Micah: 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

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.

Right, and I've made this case myself. It's not about what the polls say now but what they'll say when more undecideds start paying attention and see Biden's frailty. But more folks should have the willingness to say that this is really about a known unknown from the future, not the present.

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?

Any choice other than Biden(and also Biden) pisses off some chunk of voters. I'm a leftist, we've got more justification than most to dislike Harris. But picking her, the party gets to say "we're making the best of a bad situation, this is the choice, move on." Newsome/Pete/AOC, they can't say that.

Post