It’s delusional to think Biden could’ve beaten Trump this time around. I watched the man sit slackjawed in a daze, gazing off into the distance, while Trump mopped the floor with him. There was no coming back. Had Biden stayed in, Trump would’ve hounded him endlessly for followup debates that he couldn’t deliver. As evidenced by Trump’s complaints about the nominee switch, Trump knew the truth that he defeated Biden in July. This is inarguably true.
In hindsight the Dem establishment buried Biden’s age weakness for way too long. It was too easy to say “look at him, he’s often spry and lucid, he’s ran an amazing administration, your guy babbles like a monkey on speed”. The denial was too deep for too long.
I’d have supported Harris earlier. Biden should’ve resigned after midterms so Harris could build up incumbent cred and an actual record, instead of being a blank slate to project all Biden’s failures. People would’ve bought “Kamala fixed the Biden inflation”. Maybe she’d have shown better leadership standing up to Netanyahu’s genocide.
That still may not have been enough. But looking at the momentum she built in just 3 months, I feel like she could’ve done better with a longer runway.
Yeah. Decent shot there’ll be a third party. And a fourth party, and a fifth or sixth, as the Democrat remnants fight over the now useless title of Moral Conscience of America.
I have trouble seeing how the traditional 2-party system recovers from this. I have no idea what the successor will be, but I do not see self-correction in the cards. It’ll be ugly and it’s going to hurt in ways we can scarce imagine.
To me it’s sad that Biden’s activities have been generally whited out after the election. I know it’s almost always been that way with lame-duck politicians. Historically he may be passed over like the others. I most appreciated his hot mike moments and his stutters; I would have both the same habits myself
But don’t people generally vote against incumbents even more strongly? She had to weave between being a “new face” and an “experienced hand.” So just go all in on the one side?
Generally incumbents have an advantage. That’s why most Presidents are 2-term Presidents.
Though in this case, it’s looking more and more like that wouldn’t have applied in this case. For whatever reason, voters failed to register that Biden then built the best economy the country ever saw. Instead they blamed him for the inflation from before that period. Enough of it rubbed off onto Harris to discourage some from voting for her.
So I was wrong on this count, building an incumbent record probably wouldn’t have helped Harris, as this time incumbency was a penalty that seems to have been applied to her even though she was only VP.
Incumbents have been losing bigly all over the world this time around. Here is an article on Vox. Searching world incumbents turned out also gets hits on Newsweek, CNA in Asia, and CNN.
I just saw in a crawl on CNN that in an upcoming book by Jake Tapper, he states that some of Biden’s cohorts were going to insist he use a wheelchair for public appearances, and that in early 2024, he did not recognize George Clooney at a fundraiser where he was known to be appearing.
Here’s a gift link to the NYT book review of Original Sin (stupid title). In summary: The signs were so obvious, according to all the anonymous people they spoke to.
I wonder how long it will be before all these people are called to testify for the “greatest cover-up in history” trial? It will work well as a compliment to the investigations into the 2020 election.
Small prostate nodules are common in older men, and often have minor health consequences. Depending on the details, the recommended “treatment” is often “watchful waiting”, aka, do nothing but check it from time to time.
I heard somewhere that essentially all 90 year old male corpses that are autopsied have prostate cancer, and it usually had zero impact on the person’s life.
Yeah, but it’s like breast cancer. The younger you are when you are diagnosed, the more aggressive and dangerous the cancer is likely (note qualifier) to be. I don’t think most women over 75 need to get screened for breast cancer, for similar reasons. And if you happened to find a small lump in your breast at age 82, it wouldn’t really be cause for alarm.
