So I realized that in posting that essay, I failed to point out why–and I think folks are agreeing or disagreeing with it based on a part that I think is relatively unimportant.
Solnit, about 75% of the way through the essay, makes it clear that she thinks we should support Biden’s continued candidacy. I disagree with that. Based on the past week, I think not only that he should step down, but also that within a week or so he will step down.
But there are two things that are important:
Whichever side of the “Should he stay or should he go?” debate you fall, you should 100% to supporting–through voting and donations and canvassing and whatever else you can–the eventual Democratic candidate for president.
All declarations of “If Biden [withdraws/doesn’t withdraw], we’re doomed” are stupid. You can say, “I’m afraid that we’re doomed if X,” but don’t turn it into a statement of fact. You can say, “I think our best chance of defeating Trump is X,” but recognize that until election day the race isn’t over. Defeatist thinking is lethal to winning.
So: I think Biden should withdraw. Two weeks ago the idea was inconceivable to me, but the last two weeks have 100% changed my mind. I hope he withdraws. But if he doesn’t, I’ll do what I can to make sure he wins, and I won’t ever say “it’s over” until it’s over.
I’m starting to think that way as well. I think there will be a big risk with more unknown candidates. But Kamala can carry all of Biden voters. The right…see NY Post for example…have started the anti-Kamala-campaign already. Racist, sexist, they went there.
I’ve always been strongly liberal. I don’t always consider who I am voting for but rather the party and the administration. Democratic vote for me all the way despite the ongoing blather.
I watched the Stephanopolous interview. While Biden didn’t have any signs of mental decline, people could argue he was too optimistic and not giving the perception of his performance a realistic assessment. He seemed fully invested in the idea of his own competence.
Maybe it was projecting confidence to build confidence in him. But it’s not enough to settle doubters. Is he realistic about his standings in polls? Is he realistic about how bad his performance looked? He said he hadn’t even watched the debate. How do you not watch what everybody else saw, so you can evaluate their perception? It’s one thing to know how you felt, but how was it seen?
There’s time to solidify and regain confidence. There’s time to get a collective of party players to meet with Biden for a heart-to-heart about the election and the need to energize the electorate. But these things need to be ironed out and everybody on the same page by the end of the convention.
Yeah, it would since that is the thing that started this thread and others. Of course the GOP and the Kremlin would have you believe Biden is a senile old fool- not mentioning the trump is old, senile and a fool.
It did not.
Biden could drop out. Its is doubtful, but within the realm of possibility. As to your last line- “from your lips to Gods ears”.
Have you ever worked in News? Even I, a one time circulation manager for the Herald, can tell you that is not true- the news posts what they think will sell newspapers or ads or whatever. Right now, “Biden is old and may drop out” is exciting, altho of course Joe is old, and no matter how many minor Dem congresscritters blather on, it is up to Biden and only Biden.
They want trump- he is newsworthy . Of course when they get trump and he arrests them all and send them to Gitmo, it wont matter how many papers they sold.
What I am trying to say imperfectly is that it might help to hammer the message about voting for the Democratic party and administration without so much focus on the individual.
This is one of those Should concepts–a perfectly valid wish, but not so likely to work out in real life.
A large proportion of Americans have always been focused on Presidential candidates and on the ways they do, or don’t, identify with them. The whole ‘would like to have a beer with’ a candidate idea is a real bottom line for many. Voters want to see ‘strength’ and ‘vigor’ and ‘resolve’ and ‘toughness’ and all those qualities that many would cite if asked “what is a leader?”
More than a handful of House Democratic ranking members told House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in a Sunday call that President Joe Biden needs to step aside from the 2024 campaign, according to sources familiar with the call.
Jeffries held the call to take the temperature of ranking members before lawmakers return to Washington this week. The call was filled with deep concern about potential damage to the Democratic ticket and how it imperils the party’s chances to win back the House majority.
The number of lawmakers who explicitly said Biden should not be the Democratic nominee was greater than the number who spoke up for him to stay, according to the source. Among those who opposed Biden as the nominee were Reps. Mark Takano, Adam Smith, Jim Himes, Joe Morelle and Susan Wild, according to two sources. Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Bobby Scott spoke in support of Biden, according to one of the sources.
Smith is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and Himes is the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, although two named members doesn’t seem like “more than a handful.”
But it wasn’t just one bad debate. It is one bad debate in the context of concerns already expressed over his age and his possible decline in mental acuity due to either aging or dementia. These may be a parade of manufactured concerns over his age and twisting facts or making fake videos to show Biden in a bad light. But they’ve seeped into the discussion sphere and contaminated the public’s perception of Biden.
That atmosphere is the context to evaluate the bad performance. With a different context, that performance wouldn’t be such an issue. Unfortunately, we have the context we have, not the one we would like.
Actually the answer is a very solid “yes” over and over and over again. Their constant drumbeats on his age was in fact pissing the White House off. From February even -
The majority of voters thought Biden was too old to leas the country before the debate. A large portion of them Democrats. Biden has been avoiding live press conferences and interviews for a while now and sounding worse when he did speak. The debate didn’t cause the age concerns, he was already trailing due to them. (Yes Biden was losing before the debates and losing by more now even if you keep claiming otherwise) The debate made it it clear to even solid Biden voters that he might not be capable of running a campaign or running the country anymore. Since the debate their has been plenty more evidence that the age concerns are valid (lack of live apperaances, reporting from soures close to him etc…)
As always, when you write “in other words,” you do indeed provide other words. Granted, those words are completely unrelated to the words you’re responding to, but I appreciate that you provide them!
This sort of certainty in defeat is exactly what I read Solnit as cautioning against. You clearly believe that asking Biden to step aside increases Trump’s chance of winning. I believe just the opposite. Neither of us has any right to certainty, and predicting certain doom is a great way to increase doom’s odds.
If it were just one bad night, I’d expect these things to happen as damage control:
Multiple unscripted interviews with different outlets, including outlets not expected to be friendly to Biden.
Rallies given without teleprompters.
Clearly busy schedules.
A reminder that Trump offered to debate “anytime, anywhere,” and suggest another debate, one where Biden were feeling healthy.
A clear and transparent report about his neurological health.
A single, clear explanation of what happened.
None of that’s what we’ve gotten. Instead, we’ve gotten:
A few interviews, only one of which is posted unedited, alongside news that the campaign is sending interviewers the questions to be asked.
More teleprompter rallies.
A not-especially-busy schedule.
No follow-up on more debates.
A refusal to provide a neurological report.
Multiple explanations for the weak debate.
I’m much more pessimistic about him today than I was last Friday, because his damage control conforms to the damage control of someone who can’t do better, not to the damage control of someone who had a single bad night.