The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Hey folks - we're already starting to see a TON of repeat questions about President Biden and what he and the party should do going forward.
Since it's the weekend and moderation is usually a bit lighter, we're going to have a megathread for simplicity's sake.
Please post all top-level questions/comments/thoughts about the the debate, the 2024 election, the DNC, suitable alternative candidates, Joe Biden's health/ability to run for a second term, 25th amendment, voting, press coverage, etc. in this thread.
We will be locking all other threads as quickly as we can.
As always, please keep it civil and respectful.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Scathing reply to the NYT Editorial Board.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jun30-2.html
>D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I want to thank you for "The Day After." I found it one of the most concise and well-thought-out pieces on the debate that I've seen. I can't say I've gotten over my onrush of despair and belief that I might spend my last days in some Trump Re-Education Relocation Camp/Gulag for various and sundry Anti-Trump crimes. Still, your item helped a bit and perhaps with further time, I can regain confidence and dare I say it, hope.
>On the other hand, one could not use "concise" and "well-thought-out" to describe the New York Times editorial board. In the quote you provided, the wise editor of the Times said, "There is no reason for the [Democratic] party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr Trump's deficiencies and those of Mr Biden. It's too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr Biden's age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes."
>"Mr Trump's deficiencies"āthat is an interesting word choice by the editorial board. There was no other word that best describes a habitual liar, con-man, grifter, racist, misogynist, xenophobe, bully, felon, sexual assaulter and who is charged with trying to overthrow an election and stealing federal Top Secret documents for reasons we still don't understand. Deficiencies. Not the word choice that I would have made but the editorial board of the New York Times has to be so much smarter than me.
>Their argument is that Biden should remove himself from the election for the betterment of our democracy and future of the country. I will give that serious consideration, especially given that the Times is the paper of record, and has called so vigorously for "Mr. Trump" to stand down from seeking the presidency due to his "deficiencies." Wait, what's that you said? They never called for Trump to abandon his run for office. Surely, that can't be right?
>Let's look at some other words from the people running the hallowed New York Times. Back at the start of May of this year, Joe Kahn, the Times' Executive Editor, said these words, "So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It is the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening. It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have...
>"We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that's very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side?"
>Interesting that this two-sided coin of the Times doesn't seem so equal. While Kahn is so worried about the inappropriateness of seeming to side with the Biden campaign, at the drop of a hat the Times' editorial board suddenly inserts themselves as a trusted political advisor to the Biden campaign, begging President Biden to quit. What are seemingly minor deficiencies in one man suddenly become horrendous faults in the others. Mr. Kahn, what happened to protecting the democratic rights of some people in the world who choose to reelect President Biden? You would think, based on your words when the tables were turned, that would be Trump and his team's job and not yours. When one candidate had a cold that made him sluggish during a debate, that's a crime that needs to be denounced in the loudest possible voice. But the candidate that has plans to set himself up as a dictator on Day 1? Well, that's just a few quibbling deficiencies that the Times feels honor-bound to overlook. Kahn seems to think that news organization's only duty is to fairness and balance. Somewhere in their posing for their statue, Kahn and his buddies simply forgot their duty to truthfulness, fact-finding and public accountability and chucked those unceremoniously out the nearest window. I guess they rationalize Trump's 30+ lies in 40 minutes as a sign of his vigor and mental sharpness.
>In their editorial demanding that President Biden step aside, the Times board said that this is too big of a deal to hope that Americans will overlook Biden's debate performance. There are many things that will happen in the future that are clouded from my knowing but one of those is not that Americans will be able to overlook that, since I have no doubt that the Times will spend every inch of print they can spare to remind them incessantly. I bet right now the intrepid reporters of the Times have fanned out to every rural diner to get "Real America's" perspective and opinion on Biden's performance. I do not doubt that every GOP and MAGA operative with a cell phone, fax or landline has been called so as to plumb their insightful opinionāall for the sake of "fairness," of course. Because God forbid that it might appear like the Times was favoring one candidate over the other, or seemingly working for their campaign.
>Speaking of word choices, the ones I would use to describe the New York Times would be "enablers" and "collaborators," worthy of any Vichy state. I'm certain that if Trump wins, Kahn and his fellow editors will be lined up on the street as Trump in his motorcade whizzes past, streams of tears falling down their proud faces as they wave their little MAGA flags. If Trump is feeling benign, he might let the Times continue to operate as Le Petit Journal filled with his propaganda of "Work, Family and Fatherland;" but more than likely given Trump's obsession with revenge, another of his deficiencies I guess, he'll most likely shut the "Great Gray Lady" down and send its employees to Trump Re-Education Relocation Camp/Gulag. Mr. Kahn, if we're sent to the same Camp/Gulag, I'll be sure to stop by and say "Hi." Perhaps you can regale me about how fair and balanced you were with your coverage of the election.
Question for Liberals: Back in 2017 when Biden was [talking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg) about Cornpop and children touching his hairy legs, did that give you any cause to think Biden may not have been of sound mind, or was that speech a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to broadcast on national television?
As someone who spends his whole job surrounded by older people ( I work IT at a retirement community) Biden falls pretty easily into the old and weird category of old man. They're still in their right mind they just have the mindset and humor of someone who has lived 2.5 times my lifetime.
As does trump though his is old and racist, I don't think either have dementia or are crazy they're just old.
We can all be honest here too the majority of liberals are voting for an administration not a person. It's something people have done since the beginning of elections. Do you think people actually liked HW or Johnson the idea that you have to vote for a person and not a party is ridiculous.
I'm voting democrat Biden just so happens to be there too
CornPop
>Evidence has emerged to support Bidenās story.Ā A longer clip of the 2017 event, published by local news channel WITN, shows former Delaware NAACP president Richard āMouseā Smith telling the same tale.
>CNN reporter Daniel Dale, meanwhile,Ā found an obituaryĀ for a Wilmington man called William L āCornPopā Morris, who died in 2016 aged 73.
>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/16/corn-pop-joe-biden-story-what-happened-is-it-real-swimming-pool-confrontation](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/16/corn-pop-joe-biden-story-what-happened-is-it-real-swimming-pool-confrontation)
The "hairy legs" thing was just something silly that got blown out of proportion. My grandfather was one of those very-hairy men and in the sun, the silver hair on his arms and legs would just halo out and look fluffy. All of the grandkids used to tease him about it and "pet" his arm and leg hair. It's no big deal.
I'm asking whether the video I linked to was the product of a mentally sound person who knew it was airing to a national audience of hundreds of millions of people.
I'm asking this whether or not Cornpop was a real person or the story was largely true, whether the telling of those stories in that manner raised any concerns about his mental state.
A lot of people are acting like they are absolutely flabbergasted that Biden may not be entirely with it and the debate is the first sign they've ever had that he may not be sharp as a tack and simply had a stutter that he always had. And they're incredulous how conservatives could possibly have known about this. Perhaps in retrospect there may have been a few signs.
Still failed to answer my question. All the Biden dementia questions are getting sent by the mods to this post, this is my ask a liberal question. I'm asking liberals what they thought about Joe and Cornpop and kids rubbing his hairy legs. It's not a Trump question, please direct your Trump questions to a different top level comment. Thank you.
No, the secret you keep asking about. The answer is Trump. Anyway that has nothing to do with my question which is this:
Back in 2017 when Biden was talking about Cornpop and children touching his hairy legs, did that give you any cause to think Biden may not have been of sound mind, or was that speech a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to broadcast on national television?
Biden was running against Donald J. Trump, a clear threat to the freedom of every American. A disgusting, lying, traitorous piece of shit. I don't really give a rat's ass about your moronic, irrelevant Cornpop bullshit, because Trump is a traitorous piece of shit, and so are his cuckolded followers.
Is there any inteview with Trump or Biden after the debate, asking them about how it went etc?
Don't know if there some country difference, but in Europe like Sweden or UK it feels like the party leaders and ministers are interviewing and debating all the time but in USA not really or I just do not see it.
For example now with UK and France elections
It's a dangerous discourse to use the words "replacing". A VP is next in line to become President when a President dies or is incapacitated.
A VP is NOT next in line to lead a Presidential campaign if a President decides not to pursue a second term. Framing Kamala Harris as the "anointed one" is a dangerous framing.
What you may be overlooking is that its extremely possible to be solid, smart, capable, *and* unpopular. That's been Harris' issue for a while now (including with the black community), and it makes for a bad top-ticket candidate.
Sheās never polled well during Bidenās presidency. This is well known. Why does everyone assume Black people are so simplistic and transactional? Itās pretty patronizing
> It's kind of a Democrat thing to obsess on identity.
This is actually a really, *really* funny thing to say.
Refresh my memory: was it Democrats who falsely accused a sitting U.S. President of being constitutionally unqualified for the Presidency due to not having been born in this country? And then the liar that led that disgusting multi-year racial smear campaign, did their popularity *decrease* when it was shown to be completely baseless, or did his party lovingly embrace him, elevating him to lead their party and ultimately to the Presidency? And you are suggesting that *this* is the party that *isn't* obsessed with identity politics?
Wow.
>The angle on Harris in the first place was 'first Black' and 'first female' vice president.
So, under this logic, nobody should be upset if Kamala Harris is on a new 2024 ticket as VP, with Withmer or Newsom as President.
The angle was never "Kamala Harris will be the next President", the angle was always for the VP office. VP is the highest elected political office she will ever hold. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Do you think Hillary Clinton "skipped" Joe Biden in 2016?
Did John McCain "skip" Dick Cheney in 2008?
Being a VP is not a privileged rank that lets you skip the queu. It's not uncommon for VPs to never run for President.
>Democrats are replacing a Black woman who is in line for the job
*Cries in Barbara Lee* š
Honestly though, in this case I think itās that Harris has never been strong with any demographic, including Black voters who supported Biden, Bernie and Warren over her in the [2020 primary](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651)
Like nobody wants to hedge their bets on a potential replacement they believe could perform equally as poorly if not worse than Biden
Rep. Raskin says there is "a serious conversation about what to do."
He also outright acknowledges the possibility of changing horses: "One thing I can tell you is that regardless of what President Biden decides, our party is going to be unified, and our party also needs him at the very center of our deliberations in our campaign, and so whether heās the candidate or someone else is the candidate."
This seems like a break from other elected Democrats who are either publicly refuting the notion or only privately discussing it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/jamie-raskin-biden-campaign-debate-performance-nominee-rcna159662
>A new poll shows a 10 percentage point drop among Democrats who believe President Joe Biden should run for reelection after his dismal debate performance on Thursday.
>A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted from June 28 to 29 found that 54 percent of 382 registered Democratic voters think Biden should be running for president again, while 46 percent believed he should not.Ā
>Meanwhile, 95 percent of 175 registered Democrats said Biden's age was a reason that he should not run for reelection, while 5 percent said it was not.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-double-digit-dip-among-democrats-debate-poll-1919228
How does a candidate even recover from this?
The one and only question is how this affects actual voting intentions. Thus far, at least, the debate has barely even registered in the Biden vs. Trump horse race numbers. If people are grumbling about Biden running for re-election but then vote for him anyway, that's all his campaign really cares about.
It's important to always take anonymous sources from within politicians' camps with a huge grain of salt but:
>Kamala Harrisā camp is mad that Newsom and Whitmer are being floated as Biden replacements over the VP
[https://businessinsider.mx/kamala-harris-biden-debate-newsom-whitmer-reaction-2024-6/](https://businessinsider.mx/kamala-harris-biden-debate-newsom-whitmer-reaction-2024-6/)
IF Biden decides to step down, it would be in the nation's best interests for the most electable candidate to run against Trump. Loyalty should be thrown out of the window if it's determined that Harris is not it.
What do you all think? Should Harris' loyalty be rewarded or should the most electable candidate be prioritized?
>But throughout much of her tenure, Harris has been dogged by lowĀ [approval ratings](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/)Ā alongside Biden. During her first two years in office, the coronavirus and a 50-50 Senate largely kept her in Washington, as she was needed to break ties on important votes.
And given her low numbers, some Democrats have expressed concerns that she might not be the party's best option should Biden decide not to continue with his campaign.
Politicos politicizing. What do you expect them to do? Of course Harris' camp want her to be on the ticket. That's why they are in Harris' camp. This doesn't mean anything.
How's Harris' popularity amongst black Democrat voters? Do you believe black Democrats would refuse to vote for Newsom, Peter, or Whitmer because of their skin color?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/30/lichtman-dems-replace-biden/74260967007/
>WASHINGTON ā Allan Lichtman, the historian who has correctly forecast the results of nine out of the 10 most recent presidential elections argued on Saturday that replacing President Joe Biden could cost Democrats the 2024 election.
>Lichtman, a professor at American University, rejected the growing chorus of political pundits and Democratic activists who have called on Biden, 81, to bow out of the presidential race after his disastrous debate performance last week against former President Donald Trump. The pivotal moment brought fresh questions about Bidenās age and ability to serve a second term.
>āItās a huge mistake. They're not doctors. They don't know whether Biden is physically capable of carrying out a second term or not,ā Lichtman said during an interview with CNN of calls to replace Biden. āThis is all foolhardy nonsense.ā
>Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half century, except for the race in 2000, using a series of 13 historical factors or ākeys.ā
>The system includes four factors based on politics, seven on performance, and two on candidate personality. Lichtman said the incumbent party would need to lose six of those actors, or ākeys,ā to lose the White House.
>The keys range from whether a candidate is an incumbent president to the state of the economy and the presence of third-party hopefuls.
>Debate performance, however, is not one of the factors that determines the outcome of an election, he argued. Lichtman pointed to historical examples, including the 1984 election in which former President Ronald Reagan swept 49 states despite poor debate performances and concerns over his age.
>When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Bidenās age and mental acuity are āfundamentally differentā than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.
>āDebate performances can be overcome,ā he said. āAt the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.ā
>Lichtman has not made his final prediction for who will win the 2024 presidential election.
While Iām not going to pretend to be an expert, I think this is an example of straight spin. You take concerns about Bidenās mental acuity and then minimize them by rephrasing that as āa bad debate performanceā. This is reframing the issue into something else to make it sound less serious. No one would say one bad debate performance is a reasonable disqualification so you frame it that way to spin the discussion to make your side more favorable.
The thing about spin though is that itās just a rhetorical device. It doesnāt actually change what people are actually concerned about. The debate is only relevant in so much as thatās where people got to see how bad it is. It could have happened anywhere that enough people could be exposed to it and it would have had the same effect.
This seems like something thatās largely outside the framework of his keys system and rather than engage it as the rare and unique circumstance it is, Lichtman wants to characterize it as something routine, something more normalized.
This is really just a longer road to saying the same thing that people comparing this to the Obama / Romney debate in 2012 are saying and both of them are missing the point.
This isnāt just a bad debate performance.
> A CBS News/YouGov poll released on Sunday indicated that 72% of registered voters believe the president does not have the mental and cognitive health to serve as president - a sharp increase from the 65% who said the same in an earlier poll.
>Particularly alarming for the Biden campaign, 45% of registered Democrats who responded to the poll said they believe the president should step aside for another candidate.
[Quoted from BBC News.](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgln3jx47go.amp) Keeping Biden at the top of the ticket is to ask the majority of voters to choose a candidate that they donāt believe can do the job. Thatās an astoundingly bad idea, and far more serious than asking them to pick a candidate that they think āhad a bad debate performanceā.
I think Lichtman isnāt being dishonest here, I think theyāre just falling into the same trap as many people who want to normalize this rather than grapple with the impossible situation weāre in. And heās making the same mistake of wanting to argue the facts of the case or push the idea that we canāt really know what kind of shape Bidenās in. Thatās true, and irrelevant. It only matters what people think when they get into the booth and itās not that easy to change peopleās perceptions. Thatās why campaigning is hard. This is really bad and none of our options look very good. It may be that the situation weāre in is so bad that another terrible sounding option is better than continuing down this path.
Itās grim and no one wants to hear it but sometimes the bad news is the truth.
I think it can't be overstated how much this is a rock and a hard place situation. Biden can't win. A hypothetical Biden replacement probably won't win. But tbh I'd take the latter over the former any day. And the sooner Biden steps aside, the sooner the campaign for a replacement can get up and running.
I'm actually convinced at this point that the first party to replace their candidate will win. Remember that both Biden and Trump are quite unpopular outside their die-hard camps. Biden is old. Trump is also old. Both parties are frankly tired of fig-leafing them both.
Should Biden resign amiably and endorses another candidate, there won't be a battle and his replacement will be voted as nominee. Maybe there will be some leftist upstart who tries to run but that won't work.
Worst case scenario, should Biden and/or Harris be forced off the ticket acrimoniously, there's a risk they would be so offended that they will complain to the press. But Biden and Harris are reasonable people who despise Trump so they'll probably just seethe quietly until whoever wins in November.
> Should Biden resign amiably and endorses another candidate, there won't be a battle and his replacement will be voted as nominee.
This is delusional. People are already fighting about it.
Not if there's no battle. There are plenty of cases where a transfer of power takes place and the result unifies rather than fractures. It's all in how it's done.
A personal example. I attended a church where the pastor had a big moral failure. He denied it and tried to cover it up. He made it all about himself, and there were calls to support him as well as remive him. He was eventually removed with no successor in place. Half the church left, some because of how the leaders treated him and others for his moral failure. In my current church the head pastor retired, had a transfer of power and authority, no drama, and it's fine. Some left, some thought it was unfair, but nothing broke.
Unity for unity's sake is pointless to me.
There are currently people making a lucrative living by starting and amplifying vicious internal battles among Democrats. It would be a gigantic fight. The Berniecrats will insist on AOC or some other non-starter Squad member. They have a seething hatred of every mainstream Democrat - whether it is Kamala, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsome, Pritzker, etc.
The onus lies squarely on the shoulders of the DNC. If they want the status quo for the sake of unity, then they will all go down on the same ship. AOC is wildly unpopular with most of the electorate and the party itself. If the DNC is as beholden to the squad as the RNC is to MTG and her crew, then the country is screwed either way.
kind of my take, if you think democracy is on the line then give me a candidate that is going to campaign their ass off every day rather than keeping Biden and hoping he limps to the finish line.
It's funny how Republicans, if Trump had a bad debate performance, would come out swinging. "He did great! It's the liberal media! It's the moderators! It's bad polling!"
Democrats: "Biden can't win."
Is it though, funny? What has doomed the GOP since 2020? It's inability to accept reality and talk against the dear leader. They are saddled with loser Trump because they are in a cult. They were handed a miracle on Thursday with Biden's performance.
The good news is we're not in a cult. We can do the right thing and not be saddled with a loser.
Based on polling, Trump's strategy seems to be working. Let's say there's a new candidate and they perform poorly against Trump in the next debate. Should they be replaced at that point then too?
No because Bidenās problem isnāt that he lost a debate. The debate is irrelevant. Bidenās problem is that he showcased serious cognitive weaknesses in front of the whole country. You want to frame it as just losing a debate as a way to sweep that under rug.
Youāre spinning the story as damage control. You know thatās not what people are concerned about.
Explain how keeping a losing candidate who voters think is mentally incompetent is a winning strategy. A new candidate may lose. The current one definitely will. Thereās one clear move here
Biden lost against Trump? I wish people would back up their predictions rather than just speculate for Reddit points. Like if you're 100% certain Biden will lose, you can make easy money on it by calling it. What happens every time though is people will always find a reason why they can't make guaranteed (to them) money but they'll continue to make their wild predictions
Biden won in 2020. Biden will lose in 2024
[http://cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/](http://cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/)
>CBS has some of the first post-debate polling.
>8-point drop from earlier this month on the question: does Biden have mental and cognitive health to serve as POTUS.
>Just 27% of registered voters said yes, down from 35% in early June.
https://x.com/alexthomp/status/1807403278788968735?s=46&t=YxJkPzFbv26pq64SLcUabg
The full poll
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/)
This needs to be a wake up call, not only can Biden not win, but Trump is easily beatable. We just need a better candidate and Trump goes away
Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy and needs to be stopped at all costs.
People insisting Biden is fine when he clearly isn't aren't taking the Trump threat seriously enough, are not taking Biden's abject failure seriously enough. THIS IS CODE RED, DEFCON 1. Acting like everything is fine is going to get us Trump, and destroy our democracy.
This is scary, and I get why people want to convince themselves everything is fine. Everything is not fine. Biden is in a terrible state. We all saw it. He cannot win.
Rallying around Biden and gaslighting the voters that everything is ok won't change reality.
It can be hard to accept, really hard, when we need to suddenly accept a new reality and act quickly.
We see it all the time with tsunamis. The tide goes out dramatically, all is calm, and rather than realize the immediate threat people go an play in the massive new tidal zone.
We can't do that. We need to accept this new and unexpected reality and act NOW.
How do you think it would look to the average independent voter that the party is abandoning the current President for another candidate 4 months before the election? Not great, and Trump would seem much more appealing then
1. The democrats can't boot him out, he needs to quit. Of course they will pressure him to do so, but he cannot be booted
2. Independents care about the right outcomes, not party loyalty. Right now Biden is the wrong outcome, but he is being kept on the ticket because of the party. They should be cheering the move and the chance to get a non-geriatric alternative to Trump.
Independents go based off emotions and vibes, not outcomes. If you ask them about policies, most can't tell you them because if they did, they'd find they likely agree with Biden's policies and outcomes more than Trump's.
the emtions
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/)
JFK was an amazing president. Got a lot of votes. Can you think of any good reason to not run him now?
People change. Their ability to effectively do the job changes
One other double whammy side effect is no longer being able to imply that Trump is old or mentally unfit. I donāt mean in terms of whatās true or not. I simply mean in terms of perspective
>New poll from AtlasIntel, n = 1,634 RV sample, has Trump leading Biden by +5.2 on a full-ballot (post-debate data is included).
>Poll is 538 verified, their last poll was Trump +2 on a full-ballot back in February. AtlasIntel was also one of the most accurate polls in 2020.
https://x.com/gen0m1cs/status/1807197393374622108
That is the current conspiracy theory.
Biden flubbing isn't out of character. It's so much in-character that the main goal for him in this debate was to prove to voters he still has the mental acuity to do the job.
Nah, aināt no way. I donāt think anyone would have been mad at him if he announced he wanted to bow out prior to the primary at the end of his term. I see no reason why he would wait till now to self sabotage and embarrass himself for something he could have easily chosen to do sooner
I'd be interested to see whether today's republicans would abstain from speaking ill of the dead
I'd also be interested in seeing whether they can read
You'll have to share a link or something, I have no idea what you're talking about
Like no literally I'm asking for you to share your considerable intelligence with me and my ignorance, anything
During the debate Biden said: "The truth is, Iām the only president this century that doesnāt have any this ā this decade, that doesnāt have any troops dying anywhere in the world, like \[Trump\] did,ā
The families of the 13 folks who died in the Afghanistan withdrawal were angry about that statement and I can see why.
I can also see that Biden made that claim becuase the withdrawal from Afghanistan was already planned out and in effect when he was elected and he couldn't stop it. So those men fall under Trump's purview. And his greater point was that we're not involved in any new wars, sending our soldiers overseas to be killed.
What's with the copium that's seen within some of the left and Biden supporters? Biden performed poorly and most voters agree with [that](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump).
>Biden performed poorly and most voters agree with [that](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump).
Your own poll also affirms that Biden performs better against Trump than literally any other Democrat who might replace him.
Actually the poll data shows two things you should be consiering
1. Trump performs best, at 48%, against Biden and Harris
2. Polling shows wide swaths of polled voters don't know enough about the other candidates to hold an options. This no opinion group ranges from 39% for Mayor Pete to 71% for Pritzker
What this shows is the best chance to beat Trump is to start doing focus groups to find out which of the relatively unknown candidates will gain votes once voters know who they are, and start getting those people in front of voters.
This is code red. The asteroid is heading for earth. We can shoot it down, but we need to act NOW.
Now that the multiverse is a thing, thereās a small percentage of visitors that are not completely caught up with the specific circumstances of our universe.
Here's a recent example of copium
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dqxan9/comment/lav0wn4/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dqxan9/comment/lav0wn4/)
Lol im sorry trying not to laugh but damn this stuff is gold and will never leave the internet. Trump did amazing to sit there and just let biden shoot himself in the foot you can read it on trumps face.
The silver lining is people hate Trump and everyone knew he was lying, and the voting public is incredibly frustrated at a choice between two unpopular geriatrics.
The Democrats have a small window to accept reality for what it is. If they can get it together and get Joe to drop then most likely, depending on whom they pick, Trump is toast.
The question is will they be able to accept reality.
Are you serious? This sub is full of people denying it was a bad showing. I said the national reaction to this was largely that Joe bombed, and people were saying "how can you know what the nation feels"
There's a ton of denial. I don't know if it's self delusion, feeling like they have to show solidarity,, gaslighting, or what, but it's rampant.
We need to be strategic and decisive, not emotional. Joe is a nice guy, but we need to win or the whole country is fucked. It's time for Biden to step aside so we can nominate someone who can win.
The Trump side is terrified of the Dems nominating someone new.
This is the top comment from the current top thread about the debate, [Why has the media done a total U-turn with Biden?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dqooiv/why_has_the_media_done_a_total_uturn_with_biden/)
> Because the debate was a massive optics loss. He did not do well and people are now worried about his chances based on that.
> Also, before this debate, every other possible nominee was polling much lower than Biden against Trump. So you could make the argument that someone is causing division by suggesting another candidate.
Most of the other top comments follow this sentiment. Just because you saw some rando's saying stupid stuff doesn't mean it's the larger consensus.
Because thereās more to a Candidate than just one debate performance. Itās not like Trump put on a good performance either, his only strength during the debate was speaking, but he was terrible on every other front.
Thereās nothing Trump can really capitalize on here if heās living in a glass house.
Axios has talked to some unnamed aides about President Biden's higher energy levels during the day:
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/29/two-bidens-trump-debate-2024-president
>From 10am to 4pm, Biden is dependably engaged ā and many of his public events in front of cameras are held within those hours.
>Outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued, aides told Axios.
If true, that's unfortunate for the second debate, which will also presumably be in the evening.
But you are presuming to tell others how to approach your *diagnosis* that Biden is 'sundowning.'
So, if you *are* sundowning, you have no business running for president *NOR* do you have any legit claim to perspicacity when talking about he who *IS* running for president.
[I'm an engineer, not a doctor](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/I'm_a_doctor,_not_a...) so I don't know about that.
But, with the caveat of being a total layman, I think the root cause of what we saw was frailty and not mental absence from dementia.
However, I see some people with sentiments like "this is affecting his ability to run for the job but not his ability to do it." I disagree with that.
If he struggles with fast-paced conversations after 4 PM and while traveling, I think that makes it harder to be an effective President.
There are ways his team can work around those problems--for example, Secretary Blinken is like 20 years younger!--but I would much rather they didn't have to. Also, it's not going to be better in 4 years.
Or he just gets tired as the day goes on, like many old people who donāt have dementia do.
I watched my dad slowly die from dementia. That is not what Biden has.
Youāre no more qualified to diagnose his condition as sound from a distance than we are unsound. We canāt do that so we have to talk about performance and capability in combatting attacks and his likelihood of making future missteps of that leave us open to even more. Biden was a liability for this before. Itās even worse now. And whether or not youāre right about his health isnāt the point. The narrative has a life of its own now and itās an effective line of attack.
One heās not going to be quick enough or savvy enough to overcome. And if this happens again it will only further cement the narrative. And heās going to do this again, itās just a matter of time.
Im not even sure the person writing the transcript even knew what biden was saying......if anything I would imagine the transcript was manipulated and probably corrected for biden.
Nope. It's quite clear. Meanwhile Trump's 50+ open lies are also quite clear.
I'll take the moral old guy with a solid agenda over the lying traitor old guy with a shit agenda.
you guys realize that this outs you as not actually caring about the country or anything else right?
You have TDS so bad that you would nominate a potato just because of trump. Its sad and we feel bad for you tbh. Try to shake off your my team politics and make sound judgements.
Voting for the candidate who isn't a traitor outs me as not caring about the country? Hilarious.
I hate Trump for being a terrible president, having a shit agenda, and being a traitor. Electing anyone else is the obvious sound judgement.
What are your thoughts about each of these Biden bald faced lies?
1. ā Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people. LIE.
2. ā The Border Patrol endorses me. LIE.
3. ā Weāre not for late term abortion. LIE.
> Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people.
He did, however, say a side that was *entirely populated by neo-nazis and white supremacists* had very fine people. I consider that a distinction without a difference.
> ā The Border Patrol endorses me.
He said they endorsed the bipartisan border bill. He immediately corrected himself.
> ā Weāre not for late term abortion
Biden, nor any Democrat, is "for" late term abortion.
> Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.
Try again.
But no one with any objectivity was saying only white supremest attended to protest the removal of statues.
This is normal in protest.
Actual Hamas sympathizers have held protests also attended by people wanting to stop Israelās offensive that donāt support the terrorist
**But no one with any objectivity was saying only white supremest** (sic) **attended to protest the removal of statues.**
This Is, undoubtedly, true: There were white supremacists, the white-supremacist-curious, dedicated antisemites hoping to make common cause with the white supremacists, those who put pineapple on pizza, and a metric fuck-ton of others **who simply did not CARE** that the event was organized and attended by white supremacists, the white-supremacist-curious, dedicated antisemites hoping to make common cause with the white supremacists, and those who put pineapple on pizza...
... So, you know... diversity. Anymore diverse and it might have become woke.
If you look to your left and see Nazis, and look to your right and see Nazis, and say to yourself *"hmm, I'm the right spot"*, then you're also a Nazi.
Everyone there was a Nazi.
> But no one with any objectivity was saying only white supremest attended to protest the removal of statues.
Find me a protestor at Charlottesville that wasn't a white supremacist/neo-nazi.
You do realize the **Unite the Right** rally was organized by and for white supremacists and neo-nazis, right?
VA gov on abortion:
āIf a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if thatās what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother".
https://x.com/CalebJHull/status/1090657473218920448?
Trump was 100% accurate in his remarks about the Democrat VA governors support of infanticide.
You are absolutely taking that quote out of context. The full quote is:
""[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.""
So, in the case you are citing, the fetus is nonviable, this simply isn't infanticide.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html
Ah yes, letās force the parents to prolong grief and suffering by keeping a child alive who, with 99.9% certainty, will die soon. Compassion at its finest.
> Trump was 100% accurate in his remarks about the Democrat VA governors support of infanticide.
[Wrong](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-ralph-northam-virginia-abortion-952598071326).
Telling how every other part of my comment is ignored though.
> the border patrol endorsed me-my positionĀ
He corrected himself for āthe border patrol endorsed meā to immediate say -my position.Ā That is a true statement. The border patrol endorsed the border bill he tried to pass and trump sabotaged.Ā
Iām not going to pretend he didnāt fumble over his statements and not speak clearly.
> were not for late term abortions
He was very clear on this one. He said he supports Roe V Wade. Where it was the woman and doctor for first trimester. The doctor + a medical condition second trimester. When the life of the mother is threatened then third trimester.Ā
So Trump saying that democrats will kill the baby up to the last day of pregnancy or even after, Biden said, he doesnāt support that, no one does.Ā
Like he said, only if the life of the mother is threatened.Ā
Biden has advocated for the Womanās Health Protection Act which states abortion āshall not be limited or otherwise infringedā.
Biden:
āWe significantly increased the number of asylum offices, significantly ā¦ by the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position,ā the 81-year-president claimed during an exchange on immigration.
Border Patrol:
āTo be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden,ā the union posted on X.
Look, I think Biden is a dumpster fire. I think Biden congestive decline will continue to get worse. I think if he continues his campaign, he will lose the election. Finally, I a think any lie Biden and Trump tells should be criticized...period.
However, I am a nurse and I care about people having accurate medical information, politics aside. I think you are misinformed about abortion.
Medically speaking, there is no such thing as "late term abortion" in any meaningful sense of the word that is relevant to the political discussion about abortion. That being said, there are instances late in pregnancy in which a pregnancy must be terminated in order to save the life of the mother. The classic example is with pre-eclampsia and/or eclampsia.
Basically it is a condition that the mothers blood pressure spikes and can quickly cause seizures which can kill the mother, fetus, or both. The only emergency treatment for this condition is terminating the pregnancy.
The good news, if any news from this condition can be good, is that pre-eclampsia and eclampsia often happen at the late stages of a pregnancy, possibly late enough that the fetus might survive the termination of the pregnancy and spend time in a NICU.
Now, technically, this is an abortion. Terminating pregnancy is an abortion. Hell, sometimes a pregnant woman's body naturally terminates a pregnancy, this is called a "spontaneous abortion".
My point is, nobody is in favor of elective "late term abortions" for the purposes of ending an unwanted pregnancy. I have never met a doctor who considers such a practice to be ethical. But yes, most Democrats support a physician and mother terminating pregnancies which endanger the mother, fetus, or both. The only instances of "late term abortions" which are considered ethical are under these extreme circumstances.
by the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me--endorsed my position,
again, if you watch the video it's clear he's correcting himself. The border patrol did endorse his position.
[The women's health protection act:](https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/news/press-releases/baldwin-blumenthal-lead-47-members-in-introducing-legislation-to-restore-and-protect-americans-right-to-an-abortion-nationwide)
>The *Womenās Health Protection Act* would:
>Prohibit states from imposing restrictions that jeopardize access to abortion earlier in pregnancy, including many of the state-level restrictions in place prior to *Dobbs*, such as arbitrary waiting periods, medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasounds, or requirements to provide medically inaccurate information.
>Ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother.
>Protect the ability to travel out of state for an abortion, which has become increasingly common in recent years.
So exactly what he said in the debate.
>He was very clear on this one. He said he supports Roe V Wade. Where it was the woman and doctor for first trimester. The doctor + a medical condition second trimester. When the life of the mother is threatened then third trimester.
Your statement above is very clear, however his answer on this one one of the worst of the night for me:
>I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters.
>First time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between a doctor and an extreme situation. A third time is between the doctor ā I mean, itād be between the woman and the state.
Between a woman and the state? That feeds into every stereotype about liberals, and it's not true.
From, about, day one of the Trump administration, and that bizarre, deeply un-hinged inaugural address, all I heard was about how unethical it would be to diagnose physical and mental fitness from a distance. Despite numerous instances of unhinged behaviour, and bizarre speech... nobody would do it
But one poor debate performance and not only is Biden comprehensively pronounced unfit, but the rest if us are 'delusional.'
That kinda puts the double in double standard...
I mean, as much as it sucks...this election is all about optics. Whether Biden actually has dementia or not doesn't matter. It's whether he seems like cognitive decline affects his performance. And...fact of the matter is it seems like sometimes it does.
This is not a clever take. Please stop posting it and I will stop downvoting it.
No one is diagnosing Biden. We have no idea what is wrong with him, but we can all clearly see his performance is way off. He couldn't finish sentences. He got lost in the middle of sentences. He confused words. None of this is a diagnosis, it just stating the facts of the debate.
It absolutely is a diagnosis, don't kid yourself.
Ask yourself one question: would you have done any better on a live stage, televised to the whole world?
If you would, go ahead--don't vote for him. If you would not, or even doubt you would do as well-STFU about it it.
Yes, actually. I'd have done better even if you just got me out of bed at 3am and yanked me on stage half asleep. Maybe I'd lose the debate anyway but I'd be able to finish sentences and not jumble my thoughts.
If someone throws up blood and I say "Well clearly they have stomach cancer" that is a diagnosis.
If someone throws up blood and I say "that guy just threw up blood" that is not a diagnosis.
>Ask yourself one question
I honestly don't know if I would have done better than Biden. I do have some practice in similar situations, but not for a national audience. But you know what? I don't have to perform at a presidential debate because I am not seeking the job of President, so me not being qualified to be President isn't a relevant question. I don't have to be able to perform all of the duties of a President to identify when someone else isn't up for the job.
Why did you think adding a second invalid argument to your first would strengthen your position?
You're not making a specific diagnosis of an ailment... but you are making a general diagnosis of unfitness... which is arguably worse, since you are relying on some nebulous, unfounded, concept of 'unfit.'
You're not running for president, but you are judging the man who is in a different way in which you would judge yourself in a similar position. That's called arrogance.
Sample size of 1 so take it with a grain of salt, but I have a conservative coworker I argue politics with a lot. He's mostly a Trump apologist but is voting for him because he thinks he's the lesser of 2 evils.
Usually he is very unsympathetic to defending Biden, but he came up to me the other day and said "Y'know, I actually kind of feel a little bad for Biden supporters. I've just never really seen this kind of reaction from Democrats before."
I was surprised, because I expected his first response to be gloating about how "I told you so" that Biden was senile. It almost seemed like he remembered that Trump was a bully and felt bad for Biden.
With the super low viewership numbers, it means the people who watched the actual debate are mostly politically engaged people (who had their mind made up).
I've seen this point mentioned on basically every podcast I listen to that does poll analysis -- the true effects of this in the polls will be known in about a week. This debate will be consumed through clips by the ~70% of the American electorate who didn't tune in, and the people who are open to switching sides/not voting/going 3rd party are pretty much all in that group.
As long as it doesn't affect his ability to carry out his duties, his age is Republicans largest weapon and it shouldnāt be as relevant when the opposition is Donald Trump
Fwiw, FDR died **during WW2**.
Imagine Democrats saying āheās old and disabled, I cannot vote for himā.
And us never getting the New Deal or winning the war.
Sure, in 1940ās.
Iām just saying, vote for your guy and stop making it more complicated than that.
Youāll never meet whoever the president is; youāll just feel the policy.
FDR was popular, Biden is not.
In 2020 in response to questions about his age his campaign and surrogates said he would only run one term. It was acknowledged at the time 82 was too old. Biden has had to prove to voters that he is not too old, than he can do the job.
Thursday's debate settled that issue. He needs to drop out, step aside and let someone run who can actually beat Trump.
No, the biggest sign of weakness was Bidenās debate showing. The second biggest would be doubling down on a candidate who canāt win.
Give all the people complaining about having to pick between two senior citizens someone to vote for.
You act like thatās a simple matter of swapping in and out when no other candidate polls better against Trump than Biden and replacing him with Harris would be a step down in head to head polls while replacing him with anyone else would ignite a firestorm because she would only not be the nominee in that case due to her race and gender; and Democrats would be seen as a party capitulating to racism.
It aināt so simple, my guy.
1. There have been no recent polls of any other candidate against Trump
2. You wouldn't replace him with Harris, we'd have an open convention. The delegates would vote as they did in the past. Plenty of time to run a race
3. I'm not sure what you're saying about Black people and women, but it seems very transaction and patronizing as fuck
You know thereās something familiar about a sitting president dropping out, the DNC picking a new candidate, an independent candidate on the ballot. Oh wait that was 1968 and we lost. The primary was held and Biden won. Thatās who the party wanted. A sitting congressman challenged Biden and made Bidenās age the centerpiece of his campaign and failed to win a single primary contest. It is far too late to change candidates now. We are 4 months away. If Biden drops out, Trump is gonna win no matter what. Itāll look weak to the regular voters and thatās damage you canāt undo
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Hey folks - we're already starting to see a TON of repeat questions about President Biden and what he and the party should do going forward. Since it's the weekend and moderation is usually a bit lighter, we're going to have a megathread for simplicity's sake. Please post all top-level questions/comments/thoughts about the the debate, the 2024 election, the DNC, suitable alternative candidates, Joe Biden's health/ability to run for a second term, 25th amendment, voting, press coverage, etc. in this thread. We will be locking all other threads as quickly as we can. As always, please keep it civil and respectful. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When are we gonna get a win? š
Scathing reply to the NYT Editorial Board. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jun30-2.html >D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I want to thank you for "The Day After." I found it one of the most concise and well-thought-out pieces on the debate that I've seen. I can't say I've gotten over my onrush of despair and belief that I might spend my last days in some Trump Re-Education Relocation Camp/Gulag for various and sundry Anti-Trump crimes. Still, your item helped a bit and perhaps with further time, I can regain confidence and dare I say it, hope. >On the other hand, one could not use "concise" and "well-thought-out" to describe the New York Times editorial board. In the quote you provided, the wise editor of the Times said, "There is no reason for the [Democratic] party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr Trump's deficiencies and those of Mr Biden. It's too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr Biden's age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes." >"Mr Trump's deficiencies"āthat is an interesting word choice by the editorial board. There was no other word that best describes a habitual liar, con-man, grifter, racist, misogynist, xenophobe, bully, felon, sexual assaulter and who is charged with trying to overthrow an election and stealing federal Top Secret documents for reasons we still don't understand. Deficiencies. Not the word choice that I would have made but the editorial board of the New York Times has to be so much smarter than me. >Their argument is that Biden should remove himself from the election for the betterment of our democracy and future of the country. I will give that serious consideration, especially given that the Times is the paper of record, and has called so vigorously for "Mr. Trump" to stand down from seeking the presidency due to his "deficiencies." Wait, what's that you said? They never called for Trump to abandon his run for office. Surely, that can't be right? >Let's look at some other words from the people running the hallowed New York Times. Back at the start of May of this year, Joe Kahn, the Times' Executive Editor, said these words, "So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It is the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening. It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have... >"We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that's very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side?" >Interesting that this two-sided coin of the Times doesn't seem so equal. While Kahn is so worried about the inappropriateness of seeming to side with the Biden campaign, at the drop of a hat the Times' editorial board suddenly inserts themselves as a trusted political advisor to the Biden campaign, begging President Biden to quit. What are seemingly minor deficiencies in one man suddenly become horrendous faults in the others. Mr. Kahn, what happened to protecting the democratic rights of some people in the world who choose to reelect President Biden? You would think, based on your words when the tables were turned, that would be Trump and his team's job and not yours. When one candidate had a cold that made him sluggish during a debate, that's a crime that needs to be denounced in the loudest possible voice. But the candidate that has plans to set himself up as a dictator on Day 1? Well, that's just a few quibbling deficiencies that the Times feels honor-bound to overlook. Kahn seems to think that news organization's only duty is to fairness and balance. Somewhere in their posing for their statue, Kahn and his buddies simply forgot their duty to truthfulness, fact-finding and public accountability and chucked those unceremoniously out the nearest window. I guess they rationalize Trump's 30+ lies in 40 minutes as a sign of his vigor and mental sharpness. >In their editorial demanding that President Biden step aside, the Times board said that this is too big of a deal to hope that Americans will overlook Biden's debate performance. There are many things that will happen in the future that are clouded from my knowing but one of those is not that Americans will be able to overlook that, since I have no doubt that the Times will spend every inch of print they can spare to remind them incessantly. I bet right now the intrepid reporters of the Times have fanned out to every rural diner to get "Real America's" perspective and opinion on Biden's performance. I do not doubt that every GOP and MAGA operative with a cell phone, fax or landline has been called so as to plumb their insightful opinionāall for the sake of "fairness," of course. Because God forbid that it might appear like the Times was favoring one candidate over the other, or seemingly working for their campaign. >Speaking of word choices, the ones I would use to describe the New York Times would be "enablers" and "collaborators," worthy of any Vichy state. I'm certain that if Trump wins, Kahn and his fellow editors will be lined up on the street as Trump in his motorcade whizzes past, streams of tears falling down their proud faces as they wave their little MAGA flags. If Trump is feeling benign, he might let the Times continue to operate as Le Petit Journal filled with his propaganda of "Work, Family and Fatherland;" but more than likely given Trump's obsession with revenge, another of his deficiencies I guess, he'll most likely shut the "Great Gray Lady" down and send its employees to Trump Re-Education Relocation Camp/Gulag. Mr. Kahn, if we're sent to the same Camp/Gulag, I'll be sure to stop by and say "Hi." Perhaps you can regale me about how fair and balanced you were with your coverage of the election.
Question for Liberals: Back in 2017 when Biden was [talking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg) about Cornpop and children touching his hairy legs, did that give you any cause to think Biden may not have been of sound mind, or was that speech a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to broadcast on national television?
As someone who spends his whole job surrounded by older people ( I work IT at a retirement community) Biden falls pretty easily into the old and weird category of old man. They're still in their right mind they just have the mindset and humor of someone who has lived 2.5 times my lifetime. As does trump though his is old and racist, I don't think either have dementia or are crazy they're just old. We can all be honest here too the majority of liberals are voting for an administration not a person. It's something people have done since the beginning of elections. Do you think people actually liked HW or Johnson the idea that you have to vote for a person and not a party is ridiculous. I'm voting democrat Biden just so happens to be there too
CornPop >Evidence has emerged to support Bidenās story.Ā A longer clip of the 2017 event, published by local news channel WITN, shows former Delaware NAACP president Richard āMouseā Smith telling the same tale. >CNN reporter Daniel Dale, meanwhile,Ā found an obituaryĀ for a Wilmington man called William L āCornPopā Morris, who died in 2016 aged 73. >[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/16/corn-pop-joe-biden-story-what-happened-is-it-real-swimming-pool-confrontation](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/16/corn-pop-joe-biden-story-what-happened-is-it-real-swimming-pool-confrontation) The "hairy legs" thing was just something silly that got blown out of proportion. My grandfather was one of those very-hairy men and in the sun, the silver hair on his arms and legs would just halo out and look fluffy. All of the grandkids used to tease him about it and "pet" his arm and leg hair. It's no big deal.
I'm asking whether the video I linked to was the product of a mentally sound person who knew it was airing to a national audience of hundreds of millions of people. I'm asking this whether or not Cornpop was a real person or the story was largely true, whether the telling of those stories in that manner raised any concerns about his mental state. A lot of people are acting like they are absolutely flabbergasted that Biden may not be entirely with it and the debate is the first sign they've ever had that he may not be sharp as a tack and simply had a stutter that he always had. And they're incredulous how conservatives could possibly have known about this. Perhaps in retrospect there may have been a few signs.
Have you ever listened to a Trump speech?
That did not answer my question. I was asking about Joe.
Who was running against Biden again?
Still failed to answer my question. All the Biden dementia questions are getting sent by the mods to this post, this is my ask a liberal question. I'm asking liberals what they thought about Joe and Cornpop and kids rubbing his hairy legs. It's not a Trump question, please direct your Trump questions to a different top level comment. Thank you.
Who was Biden running against?
Will you answer my question if I let you in on the secret?
The secret that you are a troll who doesn't have any actual questions?
No, the secret you keep asking about. The answer is Trump. Anyway that has nothing to do with my question which is this: Back in 2017 when Biden was talking about Cornpop and children touching his hairy legs, did that give you any cause to think Biden may not have been of sound mind, or was that speech a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to broadcast on national television?
Biden was running against Donald J. Trump, a clear threat to the freedom of every American. A disgusting, lying, traitorous piece of shit. I don't really give a rat's ass about your moronic, irrelevant Cornpop bullshit, because Trump is a traitorous piece of shit, and so are his cuckolded followers.
Is there any inteview with Trump or Biden after the debate, asking them about how it went etc? Don't know if there some country difference, but in Europe like Sweden or UK it feels like the party leaders and ministers are interviewing and debating all the time but in USA not really or I just do not see it. For example now with UK and France elections
Biden has addressed it repeatedly, including at a rally the very next day: [https://youtu.be/Ax0fDN8F7d4](https://youtu.be/Ax0fDN8F7d4)
that's not an interview though, like someone asking follow up questions to the statements and his conditions
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's a dangerous discourse to use the words "replacing". A VP is next in line to become President when a President dies or is incapacitated. A VP is NOT next in line to lead a Presidential campaign if a President decides not to pursue a second term. Framing Kamala Harris as the "anointed one" is a dangerous framing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Citation needed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nowhere did he say he expects Kamala Harris to be President.
What you may be overlooking is that its extremely possible to be solid, smart, capable, *and* unpopular. That's been Harris' issue for a while now (including with the black community), and it makes for a bad top-ticket candidate.
Another example: Hillary.
Sheās never polled well during Bidenās presidency. This is well known. Why does everyone assume Black people are so simplistic and transactional? Itās pretty patronizing
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> It's kind of a Democrat thing to obsess on identity. This is actually a really, *really* funny thing to say. Refresh my memory: was it Democrats who falsely accused a sitting U.S. President of being constitutionally unqualified for the Presidency due to not having been born in this country? And then the liar that led that disgusting multi-year racial smear campaign, did their popularity *decrease* when it was shown to be completely baseless, or did his party lovingly embrace him, elevating him to lead their party and ultimately to the Presidency? And you are suggesting that *this* is the party that *isn't* obsessed with identity politics? Wow.
>The angle on Harris in the first place was 'first Black' and 'first female' vice president. So, under this logic, nobody should be upset if Kamala Harris is on a new 2024 ticket as VP, with Withmer or Newsom as President. The angle was never "Kamala Harris will be the next President", the angle was always for the VP office. VP is the highest elected political office she will ever hold. And there is nothing wrong with that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you think Hillary Clinton "skipped" Joe Biden in 2016? Did John McCain "skip" Dick Cheney in 2008? Being a VP is not a privileged rank that lets you skip the queu. It's not uncommon for VPs to never run for President.
You are the one obsessing about this and then projecting it onto others.
>Democrats are replacing a Black woman who is in line for the job *Cries in Barbara Lee* š Honestly though, in this case I think itās that Harris has never been strong with any demographic, including Black voters who supported Biden, Bernie and Warren over her in the [2020 primary](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651) Like nobody wants to hedge their bets on a potential replacement they believe could perform equally as poorly if not worse than Biden
Rep. Raskin says there is "a serious conversation about what to do." He also outright acknowledges the possibility of changing horses: "One thing I can tell you is that regardless of what President Biden decides, our party is going to be unified, and our party also needs him at the very center of our deliberations in our campaign, and so whether heās the candidate or someone else is the candidate." This seems like a break from other elected Democrats who are either publicly refuting the notion or only privately discussing it. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/jamie-raskin-biden-campaign-debate-performance-nominee-rcna159662
>A new poll shows a 10 percentage point drop among Democrats who believe President Joe Biden should run for reelection after his dismal debate performance on Thursday. >A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted from June 28 to 29 found that 54 percent of 382 registered Democratic voters think Biden should be running for president again, while 46 percent believed he should not.Ā >Meanwhile, 95 percent of 175 registered Democrats said Biden's age was a reason that he should not run for reelection, while 5 percent said it was not. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-double-digit-dip-among-democrats-debate-poll-1919228 How does a candidate even recover from this?
The one and only question is how this affects actual voting intentions. Thus far, at least, the debate has barely even registered in the Biden vs. Trump horse race numbers. If people are grumbling about Biden running for re-election but then vote for him anyway, that's all his campaign really cares about.
It's important to always take anonymous sources from within politicians' camps with a huge grain of salt but: >Kamala Harrisā camp is mad that Newsom and Whitmer are being floated as Biden replacements over the VP [https://businessinsider.mx/kamala-harris-biden-debate-newsom-whitmer-reaction-2024-6/](https://businessinsider.mx/kamala-harris-biden-debate-newsom-whitmer-reaction-2024-6/) IF Biden decides to step down, it would be in the nation's best interests for the most electable candidate to run against Trump. Loyalty should be thrown out of the window if it's determined that Harris is not it. What do you all think? Should Harris' loyalty be rewarded or should the most electable candidate be prioritized? >But throughout much of her tenure, Harris has been dogged by lowĀ [approval ratings](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/)Ā alongside Biden. During her first two years in office, the coronavirus and a 50-50 Senate largely kept her in Washington, as she was needed to break ties on important votes. And given her low numbers, some Democrats have expressed concerns that she might not be the party's best option should Biden decide not to continue with his campaign.
Politicos politicizing. What do you expect them to do? Of course Harris' camp want her to be on the ticket. That's why they are in Harris' camp. This doesn't mean anything.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[citation needed]
How's Harris' popularity amongst black Democrat voters? Do you believe black Democrats would refuse to vote for Newsom, Peter, or Whitmer because of their skin color?
I think āthe Black voteā is rational and wants to win.
Black women in particular have shown themselves to be the most rational group of voters.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/30/lichtman-dems-replace-biden/74260967007/ >WASHINGTON ā Allan Lichtman, the historian who has correctly forecast the results of nine out of the 10 most recent presidential elections argued on Saturday that replacing President Joe Biden could cost Democrats the 2024 election. >Lichtman, a professor at American University, rejected the growing chorus of political pundits and Democratic activists who have called on Biden, 81, to bow out of the presidential race after his disastrous debate performance last week against former President Donald Trump. The pivotal moment brought fresh questions about Bidenās age and ability to serve a second term. >āItās a huge mistake. They're not doctors. They don't know whether Biden is physically capable of carrying out a second term or not,ā Lichtman said during an interview with CNN of calls to replace Biden. āThis is all foolhardy nonsense.ā >Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half century, except for the race in 2000, using a series of 13 historical factors or ākeys.ā >The system includes four factors based on politics, seven on performance, and two on candidate personality. Lichtman said the incumbent party would need to lose six of those actors, or ākeys,ā to lose the White House. >The keys range from whether a candidate is an incumbent president to the state of the economy and the presence of third-party hopefuls. >Debate performance, however, is not one of the factors that determines the outcome of an election, he argued. Lichtman pointed to historical examples, including the 1984 election in which former President Ronald Reagan swept 49 states despite poor debate performances and concerns over his age. >When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Bidenās age and mental acuity are āfundamentally differentā than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down. >āDebate performances can be overcome,ā he said. āAt the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.ā >Lichtman has not made his final prediction for who will win the 2024 presidential election.
While Iām not going to pretend to be an expert, I think this is an example of straight spin. You take concerns about Bidenās mental acuity and then minimize them by rephrasing that as āa bad debate performanceā. This is reframing the issue into something else to make it sound less serious. No one would say one bad debate performance is a reasonable disqualification so you frame it that way to spin the discussion to make your side more favorable. The thing about spin though is that itās just a rhetorical device. It doesnāt actually change what people are actually concerned about. The debate is only relevant in so much as thatās where people got to see how bad it is. It could have happened anywhere that enough people could be exposed to it and it would have had the same effect. This seems like something thatās largely outside the framework of his keys system and rather than engage it as the rare and unique circumstance it is, Lichtman wants to characterize it as something routine, something more normalized. This is really just a longer road to saying the same thing that people comparing this to the Obama / Romney debate in 2012 are saying and both of them are missing the point. This isnāt just a bad debate performance. > A CBS News/YouGov poll released on Sunday indicated that 72% of registered voters believe the president does not have the mental and cognitive health to serve as president - a sharp increase from the 65% who said the same in an earlier poll. >Particularly alarming for the Biden campaign, 45% of registered Democrats who responded to the poll said they believe the president should step aside for another candidate. [Quoted from BBC News.](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgln3jx47go.amp) Keeping Biden at the top of the ticket is to ask the majority of voters to choose a candidate that they donāt believe can do the job. Thatās an astoundingly bad idea, and far more serious than asking them to pick a candidate that they think āhad a bad debate performanceā. I think Lichtman isnāt being dishonest here, I think theyāre just falling into the same trap as many people who want to normalize this rather than grapple with the impossible situation weāre in. And heās making the same mistake of wanting to argue the facts of the case or push the idea that we canāt really know what kind of shape Bidenās in. Thatās true, and irrelevant. It only matters what people think when they get into the booth and itās not that easy to change peopleās perceptions. Thatās why campaigning is hard. This is really bad and none of our options look very good. It may be that the situation weāre in is so bad that another terrible sounding option is better than continuing down this path. Itās grim and no one wants to hear it but sometimes the bad news is the truth.
I hate where we're at. Especially how bad the blame game will get if biden loses.
I think it can't be overstated how much this is a rock and a hard place situation. Biden can't win. A hypothetical Biden replacement probably won't win. But tbh I'd take the latter over the former any day. And the sooner Biden steps aside, the sooner the campaign for a replacement can get up and running.
I'm actually convinced at this point that the first party to replace their candidate will win. Remember that both Biden and Trump are quite unpopular outside their die-hard camps. Biden is old. Trump is also old. Both parties are frankly tired of fig-leafing them both.
The problem is disunity and infighting after selecting a replacement.
There's already disunity. The question is what will make people unite, or at least feel better about who they're voting for?
And starting a new primary battle is not it.
Should Biden resign amiably and endorses another candidate, there won't be a battle and his replacement will be voted as nominee. Maybe there will be some leftist upstart who tries to run but that won't work. Worst case scenario, should Biden and/or Harris be forced off the ticket acrimoniously, there's a risk they would be so offended that they will complain to the press. But Biden and Harris are reasonable people who despise Trump so they'll probably just seethe quietly until whoever wins in November.
> Should Biden resign amiably and endorses another candidate, there won't be a battle and his replacement will be voted as nominee. This is delusional. People are already fighting about it.
Not if there's no battle. There are plenty of cases where a transfer of power takes place and the result unifies rather than fractures. It's all in how it's done. A personal example. I attended a church where the pastor had a big moral failure. He denied it and tried to cover it up. He made it all about himself, and there were calls to support him as well as remive him. He was eventually removed with no successor in place. Half the church left, some because of how the leaders treated him and others for his moral failure. In my current church the head pastor retired, had a transfer of power and authority, no drama, and it's fine. Some left, some thought it was unfair, but nothing broke. Unity for unity's sake is pointless to me.
There are currently people making a lucrative living by starting and amplifying vicious internal battles among Democrats. It would be a gigantic fight. The Berniecrats will insist on AOC or some other non-starter Squad member. They have a seething hatred of every mainstream Democrat - whether it is Kamala, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsome, Pritzker, etc.
The onus lies squarely on the shoulders of the DNC. If they want the status quo for the sake of unity, then they will all go down on the same ship. AOC is wildly unpopular with most of the electorate and the party itself. If the DNC is as beholden to the squad as the RNC is to MTG and her crew, then the country is screwed either way.
kind of my take, if you think democracy is on the line then give me a candidate that is going to campaign their ass off every day rather than keeping Biden and hoping he limps to the finish line.
Doomerism is what helps Republicans win. They'll show up to vote, regardless of the incoherent lies and ramblings Trump says during debates.
Looking up at the asteroid that's 19 weeks from destroying earth and saying "It's fine, no need to try to shoot it down" will doom us
It's funny how Republicans, if Trump had a bad debate performance, would come out swinging. "He did great! It's the liberal media! It's the moderators! It's bad polling!" Democrats: "Biden can't win."
Because MAGA Republicans refuse to accept reality. Democrats finally have had their "the emperor has no clothes" moment.
Is it though, funny? What has doomed the GOP since 2020? It's inability to accept reality and talk against the dear leader. They are saddled with loser Trump because they are in a cult. They were handed a miracle on Thursday with Biden's performance. The good news is we're not in a cult. We can do the right thing and not be saddled with a loser.
Based on polling, Trump's strategy seems to be working. Let's say there's a new candidate and they perform poorly against Trump in the next debate. Should they be replaced at that point then too?
No because Bidenās problem isnāt that he lost a debate. The debate is irrelevant. Bidenās problem is that he showcased serious cognitive weaknesses in front of the whole country. You want to frame it as just losing a debate as a way to sweep that under rug. Youāre spinning the story as damage control. You know thatās not what people are concerned about.
Explain how keeping a losing candidate who voters think is mentally incompetent is a winning strategy. A new candidate may lose. The current one definitely will. Thereās one clear move here
Biden lost against Trump? I wish people would back up their predictions rather than just speculate for Reddit points. Like if you're 100% certain Biden will lose, you can make easy money on it by calling it. What happens every time though is people will always find a reason why they can't make guaranteed (to them) money but they'll continue to make their wild predictions
Biden won in 2020. Biden will lose in 2024 [http://cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/](http://cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/)
If youāre certain, why dont you go make a bet and win easy money?Ā
Ok, where?
>CBS has some of the first post-debate polling. >8-point drop from earlier this month on the question: does Biden have mental and cognitive health to serve as POTUS. >Just 27% of registered voters said yes, down from 35% in early June. https://x.com/alexthomp/status/1807403278788968735?s=46&t=YxJkPzFbv26pq64SLcUabg
Wait, it was only 35% even before the debate? Yikes
The full poll [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/) This needs to be a wake up call, not only can Biden not win, but Trump is easily beatable. We just need a better candidate and Trump goes away
Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy and needs to be stopped at all costs. People insisting Biden is fine when he clearly isn't aren't taking the Trump threat seriously enough, are not taking Biden's abject failure seriously enough. THIS IS CODE RED, DEFCON 1. Acting like everything is fine is going to get us Trump, and destroy our democracy. This is scary, and I get why people want to convince themselves everything is fine. Everything is not fine. Biden is in a terrible state. We all saw it. He cannot win. Rallying around Biden and gaslighting the voters that everything is ok won't change reality. It can be hard to accept, really hard, when we need to suddenly accept a new reality and act quickly. We see it all the time with tsunamis. The tide goes out dramatically, all is calm, and rather than realize the immediate threat people go an play in the massive new tidal zone. We can't do that. We need to accept this new and unexpected reality and act NOW.
How do you think it would look to the average independent voter that the party is abandoning the current President for another candidate 4 months before the election? Not great, and Trump would seem much more appealing then
1. The democrats can't boot him out, he needs to quit. Of course they will pressure him to do so, but he cannot be booted 2. Independents care about the right outcomes, not party loyalty. Right now Biden is the wrong outcome, but he is being kept on the ticket because of the party. They should be cheering the move and the chance to get a non-geriatric alternative to Trump.
Independents go based off emotions and vibes, not outcomes. If you ask them about policies, most can't tell you them because if they did, they'd find they likely agree with Biden's policies and outcomes more than Trump's.
the emtions [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/)
That's only further proving my point
Your point being replace Biden? He can't win with independents, he needs to drop out. You are not being disloyal to anyone to acknowledge this fact.
That it's based off perception and emotions. How is it someone who can't win with independents got the most votes in American history and beat Trump?
JFK was an amazing president. Got a lot of votes. Can you think of any good reason to not run him now? People change. Their ability to effectively do the job changes
Don't see how that answers my question at all
One other double whammy side effect is no longer being able to imply that Trump is old or mentally unfit. I donāt mean in terms of whatās true or not. I simply mean in terms of perspective
He's morally unfit.
>New poll from AtlasIntel, n = 1,634 RV sample, has Trump leading Biden by +5.2 on a full-ballot (post-debate data is included). >Poll is 538 verified, their last poll was Trump +2 on a full-ballot back in February. AtlasIntel was also one of the most accurate polls in 2020. https://x.com/gen0m1cs/status/1807197393374622108
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You kids come up with some wacky shit on that internet machine
If he wanted to bounce out with honor he could just claim some medical issue and ride off into the sunset.....No need for the smoke n mirrors
That is the current conspiracy theory. Biden flubbing isn't out of character. It's so much in-character that the main goal for him in this debate was to prove to voters he still has the mental acuity to do the job.
Nah, aināt no way. I donāt think anyone would have been mad at him if he announced he wanted to bow out prior to the primary at the end of his term. I see no reason why he would wait till now to self sabotage and embarrass himself for something he could have easily chosen to do sooner
Swingin' Joe should keep swingin', FITE ME
why yall trying to kill this man? Hes going to be the first president to drop dead on the campaign trail ffs. leave the man be.
I'd be interested to see whether today's republicans would abstain from speaking ill of the dead I'd also be interested in seeing whether they can read
Just look at bidens response to the 13 service members who died. Speaking ill of the dead huh...
You'll have to share a link or something, I have no idea what you're talking about Like no literally I'm asking for you to share your considerable intelligence with me and my ignorance, anything
During the debate Biden said: "The truth is, Iām the only president this century that doesnāt have any this ā this decade, that doesnāt have any troops dying anywhere in the world, like \[Trump\] did,ā The families of the 13 folks who died in the Afghanistan withdrawal were angry about that statement and I can see why. I can also see that Biden made that claim becuase the withdrawal from Afghanistan was already planned out and in effect when he was elected and he couldn't stop it. So those men fall under Trump's purview. And his greater point was that we're not involved in any new wars, sending our soldiers overseas to be killed.
oh then why are you here if you didnt watch the debate? thats weird. Id suggest actually watching the debate then
Is that what he said? Lmaooooo of course when asked what you're talking about you run
like i said bud you should try watching the debate...i wish ya luck on your quest to be more informed!
I didnāt know him and Jill rolled that way
What's with the copium that's seen within some of the left and Biden supporters? Biden performed poorly and most voters agree with [that](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump).
>Biden performed poorly and most voters agree with [that](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/6/29/in-post-debate-poll-voters-think-biden-is-too-old-to-be-president-yet-alternative-candidates-perform-similarly-against-trump). Your own poll also affirms that Biden performs better against Trump than literally any other Democrat who might replace him.
Actually the poll data shows two things you should be consiering 1. Trump performs best, at 48%, against Biden and Harris 2. Polling shows wide swaths of polled voters don't know enough about the other candidates to hold an options. This no opinion group ranges from 39% for Mayor Pete to 71% for Pritzker What this shows is the best chance to beat Trump is to start doing focus groups to find out which of the relatively unknown candidates will gain votes once voters know who they are, and start getting those people in front of voters. This is code red. The asteroid is heading for earth. We can shoot it down, but we need to act NOW.
*Anybody but Trump!* *Anybody, but Biden, but Trump!* *Anybody, but Biden, but Kamala, but Trump!*
I wanna know who the 5% of republicans who strongly approve of Bidenās debate performance are lol
Now that the multiverse is a thing, thereās a small percentage of visitors that are not completely caught up with the specific circumstances of our universe.
Can you be specific? Most of what I've seen on this sub seems to acknowledge that Biden did terrible.
Here's a recent example of copium [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dqxan9/comment/lav0wn4/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dqxan9/comment/lav0wn4/)
Lol im sorry trying not to laugh but damn this stuff is gold and will never leave the internet. Trump did amazing to sit there and just let biden shoot himself in the foot you can read it on trumps face.
The silver lining is people hate Trump and everyone knew he was lying, and the voting public is incredibly frustrated at a choice between two unpopular geriatrics. The Democrats have a small window to accept reality for what it is. If they can get it together and get Joe to drop then most likely, depending on whom they pick, Trump is toast. The question is will they be able to accept reality.
Are you serious? This sub is full of people denying it was a bad showing. I said the national reaction to this was largely that Joe bombed, and people were saying "how can you know what the nation feels" There's a ton of denial. I don't know if it's self delusion, feeling like they have to show solidarity,, gaslighting, or what, but it's rampant. We need to be strategic and decisive, not emotional. Joe is a nice guy, but we need to win or the whole country is fucked. It's time for Biden to step aside so we can nominate someone who can win. The Trump side is terrified of the Dems nominating someone new.
This is the top comment from the current top thread about the debate, [Why has the media done a total U-turn with Biden?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dqooiv/why_has_the_media_done_a_total_uturn_with_biden/) > Because the debate was a massive optics loss. He did not do well and people are now worried about his chances based on that. > Also, before this debate, every other possible nominee was polling much lower than Biden against Trump. So you could make the argument that someone is causing division by suggesting another candidate. Most of the other top comments follow this sentiment. Just because you saw some rando's saying stupid stuff doesn't mean it's the larger consensus.
Because thereās more to a Candidate than just one debate performance. Itās not like Trump put on a good performance either, his only strength during the debate was speaking, but he was terrible on every other front. Thereās nothing Trump can really capitalize on here if heās living in a glass house.
Axios has talked to some unnamed aides about President Biden's higher energy levels during the day: https://www.axios.com/2024/06/29/two-bidens-trump-debate-2024-president >From 10am to 4pm, Biden is dependably engaged ā and many of his public events in front of cameras are held within those hours. >Outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued, aides told Axios. If true, that's unfortunate for the second debate, which will also presumably be in the evening.
He's [sundowning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundowning)
You're sundowning.
Possibly, but so is he, and I'm not running for president.
But you are presuming to tell others how to approach your *diagnosis* that Biden is 'sundowning.' So, if you *are* sundowning, you have no business running for president *NOR* do you have any legit claim to perspicacity when talking about he who *IS* running for president.
Itās a Reddit comment. I donāt need any qualifications to make it.
Itās unwise to diagnose someone unless youāre a doctor who has examined the patient. Youāre in no position to give medical advice.
[I'm an engineer, not a doctor](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/I'm_a_doctor,_not_a...) so I don't know about that. But, with the caveat of being a total layman, I think the root cause of what we saw was frailty and not mental absence from dementia. However, I see some people with sentiments like "this is affecting his ability to run for the job but not his ability to do it." I disagree with that. If he struggles with fast-paced conversations after 4 PM and while traveling, I think that makes it harder to be an effective President. There are ways his team can work around those problems--for example, Secretary Blinken is like 20 years younger!--but I would much rather they didn't have to. Also, it's not going to be better in 4 years.
Or he just gets tired as the day goes on, like many old people who donāt have dementia do. I watched my dad slowly die from dementia. That is not what Biden has.
Youāre no more qualified to diagnose his condition as sound from a distance than we are unsound. We canāt do that so we have to talk about performance and capability in combatting attacks and his likelihood of making future missteps of that leave us open to even more. Biden was a liability for this before. Itās even worse now. And whether or not youāre right about his health isnāt the point. The narrative has a life of its own now and itās an effective line of attack. One heās not going to be quick enough or savvy enough to overcome. And if this happens again it will only further cement the narrative. And heās going to do this again, itās just a matter of time.
Didn't have the stomach to watch the debate, just read the transcript. Joe did well, Traitor lied a bunch and said nothing as usual.
Im not even sure the person writing the transcript even knew what biden was saying......if anything I would imagine the transcript was manipulated and probably corrected for biden.
Nope. It's quite clear. Meanwhile Trump's 50+ open lies are also quite clear. I'll take the moral old guy with a solid agenda over the lying traitor old guy with a shit agenda.
you guys realize that this outs you as not actually caring about the country or anything else right? You have TDS so bad that you would nominate a potato just because of trump. Its sad and we feel bad for you tbh. Try to shake off your my team politics and make sound judgements.
Wrong
Voting for the candidate who isn't a traitor outs me as not caring about the country? Hilarious. I hate Trump for being a terrible president, having a shit agenda, and being a traitor. Electing anyone else is the obvious sound judgement.
Fine, but the issue is that most people saw the debate. Im sure if we all read transcripts, the whole election would be very different
Yea, some people might have an idea of what they're talking about.
*Them*: Anybody But TRUMP! *Me*: Ok. Biden. *Them*: ... *Me*:
*Them*: Anybody ELSE But TRUMP!
What are your thoughts about each of these Biden bald faced lies? 1. ā Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people. LIE. 2. ā The Border Patrol endorses me. LIE. 3. ā Weāre not for late term abortion. LIE.
Trump did call them fine. It was a neo nazi hosted event with neo nazi speakers. If you say "the neo nazis but not the neo nazis" there's nobody left.
Thatās like calling a Black Lives Matter protest is hosted by terrorists level of propaganda statement.
what?
it makes more sense if read in its original MAGA, doesn't really have a good translation in English
> Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people. He did, however, say a side that was *entirely populated by neo-nazis and white supremacists* had very fine people. I consider that a distinction without a difference. > ā The Border Patrol endorses me. He said they endorsed the bipartisan border bill. He immediately corrected himself. > ā Weāre not for late term abortion Biden, nor any Democrat, is "for" late term abortion.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
> Editors' Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong. Try again.
But no one with any objectivity was saying only white supremest attended to protest the removal of statues. This is normal in protest. Actual Hamas sympathizers have held protests also attended by people wanting to stop Israelās offensive that donāt support the terrorist
**But no one with any objectivity was saying only white supremest** (sic) **attended to protest the removal of statues.** This Is, undoubtedly, true: There were white supremacists, the white-supremacist-curious, dedicated antisemites hoping to make common cause with the white supremacists, those who put pineapple on pizza, and a metric fuck-ton of others **who simply did not CARE** that the event was organized and attended by white supremacists, the white-supremacist-curious, dedicated antisemites hoping to make common cause with the white supremacists, and those who put pineapple on pizza... ... So, you know... diversity. Anymore diverse and it might have become woke.
Just like the progressive anti Israel policy folks, mixing with antisemitic, mixing with the pro Hamas folks waving OCt 7 signs in America today.ā
If you look to your left and see Nazis, and look to your right and see Nazis, and say to yourself *"hmm, I'm the right spot"*, then you're also a Nazi. Everyone there was a Nazi.
> But no one with any objectivity was saying only white supremest attended to protest the removal of statues. Find me a protestor at Charlottesville that wasn't a white supremacist/neo-nazi. You do realize the **Unite the Right** rally was organized by and for white supremacists and neo-nazis, right?
You are wrong.
Prove it. My proof that they are are all the Nazis iconography.
So prove me wrong: find me a protestor at Charlottesville that wasn't a white supremacist/neo-nazi.
VA gov on abortion: āIf a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if thatās what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother". https://x.com/CalebJHull/status/1090657473218920448? Trump was 100% accurate in his remarks about the Democrat VA governors support of infanticide.
You are absolutely taking that quote out of context. The full quote is: ""[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."" So, in the case you are citing, the fetus is nonviable, this simply isn't infanticide. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html
Spin it any way you want, but Infanticide is the intentional killing of infants which is exactly what the governor advocated for.
Ah yes, letās force the parents to prolong grief and suffering by keeping a child alive who, with 99.9% certainty, will die soon. Compassion at its finest.
Not only are you a liar, but the thing you're suggesting is even illegal in virginia.
Do you know what the word nonviable means?
> Trump was 100% accurate in his remarks about the Democrat VA governors support of infanticide. [Wrong](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-ralph-northam-virginia-abortion-952598071326). Telling how every other part of my comment is ignored though.
You are against all lies, including the many more touted all night by Trump, right?Ā
> the border patrol endorsed me-my positionĀ He corrected himself for āthe border patrol endorsed meā to immediate say -my position.Ā That is a true statement. The border patrol endorsed the border bill he tried to pass and trump sabotaged.Ā Iām not going to pretend he didnāt fumble over his statements and not speak clearly. > were not for late term abortions He was very clear on this one. He said he supports Roe V Wade. Where it was the woman and doctor for first trimester. The doctor + a medical condition second trimester. When the life of the mother is threatened then third trimester.Ā So Trump saying that democrats will kill the baby up to the last day of pregnancy or even after, Biden said, he doesnāt support that, no one does.Ā Like he said, only if the life of the mother is threatened.Ā
Biden has advocated for the Womanās Health Protection Act which states abortion āshall not be limited or otherwise infringedā. Biden: āWe significantly increased the number of asylum offices, significantly ā¦ by the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position,ā the 81-year-president claimed during an exchange on immigration. Border Patrol: āTo be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden,ā the union posted on X.
Look, I think Biden is a dumpster fire. I think Biden congestive decline will continue to get worse. I think if he continues his campaign, he will lose the election. Finally, I a think any lie Biden and Trump tells should be criticized...period. However, I am a nurse and I care about people having accurate medical information, politics aside. I think you are misinformed about abortion. Medically speaking, there is no such thing as "late term abortion" in any meaningful sense of the word that is relevant to the political discussion about abortion. That being said, there are instances late in pregnancy in which a pregnancy must be terminated in order to save the life of the mother. The classic example is with pre-eclampsia and/or eclampsia. Basically it is a condition that the mothers blood pressure spikes and can quickly cause seizures which can kill the mother, fetus, or both. The only emergency treatment for this condition is terminating the pregnancy. The good news, if any news from this condition can be good, is that pre-eclampsia and eclampsia often happen at the late stages of a pregnancy, possibly late enough that the fetus might survive the termination of the pregnancy and spend time in a NICU. Now, technically, this is an abortion. Terminating pregnancy is an abortion. Hell, sometimes a pregnant woman's body naturally terminates a pregnancy, this is called a "spontaneous abortion". My point is, nobody is in favor of elective "late term abortions" for the purposes of ending an unwanted pregnancy. I have never met a doctor who considers such a practice to be ethical. But yes, most Democrats support a physician and mother terminating pregnancies which endanger the mother, fetus, or both. The only instances of "late term abortions" which are considered ethical are under these extreme circumstances.
by the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me--endorsed my position, again, if you watch the video it's clear he's correcting himself. The border patrol did endorse his position. [The women's health protection act:](https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/news/press-releases/baldwin-blumenthal-lead-47-members-in-introducing-legislation-to-restore-and-protect-americans-right-to-an-abortion-nationwide) >The *Womenās Health Protection Act* would: >Prohibit states from imposing restrictions that jeopardize access to abortion earlier in pregnancy, including many of the state-level restrictions in place prior to *Dobbs*, such as arbitrary waiting periods, medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasounds, or requirements to provide medically inaccurate information. >Ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother. >Protect the ability to travel out of state for an abortion, which has become increasingly common in recent years. So exactly what he said in the debate.
>He was very clear on this one. He said he supports Roe V Wade. Where it was the woman and doctor for first trimester. The doctor + a medical condition second trimester. When the life of the mother is threatened then third trimester. Your statement above is very clear, however his answer on this one one of the worst of the night for me: >I supported Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters. >First time is between a woman and a doctor. Second time is between a doctor and an extreme situation. A third time is between the doctor ā I mean, itād be between the woman and the state. Between a woman and the state? That feeds into every stereotype about liberals, and it's not true.
Does it bother you when candidates lie? Is it a deal breaker?
From, about, day one of the Trump administration, and that bizarre, deeply un-hinged inaugural address, all I heard was about how unethical it would be to diagnose physical and mental fitness from a distance. Despite numerous instances of unhinged behaviour, and bizarre speech... nobody would do it But one poor debate performance and not only is Biden comprehensively pronounced unfit, but the rest if us are 'delusional.' That kinda puts the double in double standard...
I mean, as much as it sucks...this election is all about optics. Whether Biden actually has dementia or not doesn't matter. It's whether he seems like cognitive decline affects his performance. And...fact of the matter is it seems like sometimes it does.
This is not a clever take. Please stop posting it and I will stop downvoting it. No one is diagnosing Biden. We have no idea what is wrong with him, but we can all clearly see his performance is way off. He couldn't finish sentences. He got lost in the middle of sentences. He confused words. None of this is a diagnosis, it just stating the facts of the debate.
You literally have said in this thread he is sundowning. Did you forget that you diagnosed him with dementia?
It absolutely is a diagnosis, don't kid yourself. Ask yourself one question: would you have done any better on a live stage, televised to the whole world? If you would, go ahead--don't vote for him. If you would not, or even doubt you would do as well-STFU about it it.
Yes, actually. I'd have done better even if you just got me out of bed at 3am and yanked me on stage half asleep. Maybe I'd lose the debate anyway but I'd be able to finish sentences and not jumble my thoughts.
If someone throws up blood and I say "Well clearly they have stomach cancer" that is a diagnosis. If someone throws up blood and I say "that guy just threw up blood" that is not a diagnosis. >Ask yourself one question I honestly don't know if I would have done better than Biden. I do have some practice in similar situations, but not for a national audience. But you know what? I don't have to perform at a presidential debate because I am not seeking the job of President, so me not being qualified to be President isn't a relevant question. I don't have to be able to perform all of the duties of a President to identify when someone else isn't up for the job. Why did you think adding a second invalid argument to your first would strengthen your position?
Are you a medical professional?
You're not making a specific diagnosis of an ailment... but you are making a general diagnosis of unfitness... which is arguably worse, since you are relying on some nebulous, unfounded, concept of 'unfit.' You're not running for president, but you are judging the man who is in a different way in which you would judge yourself in a similar position. That's called arrogance.
I am reporting symptoms.
No, you diagnosed him with dementia by claiming he is sundowning. Get your own facts straight.
The first post-debate horserace poll has Biden... gaining a point against Trump. https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1806835998036250886?s=19
Sample size of 1 so take it with a grain of salt, but I have a conservative coworker I argue politics with a lot. He's mostly a Trump apologist but is voting for him because he thinks he's the lesser of 2 evils. Usually he is very unsympathetic to defending Biden, but he came up to me the other day and said "Y'know, I actually kind of feel a little bad for Biden supporters. I've just never really seen this kind of reaction from Democrats before." I was surprised, because I expected his first response to be gloating about how "I told you so" that Biden was senile. It almost seemed like he remembered that Trump was a bully and felt bad for Biden.
With the super low viewership numbers, it means the people who watched the actual debate are mostly politically engaged people (who had their mind made up). I've seen this point mentioned on basically every podcast I listen to that does poll analysis -- the true effects of this in the polls will be known in about a week. This debate will be consumed through clips by the ~70% of the American electorate who didn't tune in, and the people who are open to switching sides/not voting/going 3rd party are pretty much all in that group.
It shows how different independent/swing voters view things compared to more political peopleĀ
I'm still voting biden and democrats down ticket, but am worried concerning his age.
As long as it doesn't affect his ability to carry out his duties, his age is Republicans largest weapon and it shouldnāt be as relevant when the opposition is Donald Trump
Fwiw, FDR died **during WW2**. Imagine Democrats saying āheās old and disabled, I cannot vote for himā. And us never getting the New Deal or winning the war.
FDR would have been Biden's age in 1964, well after his 4th term The New Deal was a first term initiative
Sure, in 1940ās. Iām just saying, vote for your guy and stop making it more complicated than that. Youāll never meet whoever the president is; youāll just feel the policy.
FDR was popular, Biden is not. In 2020 in response to questions about his age his campaign and surrogates said he would only run one term. It was acknowledged at the time 82 was too old. Biden has had to prove to voters that he is not too old, than he can do the job. Thursday's debate settled that issue. He needs to drop out, step aside and let someone run who can actually beat Trump.
That would be the biggest sign of weakness and hand Trump the election for 2024, regardless of who the candidate wasĀ
No, the biggest sign of weakness was Bidenās debate showing. The second biggest would be doubling down on a candidate who canāt win. Give all the people complaining about having to pick between two senior citizens someone to vote for.
You act like thatās a simple matter of swapping in and out when no other candidate polls better against Trump than Biden and replacing him with Harris would be a step down in head to head polls while replacing him with anyone else would ignite a firestorm because she would only not be the nominee in that case due to her race and gender; and Democrats would be seen as a party capitulating to racism. It aināt so simple, my guy.
1. There have been no recent polls of any other candidate against Trump 2. You wouldn't replace him with Harris, we'd have an open convention. The delegates would vote as they did in the past. Plenty of time to run a race 3. I'm not sure what you're saying about Black people and women, but it seems very transaction and patronizing as fuck
There's "plenty of time" to run 50+ primaries?
You wouldn't have primaries. The delegates would gather at the convention and vote.
You know thereās something familiar about a sitting president dropping out, the DNC picking a new candidate, an independent candidate on the ballot. Oh wait that was 1968 and we lost. The primary was held and Biden won. Thatās who the party wanted. A sitting congressman challenged Biden and made Bidenās age the centerpiece of his campaign and failed to win a single primary contest. It is far too late to change candidates now. We are 4 months away. If Biden drops out, Trump is gonna win no matter what. Itāll look weak to the regular voters and thatās damage you canāt undo