forgetting that the house has to weigh in on this (and adding it as a one-off after the fact without noting it) is a pretty fucking critical omission, man, it is not a small thing, it changes the entire scope of outcomes.
That was added in the last 20 minutes. The next sentence for me (on the copy of the page I loaded before writing that comment) changes topics entirely.
if i were under the impression that the senate and only the senate had to confirm a new VP for harris were biden to resign, i might be more amenable to the argument, but that isn’t the case, and that makes the entire case *significantly* weaker
the biden should not only step aside, but resign, seems somehow even weirder to me. like why on earth do you think biden is going to be willing to do both of those things. and why is that now your marker?
i like sewer and find him usually clear headed but man oh man
there’s a consistent logic that if he’s unable to campaign, he’s unable to lead — i legit think that’s a better faith argument than most are making. but, boy, to just handwave away the house entirely and blithely mention that you can bypass the filibuster in the senate is something else.
yeah I mean I think that's a tortured logic, if not in bad faith, but like if you think that a complete change of power and a campaign in a couple months time is gonna work idk man idk.
it’s either sophism or it’s sloppiness, either way, damage is done, both in terms of whatever atlantic reader believes it (and doesn’t think too hard about the process) and in terms of my opinion of a writer who i genuinely have had a good deal of respect for, even when i’ve disagreed with him
The fact that he's willing to write this makes me think the tone in those high flown circles must be at "standing next to a jet engine" levels. A freakout to end all freakouts.
this is where a lot of my "Kamala should be the nominee now" instinct comes from
the institutional freakout might be ridiculous but it's clearly real, and it's coming from everywhere including people I respect
I don't think Biden can campaign without tamping down the freakout level - and can he?
The issue with the freakout is that a ton of it is coming from the same people who tanked the 12-point lead Clinton had this time 2016. And that kind of cuts both ways, really.
the dem party lives constantly in the shadow of 68, 72, 84 and 16 but unlike the republicans who live with a constant seething that nixon had to resign, they don't figure out what to actually learn and just wildly word vomit out their inner fears and pin on "the voters"
If he doesn't do anything to feed it, he can hope to tamp it down. If he withdraws, it'll be a different freakout & there will be no way out of it, as Kamala being the unelected nominee will be an unresolvable problem. If Biden can leg it out to the convention, he maybe can force their hands.
the problem is that inaction feeds it - it's something he has to actively combat, not just "not feed"
like, there's a lot of stuff out today about how his slow response to the debate and failure to reassure allies has caused increased concern among Dem lawmakers
I agree that if he makes it to the convention he forces everyone to get back on board because by then it's too late for him to be replaced, but "the freakout continues until then" is probably not survivable in an electoral sense so it has to be ended far sooner
I think I mostly agree with this but also it makes me think extremely ill of the freaker-outers, given that their motivation is putatively that Trump is such a threat. If things don’t go their way, is it more important to be right or to win?
If they really thought Trump was such a threat then that would be the front page/THE topic of conversation, all day all the time.
But it's not.
What does that say?
What if their motivation is "To see everyone involved in foisting off the 2016 and 2020 Democratic nominees on us get their comeuppance"?
Not at all common motivation within the party, especially in Congress.
Buf freaker-outers who *aren't* officeholders? It's not uncommon, shall we say.
he’s done at least two rallies, he had a meeting with dem governors today, he’s doing an interview with ABC on friday, if none of these professionals can hold it until then, they should buy some fucking diapers
if the Dems could have summoned some fraction of the Trump team's "fuck you this is actually great for us" response to being convicted of thirty-four fucking felonies, we would not be here!
Trump getting convicted of 34 felonies got less front page coverage than Biden Old, nothing Dems can do to fix that (though they all should learn to shut the fuck up and repeat the spin instead of their actual opinion)
Not having a massive media apparatus eager to help push your message makes it a bit harder. But yes, Dems need fighters, not the professional triangulators they actually have.
He's done rally appearances, he's doing interviews, he just finished a huddle with all the Democratic governors where they came out & said he's still got what it takes. I feel like the stuff out today is mostly feeding on itself. If he keeps that going without botching it, the noise will abate.
I think the Stephanopoulos interview is the big test, if he does really well there and people start to get back on board it's probably recoverable
if he does poorly or if he does well and the freakout doesn't abate at all, that may be it
I think that's fine, but I also see there as being some room between "making ratfuckers happy" and "eagerly meeting the goalposts while they keep it reasonable".
Like they were dunking on him using a teleprompter and not taking questions. Yes, that's very stupid of them, but also an easy win?
Inaction feeds it, but also action, if it’s the wrong action (and it’s always the wrong action) becomes inaction.
And it’s my really strong sense that giving into this gets processed not as strength but weakness.
Even entertaining the idea that NYT can dictate any terms to any political party anywhere in the world is on its face fucking insane.
Bending to the Times in July feels more like an autoloss than whatever this weird collective anxiety attack is.
Like just as a general dynamic, when people are trying to bully you into a thing, it’s not my sense that giving into the bullies makes them decide they’re cool with you now. Even if they say they just want to help you, being obsequious makes you look like a worm.
I mean he's made multiple public appearances, has an interview Friday, and has (apparently completely under the radar) done interviews on predominantly black radio stations.
If the man is doing what pundits say would convince them of his fitness, I have my doubts that anything would satisfy them.
sure but a lot of that read, to me as "biden didn't hold our hands and say its gonna be okay baby" and like fucking ah, don't fucking tell a reporter that. they're not your friends folks!
It's already too late to replace him, and pundits are mostly just engaging in mutual "yeah but what if..." masturbation.
Like, remember the Ohio ballot deadline thing? Multiply that by all 50 states. Square or cube it with a VP fight if you go with Serwer's "resign and make Harris POTUS now".
i honestly do not know. like i am unsure what the dem beltway brain wants at this point because so many of them are being unserious about this situation.
like again if you want biden to step aside turning the national chatter into your anxiety group chat probably isn't it and you should be honest about that.
at some point we need to just make a decision and move on with our lives one way or the other.
We all need to tryto change the narrative to what it should be:
Trump. The Heritage Foundation. SCOTUS. The danger. What they're shouting with a bullhorn.
