Sensitive First Presidential Debate of 2024

[Jon]

I’m not really concerned about the label she’s adhering to herself as much as I am her general capabilities.

Oh, I understand. I'm just saying, she and the other members of the "Squad" are too left wing for the dems to push at this point. They are really the extreme left in so much as MAGA is the extreme right.

 

[Quagmire]

She's also a "socialist" and suffers from the same issues Warren and Sanders do. The dems won't push candidates like that because it's too easy for the reps to fight. Which angers me because the "socialists" are the ones fighting for the majority in most cases. >.>

Yep there is so much fucking ignorance and misinformation spread about "socialists" it's going to be hard. I still am so angry about Bernie in 2016, I dont know how much he could have done as President, but it would have been a million times better than Trump

 

[Smacktard]

I can't believe people are actually buying into the "cold" narrative. Really, guys? Total coincidence that this news comes out immediately after Biden starts floundering and losing his train of thought mid-debate? Come on, activate your almonds.

IMO, no that is not the best move. There is no one prepared. It's too late. You are saying that without saying who it would be. The incumbent is still our best chance. Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, or Whitmer wouldn't win. And not having any time to vet someone could go sideways fast (thinking of Edwards)--not saying this would happen with any of the people I listed but I'd rather go with who I know has already beaten Trump. Also, figure out who of that list would actually WANT to step in. Why give your one shot of being the candidate now? Under these circumstances? If you have presidential ambitions, that's a gamble.

Remember, Harris had to drop out of the Iowa caucus because her polling was so bad, she didn't stick around at all. She had a 3% polling for supporters, tied with Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, and Tulsi Gabbard.

My opinion, here is what should happen

1. Biden continues to make his speeches, which he has already started to do so, that showcases he is together and can even be a little fiery. He doesn't have that "cold" ever again. His staff has a clear directive on what needs to be showcased and don't "overprepare" him, but rather laser focus on attacking Trump and touting what he has accomplished.

2. Trump's felony sentencing happens. Attention is drawn to that side of it again

3. Trump finally picks his veep. I've seen that shortlist. Nothing super surprising but at least his other veep was in the traditional Repub fold. Could be another avenue of attack

4. The Dems send out any all-stars that can help stump for Biden. It has to be very careful. Figure out who would be best, where, and when. Whether that is our past nominees, Obama, maybe even Bill etc? (not sure, don't ask me, I don't know, but hopefully they know) or more local people like Abrams, governors, senators, etc. Hopefully people who are charismatic who can explain his accomplishments and the danger of Trump.

5. The September debate happens. Obviously everything here needs to happen better for Biden. Perhaps also the format or moderation will be better suited for him too. This is also assuming the debate happens

6. The veep debate happens. Harris is not loved but at least here she can tout that she is competent and not a danger to democracy.

7. Likely some kind of October surprise. Repubs might do something around Biden's son again. Maybe something in court on Trump's side. Etc etc

8. Likely what will happen is a lot of people won't vote, they'll stay at home, frustrated by the options. More than usual. But maybe that will hurt Trump more than Biden. Trump pissed off a LOT of people, and that can be a stronger feeling than reservations about a guy's age, especially when he has a veep who can step in if need be.

Is this perfect? No. But I think this is our best chance.

I think it'd a foregone conclusion that the Dems lose if Biden remains the pick. We disagree fundamentally on this topic, and in not going to break it down point by point, but my argument is basically:
Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. Undecideds are going to vote their "feelings" on the most "presidential" candidate. They haven't kept up with the news, haven't fact-checked Trump's claims. They're voting on emotion and instinct, and Biden's performance has soured them. The main complaint about Biden isn't that "he doesn't have enough star power supporting him" or "if his VP debated well, maybe I'd vote for him!" or "if something really shocking about Trump drops, I bet that'll sway some Trump voters!"

The main criticism against Biden -- the one I see time and time again -- is that he's too fuckin old, and he looks old, and speaks old, and acts old. He does not seem in power or in control.

The people already convinced to vote for Biden will vote for Biden's replacement. Replacing Biden with someone who can continue his agenda but actually string three coherent words together will sway independents and undecideds toward Biden rather than Trump.

Face the facts: no one is enthusiastic about Biden. No one would miss him.

 

[Quagmire]

The people already convinced to vote for Biden will vote for Biden's replacement. Replacing Biden with someone who can continue his agenda but actually string three coherent words together will sway independents and undecideds toward Biden rather than Trump.

Face the facts: no one is enthusiastic about Biden. No one would miss him.

Okay, so who? I agree no one is enthusiastic about Biden, but who would you run?

 

[Smacktard]

Okay, so who? I agree no one is enthusiastic about Biden, but who would you run?

My personal preference is Warren, but I think the best candidate is probably Newsom or Buttigeig. Newsom has been angling for a shot at the Presidency, and I think he can be a bit slimy when it comes to debating, but he can debate better than Biden and is more youthful.

Best strategy IMO would be:
1. Heavily publicize Biden stepping down due to "new health concerns" or whatever bullshit they need to say to artfully justify his passing the torch.
2. Offer to hold one or two short-noticr debates (1 week prep each) between Dem candidates looking to secure the nom, and heavily publicize them
3. Polling winner post-debate takes the nom.

Not the traditional way of doing things, but desperate times and all. I'm sure I'll hear plenty of reasons why that "can't work", but I'm sure there are just as many reasons as why it can be MADE to work.

 

[Rachel]

Yep, I don't want to keep going in circles. I actually believe both paths are super perilous. Just what is the least worst option. This is where we are at. I don't want anyone to think I am enthusiastic about Biden. But I will vote for him over Trump. I can't believe people are going to vote for him again but here we are.

There will probably be some decisions made in the coming weeks. Probably more polling will come out. I just can't see it being a contested convention. I guess I will support whatever happens, they have access to data I don't.

I really wish that debate didn't happen. That was an unforced error. What I really hate is Trump's points were really bad. But as usual, his bar doesn't matter.

 

[Mark]

I can't believe people are actually buying into the "cold" narrative. Really, guys? Total coincidence that this news comes out immediately after Biden starts floundering and losing his train of thought mid-debate? Come on, activate your almonds.

I don’t buy it one bit. He was staying at Camp David prior to the debate, and it was pretty nice over here that week. Hot, humid, but not exactly the environment typically associated with getting a cold.

I think it'd a foregone conclusion that the Dems lose if Biden remains the pick. We disagree fundamentally on this topic, and in not going to break it down point by point, but my argument is basically:
Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. Undecideds are going to vote their "feelings" on the most "presidential" candidate. They haven't kept up with the news, haven't fact-checked Trump's claims. They're voting on emotion and instinct, and Biden's performance has soured them. The main complaint about Biden isn't that "he doesn't have enough star power supporting him" or "if his VP debated well, maybe I'd vote for him!" or "if something really shocking about Trump drops, I bet that'll sway some Trump voters!"

Agreed.

The main criticism against Biden -- the one I see time and time again -- is that he's too fuckin old, and he looks old, and speaks old, and acts old. He does not seem in power or in control.

Beyond that, you can’t have a president propped up on the lectern. Especially in the current global climate.

The people already convinced to vote for Biden will vote for Biden's replacement. Replacing Biden with someone who can continue his agenda but actually string three coherent words together will sway independents and undecideds toward Biden rather than Trump.

Agreed.

Face the facts: no one is enthusiastic about Biden. No one would miss him.

And the people in his corner? Just waiting for him to drop… as shitty as it sounds.

 

[Quagmire]

Yep, I don't want to keep going in circles. I actually believe both paths are super perilous. Just what is the least worst option. This is where we are at. I don't want anyone to think I am enthusiastic about Biden. But I will vote for him over Trump. I can't believe people are going to vote for him again but here we are.

Yeah this is stuck between a rock and a hard place and of course the DNC has done nothing the past 4 years to try and find who after Biden, it was like they just assumed they'd run it back with him again in 2024 and have no fucking back up plan. Which is on par for the Dems

 

[Mark]

Yep, I don't want to keep going in circles. I actually believe both paths are super perilous. Just what is the least worst option. This is where we are at. I don't want anyone to think I am enthusiastic about Biden. But I will vote for him over Trump. I can't believe people are going to vote for him again but here we are.

There’s no denying that. It’s mostly a matter of “what flavor of bullshit do you wanna deal with for the next 4 years?” as opposed to “who do you want to be the president?”

I really wish that debate didn't happen. That was an unforced error. What I really hate is Trump's points were really bad. But as usual, his bar doesn't matter.

It was an inevitability, though. People that don’t stay up on the movements of the president and his press ops won’t necessarily see him as the feeble old man he is. This, unfortunately, put a spotlight on him… and by extension, his family, handlers, and constituents for not stepping in.

 

[Rachel]

Yeah this is stuck between a rock and a hard place and of course the DNC has done nothing the past 4 years to try and find who after Biden, it was like they just assumed they'd run it back with him again in 2024 and have no fucking back up plan. Which is on par for the Dems

An incumbent is usually always better. Again, probably no one with presidential ambitions wanted to seriously run in the primary against him. And typically you don't dissuade your incumbent from running. So yeah. This sucks.

 

[Quagmire]

An incumbent is usually always better. Again, probably no one with presidential ambitions wanted to seriously run in the primary against him. And typically you don't dissuade your incumbent from running. So yeah. This sucks.

I agree that usually you want the incumbent, but they still should have been prepping one, even just a little given Biden's age. Say this is who we want in 2028 and if you need to speed it up, ground work has been done.

 

[Rachel]

That sounds like what happened to the Bernie bros all over again (Hillary being the heir apparent)

 

[Quagmire]

That sounds like what happened to the Bernie bros all over again (Hillary being the heir apparent)

Way different situation. There was no incumbent, no one took Trump seriously and no one probably know just how awful he would be not just for this country, but the world.

Maybe introduce a couple candidates or leaders in the party, but you have to have a back up plan when your candidate is 81 years old

 

[Jon]

I agree that usually you want the incumbent, but they still should have been prepping one, even just a little given Biden's age. Say this is who we want in 2028 and if you need to speed it up, ground work has been done.

They have been doing this a little with both Newsom and Buttigieg.

With how they've hidden Harris, it's pretty clear they have no intentions of pushing her post Biden. 2024, MAYBE, because she's the easiest one to transfer Biden's policies.

Echoing the general consensus here is that this sucks. There is no clear thing to do.

Fwiw, the scholar that has correctly predicted all presidential elections since... late 70s? Except for the Bush/Gore fiasco... has said that Biden is still predicted to win based on his multipoint algorithm and that replacing him actually swing it to Trump. Mostly because he loses the incumbency point. I think his name is... Lichtman? I'll see if I can find an article for those interested. I look to his numbers every four years in curiosity.

 

[Jon]

Found it. It is Allen Lichtman. 13 Keys to the White House is the checklist. An incumbent needs 5 or less keys to be false to be predicted to win. And he's predicted all the elections correctly since 1984 except Bush v. Gore (but we all know how unprecedented that election was). Currently Biden has 2 false keys with 2 more predicted false, which has him predicted to win... currently. I'll link the Wikipedia page here (I know, I know... not a scholarly article, but it has all the info in one place including the chart from the past elections for those interested.

Cliffs Notes version? Here are the 13 keys, and an incumbent needs 5 or less to be false to be predicted to win:

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Currently, Biden is false on keys 1 and 12, with 10 and 11 leaning false. I'm skeptical about key 4 leaning true at the moment, but here we are. I am not positive who is flagged as incumbent if there is no incumbent, but my assumption is the candidate for the part most recently in the White House. That said, Harris has more than 6 false keys according to Lichtman and why she wouldn't be predicted to win. It's an interesting read nonetheless. At least in my opinion.

The Keys to the White House - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mark]

Found it. It is Allen Lichtman. 13 Keys to the White House is the checklist. An incumbent needs 5 or less keys to be false to be predicted to win. And he's predicted all the elections correctly since 1984 except Bush v. Gore (but we all know how unprecedented that election was). Currently Biden has 2 false keys with 2 more predicted false, which has him predicted to win... currently. I'll link the Wikipedia page here (I know, I know... not a scholarly article, but it has all the info in one place including the chart from the past elections for those interested.

Cliffs Notes version? Here are the 13 keys, and an incumbent needs 5 or less to be false to be predicted to win:

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Currently, Biden is false on keys 1 and 12, with 10 and 11 leaning false. I'm skeptical about key 4 leaning true at the moment, but here we are. I am not positive who is flagged as incumbent if there is no incumbent, but my assumption is the candidate for the part most recently in the White House. That said, Harris has more than 6 false keys according to Lichtman and why she wouldn't be predicted to win. It's an interesting read nonetheless. At least in my opinion.

The Keys to the White House - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can’t help but wonder if dude is scratching his head after the last several years, honestly. Something like this is written in part by precedent, and the last several years have been a doozy.

 

[Jon]

I can’t help but wonder if dude is scratching his head after the last several years, honestly. Something like this is written in part by precedent, and the last several years have been a doozy.

So I did a bit more reading myself about this.

Apparently, prior to clarification in 2016, these keys were meant to predict the popular vote alone, and not who would win the presidency. Now he predicts who wins the election. The 2000 election was the start to the major discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral votes. Dems hold a significant advantage in the popular vote, while Reps hold one in the electoral college. Which is why people NOT voting helps Reps consistently.

There are simply more red states. Smaller, less populace, but more numerous. Blue states are bigger and more populous. And this became more and more evident after 2000 (per Lichtman). So, more and more typically, we see a popular vote go to Dems (because larger more populous states) vote blue. But the electoral college is skewed to the right because there are simply more of them.

Having a hard time wording this... but... essentially, there are more people who vote blue in red states (while the state still goes Rep) than red votes in blue states. That make sense?

Example, there are more people in Nebraska that vote blue, than say a state like California gets red votes. Even though California is perpetually Democrat and Nebraska always goes to the Republicans.

Like I said, having a hard time wording that. But it helps explain why there's been an increasing discrepancy between the popular and electoral votes. And why Reps refuse to ever let that system die and just go with the popular vote. They may never get another president at current rates.

 

[Jon]

And in expected news, the Supreme Court has voted 6-3 that Trump DOES have some immunity for actions while president. Mainly official actions. So, again, as predicted, this is going back to lower courts and essentially puts a nail in the coffin of the Washington and Florida federal cases against him. At least until after the election and ONLY if he loses.

 

[dimmerwit]

There are simply more red states. Smaller, less populace, but more numerous. Blue states are bigger and more populous. And this became more and more evident after 2000 (per Lichtman). So, more and more typically, we see a popular vote go to Dems (because larger more populous states) vote blue. But the electoral college is skewed to the right because there are simply more of them.

Having a hard time wording this... but... essentially, there are more people who vote blue in red states (while the state still goes Rep) than red votes in blue states. That make sense?

Example, there are more people in Nebraska that vote blue, than say a state like California gets red votes. Even though California is perpetually Democrat and Nebraska always goes to the Republicans.

It's more the top one, with the simple population fact and how large states are effectively disenfranchised to a degree by the Electoral College. Biden won a bigger popular vote victory in California then Trump did in every state and district that he won combined, yet Trump gets 232 for that compared to 55 for Biden.

 

[Jon]

It's more the top one, with the simple population fact and how large states are effectively disenfranchised to a degree by the Electoral College. Biden won a bigger popular vote victory in California then Trump did in every state and district that he won combined, yet Trump gets 232 for that compared to 55 for Biden.

Right, this is essentially what I was getting at. I just simply had an impossible time verbalizing what my brain was thinking.

 

[Quagmire]

I use humor to cope with E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!

So here is a cross over our wrestling peeps will enjoy as we laugh in terror

 

[Smacktard]

With SCROTUS ruling, maybe Dark Brandon can make an "official act" to remove and replace all justices who have been bought and paid for by wealthy individuals.

 

[shortkut]

With SCROTUS ruling, maybe Dark Brandon can make an "official act" to remove and replace all justices who have been bought and paid for by wealthy individuals.

Only if he does it as an official act as president

 

[Quagmire]

With SCROTUS ruling, maybe Dark Brandon can make an "official act" to remove and replace all justices who have been bought and paid for by wealthy individuals.

Dems refuse to play dirty, or at least as dirty as the Republicans so I highly doubt this happens or anything close, but would be a great leopards ate my face shit

 

[Rachel]

I am reading about the ruling. I am not a legal expert so I don't really understand it. But it sounds really, really bad. The Supreme Court and what has happened to it is a whole other topic.

Just awful. No words.

 

[Smacktard]

Dems refuse to play dirty, or at least as dirty as the Republicans so I highly doubt this happens or anything close, but would be a great leopards ate my face shit

I don't think anything will happen either, but it SHOULD, if only just to make a point about the ruling.

 

[Mark]

I use humor to cope with E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!

So here is a cross over our wrestling peeps will enjoy as we laugh in terror

View attachment 17603

Fine, since you started it.

 

[Quagmire]

Fine, since you started it.

View attachment 17605

I did like when he told trump to just shut up in 2020, that was great!

 

[Jon]

With SCROTUS ruling, maybe Dark Brandon can make an "official act" to remove and replace all justices who have been bought and paid for by wealthy individuals.

I wish Thomas and Alito would get impeached. They are the biggest bigots on the court. I've come around a LITTLE on Amy Coney Barrett as a person. I do not like how conservative she is, but of the three Trump appointees, she's the one with the most level head. Reading some of her opinions, there is a logic (sometimes twisted, granted) to her reasoning. She's at least.. reasonable. Somewhat like Roberts. But he's easily the worst chief justice we've ever had, or up there at least. Him doing nothing about his colleagues is just sad.

This is why Biden had to fight the accusations from Reps that he was going to stack the Court and add more than 9 justices. At this point, with how that court has ravaged Democracy... he should. And I spoke heavily against it in 2020. But that was before the court wrecked human rights.

I am reading about the ruling. I am not a legal expert so I don't really understand it. But it sounds really, really bad. The Supreme Court and what has happened to it is a whole other topic.

Just awful. No words.

It's very bad in what it stands for. It's essentially restarting the clock by sending back to lower courts. Now the DOJ needs to re-define the charges and essentially claim that what he did was NOT within the confines of official acts as president. Which essentially takes anything he said to Trump or governors off the table.

But the worst thing is you've essentially taken the biggest deterrent a president has to NOT commit crimes in office off the table. Remember when Trump's lawyers said to SCOTUS that a president could have a political opponent assassinated and if he's not impeached, he can't be held criminally liable? Yeah, that's ACTUALLY on the table now. This is a DANGEROUS game these judges are playing.

 

[Ben]

It definitely feels like there isn't much more they could fuck up at this point. They've just been pushing America back in time with every chance they get, and this is probably worse than any former precedent... Jon's probably not wrong that we're only a few arguments away from "all political opponents fall out of windows" level of... Not democracy.

 

[Mark]

View attachment 17606

Because this society had been force-fed a diet of fear for how long? Fear everything. Uncle Sam will protect you. Come sit on Uncle Sam’s lap and tell us what you want for Independence Day.

All jokes aside… I don’t feel that I’m far off base with that assessment. 9/11 may have been a sharp turning point, but we had already coasted around quite a few turns during the course of recent history prior to that day. Little by little, the bricks that paved the way to where we are now were set in place.

 

[dimmerwit]

A bit of chatter over Newsom, so a timely reminder of one of my favourite political photos.

 

[Ben]

A bit of chatter over Newsom, so a timely reminder of one of my favourite political photos.

He was married to her? I didn't know that.

I mean... They got divorced, so maybe Newsom isn't an idiot, but his ex-wife having run Trump's campaign seems... Weird.

 

[Jon]

He was married to her? I didn't know that.

I mean... They got divorced, so maybe Newsom isn't an idiot, but his ex-wife having run Trump's campaign seems... Weird.

It's a small world in politics.

 

[dimmerwit]

He was married to her? I didn't know that.

I mean... They got divorced, so maybe Newsom isn't an idiot, but his ex-wife having run Trump's campaign seems... Weird.

It is pretty weird. Seems she pulled a reverse Arianna Huffington.

I do like when you Google her it comes up as "Former First Spouse of San Francisco"

 

[Ben]

It is weird. Just seems like either Guilfoyle was faking being a reasonable human and assumedly a Dem in order to marry Newsom, or she immolated her morals just to take revenge on him a decade later as a Republican.

Like... My ex-wife surely thinks I'm an asshole, but she didn't go head up Satan's campaign.

Politics are dumb.

 

[Ben]

Loading…

www.cnn.com

He should go into landscaping. I think he knows a place...

 

[Jon]

It is weird. Just seems like either Guilfoyle was faking being a reasonable human and assumedly a Dem in order to marry Newsom, or she immolated her morals just to take revenge on him a decade later as a Republican.

Like... My ex-wife surely thinks I'm an asshole, but she didn't go head up Satan's campaign.

Politics are dumb.

What year was it? Because the other option is this was before Trump and before his rhetoric made it untenable to be in a relationship with the opposite side of the political aisle.

 

[dimmerwit]

Loading…

www.cnn.com

He should go into landscaping. I think he knows a place...

I think of all the surreal political moments of the past few years and that might just be the most surreal. Certainly the strangest.

What year was it? Because the other option is this was before Trump and before his rhetoric made it untenable to be in a relationship with the opposite side of the political aisle.

2001-06. She joined Fox News the same year they split.

 

[Rachel]

lmao what is that photo

Fellas is that an uncomfortable position

 

[Ben]

lmao what is that photo

Fellas is that an uncomfortable position

It does look like they just fell over in the middle of a ballroom dancing routine, yeah.

And her weird vanta-black turtleneck curtain dress is weird.

And his "I'm trying not to grab a titty" hover-hand.

 

[Smacktard]

A bit of chatter over Newsom, so a timely reminder of one of my favourite political photos.

I don't know what the fuss is all about. They look like reasonable, down-to-earth folk like me!

 

[Mark]

lmao what is that photo

Fellas is that an uncomfortable position

If “my partner and I spotted you from across the ballroom” was a picture…

 

[Smacktard]

Recent polling suggests Biden has a lower net favorability rating than all other currently floated Democrats -- lower even than that of Trump -- and would score the fewest EC votes compared to all potential replacements:

https://puck.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SUNDAY_Post-Debate_Landscape_2024_06_30__1_-1.pdf

Pages 10 and 11.

Biden voters split on whether he should stay or leave. Swing voters say "Leave", 2 to 1.

Support for alt Democrats higher in swing states.

Biden needs to drop out. It's the only thing that MIGHT help Democrats win.

 

[Smacktard]

Saw a decent take on Reddit:

Pelosi publicly questions his mental fitness as ‘legitimate question’.

The meeting they are holding tomorrow with Democratic governors.

The staff call tomorrow at 12:30.

Donors freaking out behind the scenes.

Democratic members of congress worried about their seats.

Their own leaked polling showing a relatively unknown politician would beat the fascist.

All of this taking place after the earliest presidential debate in history that their campaign wanted.

Maybe it's just tea leaves, but I'm hopeful they make the right decision. I wonder if Dems pushing to host the earliest debate in history was some sort of behind-the-scenes Machiavellian maneuver to get the wheels in motion to get Biden out of the running in favor of a better candidate.

 

[Quagmire]

 

[Fool's Requiem]

"No pets harmed."

well that's nice

 

[Mark]

 

[Ben]

View attachment 17651

 

[Ants!]

Saw a decent take on Reddit:


Maybe it's just tea leaves, but I'm hopeful they make the right decision. I wonder if Dems pushing to host the earliest debate in history was some sort of behind-the-scenes Machiavellian maneuver to get the wheels in motion to get Biden out of the running in favor of a better candidate.

As Alu keeps pointing out again and again, "they" don't make the decision. Biden can't be removed, he'd have to voluntarily step down.