No, it had not. Biden got a complete check up just this year and no sign of any such decline. he had a bad debate as he was tired.
I’ve been a little worried that her not giving those interviews would hurt her, your post gives me encouragment. Trump is going to yell about it but he yells about everything, what voter is going to care if Harris does not sit down for an interview. I don’t think Trump will be doing so.
Uhh, no. Biden had been declining noticeably over the past four years. It just became really OBVIOUS to everyone at the debate. There was. I way he was up to this challenge of running for president again.
I get mail-in ballots for every election and this is the primary reason why. I’m perfectly capable of going to my polling location on election day, and have done so in the past. But I love having a ballot open next to me, with either my phone or my computer, and being able to research the various issues and candidates.
For initiatives you always have to research the exact language. Even if you perfectly understand what issues are at play in a given initiative, whether or not you want to vote “Yes” or “No” is dependent on the exact language used on the ballot.
And there are invariably one or two down ballot races where I’m just going, “I have literally never heard of any of these people before in my life.”
I didn’t think I’d hear of someone arguing for a candidate to not campaign in a closely contested swing state.
And can we not relitigate Biden’s mental fitness again?
Me three.
Candidates are going to be a straight ‘D’ ticket for me. I doubt I’ll ever vote for a Republican, ever. They are destroying our country, and plan on continuing to do so.
Issues are a bit of a different matter. My wife and I always vote for tax increases especially for education, but some stuff needs a bit of research.
I expect this will be the case for me for the rest of my life (old fart here). No current Republican can ever get my vote. At a minimum they’re complicit in a disgraceful betrayal of their oaths.
If I live to be 150, a completely reinvented party, one that recognizes the dignity of all humans, with a completely new membership running, could possibly get my vote. But at that point, they’re basically a new party, a ship of Theseus where basically only the name survives.
Can I come over to your timeline?
The one where books influence the US elections?
Yeah, it’s hard to see the GOP recovering any time soon. They will have Trump and his idiots fighting to control the party until he dies, which I don’t think will be–but am praying will be–a long time from now. Then there will be all the people tainted with his stink trying to distance themselves from him while surviving politically. That could be another ten years. Maybe during this time new and appealing candidates will appear that can assume the GOP name, but if they are smart, they will just choose a new brand.
And I think it makes sense that the GOP would start dying now, since “conservatism” had run out of ideas anyway and, since the rise of Dubya, has basically been warrin’ ‘n’ griftin’ to stay relevant.
If Trump loses I believe it will be the beginning of a wandering the desert period for Republicans.
HOWEVER, what we are seeing right now is a realignment of both parties. The Dems have also been forever reimagined. They are now the party of the Acela corridor. Wealthy, educated, AND socially liberal. Which, if you know any of these people (Acela corridor Dems) many of them are tired of what they perceive as really high taxes. Remember, in Boston we start BS chemists at nearly $100k, but houses cost $800k, and so it’s not uncommon to meet a young couple making $175k, paying $35k in total federal withholdings, and not feeling very rich.
Add to that the fact that corporate leaders have some dissonance as well. They know their employees want these inclusive workplaces, but they haven’t suddenly decided high taxes are just fine.
My point is that the ways in which the Democratic party will change are not yet fully worked out.
Is she? Should she?
Of course yes to prove that she has policy chops, but the more specifics she gives the more the the is for some to find fault with and react against. A major policy focus makes it harder her to be both the experienced incumbent and the “change agent” at the same time, a mean feat that she is currently pulling off.
Completely agree with you Trump’s best chance is to force very specific policy discussions, and to present his policies as change from the Biden-Harris status quo. He needs to focus on the positions Harris has flipped on from when she was candidate Harris running against Biden to now. Create the image that she will say whatever she thinks is most expedient in the moment. Fracking ban. She was for bans, now not? She endorsed mandatory bussing in a debate against Biden, raised her hand for Medicare for all … which Harris position should we believe? So on.
The way he loses, and likely will lose (fingers crossed) is because he is not capable of doing that.
He will keep play the “Take America Back” play, and Harris will continue to play “Take America Back Forward” one.
One thing I don’t understand is why anyone thinks Trump is strong on any policy issues. Under his tenure, the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate and they still couldn’t push through a lot of Trump’s “policies.”
This is probably the 100th time you’ve posted this or something much like it over the past 3 or so months, in various threads. At what point does it strike you that it’s wishful thinking?
Cites:
I could go on quoting; there are many, many others. And while it’s fun to post clips of Trump spouting nonsense and claiming that he is senile, the reality is that there will be no spectacular implosion and no senile meltdown that tanks the race for Trump. It didn’t happen in June when you said it would, it didn’t happen in July when you said it would, it didn’t happen in August when you said it would. It’s pure wishful thinking empowered by breathless YouTubers and other terminally online people desperate for clicks. (It’s understandable wishful thinking of course - nobody would be happier with a Trump implosion than me - but it’s not real).
It’s going to be a fucking nailbiter, just like in 2020. Dems have to pull out all the stops to counter this cult. I think we would all do well to remember these 2020 numbers:
Arizona: 10,457
Wisconsin: 20,682
Georgia: 11,779
That’s how Trump wins: he flips 5500 votes in AZ, 10,500 votes in WI, and 6,000 votes in GA from last time. That’s it. There’s no magical savior coming, there’s not going to be an electoral wipeout or meltdown, it’s going to be a vote by vote grind. Time to “Do Something” as a wise person recently said.
Well I really can’t do much more than hope and vote and then deal with whatever happens.
That’s life (c’est la vie).
I mean, you can hope and vote, and you can donate to campaigns, and you can volunteer to canvass or phone-bank or be a poll-greeter or do data-entry, and you can do similar things with campaign-adjacent nonprofits…
This is bunk. The Democratic Party is – as it always has been – a coalition of groups with sometimes conflicting interests and views. By one analysis of the Democratic coalition, the largest single block is composed of socially moderate, less well-educated voters. Calling Democrats “the party of the Acela corridor” is absurd.
It’s a phrase that’s recently become popular among Republican pundits. They’re hinting at fancy people on the East coast who take trains, not like wholesome Mid-Westerners who drive cars.
Is Trump cognitively diminished from his past baseline? Probably. But he held it together at his baseline obfuscatory bloviated norm at the debate with Biden, which made him look good, relative to Biden at that particular performance. And that Trump performance was not horrible compared to what is expected of him. Yes his baseline should be horrible compared to Harris in her current prime. But a complete demented meltdown? Nah.
Maybe, but it’s been a thing since at least 2016. They are generally described as affluent, socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I probably count as one, and most that I know can easily vote for a Baker or Hogan Republican.
Why is it bunk? With only two parties, both parties have always been “a coalition of groups with sometimes conflicting interests and views.” See Evangelicals and billionaires in the Republican party?
In times past, college educated and successful voters tended far more Republican than now. Furthermore, I have a lot of union members in my family, and they are moving towards Trump (even if their leadership is not).
Is it really your position that the Republican party is changing, but the Democratic party is not? I mean, with only two to choose, that would be an interesting trick.