I saw his speech at the DNC. That man was not in mental decline. He still had a chance, but I will admit that Harris has energized the base. And has thrown out 4 years of GOP and Kremlin (and NYT) lies and propaganda about Joe.
I hope that when Harris wins, she has her press Secretary take away their press credentials.
These two statements are not related to each other. Maybe he has suffered mental decline. Maybe he hasn’t. It didn’t matter. He looked really bad at the debate, and that was enough that he had no chance of winning, imho, no matter how sharp and competent he might have been. Appearances are incredibly important to elections.
Fair or unfair, the New York Times as an institution is going to remain saddled with a pro-Trump reputation for some time yet. Starting to see “New York Times” getting used as a verb (!) meaning “drawing a grossly false equivalence”. From the comments section of the recent Bulwark column “Kamala-Jitsu: Democrats Turn Trump Into the Incumbent”:
Sharon - Aug 23
Sweet Baby Jesus, how do you compare and contrast policy details when this contest is down to our historic VALUES or NO values? We are choosing between a candidate who will sell our system and a candidate who won’t. Don’t New York Times this to death.
Good. I hope subscriptions start dropping off fast and soon. Joe Biden is a great man, running him out of office is something I hope they will pay for.
Yessss!
I was going to subscribe but at this point I’ll just read Yahoo news.
Joe Biden is a good man, but it wasn’t the new York times that ran him out of office. It was probably Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.
And even if they did–if the New York Times ran Biden off–that’s likely to go down in history as one of the greatest changes to a campaign ever. The difference in the campaign’s course from July to August is fundamental.
I’ve got beef with NYTimes, but any role they played in making this change is positive.
“The NYT has finally made it”
— Ron Filipkowski
This is misleading. It’s true that Laura Loomer is a hale and vibrant figure very unlike the decrepit, shambling husk of a man that is Joe Biden, and her opinions might influence what media her followers consume. However, she does not directly control what is read or trusted by anyone except Laura Loomer.
For more fact-checking from the New York Times, including our assessment of the many misleading claims by Tim Walz and others at the DNC about what Republicans “will” do when, according to scientists, nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty, check out the world-class journalism at nytimes.com.
Nancy was clear- do what you think is best, Joe.
But yes, I am sure that some of them sat down, discussed the constant stream of lies and propaganda- which led to polling that was- at best- meh.
In 1976 Carter ran vs Scoop Jackson in the Dem Primaries. The media LOVED that Peanut farmer. Scoop would win a big state, Carter a small state, but the media only covered Carter’s “Big Win”. This led to a snowballing for carter. Mind you I like Carter, but as a President, he was out of his depth. Jackson would have been better.
The Media loves someone who is a media star- and frankly, Harris is better at that than Joe.
The way things are going she may end up being better at it than even trump. That may be the secret sauce that’s happening right now. When people refer to this as being Obama 2.0 I kind of think this is what they’re referring to.
Combine that with the meme generating machine named Tim Walz and you have a pretty potent one-two punch for the modern media landscape.
I’m obviously not going to convince you, but neither are you going to convince me. The problem wasn’t “a constant stream of lies”, it was a piss-poor debate performance that left most Democrats in despair.
Why not both?
That’s what I’ve been saying.
And then when Biden gave what was, from her POV, and mine, the wrong answer, she asked again, as correctly reported in the New York Times, in is-this-your-final-answer style:
Pelosi says time running short for Biden to decide, but he’s already said he’s staying in race
Does anyone here listen to Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! on NPR? It was like when the celebrity is playing for the listener at home, and Peter Sagal simply will not accept the wrong answer that would result in the listener failing to get Bill Kurtis’s voice on their voice mail.
I dont see that at all.
Correct. Yet the problem I and others have with the NYT is that they began hammering the “Biden is a doddering old man” BS back in January or February of 2024 but ignored the obvious blithering from DJT.
AND now it appears a good part of this was because Biden didn’t give them the access Sulzberger and the editorial board thought was due to them because they are the glorious NYT.
When the debate took place and other media and Democrats jumped on the bandwagon to dump Joe there were some who reacted angrily. I will admit I was one of those people largely because I felt it was way too late to switch candidates.
Turns out I was wrong and things are looking up.
However, now they are griping about Harris not doing a sit down with them. She is planning to do an interview in the next few days but I will be curious to see how Sulzberger and the Times react if it isn’t with them.
The question then is – who is the umpire that we could rely on to tell us whether Pelosi refused to take no for an answer?
In years of internet posting, I’ve used several such umpires. And the New York Times was at the top of the list. Not because they never make mistakes, but because they publish the most corrections when they do make mistakes.
If we cross them off the list, who comes next? In my two links above, the New York Times and ABC News say about the same, so I suppose we can cross off other slightly left of center media such as ABC News as well. Correct?
What about the mainstream imprints of the big five publishers? Can the next biography of Nancy Pelosi from Random House or Hachette be trusted to tell us whether Pelosi took no for an answer? Or do we have to wait for a peer-reviewed university press biography of Pelosi?
If none of that can be relied on to tell us whether Pelosi kept pushing after Biden said no, we can never agree. That’s not a tragedy, but if there is nothing in this world resembling a trustworthy source of facts – and whether or not Pelosi took no for an answer is a fact – we are talking past each other in a more radical way than was true even a few years ago.
I heard an interview on NPR where a reporter asked Pelosi about that, and pretty much said, “you must have played an important role in this”. But she’s enough of a politician to have demurred and have a non-answer.
Pelosi and Biden.
Really ABC news said Pelosi insisted Biden drop out? Cite?