Home run. I've been making a similar point: It's not even that "Biden is bad at debating," because when the other guy does nothing but lie, it's not a debate. Biden's mistake was honoring the conventions of the debate. Trump comes in, knocks Biden's pieces off the chess board, and Biden crawls around, saying "Let's see, where was this bishop just now...?"
So fuck the debate--the first and the possible second. If the moderators of the second aren't going to fact check and call out Trump's lies (and he can't help but lie), then it's not a debate and the deal's off.
The rest is campaigning. Biden *and his people* (as you rightly say) know how to do that, to put him in the right contexts and situations, where he can brag (truthfully) about what he's done, and point out that Trump is an incoherent monster (and that's the worst kind).
And now they can also, alas, point out that Trump, and the Supreme Court, will do everything they can to make climate change worse, attack women, spread gun violence, attack minorities, gut Social Security, and so on. If twentysomethings want to inherit any kind of decent world, they have only one choice. The Supremes have seen to that.
Interesting piece. Thanks for sharing these insights. Love the title analogy especially — it really resonated with me
But I strongly disagree with the idea switching candidates would amount to Democrats looking like idiots. I think there would be an excellent story to tell, about a party that is not a cult and how it was able to convince its too-old leader to step aside for the good of the country. It would be a benefit to show leadership actually listened to 80+% of the electorate that said Biden was too old, and a similar amount frustrated with this rematch of near-dead incumbents. And most important: I believe several of the potential candidates have a better shot to win. Whitmer in particular is positioned perfectly to take on Trump esp regarding abortion which seems the most potent campaign issue of 2024.
Its not that I don’t trust Biden to run a competent government in the immediate but I do think he is legitimately a bad candidate for a 4 year Presidential term due to his age. Decline does not improve and there is no hiding Biden has severely declined. If we pretend he has not, no one is going to believe any of the other words we say.
Trump is far far far worse imo of course. But I’m confident America will pick the fascist monster over a man they calculate too weak to defend himself (and the nation). And I’m freaking out. So thanks for reading and not treating an earnest disagreement like a crime.
Thanks. Did you read the linked post by Josh Marshall? He knows a million times what I do about these matters.
We’ve already chosen Kamala Harris as the person best qualified to replace Biden if he is incapacitated or dies, in the 2020 election and again in the 2024 primary process. To replace her now would be to betray the coalition that put the party in office, and I think we would certainly lose if we did it, and deserve to.
Also, the convention is about six weeks away, and we don’t have a clue about how to organize a “brokered” convention. The process, if they can come up with one, will look completely insane; it will be incredibly difficult to agree on candidates, none of whom have faced a single primary, and then introduce them to a public that has mostly never heard of them. It will almost certainly take longer than the allotted four days. I don’t think the media will admire our noble willingness to admit we were wrong, I think they’ll keep telling the same story they’ve been telling for years, of Democratic panic and disarray.
There’s also the story from 1980 that the Cuban government really sent mental patients to Florida in the Mariel boatlift, that’s the kind of thing that could have imprinted itself on his mind at a time when he was still able to learn things.
Would love it if moderators were astute enough to—well, not exactly fact check, but follow up a rant about asylum seekers by saying, “Mr Trump, thank you; and for voters who are not familiar with the term ‘asylum seeker,’ could you please explain what one is?”
Home run. I've been making a similar point: It's not even that "Biden is bad at debating," because when the other guy does nothing but lie, it's not a debate. Biden's mistake was honoring the conventions of the debate. Trump comes in, knocks Biden's pieces off the chess board, and Biden crawls around, saying "Let's see, where was this bishop just now...?"
So fuck the debate--the first and the possible second. If the moderators of the second aren't going to fact check and call out Trump's lies (and he can't help but lie), then it's not a debate and the deal's off.
The rest is campaigning. Biden *and his people* (as you rightly say) know how to do that, to put him in the right contexts and situations, where he can brag (truthfully) about what he's done, and point out that Trump is an incoherent monster (and that's the worst kind).
And now they can also, alas, point out that Trump, and the Supreme Court, will do everything they can to make climate change worse, attack women, spread gun violence, attack minorities, gut Social Security, and so on. If twentysomethings want to inherit any kind of decent world, they have only one choice. The Supremes have seen to that.
Great commentary! I could not agree with you more.
Interesting piece. Thanks for sharing these insights. Love the title analogy especially — it really resonated with me
But I strongly disagree with the idea switching candidates would amount to Democrats looking like idiots. I think there would be an excellent story to tell, about a party that is not a cult and how it was able to convince its too-old leader to step aside for the good of the country. It would be a benefit to show leadership actually listened to 80+% of the electorate that said Biden was too old, and a similar amount frustrated with this rematch of near-dead incumbents. And most important: I believe several of the potential candidates have a better shot to win. Whitmer in particular is positioned perfectly to take on Trump esp regarding abortion which seems the most potent campaign issue of 2024.
Its not that I don’t trust Biden to run a competent government in the immediate but I do think he is legitimately a bad candidate for a 4 year Presidential term due to his age. Decline does not improve and there is no hiding Biden has severely declined. If we pretend he has not, no one is going to believe any of the other words we say.
Trump is far far far worse imo of course. But I’m confident America will pick the fascist monster over a man they calculate too weak to defend himself (and the nation). And I’m freaking out. So thanks for reading and not treating an earnest disagreement like a crime.
Cheers
Thanks. Did you read the linked post by Josh Marshall? He knows a million times what I do about these matters.
We’ve already chosen Kamala Harris as the person best qualified to replace Biden if he is incapacitated or dies, in the 2020 election and again in the 2024 primary process. To replace her now would be to betray the coalition that put the party in office, and I think we would certainly lose if we did it, and deserve to.
Also, the convention is about six weeks away, and we don’t have a clue about how to organize a “brokered” convention. The process, if they can come up with one, will look completely insane; it will be incredibly difficult to agree on candidates, none of whom have faced a single primary, and then introduce them to a public that has mostly never heard of them. It will almost certainly take longer than the allotted four days. I don’t think the media will admire our noble willingness to admit we were wrong, I think they’ll keep telling the same story they’ve been telling for years, of Democratic panic and disarray.
Lord, that point about the "asylum seekers" is weird enough to be true .
There’s also the story from 1980 that the Cuban government really sent mental patients to Florida in the Mariel boatlift, that’s the kind of thing that could have imprinted itself on his mind at a time when he was still able to learn things.
Would love it if moderators were astute enough to—well, not exactly fact check, but follow up a rant about asylum seekers by saying, “Mr Trump, thank you; and for voters who are not familiar with the term ‘asylum seeker,’ could you please explain what one is?”
Not to mention "tariff."
It's like midriff only not as exciting to him.