In the following I’ve added attribution to the quote from the author (that Left_Hand_of_Dorkness posted), as well as quotation marks:
The author says plainly that we should refrain from stating that something will happen.
Even if we sincerely believe, based on informing ourselves of the relevant facts, indications, and trends, that it will happen, we should muzzle ourselves. Don’t say it will happen! Labelling this as ‘stay positive’ does not seem to be an unreasonable interpretation of the message being given. It seems spot-on.
The self-censorship the author recommends will not change reality. If we refrain from pointing out the consequences we believe will result from the present course of action, the consequences will still happen. It won’t matter that we covered our mouths and declined to say what we thought.
I encourage you to read the full thing. I included snippets, but getting the full gist of the essay apparently requires reading the whole thing, and I did not want to violate fair use.
If I may channel the essayist for a moment, you can only state that you think it’s likely it will happen. Which is fine. Warnings are appropriate. Welcome even.
And if so, you should game out what the options are—truly work out the obstacles, pluses and minuses—while keeping open the possibility that you may be wrong, and staying the course may in fact be the best option. Don’t immediately surrender, and definitely don’t offer your opinion in the chorus of pseudo-objective “facts.”
Nope. I saw a grandmother and a mother up close and personal through full courses of dementia (about 8 years each) before they died. I know very well what it looks like. Biden doesn’t have dementia.
If Biden dies in 3 weeks, he dies. You’ll get Kamala for sure in a clean progression that’s been planned for our entire history. Not the messy, chaotic scenario that you and others propose – while never, ever addressing the concerns I’ve listed in threads on this subject. “Just do somefink!” isn’t sufficient.
Bernie? Remind me, how stressful is Bernie’s job?
You ignore the fact that Harris is barely as competitive against Trump as Biden is now, let alone when the smear machine kicks in against her in earnest when she’s the candidate.
You ignore her intrinsic negatives (not to me, but to a crucial number of those elusive swing voters) of being female and of color.
You ignore the fact that we will lose our tiebreaker in the Senate if she runs for the office of president. No small thing.
Jon (no H) Stewart isn’t my lodestone for political guidance. He’s political and smart, but he’s not always right. If that’s what you’ve got, it ain’t much.
I’m not sure that with the assist Trump has received from the media since the “debate,” he will lose to either Biden or Harris. I do know how chaotic, last-minute changes to leadership often work out. Not well.
But don’t worry. I suspect those who feel as you and @Sherrerd do will prevail. And we will indeed watch how well that works out.
Well, of course. No one discussing the election is claiming to be a seer. The issue is not “I know the future” but instead “if we don’t change course the odds of good results in the future are poor.”
The essayist’s premise is simply wrong. People saying “we will lose” never stop there. They say “we will lose if Biden remains the candidate.”
In every single case of someone advocating that Biden step down, they are saying that the consequences of his failing to step down will be dire—not that The Future Is Dire.
Because Solnit’s basic premise is wrong, her entire argument is fallacious.
I’m not saying that the essay isn’t worth reading. Anyone who quotes Timothy Snyder is worth reading. And yes, as she remarks, the New York Times has a poor record for coverage that is truly neutral; they are famously prone to putting their thumb on the scale.
But Solnit can’t make a good argument from the false premise that Biden-should-step-aside advocates are saying “we will lose,” when in fact such advocates are actually saying “we will lose UNLESS WE CHANGE our candidate.”
I’m not getting this. You’re saying that if Biden drops out of the campaign, and Harris becomes the Dem nominee, that she’s not still the Vice President until next January?
Or are you talking about Biden actually resigning now,* and therefore Harris becoming President–and unable to appoint a new VP? If it’s this: no matter how obstructionist Republicans want to be, how can they refuse to confirm a new VP and explain that to the voters? Sabotaging the line of succession—well, I grant that this might be popular with MAGA people, who are defined by their irresponsibility, after all.
But millions of moderates and independents will look on a refusal to confirm a VP as grounds for throwing the bums out in November.
* which could happen, but seems less likely to me than that he’d simply drop out of the campaign, but remain President until the end of the term. ?
I never once mentioned dementia. There doesn’t have to be full blown dementia for there to be an issue. Aging is a part of life. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. We also have to recognize it’s a limiting factor to be something like the leader of the free world.
You don’t have to convince me. I’m not thrilled with Biden but I’ll vote for a wet napkin before I vote for Trump. But if you rely on people like me then the election is lost.
Jon Stewart was saying nothing more than what was painfully obvious to anyone with eyes and ears. He was raked over the coals for it here. Didn’t change the fact that he was right and the debate showed it. There are too many people who aren’t convinced he is still competent. The it doesn’t matter as long as he has good people contingent is too small.
Trump isn’t receiving an assist from the media. They are reporting what happened. If they don’t report what happened they will just be dismissed by people who saw it themselves. If every media outlet becomes propaganda for one side or the other we are fucked anyway.
No, she can still be vice president while she runs. (assuming Biden doesn’t resign, which he shouldn’t)
What some label “chaos,” I’ll call excitement. It would shake things up and create a buzz in an election that few are excited about.
I agree. I think he’s doing a fine job (perhaps in part because of a good staff) and I have no concerns about his ability in the foreseeable future. I have concerns about his electability.
Well, I’ll just disagree. Words matter, would be one simple-minded talking point from her essay.
It’s not clear to me that the “step down” advocates have offered a compelling case that the alternative gives us a better chance at winning. It’s largely stuff like how awesome a Harris / Whitmer ticket would be, without considering the hurdles and threats such a change would likely create. “But we know Joe will lose, so that at least gives us a chance!” No, we don’t know that.
ISTM, at least, to be a “we have to do something” panic, built on the premise that there is no way Biden can win and we are doomed if we don’t jettison him.
As evidenced by the deluge of media discussions about Trump’s endless lies and obvious unfitness for the office? Funny; I’m just not seeing those.
I apologize if I have misstated this. Yes, she must remain as VP if she runs. Watch Republicans make campaigning as difficult as possible for her by calling stupid votes repeatedly in the House that require her presence for tie breaking duties.
Too true. We’re all deeply entrenched in our views.
I think we’ll know by next week which way it’s going to go.
I’ll have zero influence on how this plays out. I suspect Joe will step down as a candidate. But this is a glib and inaccurate summation. I don’t know for sure that Biden is the best option. But I do believe, as the essayist seems to, that the starting point for the decision makers and real influencers should not be “since it’s a given that Biden will lose…”
I pray this plays out whatever way is best. I think the best chance of that occurring is not to panic.
If we’re looking for indicators of what’s likely to happen (and I think both sides of this argument are likely doing so):
I’d love to know what the numbers are for rallies and other events Biden has held this week and next. This information must exist, even if in the form of estimates.
When they plan these for-the-public events–and some of them must have been planned before the debate–they consider, among other things, the venue size and the likely attendance.
Has that attendance been larger or smaller than they expected? This would be useful information to have. (Frankly, I don’t think the Biden campaign will be, er, candid about this, unless the attendance is larger than expected. If it’s smaller than expected, they’ll change the subject when asked. But some news organizations will surely be looking at the question and making their own estimates.)
Or Biden is the best chance we have if he can prove to people he can still do the job. If the ABC interview was his best shot then yikes.
I saw plenty of those after the debate. It was covered. Not so surprisingly the bigger continuing story is that the current president was on national television and didn’t appear to be competent to do the job.
Where? I’d love to see them. I see a lot of news in my travels, and never ran across anything except the most perfunctory references to Trump’s lying and obfuscating. I’m sure they’re still out there and your cites would be helpful.
I keep thinking about this. Biden is so deeply unpopular I don’t see any way for him to turn it around. I have long admired him and still do but I’m beginning to feel that bowing out would be the best thing at this point. Not because the disaffected voters will go to DJT but more likely that they will just stay at home. That would be disastrous.
A large segment of voters have been clear they don’t want or like either candidate. From what I see a new, younger candidate (Harris) would have a much better chance of changing the dynamics of the race by exciting women, young voters and people of color.
I agree and have seen nothing to make me think he does.
If my father were still alive he would be the same age as your father. Mine passed when he was 86. He was a vigorous, energetic octogenarian until the last couple of months. About 6 months ago I began to notice Biden appeared much more stiff and old than my father was at the same age and even at 86. This has caused me to be concerned there is something happening that is not good. And I don’t feel that his advisors, family and doctors are being honest about it.
If he remains the nominee I will of course vote for him but sadly I am becoming convinced he should step aside for the good of the country.
Yeah, the 50% of the nation which are Republican really dont like him. And like many other presidents, many Dems and Indy think he could do better- Gaza, Inflation, crime, the econmy, whatever.
But Biden is polling about even with trump, and trump is also deeply unpopular. 58% find him unpopular.
