Time To Panic?

[ Posted Friday, June 28th, 2024 – 16:50 UTC ]

I cleared the decks for this column, preferring to spend today reviewing the first presidential debate of the 2024 cycle instead of writing a standard "Friday Talking Points" column. But if I had gone with my weekly format, President Joe Biden would easily have won my Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, hands down. His debate performance last night was not just disappointing, it was downright abysmal.

There's no other way to say it really -- Joe Biden lost the debate to Donald Trump. It was downright painful to watch, in fact. Most people I have spoken to afterwards didn't even make it through the entire thing, because they had to look away at some point.

How bad was it? Well, when the biggest subject Democrats (and most of the pundits) are talking about afterwards is the possibility of Biden stepping down so a new nominee could be chosen at the Democratic National Convention, that's pretty bad.

It was so bad I don't think I'm going to have the stamina to do a normal debate review here, where I go through my notes and tease out some insightful observations to share. Everyone else in the media world seems to have done an adequate job of this already, and like I said I just don't have the energy to do that at this point.

Can I even bring myself to say something nice about Biden's debate performance? Well, he did counter some of Trump's egregious lies, he did make some cogent points, and he did get emotional and relatable several times during the evening. But it was all completely overshadowed by how bad his performance was overall.

It's hard to even imagine how Biden could have done any worse -- that's how bad it truly was. His voice was raspy and hard to hear (very quiet), his thought trains derailed during almost every single answer he gave, he occasionally drifted off and froze for a few seconds, he could not keep on the topic at hand even when it was the most favorable to him (case in point: he started talking about an immigrant who murdered someone during his answer on abortion), he got his facts and figures wrong (he bragged about creating "15,000 new jobs" instead of 15 million), and even at his most animated he was hard to hear and almost impossible to logically follow.

I said before this debate that it would be won and lost on style, not substance. Stylistically, Trump cleaned Biden's clock. I also said that the only way Trump could win was if he somehow stuck to the rules and didn't lose his cool. To many people's astonishment, Trump managed to do both to a large extent. There was no shouting over Biden's answers (except briefly, at the end, when the two challenged each other to a round of golf, of all things), there was no flying off the handle, there was just Trump lying his usual lies and spreading his usual toxic talking points. But Trump's voice was clear, he got his sentences out without many stumbles, and he sounded forceful and commanding. Biden was the opposite of all those things (and even that's being charitable).

Part of the problem last night was the absolute abdication of CNN's moderators when it came to fact-checking Trump in any way whatsoever. Trump was allowed to tell the biggest lies imaginable, and it was left for Joe Biden to counter all of them. Which he didn't do a great job of -- even when he did take on Trump's lies directly, his delivery was so soft-spoken that it didn't convey the right message (of outrage at Trump's falsehoods). Trump was able to essentially hit all the talking points from one of his rallies -- almost all of which are factually incorrect to some degree or another -- completely unchallenged. Biden prepared for this debate for an entire week, and he should have had responses to most of Trump's go-to lies all cued up and ready to go. He did try, on a few occasions, to call Trump's lies out (to be fair). But they all fell pretty flat. If you just read the transcript of the debate (and don't actually watch it), my guess is that some of Biden's pushback would be impressive. If you didn't hear his delivery, that is.

It got so bad that Team Biden put out an explanation halfway through the debate -- Biden had a cold. That's why his voice was weak and hard to hear, and that's why his answers were so choppy and rambling and hard to listen to. But this seemed more like a desperation move than anything else, otherwise they would have played the "he has a cold" card before the debate even began, to lower expectations.

Some are calling last night's debate the worst performance in presidential debate history. It's hard to argue with that -- it certainly was one of the worst I have ever seen, that's for sure. I also heard a very cringeworthy description of Biden's body language, while he was shown on the split-screen listening to Trump speak. Biden stood there "slack-jawed." Again, it is hard to argue with this description. Biden did stand with his mouth gaping open and a rather lost look in his eyes. Biden is no idiot (even last night), but at times last night he could indeed be accurately described at times as slack-jawed, sad to say.

That's how bad it was, in a nutshell.


The open convention option

It didn't take long for Democrats to panic, almost en masse. Most of the pundits reviewing the debate afterwards had already been deluged with what they charmingly like to call Democratic "bedwetting." This included a whole lot of people grasping at one particular straw -- Joe Biden should realize he is not up to the task and immediately step back and throw his party's nomination open.

It's easy to see -- for anyone who watched the entire debate -- why this reaction was so common. The feeling has only intensified now that all the pundits have written about it and forced the discussion into the open rather than happening behind closed doors. The New York Times ran an editorial today titled: "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave The Race." Biden basically had one job to do last night: prove to the American public that -- despite his advanced age -- he was still up to the task of running the country for the next four years. He failed miserably at this task. He didn't even get close to hitting that goal. In fact, he reinforced the doubts that were already out there.

Maybe Biden just had a (very) bad night. Maybe he is a lot more focused and cogent right now. Maybe he is still in total command of running his administration and the country at large. Maybe. But even if you grant him that, will he still be up to doing the same job in two years' time? Or four? You can see the toll his first term has already taken on the man. Will he even be able to survive a second term? After last night, it certainly seems doubtful.

There is a lot of second-guessing happening today about Biden's decision to run for re-election in the first place. He hinted at being a "transitional president" when he ran in 2020, which seemed to suggest that maybe he would indeed pass the torch to a younger generation after only one term. Which he might have actually been convinced to do -- if Trump hadn't run. But Joe Biden firmly believes that he is the only one who can beat Trump. He believed it in 2020 when few others did, and he was proved right. He was confident heading into the midterm elections when most everyone else was predicting a "red wave," and once again Biden was right. But the third time doesn't look like it is going to be "the charm," it's rather looking like the old "three on a match" superstition instead.

Because Biden didn't voluntarily step back from running, no Democrat of national stature took him on in the primaries. After all, challenging a sitting president of your own party is the height of partisan disloyalty, especially if he wins a second term (where you will doubtlessly pay a political price for the sheer effrontery). So all the big names sat it out.

At this point, it is Biden and Biden alone who could make such a decision. The primaries are over; Biden has enough convention delegates to win the nomination. Those are facts that cannot be changed. The only way we'd wind up with an "open" convention is if Biden himself freed up all his delegates voluntarily by echoing Lyndon Baines Johnson's 1968 declaration: "I shall not seek -- and I will not accept -- the nomination of my party for another term as your president." Perhaps his wife Dr. Jill Biden could talk him into it, but nobody else is going to be able to do that. Biden has a large streak of stubbornness, so party bigwigs coming to him to beg him to step down is likely only going to get him to dig in his heels more.

And for all the rampant speculation running around about this happening, the obvious question is: "What would happen next?" Who would be the nominee? And how vicious a fight would it be? Vice President Kamala Harris is the obvious next choice, but she is not a very satisfying one to Democrats freaking out about last night. Harris has even less support in public opinion polls than Biden. She is not what you'd call "charismatic." This is in keeping with the grand tradition of selecting charismatically-challenged politicians to run for vice president, in fact. Look at the list of the winners from the past few decades to confirm this: Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale. Not exactly a fun bunch of people to hang out with, you've got to admit.

To effectively have an open convention, Harris would also have to voluntarily step away from the nomination. Which I don't see likely to happen, personally. Harris sees herself as the "next candidate in line," and had no doubt been planning for the possibility of launching her next presidential run in 2028, after serving eight years with Joe Biden. But then so have a lot of other Democrats. If Harris refuses to step back, then she would be the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination at the convention (although she wouldn't be a shoo-in). But what are her chances of beating Trump, realistically?

One idea that hasn't occurred to many (as of yet) would be even more drastic -- Biden should just resign the presidency right now. That would be a political bombshell of nuclear proportions. But it would put Kamala Harris in the Oval Office for at least the remainder of this year. This could improve her standing with the public at large -- actually doing the job -- and give her a much better shot at defeating Trump. Or she could just be an interim president and announce she's not running for a full term (although this is the most far-fetched of all of these options, to be fair). That would certainly shake up the race in a major way no matter what the outcome. But it is incredibly hard to just walk away from the most powerful office on Earth, so somehow I just can't see Biden voluntarily resigning (at this point, at least).

Let's say just for the sake of argument that the real dream that many Democrats are desperately clutching at right now comes true -- both Biden and Harris step back in some way, making the convention a wide-open affair. In that case, it certainly is fun to play "put together a ticket" from all the Democrats who have been waiting in the wings for the 2028 campaign. Several of them have made national names for themselves already. There are governors on the list, senators, congressmen, cabinet members, former presidential candidates -- all in all, a decent mix to choose from. But I still see it all as merely a parlor game at best, since I don't really expect to see a wide-open convention fight. I could personally get excited to see a "Whitmer/Newsom" ticket (just to toss out one example), but I don't really think it is likely to happen.

The hard cold fact is that Democrats are not unified around any other candidate who could easily step in and pinch-hit for Joe Biden. It would be a messy fight, in other words -- even if Kamala Harris sat it out. This is one big reason why Biden decided to run again, because Trump's chances might have improved if the Democrats had waged a long and contentious primary race. To have that race now -- without the actual input of Democratic voters across the country -- could be an absolute disaster. Remember: after L.B.J. stepped back, Richard Nixon went on to win in 1968, in a landslide.


The fallout and the aftermath

So what happens now? Will the bedwetters be proven right and Joe Biden loses the election in November, giving us all four more years of Trump's chaos? Or will this all be just a bump in the road for Joe? The American people do have a rather short attention span ('tis true), and the debate didn't get very good ratings last night (meaning fewer people actually watched it).

The real question is whether last night changed anybody's mind or not. I would guess not -- although it may have served to further dampen Democratic enthusiasm for voting for Biden, which would be bad enough. But I seriously doubt whether many undecided voters tuned in, and if they did left with confidence in either candidate. I could be wrong about that, but we'll have to wait and see. But depressed enthusiasm for Biden might be enough to throw the race to Trump. With the polling so close, it wouldn't take much.

Can Biden recover from last night's disastrous performance? Well, stranger things have happened. Can his team spin it as just another sitting president doing poorly in his first re-election debate? Plenty of others have had bad nights in the same situation (although nowhere near as bad as last night). Joe Biden spoke to a rally in North Carolina today and was feisty and on top of things and seemed like a whole different person. He even owned up to what happened: "I don't debate as well as I used to," but he also showed no signs of second thoughts about his campaign either: "when you get knocked down, you get back up." Today, to put it a little differently, "State-Of-The-Union Biden" showed up, rather than "Debate Biden." Perhaps people's attention spans are short enough to largely erase the negatives from last night, if Biden can keep this up consistently.

One thing worth mentioning is that Biden has been spared one bit of blowback (at least, for now). Not only is Saturday Night Live off for the summer, but all the daily late-night television hosts have been on hiatus all week and will also assumably be off all next week as well (since there's a midweek holiday). That spares Biden the slings and arrows of the comedians, at least for a week or so. Even the most liberal comedian would have been almost honor-bound to make Biden a huge punchline after last night's debate, but by the time they return to the airwaves the panic may have died down somewhat, so the effects of their doing so will already be diminished. That's something, at any rate.

What last night will mean for Biden's chances (or, if he does step down, Democrats' chances) of victory in November is anyone's guess, of course. But one thing seems certain at this point -- if Biden does go on to lose to Trump, he will go down in the Democratic pantheon in a space right next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as someone whose own personal hubris got in the way of what should have been a graceful voluntary exit from the national political stage.

Biden stepping down now would admittedly be risky. But then so would him continuing his campaign. The question Democrats are asking themselves right now is which would be the bigger risk? Which might improve their chances of beating Trump once again? It is impossible to know, and no matter which choice we wind up with, it will also be impossible to tell if it was the right one (even if Trump is defeated). If Biden steps down and someone else wins, who knows whether Biden might also have been able to do so? It's all a big hypothetical, and a choice between two very big risks.

President Joe Biden has always believed that he is the only one than can beat Trump. But (and I do hate to say this, believe me) doesn't that sort of echo Trump himself? Every campaign Trump has run has included the same sort of construct: "I alone can save us all!" Maybe there's some other Democrat out there who would actually do a better job of beating Donald Trump? I am not the only one seriously considering that possibility today, to put it mildly.

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground


58 Comments on “Time To Panic?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The situation America finds itself in these days in terms of the political class is kind of like the current music industry - the old music from the 50s to the late nineties is the only music that is real and sounds great to my ears and the new stuff is mostly pitch-corrected and auto-tuned robotic, un-natural voices, devoid of personality and emotion, making it impossible to connect with a song.

    There doesn't seem to by anybody alive out there who is capable of replacing Biden AND beating the fake candidate Trump, in other words.

    With some luck and a lot of effort, the Biden campaign - and the music industry - can recover! I have more hope for the Biden campaign than I do for the music industry, though ... far more hope!

    And, there always has to be a scapegoat, hasn't wasn't the job of the moderators of this debate to fact check Trump.

    I don't think you can blame that debate performance last night on anyone but Biden. He admitted as much at his Great Rebound Rally today. Which all Dems should watch!

    he just needs to have many more outings like today - in the form of rallies ... and, mini pressers at the WH on a near weekly basis. And, he needs to talk about his age just like he did today.

    You know, formal debate settings have NEVER been his preferred venue. Some people can excel under those conditions and some cannot. Count Biden in the latter camp.

    There won't be any more debates, right?

    Finally, I would just say that Biden is the Rebound Kid and he needs a few more appearances like the Great Rebound Rally today. All panicky Dems need to watch this entire rally, including remarks by the First Lady.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did the New York Times editorialize about who might replace Joe Biden?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There has already been a serious effort that failed to find candidates to run on a third-party ticket, after all.

    Democrats don't need a new ticket. They just need to get back up and rebound and leave the non-serious BS behind. The other guy will keep that end up.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Maybe there's some other Democrat out there who would actually do a better job of beating Donald Trump? I am not the only one seriously considering that possibility today, to put it mildly.

    Well, if that is how you really feel, then one!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I bet you can't name a serious candidate to replace Joe Biden. Of course, just entertaining that notion is pretty non-serious.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If there was an actual FTP today, I would nominate Biden for both awards!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In another apt analogy to the state of the current music industry, Biden is classic rock - Canadian or otherwise - while the other guy is fake and robotic, devoid of the kind of character and personality that would be worthy of another term in the WH.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is there anyone alive out there!?

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm beginning to have visions and I have a hard time keeping them to myself. Heh.

    The visions are of the Phoenix rising up from the ashes on the Wings of Pegasus, or something.

    What I'm trying to say is that this is all going to work out, in the end. Not THE end ... but, in four more years because, Yes He Can!

    Why am I getting the uncontrollable urge to post a YouTube music video or two ...

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there's actually quite a lot of good music out there, but it's not as easy to find because distribution is decentralized.

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I may have posted this song before, but in the live version Marta explains what the poetry is about:

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, there's great new music out there - you just have to look far and wide for it. I am just lamenting the music industry standard these days of pitch correcting or autotuning everybody - great singers and lousy singers, alike.

    And, the fact that we don't really know what a 'live' performance is anymore ... not after discovering that the Eagles are trying to pull the wool over our eyes before our very ears.

    Don Henley has taken to miming Desperado at live performances. He has used the same pre-recorded vocals during at least two live performances last year and earlier this year. And, that's not even the worst of it! Not only has he been miming to pre-recorded vocals on this song but those pre-recorded vocals have been pitch corrected!!!

    So much for artist integrity. :(

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OMG ... Marta is playing a Mogabi portable guitar! She does have a lovely natural voice.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I didn't think those guitars were around back then ...

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "back then?" as in, 2011?

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, 2011 ... I was introduced to the Mogabi portable guitar just last year. Perhaps it was just the latest version but I thought the portability of it was a new element.

    Today, I just discovered that there is a portable Mogabi ELECTRIC guitar!

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is Fil's video on the portable electric Mogabi ...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done for the night - have a good one!

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I'm well rested now and listening to some real music featuring natural voices ...

    So, Biden has a lot of work to do to counter that God-awful debate performance AND change the status quo. And, there is still enough time to get that job done.

    That means more 'Great Rebound' rallies like the one yesterday in North Carolina, more unscripted sit-down interviews with worthy members of the free press, and near weekly mini-pressers from the WH. More Biden and less from his press secretary, in other words.

    Of course, it should go without saying, the less said about geopolitics and the long wars that have begun and continue through Biden's term in the oval office the better. Ahem.

    Now, there is talk of a contested convention. I say bring it on. I'm pretty sure Joe Biden will emerge the victor of that contest. Or, the Republicans will take the WH in 2025 ... and so much more!

  20. [20] 
    dsws wrote:

    Depends what you mean by a serious candidate to replace Biden. I think Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, Senator Amy Klobuchar, or Senator Cory Booker (list copied from would have a better chance of winning than Biden. But they aren't running for the nomination, and they shouldn't be. Biden should step aside (which means releasing the pledged delegates from their obligation to vote for him on the first ballot), then the CPD or whoever should organize a few debates, ordinary citizens should opine and donate, and the convention should choose the nominee.

  21. [21] 
    dsws wrote:

    Drat, the link doesn't work. Maybe this one will.

  22. [22] 
    dsws wrote:

    Looks as though the link does work, on the second attempt. That one is also a gift link, i.e. no paywall. Subscribers can generate ten of those per month, and I never use all of mine. I think it expires in a month.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you are living in fantasyland, Dan.

    None of those people are seriously capable of being POTUS - not compared with Biden, anyway - AND beating Trump.

    Remember, Hillary couldn't beat him but Biden did and can again.

    What makes you think that any of the people you mentioned from the article are capable of beating Trump?

    What do I mean by a serious candidate to replace Trump, you ask? Well, I thought I made that crystal clear ... someone who is ready to be president and who can also beat Trump. Do you seriously believe that any of them can get ready to be president in four months???

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, and I subscribe to the NYTimes, not that it does me any good. So, I can read the article you linked to. :)

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's performance in Raleigh, North Carolina on the afternoon following the devastating debate performance is what we need to see more of ... more rallies like this one, more unscripted one-on-one interviews with journalists worth their own salt, and mini presssers from the WH more often where there is some control of the obnoxious people who are collectively known as the WH press corps.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yikes, not sure what kind of slip I made there in [23] but, of course, I meant to tap out the following in response to Dan's query:

    What do I mean by a serious candidate to replace BIDEN, you ask? Well, I thought I made that crystal clear ... someone who is ready to be president and who can also beat Trump. Do you seriously believe that any of them can get ready to be president in four months???

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I think there actually is a way out of this for Biden and the Dems, but it would be a bitter pill for him to publicly swallow.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do tell, Joshua.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The bitter pill that would have to be swallowed, publicly, would come after Trump is re-elected ... in your little scenario, I mean.

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ah, Liz the mind-reader again. I haven't even shared my idea yet.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry ... I'm impatient, you know so, don't make me wait!

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can be SUCH a tease ... :)

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My suggestion would be for Biden to stay on the ticket, set a bold agenda for his first 100 days, promise to resign after his first 100 days, and to appoint the speaker of the house VP on his resignation, no matter what party said person happened to be a member of.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I had a similar thought except for the VP part and that none of it would be public. He would just need to get re-elected and then come what may. He stays as long as he can and I'd even be okay with Kamala taking over.

    I love the non-partisan aspect of your idea, though.

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The whole point that Biden ran on in the first place is that avoiding the consequences of another trump presidency for our nation is more important than any one president or even one party.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed. I am sure he wouldn't have even thought to run if Trump wasn't in the picture.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean in 2020. When he declined to run in 2016 in the aftermath of Beau's death, that was it for him, politcally, in his own mind, I am thinking.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your idea buys some precious time - perhaps even four years!

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Time for Democrats who are presidential material to come to the fore, so to speak.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, there is one big question around your idea. How can you set a bold agenda without controlling the House and Senate along with the WH?

    I've been around long enough to know that voters seem to shy away from united government and always tend to favour divided government.

    United government ie WH/House/Senate controlled by Dems could be one of the major messages over the course of the next four months ... this time voters could go for it!

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, there is one big question around your idea. How can you set a bold agenda without controlling the House and Senate along with the WH?

    I've been around long enough to know that voters seem to shy away from united government and always tend to favour divided government.

    United government ie WH/House/Senate controlled by Dems could be one of the major messages over the course of the next four months ... this time voters could go for it!

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I'm done for the day.

  43. [43] 
    dsws wrote:

    I assume that any Democratic senator or governor probably would be far less of a disaster as president than Trump would. As for likelihood of beating Trump in the election, they wouldn't have worse chance than Biden or I would. Negative probability isn't a thing.

    Well, maybe Hillary could find a way to have a negative probability of winning.

  44. [44] 
    dsws wrote:

    In fact, I bet that Gretchen Whitmer could go four years without committing any felonies at all.

  45. [45] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    I watched the entire debate; not without pacing and not without distress. What I didn't do was even give a moment's thought to Biden dropping out. Just because he was so terribly off doesn't mean he can't continue doing what he's doing in office.

    I'm so glad I'm not alone in the wilderness. If you have 21 minutes, I'd recommend watching How to make Biden's bad night into Trump's bad November, a pep talk from Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project.

    To quote from the blurb, "Host Rick Wilson discusses the debate between Biden and Trump, focusing on Biden's performance. Trump remains an existential threat to American democracy. The Lincoln Project is the tip of the spear with the unique ability to hit Trump in ways that only former Republicans can."

    The Lincoln Project has no intention of slowing or giving up its attacks on TFG. I think you'll find his commentary to be reassuring about where we are right now, about 130 days before the election.

    At the very end of his talk, he notes that The Lincoln Project had one of its highest fundraising days ever immediately after the debate. While that doesn't reflect one way or the other on Biden, it does mean that a whole raft of people stepped up to join the fight to beat TFG.

    In my opinion, Biden should stay in the fight and we as individuals should support him in any way we are able. Our democracy depends on it.

  46. [46] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Sad to say, the question isn't who would make a good or even adequate president. There's more than one Dem who probably would--just better than Trump is too low a bar. This year the question has to be who can beat Trump.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    I LOVE your comment! And, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.

    It is interesting that some of Biden's strongest supporters post-debate are Republicans! I love that, too! :)

    Did you see the Rebound Kid at the Great Rebound Rally in North Carolina on the afternoon following the debate? I really LOVED watching that!

    I listened to one of my regular British podcasts following the debate - the subject was 'Why Joe Biden Must Step Down'. I thought, good God! But, I gave it a listen. These two British pundits had themselves in a tizzy over Biden's horrible debate performance and the sky was falling and we are all doomed, blah, blah, blah-blah blah ... and, I've never seen anuses clenched so tight before! :)

    I can't believe how so many nominally serious people are losing it over this one debate and how they don't seem to understand that running a government is not in the same universe as being up to a debate.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    So, what you are saying is that ... what exactly is it that you are saying!?

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Thanks for posting that Lincoln Project podcast. The advice he gives here is very sound.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Now that you've had a chance to fully, ah, digest the happenings of this past Friday, I hope you have been able to put things in their proper perspective.

    America has a big political fight on its hands this election cycle. The stakes are high and the choice is clear.

    Now is not the time to throw up your hands and flail around in a state of panic. Now is the time to get serious and double down on re-electing Joe Biden.

    If you haven't seen the podcast from the Lincoln Project linked to in this comment thread by MyVoice, you really should have a look at it. Rick Wilson gives some very wise advice to Republicans who won't support Trump and to all Democrats who care about beating Trump.

    And it's too bad you didn't make this column a regular FTP column because I would have loved to nominate Biden for both awards this week after watching the Rebound Kid at the Great Rebound Rally in North Carolina on the Friday afternoon following the horrible debate.

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's interesting that the Democratic convention is happening so much later than the Republican convention

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Dream on, Joshua!

    I'll bet it's kind of scary that I can read your mind. :)

    Hoping Chris writes about SCOTUS today...

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear, there is no time left on the calendar to bring any Democrat up to speed to take on the presidency or the vice presidency... or Trump, for that matter.

    And, even if there were, I doubt that any of them could do what Biden can. Which is to say, beat Trump.

    So, time to pick yourselves up and restart fighting for Joe Biden and against an essentially SCOTUS-protected Trump.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'll bet it's kind of scary that I can read your mind. :)

    um, no. but it's kind-of silly that you think you can.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Have you lost your sense of humour, completely? :(

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I'm sorry ... I forgot, I suck at comedy. Never mind.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    um? Really?

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Happy Canada Day, Joshua!

Comments for this article are closed.