Bidens appearance in Raleigh on the following day and on Monday, both fine and what we normally see,, make it pretty clear he and his team really f'd the debate up- it was their play after all- delivering him to the event exhausted and clearly under the weather. Someone needs to be fired, or hired, or both. Biden does need a Mike Deaver
The anger directed at you is certainly not all, or even primarily, "blind" loyalty. That's pretty much a straw man. It's utter exasperation. This narrative (Biden too old) has been been pushed so long and so relentlessly, and is now so 'baked in', that the debate has had little or no effect on the electorate.
We say "Presidents are not Kings", but many unconsciously see them as just that. And we have an old King, not fit to smite the Great Orange Ogre. Hence the grasping at people who would not look out of place on Game of Thrones (Whitmer especially).
But Biden is a President, and our Republic has a history, and consulting that history, as Stuart Stevens has, gives us a clear answer. Don't. It won't work, we will lose.
I wonder do you call for McConnell and Grassley, and other older people in congress to step down. They are the ones responsible for the mess that we have now. They were responsible for the Supreme Court mess that we have. But you go on and bad Biden. Never mind that he was sick after flying around the world doing what the clown wouldn’t do in France and still was running the country. While you are still bashing Biden, would you kindly tell trump that Hannibal is not real and that the sun shines regardless even though you can’t see it.
Huge fan since following you and team on Deep State Radio for the past several months. So smart, experienced, related, and REAL! Re the debate debacle, here’s the element that is so distressing — age discrimination continues to be a widely endorsed and accepted form of discrimination in America such that when Joe Biden “has a bad night” it reinforces the age discrimination beliefs that everyone accepts as an inevitable fact, thus not allowing for any bad nights, unlike Obama’s first debate from which he made a strong recovery. So no matter how well intentioned Joe Biden is about recovering from his “bad night” the lens people will be viewing him through is “all old people become infirm and unfit for meaningful work” — not so different from the discrimination women still experience in senior leadership roles in corporate America in which 92% of the CEO positions are still occupied by white males. Joe is being incredibly self centered and egocentric in not realizing the age biases in our country exceed his ability to shift them and thus if he remains in the race he is almost guaranteeing a Trump win and the end if our democracy! Your willingness to write so eloquently and convincingly of that potential outcome is admirable and I hope you will continue to advocate for Joe stepping aside. It’s the only possibility that will save us from the lunacy that has hijacked people’s brains in this country.
You are 100 percent correct David. I was pretty surprised by the Carville email I got fundraising and decrying bedwetters- he raised EXACTLY the same concerns you are doing now some months ago.
I did not watch the debate in real time but read all the terrible comments after, then watched it two days later. Biden did not perform well. That's a given. Perhaps I'm blindly loyal but I don't think it warranted the chorus of pundits and MSM calling for him to withdraw though. Trying to fact-check a barrage of lies in two minutes is an impossible task. The debate team should have prepared a different strategy. But that's hindsight. At this point, it is Biden's decision, with advice from family and close advisors, to stay or drop out. To win the election, Biden now has to prove to his supporters that he deserves to win while democracy is on the line. A distressing situation.
I don't think believing he is best between 10 and 4 is wise. He is the president 24/7. Can he be awakened at night to make crucial decisions in an emergency?
Thank you, David. I agree. I'm just a voting/donating citizen. I have no idea what the right next step is. But I know what I saw, and it confirmed my worst fears. We MUST win this election, and we must protect our democracy. I'm old. I won't be around a lot longer. But we must always strive to build a more perfect union.
My sense is that this entire conversation is about assumptions made on both sides of the issue. Either, 1) Biden's staying in the race exposes him and the Democratic Party to a level of risk that could cost Democrats the presidency, or, 2) Biden's dropping out of the race, either by "prearrangement", or by an open convention exposes the Democratic Party to a level of risk that could cost Democrats the presidency.
It's all *guesswork*. Which approach ultimately is going to be the correct one? Who knows? Both are calculated risks.
This whole, overinflated conversation we're having is utterly speculative, with little in the way of precedent to fall back on for the precise conditions that birthed it.
To wit:
Is Trump too evil for people to vote for him, regardless?
Is Biden a ticking time bomb of dissolution, to go off just before the election?
Can Biden negotiate a passing of the torch, or is that going to be unacceptable to the deep bench of Democratic prospects, each of whom may feel is entitled to their own shot?
Can Kamala Harris bring everyone together to support her? Having done so, might some potential Dem voters succumb to racist or misogynist impulses and decline to support her?
If Kamala Harris can't bring everyone together, and the Democrats' deep bench starts food-fighting for the nomination, how is that going to look to the voters? And how will the NYT cover it?
How will money be raised for the new candidate whenever he or she emerges? Can it be done quickly enough to match the reactionary-billionaire-to-Trump pipeline?
How will the Republicans frame this change of candidate to Independent voters?
-- And what is the point of fighting over all of this in the digital pages of a substack blog? So that enough of us become terrified of Joe's potential for collapse that we all pressure the party to drop him? Or that we become so terrified of people talking smack about Biden's health that any independent voters that we imagine might be listening into that conversation will say - "Oh! I had no idea! Even the Democrats don't want Biden! Guess I'll have to vote for Trump!"
Everybody calm the heck down, and David, please take a wellness break from this thread. I know what an excellent writer and thinker you are, and right now you sound gobsmacked and a little panicked at the responses you've been getting.
Now, those of us who think Biden should stick it out are not self-deluded, we're not in denial, we're not engaged in reflexive loyalty to a candidacy that's burning down - we're simply assessing the situation differently than you are. Our calculation of the odds are different than yours, Tim Miller's, and Brian Klaas's. We think the Democrats have a better chance with Biden in the race than if he leaves it. Period. It's a practical decision, not one "blinded by loyalty". Who knows? We could be completely wrong. Just playing 'em as we sees 'em.
It's okay for us to disagree - And it only gets weird when each of us thinks the other is about to sink the boat that we're all sailing in.
So, please, everybody, calm the heck down, give David a break from all the hammering, and let's give the Biden team a chance to figure out what their next move is. Who knows - maybe Joe *will* step down. Other than Biden's team's choice to put him on that stage on Thursday, by and large they've shown that they're not complete idiots. And even if they wanted to keep pushing Joe, Even if his candidacy was increasingly at risk, Joe's family would surely have some influence here, I'm guessing. If there is a significant risk of decompensation that could further hurt his chances in the election, I believe his wife and his team will work with him to make the right decision.
My plan is to vigorously support Joe if he stays in, and vigorously support his replacement if he leaves. So, semper Fi, baby, toward *whoever* will lead us out of the darkness.
Something I can’t understand is how the Biden team have managed to hide his condition if he is as debilitated as he appeared to be during the debate. My original take was that he was ‘prepared’ to within an inch of death by people (fact drenched Democrats)
who can’t see that spewing out dry information doesn’t penetrate everyday people. I’m a never trump republican who can’t understand why Democrats can’t keep it simple. If Biden’s performance wasn’t an abnormality, the blue team better show some proof that the various contacts he has had overseas see him as totally capable of fulfilling the duties of a president. I fear that if the Democrats don’t come across as being transparent they will destroy the credibility of their party. As a lifelong Republican, at the age of 79 I see my own party as a danger to the country, not just trump. The powers that be in the Dems better show some coherence and honesty or they will not be trusted to fight whatever authoritarian programs the GOP will advance in the future.
Check in with Rick Wilson @ LP on You Tube, a compilation of his, Stuart Stevens', and a woman's I don't know appearances on TV pushing back on 'Biden must go'. Rick referred to Biden appearance next day in Raleigh NC, as 'knocking out of the park'.
Stuart knows the relevant history as well as anyone. Replacement will not work. As a Democrat who remembers 1968, I agree.
I approach certainty in this instance with a bit of skepticism. It is so unlike anything we have ever been through. That does not mean we should ignore history. It does however mean that we need to see the current situation through the context of the current facts, the opponent in the race, the stakes, the media environment, etc.
Having heard Allan Lichtman, Stuart Stevens, Joe Trippi, and, at great length, Seth Abramson of "Proof" weigh in, I think it wisest now to let the dust settle. History is emphatic and unambiguous here. Don't.
There are also grave practical concerns, too, such as legat title to campaign money, as Jasmine Crockett pointed out on Twitter.
Further, bad debates in previous cycles resulted in polling shifts which we are not seeing. In some, Biden gained. Reason maybe that unlike the media, viewers also responded to Trump, and negatively, notably among Independents. Both Trippi and Luntz saw this, Luntz in a focus group, Trippi in a large 'dial reaction' group (Trippi actually concerned media narrative may override viewers reactions).
Trippi and Stevens seen on Resolute Square/Strategy Session, Lichtman on YouTube, two CNN appearances, also read Steven's in The Atlantic. Abramson on SubStack.
Biden's New Deal 2.0 has the potential to heal the country like nothing else. Many of those currently in what FDR called "high seats in the temple of our civilization" fear losing them.
This would have been a great discussion to have a year ago. Or perhaps a year from now. But this is not the right time.
Those arguing that Biden should step down have failed to provide any coherent plan of how changing candidates should be implemented. Or, they will say they have a plan, and all their plans differ from one another.
Those arguing that Biden should step down are mostly self appointed pundits asking us to trust their judgment over that of the most experienced politician in America.
Biden is a good man, we all know that. If he thinks he should go, he will go. He doesn't need advice from bloggers.
Unless Mrs Obama is gonna have a go… have Joe’s back.
That’s the best advert for a democrat win.
Bidens appearance in Raleigh on the following day and on Monday, both fine and what we normally see,, make it pretty clear he and his team really f'd the debate up- it was their play after all- delivering him to the event exhausted and clearly under the weather. Someone needs to be fired, or hired, or both. Biden does need a Mike Deaver
The anger directed at you is certainly not all, or even primarily, "blind" loyalty. That's pretty much a straw man. It's utter exasperation. This narrative (Biden too old) has been been pushed so long and so relentlessly, and is now so 'baked in', that the debate has had little or no effect on the electorate.
We say "Presidents are not Kings", but many unconsciously see them as just that. And we have an old King, not fit to smite the Great Orange Ogre. Hence the grasping at people who would not look out of place on Game of Thrones (Whitmer especially).
But Biden is a President, and our Republic has a history, and consulting that history, as Stuart Stevens has, gives us a clear answer. Don't. It won't work, we will lose.
I wonder do you call for McConnell and Grassley, and other older people in congress to step down. They are the ones responsible for the mess that we have now. They were responsible for the Supreme Court mess that we have. But you go on and bad Biden. Never mind that he was sick after flying around the world doing what the clown wouldn’t do in France and still was running the country. While you are still bashing Biden, would you kindly tell trump that Hannibal is not real and that the sun shines regardless even though you can’t see it.
Since I live in a town on the west coast, the times I am awake differ from yours. The call I just received from you was at 4:38 am my time.
Well said.
Huge fan since following you and team on Deep State Radio for the past several months. So smart, experienced, related, and REAL! Re the debate debacle, here’s the element that is so distressing — age discrimination continues to be a widely endorsed and accepted form of discrimination in America such that when Joe Biden “has a bad night” it reinforces the age discrimination beliefs that everyone accepts as an inevitable fact, thus not allowing for any bad nights, unlike Obama’s first debate from which he made a strong recovery. So no matter how well intentioned Joe Biden is about recovering from his “bad night” the lens people will be viewing him through is “all old people become infirm and unfit for meaningful work” — not so different from the discrimination women still experience in senior leadership roles in corporate America in which 92% of the CEO positions are still occupied by white males. Joe is being incredibly self centered and egocentric in not realizing the age biases in our country exceed his ability to shift them and thus if he remains in the race he is almost guaranteeing a Trump win and the end if our democracy! Your willingness to write so eloquently and convincingly of that potential outcome is admirable and I hope you will continue to advocate for Joe stepping aside. It’s the only possibility that will save us from the lunacy that has hijacked people’s brains in this country.
Thank you.
You are 100 percent correct David. I was pretty surprised by the Carville email I got fundraising and decrying bedwetters- he raised EXACTLY the same concerns you are doing now some months ago.
Biden deserves some loyalty.
You show none.
Biden deserves support.
That is the difference between him and Beelzebub.
So have his back.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sethabramson/p/the-extremely-simple-reason-maga?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=375jvh
I did not watch the debate in real time but read all the terrible comments after, then watched it two days later. Biden did not perform well. That's a given. Perhaps I'm blindly loyal but I don't think it warranted the chorus of pundits and MSM calling for him to withdraw though. Trying to fact-check a barrage of lies in two minutes is an impossible task. The debate team should have prepared a different strategy. But that's hindsight. At this point, it is Biden's decision, with advice from family and close advisors, to stay or drop out. To win the election, Biden now has to prove to his supporters that he deserves to win while democracy is on the line. A distressing situation.
I don't think believing he is best between 10 and 4 is wise. He is the president 24/7. Can he be awakened at night to make crucial decisions in an emergency?
Can you?
Actually, yes. If I were president, that needs to be a Hell Yes.
Thank you, David. I agree. I'm just a voting/donating citizen. I have no idea what the right next step is. But I know what I saw, and it confirmed my worst fears. We MUST win this election, and we must protect our democracy. I'm old. I won't be around a lot longer. But we must always strive to build a more perfect union.
My sense is that this entire conversation is about assumptions made on both sides of the issue. Either, 1) Biden's staying in the race exposes him and the Democratic Party to a level of risk that could cost Democrats the presidency, or, 2) Biden's dropping out of the race, either by "prearrangement", or by an open convention exposes the Democratic Party to a level of risk that could cost Democrats the presidency.
It's all *guesswork*. Which approach ultimately is going to be the correct one? Who knows? Both are calculated risks.
This whole, overinflated conversation we're having is utterly speculative, with little in the way of precedent to fall back on for the precise conditions that birthed it.
To wit:
Is Trump too evil for people to vote for him, regardless?
Is Biden a ticking time bomb of dissolution, to go off just before the election?
Can Biden negotiate a passing of the torch, or is that going to be unacceptable to the deep bench of Democratic prospects, each of whom may feel is entitled to their own shot?
Can Kamala Harris bring everyone together to support her? Having done so, might some potential Dem voters succumb to racist or misogynist impulses and decline to support her?
If Kamala Harris can't bring everyone together, and the Democrats' deep bench starts food-fighting for the nomination, how is that going to look to the voters? And how will the NYT cover it?
How will money be raised for the new candidate whenever he or she emerges? Can it be done quickly enough to match the reactionary-billionaire-to-Trump pipeline?
How will the Republicans frame this change of candidate to Independent voters?
-- And what is the point of fighting over all of this in the digital pages of a substack blog? So that enough of us become terrified of Joe's potential for collapse that we all pressure the party to drop him? Or that we become so terrified of people talking smack about Biden's health that any independent voters that we imagine might be listening into that conversation will say - "Oh! I had no idea! Even the Democrats don't want Biden! Guess I'll have to vote for Trump!"
Everybody calm the heck down, and David, please take a wellness break from this thread. I know what an excellent writer and thinker you are, and right now you sound gobsmacked and a little panicked at the responses you've been getting.
Now, those of us who think Biden should stick it out are not self-deluded, we're not in denial, we're not engaged in reflexive loyalty to a candidacy that's burning down - we're simply assessing the situation differently than you are. Our calculation of the odds are different than yours, Tim Miller's, and Brian Klaas's. We think the Democrats have a better chance with Biden in the race than if he leaves it. Period. It's a practical decision, not one "blinded by loyalty". Who knows? We could be completely wrong. Just playing 'em as we sees 'em.
It's okay for us to disagree - And it only gets weird when each of us thinks the other is about to sink the boat that we're all sailing in.
So, please, everybody, calm the heck down, give David a break from all the hammering, and let's give the Biden team a chance to figure out what their next move is. Who knows - maybe Joe *will* step down. Other than Biden's team's choice to put him on that stage on Thursday, by and large they've shown that they're not complete idiots. And even if they wanted to keep pushing Joe, Even if his candidacy was increasingly at risk, Joe's family would surely have some influence here, I'm guessing. If there is a significant risk of decompensation that could further hurt his chances in the election, I believe his wife and his team will work with him to make the right decision.
My plan is to vigorously support Joe if he stays in, and vigorously support his replacement if he leaves. So, semper Fi, baby, toward *whoever* will lead us out of the darkness.
Something I can’t understand is how the Biden team have managed to hide his condition if he is as debilitated as he appeared to be during the debate. My original take was that he was ‘prepared’ to within an inch of death by people (fact drenched Democrats)
who can’t see that spewing out dry information doesn’t penetrate everyday people. I’m a never trump republican who can’t understand why Democrats can’t keep it simple. If Biden’s performance wasn’t an abnormality, the blue team better show some proof that the various contacts he has had overseas see him as totally capable of fulfilling the duties of a president. I fear that if the Democrats don’t come across as being transparent they will destroy the credibility of their party. As a lifelong Republican, at the age of 79 I see my own party as a danger to the country, not just trump. The powers that be in the Dems better show some coherence and honesty or they will not be trusted to fight whatever authoritarian programs the GOP will advance in the future.
Check in with Rick Wilson @ LP on You Tube, a compilation of his, Stuart Stevens', and a woman's I don't know appearances on TV pushing back on 'Biden must go'. Rick referred to Biden appearance next day in Raleigh NC, as 'knocking out of the park'.
Stuart knows the relevant history as well as anyone. Replacement will not work. As a Democrat who remembers 1968, I agree.
I approach certainty in this instance with a bit of skepticism. It is so unlike anything we have ever been through. That does not mean we should ignore history. It does however mean that we need to see the current situation through the context of the current facts, the opponent in the race, the stakes, the media environment, etc.
Having heard Allan Lichtman, Stuart Stevens, Joe Trippi, and, at great length, Seth Abramson of "Proof" weigh in, I think it wisest now to let the dust settle. History is emphatic and unambiguous here. Don't.
There are also grave practical concerns, too, such as legat title to campaign money, as Jasmine Crockett pointed out on Twitter.
Further, bad debates in previous cycles resulted in polling shifts which we are not seeing. In some, Biden gained. Reason maybe that unlike the media, viewers also responded to Trump, and negatively, notably among Independents. Both Trippi and Luntz saw this, Luntz in a focus group, Trippi in a large 'dial reaction' group (Trippi actually concerned media narrative may override viewers reactions).
Trippi and Stevens seen on Resolute Square/Strategy Session, Lichtman on YouTube, two CNN appearances, also read Steven's in The Atlantic. Abramson on SubStack.
Biden's New Deal 2.0 has the potential to heal the country like nothing else. Many of those currently in what FDR called "high seats in the temple of our civilization" fear losing them.
Superb.
This would have been a great discussion to have a year ago. Or perhaps a year from now. But this is not the right time.
Those arguing that Biden should step down have failed to provide any coherent plan of how changing candidates should be implemented. Or, they will say they have a plan, and all their plans differ from one another.
Those arguing that Biden should step down are mostly self appointed pundits asking us to trust their judgment over that of the most experienced politician in America.
Biden is a good man, we all know that. If he thinks he should go, he will go. He doesn't need advice from bloggers.