"Would you . . . ?" Part Two: Scum and Stammerer. (Presidential Debate Thread)

[Lexicus]

right because his core trait is decency

Yep, the first thing I think of when I think decency is helping Israel murder 15,000 Palestinian children

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Yep, the first thing I think of when I think decency is helping Israel murder 15,000 Palestinian children

Some our greatest war criminals and enablers have been decent people

 

[Lexicus]

Oh and to tie it back to the debate remember when asked about Israel Trump said "we'll let em finish the job" and Biden was like "no one gives weapons to Israel like I do, some people have even said I gave them too many weapons"

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yep, the first thing I think of when I think decency is helping Israel murder 15,000 Palestinian children

He hadn't done that yet in the lead-up to the 2020 election.

That he has in the time since does detract from his previous political "brand."

That Trump would even more gleefully kill even more means that the matter still tilts in Biden's favor, relatively speaking.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Not quite. Trump issued a "I'll debate you any time, any place" challenge, and Biden's team took him up on that.

A distinction without a difference, in my book. I'm not sure if this is the very first general election debate to take place this early, but it might be. There was no reason this needed to happen. Biden and/or his team handed Trump a victory. The only reason it's not a massive victory - yet - is that debates don't sway a huge number of voters.

I would quibble somewhat, too, with your characterization of what the Ds have done over three election cycles. Clinton wasn't picked to beat Trump; as Clinton was emerging, Trump was (unexpectedly to everyone) emerging also. And in 2020, Ds did pick the right candidate. Biden was right because his core trait is decency, and after four years of Trump's various indecencies (even just pushing other world leaders out of the way to be most prominent in a shot), people were hungry for someone decent.

This much is true, yes, but are we to think that Americans have decided that Trump is decent now? No, of course not. Nobody says that. If he was elected in 2016 in spite of being a scumbag, and voted out of office because he was a scumbag, he's now on the verge of winning again and he's still a scumbag. If Biden was in fact the only candidate in 2020 who represented decency - or if he represented better than anyone else - then he evidently hasn't sufficiently demonstrated the value of decency in that office, because here we are again. And we're not just dealing with another scumbag, it's the same [friggin'] [donkey] again.

Biden got more votes than any presidential candidate ever has.

And he needed to, because Trump got the 2nd-most votes ever, in 2020.

But decency cannot prevail on its own, if the candidate isn't a forceful communicator of his party's values. In 2020, Biden was. Now, he is not.

No, Biden was pushed on us in 2020 precisely because he was the middle-of-the-road compromise candidate that people hoped would attract some moderates and disaffected, "never Trump" Republicans. The Democrats were just playing defense, at that point. I don't remember a single person being enthusiastic about Biden in 2020. Not one. He wasn't a forceful communicator of anything, he was the let's-not-do-anything-crazy-like-nominate-a-mild-socialist candidate. In fact, he was struggling early, until... South Carolina, I think? I think a couple of other big Dem candidates dropped out after that and endorsed him (I think Amy Klobuchar was one, I can't remember who the other was... Buttigieg?). Sanders handily defeated Biden in the early primaries, and was still hanging in there on Super Tuesday (I think Sanders won California, for instance). After that, Biden started to pull away. By the end, it wasn't close, but it was never because Biden was super-popular.

Regarding the bigger analysis you provide, I think, yes. no one who didn't already like Trump found a reason to like him from that debate. It's just that Biden's performance gives any voter who was hesitant about voting for him because of age absolute permission to feel and act on that hesitancy.

Yes, definitely. I don't think debates ever sway the electorate too much, but of course the whole election could swing on a few thousand votes in a couple of states.

When it was time for Biden to decide whether to run in 2024, he felt capable of doing so; in the intervening year he has lost that capability.

People were talking about whether Biden should run in 2024 in 2020. The podcasters I listened to this morning compared Biden to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose refusal to retire cost the country dearly. One of them said it cost the country Roe v Wade. I think that's probably reductive, but if you score an own-goal and then lose the match 4-3, can you say it was the own-goal that cost you the game? Kind of, yeah, but obviously your defense was poor all day, you can't just blame the one person who made the worst error.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That Trump would even more gleefully kill even more means that the matter still tilts in Biden's favor, relatively speaking.

I think you're underestimating support for Israel in this country. If Trump is dodging the issue and not coming right out and saying "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", it's only because Michigan is going to be close. He'd probably win a few more votes in states he's already leading if he said he'd let Israel nuke Gaza.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, Biden was pushed on us in 2020 precisely because he was the middle-of-the-road compromise candidate that people hoped would attract some moderates

Biden wasn't "pushed on us" in 2020. He was one of 18 (?) people who made a bid for the nomination. When I say he then spoke forcefully for Democratic values, I am in part defining Democratic as "middle of the road," "compromise," and "hoping to attract moderates." Because that is how it seems to me Democratic primary voters in fact vote.

I think you're underestimating support for Israel in this country.

No. I am not. It is precisely that that has made Biden handle the Hamas-Israel-Gaza situation in the way that he has. And, as Lex notes, unreservedly describe that approach in the way that he did in last night's debate. Sadly, we as a nation want this handling of the situation.

On another of your points: that people forget debates would be a consolation if it were any other failing than the one it was. Nobody who saw Biden's performance and sized it up as senility will think to themselves "oh that was just a one-off" or "he can turn that around." This will be the story of this election cycle, going forward. It would take Trump suffering a stroke, and looking visibly impaired by it, to tip the scales differently than last night tipped them.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The Democrats were just playing defense, at that point

That's the critical thing. Playing defense in this age is a bit like being a Roman general on the Rhine in 400AD. The world is changing in ways politicians can neither control nor anticipate, economically, socially, technologically, even morally. The barbarians are invading on multiple fronts.

There's a vulnerability there. Biden is not perceived to be dynamic enough to respond to challenges, nor does he promise to. He's normal at a time when huge swathes of voters right and left are discontent with the status quo.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Biden wasn't "pushed on us" in 2020. He was one of 18 (?) people who made a bid for the nomination. When I say he then spoke forcefully for Democratic values, I am in part defining Democratic as "middle of the road," "compromise," and "hoping to attract moderates." Because that is how it seems to me Democratic primary voters in fact vote.

Yes, I agree. The Democratic Party has [forked] this up, and has been [forking] this up, for 3 rounds now, by being so timid and defensive and sticking with these candidates they keep shoving down our throats (because before that it was Hilary Clinton).

No. I am not. It is precisely that that has made Biden handle the Hamas-Israel-Gaza situation in the way that he has. And, as Lex notes, unreservedly describe that approach in the way that he did in last night's debate. Sadly, we as a nation want this handling of the situation.

I didn't watch the debate, and none of the commentary I've heard or read has mentioned Israel-Gaza. What was said about it?

On another of your points: that people forget debates would be a consolation if it were any other failing than the one it was. Nobody who saw Biden's performance and sized it up as senility will think to themselves "oh that was just a one-off" or "he can turn that around." This will be the story of this election cycle, going forward. It would take Trump suffering a stroke to tip the scales differently than last night tipped them.

Yes, very much. This debate didn't need to happen, the Biden camp (or perhaps Biden himself, it's unclear to me) chose it, and they basically immolated themselves. They can only pray that this debate will, in the end, be meaningless. Which is still very possible.

Biden is not perceived to be dynamic enough to respond to challenges, nor does he promise to. He's normal at a time when huge swathes of voters right and left are discontent with the status quo.

Exactly right. And that's why this is even a contest. Donald Trump is among the worst candidates the Republican Party has ever had, and the Democrats have struggled to handle him for almost a decade. Either party could be manhandling the other, if they nominated someone else. In the case of the Democrats, it's unclear whether it's too late. Some people think it is. It's possible Biden's best move would've been to declare his intention to retire after 1 term, 2 years ago (or possibly even during the 2020 campaign, but I don't know how that would've impacted that election).

 

[Lexicus]

Oh and to tie it back to the debate remember when asked about Israel Trump said "we'll let em finish the job" and Biden was like "no one gives weapons to Israel like I do, some people have even said I gave them too many weapons"

@EgonSpengler

 

[Gori the Grey]

The Democratic Party has [forked] this up, and has been [forking] this up

My only point is that "the Democratic Party," is Democratic primary voters, not any organized body that can act with focused agency, like the DNC, say.

 

[Core Imposter]

Biden wasn't "pushed on us" in 2020. He was one of 18 (?) people who made a bid for the nomination. When I say he then spoke forcefully for Democratic values, I am in part defining Democratic as "middle of the road," "compromise," and "hoping to attract moderates." Because that is how it seems to me Democratic primary voters in fact vote.


No. I am not. It is precisely that that has made Biden handle the Hamas-Israel-Gaza situation in the way that he has. And, as Lex notes, unreservedly describe that approach in the way that he did in last night's debate. Sadly, we as a nation want this handling of the situation.

On another of your points: that people forget debates would be a consolation if it were any other failing than the one it was. Nobody who saw Biden's performance and sized it up as senility will think to themselves "oh that was just a one-off" or "he can turn that around." This will be the story of this election cycle, going forward. It would take Trump suffering a stroke, and looking visibly impaired by it, to tip the scales differently than last night tipped them.

Yep, unless Biden steps aside. Election 1-2-3 has finally given way. This being polls taken before the debate.

Popular vote: Trump +1.9% heads up
Trump +2.9% 5-way
Battlegrounds unchanged (fewer polls): Trump +3.2%

Biden likely to be replaced at the convention.

 

[Lexicus]

My only point is that "the Democratic Party," is Democratic primary voters, not any organized body that can act with focused agency, like the DNC, say.

Which is exactly what's so depressing about this ****. The Democratic primary electorate had a bunch of choices in 2020 and they picked this.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I can imagine a scenario like this. (Ton of people on this site won't like it).

It requires Biden's consent, and vocal (ha!) support.

DNC announces, with Obama as the spokesperson, that they are changing their ticket to Harris Newsome. Yes, that's what I said, Harris Newsome.

They say. "When Biden decided to run, he felt up to four more years; but age has caught up with him in a way that surprises even him. We are loath to simply appoint someone, but unfortunately that is the position we are in. We ran only a pro-forma primary and so voters haven't had a real chance to weigh in on what alternative they might want. While the DNC believes in letting voters choose their candidate, one of the reasons a party apparatus exists is to allow some capacity to respond to unexpected developments. This is one. To show that we do honor our voters, we are nominating the last person they did have a chance to vote on in primaries and elections. And as her VP, someone who has polled well for future elections."

Harris is not a good candidate. But. The dynamics of the race would change in an instant. B/c now Trump would be unhinged and fascistic and old vs a young people. You could ride anti-geriatric sentiment (the strongest sentiment right now) to a victory. Harris would speak in a more full-throated way on abortion, one of Trump's other chief weaknesses, that Biden can't really exploit. Though not an attractive candidate, Harris would eviscerate Trump in a debate.

The new people also can steal Trump's usual move and just say that everything will magically be better under them. Trust me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The Democratic primary electorate had a bunch of choices in 2020 and they picked this.

He wasn't "this" in 2020. Tell me the one of those 18 who would have handled Israel-Hamas-Gaza differently.

 

[Kyriakos]

I can imagine a scenario like this. (Ton of people on this site won't like it).

It requires Biden's consent, and vocal (ha!) support.

DNC announces, with Obama as the spokesperson, that they are changing their ticket to Harris Newsome. Yes, that's what I said, Harris Newsome.

They say. "When Biden decided to run, he felt up to four more years; but age has caught up with him in a way that surprises even him. We are loath to simply appoint someone, but unfortunately that is the position we are in. We ran only a pro-forma primary and so voters haven't had a real chance to weigh in on what alternative they might want. While the DNC believes in letting voters choose their candidate, one of the reasons a party apparatus exists is to allow some capacity to respond to unexpected developments. This is one. To show that we do honor our voters, we are nominating the last person they did have a chance to vote on in primaries and elections. And as her VP, someone who has polled well for future elections."

Harris is not a good candidate. But. The dynamics of the race would change in an instant. B/c now Trump would be crazy and old vs a young people. You could ride anti-geriatric sentiment (the strongest sentiment right now) to a victory. Harris would speak in a more full-throated way on abortion, one of Trump's other chief weaknesses, that Biden can't really exploit. Though not an attractive candidate, Harris would eviscerate Trump in a debate.

Aren't polls showing Harris being less popular than Biden?
Then again, if the sense is that Biden will 100% lose, it's literally ok to choose anyone else. I doubt left-wing voters will go for Harris, assuming they would go for Biden in the first place before the lethal debate.

 

[Gori the Grey]

She won't win on popularity. She will win, if she does, on the dynamics of the race shifting.

She's the "anybody but these two guys" that everybody has been longing for.

Anybody (young) would be. I get that. But she has this pretext for being assigned to the spot.

 

[Kyriakos]

She won't win on popularity. She will win, if she does, on the dynamics of the race shifting.

She's the "anybody but these two guys" that everybody has been longing for.

Anybody (young) would be. I get that. But she has this pretext for being assigned to the spot.

It'd have been great if someone actually progressive could be chosen. Bernie won't be allowed to, obviously, but what can you do.

 

[Lexicus]

He wasn't "this" in 2020. Tell me the one of those 18 who would have handled Israel-Hamas-Gaza differently.

I'm not talking about Israel-Hamas-Gaza there, I'm talking about the fact that he performed so...oldly in the debate that you, of all people, are now talking seriously about replacing him on the ticket. I think any other of the 18 would not have this problem.

 

[EgonSpengler]

My only point is that "the Democratic Party," is Democratic primary voters, not any organized body that can act with focused agency, like the DNC, say.

I do think the Party has some agency, and it doesn't always matter what the voters want. The fact that they can't act with focused agency has always been one of their characteristics*, for good and for ill, but maybe it's really been biting them on the [hindquarters] this last decade. Biden could've chosen not to run again, but he didn't do that, which basically took away any option that voters on the Left might've had. And in 2016, the Democratic field was so weak it certainly appeared as though the Party was anointing Clinton. In fact, she was 'supposed' to have next in 2008, but Obama jumped the line. Back at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama was predicted to be the Party's candidate in 2016 - after Hilary Clinton. At the time, I thought the Democrat's 'bench' was weak, but I've seen and read analyses that in fact there are a lot of promising young Democrats who could make a splash nationally, and they just haven't been given the chance.

Biden likely to be replaced at the convention.

That's the big question. There's a lot of people wondering whether the Democratic Party even has it in them to replace an incumbent who isn't voluntarily stepping down. I doubt they do. If Biden does step down voluntarily now, there's still the question of whether the party has the 'muscle memory' to run a contested convention. Contested conventions used to be the norm, until 1968. (Perhaps ironically, this year's DNC is in Chicago. Baby-boomers just got a shiver. The 1968 Democratic National Convention is sometimes called "The Battle of Chicago", and it's the reason the Democratic Party introduced the concept of Super-Delegates.) Some people say there's nobody in a position of authority in the party today who remembers how to run that kind of convention.


* "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers, 1930-something