Democrats BEST course of action...
- Thread starter IUNorth
- Start date
But you are speaking logically .... that hasn't applied this election or the last election.
You’re assuming another Republican would win easily. The Trump portion of the party can’t stand Haley types. I think turnout would have been weak. Similar to Hillary. Trump probably is the parties best chance of winning this year. It should have been DeSantis in a landslide, but Trump voters, love Trump.
Are you really going to underestimate the power of TDS?
Every single person who would vote for Biden would vote for Harris. Plus she’d gain a lot of support from minorities, where Trump has made a lot of hay.
Add in the literal guarantee that Trump will repeatedly step on his own dick, and I’m convinced Harris would win.
You’re convinced Kamala Harris would win?
If Dem PTBs, donors, etc. shared this feeling, the effort to get Biden out of the race would’ve been made long ago. She’s a huge reason it hasn’t.
That said, if the Dems can switch to her, they should. At least that would shake things up and create the possibility of a favorable outcome.
These comments from Nancy Pelosi are remarkable.
Is there any way to interpret this other than that there's only one "decision" he can make that she'll recognize as a decision?
PELOSI: It's up to the president to decide if he is going to run. We're all encouraging him to to make that decision. Because time is running short.
LEMIRE: Do you want him to run?
PELOSI: I want him to do whatever he decides to do. And that's the way it is. Whatever he decides we go with.
Did she not get the letter he sent to Congress...not to mention numerous public statements that he's staying in the race? Why are they "encouraging him to make (a) decision" he's already made?Is there any way to interpret this other than that there's only one "decision" he can make that she'll recognize as a decision?
Pelosi is a long-time politician. Her intent, when speaking, is not to conveny truth. She's keeping her and the party's options open.
TDS is real, for sure. I just don't think the motivation is what it was in 2020 (plus the fact that I think man of those votes were manufactured, but that's for another thread).
Trump hasn't stepped on his dick yet, and he's been in it a while. He seems to have learned from the past - not that there won't be hiccups, but I doubt any more false claims of rape come out before the election.
IMO, Covid is what beat Trump in 2020. The Dems and media did a great job in pinning it on him and promoted fake claims about injecting beach, etc. Trump didn't help himself by relying on Fauci for guidance. That was a major black swan event that I doubt happens this election. Dems are dealing with their own black swan event now and the longer it drags on, the more it damages their election chances in all down ballot elections.
Dana Perino, on FNC, said that's like your mother telling you "I know you'll do the right thing". And, by the 'right thing', you know what she wants.
Nancy has given a signal to the Dems that it's OK with her if he goes.
Remember, Pelosi is 84 years old. How is she going to comment on Biden's age and ability????
I don't know, but she does. How was she elected speaker when she was 82?
True.
But, for one thing, I've never thought that Biden's age itself has been his problem. It's the visible effects of aging that have been his problem. And those are two different things. There are spry 81-year-olds -- but POTUS isn't one of them. In his defense, the presidency almost always seems to age presidents a lot more than the average auto mechanic.
Second, I think the only ability of Biden's that is operative here is his ability to win. The ability to carry out the duties does matter in that regard. Will people vote for somebody who they doubt is up to the rigors of the office? But, ultimately, if Dem pols, donors, media folks, etc. believed Biden would win, I doubt they'd be doing any of this.
I don’t know about coverups but this isn’t new. We have all watched the cognitive and physical decline for two years.
Hillary lost 2016 the moment she said “deplorables” and this will cost them 2024 if they don’t manage this perfectly.
Dems are masters at shooting them selves in the foot
Agree 100%
This clip though. That's pretty brutal. Good on him for owning it, but wow.
I don't get this argument that many are making. Does anyone think that people discussing the candidates age believe the number itself is the problem? No, of course not. When people complain about the age of the two candidates, or discuss age limitations, they are complaining about "the effects to aging" both visible and not visible. It's simply a fact of nature that as people age, their physical abilities fade first, then their mental faculties.
Are there some exceptions as to the rate of decay? Of course. So what? There are brilliant 10-year-olds. Should we eliminate the lower age requirements for office because of this? I don't think so.
There's a maxim in presidential politics that you never, ever surrender the inherent advantages of incumbency. I think this notion was central to the Dems' decision to shoo away suggestions that Biden's condition would be a problem. I wouldn't call it a "cover-up", really (though I can understand why some are).
I think really it was more akin to a collective denial.
Well, they have been in denial for two years and it is about to screw the pooch for them if they don’t react quickly
There were people claiming they met with him and he was sharp as ever or some such nonsense. That's either a coverup or a group of incredibly stupid people with access to POTUS.
I suspect that this line (between age and age-related effects) has been deliberately blurred by people supporting Biden -- because Trump is only a few years younger than Biden.
If I'm right that this was a considered comms strategy, it obviously backfired in a massive way.
Who is "they"? Because there have been a lot of "theys" reacting...pretty much since the minute the debate ended. We're here discussing one such "they" in Nancy Pelosi. The number of prominent Dems who have called for Biden to step out is significant and still growing.
But it's not up to any of them. It's up to him. Maybe he'll buckle to the pressure to get out in the next couple weeks. Or maybe he won't. But you're absolutely right that the situation the Dems find themselves in right now has been years in the making. All the debate did was make it impossible to continue the denial.
It wasn't stupid people. It was an orchestrated campaign of deception. Both parties do it. Both parties have people in the media that assist or enable it. Only partisans on each side fail to see it.
One of the scariest things in all of this over the last decade has been that intelligent people accept the deception as long as it's their side doing it, because they believe the ends justify the means. End of democracy, indeed.
Last I read, it was seven senators or representatives, out of >260, who publicly have called for Biden to not run.
2.7%
I was hoping that more would have joined them by now. I bet the number wanting him to step aside is 10x that, but 90% of them don't want to say it in public.
Incumbency hurt Trump in 2020 due to his performance and will hurt Biden in 2024 for the same reason
I agree with everything you say here. But there is also a massive elephant in the room. And that is the integral role of the press in keeping the electorate properly informed.
As you said, there are partisan mouthpieces in the media who assist in propagating sculpted messaging (which includes these kinds of deceptions). You would expect this from politicians and their surrogates.
But...was the (ostensibly) unaffiliated press just asleep at the switch as regards Biden? Were they really "duped" as some of them have said they were?
I might suggest that there really is no such thing as an unaffiliated press. Not today, anyway -- maybe it once existed. But virtually every media outlet is, for all intents and purposes, a vehicle for just this sort of propaganda.
And, to me, it illustrates why there was so much visceral reaction to Elon Musk buying Twitter -- particularly given his stated reasoning.
This might be an unpopular opinion here. But I actually think that Donald Trump would've been reelected had it not been for Covid.
Once can say it was due to his response to Covid -- which is certainly fair enough, although it's a debatable thing. But things were in generally pretty good order c. January/February 2020. At least in my view.
That theory has as much purchase with me as Donald Trump’s theory (still held by him and millions of his lemmings) that he lost in 2020 because of voter fraud.
He did not, in fact, lose because of voter fraud.
The thing is though, she's lying. The narrative of Russian interference didn't go away in 2020 or 2022. We were continuously warned about Russian attempts each cycle.
For sure. All was good in the world. he was a fool to go down the fake election path
Whatever Russia (or China, etc) is doing to influence our elections, I’m deeply skeptical that it’s having any meaningful effect on outcomes.
I can be persuaded otherwise. But nobody has yet convinced me.
I view this as being of a kind with Trump’s “we wuz robbed” BS.
The Russians have and will be involved in all our election cycles. So will China. Their main goal is delegitimization and sowing division.
I think this is right. It’s also right that there are isolated instances of voter fraud - some of which are detected and prosecuted.
Where I think people go wrong is assuming either of these are affecting actual outcomes. That, I haven’t seen.
I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, but COVID was quite convenient for certain anti-Trump constituencies (e.g., China, Dems)
No different than our involvement in elections, including those who we deem allies. Hell, we've had sitting presidents interfere in other's national elections.
I'm not sure "did it have any meaningful effect on outcomes" is even a cognizable question. There are countless things that affect elections, and it would be very difficult to definitively hang a "but-for" on any of them, unless it was an election that was really close. For example, we know one of Russia's tactics is to have trolls pretend to be both woke and anti-woke warriors online. We know that this particular cultural battle has manifested itself in (and attracted a lot of money to) school board races. But how close does a race have to be before we can comfortably say, "Hey that person wouldn't have been elected to the board if it weren't for the Russian troll farms?" Obviously, Russia is much more likely to be a tipping point for someone who wins by 1 vote than someone who wins by 1500 votes, but I just don't see a way to draw a bright line that lets you say for sure with any confidence.
Nobody thinks Russia was fixing votes. Russia was clearly spreading anti-Clinton propaganda in 2016, anti-Biden propaganda in 2020, and in general driving the 2020 "voter fraud" fantasy.
Facebook and Twitter finally got around to deleting Russian bot accounts from their platforms, but long after the Russian stories has been assimilated by the Trumpsters and less than 2 months before the 2020 election.
Facebook and Twitter said on Thursday they had removed several hundred fake accounts linked to Russian military intelligence and other Kremlin-backed actors involved in previous efforts to interfere in U.S. politics
Facebook and Twitter finally got around to deleting Russian bot accounts from their platforms, but long after the Russian stories has been assimilated by the Trumpsters and less than 2 months before the 2020 election.
Facebook and Twitter said on Thursday they had removed several hundred fake accounts linked to Russian military intelligence and other Kremlin-backed actors involved in previous efforts to interfere in U.S. politics
Very true.
That's why it's a little naive to think the other nations aren't doing it in ours, especially now that it is so easy to do.
Similar threads
