Tell me I'm wrong: A bunch of the media and donor class panicked, for good reason, after the debate. Made a big coordinated push to make Biden step aside. Didn't work, wounding pride of lots of big egos. Now too miffed to concede so stuck denying that Biden can win to justify continued aid to Trump.
I think you’re overlooking two things:
1) It became clear post-debate that Biden’s staff had been less than transparent about his fitness for office;
2) Biden and his inner circle didn’t just botch the debate — they also failed abysmally at damage control.
Totally accept those point. But... so what? If the pressure to step back hasn't worked yet, why think it will? If the expected return of further pressure is negative, which I fear it may be, why keep pushing rather than pivoting to a patriotically world-historical Weekend at Bernie's effort?
Although at that point if he’s convinced the party he should stay I doubt there’s significant long-term damage. The real damage would be a Biden v party standoff, but that’s unlikely.
I’d question your premise. The pressure HAS worked. Biden knows he’s in mortal peril politically and is trying to reassure. Also, more Dems are going on record saying Biden should step aside. If the cascade effect continues, Biden would well decide it’s time. I think your take is a week early.
Maybe! But I think he sees it as one of a hundred hair-on-fire "this campaign is toast" shitstorms he's hunkered down and weathered before. It's ultimately just up to him. Nobody can MAKE him do anything, barring 25th Amendment action or convention delegate revolt, which seem unlikely.
No one can make you get rid of your bluesky account but if if I offered you your dream job and a million dollar salary to get rid of it, I just made you do something. It’s about pressure and incentives
It's disheartening to me that, even at this point, the Democratic Party seemingly has zero understanding of how the news cycle functions, a complete aversion to bold action, and total lack of real advance planning to influence the news cycle for easily predictable events (such as the recent SCOTUS)
“If it hasn’t worked yet, why think it will?”
—
Because the polls won’t validate him staying in, and it takes time to demonstrate that (unfortunately).
There are only so many times you can dismiss polls that clearly and repeatedly say “no, Americans don’t think you’re up for another 4 years.”
Polls don't have to validate him staying in. It's his decision, period, unless Kamala and half the cabinet make a different one, or a miracle happens in Chicago and all those delegates, selected by democratic means in 50 state primaries, just happen to flake. If he digs in, we have to live with it
Technically, they don’t “have to,” no.
But let’s be real- if polls consistently* show American people have lost faith in Joe’s ability, then he should resign- he hasn’t killed the old age narrative, that narrative will lose the election, and besides, we deserve a capable President.
*big if
There's a circularity here. That's why I'm saying people seem to need to convince myself that there's no path to victory when they're engaging in behavior that is helping to close it off.
There is an extremely thin path to victory. Closing off a thin path is good if you replace it with variance. There is no de-aging. Voters already said he was too old and now their opinion is irrevocable. You don’t have to believe me but if what I said is true then it all makes sense.
i think this is based on thinking of social cogntition as a disinterested individual rational thinking model rather than a group-motivated delusions model (wh is a field we all exist in and can't opt out of)
I think the latter model explains more in this case.
the machinery of executive governance can occur w a senile figure head just fine (see ReaganII).
if that's fundamentally true (which it is), the rest can be socially constructed just like a known rapey fraud can be broadly perceived as "shrewd & passionate business man"
