like Democrats and really don't want Biden. Kind of like how they were screaming in 2023 that they did not want Biden again, and the party flipped them off, shoved the old man at them, and shouted "Trump bad!"

https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1808456402207142078Although I think any D would probably be an underdog to Trump, I feel better about their chances after looking at the Senate polling. Senate Dems are doing EXTREMELY will, in contrast to Biden who is doing EXTREMELY BADLY in the exact same polls.



I don't know if anyone can gift NYT, but the full article is here: Doing Nothing About Biden Is the Riskiest Plan of All

 

[NewNinetyNine]

That poll about swing state voters trusting Trump more than Biden on democracy is all that you need to know about the American electorate.

It's hopeless.

To be fair, if we had a leader with a pulse who could make that case, we might not be letting Trump define the public response.

When Biden gets up on a podium and looks so feeble, he'd have a hard time selling voters on water in Death Valley. Supposedly his entire campaign is organized around convincing the public that he deserves your vote to safeguard Democracy...

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Let's not forget that people who rely on Fox News (or worse) for their news are being given a highly edited version of reality, and don't really have the cognitive skills to tell when the "official" story has holes and contradictions that you could drive a fleet of semis through. But even with that, they do seem to like the fact that he's an unrepentant jackass.

To be fair, we're seeing people watch Biden exhibit cognitive decline in real-time on TV and try to handwave it away under silly pretenses.

People stumble to red and blue regardless of their cognition or susceptibility. We just like bestowing accolades on ourselves.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

That would be rational if you had another candidate to run that has a better chance of beating Trump than Biden does. Do you?

Show us your work.

Trump has been beaten by ONE Democratic candidate before -- Joe Biden.
Seriously, this is a question for you too. You say many Democratic candidates can beat Trump.

Show us your work.

Biden himself said that "50 Democrats" could beat Trump.

You're essentially saying that aging is not a factor and that a person who pulls something off in one year will retain viability for that task forever. This does not apply to 100-year-old brain surgeons or 60-year-old quarterbacks, and it doesn't apply to a candidate who is polling 10+ points behind his last run.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

on one hand, you aren't wrong, our response to Trump has indeed been entirely insufficient to the task. On the other hand, you go to war with the army you have got, and that means voting for the feckless head of lettuce (who, in terms of professor accomplishments, is more accomplished than any president since we'll before Reagan, and, therefore, on most issues, is hardly feckless).

Biden has failed to accomplish what history will view as his #1 task: blocking Trump from a second term:

• Nominated a feckless AG who allowed prosecutions to drag into 2024.
• Entered office championing the filibuster, putting a BLM response, voting rights, and abortion rights out of reach of the party. This seems to have depressed enthusiasm for Black Democrats and others.
• Ran himself without evaluating other options despite <40% popularity, 70+% of the country polling that he was too old, and a majority of Democrats not wanting him to run again. Oh, and hidden cognitive decline.
• Zealously pursued an extremist path in Gaza, fracturing his party needlessly.
• Said campaign has been a flaming dumpster fire, which recently slid into a volcano.

History will remember this head of lettuce as being useless for the challenge that mattered, not the CHIPS bill. It turns out that an avatar of the status quo experiencing cognitive decline was a bad choice for heading off an existential threat.

As Nate Silver more eloquently put it:

You don't demonstrate your seriousness that Trump is an existential threat to democracy by going through the motions to renominate an 81-year-old with a 38% approval rating who 75% of voters think is too old without giving anyone a choice because that's just how things are done.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Honestly, that's Nate at his stupidest, not his most eloquent. At any point in time, anyone who thought that Biden couldn't carry the day could have gotten the signatures to get on the primary and make it a challenge.

This is absolutely preposterous. If voters have reservations about a candidate for office, they're supposed to run for POTUS or forever shut up? Voters did indicate their preference for not Biden
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/most-democrats-dont-want-biden-to-seek-a-2nd-term-poll-says

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024.


That’s according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that shows just 37% of Democrats say they want him to seek a second term, down from 52% in the weeks before last year’s midterm elections.

Biden did not give them a chance to express themselves before he ran, due to a primary that boxed out any competitive candidate. Crucially, this allowed Biden to dodge public speaking in debates. Please don't rewrite history and gaslight us.

That didn't happen because people believed he was the best choice. Has that sentiment changed? Apparently, but we can't go back in time and ascribe now motivations to then.

There was nothing anywhere that would have stopped a serious primary challenger, except the confidence that the Democrats believed they were backing the right play.

You're not this naive. Obama blocked Biden in 2016, and it's likely that the Democratic establishment made it clear to top-tier candidates that opposing Biden would get them disowned in 2024 and 2028. You can see from the polling above that there were widespread concerns about Biden, and we're now hearing that Biden's troubles were an open secret in insider circles for 18 months. He was never a strong choice, let along the best choice: an immensely unpopular administration and persistent concerns about his age.

We got a sham primary with no debates and no serious opponents, and Biden's ruthless pursuit of a second term is blowing up in all of our faces. Vexatiously, Biden may not even be cognizant of the destruction he's wrought by the time Trump is sworn in.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

People believe we're seeing cognitive decline.

When Trump took office, there were people trying to read decline in Trump, comparing his speech from a couple of decades ago to the way he was speaking around 2016-17.

That was no more valid a way to make a clinical assessment than it is now.

You're quibbling over terminology.

Biden is feeble. He speaks feebly, he moves feebly, and he's completely unreliable without a teleprompter. He apparently needs to go to bed at 8PM, and has had numerous incidents that looked like cognitive meltdowns. His staff is scared to schedule anything outside of 10AM-4PM. He has to take the short steps on Air Force One, and his team has swaddled him away from unscripted appearances to prevent the immolation of his campaign.

No matter what the exact cause is, it obviously disqualifies him from aging four more years in office. It should disqualify him from remaining in office. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying "No the surgeon isn't drunk, he's probably high on acid. You got the substance wrong, so you have to let him operate!"

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Like seriously guys, is the current CNN headline of “Biden tells governors he needs more sleep, will cease late events” supposed to help here? Pretty far cry from who is answering the red phone at 2am. Jill? Can she run? I despair.

Remember when Obama would get up early and work late? I miss not having a nursing home patient as POTUS. And Biden wants four more years - will he clock out at 1PM in 2029?

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Fucking yes. That's how democracy works. It's 100% put-up-or-shut-up. If there were real, existential desire to replace Biden during the course of the Democratic primary, somebody has to step up. If nobody does, then clearly it wasn't enough of a concern to do something about.

Here is no magic Sky Democrat that comes in and saves the day. We do it ourselves, which means putting on our big-boy/girl pants and running for office when it's required. It frankly is what Biden did in 2016.

There are maybe a few handfuls of people in the country who have the resources and background to meaningfully challenge a Democratic presidential primary, and Democratic rank-and-file did their part by expressing an extremely strong preference of "god, anyone but Biden again." On top of that, party insiders were covering up Biden's cognitive decline while all of this was happening, blocking potential contenders and the public from knowing the extent of Biden's issues.

You're victim blaming an electorate who didn't get viable candidates or debates that could have vetted Biden, and I do hope you're excited for a second Trump term. Because that's where the party aimed us in 2024.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

None of this is accurate or true, I want to be clear you understand you're not speaking facts.

It's interesting that you claim this yet cannot itemize anything that is inaccurate. Let's try your grasp of reality: Do you acknowledge that Obama leaned on Biden to not run against Clinton in 2016?

And again, we're not given candidates, we choose them. That's a very, very important thing to understand. Any other reading is fundamentally undemocratic, and not how things are done. That said, people that make politics a career understand a big part of that is getting enough recognition to get people to vote for them. That might be service, it might be though outspoken support of policies, or through material support of others in the party. But they are all doing the thing that needs to happen, get recognition and name ID. All to demonstrate they have earned the votes.

Functionally, we had no choices to choose in 2024: Dean Who and Crystal Lady. The party blocked anyone competitive through soft power or hard threats, and Biden was coronated despite a terrible approval ratings, nagging concerns about his fitness, and support for unpopular ethnic cleansing abroad. Record numbers of people voted "uncommitted," because the party filtered out any viable alternative.

And you seem to be conflating "the electorate" with "democratic primary voters". Those aren't the same groups, in very important ways. And you also seem to be confusing "democratic primary voters" with "active members of the Democratic Party", which also aren't the same thing.

You're quibbling here when you know perfectly well that I'm referring to Democratic primary voters in the context of a Democratic primary. It's fitting a pattern of trying to discredit the poster instead of credibly argue the post, because you have no proof or sound reasoning to fall back on.

The party's reputation will be severely damaged by this imbroglio. And if the end result of all of this primary maneuvering was a second Trump term, I won't shed a tear if these people are abducted in the middle of the night. Good job, you forced a historically weak candidate with known cognitive decline on us at the most crucial juncture.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

You seem to be forgetting the four hours per day Trump spent watching television, blocked off on his schedule as "presidential time".

Though to be fair, the more time he spent watching television the better off everyone was.

Why are you letting Trump set the bar going forward? The reaction to Trumpism shouldn't be giving up on the standards of our country.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Yah, see, this is how I know you don't know anything about how the Democratic party operates. It's not nearly as authoritarian as people seem to think it is. Were there discussions among possible challengers? Oh absolutely, people talk, and politicians talk more than anyone. But they're going to be just that, discussions. Nobody would have been kicked out of the party if they decided to be the challenger. At the end of the day, nobody who considered it thought they could beat Biden, and everyone was convinced that a string primary challenger would be a death knell for Biden the candidate, just like Carter before him.

Do you acknowledge that Obama leaned on Biden to give us Clinton in 2016? A simple Yes/No will suffice. This is a good test of whether or not further discussion would be productive.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Lack of sufficient sleep is a growing problem for people of all ages, not just octagenarians.

Not a good look to be dismissive of advocacy for more sleep.

No, the presidency is a 24/7/365 job with the highest stakes and unpredictability. If Biden cannot function properly past 8pm (actually 4pm, apparently), then he is not fit for the office. This is not "sleep advocacy," but an elderly man letting slip how difficult his office is now - let alone in 4.5 years.

Do you similarly see Trump's copious executive time as "advocacy for work/life balance?"

 

[NewNinetyNine]

There's no proof that Biden can't function past 8 PM unless you're basing it on one debate.

He had poor debates in the 2020 primaries too.

If he decides to go to sleep at 8 PM but an emergency requires him being waken up, you think he just won't be able to convene advisors and take input and make a decision?

We don't know, because Biden has studiously avoided unscripted events in the evening. And apparently we can't trust the White House at all.

We know that he was struggling in the Hur press conference and debate and that foreign leaders reported some shakiness when he was traveling outside of his time zone. But Biden has gone out of his way to avoid proving whether or not he's cognizant in the evenings...

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I seem to have been imagining all those primaries occuring this past spring.

Like this apparently imaginary happening: 2024 Michigan Democratic presidential primary

Primaries are run by the states and state parties. Anyone who wanted to challenge Biden could have done so.

Russia and North Korea run elections as well, but those also have only 1 real candidate. The act of collecting votes does not mean that there is a choice to be had.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Dismantling the Department of Education is not a new talking point for the Republican party.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyMosJdIfdo


Yeah this is a long-standing target.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Republicans are putting together opposition research on Kamala and every other potential candidate who might replace Biden.

Every other candidate is known but they've yet to be defined. So it will be a race to define the candidate.

How do you dig up something worse than a candidate who has a cognitive meltdown during the debate and is proposing an 8pm bedtime to mitigate it? That's beyond "dead girl or live boy" territory.

I'm continually flummoxed by people who point out reasonable hypothetical risks for replacement candidates while ignoring the Biden dumpster fire with the attack profile of an aircraft carrier. It's willful obtuseness.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

What are we basing this assertion on, precisely? The once-again-nameless-different-candidate's nonexistent campaign, with its nonexistent media relations team?

Biden is toast as a candidate, either now or when Trump beats him in a landslide. I get that Biden-or-bust people are in different stages of grief - including anger - and that others have been so conditioned by right-wing attacks that they reflexively push back against legitimate criticism. But it's time to either move on or cede the election to Trump.

I mean the stodgy Economist is going with a Biden walker as its cover and devastating accounts are filltering out to the press; he's rapidly transitioning to "joke status." It's almost impossible for alternatives to end up in a worse spot.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

It is beyond obvious by now that the media is going to pounce on any Democratic candidate no matter who it is. We literally went through a media-driven health scare with Hillary eight years ago. It defies comprehension that someone would think a different Democratic candidate would get a pass from the media. For whatever reason they are clearly in the tank for Trump--the Post just published a sample resignation speech for Biden, ffs. It's straight up character assassination.

Hillary had one afternoon where she was dizzy. It quickly left the news cycle. Biden stumbled verbally and physically for 90 minutes on national television after prepping and resting for a whole week. It will dog him for the rest of his life. One of these things is not like the other.

Also, if you're sure that Republicans are going to attack your candidate, it behooves you not to retain someone with massive vulnerabilities that are impossible to ignore. You minimize your attack profile, not pout and pretend that all candidates are equal in defense.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Could you link to these polls, please? I haven't seen anything like that since-- well, I haven't seen anything like that.

I recommend this site to check up on swing states, and it also lists recent polls.

Biden is not necessarily behind by double digits nationally yet, but he is behind double digits from 2020. Which is devastating when he underperformed his polling and barely won in 2020. Worse, we're seeing double-digit-plus shifts in individual swing states from 2020.

Simple examples:
Biden 2020 National 7/5/23: +9.6
Biden 2024 National 7/5/24: -2.5
Swing: -12.1

Biden Nevada 7/5/23: +8.6
Biden Nevada 7/5/24: -5.7
Swing: -14.3
Biden General Election: +2.4

Biden Michigan 7/5/23: +9.7
Biden Michigan 7/5/24: -2.7
Swing: -12.4
Biden General Election: +2.8

So we can see that Biden 2024 has seen a massive drop in viability, and if the Biden bias of polling in 2024 is anything like 2020 we're looking at a massive landslide victory for Trump, because Biden massively underperformed his polling in 2024.

That is the baseline which people are arguing "well, what if there's discord at the convention!" and similar against.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Short of holding a new primary--which no one serious is suggesting--a Biden replacement would be a nominee no one voted for.

No one voted for Biden in a non-sham primary in 2024, so we wouldn't be losing anything.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I think many Democrat voters are simply frozen in terror at the thought of a second Trump term. They're clinging to Biden, afraid to let go even as he plummets into the abyss, taking them with him.

Yes and - to steal the oft-used insult of team Biden - this is not a time for bedwetting!

 

[NewNinetyNine]

You are honestly comparing our process to that in Russia or North Korea?

Really?

Last I noticed, Biden, unlike Putin, was not falsely arresting those who might challenge them and having them killed in prison.

sigh The point isn't that we exactly mimicked every facet of those countries but to demonstrate that not every event where votes are cast and collected is a competitive election. The 2024 primary had 1 viable candidate, no debates, and the entire power structure lining up behind the incumbent. All realistic challengers were dissuaded from entering.

Biden has as much of a primary mandate as my cat, except my cat is more likely to charm audiences during a debate.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Biden already has very little attack surface. It's telling that the only attack angle the GOP has ever had on Biden is his age. He is the most effective and progressive president since LBJ, despite an opposition that's obstructionist if not treasonous, and that's not an exaggeration.

Saying that Biden has "very little attack surface" except for his age* is like boasting that the Hindenburg had a fantastic maiden voyage aside from the explosions. A supermajority of voters think that Biden's age and related decline makes him unfit for office.

(*Which I don't agree with, but we'll put that aside.)

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Facts not in evidence.

OK, point to the polling that supports Biden's viability and the swing states that you think he will carry in 2024. An actual path to victory, not "I think Trump is the baddest dude ever, so my guy will win!"

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Cite please.

Biden is widely seen as too old for office, an AP-NORC poll finds. Trump has problems of his own (77%, Aug 2023)​

Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term: POLL (86%, Feb 2024)​

Age, Issues Working to Trump's Advantage Pre-Debate (67%, June 2027 - pre-debate)

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Yep, and yet, here we are. The media hates effective but boring people. So they are all dog piling on even the tiniest crack.

And since a huge swath, if not outright the majority, of voters are horrific know-nothings who pride themselves in their anti-intellectualism, boring effective people are a cardinal sin.

It is honestly a mystery to me how anyone can listen to Trump for more than a minute and not feel lobotomized. It is seriously downright offensive and repulsive how stupid and incoherent Trump speak is.

And sorry, no I don't have a solution. I just stand flabbergasted at the sidelines seeing this horrific trainwreck unfold.

The horrific trainwreck is POTUS struggling to speak and control his face for 90 minutes, horrifying the entire world during a difficult election. And the stories that are coming out in reputable publications are even worse.

Seeing this man become this man is not the "tiniest crack;" it is more of a 25th Amendment issue. Especially in the context of the administrations massive evasions and odd mitigation measures (an 8pm bedtime?).

 

[NewNinetyNine]

It's interesting that the claim went from "polling double digits behind Trump" to "polling double digits behind 2020". At any rate, even if we take the polls at face value, I fail to see why (unnamed Democratic replacement) would fare any better, without Biden's record, without a campaign staff, and with all of four months to define themselves in an outright hostile media environment.

It wasn't my claim, and it's hilarious that you're trying to spin "double digits worse than an election where the incumbent barely won" as perfectly acceptable for Biden.

Biden is toast. The best we can do is slot in a candidate with fewer negatives, and Biden's age-related decline is an easy negative to eliminate. Grab someone under 60 who can campaign with vigor and hope instead of shambling along murmuring "Trump bad."

If you baseline is "almost certain loss," you should go for any alternative that might turn out better. Because I'd prefer not to roll out the red carpet for Trump. Biden is losing every swing state but MI (where there are not yet post-debate polls) and would be 226 electoral votes if the election was held today and followed 538 polling averages. And he's just going to get more physically and mentally feeble as the campaign progresses.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Just like every four years previously going back over a century, there was a primary. And like in each of them for at least half a century, anyone could have mounted a challenge.

Just because a sitting president decides to run does does not mean he goes unchallenged...something about Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter coming to mind.

As a counter-point, Obama pressured Biden heavily in 2016 not to run, clearing a path for Clinton to...give us Trump. That wasn't reported in 2016, and if we had this discussion back then you would have said that Biden made his own lamentable decision.

Just because anyone can technically join doesn't mean that the party isn't blocking challengers. There will likely be reams of post-mortems written in 2025, but something kept viable alternatives out in 2024. Whether that is

 

[NewNinetyNine]

The dam is starting to burst:

Biden to hold campaign rally as Democratic governor urges him to consider ‘whether he remains our best hope’ to beat Trump – live​

On Friday, Healey, one of Biden’s top surrogates, said:

"President Biden saved our democracy in 2020 and has done an outstanding job over the last four years. I am deeply grateful for his leadership. And I know he agrees this is the most important election of our lifetimes … The best way forward right now is a decision for the president to make. Over the coming days, I urge him to listen to the American people and carefully evaluate whether he remains our best hope to defeat Donald Trump.


Whatever president Biden decides, I am committed to doing everything in my power to defeat Donald Trump."