NYT and WaPo report Biden is close to stepping down

[Anonymous]

Looking at Trump last night, why should Biden step down?

The double standard here is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone remembers how everyone in the press was fawning over Kamala in 2020 and her poll numbers were decent at first…and then every time she spoke or debated her poll numbers would drop like a rock until she finally exited the primaries in shame before they even started? You do remember this right? Why would 2024 be any different?

If you’re using this metric, you know that Trump actually flat out lost in 2020, right? Like if you remember that happening to Harris, and I do, and you seem to attach significance to that, then you should also attach significance to Trump being a complete loser in 2020.

Unlike Kamala, Trump secured the nomination of his party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at Trump last night, why should Biden step down?

The double standard here is insane.

Because the Dem elite wants him to, and they want to maintain power.

You didn’t think this was about the will of the voters, did you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2016, Democrats rigged the super delegate process in their primary to stop Bernie Sanders.

In 2024, they wouldn’t allow debates. Biden won the primary.

Now Biden is being forced out before the convention. Rich donors will select a new candidate.

The party of democracy.

Exactly this. Why can’t more people see this???!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2016, Democrats rigged the super delegate process in their primary to stop Bernie Sanders.

In 2024, they wouldn’t allow debates. Biden won the primary.

Now Biden is being forced out before the convention. Rich donors will select a new candidate.

The party of democracy.

Exactly this. Why can’t more people see this???!

Oh many of us do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that today is the day to ask yourself/ am I truly an ally to women of color?

Are you going to push Kamala out of line for a white woman or a gay white man?

It is a dilemma.

It's only a dilemma when there's a good solution available. And there isn't one here. Kamala Harris is not Michelle Obama. She is not a woman of color that the vast majority of the country respects and likes. Biden said he'd only select a woman of color as VP in 2020. She has always been the DEI candidate, and has done absolutely nothing over the past four years to distinguish herself from that albatross.

If the elite of the Democratic Party are going to replace the President, winnability should be the only metric. The DEI candidate that is "owed" the position is not going to fly in 2024. She will lose even worse than Biden. And yet, if the Democratic elite pass over the woman of color for some white candidate, there will be civil war within the Democratic Party and they are still going to lose.

So it's not a dilemma. There is no solution this year. Biden and his allies destroyed the Democratic Party. A new generation will have to pick up the pieces in 2028.

….or, hear me out, Dems quit their bedwetting party and rally behind their sitting President. You can already see the circular firing squad preparing for the open floor convention.

Biden has done nothing to rally his party behind him, and that’s his whole job. His debate performance was truly terrifying and before that he spent the spring/summer losing the youth and Muslim vote in Michigan.

I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, because I have a daughter, but “democrats should rally” is a disrespectful point which undermines the deep dissatisfaction many felt even before the debates.

+1 Democrats (including myself here and I love Biden) have been frustrated for a year as the economy has continued improving, jobs including manufacturing jobs have been increasing, wages are up, crime has been falling and Trump is scaring the bejesus out of everyone BUT none of those messages have been getting through. And Biden could have fixed the debate debacle if he called into the morning shows the next day and scheduled a press conference and/or a live interview for the following evening. The candidate performed terribly at the debate but it was the candidate and the campaign that reacted slowly and lazily to fix the reaction to the debate. That showed everyone who was concerned about the messages not getting out exactly why they weren’t.

? Huh? That was the whole point of the “big boy conference” - to reset and show his strength. But it miserably failed.

The Stephanopoulous interview was more than a week after the debate. The press conference was IIRC another week after that. That let the incompetent debate talk drag on and on and left people like me wondering why he didn’t/couldn’t react immediately to quell it. And yes there was one big gaffe at the beginning but other than that (I know, Mrs. Lincoln at the play and all) it was fine. But if he was willing and/or capable, he could have scheduled those things much sooner. Any network would have jumped at the chance to do a town hall, for example.

DP. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you wish Biden were 20 years younger and quick-thinking, to act quickly and decisively after a bad debate? Are you saying that you don't believe that he is suffering from something may not be dementia but looks very much like it? Are you saying he should stay on another 4 years? Or that he shouldn't?

I do not think he has dementia. While I think he has been a great president, he’s in a defensive crouch and resents anyone suggesting that he’s not the best presidential candidate, which is a different job. There had to be people telling him (and if there weren’t there should have been) that he needed to get back up on the horse immediately after the debate to prove it was just a bad night. Call into Morning Joe the next day! Schedule a press conference that afternoon! Hell, if he had just come out during the debate first thing and said “I have a cold but that’s not going to keep me from telling America what I plan to do” or something like that, how much better would it have been? And yes, of course I wish he were 20 years younger but that’s not happening. I’m not sure he would have been picked for VP if he were 20 years younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s a choice between Joe Biden in his current state or a Harris / Whitmer or Harris / Newsom ticket the Dems should just stick with Biden.

You all do know the reason the Dems were able to win back states like Michigan and Wisconsin was because they nominated an old conservative white guy named “Scranton Joe” right? If you think two California elitists are going to win over Midwest Union voters, or that a Harris / Whitmer ticket is going to help the Dems slide with Hispanic and Black men (let’s not even talk about white men) you are delusional.

There's also the fact that the GOP there has gone nuts. In many places, the GOP has gone nuts. In the last election, people weren't voting for Biden or "Scranton Joe" or a conservative white guy. They were voting against Trump.

Then why did Trump win those states in 2016, despite being labeled a Nazi then as well? Biden vastly outperformed Hillary and Harris isn’t half the politician Hillary is.

Not a lot of people are going to volunteer to step up and get pummeled for their personal lives by Trump fans only to lose anyway in November. Just stick with Biden.

After getting shot and fist pumping while bloody, it’s going to be Trump no matter who the Dems run anyway. You can’t beat those primal optics.

Historically, getting shot hasn't helped a candidate. After getting shot, that is a signal that Trump will lose.

RFK couldn’t run because he was deceased and Reagan wasn’t running at the time he was shot so where is all this historical precedent you’re pulling from?

Not PP but Gerald Ford. Twice.

It’s a lot different when you actually get hit - Ford didn’t - and a once in a lifetime photo is produced at the event that makes you look like an epic hero. It’s a lot different actually. This photo is going to do for Trump what the Dukakis tank photo did for Bush.





Come to think of it, Mayor Pete might want to get a 23 and Me test. Dukakis looks like his long lost father lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s a choice between Joe Biden in his current state or a Harris / Whitmer or Harris / Newsom ticket the Dems should just stick with Biden.

You all do know the reason the Dems were able to win back states like Michigan and Wisconsin was because they nominated an old conservative white guy named “Scranton Joe” right? If you think two California elitists are going to win over Midwest Union voters, or that a Harris / Whitmer ticket is going to help the Dems slide with Hispanic and Black men (let’s not even talk about white men) you are delusional.

There's also the fact that the GOP there has gone nuts. In many places, the GOP has gone nuts. In the last election, people weren't voting for Biden or "Scranton Joe" or a conservative white guy. They were voting against Trump.

Then why did Trump win those states in 2016, despite being labeled a Nazi then as well? Biden vastly outperformed Hillary and Harris isn’t half the politician Hillary is.

Not a lot of people are going to volunteer to step up and get pummeled for their personal lives by Trump fans only to lose anyway in November. Just stick with Biden.

After getting shot and fist pumping while bloody, it’s going to be Trump no matter who the Dems run anyway. You can’t beat those primal optics.

Historically, getting shot hasn't helped a candidate. After getting shot, that is a signal that Trump will lose.

Historically?! How many nominees have been shot in the middle of a campaign?

Roosevelt. And he lost.

So your evidence is a grand total of one other instance? Weak beyond belief.

I’m not the person who said “historically,” I’m just the one who provided an answer. And yes, even one instance is historical. Not necessarily predictive, but it is historical.

Again, weak. One incident in the past isn’t a precedent which is what that poster was alleging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s a choice between Joe Biden in his current state or a Harris / Whitmer or Harris / Newsom ticket the Dems should just stick with Biden.

You all do know the reason the Dems were able to win back states like Michigan and Wisconsin was because they nominated an old conservative white guy named “Scranton Joe” right? If you think two California elitists are going to win over Midwest Union voters, or that a Harris / Whitmer ticket is going to help the Dems slide with Hispanic and Black men (let’s not even talk about white men) you are delusional.

There's also the fact that the GOP there has gone nuts. In many places, the GOP has gone nuts. In the last election, people weren't voting for Biden or "Scranton Joe" or a conservative white guy. They were voting against Trump.

Then why did Trump win those states in 2016, despite being labeled a Nazi then as well? Biden vastly outperformed Hillary and Harris isn’t half the politician Hillary is.

Not a lot of people are going to volunteer to step up and get pummeled for their personal lives by Trump fans only to lose anyway in November. Just stick with Biden.

After getting shot and fist pumping while bloody, it’s going to be Trump no matter who the Dems run anyway. You can’t beat those primal optics.

Historically, getting shot hasn't helped a candidate. After getting shot, that is a signal that Trump will lose.

Historically?! How many nominees have been shot in the middle of a campaign?

Roosevelt. And he lost.

So your evidence is a grand total of one other instance? Weak beyond belief.

I’m not the person who said “historically,” I’m just the one who provided an answer. And yes, even one instance is historical. Not necessarily predictive, but it is historical.

George Wallace. And I argue he is the ideological father of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at Trump last night, why should Biden step down?

The double standard here is insane.

Because the Dem elite wants him to, and they want to maintain power.

You didn’t think this was about the will of the voters, did you?

You can type this as many times as you want. It is the will of the voters that Biden step down. He is listening - that's a good thing. Whether Ds win or lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that today is the day to ask yourself/ am I truly an ally to women of color?

Are you going to push Kamala out of line for a white woman or a gay white man?

It is a dilemma.

Black women are the backbone of the Democratic party. I think it would be a big mistake.

Well let them see what DNC really think of them when they will push Kamala out.

This will be a good thing. I'm tired of democrats only coming around to churches during election season and paying our community dust in the years in between. Working hard for Democrats only for them to give nothing. I suppose not actively harming is a point in their favor over Republicans but it's not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that today is the day to ask yourself/ am I truly an ally to women of color?

Are you going to push Kamala out of line for a white woman or a gay white man?

It is a dilemma.

It's only a dilemma when there's a good solution available. And there isn't one here. Kamala Harris is not Michelle Obama. She is not a woman of color that the vast majority of the country respects and likes. Biden said he'd only select a woman of color as VP in 2020. She has always been the DEI candidate, and has done absolutely nothing over the past four years to distinguish herself from that albatross.

If the elite of the Democratic Party are going to replace the President, winnability should be the only metric. The DEI candidate that is "owed" the position is not going to fly in 2024. She will lose even worse than Biden. And yet, if the Democratic elite pass over the woman of color for some white candidate, there will be civil war within the Democratic Party and they are still going to lose.

So it's not a dilemma. There is no solution this year. Biden and his allies destroyed the Democratic Party. A new generation will have to pick up the pieces in 2028.

….or, hear me out, Dems quit their bedwetting party and rally behind their sitting President. You can already see the circular firing squad preparing for the open floor convention.

Biden has done nothing to rally his party behind him, and that’s his whole job. His debate performance was truly terrifying and before that he spent the spring/summer losing the youth and Muslim vote in Michigan.

I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, because I have a daughter, but “democrats should rally” is a disrespectful point which undermines the deep dissatisfaction many felt even before the debates.

Pray tell what do you think the average Muslim in Dearborn thinks about trans and abortion issues?

Doesn’t matter— if they’re voting for a candidate who supports those rights they can think and do whatever they want. That’s what “choice” means. And though you may have been attempting to be glib, Islam takes a much more reasonable view of abortion than U.S. conservative Christianity in 2024 (not when southern Baptists embraced Roe…) days.

But Biden cannot win Michigan without that group, and he knowingly and purposefully alienated it. Long before the debates. So if his job is to rally the party and the key voters he isn’t able to do that job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s a choice between Joe Biden in his current state or a Harris / Whitmer or Harris / Newsom ticket the Dems should just stick with Biden.

You all do know the reason the Dems were able to win back states like Michigan and Wisconsin was because they nominated an old conservative white guy named “Scranton Joe” right? If you think two California elitists are going to win over Midwest Union voters, or that a Harris / Whitmer ticket is going to help the Dems slide with Hispanic and Black men (let’s not even talk about white men) you are delusional.

There's also the fact that the GOP there has gone nuts. In many places, the GOP has gone nuts. In the last election, people weren't voting for Biden or "Scranton Joe" or a conservative white guy. They were voting against Trump.

Then why did Trump win those states in 2016, despite being labeled a Nazi then as well? Biden vastly outperformed Hillary and Harris isn’t half the politician Hillary is.

Not a lot of people are going to volunteer to step up and get pummeled for their personal lives by Trump fans only to lose anyway in November. Just stick with Biden.

After getting shot and fist pumping while bloody, it’s going to be Trump no matter who the Dems run anyway. You can’t beat those primal optics.

Historically, getting shot hasn't helped a candidate. After getting shot, that is a signal that Trump will lose.

Historically?! How many nominees have been shot in the middle of a campaign?

Roosevelt. And he lost.

So your evidence is a grand total of one other instance? Weak beyond belief.

I’m not the person who said “historically,” I’m just the one who provided an answer. And yes, even one instance is historical. Not necessarily predictive, but it is historical.

George Wallace. And I argue he is the ideological father of Trump.

Wallace was paralyzed by the shot. Not exactly a good comparison. Name a time a candidate got shot, but was only grazed so it didn’t incapacitate them, and they got a ridiculous photo op out of it that made them look like a superhero?

The Dukakis / Trump photo op comparison is illustrative because Dukakis was tanked, pun intended, because that image cemented in voters minds that he looked weak. A bloodied, 78 year old man pumping his fist after getting shot looks strong, no matter how much Trump Derangement Syndrome tells you otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that today is the day to ask yourself/ am I truly an ally to women of color?

Are you going to push Kamala out of line for a white woman or a gay white man?

It is a dilemma.

Black women are the backbone of the Democratic party. I think it would be a big mistake.

Well let them see what DNC really think of them when they will push Kamala out.

This will be a good thing. I'm tired of democrats only coming around to churches during election season and paying our community dust in the years in between. Working hard for Democrats only for them to give nothing. I suppose not actively harming is a point in their favor over Republicans but it's not enough.

How old are you? This impatient "it's not enough" seems to be a Gen Z or maybe tail-end Millennial thing. All or nothing; if it's not perfect (and nothing ever is), throw it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at Trump last night, why should Biden step down?

The double standard here is insane.

Because the Dem elite wants him to, and they want to maintain power.

You didn’t think this was about the will of the voters, did you?

You can type this as many times as you want. It is the will of the voters that Biden step down. He is listening - that's a good thing. Whether Ds win or lose.

Without a vote that’s pure projection.