Biden tanking

[blü 2]

From CNN ...

A broad 67% majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters now say it’s very or extremely likely that Biden will again be the party’s presidential nominee, up from 55% who felt that way in May. But 67% also say the party should nominate someone other than Biden – up from 54% in March, though still below the high of 75% who said they were seeking an alternative last summer.​

​

That remains largely a show of discontent with Biden rather than support for any particular rival, with an 82% majority of those who’d prefer to see someone different saying that they don’t have any specific alternative in mind. Just 1%, respectively, name either of his two most prominent declared challengers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or Marianne Williamson.​

Given that U.S. Presidential elections are all about perception (and the peculiarities of the Electoral College), 2024 does not look good irrespective of the Republican candidate. It should be clear that Biden is problematic, and clearer still that dropping Biden may be more so.

The question, then, is what to do.

Hmm. Do you think it would help if Biden (sr., of course) could get himself arraigned?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please quote where I've objected to Biden because of his age.

No such claim was made.

You've objected to Biden running again claiming that "It should be clear that Biden is problematic" and "The situation is dire." You provided polling data regarding the public's preference that he not run again. I speculated about what might be your specific objection to Biden beyond that a majority preferred another candidate. It appears you prefer not to discuss why you hold that opinion about Biden as your comment above suggests, which can't possibly further the discussion. You could have clarified your position, but you preferred what appears to be deflection.

That's fine. I don't need to know what your objection is. Hopefully, you do, but I'm pretty sure that many Biden detractors don't. You may recall that I also commented about the erosive effect the so-called "liberal media" has had on left-leaning voters, leaving people dissatisfied, yet unable to articulate a specific objection. If I'm correct, I expect to find people who see Biden as damaged goods or ineffectual but can't or won't say why.

 

[Augustus]

How

Because it gets you elected, re-elected and gains support for your agendas.

Yes it is. What the message is tends to be most important, not style.

The 2 are inseparable for maximally effective political communication.

Great style with a limited message will usually beat an insipid presentation of a great policy initiative.

Dry facts aren’t very persuasive in general.

I would say this is dead wrong. Look at how Trump screwed up the Covid response, how he ruined many global alliances, including threats to withdraw from the UN, how he pushed a huge tax cut that benefitted the wealth 83%, how that caused less than expected revenue and business investment, which then made the Covid response more money we had to borrow. Imagine what the state of the war in Ukraine would be today if Trump had won in 2020. I could see a scenario with Trump supporting putin. How would our justice system be affected if Trump wins in 2024? Based on his comments thus far he will turn it into an unlawful organization that will harrass and accuse his opponents. He wouldn't need to convict anyone, he would just need to put so much stress on people that they stop investigating him, or trying to create any policies that oppose him.

Sorry, by figurehead I don’t mean has no power, but is someone people expect to play a role.

Perhaps monarch would have been a better term.

Dull but competent(ish) doesn’t do well

Reagan beats Carter and Mondale
Clinton beats Bush
Bush beats Gore and Kerry
Obama beats Romney
Trump beats Clinton

The only exception is Biden and he came pretty close to missing an open goal. A shaved monkey called “not Trump” would probably have got pretty similar numbers

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No such claim was made.

You've objected to Biden running again claiming that "It should be clear that Biden is problematic" and "The situation is dire." You provided polling data regarding the public's preference that he not run again. I speculated about what might be your specific objection to Biden beyond that a majority preferred another candidate.

No, you presumed that there must be a "specific objection to Biden beyond that a majority preferred another candidate." So you fabricated one and the proceeded to take me to task for this figment of your imagination.

It appears you prefer not to discuss why you hold that opinion about Biden as your comment above suggests, which can't possibly further the discussion. You could have clarified your position, but you preferred what appears to be deflection.

Another fabrication. Let's look again at what I said.

Given that U.S. Presidential elections are all about perception (and the peculiarities of the Electoral College), 2024 does not look good irrespective of the Republican candidate. It should be clear that Biden is problematic, and clearer still that dropping Biden may be more so.

The question, then, is what to do.

My "opinion about Biden" -- the thing you claim I "prefer not to discuss" -- is that there is a growing perception that Biden should not run for reelection, a perception manifesting itself across socio-political demographics. I referenced the latest CNN poll in support of that opinion.

Had you taken the time to read the OP you might have realized that my concern has nothing to do with Biden's physical, mental, or political capacity, but, rather, with my belief that "U.S. Presidential elections are all about perception ..." The accuracy of those perceptions matter very little, as is clearly demonstrated by Trump's popularity.

That's fine. I don't need to know what your objection is.

Of course not. You simply fabricate whatever proves convenient.

 

[metis]

I like Buttigieg -- a lot -- but I worry about his experience. That said, I would be more than happy with a

Klobuchar + Buttigeig​

ticket.

I'll take that.

 

[metis]

Biden's asleep at the wheel. His teleprompters tell him to support war, child sterilization, and the woke mafia. Utterly unelectable, but if they have to, Democrats will vote for him regardless. It's not about competence anyway; it's about those bullet points.

That's wacked.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's wacked.

And that's precisely the problem. Trump has unleashed the wacked, and some of them vote.

 

[F1fan]

I soured on Trump when I noticed the revolving door at the White House under his administration. I was more delighted that Saint Hillary had lost.

I'm still surprised when people expected more of Trump when he was elected. For many thinkers Trump was understood to not be fit for the office, he didn't have the maturity and stability for that level of responsibility. And this turned out to be the case. I kept hearing "he will rise to the office" but really? There was nothing that suggested he had any integrity. And he has gotten worse over time, more disturbed, more corrupt, more extreme as a liar. I expected him to be bad, but I did not foresee how bad he would become.

 

[F1fan]

Because it gets you elected, re-elected and gains support for your agendas.

Image can play a role for those who are not media savvy and critical thinkers. That is why there are so many emotional ads, they appeal to emotions, not thinking.

The 2 are inseparable for maximally effective political communication.

Great style with a limited message will usually beat an insipid presentation of a great policy initiative.

Dry facts aren’t very persuasive in general.

They should be. Elections should be looked at as job interviews, not entertainment of a personality that is most satisfying to the emotions. I expected Trump to lose massively to Clinton, he was such an idiot and had such a limited set of policies. I don't know that image is what helped Trump win, or continue to drag people into corruption, it is his ability to manipulate emotions. If you want to argue that the performaces are image, you might have a point.

Sorry, by figurehead I don’t mean has no power, but is someone people expect to play a role.

Odd, all government jobs have roles to play.

The president is not a superficial actor, despite there being some ceremonial duties. Trump is a superficial person who brought disaster to the presidency. I suspect staffers helped keep the government running.

Perhaps monarch would have been a better term.

Dull but competent(ish) doesn’t do well

What is wrong with dull if you want a job done well? You seem to be looking for an entertainment quality to the position. Nixon had little charisma, but did a pretty good job (until getting caught in corruption). He didn't need to cheat to win a second term.

Reagan beats Carter and Mondale
Clinton beats Bush
Bush beats Gore and Kerry
Obama beats Romney
Trump beats Clinton

The only exception is Biden and he came pretty close to missing an open goal. A shaved monkey called “not Trump” would probably have got pretty similar numbers

I think we need to look at voters, not candidates. I see some members criticize candidates for being what they are, but there is no explanation what would be better. I am thinking more and more that voters are mostly spoiled brats who won't like anything no matter what it is.

 

[Augustus]

Image can play a role for those who are not media savvy and critical thinkers. That is why there are so many emotional ads, they appeal to emotions, not thinking.

They should be. Elections should be looked at as job interviews, not entertainment of a personality that is most satisfying to the emotions. I expected Trump to lose massively to Clinton, he was such an idiot and had such a limited set of policies. I don't know that image is what helped Trump win, or continue to drag people into corruption, it is his ability to manipulate emotions. If you want to argue that the performaces are image, you might have a point.

Odd, all government jobs have roles to play.

The president is not a superficial actor, despite there being some ceremonial duties. Trump is a superficial person who brought disaster to the presidency. I suspect staffers helped keep the government running.

What is wrong with dull if you want a job done well? You seem to be looking for an entertainment quality to the position. Nixon had little charisma, but did a pretty good job (until getting caught in corruption). He didn't need to cheat to win a second term.

I think we need to look at voters, not candidates. I see some members criticize candidates for being what they are, but there is no explanation what would be better. I am thinking more and more that voters are mostly spoiled brats who won't like anything no matter what it is.

We appear to be talking about slightly different things.

I was discussing how I think things actually are and you were discussing how they should be.

I don’t disagree with you that it would be good for things to be otherwise, I just don’t think it is likely to happen.

 

[dybmh]

And that's precisely the problem. Trump has unleashed the wacked, and some of them vote.

Maybe this will be what loses the election for them? If it's the moderates, the "swing-voters" who decide close elections, then the wack-a-doodles will lose. Barring any unforeseen scandals and such, of course.

Also, the young-people will be enthused to vote against Trump again.

The question, then, is what to do.

There's not much to do, and that's not easy. Cool, calm, and consistent might be precisely what defeats the wild-crazed mob of Trumpers.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Democrats don't have the skill-sets to debate. The democrat party is literally cult-like in behavior pushing a controlled narrative. Think about why Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents have hundreds of debates. It is because Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents are thinking people with opinions. Cults conform to a narrative. That is why you rarely see democrats ever debate.

Trump has sat down for many 1-2 hour interviews in the last couple months. Talking about all kinds of issues and policies. Biden can't do that. he is incapable of it. I agree democrats debate tactics are to throw race and bigotry at you. That is all they have because their ideology is non sensical and tyrannical. You never see democrats disagree with each other, that is a sign of cult thinking.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm still surprised when people expected more of Trump when he was elected. For many thinkers Trump was understood to not be fit for the office, he didn't have the maturity and stability for that level of responsibility. And this turned out to be the case. I kept hearing "he will rise to the office" but really? There was nothing that suggested he had any integrity. And he has gotten worse over time, more disturbed, more corrupt, more extreme as a liar. I expected him to be bad, but I did not foresee how bad he would become.

Good to hear.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And I will get back to you when I see you exhibit an open minded attitude towards Biden and Harris.

Although I'm not American, I think I'm beginning to see a couple of basic themes in all of this:

1. There is a very large contingent of Americans who actually have an irrational fear of the "left," presuming that they must be communists or "socialists." (Many don't seem able to see the difference between Socialism and Capitalism with a social conscience. Most of the happiest countries on earth are actually in the latter category -- they are not Socialist with a capital S, but rather they embrace Capitalism AND a need to participate in the well-being of all -- not just the strong, smart, rich or lucky. Thus, many of them (and especially on the Republican side) don't actually like Trump, nor DeSantis nor Ramaswamy, but they will vote for anything rather than risk this great fear they have of the left.

2. This will be a more controversial observation, but it does seem to me that Trump validates the darker side of many Americans: their racism, their hatred of "the other," their fears that somebody is trying to "replace them." Under the leadership of basically decent people (the Bushes, Obama and Biden), they feel as if they should be ashamed of, or hide, those hatreds and fears, but Trump gives them full permission to feel good about themselves as they are.

Adam Hochschild's book "American Midnight" describes another very dark period in America, just about exactly 100 years before the darkness of the Trump Administration. He suggests that the years 1917-1921 have a special place in infamy, and this was most certainly true for many quarters of the American left. During those years, the US experienced rapidly mounting patriotic frenzy and political repression unrivalled throughout most of its history. President Woodrow Wilson’s terror campaign against American radicals, dissidents, immigrants and workers makes the McCarthyism of the 1950s look almost subtle by comparison. His administration started
the police raids, surveillance operations, internment camps, strikebreaking and legal duplicity that would become part of the repertoire of the American state for decades to come. Remember when Donald Trump as candidate in 2016 called for Hillary Clinton to be "locked up," and his followers made that part of their mantra? Well, in the end he didn't "lock her up, but Wilson actually took such action: He jailed his charismatic Socialist opponent, the 63-year-old Eugene Debs, for opposing America’s descent into the carnage of the First World War, with the liberal press in lock step. “He is where he belongs,” Hochschild quotes The New York Times declaring of the imprisoned Debs. “He should stay there.” The Red Scare was well underway.

 

[dybmh]

That is all [democrats] have because their ideology is non sensical and tyrannical.

Please bring democratic sources with examples of ideology that is non-sensical and tyrannical. Things which cannot be fabricated by the opposition.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Please bring democratic sources with examples of ideology that is non-sensical and tyrannical. Things which cannot be fabricated by the opposition.

Do you accept this definition of tyranny?

Unjust or oppressive governmental power.

 

[dybmh]

Do you accept this definition of tyranny?

Unjust or oppressive governmental power.

Unjust? Yes, definitely. Oppressive? In the extreme, yes. Otherwise it becomes subjective.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You never see democrats disagree with each other, that is a sign of cult thinking.

What planet are you from?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Although I'm not American, I think I'm beginning to see a couple of basic themes in all of this: ...

Excellent post.

 

[dybmh]

There is a very large contingent of Americans who actually have an irrational fear of the "left,"

I think that you could have stopped the statement with "... irrational fear" which explains a lot of the poor decision making by americans in politics on both sides of every issue.