stevenkesslar

He tried. Republicans and the NRA stopped him.

That makes more sense. Trump no doubt thought it was a bullet. But it's hard to imagine if it struck his ear it would not have done more damage. Thank God the shooter missed. An assassination would have plunged us into true chaos. All the grown ups are denouncing political violence. Hopefully this cools down some of the violent rhetoric being used.

Okay. Let's have the facts. How many Russian criminals and ethnic minorities has Genocide Man processed into fertilizer? What did he have to pay their families to use them as human fertilizer for his genocide in Ukraine?

I will be voting for Biden and/or Harris. So as far as Russia goes, here is what I think my vote means. 1. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Russians will need to be processed into fertilizer. The families of the criminals and ethnic minorities processed into fertilizer will have to be paid handsomely for providing bodies for Putin to process in the name of his genocide. 2. Young people will continue to flee the hell that is Genocide World, taking the future with them. 3. Putin will have to keep distorting Russia's economy away from the future, and back to the economy of World War I. Many Putin cronies will get rich destroying Russia's future. 4. All of this further cements the foundation of the breakup of the Russian Federation years or maybe decades from now. Democracy will do just fine. The Russian Federation won't. One wonders how much of the Federation Master Xi will end up owning? In a sense, all this does mean I will be voting for Putin. I hope he stays in power for a long time and continues to fuck up Russia and make it a place no one wants to visit, or live in. When he finally rots of his own old age (71 and counting) and weakness he will have proven that genocide doesn't pay. Nothing an aging Biden could do compares to how bad Putin has been for Russia.

On top of this genocidal bloodbath are a few clear facts. Putin and Trump are narcissistic liars. You can't believe a word they say. In Genocide World, it doesn't matter. If Genocide Man doesn't like you, or you disagree, he will kill you. If he wants your country, the solution is simple. Start a genocide. Kill hundreds of thousands of people FROM YOUR OWN COUNTRY and build a genocidal war economy that can only function when you kill hundreds of thousands of people FROM YOUR OWN COUNTRY. Genocide means never have to tell the truth, or say you are sorry. Trump does not have that luxury, and won't. Biden fucked up as badly as any candidate can in a debate. And America had a wake up moment where we mostly agree this guy just seems too old and can't be the leader of the free world for four more years. But neither can the narcissistic old pathological liar. So the polls haven't changed. And one new one Marist shows both Biden and Harris beating Trump. Several other new polls show Harris beating Trump. What will Genocide Man actually do in November 2024 when his loyal cock sucking gross old lying narcissist loses, and fucks up his plan to get away with genocide? One wonders how many more hundreds of thousands (millions?) of men FROM YOUR OWN COUNTRY Genocide Man will have to send off to be processed into fertilizer. Poor Vlad. This is why so many experts say in 10 years the Russian Federation will be toast. No one really likes genocide. Even if they have to pretend they do, since they have no choice. And since Genocide Man will kill you if you dissent. By turning hundreds of thousands of Russians into fertilizer, and building a war economy that gets some cronies of Genocide Man rich by promising to continuously turn criminals and Russian ethnic minorities into fertilizer. And you think the US is fucked up? This is why the best and brightest are fleeing to (name a place on the planet that is not the hellhole of Russia) and your genocide loving leadership is laying the groundwork for the breakup of the Russian Federation. Not the renewal of empire. Do the math. The US economy is ten times bigger than Russia. So If the US grows 3 % a year, Russia would have to grow 30 % a year to generate as much wealth. Sure, Genocide Man can distort the economy by building a clunky war machine that depends on mass murder of both Russians and Ukrainians. I just wouldn't count on that as a viable long term plan. Poor Genocide Man. What a sorry fucking evil loser. Trump and him deserve each other.

I think running Kamala would generate a ton of excitement. I think running her with Whitmer would be like Clinton/Gore in 1992 and Obama in 2008. It would symbolize hope and change. It would light a fire under people who are very turned off right now. That said, if it is Harris she might want to pick someone like Shapiro for the same reason Obama picked Biden: balance. Fun but boring fact. In 2008 Obama told Tim Kaine that his head was with Biden, but his heart wanted to pick Tim Kaine as Veep instead of Biden. In some alternative reality, you can argue that Kaine would have run and won in 2020, after Hillary lost in 2016. And he would now be running for a second term at a relatively young 66. Or you could also argue that Biden has had to endure more than his fair share of insults and condescension from Team Obama. Let's talk about Hillary and 2016. Lichtman predicted in Sept. 2016 that Trump would win. He argued that any generic Republican would beat the incumbent party, based on his Keys. He said, if anything, Trump would do a bit worse than a generic Republican. And he did, losing by 2 million votes and barely squeaking by in the electoral college. My guess is someone like John Kasich would have won much more decisively in 2016. So the point is Hillary was doomed. Not because she's a woman. But because the cards were dealt against her. The two specific things she could not control is that she was not the incumbent, and the party was torn in half. Lots of progressives either didn't vote or voted for Stein. Which is why she lost narrowly in three key states. If you buy Lichtman's model, 2024 is different. Lichtman is saying Biden has two of his 13 keys working against him: losing the midterms, and being uncharismatic. He'd have to lose four more. And in Lichtman's view there are only four in play: a military failure, a military success, social disorder, and the third party key. Biden would have to lose all four for Lichtman to predict defeat. And, again, Lichtman has been right 10 out of 10 times, in advance, since 1984. The one small blemish being he predicted Gore in 2000, who won the popular vote and lost the electoral college by a handful of votes in one state. So we can break that down. The issue about social chaos is the fear that we'd have protests about Genocide Joe and Gaza all Summer. Ain't happening. Lichtman turned that social chaos key against the incumbent party only three times in a century: 1932, 1968, 2020 (BLM/George Floyd). As far as the second key, Biden does not appear likely to have a military defeat (Lichtman already said Afghanistan doesn't count, and Ukraine and Israel are not defeats). So those two keys are unlikely to turn against Biden. Biden will not have a military success. And the third party key looks like a toss up. Right now the third party cabal gets about 12 % of the vote in the RCP average. Which is almost exactly the same as the third parties got in July 2016. By Nov. 2016 that was watered down to 5 %, which is Lichtman's threshold for a serious third party challenge that signals deep discontent with the incumbent party. So it's questionable whether that key will turn against Democrats. Especially if Kamala is the nominee, a lot of progressives that would vote for Stein or West will likely flip to Kamala, who they will view as far better than Trump. But let's just assume any Democrat loses both of these keys. That's a total of four against any Democrat: 1) losing the midterms, 2) no charismatic candidate, 3) no military success, 4) serious third party challenge. Lichtman's point now is that if Democrats trash their incumbent and invite a divisive party brawl, that takes away both keys that are their margin of victory, in his prediction system. It could essentially replay 2016, he fears. His Plan B is for Biden to resign, let Harris run as President Harris, and get the party unified behind her as the consensus candidate. Who, by the way, was the candidate Democratic Party primary voters chose to replace Biden if needed. She is the only candidate not named Biden that Democratic Party primary voters chose overwhelmingly. Lichtman has not predicted a divisive party brawl if Biden steps aside. He basically seems to be saying that if Democrats want to fuck it up, this is how history suggests you could fuck it up and hand the election to Trump. Have a huge party food fight. But I don't think 2024 is 2016. We did not have a bitter primary fight between Clinton and Sanders. Quite the opposite. Biden and Harris sailed through easily. The party is very unified around that idea that the horrific piece of shit named Donald Trump can not be returned to power. The question no one has the answer to right now is this: will Biden step aside? I think the chances have grown from maybe 5 % right after the debate to maybe 50 % now. Even most Democrats want something different, it seems. Independents sure do. My guess is if Biden listens to what party leaders are saying and steps aside, the party will unite around Harris quickly and with little dissent from top leaders. In this scenario it would be better if Biden resigned, I think. But that is likely a bridge too far. So my count is that Harris, running as the non-incumbent candidate, would have five keys against her. Which Lichtman says would predict a Harris victory. The sixth key that would be the decisive nail in her coffin would be if the party tears itself apart in choosing her. I just don't think that is going to happen. Everyone realizes the stakes are too high. And all these keys make common sense. Seeing Harris debating Trump would be a breath of fresh air. Yes, this is a real crisis. But what it would show, in practice, is that Democrats are capable of dealing with a crisis in their own party by putting forward someone we can all get behind who inspires hope and new ideas. Bottom line, Lichtman would argue Obama did not win because he is Black. And Hillary did not lose because she is a woman. If my scoring is right, Harris would win. But not because she is a Black woman.

In a word, YES.

Oddly, some version of that may be happening. I watched a Pod Save America interview of Jen Psaki yesterday in which she said Biden has never shone in press conferences or interviews. Put him around people and let him empathize and be Joe. Psaki says that is what he is good at, and what people love about him. I would not say the debate highlighted Biden's sympathetic kindness. It highlighted his decline and confusion. Regardless, his opponent's madness and lies shone through brilliantly. It is now clear it did not change the national polls at all. Biden was a few points behind, and is still a few points behind. The latest poll on RCP, Marist, shows Biden beating Trump by two points. People apparently can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can be shocked at Biden, and still think Trump is a nasty gross old liar who they don't trust or want to return to power. Also oddly, some version of democracy may be happening. What is happening on the Republican side is proof of theory that Trump draws in people who like authoritarian leaders. They have completely circled the wagons around their pathological liar. That's not working on the Democratic side. This is proof of theory that democracy is messy. That said, it is not a disorganized mess. If Biden were two years younger, and everything else played out the same, he'd be cruising to victory. At least according to Lichtman. He did essentially cruise to victory in 2022. After the red wave was stopped, people didn't say Biden was old and crazy. They said he was wise, and got it right. What's happening now is a complicated but serious discussion about a reality most of America now believes: Biden's time is running out. It seems like America is looking at the situation with appropriate alarm, but also sympathetic kindness. And, one way of the other, there will be a resolution. Heads it's Biden. Tails it's Harris. Psaki, who knows something about effective communicating, says Kamala is an undervalued and fierce communicator. I think she is right. Tell me this woman would not be better than Biden in taking on her opponent's madness in a debate. Eloquent. She has both sympathetic kindness, and sting.

The thread is about how Trump lies. It is about Trump's lies and treachery sucking the cock of Genocide Man and betraying American values. It is about how Trump encourages Genocide Man to attack NATO and kill, while Trump the loser basks in Putin's praise. The thread is about how Trump and Putin are both sick human beings.

And Putin, your beloved Genocide Man, wins. That's what you want. And Russian blood on the fields of Ukraine. Good thing Genocide Man can buy the still living bodies of Russian criminals and ethnic minorities for cheap. The Russian Federation will still collapse in the long run, as the GDP of the US outpaces Genocide Man's war economy by tenfold or so every year. But at least Putin can feel like he's winning.

Well, I will say this. Maybe Trump was serious when he disavowed Project 2025. That said, technically, pornography is not pussy grabbing. So Trump would still probably be safe to rape women. Especially of their rights. 🤢

Not sure I know what that means. But it would be an awesome name for a Randy Rainbow song. 😉 A pathological paradoxical bind calls for a paradoxical intervention To stop a narcissistic nattering nut named - you know, need I mention? Because the baffled debate blowing Biden ceases not to embarrass Ok, fuck it. Enough of this bullshit. Can't we just go with Harris?

Please! We've heard from George Clooney. We really don't need Meryl Streep to speak up, do we? 😉 A new poll from ABC says 56 % of Democrats think Biden should drop out. That contradicts a different recent poll saying 2 in 3 Democrats want Biden to stay as nominee. The same ABC poll says Blacks would overwhelming support Biden stepping aside for a ticket led by Harris. And the poll shows Biden and Trump tied. Harris is actually two points ahead of Trump in the ABC poll. Although in other polls she does a bit less well than Biden. So, as you said, it's a coin toss if polls are the deciding factor. One thing that is clear is that if Biden is the nominee age will be the issue for the next four months. And it seems quite possible - if not likely - it can only get worse. Kamala Harris is a risk, but the issue won't be age. Other than Trump's age. 60 % of Americans say Trump is too old. A campaign in which Harris prosecutes Trump's age and asshole behavior - and talks about actual issues - would be a change of pace, for sure. It's hard not to believe Democrats would be more energized. Almost every poll of every swing state or red state Democrat has showed them ahead of their opponent all year. As Brownstein argues above, that could change as the election gets closer, and the gravity of Biden weighs these incumbent Senators down. But what it mostly says is that there is no particular trend against Democrats, in general. It is against Biden, in particular. The generic Congressional ballot has been a toss up all year. A Harris/Shapiro or Harris/Whitmer ticket would allow all these Democrats to focus on explaining what is wrong with and old and extremist Trump, and what Democrats would actually like to do if we had the votes in the Senate and House to do so. The fact that even in a moment of darkness and crisis there are polls showing Biden is tied with Trump and Harris could beat him suggests this should be possible, when the coin finally lands.

And to further belabor your point, I think what is most telling is that the number of sitting Senators and Reps who "love" Biden, and who been staunch Biden allies, but who now say publicly or privately that he has to go just keeps growing. I think the first and most important job of any member of Congress is ensuring their own survival. And if they have managed to do that for decades, they probably know a thing or two about political survival. Biden, of course, belongs at the very top of that list. So I don't discount his political judgment. But this is unprecedented. And it obviously is hurting every Democrat. So the members of Congress who just won't shut up must really think they know something. What's also telling is that I don't think any front line Rep or swing state Senator has spoken up in Biden's favor. Quite the opposite. Tester, Brown, and Baldwin are all muttering things that don't sound like support for Biden to me. All three are perfect examples of politicians who are experts at messaging and campaigning. So they must think they know something. The people who have spoken up the most for Biden are the ones whose constituents are most likely to be sticking behind him. Namely, Black US Reps like Maxine Waters. One poll said a majority of Democrats want Biden to stay in the race. Even though other polls say a majority of Democrats think he is too old to govern. So there must be a lot of deeply conflicted Democrats. But if there is any part of his base that is ridin with Biden, it's likely Blacks. And the arguments they are making are weak. Waters is basically saying polls are not "absolute". Duh! That's true. But they are saying Biden has big problems with voters. How Biden’s 2024 choice could reshape the Senate and Supreme Court for years Ron Brownstein is now weighing in, although not taking sides. He is right that if Biden takes down a handful of swing state or red state Senators with him, Democrats are fucked for many election cycles to come. Losing incumbents like Tester and Brown will just make it harder to win states like Montana or Ohio when we have another shot at the seats - in 2030! Back to my argument about governing, rather than campaigning, when I read what Brownstein consistently writes about the deeply entrenched culture war, it actually is an argument for Biden rather than Harris, I think. But that's only true if you start with the assumption that either Biden or Harris has a roughly equal chance of winning, as the polls show. Biden said he would try to unify America. Just like every other POTUS who said the same thing, and failed. Even some progress toward unity was never likely while Trump spent four years in exile breaking laws and ginning up his base with lies. But Biden has gotten more done on a bipartisan basis than most recent Presidents. And if Trump is defeated, there is at least reason to hope "the fever will break", or at least wane, as Obama argued would happen after the 2012 election. As recently as 2018, Democratic Senators served in Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota, as well as West Virginia and Montana. It should not be impossible to elect Democrats there in 2026 or 2028. But if that is the goal, it's not clear that having a liberal Californian Black Asian American female POTUS is the best way to do it. That's not me being racist. I'd say the same thing about a liberal Californian White male like Newsom. That's me saying that Biden made at least modest inroads into the White blue collar and rural voters who are currently solidly behind Trump. And who prevent Democrats from getting solid Senate majorities. Whether it is Biden or Harris, it would not be an awful thing if a Democratic President had to contend with at least one chamber of Congress that is run by Republicans. Ruy Teixeira is mostly right that Democrats can't have the majority they want unless and until they move toward the center, especially on cultural issues. In theory, that could be Kamala Harris. Part of her problem in 2020, at the height of Black Lives Matter, was a lot of liberals thought she was too tough on criminals. Her record as a prosecutor would play much better in 2024, both with White and Black conservatives. But if Democrats ever hope to have a solid Democratic Senate majority, the riddle is that Biden is in many ways the ideal guy to gradually make that happen. Other than that he's just way too old, and he's simply running out of time. It's not surprising that Democrats are having a very hard time figuring this one out. The good news is that at least Democrats are trying to think, rather than simply fall in line behind a cult leader.

Yes, but so did LBJ, and Reagan, and W., and Obama. And I mean that in the sense that Lichtman does: they got big and consequential things done, whether everyone agrees with them or not. And, for the most part, they ran on that record and said they wanted to do more. The exception is W., because by 2004 the Iraq War was starting to turn bad. If the election had been a year later, he would have lost. The fact that all four of those Presidents didn't meet the promise of their second terms is not auspicious for Biden. That article I posted about FDR argued this in his final year, and the few months of his final term, he made some big blunders due to his failing health. Biden's health is likely to keep failing. At least according to most voters, which is why he is having such problems. I repeated myself just to make it clear that we agree. The first and most important question right now is NOT about whether Biden can govern effectively in a second term. You and I agree that the most important question right now is can he campaign in a way that wins him a second term? That said, the whole point of winning is actually to govern. So what a second Biden term would look like, and what its limitations might be, is a great question that Biden and Democratic leaders should be asking.

The question on the table now is, "Can Joe Biden win?" And it seems to still be unsettled. If he can't win, everything about what he could do in a second term is wishful thinking. My Lichtman-centric mind is settled on two options that make sense: One, Biden stays. Two, Biden resigns so Harris can run as the incumbent with a unified party behind her. Anything else, including Biden completing his term but stepping aside as nominee, just seems like too big a risk, based on Lichtman's Keys. And polls that show Biden and Harris as running about the same against Trump. I hope Biden and leaders like Pelosi and Jeffries and Schumer are also looking at it from the perspective of, "Why should he stay, anyway?" In my mind, that would be the single best reason for Biden to resign, for the good of both his country and his party. What if Joe Biden stays? The US president’s team must face the reality of what a second term would look like now That is an almost impeccable argument. If we look at LBJ, Reagan, W., and Obama, their second terms ranged from disappointments to disasters. Lichtman argues that Obama's inability to get anything big done in his second term (thanks to Mitch McConnell blocking him) was a decisive factor in Clinton's 2016 defeat as heir apparent. The same could happen to Kamala in 2028. Even if Biden scores a hat trick and keeps the Senate and retakes the House, the chances of getting a mandate to do what he couldn't do in his first term seems unlikely. He'll continue to decline. With the constantly lingering question being when, not if, Kamala will need to take over. To put it harshly, many people will hope he either dies, or has some kind of decisive health event, that finally forces a resolution. And that's based on the more optimistic scenario that he will win. Probably the best thing about Biden winning is that it simply keeps Trump from doing bad things. Including cutting taxes for his billionaire donors and packing the court even more with MAGA right wing extremists. If Harris runs and wins, she will not be a lame duck. And she will likely bring new energy to an unmet agenda. If she could win the thinnest of Senate and House majorities, she would probably be able to win some incremental victories on Democratic priorities. Biden could of course do the same in 2025. But unlike with Harris the feeling would be stasis and decline, not building toward something bigger. Young people who feel disinterested and de-energized today won't somehow feel better about him when Biden is two years older. The one issue I'd take issue with the author on is Bill Clinton. He's right that the second term brought Monicagate. But it also brought a booming economy and a lot of incremental bipartisan success. Including a budget surplus. My argument for a successful Biden second term would be that he essentially becomes an avatar for what Ruy Teixeira is calling "the new centrism." Teixeira and his lefty partner in crime John Judis got it surprisingly right two decades ago when they predicted an Obamaesque "Emerging Democratic Majority." He may be getting it right again. Whether you buy that or not, I think it is true that people are sick of the divisiveness that is a hallmark of Trump's non-governing pathology. One can always hope that if they lose in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024, enough Republicans in the House and Senate will want to focus on the kinds of practical things that made Clinton's second term successful. Biden actually is temperamentally better than Harris at seeking the middle ground. Even if what that means in practice in a few years is his staff, and Kamala, do much of the work for him. That would be my blueprint for what could work about a second Biden term.

One or the other, but not both. I'd argue Scalia's seat was stolen thanks to McConnell. RGB stole the seat from herself, I think. Granted, by the time Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 it was too late. McConnell would have probably come up with some excuse for leaving the seat vacant for two years. But it's the same lesson we will all learn if Biden stays on the ticket and loses because of his age, as many fear he will. Shoulda retired when you could. Had RGB retired in 2013 she would have served a deeply respected 20 years, and the SCOTUS right wing majority would be 5-4 today. It still probably would have meant the end of Roe v. Wade once Trump packed the court with his right wing MAGA extremists. But we don't know what Roberts might have done had he been the swing vote. Roberts seems to be the conservative who is most aware that when a felon and lying POTUS who is unpopular packs the court with MAGA radicals who made deeply unpopular decisions, it does not work well for them. There's a brand new poll out by The Economist saying that SCOTUS's disapproval rating is now -16 points, 36/52. That is unprecedented. Wonder why? Putin must be having a blast watching Trump systematically fuck up everything that worked pretty well about democracy before Trump.

Well, I'll give you this. That is factually correct. Sometimes you can get the facts right, even if you have zero ability to analyze what they might possibly mean. What's clear from a series of polls is that lots of people have no idea who Whitmer or Shapiro are. In a country where the MAGA faithful believe that unemployment is at a 50 year high and the S & P 500 is down for the year, what are we to expect? It's not reality. It's a cult. A lying, cop beating, crime loving, democracy hating cult. Murder and violent crime were down over 10 % in 2023 under Biden, who reversed Trump's 30 % murder spike in 2020. But these facts don't matter. Beating the shit out of cops to stop an election doesn't matter. It's just a cult. You'll believe whatever you want. The main difference between how Biden does against Trump and the other lesser knows in that way more voters are undecided about people they don't know, as the survey you posted but can't intellectually grasp demonstrates. Biden v. Trump is 46/43, with 11 % undecided. Biden v Shapiro is 46/38, with 16 % undecided. The difference is not that Trump does better against Shapiro. It's that many people have no clue who the Guv Of Pennsylvania is. Since you have a very troubled relationship with facts, @EmmetK, surely you can empathize. Here's another fact that matters. When Emerson pressed undecided voters to say who they are leaning to, the Biden-Trump race is tied 50/50. So much for Dementia Joe being demented, or politically dead. Even after a massive Biden fuck up, voters just don't want the stench of Trump. These latest polls have probably helped slow momentum to Kamala. In the Emerson poll you cited, Biden does 46/43, but Kamala does 49/43. A Redfield and Wilton poll shows Biden/Trump 42/43, versus Harris/Trump 37/44.  Meanwhile, Bendix and Amandi  shows Biden v. Trump 42/43, and Harris v. Trump 42/41. So Harris does either about the same or a little bit worse in horse races against Trump, compared to Biden. No reason - at least based on polls - to think that switching from Biden to Harris will make some dramatic difference for Democrats, either way. Although what's not clear is whether Harris has the same recognition as Biden or Trump. My guess is there's some voters who have no idea who Kamala Harris is.

Poor thing! You don't seem to know whether Biden is dead, or will be dead, or will be alive in mid-2025. Which is it? Or does the cult not know the right line yet? Let me help. Just read the words on the teleprompter, @EmmetK. "I AM A MAGA CULT MEMBER. I BELIEVE EVERY LIE DONLD TRUMP SAYS." There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Oops! See? We're all a little demented now and then. I meant FDR died a few months into his final term.

Not true. If the historians have it correct, even during the 1944 campaign FDR could only work four hours a day due to severe hypertension. He died a few months into his second term. Why FDR Decided to Run for a Fourth Term Despite Ill Health When he sought a fourth term at age 62, FDR's doctor had issued a dire prognosis. Compared to FDR, Biden last week was a young colt, running around the country to rallies. And Kamala Harris is much better prepared to take power than Truman was. Plus, hopefully, Biden won't die in the middle of a World War. See if you can talk Genocide Man into calling off his Ukrainian slaughter, okay? It would help reduce that risk. If there were a way to do it, one solution is to have Biden and Harris structure a de facto co-Presidency in his second term. Since even if he lives until 2028 he will continue to grow weaker, for sure. At the very least, this is going to force Biden to continue to raise Kamala's stature more.

I posted already in a different thread about a new poll that shows Kamala or Hillary slightly outperforming Biden in a race against Trump. But here is some other relatively good news for Biden in the same poll. I take that to mean that about 48 % of America is a hard NO on Biden, and about 53 % of America is a hard NO on Trump. That's actually consistent with past election results. In 2016 and 2020 election results and in current RCP poll averages, Trump is stuck at a ceiling of 47 %. Whereas Biden got just over 51 % pf the actual vote in a record turnout election. It's not clear that a whole lot has changed. A majority of Americans still don't want Trump. And Jan. 6th gave them a very firm reason to want him even less. Meanwhile, a slight majority of Americans are still open to the idea of voting for Biden, even he is diminished and obviously will become more so. I think it is easier for Biden to prove he is undemented than for Trump to prove he is not undemocratic. You can't unsee Jan. 6th. Or the idea that it's patriotic to go beat the living shit out of cops to stop a peaceful transfer of power. Lest we forget his past antics, Trump's inference that he'd like to blow Liz Cheney's brains out for being a traitor before a televised military tribunal does jog the memory. And, sorry to be morbid, but I have to ask. Will he grab Liz by the pussy before he blows her brains out? 🤢 You can't unsee Biden's crappy debate performance, either. But he is basically undementing himself every day he talks coherently about a real campaign message. You can't stop Father Time, as Axelrod is arguing, but you actually can slow him down. Or at least create the appearance of slowing him down, which is what spin masters like Axelrod do for a living. The longer this goes on, the more I feel like it's a net positive that Biden has been stripped of the protective layers of The White House and has to prove he can still fight for himself - and us. Trump's argument is that since I am very greedy and want it all for myself, I am the right guy to be greedy for America. Biden's equivalent argument is that I am still able to fight like hell for myself, so I am the right guy to fight like hell for you. I think the latter message is better, if Biden can consistently make it. A slight majority of America seems to agree.

You called that one right. Poll finds Biden damaged by debate; with Harris and Clinton best positioned to win Mostly what these polls mean to me is that people tend to turn to fantasy candidates like Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton because they don't know the alternatives - other than Kamala - very well. So even if Harris/Shapiro wins 42/40 in one poll versus Biden/Harris losing 42/43 to Trump in the same poll, it's all very close. If this was supposed to be a fatal blow to Biden, the polls don't show it. And if Harris were to be the nominee I doubt either Whitmer or Shapiro would make a big difference outside their home states. My read of this is that the only two options in play are Biden remains and we stick a cattle prod up his ass for the next four months, or he resigns and Harris becomes POTUS, which would cement her lead in being the replacement nominee. Either way, Democrats can unify around an incumbent who was chosen in the 2024 primary. We'll never know what would have happened had Biden announced he would not run last year. But in his Conversations series last year, Bill Kristol and A.B. Stoddard speculated that both Nancy Pelosi's resignation as House leader and Biden's decision not to seek re-election would lead to divisive food fights between progressives and moderates. Never happened. So the glass half full view of this is that Democrats avoided the kind of ugly fights that could have split the party. However this gets settled, there is plenty of time tounify around either Biden or Harris. Meanwhile, it's not clear that all those primary voters who preferred Haley will in fact fall in line behind Trump. So Republicans have unity problems of their own. As far as the polls go, it is now clear that Biden is no worse off than Reagan or Obama were after blowing their first debates. They all lost a few points, and then gained them back. For Obama and Reagan, whose flub was also tinged with chatter about dementia, the episode served as a wake up call to a lazy incumbent who was used to not being challenged very much. Biden is definitely awake now. There was also lots of chatter last Summer that when Biden should have been flying all over the country rallying the troops and spreading his message, he was hanging out at the beach with Jill wasting time. It does seem like he kind of wants to have his Presidency and enjoy his retirement, too. Bad idea. Arguably, if he does survive this mess, it is better that he get a wake up call during Summer so that he knows he has to work his ass off every day moving forward. We'll see.

Those numbers are not particularly bad for Biden. If anything, they lean a bit toward supporting Biden's argument: grow a spine and just ride out the storm of a really bad debate. Since last November there has been a pretty stable pattern in the RCP polling average. Trump gets up to 47 % and change when he is doing best. Biden gets down to about 44 % when he is doing worst. That's about where they both are right now. But sometimes (mid-April, early June) they are almost tied in the RCP national average. So while being down 3 % is not good news for Biden, it is no worse news than at any other point since November. Biden's low point was in January, when he hit 43 % in the poll average. That's lower than the 44 % he is at now. So if this debate was supposed to be the fatal blow, it didn't work. At least not yet. All through 2016 people said Hillary was way ahead of Trump in the polls. That was mostly true. But there were a few points when Trump actually led Hillary be a fraction of one point. You didn't have to be an Einstein to figure out that if that happened on exactly the wrong day, Trump could be POTUS. Surprisingly, given what happened in 2000, no one (other than Ron Brownstein perhaps) was focused on the idea that Hillary could actually win the popular vote by a few points and still lose. So in 2024 Biden could win by simply being close to Trump on election day. And while it was true in 2016 that Hillary's 2 point national win did not translate to wins in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, it's not at all clear that's the case in 2024. In fact, Biden's been behind in those states pretty much the same or less as he's been behind nationally. Right now RCP says Biden is behind 3.4 % nationally. But he is behind 0.6 % in Michigan, 1 % in Wisconsin, and 3 % in Pennsylvania, in the RCP averages. So the idea that Biden has to beat Trump by 2 % or more nationally just to barely win in the three Rust Belt swing states does not appear to be true. More than anything, these polls seem to disprove the idea that Biden is just demented, and dead meat. Pretty much everyone agrees that the debate was an utter disaster for Biden. Pretty much everyone agrees that the very worst thing that could happen to Biden is he came off looking like a demented old fool. The whole world is now focused on the very thing the campaign tried desperately to avoid focusing on: Biden's age. The post-debate polls in these swing states simply don't match the prognosis that Biden is demented, or politically dead.