WSJ: Biden Shows Signs of Slipping

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand that these people cannot say publicly what they're probably telling him privately.

 

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

The fact that even some Democrats have put this forward speaks to this truth. 

I'm glad you included the words "probably" and "some".  The fact is we have no idea what those Governors said to Biden.  We have no idea what most party leaders are saying in private.  I think the only thing we know for sure is that opinion is all over the map.

Here's one thing I view as bedrock.  Nancy Pelosi knew it was important to avoid a party bloodbath replacing her last year.  She was successful in choreographing a transition free of division and conflict.  Both Trump and Biden knew it was in their interest to avoid a divisive primary bloodbath.  Both Republicans and Democrats rallied around their leaders, both of whom are or have been POTUS. Again, everyone in the big boy's and girl's room knew a bloodbath would hurt their chances.  My point is that I am 100 % sure Democratic party leaders are right now focused on one thing:  how do we stop this from turning into a bloodbath?  I am confident they will solve this problem.  As Lichtman said, they have a good Plan A and Plan B, if they want to avoid Trump and chaos.

In my view it was the luck of the draw whether Biden stumbled in a debate, or Trump had a stroke.  Either, or both, are disasters just waiting to happen.  So the idea that we somehow know that Biden is about to be diagnosed with dementia or Trump is about to have a stroke doesn't make any sense to me.  The day after the debate I was with three family members, and we all agreed there was maybe a 5 % chance that Biden would have to bow out.  I'd now say it's maybe 25 %.

I personally think that this was a godsend.  Even though the debate went exactly the opposite as planned.  Sometimes it makes sense to circle the wagons and suppress dissent.  But when 80 % of Americans say this guy is just too old, the strategy is simply not working.

Never Trump Republican pollster Frank Lutz said months ago that the party that will win is the party that does not have Biden or Trump as their nominee.  Since both are unpopular symbols of a stinky status quo.  The fact that Michelle Obama somehow beats Trump by double digits mainly speaks to the fact that a majority of people want hope and change again.  I think the wisest Democrats in the room are now quietly trying to figure out what that means.  And I don't think anyone knows the answer yet.

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

My Dad, on the other hand, lived to be almost 100 and died of cognitive heart failure

True.  It's an odd slip.  I of course meant congenital heart failure. 

I think it's because, as much as I love to talk about genitals, I tried to avoid doing so around Mom and Dad  😲

[Suckrates]

Whether Biden can make the case in his upcoming interview with Stephanopoulos that he can continue and is up for the job,  whether he can pull off public appearances now, the question remains will he be able to serve another 4 years.  From his condition now, my guess is he wont.  Kamala at the head of the ticket will surely bring the much needed black female vote,  her championing of Roe will appeal to all females that arent MAGA, she might surely bring a young energy that Gen Z-ers might align with, and her win would be Historic.....A black woman with a Jewish husband.....   Dems arent doing themselves any favor by delaying their decision.  Every second counts now..... The more time a new nominee has to build their campaign, the better, but I am losing faith in the Dems that they can make any good decision without procrastination and hand wringing.   IF Trump wins, we have only the Dems to thank for unleashing that monster and his minions on us.....

[unicorn]

34 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

...  It's an odd slip.  I of course meant congenital heart failure. 

I think it's because, as much as I love to talk about genitals, I tried to avoid doing so around Mom and Dad  😲

Congenital means present at birth. You were probably thinking of congestive heart failure. Another genital Freudian slip? Cock on your mind much?

[stevenkesslar]

3 minutes ago, unicorn said:

You were probably thinking of congestive heart failure. Another genital Freudian slip? Cock on you mind much?

You're getting my drift now.  😉

Actually, I was thinking of digestive congenitalitis.  It's a rare disease mainly afflicting former escorts who now have less cock to suck.  I don't think it is Biden's problem.  But how would I know.

Anyway, enough for the cocky humor. We now return you to your regularly scheduled bloodbath.

[unicorn]

43 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

,,, Michelle Obama somehow beats Trump by double digits ... the wisest Democrats in the room are now quietly trying to figure out what that means..

You think? What could that possibly mean? I'm sure these "wisest Democrats" are really trying hard to figure it out. Reminds me of clueless Justin Bieber's song, in which he remarks that people want to have sex with him, but don't enjoy his company, and he keeps asking "What does that mean?"....

Wanna argue all day, makin' love all night (All night)
First you're up, then you're down, and then between ('Tween)
Oh, I really wanna know

What do you mean? Oh, oh

 

[stevenkesslar]

8 minutes ago, unicorn said:

,,, Michelle Obama somehow beats Trump by double digits ... You think? What could that possibly mean?

It means you are the all knowing wise guy.  I think we should send you to DC to help Pelosi and Jeffries and Clyburn and Schumer figure it out.

Although I'm sure they don't even know what Grand Rounds means.  Thankfully, you have diagnosed the patient.  Why even get a formal evaluation?

Regardless, I stand by my idea that Michelle Obama clobbering Trump 50/39 in a hypothetical poll speaks to how many if not most voters are hungering for hope and change.

[EmmetK]

So according to Nutty Nancy, the Biden that we saw on stage last week displayed "wisdom, experience, strength and strategic thinking." I wonder why the WSJ articles didn't focus on that Nancy.... lol

Nutty Nancy lost any shred of credibility with that statement trying once again to gaslight the American public. Why does Nutty Nancy Pelosi and other dems make stupid comments like that?. According to them, any criticism should be balanced by a compliment. To hell with the truth. 
It always amazes me that liberal democrats like to complain that a news outlet had the gall to print something they weren’t told to print.

Dementia Joe Biden is not the only democrat slipping...Pelosi is fading from her over use of booze...the others are trying to stay relevant but nobody is listening to their tripe anymore...

As Nutty Nancy is fond of saying - President Trump is engaged in a cover-up. He’s guilty of obstructing our attempts to frame him… lol.

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

 

 

 

[EmmetK]

Dementia Joe is not only feeble and mentally unfit, but he is also corrupt:

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

[Bingo T Dog]

2 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Dementia Joe is not only feeble and mentally unfit, but he is also corrupt:

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

Trump admires Hitler.  I bet Hitler would strongly approve of PROJECT 2025!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stable Genius]

4 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Dementia Joe is not only feeble and mentally unfit, but he is also corrupt:

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

 

[EmmetK]

51 minutes ago, Stable Genius said:

 

The world now knows that the one-sided, corrupt J6 Committee destroyed evidence that was exculpatory to President Trump. Each and every Committee member, including RINO swine Cheney, should face charges. Whether or not that includes treason will be up to Trump's AG. My choice for that job is Judge Jeanine Pirro.

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

[Bingo T Dog]

11 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

My choice for that job is Judge Jeanine Pirro.

Arrested for driving 125 mph.  KNOWN for EXCESSIVE drinking.  REALLY????????????????????????????

[Riobard]

Apparently today on campaign trail:

“I will beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in 2020. By the way we’re going to do it again in 2024.”

”When you get knocked down you get back up.”

First order of business: orientation to time … 

[Riobard]

11 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Apparently today on campaign trail:

“I will beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in 2020. By the way we’re going to do it again in 2024.”

”When you get knocked down you get back up.”

First order of business: orientation to time … 

But these are merely cherry-picked observations in what was evidently a rousing speech.

Full disclosure: I just plagiarized a bit from Sanjay Gupta’s earlier post regarding the debate … 

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Each and every Committee member, including RINO swine Cheney, should face charges.

The part of this that is not just funny stupid nonsense is that Trump would actually do it, if elected, thanks to his hand picked right wing SCOTUS justices wanting to empower his most authoritarian whims.

The Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating involved Trump specifically telling his radical supporters to go The Capitol, where they beat the leaving shit out of lots of cops.  Mayor Eric Adams decried the "river of guns" flowing into NYC from states with Republican "let guns flow" policies, thus resulting in the brutal murder of NYC cops from Republican-sanctioned illegal guns.  Murder and violent crime are down about 15 % in 2023 under Biden's pro-cop Administration.  But the lying fact-free idiots of Fox News can only bitch about crime in blue cities, while they ignore the massive spike in murder and crime under Trump in 2020 that Biden has now reversed.

Republicans are not the party of truth, law, and order.  They are the party of lies, guns, and violent authoritarianism.

Police officers injured during Jan. 6th Capitol attack denounce Trump as anti-law enforcement

P

 

[stevenkesslar]

9 minutes ago, Riobard said:

But these are merely cherry-picked observations in what was evidently a rousing speech.

The axiom in politics is, "When you're explaining, you're losing."  Biden is now a textbook example of that.

Part of the problem is that his explanations make things worse.

He traveled the globe twice, after which he took a few days off and then spent a week at Camp David preparing for the debate.  If that is asking too much of a POTUS, he is basically explaining why he should not be POTUS.

Almost every Democratic leader and pundit agrees that Biden needs to get out a lot more.  He tells the Democratic Governors the problem is he needs to go to bed earlier.  Huh?

So far, the more he or his surrogates explain, the more he has to explain.  That's not a winning strategy.

[unicorn]

56 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

...

Almost every Democratic leader and pundit agrees that Biden needs to get out a lot more.  He tells the Democratic Governors the problem is he needs to go to bed earlier.  Huh?...

That was a quick 180. Weren't you just defending him 2 days ago?

[unicorn]

On 7/4/2024 at 1:10 PM, stevenkesslar said:

It means you are the all knowing wise guy...

 

[stevenkesslar]

55 minutes ago, unicorn said:

That was a quick 180. Weren't you just defending him 2 days ago?

No 180 on my part.  More like 100 % behind Allan Lichtman, who is focused on how Democrats win and Trump loses. 

If there is an all knowing wise guy in this debate, he's it.  He was right 10 out of 10 times in picking who would win, and why they would win.  (I'm excusing his call for Gore in 2000.  Lichtman argues Gore actually won, if the votes were all counted.  Even if you disagree, Gore won the popular vote and the electoral college outcome hinged on a small number of votes in one state.)

In fact, I'll take a victory lap and argue I out-Lichtmaned Lichtman.

In his first few chats with CNN, right after the debate, Lichtman argued that Biden withdrawing from the race in a way that led to a party bloodbath (my word, not his) would be a disaster for Democrats.  I agree.  What I found confusing, and wrote in several posts, is that it seems like Biden resigning the Presidency and letting Harris run as the consensus candidate AND POTUS would solve that problem.

Sure enough, a few days later Lichtman did an interview on News Nation I posted above in which he said exactly that.  To summarize again, he has a Plan A and Plan B.  Plan A is President Biden runs for re-election under the Biden/Harris ticket, and is favored to win.  Plan B is that President Harris runs for re-election under the Biden/Harris ticket, and is favored to win.  I'm no pollster, let alone Allan Lichtman.  Nor am I a neurologist.   But my gut feeling is the same as yours, @unicorn.  I think we agree.  Biden at least appears to be showing signs of slipping.  If 80 % of voters, including most Democrats, think he is not the best candidate to beat Trump, that merits serious reflection.

Speaking of neurologists, Sanjay Gupta has weighed in with excellent advice, using words that seem to lean slightly to our shared opinion - emphasis on the word opinion.

Biden should undergo ‘detailed cognitive and movement disorder testing,’ Sanjay Gupta says

Gupta said low sleep, low blood sugar levels, or illness could have contributed to his debate performance.

Quote

“Are we looking at episodes of something? Or is this a condition that should be more fully investigated? And it really seems to be more of the latter,” Gupta said Friday on CNN.

Perhaps coincidentally, that echoes the precise words of Nancy Pelosi.  Is this an episode, or a condition?  They both are making a lot of sense.

The only thing I would add is that Trump should take the same tests.  Including one specifically for narcissistic personality disorder.

I'll point out what I view as the key flaw in Lichtman's initial logic, in his first CNN interview.  He said Biden should be judged by three and a half years of performance, not 90 minutes of debate.  I absolutely agree, as far as that goes.  But I think the reason 80 % of Americans are concerned is they see two old men, neither of whom appear to be fit to serve.  The question is about the future, not the past.  Lichtman appears to have gotten the memo.

I think Gupta's advice lays the groundwork for both Plan A and Plan B.  Best case for Biden, it was low blood sugar and a cold.  Reagan and Obama both survived debates in which they stumbled and fumbled.  And in Reagan's case even seemed senile and lost for a moment.  Worst case for Biden, it lays the groundwork for his resignation for the good of party and country. If Lichtman's Keys are right for the 11th time in a row, President Harris is set up to run as the consensus candidate, and incumbent.  And kick the gross old porn star fucking felon she will run against into the shit can of history, once and for all.

 

[Riobard]

Gupta means well and I liked his personal account of evaluation, but slow your roll, Dr Ben Casey.

To my way of thinking it would be imperative to establish a priori score and other results cut-off points for determining acceptable President role capacity if such testing is to be used in credential terms. Such an endeavour would be a monumental task hardly attainable over a short time. The battery of tests could have utilitarian merit, however, as the subject and inner circle would be provided with a  breadth and depth of potentially more objective data to consider in his appraisal of his own fitness.

As I suggested earlier, practice / rehearsal on many cognitive tests introduces recall bias influencing results favourably. In contrast, being an impromptu evaluative curve thrown at the Jessica Lange character in The Great Lillian Hall (Broadway production insurance the context) yielded a more damning result.

Interestingly, standardized scores on the widely used assessment tool employed in the film reflect cognitive impairment for the majority of adults of any age with less than Grade 12 education. No age group scores within that variable match those of folks age 70-80 with post-secondary education. Age and education just examples of several demographic variables associated with score variance above and below normative cut-off values. Try to establish an arbitrary binary cut-off of fitness when several extenuating factors that highlight flaws within tried and true tests will inevitably enter the mix. (Parenthetically, speaks to voter legitimacy.)

There is a huge array of factors to consider over a limited period of time in integrating formal assessment with the already existing demands for meta-synthesis of information over which there already exists discord about what credentials are arbitrarily essential and what salutary qualities and context merit consideration in spite of isolated deficiencies.

Gupta is certainly on to something. It needs to be realistically planned, not on the crash-cart. He executed his own pursuit of testing for a special. Repurposing it precipitously in the way now proposed? Not so sure.

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, Riobard said:

Gupta is certainly on to something. It needs to be realistically planned, not on the crash-cart. He executed his own pursuit of testing for a special. Repurposing it precipitously in the way now proposed? Not so sure.

Gupta himself said a version of what you are saying on CNN today.  He was talking more generally about cognitive tests, as you are.  But he said one value of anyone over 65 getting the tests annually is it develops a baseline to compare to future results.  That's obviously not an option with Biden.

There are also articles online about how Biden "maybe" has Parkinson's or "maybe" has some other condition based on some credentialed professional being willing to speculate on the internet.   

I think the most concerning thing, which won't help Biden deal with the political fallout, is that he said to Georgey Boy on TV tonight that he wouldn't take a cognitive test, and didn't need to, because his everyday performance as POTUS is itself a cognitive test.  By that logic, of course, about 80 % of Americans (who are not doctors) believe he is failing the test.

Whatever comes of Gupta's recommendations, these are the numbers that probably matter more:

Would Kamala Harris Do Better Than Biden?

That's one post-debate CNN poll that shows Biden 6 points behind versus Harris at 2 points behind Trump.  A YouGov poll showed both Biden and Harris 2 points behind Trump.  An Ipsos poll showed Biden tied with Trump, and Harris 1 point behind Trump.  In other words, it is still a close race.  And at least based on these three polls it is more or less a coin toss between Biden and Harris, if one is to go by polls.  All the other likely suspects - the Democratic Governors like Newsom and Whitmer - poll worse than either Biden or Harris.

The interesting thing about that chart above is that it appears that Harris might do better than Biden among the specific Democratic constituencies Biden badly needs, but has big problems with:  non-White voters, young voters.  And, probably most important, Independents.  If more public or private polls show the same thing, that would help explain why there seems to be ongoing and maybe growing momentum from Biden to Harris publicly, or just underneath the surface, among Democratic leaders and donors.

I think it's a pretty good guess that Biden would outperform Harris among rural White men in Iowa.  But neither are going to win Iowa, anyway.  What the chart above suggests is that if the Presidential race boils down to who can win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, Harris might have some real advantages if this polling is reinforced by more polls.

Meanwhile, I'll recite ad nauseum what the wisest guy in the room, Lichtman, is saying.  What's less important is whether Democrats end up with Biden or Harris.  What's more important is how Democrats do it.  I think Lichtman is right that if Biden is not the nominee, he should resign and let Kamala run as POTUS.  The logical reason for him to do that would be some kind of diagnosis.  Other than lots of Democratic leaders and most voters wanting him to step aside.

 

[Suckrates]

Bottom line is that whomever the nominee is, even if its Kermit the Frog, you need to vote for them.  This race is not about the "person" running, its about what kind  of country we will have,  and even with a shuffling, stuttering, teetering/tottering Biden , we are better off with him and his strong, alert and younger administration around him that with a maniacal Trump and his merry band of felons, jailbirds and insurrectionists, that will strip Americans of every right they have, while his own pockets grow fatter and fatter...Think about 4 years or MORE of Steven Miller leering at you with his sicko Joker grin, and Kash Patel screaming and ranting, and of course, that pig Bannon, with his fresh prison smell.....  Yup, Kermit the Frog seems like a pretty good option !  

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Suckrates said:

Yup, Kermit the Frog seems like a pretty good option !  

Call me woke, but I still like the idea of a woman running against the pussy grabbing Felon In Chief.

If we can't have Kamala, can we at least have Miss Piggy?

[Suckrates]

While theres no escaping the fact Biden is slipping, its so sad the entire GOP is eagerly lined up and salivating to grab a Golden ring with a Trump victory.  but in reality all they will be getting is a crusty old cum soaked cockring. 

A slipping old man should be the choice for EVERYONE over a crazed lunatic and and spineless bunch to sniveling, cowardly powerless coat tail riders....

If MAGA maniacs think they will be better off saving 50 cents on a carton of eggs over saving their Democracy and Freedoms, then "Let them eat Cake".....AND their words. .  

[Riobard]

I’m not American and my exposure to Biden, Gupta, etc, is limited, my impressions cursory. But perhaps a one-week transverse outsider view counts for something as adjunct to extended info flooding. 

I watched Biden on ABC. I think he would score perfectly on Mini Mental State Exam testing, often the first step in screening. Its items can be altered to mitigate rote exposure bias. I think he’s a nice guy but naïve. Irrespective of cognitive function he’s not particularly smart and insightful. He knows stuff; that’s nice, an experienced and relatable politician. Higher office and advanced intelligence are not well correlated. Worse yet, his advisers are not smart and cannot read the room.

I wish I had been able to coach him on what was obviously going to be a pivotal question on openness to evaluation. There would have been a better short and simple way to decline without the tone of oppositionality and pre-Fall pride, and/or reporting having been concretely screened at least at a rudimentary level with illustration beyond ‘well, my clinicians handle that’ [non-sic]. Goode Lawd A’mighty, doesn’t VP Biden (🤔😉) have an EdD? 

Gupta’s idea about baseline standardized cognitive paper+interview testing is not terrible. Annually is not appropriate for a lot of reasons. Follow-up at particular junctures over time could be useful. Normative score value references are as useful as within-subject longitudinal comparisons.