Micah: the media, led by the Times, has done to Biden what they did to Claudine Gay at Harvard there is no way to convince the public, because the people who he needs to convince to do that (the media) are never going to tell the public that he’s fine I think dropping out is a when, not if at this point

the media, led by the Times, has done to Biden what they did to Claudine Gay at Harvard there is no way to convince the public, because the people who he needs to convince to do that (the media) are never going to tell the public that he’s fine I think dropping out is a when, not if at this point

"President Biden has told a key ally that he knows he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince the public in the coming days that he is up for the job after a disastrous debate performance last week."

Biden Told Ally That He Is Weighing Whether to Continue in the Racewww.nytimes.com The president’s conversation is the first indication that he is seriously considering whether he can recover after a devastating performance on the debate stage in Atlanta on Thursday.

I don’t think the concerns are based on nothing either - we all (well, the sickos among us) watched the debate, it’s a real issue my point is that it has become the only issue, and means it can’t be addressed Biden will never be able to convince people at this point, even if he is capable

To hell with the New York Times, but I don't think these concerns are manufactured. Progressive spaces like TNR and Zeteo expressed immediate concern about Biden after the debate. But so did Never-Trump allies. The move to seriously grapple with stepping down is broad and organic.

the issue is I don’t think it matters how those events go can you imagine a “Energetic Biden Calms Debate Fears” article? or will it be “Despite Energetic Performance, Doubts Remain About Biden’s Fitness”?

That said, there's a lot of editorial spin; the anonymous ally says this: "He knows if he has two more events like that, we’re in a different place" Which is just obviously true.

it is absolutely a terrible precedent, yes but they have the veto already, is the thing - if this is how the race is covered from now until Election Day, Biden loses, full stop “drop out or we sink your campaign” - the latter is already happening and that’s why the former will

There are large and immediate downside risks to giving the media a heckler’s veto **after the primary process** has already ended. I don’t think people are grappling with the implications here!

And this is all being based on a handful of surveys with 0.5% response rates, showing almost no statistically significant movement, after the earliest and least-watched debate in 20 years.

It’s bunk.

I think the big issue isn't the movement in the polls, but the fact that people are taking the polls seriously. If Biden goes from losing by two points to losing by four points, the central issue is that he was already losing by two points.

In the past, the party's response was basically "It's too early to look at polls. Voters will come around to Biden once they start paying attention and see him in action". After the debate, that argument is a lot more difficult to take seriously.

They can sink Harris’ campaign too. I’m firmly of the opinion that the Times wants Trump back in the Oval Office and that the Democratic nominee is going to face withering scrutiny no matter who they are. They don’t have a veto unless we give in to them - Klobuchar and Warren aren’t our nominees.

And I recalled Sulzberger's defense of giving op-ed space to far-right figures and politicians, and he stressed the importance of balanced coverage. Have we seen any op-eds defending Biden? Criticizing the media response? Explaining the risks of replacing the candidate four months out?

His little nepo feelings got hurt because Biden refused to bend the knee and give him his precious interview.

The media wants a Trump presidency and I don't know how more obvious it has to be.

My fear (more like a guess) is, since this is how these things seem to go, the dems thoroughly vet the most appealing candidates and then manage to choose the worst one, somehow with a closetful of rattling skeletons that they somehow missed. Prez steps aside and the other guys then spend from (1/2)

…now till early November gleefully exposing an utterly unacceptable trail of misdeeds. (2/2)

If the Dems pick anyone but Harris it's a disaster. If they'd done this last Nov when the left was telling them Biden was a bad idea, we could have had a primary with choice. Now, though, Harris has the job and skipping her looks terrible. So they'll go with Gavin Newsome.

To Gavin's credit, I don't think he would accept this. He definitely wants to be president someday, but he's very cautious about moving too quickly. He's more likely to serve out the rest of his term as governor and then angle himself for a cabinet position so he can establish himself federally.

So the question is—if Biden chooses to step down—is picking Harris worse than not picking Harris? Like you realize you’re engaged to someone who’s totally wrong for you. Sure, you’re walking down the aisle, and it’s kinda late to cut and run—but any worse than going through with it?

There are large and immediate downside risks to giving the media a heckler’s veto **after the primary process** has already ended. I don’t think people are grappling with the implications here!

If this was all happening in 2022, that’s one thing - it would have been a factor in Biden’s re-election decision. The fact that almost nobody is discussing the 25th Amendment strongly implies that this is entirely an optics issue!

I'll be blunt; it doesn't fucking matter if he steps down or not. No matter what happens, no matter WHO runs as a Dem, @newyorktimes.bsky.social will choose to besmirch and belittle them because it's nothing more than a fucking mouthpiece for autocratic Fascists and not true journalism any more.

Lol. Tagged the wrong New York Times.

Apparently the guy in charge of the NY Times is butthurt Biden didn't do a sit down interview. Bruised ego

We don't even have to imagine, he's already had a few public appearances since the debate and all the headlines were the second kind

The thing is, the debate fears cannot be calmed by anything. He is not going to age backwards. It’s done. The campaign asked for this, they wanted this to be the biggest moment of the campaign, and it was. We cannot blame the media for covering. And cannot blame “the pundits” for having eyes.

Yeah - I don't think there's much of a way to change this train, but it at least salvages the ally just stabbing him

Still, to an extent, that's baked in; the NYT will just shift to Kamala with some other line of bullshit.

The most frustrating thing about all this is that we are NOT seeing huge inadequacies of government under Biden that would indicate an incapable president. People leaving are doing so b/c they disagree w/Palestine policies, not b/c he’s incompetent. We have a well-functioning admin & that’s ignored.

The people Biden has appointed to run his administration are largely kicking ass and taking names—the environmental gains, labor support, antitrust enforcement, etc. It’s being taken for granted and it’s pissing me off.

Hell, this morning there was the news that the administration is pushing new OSHA heat safety requirements in through as fast as possible so workers can have protection if the administration changes. This focus on Biden’s electability ignores so much of how government actually works.

Part of the issue is that Biden hasn't done anything since the debate to give anyone space to write a "Energetic Biden calms fears" piece. Part of the issue is that he's 81 and looks and sounds 81, and the debate is whether he's old. He is!

He has. He gave a stem-winder, in N. Carolina, the very next day. The press pretty much ignored it. He was clear, and cogent, at the UN this week. www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9vG...

Joe Biden delivers speech on extreme weatherwww.youtube.com US President Joe Biden delivers a speech on protecting workers and communities from extreme weather.His remarks come off the back of his poor showing in the ...

Yeah I think that's right. Harris taking over will put the issue to rest. And she can begin aggressively prosecuting the case against the felon Trump and his MAGA Court.

I hope you're right but I worry they will go after Harris just as hard. Age won't be the issue but they'll find something else. Her legitimacy after not being chosen by primary voters, vague "unpopularity", etc.

They'll go after Harris hard. And we will see levels of misogynoir none of us will be prepared for. But she can do it. We can do it.

Fingers crossed!

My question at this point is whether anything short of his resigning the presidency silences these stories. And if not, then the White House needs to find some other way to silence them, or the hunt for blood will just continue.

Non sicko (in a TV sense)here , and this is a serious request: Please share a link or two that demonstrates your conclusion that it's a "real issue". Because I've only seen that one (admittedly bad) soundbite about Medicare..and his rally in NC the next day..and his address about SCOTUS on Monday.

I'm reminded of Doctor Who and Harriet Jones...

It’s not the only issue, but does need to be addressed. It’s the only issue to the NYT & some cable news & online but that’s not reality. It’s “but her emails” all over again.

He is currently doing the job and crushing it. Anyone who isn't convinced he can be President isn't paying attention. Biden is not the lesser evil, he is a vastly superior President and Human being to his opponent and it is not even close.

I could think of a couple ways he could inspire confidence and then resign in disgrace.

Yes! I’ve been associating these two events as well

Unfortunately the NYT didn’t get the insider interview they wanted so they’re going to choose who the president is

And that's what makes this moment so risky. Because they don't want a Black woman as the Harvard president, and they don't want a president who won't return their calls, so how on earth can they be trusted to cover Harris fairly if she's the nominee or even the incumbent?

I'm afraid they are going to destroy any alternative candidate we nominate

To hell with the New York Times, but I don't think these concerns are manufactured. Progressive spaces like TNR and Zeteo expressed immediate concern about Biden after the debate. But so did Never-Trump allies. The move to seriously grapple with stepping down is broad and organic.

The concern isn't manufactured. The fact that they can't move on to the much more serious threats from the right and the Trump immunity ruling shows what their priorities are.

Ensuring that we have a candidate capable of beating Trump IS worrying about Trump. Do you really have horse blinders on fixating on what Trump is doing to the point that you can’t see how this fits together?

I'd believe this if their coverage of the immunity decision wasn't weak and both-sided. They have barely articulated the stakes of Trump's reelection, so I can't believe they are that concerned about it. Otherwise, we'd be seeing many more columns about those stakes.

Post