All of the above being true, as it may, I was just offered an ad by and featuring Mr. Biden on YouTube, imploring me to start taking the election seriously.
He looked like someone took a low-quality wax figurine of Joe Biden and called in the animatronics department from 1970s Disneyworld to make it move.
He might be better served by using fewer means to stretch and mold the skin of his face, and he should probably work with a physical therapist to build some mobility into his shoulders and practice moving his arms more naturally, in the mirror - even if it hurts.
Well so, the non-creative editing evidence for Biden being “past due”, that I’m aware of:
Poor showing at the debates (could be that he had a cold).
Description by Robert Hur of Joe Biden as being forgetful, difficult to converse with, slow-seeming (though, this description does not match transcript).
A refusal to release video of said interview, which would offer proof for Hur’s description versus the transcript view (the transcript could be modified or slowness/loss of focus/etc. might not come through as apparently in a transcript).
The Financial Times (like the British WSJ) reports, “One person familiar with the situation said some of the intelligence officials who give Biden his daily intelligence briefing had noticed his decline as early as last year, undermining claims from White House and campaign political figures about the president’s mental acuity.”
In general, I’d say that the non-partisan evidence is starting to lean the wrong way.
I’m inclined to immediately discount anything that comes from “one person familiar with the situation”, or “sources say”, on any topic. Who said it, and do they have documentation for it?
Right from Biden and the White House. His poor performance was due to jet lag from a trip that ended two weeks ago. After he spent a week in Camp David. He wasn’t on any cold medicine and they are not blaming illness.
Without a named source: Biden’s work day starts at 11AM with plenty of naps.
How do you convince unengaged voters that he is worth voting for? Voting against someone is not enough for voters who would otherwise not vote. Those votes are needed in swing states.
Right now the only “fighting” the Biden campaign is doing is scolding people for mentioning their doubts and concerns. It’s been a week and Biden has not been scheduled for ANY event that could help people put aside their doubts and concerns—NOTHING unscripted and live. (The ballyhooed George Stephanopoulos interview is not going to be live. It’s going to be taped and edited. This will NOT budge the image of Biden as being a frail person in need of protection.)
“Fighting” seems to include nothing that could actually change people’s perceptions of Biden as lacking the stamina and sharpness to carry out the Presidency.
Fact being ignored by Biden and his team: The Democratic Party base alone will not be enough to defeat Trump.
Ultimately, we in this country are not voting for either Biden or trump.
We are voting for which party we want to hold the presidency: the normal if center-left Democrats or the quite abnormal hard right MAGAs in the long-since-slipped disguise of Republicans.
This is not actually about voting for personalities or even individual politicians. Making it about Biden or trump is a mistake. It’s about what they and their apparatus (and their replacement should either become utterly infirm or dead while in office) would do.
The problem is that Americans aren’t used to thinking of it in parliamentary terms where they’re voting for a party and get a leader along the way. But that’s what’s happening in recent decades and the choice is especially stark right now.
I don’t believe that’s true. A large percentage of voters vote for party only. There are very few always voters who flip between parties. What we do have is a large percentage of unengaged potential voters who don’t believe either party has their best interests at heart and nothing much will change no matter how they vote. Telling them one guy is bad isn’t good enough. You have to give them someone to vote for or they won’t bother to vote.
Exactly. There is no difference between what Democrats are doing this year and what they did in 2016. They are nominating an establishment candidate that most voters are either meh or unhappy about, and saying, “Suck it up and deal with it. Your only alternative is a fascist crook, so we know you’re going to vote for us.”
That didn’t work in 2016 - and that was an election in which Hillary led in the polls throughout. Right now, Biden is behind.
This. Americans are used to wanting a President who they believe represents them. We have no tradition (as in the parliamentary system) of thinking mainly of the parties involved without reference to the individuals who head those parties.
On debate night, an MSNBC host made an observation worth considering:
Oh, I agree with your conclusion. I totally agree that the election will be decided by what the “a pox on both your houses” and the “I can’t be bothered” crowds do. Or more ominously, don’t do. And in general, under the rest of the current electoral situation, the vast majority of apathy non-votes will amount to a net vote for trump. Hence dangerous; very dangerous.
My point was that it’s because they mistakenly make it about personalities that we’re in this pickle. Now we’re not going to change decades of emotional accomodation in 2 months. So as you suggest, the Ds need to put somebody out there to vote FOR, not just AGAINST trump. I have zero disagreement with your there.
Whether Biden still is, or can be rehabilitated to, be that person is certainly an open question worthy of debate. Just not a question I choose to entertain today in this thread.
My point was only that we’re in this pickle because the voters are confused about what voting means in the modern 2-party era. Much like every 4 years some large bunch of Americans are amazed to learn they don’t vote for the president. Instead they vote for state electors pledged to a candidate and the electors in their “college” choose the president.
It’s a lot of players in our game of voting who fundamentally don’t know the rules of the game they’re playing, nor the stakes, nor really who the actual players on the political game field are.
No. Not only is Trump’s level of bowel control completely irrelevant to how good a job he can actually do as President, but even if it were, you still need actual reliable sources of information.
Now, of course, needing diapers is also not something to celebrate. There’s something deeply wrong with someone who proudly proclaims “Real Men Wear Diapers”, and chooses to go out in public that way. But that’s just a symptom; anyone who would do that, there was already something deeply wrong with them even before the diapers.
So maybe I should have used Deep Throat as an example. Were you ok that W&B didn’t name their source? Do you dismiss all news reports that protect their sources?
They’re free to not name their source. And I’m free to then disregard what they’re saying. Their unnamed source might be a good basis for them to start further investigations, and uncover evidence that they can publicly reveal. Which, as I understand it, was actually the case, for Watergate.
Not sure if this was posted anywhere, but Biden telling the governors that he won’t schedule any events after 8:00PM so he can get his sleep is an absolutely terrible look. What possessed him to say that? Just do it if you have to, don’t advertise it.