Here’s why Biden is toast: in this situation, any candidate in Biden’s shoes would do a series of events (interviews, press conferences, town halls, etc) to prove they are up to the task.
But, Biden isn’t doing that because he can’t. He’s not capable—and that’s not going to change.
I think when half your campaign and party leaders are leaking to the press that they're shitting bricks, and you're not putting it to bed with some urgency, there's a problem that's a lot bigger than a few folks on social media thinking the sky is falling
Do you think the NYT, based on how they are currently acting, will reward Biden with better coverage if he, what, does even more live events and gives more speeches? Has anything about their conduct suggested to you that they care about reality?
Is there any D candidate we expect the NYT would cover favorably against Trump? Would a contested process make the media focus more on Trump's fascism or less on it?
If someone can provide evidence more compelling than "vibes" for Biden to step aside, I'm all for it. So far nobody has delivered. Maybe having a gigantic public panic attack after a single really bad debate is the problem. We will have more bad news days before the election.
I think - and I speak as a low level local elected official - it's unrealistic and unreasonable to expect "fair" treatment from the press. Is it bullshit? Sure, but bitching about it is as much a solution as farting into the wind.
My education and experience prior to my election is journalism and PR. It isn't the right question, who will get fair treatment. The better question is how will you respond given the circumstances.
Donald Trump freaks corporate CEOs out in a closed door meeting like, last week, because his brain rot is so bad and it only got covered by a handful of outlets for one (1) news cycle.
Can I remind you about peddling the Iraq War, defending Judith Miller, working with Chris Rufo, mainstreaming transphobia, but her emails, but his black pastor, but the migrant caravan, Trump will concede, and the inevitable red wave?
oh, truly. It’s more about me being blissfully unaware of most politics until 2016. Even then I was sure she would win. I’m from NYC and we were stunned and crying. I’ve aged considerably since. No longer unaware of the world and modern evil
One blue dog said Trump would win but still backs him, one crazy House D called on him to resign, and Pelosi said something ambiguous. What other actual concrete statements have been made?
“Joe had a bad night, but he’s still our guy, now let’s talk about Trump’s fascism” should have been the unified message, repeated constantly, and that kind of coordination needed to come from the campaign within hours. Instead, we were left with scattered statements, some ambiguous.
If you can’t reassure Nancy Pelosi enough to get her to say something non-ambiguous (the president still hasn’t called her!), then it becomes a campaign issue, not just a media issue. Playing the media is part of comms.
I will hold the NYT in contempt for their coverage but it’s also a campaign’s job to push back on media narratives and create narratives of their own. Sulzberger wasn’t wrong when he said they can’t expect his paper to be part of the campaign.
Right. If folks want to say it's overblown, go for it. But the concerns here are plainly real, and plainly coming from a lot of folks who are concerned /because they are terrified of Trump winning/, not just trying to kneecap Biden or quietly pro-Trump folks, or a bit of a social media freakout
His campaign and the press aren’t the only factors. There’s also the party. Campaign + party can potentially out-message the press. Instead, we got the press + party against the campaign. That’s not sustainable.
At the bare minimum, it shows he can’t get on the phone with his own damn party and tell them to stay on message, which just furthers the impression that he’s not fit enough to be behind the wheel.
There is also lots of space in between the extremely normal (and often correct) concerns about D-party comms and "this candidate needs to stand down so we can have a gigantic primary fight 4 months before the election."
that is expressly not the point. at none of those events has he fielded questions. that's the point. yes, he's doing the interview on friday. if he does several of those, he can quell the concerns. but, the fact he hasn't has convinced lots of high level democrats he can't.
Max is disingenuous. I havent seen anywhere where he has said Biden should resign today. If he is so unfit as Max keeps suggesting then he cant say that Biden is too unfit to run but its the k for him to be President a minute longer.
Kelly, IF HE COULD, he could have come out TODAY, this very afternoon, and, 15 minutes into her torturous press availability, said "Karine, I'll take it from here; have a seat." THAT would put it to rest, but instead
It hasn't even been a week and the (understandably) terrified parts of the Democratic party are covering themselves gasoline because the NYT says it will keep them safe. Literally touch grass, if polls are really bad going forward let's talk after everyone has counted to 10.
I would frankly feel more comfortable if the situation is that Biden's getting ready to decide not to run & this is what the process looks like from outside than if he's staying in & there's just no discipline or strategy.
The latter is McGovern's campaign in '72 (Look it up if you're too young to remember that fiasco). This is fully Biden's decision & the question is whether he or Kamala is going to be the candidate, other theories are pipe dreams-& worse than McGovern '72.
