Let's grant the obvious that no one seems to want to emphasize: Replacing the nominee at this point—let alone a successful president (perhaps the most successful first-term president since FDR)—would be the biggest gamble in the history of American politics.
I think the disconnect/reality break between the reaction to the debate and the stakes of this election comes from a few things:
1. An inability to self-regulate
2. An opportunistic chance to shiv Biden for policies you don't like (mostly Gaza
3. A disdain for the Democratic party (never Trumpers)
Been pointing that out for several days. In fact, Reagan's debate loss started a narrative that he was too old, a narrative that he crushed (much to my disappointment) in the next debate.
Everything is a gamble. Nothing is certain. But overcoming uncertainty is where Dems are supposed to excel, and it's why democracy was invented.
Biden isn't getting any younger, and there's 4 months for another shoe to drop. But it will. Too late. Now is always the best time to address uncertainty.
I will vote for Biden, but Biden sucks. When I voted for him in 2020, I didn't expect him to run for a second term. He was selfish not to step aside before the primaries started. There is nothing to "grant": he CHOSE to bring us to "this point" that we are at. He ONLY has my vote because of Donald.
I voted for Biden in 2020 to vote against Donald. Biden's fine, he's done great stuff, but I didn't vote for him for his fucking infrastructure policies.
We have been down this road with Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. Elderly people SHOULD retire, |regardless| of career success.
when talking about first terms, how are we handling presidents who took office part way through a term due to a previous president's departure? First term of any length, or first *full* term?
