Why should Joe Biden stay?

[stevenkesslar]

 

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

 

Quote

This, then, is what Biden loyalists are fighting for. It seems one of the most poisoned chalices ever on offer to a politician and his retinue. Perhaps they are right that Trump’s demagoguery and unpopularity will convince voters to back Biden regardless of doubts about his age. But is this really the presidency they wanted? Shouldn’t they be asking themselves that very question before they continue their campaign? 

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.  

Quote

Americans lean left on economic policy. Polls show that they support restrictions on trade, higher taxes on the wealthy and a strong safety net. Most Americans are not socialists, but they do favor policies to hold down the cost of living and create good-paying jobs….The story is different on social and cultural issues. Americans lean right on many of those issues, polls show (albeit not as far right as the Republican Party has moved on abortion).

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.

[RockyRoadTravel]

47 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

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.

Steve. Biden can govern, he's done it more than competently for four years. Can he campaign? Can he create and deliver an effective narrative exposing the shit storm of lies of the defeated former President. So far, he has not been able to.  Over four years he hasn't been able to deliver a critique of Trump's incompetence.  Of course Merrick Garland hasn't helped, he so cautious (in normal times probably a good thing) and has so fastidiously kept to the rules and a very narrow interpretation of the law, which hasn't been effective against Trump as a street fighter con man. 

[stevenkesslar]

11 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Biden can govern, he's done it more than competently for four years

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.

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

The question on the table now is, "Can Joe Biden win?"  

If he can't win, everything about what he could do in a second term is wishful thinking.

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.

[RockyRoadTravel]

5 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

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.

Just to belabor this. If past is prologue, Biden not being able to nail Trump's Jello to any cohesive narrative tree over the last four years, he's unlikely to be able to do it in the next four months. I've seen Gavin Newsom be able to critique, and encapsulate in a couple of effective headlines, Trump's shit storm of lies in a single interview.

Joe the world ain't fair. You can govern. What's needed is a campaigner.  

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

What's needed is a campaigner.  

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.

 

 

[Riobard]

How to keep Trump out? Gordian Knot #1. Analysis Paralysis 1.0

Who can do it? Gordian Knot #2. Analysis Paralysis 2.0

This situation is palliative, gridlock, stalemate, insoluble in its own terms, Sophie’s Choice. Can’t call it; can’t not call it. Zero-sum tug of war.

No sword will cut through it. What Alexander would wield it? Running in loops is the sole cold comfort available and what is manifest. 

A child could do no worse; a child has simpler eyes on the prize. It’s just the way the confluence of factors and events rolled out. It can happen to the smartest people most deserving of good. In other systemic relational terms divorce can work; can’t easily fly here as the easiest way out.

The coin will teeter off its edge in due course. 4 months of overtime to knockout stage. It’ll zip along. Then at least a known entity of one ilk or other. Not shared in desirability terms, but relieving the agony of second-guessing heads or tails.

I savour no popcorn penning this.

[stevenkesslar]

37 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Sophie’s Choice

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.

[Suckrates]

41 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

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 I repeat,  the media is making this situation much worse for Biden in the publics eyes....  They are portraying Biden as a man without a home,  the nominee that the party now doesnt want.   Doesnt inspire alot of confidence in voters to want him if even his own party doesnt,  DOES IT ?     And I say, lets hear from Meryl, and Streisand and Taylor Swift.....  All these elites support couldnt make the situation any worse,  could it ?    

[RockyRoadTravel]

38 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

And I repeat,  the media is making this situation much worse for Biden in the publics eyes....  They are portraying Biden as a man without a home,  the nominee that the party now doesnt want.   Doesnt inspire alot of confidence in voters to want him if even his own party doesnt,  DOES IT ?     And I say, lets hear from Meryl, and Streisand and Taylor Swift.....  All these elites support couldnt make the situation any worse,  could it ?    

What are you suggesting/thinking is the way forward? 

[Suckrates]

7 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

What are you suggesting/thinking is the way forward? 

To STOP procrastinating and doing surveys and make a decision to either keep him and support him OR replace him with a competent replacement, whomever.  Its not as if we have a year till election day, its around the corner. . The electorate would need time to get used to a new nominee if that be the case.   I'm sick and tired of how these Dems operate....They cant seem to make quick decisions and rally for their team....   Biden is giving an unscripted Press conference tonight,  now the Dems are waiting to see how that goes and how they can pick it apart.   Not sure what they are expecting.  Biden wont be any younger or less frail.  I doubt the Incredible Hulk will be showing up ?

[RockyRoadTravel]

2 hours ago, Suckrates said:

To STOP procrastinating and doing surveys and make a decision to either keep him and support him OR replace him with a competent replacement, whomever.  Its not as if we have a year till election day, its around the corner. . The electorate would need time to get used to a new nominee if that be the case.   I'm sick and tired of how these Dems operate....They cant seem to make quick decisions and rally for their team....   Biden is giving an unscripted Press conference tonight,  now the Dems are waiting to see how that goes and how they can pick it apart.   Not sure what they are expecting.  Biden wont be any younger or less frail.  I doubt the Incredible Hulk will be showing up ?

Okay. Thanks 

[RockyRoadTravel]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

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.

I'm only saying this to frighten you.  Harris/Machin. 

[Riobard]

So mind boggling. (Conference: Welp, that happened.)

Why is regicide, or not, the sole binary? What about collaborative executive leadership superimposed on the hierarchical model? It’s already so essential to governance in general and offers counterpoint to the opponent party structure. The Dem leadership team’s systemic disintegration is as daunting as its figurehead’s normative developmental decline. Give me a dottery guy over a clowder of felines overdosed on catnip any day.

Clinging rigidly to isomorphism without recognizing isomorphism’s liabilities simply cannot end well. Back off the mirroring. Change it up in a way not yet even particularly considered. Gestalt over the obsessive linearity of succession.

A pathological paradoxical bind calls for a paradoxical intervention. Tweak a few dials on the face of the ticket, ‘Biden & Biden’s’, a Dem collective, even perhaps seemingly counterintuitively, while adhering to constitutional structure. If a republic cannot work out something as common as porphyria-grade happenstance what and why was the bother?

That the current state is heated is an illusion. It’s a frozen blob of plasticine; the media is only cryogenic. When working with divorce in family systems the first task is to unveil isomorphism; its nature in that context is often mutual antipathy, entrenched positioning. You divert the focus from parental polarization to the greater family good. A few key interventions that takes thinking outside the box and warms things up to a point of greater malleability. Unite the family to functionality, not unlike the quirky if not boldly overcapitalizing CNN licorice ad.

Lead with the idea of sustaining banishment; it’s already the weird basis anyway. It takes a village to take watch on evil’s exile. Prez-Plus. Plus is the safety net. Both/and not either/or. 

[RockyRoadTravel]

He is an on-going gaffe machine that's for sure. 

[EmmetK]

Another embarrassing performance by Dementia Joe yesterday:

   

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

[Bingo T Dog]

49 minutes ago, EmmetK said:

Another embarrassing performance by Dementia Joe yesterday:

   

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

 

[EmmetK]

 

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

[Riobard]

But guess what. In fairness, isn’t DT the 1st sitting VICE president?

[RockyRoadTravel]

7 hours ago, EmmetK said:

 

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

Why do you keep pointing out the economic collapse that Trump orchestrated?  Yes, the economy collapsed under Trump with his incompetence and complete bungling the national response to the pandemic. Was gas cheap, yes, of course, the economy fell apart under Trump.  The USA had amongst the worst death toll, and economic suffering under Trump during the pandemic when compared to our allies.  Trump was a weak leader. We all know that, why do you keep reminding us? 

  

[RockyRoadTravel]

10 hours ago, EmmetK said:

Another embarrassing performance by Dementia Joe yesterday:

   

TRUMP 2024
MAGA

You really need to stop pointing out Trump referring to Nikki Haley as Nancy Pelosi.  You go on and on about Trump's mental decline and constant word salads.  

[Suckrates]

34 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

You really need to stop pointing out Trump referring to Nikki Haley as Nancy Pelosi.  You go on and on about Trump's mental decline and constant word salads.  

The insane right always presents a one-sided argument.  They will never point out any flub or nonsensical comments that Trump makes....NEVER......  They fear that they will have their racist MAGA cards revoked, and they are only able to exist and survive in the MAGA cult, since they are not fit or equipped to live in a world of fact ,rationale or law. . 

[stevenkesslar]

20 hours ago, Riobard said:

A pathological paradoxical bind calls for a paradoxical intervention.

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?

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

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?

 

 

.

[Riobard]

A paradoxical intervention simply breaks an endless reinforcing feedback loop by doing something unexpected.

At the macro level it might mean restructuring the polarized candidacy by watering down the underlying ‘only Biden or Trump’ dynamic. It has recently evolved to ‘only Biden or not Biden can surpass Trump’. That’s insane because it’s true but may not be true; hence, endless analysis paralysis. The bind is paradoxical because damned if you do or don’t do Biden if the choice presents an intolerable dilemma. The magnificent obsession of the goal is pathologically obsessive. Yet Biden can only beat Trump if a subpopulation beats Trump. The face of that is Biden. That is inherently odd because the persuasion factor rests on a single person’s functionality, as if a collective (Democrats, Biden’s team, etc) that governs has been hamstrung.

Paradoxically, the team is swallowing its tail, hamstringing itself by squabbling. From an outsider’s point of view the idea of nonhierarchical situational leadership, that is, the collective that props up Biden and one another is disintegrating. I wouldn’t vote for how that broader entity shows itself currently. If a win is a win for all then put Biden’s name down and be OK with it meaning something else, non-binary. Concede his functionality and move on. Recuse him from denigrating his opponent. Let the opponent’s madness shine and delegate highlighting that persistent get out of jail free insanity to those better equipped. As I said, he cannot convincingly sting. Better that he express sympathetic kindness.

Sadly, at this point an equal ticket font Biden/Harris connotes Biden deficiency as opposed to collective collaborative strength. The party breakdown so far may make the veracity of unity hard to buy. Any paradoxical intervention is an anomaly with unpredictable sequelae. It just shifts the feedback loop, but that is what is needed. I haven’t perceived a deviation from that loop’s recent emergence and rigidity. 

By understandably demonizing Trump the antithesis of dictatorship is a white knight. Romanticism is darling but there’s no Lancelot in this picture, only a wannabe quixotic Braveheart . Only a genuine mythological hero could say “I’m the one for the job”; saying it would be superfluous anyway. Remove it from the job description. 

Paradoxical intervention at a micro level, and I’m just illustrating to encourage conceptual grasp, not recommending in this case because macro pathology is too entrenched: If paralyzingly anxious about a flub, prescribe a flub followed by recovery practice and hold back revelation regarding intentionality, deliberate or non-volitional. But guess what. Who has finessed that and cannot flub because anxiety is a foreign concept and flubs are too weird to be irrefutably unintentional, that is, non-considered and unedited babble? Sits back and let‘s another’s imperfection rain a shitstorm. Makes no mistakes because the idea that anybody can make them suggests empathy. Brightest moron ever.

[Riobard]

17 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

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?

 

 

Hahaha. I can’t get ‘How do you solve a problem like DeeJayTee’ out of my head now that you bring up Rainbow and propose a Gilbert & Sullivan bastardization. Maybe Randy has already done it. A lot of the lyric text could remain. And he or somebody else did something with the O&H Goodnight song.