Wrong.
There are people who would vote for Biden but not Harris? Or any other democrat?
Maybe voter enthusiasm would be generally lowered if there was some sort of perception that party big wigs did something sketchy behind the scenes. I could buy that. But people saying “I love Joe Biden but I hate other democrats” or people who are motivated more for voting for Biden than against Trump? I don’t buy it at all.
No one I know voted for Nixon.
I know people who won’t vote for her because she’s a “cop”.
Can’t they can give unlimited funds to the Democratic National Committee, which in turn can give high amounts to any Democratic candidate? Maybe I’m wrong, and I almost hope I am. Being a low-funded campaign gives you bragging rights. That might not mean something to you, but the kind of voters Biden permanently lost, due to the debate, to Stein and West, would like that. Harris would do a great job of shutting out those third parties which takes votes straight out of the Democratic ticket.
And when the convention started Sanders gave his whole hearted endorsement. (He used a specific word for it to show the delegate vote was unanimous but I can’t think or find that specific word. Dopers help?)
That is not what you claimed. You claimed
and that is incorrect.
Maybe. I have no confidence that the inevitable legal challenge from Republicans would be resolved prior to Trump’s inauguration.
Does DisneyWorld still build audioanimatronic Presidents?
Nor do I. But if the Republicans did that, running a low budget campaign would be a heralded feature, not a bug. Something like – this is one of the only commercials you will see from me, because Donald Trump is afraid for you to hear my message.
I gather you think pollsters are biased, and do not add up their numbers as I do, so we won’t agree. But, personally, the more I think about this, the more I think Trump’s debate performance was a catastrophic success. This race has been locked in place for maybe eighteen months, and by agreeing to this ridiculously early debate, he handed the Democrats an opportunity to shake it up by bringing in a new ticket that swing voters can look at with fresh eyes they refuse to give to Biden. My panic level is thus in freefall. At least it is so long as there is no new foreign policy crisis, because if Biden cannot publicly debate Trump, and, we now know, a lot of the time he cannot, Joe’s going to have a hard time with Xi, Putin, or even Netanyahu.
It’s not a matter of impressiveness. It’s a matter of practicality. If it were possible to win a presidential campaign on the cheap corporations and billionaires wouldn’t be pissing away billions of dollars on it every two years. There’s a reason no major party candidate has accepted federal funding in decades even though you get the chance to set aside $3 for it in your tax return every year.
The polls told us to expect Republicans to pick up 50 House seats and control of both houses in 2022. Polling is broken.
I do not expect the president to be meeting with foreign heads of state one-on-one without notes and with no access to his staff. We saw on Friday what Biden is capable of - you’re taking one example of what was clearly a bad night for him and concluding “this is how he’s always going to be from now on”, and that is demonstrably false.
Snarky aside: ahem that’s what Trump did with Putin ahem
Seth Abramson’s Proof Substack delivers its 10-Step Panicking Anonymous program:
-
Nobody now polls, or has ever polled, better against Trump than Biden
-
Biden has beat Trump before
-
Biden has had—unlike Trump—a successful presidency
-
Incumbency has enormous benefits
-
Joe Biden is an amazing fundraiser
-
It would lead to a civil war within the Democratic Party
-
The Democrats do not have good options
-
This election is simply not about Joe Biden
-
Debates do not matter
-
The next five months will be all about Trump, and Democrats need to keep it that way
I think we can all agree that polls are not the end all to be all. And especially with hypotheticals “what if it was Trump vs Whitmer” or “Trump vs Bambi”?
That said, all the polls I’ve seen have Biden and Trump very close. None of the reputable polls have Biden out front with a comforting lead.
Here’s a countering op-ed from the NY Times about why Biden should drop out (limited quoting so we don’t break copyright rules):
"He should do so gracefully and instruct his delegates to vote for whoever is chosen in Chicago, where the Democratic convention opens on Aug. 19.
That move would have the short-term advantage of wrecking the Republican convention, which opens in Milwaukee on July 15. The G.O.P. plans to spend four days savaging Biden. If he dropped out, Republicans would have to explain what they want to do for the country, and the public would realize the only answer is: nothing but harm it in unpopular ways."
That’s a ridiculous assertion - they’ll simply shift their attacks to whichever Democrat seems likely to become the DNC’s sacrificial lamb. The NYT’s editorial is bad faith journalism and an indelible black mark on the paper’s reputation.
From your link;
100% correct on all points. Glad I’m not the only one who sees this.
Can you cite please? This is turning into a shit show, but I just did multiple searches on my cite in the NY Times, and no where does this paragraph show up. I’ll happily apologize if that’s my bad, but I don’t think so.
Look, we get it, in your humble opinion
- Biden is the only choice to beat Trump.
- NY Times at least has fingers on the scale for Trump, if not outright partisanly skewing their reporting
some of us agree to disagree on one and/or two of the above points. That said, we all agree beating Trump is mission one.
That quote was from bordelond’s link, not yours.
Newsweek chimes in;