Seeing some people being like “If Biden chooses to resist our efforts to oust him, he’ll tear down the party and he’ll be to blame for the consequences” and no, I’m pretty sure that you would also be to blame for the consequences
There’s a real revolutionary mindset in some of these pundit and Dem circles right now, where “remove Biden” has become an end unto itself, unquestionably correct, and anyone who tries to hold back the tide of history is an obstacle, and this is where revolutions get into trouble frankly
“To make things better we need to pull down the system” - but everyone stops thinking about “making things better” and starts focusing on pulling down the system, and before you know it you’ve destroyed your society to cut the king’s head off and there’s no actual path towards “better”
A story of 3 groups that absolutely hate each other:
Project 2025: "were going to pull down the system"
Leftists since forever: "we're going to pull down the system"
Mainstream media: "actually, we've decided we're going to pull down the system too"
See, if young people these days could afford homes, they'd know that tearing out a kitchen takes a day but building it back takes like six weeks and you'd better figure out how you're going to feed yourself without a kitchen BEFORE the hammers start swinging.
Pulling down the system feeds the need for instant gratification. That's what drives the snotnose left. It's way more fun than improving lives through durable and effective policy change.
The “pull down the system” people wanted an open primary six months ago. There are also “I saw clear evidence of severe cognitive decline for the first time” people, many of whom want the designated successor to step in. That’s not revolutionary.
Seems to be grassroots pushback against what some Dems are advocating, and the polls are showing Biden gaining everywhere (except PA which is must-win).
I don’t think that Pennsylvania number can be correct. It would be a massive swing from 2 years ago when Shapiro beat Mastriano by 15% and Fetterman beat Oz by 7%.
other thing about the Biden should step aside vector is that as it became clear the Harris would be the only real next choice, it lost some steam
Lot more stories when you can just throw names out there.
Strange urgency cuz at some pt it really is too late to change, delimits story runway imo
And let's be clear: it loses steam at this point because the idealized savior politician the people making this argument have in their heads is very much not a Black woman, but they don't want to say that part out loud.
If Biden stays the candidate, the whole campaign comes down to rolling the dice that the debate debacle was a one-off & NOTHING—& I mean *absolutely* nothing—like that happens again. If it does, we're toast.
Sorry, but handing the baton to Harris is MUCH less risky than that.
Plus, the GOP is already starting to investigate whether there has been any kind of cover-up to hide Biden's impairment. They're not going to accept "Why should he bother getting tested when the Evil Trump-Loving NYT made this whole thing up and will just find another thing to complain about?"
to say nothing about how every speaking event of bidens is going to be hyperanalyzed and picked apart, and so far his previous couple appearances have been short and he stumbled massively, even in ones with pre-prepared questions. oh! and he’s behind in every swing state
You’re right that the narrative is constructed. but that cuts both ways. Biden has shown limited capability to push counternarrative. Yes, NYT etc., are pushing this, but ultimately it doesn’t matter: the best candidate would be able to counteract this. Harris may do better there, IDK. Tough call
I have only seen one person who has ever been successful in combating Donald Trump's bullshit on the political stage. He's the one who's actually built difference, not the white knight they're waiting for.
You're saying "the best candidate" when you mean "someone who is omnipotent". As 2016 and 2004 demonstrate, no amount of bullying or factual counterargument can stop a narrative the media doesn't want to stop telling.
Maybe, but Obama got ratfucked (tan suits!) and it didn’t dent him in nearly the same way.
Ability to manage an often hostile media is a critical competency for a candidate.
Of course not—the media liked Obama—but it’s fair to ask whether, given the media-constructed nature of politics, changing the candidate would change the nature of ratfucky coverage.
Idk whether changing candidates is a good move (tho a public debate about it is obv. bad), but it doesn’t seem crazy
Dent him *where*, Tom? The thing about making this narrative about how Biden is bleeding to death is that you have to produce evidence of the bleeding at some point, and "fluctuations well within MoE overall with gains in battleground states" looks like a lot of things, but not bleeding.
There’s always been a desire to believe that the Right Candidate would be immune to ratfucking. And, to be fair, Obama kind of was: the press never went after him hard, but whenever they did, it didn’t stick *at all*.
But you simply can’t hold everyone to that standard.
A more realistic goal is Bill Clinton: they went after him insanely hard, it stuck, but it also didn’t matter.
Which, to be clear, would mostly describe Biden from 2019 through last week.
Absolutely! Has Biden lost this skill? Or does it take a couple weeks? Or is no level of skill capable of handling this sort of all-out feeding frenzy? Idk. But candidates have varying levels of being able to deal with this. It’s a core competency in the role, and I believe Stancil underrates this
If Biden were actually this vulnerable the GOP wouldn't be going after Hunter the way they have been. That entire prosecution is political, and about hitting Hunter as a proxy because they don't actually have much to hit Biden on.
How? How should Biden push a counter narrative? How should Hillary have gotten out from the emails? Was Kerry a war hero? A flip-flopper? How about the tan suit?
In 2016 the NYT decided securing documents was the most important issue. Donald Trump stole documents and left them in the bathroom!
People didn’t buy the tan suit narrative because Obama was very good a media management. Good politicians are good at combating media frenzies.
Biden would have been pretty hard to ratfuck like this in 2016 (and was, in large part, in 2020)
Ah, you don't answer the questions.
The tan suit thing was a nothing burger compared with what happened to Hillary and what is happening to Biden. Or Kerry. Your argument is circular. These things are not the same.
There is no potential Dem candidate who can out-post an enormous media and social media apparatus that wants Dems to lose. I agree Ds could be doing better, but there’s no mechanism for them to do what you’re describing to the extent needed.
I must an old fool because quite frankly, I don't want, need or expect the narrative to be constructed. You may underestimate how this hits voters.
The quality of a counter-narrative is not the sin here.
This is why I look at anyone other than Harris as a potential substitute with inherent skepticism. Like, when Biden is a no go, that's who's *legitimately* there to step up. That's the whole point.
Agreed. I've seen a fair number of leftists saying that they were opposed to Biden from 2020 (or later) onward, but few of them actually seem to advocate an alternative candidate or course of action.
"No president with his approval rating has ever won reelection" should be met with "A president who resigns spells doom for his party." If we're going to cite history, two can play that game.
The approval rating talk also needs to be met with the fact that Biden isn't facing popular governors like Reagan or Clinton but an ex-president with his own high negatives.
"We've been providentially handed an opportunity to definitively punish the people who foisted the 2020 (and 2016) Democratic nominations on us, if we would just seize it."
