This election is a referendum on whomever has the greatest negative public perception. There is nothing he can possibly say to improve his polling, and it would only provide an opportunity for the hot story to shift away from the dumpster inferno that is the post debate fallout. The longer that stays the hot story, the better for his campaign.
Yep, Trump's favorability has consistently been at ~45% during his recent surge in the polls against Biden, and has in fact been at ~45% since Trump left office. People aren't suddenly viewing Trump favorably, it's just that Biden looks so much worse right now.
It's not just Biden. It's always been Trump vs Biden + the MSM. Media credibility is looking almost as bruised as Biden.
They'd be even more damaged if they hadn't [shanked](https://youtu.be/CKZtGZsX7Vk?si=Ka2qr2-0PVC3Dj6L&t=41) him the nanosecond the debate ended.
People are starting to re-examine the last decade of just as (if not more) obvious farces from Fine People to Bloodbath. Even fact checkers themselves with a [7 year](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/) delay.
These all affected his perception on the downside and probably slowly add a few points as these "epiphanies" broaden out.
I was super disappointed when Carl Bernstein, a legend in the journalism industry, said that he has seen Biden behave that way over a dozen times during private events. Including completely freezing up. And yet neither he, nor anyone else at these events, thought it was their duty to report on that?
It was only once the public saw it live that all of these journalists are coming out saying Biden’s issues were a known thing. That’s disgraceful.
This is a huge reason why young people dont trust traditional media. They get the gaff videos directly sent to their phone, at the same the main stream media keep telling the younger people they can’t trust their eyes, mean while the people in charge want much more content moderation to “combat misinformation”
What are they supposed to think? lol.
The insane focus on misinformation started only after Hillary lost.
Up until that the democratic party was proudly showing how their campaign team used mathematical models and extremely targeted efforts to win swing states as effectively as possible.
It was literally a-ok until they lost.
I despise the focus on misinformation because of the inherent disdain for the voter but even more so because of the postmodern element: that there is no point simply educating people (which I think is the answer) and to trust people to think by themselves.
Instead the solution proposed is to educate people specifically against misinformation which of course means educating them against inconvenient viewpoints and that quickly becomes censorship.
I'm not saying lies and conmen don't exist but many of the proposed solutions are far worse than the problem.
Some papers also outline that fake news (on Facebook) was far less impactful in electing trump than suggested.
If you allow the media to 'fight misinformation' what you get is CNN saying Biden is fine right up until he forgets his name.
The editorial direction of legacy media is primarily a reflection of the political climate from the Democratic Party’s perspective.
Only once Democrats saw confirmation the farce just couldn’t carry on any longer, the press gained its green light to report on the issue and even disclose prior reporting.
[The New York Times flipped on its prior reporting on Biden’s behavior during the G7 summit for instance.](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-now-claims-video-footage-is-evidence-of-bidens-decline/)
Trump is definitely a product of the left and their media, if they just treated him like another candidate he would have had a short political career. Instead they showed his face everywhere, gave him the biggest platform and made him the center of their policy. Noone but themselves to blame
> Noone but themselves to blame
So, so true. They also made every little thing he did (or even maybe did) the big news of the day. Ill fitting suit? Weird skin color? Another dumb tweet? Off color comment again? People got so sick of it that even when there was big, legitimate news it just disappeared into the noise. Basically the biggest boy who cried wolf story I've ever seen.
Every person I've seen who became pro Trump cites the media, not anything Trump actually did.
The activation energy to switch sides is enormous.
It usually requires some kind of deception which the media has been doing in spades.
Upper percentile Biden supporters are starting to ask themselves what other obvious things they missed (and how).
trump's whole thing is being the ostensibly anti-establishment candidate. he says what a lot of people want to hear, he's not politically correct, etc. so the more the "woke" (or whatever the word is now) "establishment" hates trump, the more support he gets.
There are basically only 2 reasons left that I can't:
1. Fake electors scheme
2. Biodiversity/climate change
I can't get around them, but at this point, I so wish I could.
Slamming into a brick wall at 70 mph is better than doing so at 90 mph but it isn’t meaningfully different.
Also pollution and global warming are rather different issues. I was talking about the latter.
The fact that we aren’t moving our entire power grid to nuclear is an embarrassment.
The media and democrats have been saying Trump is the end of democracy and deserves his legal challenges. But when that same media and democrat party ignored or even conspired to hide Biden's growing incompetence, they said nothing.
Not only was Biden damaged, but their messaging towards Trump is now hard to believe.
one thing i'm wondering about is if this recent media tide against Biden increases confidence in the press, and then when they get back to Biden's side after the friday interview, people would have become more likely to believe them.
Trump doesn’t even have to hide in a basement, just hanging out at his country club and look like someone who can jog a little every few days will keep his favorability up.
He's even got liberal media doing work for him, berating the WH and Democratic party for gaslighting everyone regarding Biden's mental state. Trump can go golfing for a week and just watch it snowball.
Media is in full on damage control for their own credibility right now. They spent the last four years full on being the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and they just got caught with their pants down. They've been straight up lying to our faces and have been fully exposed and I don't think people are fully recognizing what that means yet. Right now the anger is directed at the source, but it will spread.
We have, by far, the best example of what Republicans talk about when the bring up biased mainstream media, how the media will distort the truth to push their political goals. We haven't even begun to see the massive drop in media trust that's coming after this.
What I find really disappointing is how little my left friends have learned from this episode. All of them are in full panic hoping to replace Biden, but have learned a single thing about how corrupt the media is and how the reporting has completely warped their view of the world.
Hilariously, the media blames themselves for Trump becoming president in 2016, but for all the wrong reasons. They thought it was because they didn't take trump seriously enough or weren't hard enough on hum.
In reality, they lost the trust of conservative/Republican people over 30 years to the point where Republicans live in an echo chamber that's pretty detached from reality and they don't believe what the majority of media reports. Nothing they did or didn't do in 2016 would matter because by then the trust was thin. Enter 2020 (Fiery but peaceful, in defense of looting, extreme poor COVID reporting, endless race obsession) and then cap it off with this .All this has done is confirm for them how much direct lying the media does to support Democrats at all costs.
In my honest opinion, I feel that the media pretty much died when the 24-hour news cycle became the standard. Like it’s genuinely crazy to me how the news was beforehand when they would talk about important events for an hour and then be done for the day va now where the media is having to constantly release something every single hour of the day, no matter if it’s true or false.
Yeah this goes far beyond 2016. If people compared coverage of presidents since 2000 anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the pattern
Trump being elected was the result of Republicans giving up on being moderate after seeing how badly McCain and Romney got screwed.
That’s basically what they were. From the ones I saw on the way back machine, it was just reading off the weather, talking about economic and noteworthy events for the day and then just signing off for the day when they were done after an hour or two.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbmyn7f/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Many statements are made in this comment without any sources—just emotionally charged sentences meant to convince you that "shadowy figures" control the narrative.
The truth is that media is profit-driven and will chase whatever drives the most views/clicks/ratings. It may be "Trump bad" in January and "Biden old" in March.
We all saw Fox News edit the clip of Trump speaking about the Epstein files, so it's not like the largest media channel in the country isn't helping Trump.
https://news.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-edits-trump-interview-154341061.html?guccounter=1
What claim do you want sourced? My comment is analysis of the behavior of media. Do you have any significant examples of mainstream media outside of obvious conservative outlets investigating the unprecedented lack of access to the president? Do you have any examples of these media sources being critical of his *cognitive abilities*, not just his age? Do you have the response from the media when Jean-Pierre claimed he could "run circles around me" (because no one was like, woah, this doesn't sound right)?
sometimes people say the media is profit-driven, and it is to some extent among the really high-ups, but everyone knows newsrooms have political preferences. remember the firestorm at NYT over the tom cotton op ed? MSNBC hosts aren't all leftists because they're paid to be leftists, they're leftists because they just are. same with FOX hosts - it's not like all these people are apolitical and totally money-driven. Journalists usually have left-leaning twitter feeds - they're not paid for that.
They are paid for exactly that. They may naturally be left leaning, but they are paid to drive engagement with consumers so they will say the things that drive the most engagement. Engagement drops off, they either alter the things they say or they don't get paid.
That is how we end up with on any given day, 30 different media outlets and journalists saying literally the same things word for word.
What was the response from all the major news outlets when WSJ ran their story about Biden's decline a few weeks ago?
What was the response to Ezra Klein telling people we needed to replace Biden a year ago?
Why were only Democrats surprised by how bad Biden looked in the debate?
What was the media response when the presidents doctor report he didn't even *need* a cognitive assessment,he was just that sharp?
How did Jean-Pierre put it? Something like "he can run circles around me"? Why did no one seriously question that?
What did Joe Scarborough say? "Sharpest version of the president he's ever seen"?
Why did they just sit completely quietly about a president with an unprecedentedly low public expose, launch full attacks on anyone who questioned the narrative and completely ignored the fact that he's clearly experiencing severe cognitive decline if not outright dementia.
Every Democrat I know was absolutely shocked at what they saw from Biden and every Republican I know wasn't surprised at all because conservative media has been hammering the "Biden has dementia" story since 2020.
This has been a pure media coverup from the start and the fall out from it will be fucking catastrophic for social trust.
Media has been one sided for a long long time.
Media is trying to salvage their image by acting “dumbfounded” by Biden’s decline. The only problem is that they didn’t do justice before then
So people back in 2020 (correctly) claimed that Biden was too old to serve for 4 years, the news comes out now that he basically shuts down after 4pm and has been doing that for a while, and your response is that people back in 2020 were wrong to say Biden was too old?
So why not answer any of my questions about the people who have been lying about his cognitive abilities, ignoring the unprecedented shielding from media and straight up gas lighting about the "sharpest he's ever been"?
No president has been more sheltered from the media except Woodrow Wilson, why not go back and take a look at what happened there.
> except Woodrow Wilson
Um, FDR? How about Reagan who actually had dementia?
But yes, the Biden campaign did certainly want to hide Biden's inability, that isn't at all at doubt. But the suggestion that the MSM is a propaganda arm for the Dems... dude that is ludicrous.
By the actual metrics, Biden is the most sheltered president since Wilson.
It's funny you bring up Reagen as if he had disqualifying dementia but Biden doesn't. Go watch the 1984 debates. Biden's cognitive performance is objectively so much worse than Reagan's was, it's genuinely not comparable, yet you seem to think it is.
Biden has dementia. This isn't *normal aging*, it's serious cognitive decline. I regularly give people MoCAs to screen for dementia and there is absolutely no way he's scoring higher than 20. The fact that his doctor decided he didn't even need screening should cost him his medical license.
Which metrics?
> It's funny you bring up Reagen as if he had disqualifying dementia but Biden doesn't.
Why do you assume I am defending Biden and that I am a fan of his? You seem genuinely offended that I am not buying your vague claims, *especially* the idea that the MSM is a propaganda arm for the Dems.
I'll make it clear: no, I don't like Biden. I don't want him to run. But I also do not want Trump either. I think that would be a disaster in a plethora of ways. As such, I would take Biden over Trump, even if Biden was literally a stone's throw away from death. Wouldn't be the first time a President was in serious decline in the White House.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lblzors/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Between the media and all of the negative comments, opinions, and foreign influence on social media he doesn't have to say or do anything.
Granted *keeping quiet* is a challenge for him, but if he just stays out on the golf course, maybe he can keep up the stretch.
He can, but I suspect he won't. Every time he's been met with a windfall (although never one as substantial as this) he can't help but "capitalize" on it and ruin the free media bonanza by having the media cover him instead.
The process is always pretty similar. KJP or Biden (or one of the other senior dems) says or does something pants-on-head, the media takes like 5 seconds out of breathless Trump coverage to say "oh by the way KJP said something GENIUS and BRILLIANT let's all listen to her" and anyone with a brain realizes it's dumb at best or actively idiotic at worst, but Trump realizes people aren't talking about him for 5 seconds so he's like 'MOM DAD LOOK I CAN DO FIVE CARTWHEELS LOOK LOOK!' and then everyone goes back to looking at Trump when a full news cycle where he didn't do anything would force the media to blast the nonsense coming out of the Biden admin, which would've essentially made more folks realize sooner that they're full of it.
So I predict before next Tuesday Trump will have done or said something stupid enough to recapture the media's attention just because he can't resist. Having said that, the damage is sorta done here on the Biden stories- cat's out of the bag, emperor has no clothes; and we have no president and everyone's just kinda accepting it.
Trump seems to actually be taking this election seriously the past couple weeks. I imagine the fact that he got a felony conviction and a bunch of civil penalties is the biggest sign to him that he's not just playing a game anymore and his literal freedom is still at stake. Taking his advisors seriously and actually following their words like trying to have a decent debate performance and now he is just standing back while the media is tearing into Biden without him having to do anything.
Doesn't help that Biden camp keeps coming up with new ways to shoot themselves in the foot: first they denied and tried to go the, "well, at least he made good points when we could understand him"; then, "well, you can't vote for Trump, right? we need Biden because better than Trump"; then it was, "oh he just had a long trip (2 weeks ago) and he was very tired"; now Biden is admitting he fucked up but still trying to assure people that it's fine, he'll do better.
Trump is going to be a disaster. But Biden camp is just so damn bad at handling things. It's absurd that Democrats didn't think of another candidate in the 4 years of Biden. He was just a placeholder, the dude was trailing among DNC candidates in 2019-20. Last minute choice. How did people think this was a strong contender, especially now?
> It's absurd that Democrats didn't think of another candidate in the 4 years of Biden. He was just a placeholder, the dude was trailing among DNC candidates in 2019-20. Last minute choice. How did people think this was a strong contender, especially now?
Biden was the frontrunner in most of the 2020 primaries and polled best in an actual election. Even through all of his presidency he polled *alright* against Trump, at least not bad enough that made it clear that he would loose re-election, to the point where a party would go to the lengths not supporting their incumbent president.
Now the issue is that it is largely too late to replace Biden, delegates are pledged to him and many states ballot cut offs have passed. Even if he did drop out the backup is Kamala, who is even less popular than Biden. If both of them dropped out the convention would be brokered and it would descend into chaos.
Don't forget that they've admitted things are better now because he has Hunter Biden in his ear, or that he does pretty well between 10-4, provided he gets a nap in there somewhere.
“He had a cold, stop asking questions!”
Can we get some live appearances without a teleprompter? Maybe a hostile crowd he has to engage with?
“Short, taped interview with someone who works for our donors. He’s fine.”
Betting it all on an 82 year old man was always absurd. It's the age where people suddenly have major medical issues. I get that he's the incumbent, but this isn't like some far-fetched scenario happened. It was always an incredibly risky strategy.
Yeah, anything past 80 is literally a "just happy I woke up today for a new day" kind of future prospect. Every year past 80 is like 15 years in terms of the speed of decline.
Well, yeah, he's polling at 49% nationally currently, and has commanding leads in every swing state (I would guess that stays true regardless who the Democrat nominee is at this point).
The only thing he COULD do is damage those numbers.
Ride this out, let the other guy squirm, and let that nasty pendulum swing back in his favor.
Trump being quiet for the past 7 days is a breath of fresh air.
1.5 weeks away is the Republican convention & his VP selection where he could receive another bump
At this point, it would just be another Tuesday with Trump, yeah he says off the wall stuff all the time, but thats the thing, he says off the wall stuff all the time, people know exactly what they are getting with Trump, no hold barred.
This is the first time apparently a lot of people who haven't been paying attention are just starting to see the facade on Biden crack in real time.
Tim Scott being black neutralizes half of Kamala's intersectional advantage.
He's also full black which gives him more points than half indian.
It also looks like he grew up poor.
And his parents were divorced.
Holy shit, Tim actually *beats* Kamala on the oppression scorecard.
You'd be hard pressed to come up with a better contrast. He's going to smash her if she tries using oppression talking points in the VP debate.
>Kamala Devi Harris was born in Oakland, California,[11] on October 20, 1964.[12] Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a Tamil Indian biologist, whose work on the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast cancer research.[13] She moved to the United States from India as a 19-year-old graduate student in 1958, after studying home science at Lady Irwin College in New Delhi. After studying nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California, Berkeley,[14][15] she received her PhD in 1964.[16] Kamala Harris's Jamaican American father, Donald J. Harris, is of Afro-Jamaican and Irish-Jamaican ancestry.[17] He is a Stanford University professor of economics (emeritus) who arrived in the United States from British Jamaica in 1961, for graduate study at UC Berkeley, receiving a PhD in economics in 1966.[18][19]
>When Harris began kindergarten, she was bused as part of Berkeley's comprehensive desegregation program to Thousand Oaks Elementary School, a public school in a more prosperous neighborhood in northern Berkeley[27]
***
>Tim Scott was born on September 19, 1965, in North Charleston, South Carolina, to Frances, a nursing assistant, and Ben Scott Sr. When Scott was seven years old, his parents divorced, leaving him and his older brother, who later became a sergeant major in the U.S. Army, to grow up in working-class poverty with their mother, Frances, who often worked double shifts to support her family.[6][7]
>After his parents divorced, Scott, his mother, and his older brother moved into his maternal grandparents' house. There, he formed a close bond with his grandfather.[6]
>As a freshman at North Charleston's R.B. Stall High School, he failed several subjects, prompting his mother to send him to summer school, which he had to finance by working at a local movie theater.[6] During this time, he met John Moniz, the owner of a nearby Chick-fil-A. Their initial interaction over a sandwich at Scott's workplace evolved into a substantial mentorship. Moniz educated Scott on individual responsibility, conservative business principles, philanthropy, and finance.[6]
>From an early age, Scott enjoyed sports and excelled at football. He overcame racial prejudice in high school, securing election as student body vice president in his junior year and student body president as a senior.[6]
I live in Charleston and have followed him since he was a county councilman. He's busted his ass, putting himself through school, becoming an insurance agent and getting into politics. He'd be a great asset for Trump, but also our nation as a whole.
He definitely seems like a genuine down to earth guy who cares about his constituents, he’s a little too conservative for my liking but I’d be happy to see him as VP
Disagree. If Rubio is the pick, Trump will again switch his residency ... to New Jersey (where he has his Bedminster golf club), a state which now actually looks like it may be in play
I'm not sure what you mean by his "profile," but he grew up in Las Vegas, not that it matters. He could become a resident of any other state, regardless of past connections (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S2-C1-13/ALDE_00013789/#:~:text=C1.-,13%20Right%20to%20Travel%20and%20Privileges%20and%20Immunities%20Clause,Citizens%20in%20the%20several%20States.)
https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-politics-marco-rubio-vegas-years-20151008-story.html
JD Vance could help in places in the Midwest. He’s a very relatable guy who had his mother addicted to opioids growing up. He got a good education and enlisted into the Marines… he’s what every Midwesterner loves.
I don’t think Vance would bring much electoral value to the ticket. He underperformed Trump’s 2020 results in Ohio in a year redder than 2020, and every other statewide Republican candidate outperformed him by double-digits.
I like Vance a lot too especially when it comes to his position about economy and Europe/Ukraine.
But in terms of getting votes, I'm unsure it would help the ticket.
However, if he is VP, I'm 100% voting Trump ticket, not because I like Trump (I find Trump's personality distasteful though I'm glad he's learning to quiet down), but because Vance is the guy we Republicans need. We don't need more neocons.
I like Vance a lot. I wish he had some more political experience.
The most republican thing would be to finally dethrone Sherrod Browns seat in Ohio but then lose Vance’s seat to a democrat in a special election lol
How well liked is he in Virginia since he became Governor? If he picks Youngkin that makes me think they believe they have a chance of winning the state
They are probably better off focusing on someone that'll help them with a certain group of voters, than just trying to get Virginia. If Virginia is even close once the election happens, then Biden lost in a landslide. Cao isn't even a great Senate candidate worth pushing for, Kaine should win pretty easily.
Carson is very smart and soft spoken. I think his stories and personality could resonate with many who aren’t in Trump’s can right now.
I hope Youngkin doesn’t leave Virginia. Very good moderate Republican who has done a good job governing.
Biden's opponent isn't Trump, it's time. All Trump has to do it sit there and show his face from time to time. Biden's opponent will do all of the work.
All the people trying to "both sides" this situation claiming Trump is also mentally impaired may be onto something.
Can anyone imagine the Trump we know not piling on right now?
>"We used to call him 'Sleepy Joe', that's what we called him, but I'm changing to 'Comatose Joe' because he is. Nobody has ever seen anything like it. And he's the president! Can you imagine? This guy is a disgrace, and if you want to know the truth, so is his lovely wife, they call her 'Doctor' Jill Biden. She's propping him up. Probably a good thing. He needs a doctor. And now Hunter is in the White House running the country? 'Where's Hunter?' we used to say? He's in charge now. It's a disgrace."
Something happened to that guy. He's turned into a stone cold muthafuckin assassin.
>Something happened to that guy. He's turned into a stone cold muthafuckin assassin.
he's coached very well. in debate he only looked at the moderator when talking, and barely glanced to Biden when not talking.
To be fair, in 2016 he was much better coached than the 2020 election. I'm not sure why but in 2020 he basically ran on screaming at Biden. Seeing this reversion doesn't really surprise me, he's always played a character of sorts at times.
[See here in 2016](https://youtu.be/LxhhOfe3uWc?t=2186). Clinton goes after him on a personal level, but he holds his tongue for the most part, lets her finish, and then responds relatively fine to defend his conduct.
[In 2020 he went on and just interrupted left and right](https://youtu.be/vU0fx8d2FiY), most likely to try and incite Biden. But it backfired heavily from a PR side.
Its hard to guage when he's seriously delusional or whether he's just saying inflammatory/crazy things in the vein of crazy Nixon. His presidency was up and down moments of looking sane and then suddenly appearing the opposite. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable because you can't really ground it
I don’t think that’s the case. Is he older, yes and definitely more experienced in the political world after this “trials” in the White House and then sitting on the sidelines for past 3-4 years…I think he will do things he wouldn’t normally have done during the campaigning process such as maybe not being as ridiculous but who knows 😆
It’s crazy how disciplined you can become when you’re faced with the threat of imprisonment and a loss of resources.
Trump understands the stakes and knows he needs to win; couple that with a much more professional staff and a much more formal campaign, and you get Trump’s current campaign.
Which is exactly what people want in a President, someone who understands the stakes and knows what it takes to win, that translates into a lot when dealing with the world outside of the US as it currently stands. It will be a threat to the countries who basically seen Biden as an elderly pushover with no bite.
If Biden drops out, his replacement will be somebody that is, themself, fine with losing any future in electoral politics, as well as any connection to beltway society.
As such, I’d expect the replacement, should they materialize, to be Harris. The donors of the party know that she won’t be anchoring a ticket in 2028, and everybody around her seems to agree with that assessment, including the Press.
Regardless, whether it’s Biden or Harris or somebody else, make no mistake, they will lose to Trump at this point. With this in mind, I don’t think that Whitmer, Shapiro, Moore, or even Newsom want to lose their chance at a legitimate shot in 2028 to be put up as the token losing candidate in 2024, after which, they will be cast off into the wilderness as ‘the one who lost to Trump’ and live a post-political life similar to Jimmy Carter.
I don’t understand why running and losing in 24 disbars someone from 28. Nixon lost his 1960 presidential campaign *and* the 1962 CA governor’s race before successfully gaining the presidency in 1968
Nixon had a legacy and a mythology around him, even then, as well as a deep-well of affection among the donor class (despite his conviction that everybody actually hated him and the ‘Eastern Establishment’ wanted him to fail), he was a quasi-Trump crossed with the establishment-sheen that came from being Eisenhower’s VP, allowing him to project and present in different ways to different groups.
Kamala, simply put…does not have any sort of mythology or well of affection, nor is Biden an Eisenhower level public figure. Further, any of these governors are functionally interchangeable amongst each other and ill defined at this point; if Newsom runs and loses in ‘24…well, how is he any different than any number of other blue-state governors who didn’t run and didn’t lose the last election against a historically-unpopular candidate?
At this point I don't think they need to have a mythology around them. Hell, they can even carry some baggage like Kamala.
They just need to be younger than retirement age and have some semblance of charisma.
If the Dems win this election it will purely be a result of growing resentment towards judicial activism and demolishing long-standing precedent. No matter what people think about how SCOTUS rules, the people's opinions about those rulings reflects the reality of the US's attitude towards those things.
I guarantee, and this isn’t to condemn the average voter…but very few people that weren’t already voting Blue will be voting based on judicial activism or, for that matter, likely even understand what the phrase means.
The average voter understands that certain rights are being taken away regardless of whether it makes political sense or not. At some point they're also bound to hear that bribery is legal because the SCOTUS, who is already in hot water for accepting gifts, says so.
Couple that with the left heavily emphasizing the agenda of Project 2025 and, once again regardless of whether it makes political sense or not, that Trump has been convicted of crimes.
I think we're going to see more than a few independents vote blue or stay home purely based on the aforementioned talking points, but this is already the craziest election in decades - and this was before Biden's disastrous debate.
But wait, Dems are saying Trump winning this year is an existential threat to democracy. If there's no democracy left in 2028, wouldn't they want the best candidate to run this time around?
Or is the reality that we're just being fed BS by both parties?
Well until recently Dems thought Biden was the best candidate. Name recognition, incumbent, strong support in DC and within the party.
Everyone keeps asking for a "young, moderate, charismatic, Dem" as if one is just waiting in the wings. The 2020 primaries still had many older Dems dominating and younger dems were way less moderate than them.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbmg4xh/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbm1yhx/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> But wait, Dems are saying Trump winning this year is an existential threat to democracy. If there's no democracy left in 2028, wouldn't they want the best candidate to run this time around?
>
>
Correct. Breaking Points, while [discussing the debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8ULfwTneE) (which I *highly* recommend watching; it's the single best sum-up), pointed out two things for those who claim (to believe) the above:
* If TrumpNaziKKK being reelected means "no more elections ever", shouldn't Democrats have chosen someone other than a living corpse as his opponent?
* While discussing how the many plans among Democrats like Newsom, Whitmer, etc. (and their successors) for 2028 have been disrupted/forced up by the potential to replace Biden now, they again pointed out the paradox of on the one hand claiming that Trump will abolish elections, and on the other hand having plans for running to replacing Trump in 2028.
[Read this *New York Times* interview of Whitmer.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer-interview.html) Strange, how she doesn't say (despite being very specific about things like the plot against her) that "if Trump wins, there won't be elections in 2028 and all non-MAGAtards will be executed by Trumptroopers". You'd think that would be something of sufficient urgency to repeat at every public opportunity. Almost as if actual Democratic leaders don't really believe the rhetoric they have so successfully foisted upon their supporters, including 75% of Redditors and *Times* commenters.
Another example: Post-debate, [Maine Democratic Congressman explicitly denying that Trump's reelection will threaten American democracy](https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-contributor/jared-golden-donald-trump-going-to-win-election-democracy-be-just-fine/)
> I’d expect the replacement, should they materialize, to be Harris.
Absolutely agreed. The [D] party needs to throw someone to the wolves if things go bad (which is highly likely) and Harris' pride won't let anyone be selected over her; she'll torpedo the entire [D] party if she's not selected. It's honestly a "best case scenario" for the D party looking toward '28 - but probably a failure for America because it will increase chances of a win for Trump.
Nominating Harris is the only thing that can make the current situation worse. Qualifications and covering up Bidens condition, they need to move completely away from Biden and Harris. Straw poll the delegates at a minimum.
I think this election goes to Trump no matter who the Dem candidate is. People like Newsom and Whitmer probably don’t want to tarnish themselves with a loss. They’ll let Kamala be the sacrificial lamb, and take their shot in ‘28 against a different Republican.
I agree. I think that the DNC needs to realize that the chance that Biden takes this was bad before the debate, and that the debate all but destroyed it.
This is the Republicans election to lose. They have a real chance at a clean sweep by just having everyone keep quiet and making boring "jeans in a field with kids" commercials.
Run Kamala because on the off chance the Dems do win, we need someone who can actually remember who they are talking to. Hope trump picks a coherent non-crazy VP since they will almost certainly be finishing next term and reasses what got us into this mess in the first place.
> They have a real chance at a clean sweep by just having everyone keep quiet and making boring "jeans in a field with kids" commercials.
Nah, what they will do once it's too late for Biden to drop out is to run ads that are "this governor/senator/representative said Biden was fit to be president, they lied to you and covered it up". [There's already one.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arSalg2T3Q0)
Yeah, and it will work. Because when people like me said that Biden was losing it, they were told it was nonsense.
The emperor has no clothes moment is pretty bad, and it's really hard for me to believe that it was a surprise to people he worked with when normal people saw it on TV.
It makes the "threat to democracy" shtick ring very hollow when it wasn't serious enough to replace Biden or have a primary or even consider another candidate.
> covering up Bidens condition
If she replaces Biden, Trump ads will ask "What did she know about Biden's health, and when did she know it?"
If her answer is "I didn't see the president often enough to notice", that in of itself is damning even if true.
Problem is, the relentless drive on identity and gender politics in the Democratic Party means there is no one left at the national or even state level that can reach out to the moderate voters who are fine with gay marriage and equal opportunity but are turned off by what is being pushed today. Add the out right pro-illegal alien stance of the main line D party movers and shakers today you also lose the support of working class people of all colors.
Biden’s big draw on 2020 was that he *could* be an old timey Bill Clinton type old hand that can try to steer the country down the middle. Now people realize he is just a public face and that he has no say in policy.
Roy Cooper. 67, so not much political career left, especially since he's term limited out of the governorship at the end of the year and isn't running for anything. Still young enough where he could actually do 2 terms, without it being ridiculous.
Also, if you already have 4+ strong candidates running in 2028, there's a good argument that one of those is better off trying to run now. If Kamala wins, there won't be a primary in 2028.
Article 1: Trump and cons hope Biden leaves for the chaos.
Article 2: Trump and cons hope Biden stays because old.
Article 387: Trump and cons hope ...
Starter comment:
There has been some talk in conservative circles that Trump did too much in the debate, and some are afraid that replacing Biden could hurt Trump's chances to win in November. Trump himself has been relatively quiet on the topic of replacing Biden.
>And in an echo of a talking point that Mr. Biden’s Democratic allies have long wielded to argue that he is best positioned to beat the former president, Mr. Trump has also argued that polling showed that “Biden does better than the people they’re talking about using to replace him.”
Trump's above quote seems to be dishonest, as he wouldn't be worried about Biden being replaced, and would actively be pushing for it if that really were the case.
I don’t think it’s that Trump did too well so much as it is that Biden fell flat on his face. I can’t think of anything Trump could have done during this debate that would have avoided the calls to replace Biden.
Honestly from Trump that performance was surprisingly subdued. Now part of it was the rules making him unable to do his usual things but I also think he was caught off guard by just how **bad** Biden did.
His standout moment for me was "an I don't think he knows, either". And not for the words but for the delivery. It wasn't his usual zinger tone, it was much softer and more of just a sad observation. I really think he was caught just as off guard as all of us watching by how much Biden had degraded.
he also kept looking to the moderator and rarely even glanced to Biden when he's not talking (the exception when Biden stumbled "we beat medicare"). that makes him look less combative.
in comparison, Biden looked at Trump quite often, including when he's calling Trump names.
so it's not only the rules, but Trump made conscious effort (most likely coached) to not engage Biden at all.
Biden stared at Trump with blank eyed confusion and mouth agape. His look was, to me, very similar to angry old nursing home patients.
He may have intended to portray a firebrand, he came off as grandpa when his son in law says it's time to give up driving.
yes. he should have kept smiling (borderline laughing) that he sometimes made when he thought what Trump said was ridiculous. it made him doesn't look old and senile.
That was Trump’s best presidential debate. The bar was low but it was the best for him. I wish he would have answered questions better & rambled less but that is just who he is
> Trump's above quote seems to be dishonest, as he wouldn't be worried about Biden being replaced, and would actively be pushing for it if that really were the case.
I wouldn't call that dishonest - it is an accurate reflection of the current polls.
I don't think that current polling accurately predicts the future though - a new candidate will have more upside potential, while Biden's presumably cognitive decline will continue to progress.
If Trump won the popular vote you can bet all the democrats who claimed the Electoral College was unfair and undemocratic would suddenly change their tunes.
The idea that the electoral college is undemocratic is not a matter of opinion. It’s a demonstrable fact. And that was the intent. How people feel about that is a different matter.
So no one saw that Daily Mail video of him trashing Biden and then Kamela Harris while sitting in a golf cart? He called her "pathetic" and "so fucking bad".
Trump staying quiet may also reflect that he doesn’t want anyone paying attention to him in light of the recent release of Epstein documents that have his name all over them. He might know ecactly what those documents contain (in addition to telling Epstein he is ‘between girls” and accordingly needs a ‘massage’), and doesn’t want to stir the water at the moment.
Meanwhile Fox posted 40 articles in 3 days. I understand covering it a lot. But that seems... excessive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/1duc0zj/fox_news_posts_40_articles_in_3_days_urging/
A lot of people missing the point. Advertising discontent with Biden damages his support and creates a downward spiral. It's called "dooming" and it's a key part in demoralizing turnout for Biden. The difference is that this isn't manufactured outrage, it's just given a soapbox.
It's also what their audience wants to hear, Dems in disarray. They want Biden to stay but also mock his failures. One of which is his splintering party.
Didnt realize calling for televised military tribunals of a sitting senator and his former vice president counted as staying relatively quiet. Are we really going to just ignore how terrifying that idea is?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbqgani/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Trump may have done too good of a job at the debate, defeating a weak Biden so early in the race.
I’ve said it before, but this is becoming a best-case scenario for Dems. It’s much better to have this debate in July than on November 6. (Of course, this assumes Biden actually drops out.)
This election is a referendum on whomever has the greatest negative public perception. There is nothing he can possibly say to improve his polling, and it would only provide an opportunity for the hot story to shift away from the dumpster inferno that is the post debate fallout. The longer that stays the hot story, the better for his campaign.
Yep, Trump's favorability has consistently been at ~45% during his recent surge in the polls against Biden, and has in fact been at ~45% since Trump left office. People aren't suddenly viewing Trump favorably, it's just that Biden looks so much worse right now.
the recent CBS poll i posted showed that among Biden 2020 voters, some of those who say he's too old and incapable are voting Trump this time.
It's not just Biden. It's always been Trump vs Biden + the MSM. Media credibility is looking almost as bruised as Biden. They'd be even more damaged if they hadn't [shanked](https://youtu.be/CKZtGZsX7Vk?si=Ka2qr2-0PVC3Dj6L&t=41) him the nanosecond the debate ended. People are starting to re-examine the last decade of just as (if not more) obvious farces from Fine People to Bloodbath. Even fact checkers themselves with a [7 year](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/) delay. These all affected his perception on the downside and probably slowly add a few points as these "epiphanies" broaden out.
I was super disappointed when Carl Bernstein, a legend in the journalism industry, said that he has seen Biden behave that way over a dozen times during private events. Including completely freezing up. And yet neither he, nor anyone else at these events, thought it was their duty to report on that? It was only once the public saw it live that all of these journalists are coming out saying Biden’s issues were a known thing. That’s disgraceful.
This is a huge reason why young people dont trust traditional media. They get the gaff videos directly sent to their phone, at the same the main stream media keep telling the younger people they can’t trust their eyes, mean while the people in charge want much more content moderation to “combat misinformation” What are they supposed to think? lol.
The insane focus on misinformation started only after Hillary lost. Up until that the democratic party was proudly showing how their campaign team used mathematical models and extremely targeted efforts to win swing states as effectively as possible. It was literally a-ok until they lost. I despise the focus on misinformation because of the inherent disdain for the voter but even more so because of the postmodern element: that there is no point simply educating people (which I think is the answer) and to trust people to think by themselves. Instead the solution proposed is to educate people specifically against misinformation which of course means educating them against inconvenient viewpoints and that quickly becomes censorship. I'm not saying lies and conmen don't exist but many of the proposed solutions are far worse than the problem. Some papers also outline that fake news (on Facebook) was far less impactful in electing trump than suggested. If you allow the media to 'fight misinformation' what you get is CNN saying Biden is fine right up until he forgets his name.
The editorial direction of legacy media is primarily a reflection of the political climate from the Democratic Party’s perspective. Only once Democrats saw confirmation the farce just couldn’t carry on any longer, the press gained its green light to report on the issue and even disclose prior reporting. [The New York Times flipped on its prior reporting on Biden’s behavior during the G7 summit for instance.](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-now-claims-video-footage-is-evidence-of-bidens-decline/)
that is pretty damming
Trump is definitely a product of the left and their media, if they just treated him like another candidate he would have had a short political career. Instead they showed his face everywhere, gave him the biggest platform and made him the center of their policy. Noone but themselves to blame
> Noone but themselves to blame So, so true. They also made every little thing he did (or even maybe did) the big news of the day. Ill fitting suit? Weird skin color? Another dumb tweet? Off color comment again? People got so sick of it that even when there was big, legitimate news it just disappeared into the noise. Basically the biggest boy who cried wolf story I've ever seen.
Every person I've seen who became pro Trump cites the media, not anything Trump actually did. The activation energy to switch sides is enormous. It usually requires some kind of deception which the media has been doing in spades. Upper percentile Biden supporters are starting to ask themselves what other obvious things they missed (and how).
trump's whole thing is being the ostensibly anti-establishment candidate. he says what a lot of people want to hear, he's not politically correct, etc. so the more the "woke" (or whatever the word is now) "establishment" hates trump, the more support he gets.
There are basically only 2 reasons left that I can't: 1. Fake electors scheme 2. Biodiversity/climate change I can't get around them, but at this point, I so wish I could.
\#2 is moot, since no one is doing a good job on that front.
biden's definitely better than trump on pollution considering trump talks about how much he loves coal and hates windmills.
Slamming into a brick wall at 70 mph is better than doing so at 90 mph but it isn’t meaningfully different. Also pollution and global warming are rather different issues. I was talking about the latter. The fact that we aren’t moving our entire power grid to nuclear is an embarrassment.
His "I want the cleanest air, the cleanest water" shtick drives me nuts. Of course - who doesn't want those? That's not the issue though.
The media and democrats have been saying Trump is the end of democracy and deserves his legal challenges. But when that same media and democrat party ignored or even conspired to hide Biden's growing incompetence, they said nothing. Not only was Biden damaged, but their messaging towards Trump is now hard to believe.
one thing i'm wondering about is if this recent media tide against Biden increases confidence in the press, and then when they get back to Biden's side after the friday interview, people would have become more likely to believe them.
Fuck no. I remember MSNBC and CNN trying to cover up the notecards biden had with the faces, questions and answers of reporters.
This was bidens 2020 strategy... atay quiet and let trump sabotage himself more than biden sabotaged himself
Yep, thats how we got the whole "hiding in the basement" Biden meme.
Trump doesn’t even have to hide in a basement, just hanging out at his country club and look like someone who can jog a little every few days will keep his favorability up.
he just needs to keep his mouth shut. but that is not going to happen lol
Umm trumps never looked like he could jog a few steps lol
Hence why I said “look like”. Fat people jog more than you might imagine.
He's even got liberal media doing work for him, berating the WH and Democratic party for gaslighting everyone regarding Biden's mental state. Trump can go golfing for a week and just watch it snowball.
Media is in full on damage control for their own credibility right now. They spent the last four years full on being the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and they just got caught with their pants down. They've been straight up lying to our faces and have been fully exposed and I don't think people are fully recognizing what that means yet. Right now the anger is directed at the source, but it will spread. We have, by far, the best example of what Republicans talk about when the bring up biased mainstream media, how the media will distort the truth to push their political goals. We haven't even begun to see the massive drop in media trust that's coming after this. What I find really disappointing is how little my left friends have learned from this episode. All of them are in full panic hoping to replace Biden, but have learned a single thing about how corrupt the media is and how the reporting has completely warped their view of the world. Hilariously, the media blames themselves for Trump becoming president in 2016, but for all the wrong reasons. They thought it was because they didn't take trump seriously enough or weren't hard enough on hum. In reality, they lost the trust of conservative/Republican people over 30 years to the point where Republicans live in an echo chamber that's pretty detached from reality and they don't believe what the majority of media reports. Nothing they did or didn't do in 2016 would matter because by then the trust was thin. Enter 2020 (Fiery but peaceful, in defense of looting, extreme poor COVID reporting, endless race obsession) and then cap it off with this .All this has done is confirm for them how much direct lying the media does to support Democrats at all costs.
[удалено]
“Fiery, but mostly peaceful protests” (Picture of city burning in the background)
In my honest opinion, I feel that the media pretty much died when the 24-hour news cycle became the standard. Like it’s genuinely crazy to me how the news was beforehand when they would talk about important events for an hour and then be done for the day va now where the media is having to constantly release something every single hour of the day, no matter if it’s true or false.
Yeah this goes far beyond 2016. If people compared coverage of presidents since 2000 anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the pattern Trump being elected was the result of Republicans giving up on being moderate after seeing how badly McCain and Romney got screwed.
I'm old enough to remember when they played the national anthem and turned off the signal. No more TV till morning.
That was the worst, lol. What am I supposed to do now? Go to sleep?!!
Get the story out first no matter how inaccurate. You can always publish a clarification/retraction on page 44 in small print a week later…
They should just be a documentary and weather updates channel with live news coverage during the important hours for the country.
That’s basically what they were. From the ones I saw on the way back machine, it was just reading off the weather, talking about economic and noteworthy events for the day and then just signing off for the day when they were done after an hour or two.
> They spent the last four years full on being the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party You mean the last eight years.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbmyn7f/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Many statements are made in this comment without any sources—just emotionally charged sentences meant to convince you that "shadowy figures" control the narrative. The truth is that media is profit-driven and will chase whatever drives the most views/clicks/ratings. It may be "Trump bad" in January and "Biden old" in March. We all saw Fox News edit the clip of Trump speaking about the Epstein files, so it's not like the largest media channel in the country isn't helping Trump. https://news.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-edits-trump-interview-154341061.html?guccounter=1
What claim do you want sourced? My comment is analysis of the behavior of media. Do you have any significant examples of mainstream media outside of obvious conservative outlets investigating the unprecedented lack of access to the president? Do you have any examples of these media sources being critical of his *cognitive abilities*, not just his age? Do you have the response from the media when Jean-Pierre claimed he could "run circles around me" (because no one was like, woah, this doesn't sound right)?
sometimes people say the media is profit-driven, and it is to some extent among the really high-ups, but everyone knows newsrooms have political preferences. remember the firestorm at NYT over the tom cotton op ed? MSNBC hosts aren't all leftists because they're paid to be leftists, they're leftists because they just are. same with FOX hosts - it's not like all these people are apolitical and totally money-driven. Journalists usually have left-leaning twitter feeds - they're not paid for that.
They are paid for exactly that. They may naturally be left leaning, but they are paid to drive engagement with consumers so they will say the things that drive the most engagement. Engagement drops off, they either alter the things they say or they don't get paid. That is how we end up with on any given day, 30 different media outlets and journalists saying literally the same things word for word.
[удалено]
What was the response from all the major news outlets when WSJ ran their story about Biden's decline a few weeks ago? What was the response to Ezra Klein telling people we needed to replace Biden a year ago? Why were only Democrats surprised by how bad Biden looked in the debate? What was the media response when the presidents doctor report he didn't even *need* a cognitive assessment,he was just that sharp? How did Jean-Pierre put it? Something like "he can run circles around me"? Why did no one seriously question that? What did Joe Scarborough say? "Sharpest version of the president he's ever seen"? Why did they just sit completely quietly about a president with an unprecedentedly low public expose, launch full attacks on anyone who questioned the narrative and completely ignored the fact that he's clearly experiencing severe cognitive decline if not outright dementia. Every Democrat I know was absolutely shocked at what they saw from Biden and every Republican I know wasn't surprised at all because conservative media has been hammering the "Biden has dementia" story since 2020. This has been a pure media coverup from the start and the fall out from it will be fucking catastrophic for social trust.
Media has been one sided for a long long time. Media is trying to salvage their image by acting “dumbfounded” by Biden’s decline. The only problem is that they didn’t do justice before then
Buddy, the drumbeat that "Biden old" has been a thing for his entire presidency and even in during the 2020 election.
Thursday was way beyond just "Biden old". Good grief.
So people back in 2020 (correctly) claimed that Biden was too old to serve for 4 years, the news comes out now that he basically shuts down after 4pm and has been doing that for a while, and your response is that people back in 2020 were wrong to say Biden was too old?
Seriously. "Here's why this is bad for Biden" is a meme for a reason.
Not only that, but Biden has been constantly criticized for his age since 2020 (and even before).
So why not answer any of my questions about the people who have been lying about his cognitive abilities, ignoring the unprecedented shielding from media and straight up gas lighting about the "sharpest he's ever been"? No president has been more sheltered from the media except Woodrow Wilson, why not go back and take a look at what happened there.
> except Woodrow Wilson Um, FDR? How about Reagan who actually had dementia? But yes, the Biden campaign did certainly want to hide Biden's inability, that isn't at all at doubt. But the suggestion that the MSM is a propaganda arm for the Dems... dude that is ludicrous.
By the actual metrics, Biden is the most sheltered president since Wilson. It's funny you bring up Reagen as if he had disqualifying dementia but Biden doesn't. Go watch the 1984 debates. Biden's cognitive performance is objectively so much worse than Reagan's was, it's genuinely not comparable, yet you seem to think it is. Biden has dementia. This isn't *normal aging*, it's serious cognitive decline. I regularly give people MoCAs to screen for dementia and there is absolutely no way he's scoring higher than 20. The fact that his doctor decided he didn't even need screening should cost him his medical license.
Which metrics? > It's funny you bring up Reagen as if he had disqualifying dementia but Biden doesn't. Why do you assume I am defending Biden and that I am a fan of his? You seem genuinely offended that I am not buying your vague claims, *especially* the idea that the MSM is a propaganda arm for the Dems. I'll make it clear: no, I don't like Biden. I don't want him to run. But I also do not want Trump either. I think that would be a disaster in a plethora of ways. As such, I would take Biden over Trump, even if Biden was literally a stone's throw away from death. Wouldn't be the first time a President was in serious decline in the White House.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lblzors/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Between the media and all of the negative comments, opinions, and foreign influence on social media he doesn't have to say or do anything. Granted *keeping quiet* is a challenge for him, but if he just stays out on the golf course, maybe he can keep up the stretch.
He can, but I suspect he won't. Every time he's been met with a windfall (although never one as substantial as this) he can't help but "capitalize" on it and ruin the free media bonanza by having the media cover him instead. The process is always pretty similar. KJP or Biden (or one of the other senior dems) says or does something pants-on-head, the media takes like 5 seconds out of breathless Trump coverage to say "oh by the way KJP said something GENIUS and BRILLIANT let's all listen to her" and anyone with a brain realizes it's dumb at best or actively idiotic at worst, but Trump realizes people aren't talking about him for 5 seconds so he's like 'MOM DAD LOOK I CAN DO FIVE CARTWHEELS LOOK LOOK!' and then everyone goes back to looking at Trump when a full news cycle where he didn't do anything would force the media to blast the nonsense coming out of the Biden admin, which would've essentially made more folks realize sooner that they're full of it. So I predict before next Tuesday Trump will have done or said something stupid enough to recapture the media's attention just because he can't resist. Having said that, the damage is sorta done here on the Biden stories- cat's out of the bag, emperor has no clothes; and we have no president and everyone's just kinda accepting it.
Trump seems to actually be taking this election seriously the past couple weeks. I imagine the fact that he got a felony conviction and a bunch of civil penalties is the biggest sign to him that he's not just playing a game anymore and his literal freedom is still at stake. Taking his advisors seriously and actually following their words like trying to have a decent debate performance and now he is just standing back while the media is tearing into Biden without him having to do anything.
Doesn't help that Biden camp keeps coming up with new ways to shoot themselves in the foot: first they denied and tried to go the, "well, at least he made good points when we could understand him"; then, "well, you can't vote for Trump, right? we need Biden because better than Trump"; then it was, "oh he just had a long trip (2 weeks ago) and he was very tired"; now Biden is admitting he fucked up but still trying to assure people that it's fine, he'll do better. Trump is going to be a disaster. But Biden camp is just so damn bad at handling things. It's absurd that Democrats didn't think of another candidate in the 4 years of Biden. He was just a placeholder, the dude was trailing among DNC candidates in 2019-20. Last minute choice. How did people think this was a strong contender, especially now?
> It's absurd that Democrats didn't think of another candidate in the 4 years of Biden. He was just a placeholder, the dude was trailing among DNC candidates in 2019-20. Last minute choice. How did people think this was a strong contender, especially now? Biden was the frontrunner in most of the 2020 primaries and polled best in an actual election. Even through all of his presidency he polled *alright* against Trump, at least not bad enough that made it clear that he would loose re-election, to the point where a party would go to the lengths not supporting their incumbent president. Now the issue is that it is largely too late to replace Biden, delegates are pledged to him and many states ballot cut offs have passed. Even if he did drop out the backup is Kamala, who is even less popular than Biden. If both of them dropped out the convention would be brokered and it would descend into chaos.
Don't forget that they've admitted things are better now because he has Hunter Biden in his ear, or that he does pretty well between 10-4, provided he gets a nap in there somewhere.
“He had a cold, stop asking questions!” Can we get some live appearances without a teleprompter? Maybe a hostile crowd he has to engage with? “Short, taped interview with someone who works for our donors. He’s fine.”
Betting it all on an 82 year old man was always absurd. It's the age where people suddenly have major medical issues. I get that he's the incumbent, but this isn't like some far-fetched scenario happened. It was always an incredibly risky strategy.
Yeah, anything past 80 is literally a "just happy I woke up today for a new day" kind of future prospect. Every year past 80 is like 15 years in terms of the speed of decline.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” - Napolean Bonaparte
"*Biden is the worst president ever, but he's absolutely the best candidate to run against me.*" -Trump, probably.
The best and greatest opponent, bigly.
Napoleon Bonaparte, or Boni as I call him - smart fellow, capable guy, will do great things.
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” [- Obama](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/14/obama-biden-relationship-393570)
Well, yeah, he's polling at 49% nationally currently, and has commanding leads in every swing state (I would guess that stays true regardless who the Democrat nominee is at this point). The only thing he COULD do is damage those numbers. Ride this out, let the other guy squirm, and let that nasty pendulum swing back in his favor.
Trump being quiet for the past 7 days is a breath of fresh air. 1.5 weeks away is the Republican convention & his VP selection where he could receive another bump
Apparently Trump is still ranting about things on his Truth Social, it's just that no one is seeing what he's saying who isn't already a Trump voter.
Yet another blunder was pushing Trump off of Twitter.
Someone please take away the Democrat's mute button and never let them near it again.
[удалено]
The media fighting Trump reminds me of a planet fighting a black hole.
Trump playing 4D chess as usual
Well, it’s telling that the media isn’t picking up on any of that to move the attention from Biden.
At this point, it would just be another Tuesday with Trump, yeah he says off the wall stuff all the time, but thats the thing, he says off the wall stuff all the time, people know exactly what they are getting with Trump, no hold barred. This is the first time apparently a lot of people who haven't been paying attention are just starting to see the facade on Biden crack in real time.
I've said it for months, I think it'll be Tim Scott. It's also the only nominee he mentioned by name during the debate, which I think was his hint.
Tim Scott being black neutralizes half of Kamala's intersectional advantage. He's also full black which gives him more points than half indian. It also looks like he grew up poor. And his parents were divorced. Holy shit, Tim actually *beats* Kamala on the oppression scorecard. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a better contrast. He's going to smash her if she tries using oppression talking points in the VP debate. >Kamala Devi Harris was born in Oakland, California,[11] on October 20, 1964.[12] Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a Tamil Indian biologist, whose work on the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast cancer research.[13] She moved to the United States from India as a 19-year-old graduate student in 1958, after studying home science at Lady Irwin College in New Delhi. After studying nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California, Berkeley,[14][15] she received her PhD in 1964.[16] Kamala Harris's Jamaican American father, Donald J. Harris, is of Afro-Jamaican and Irish-Jamaican ancestry.[17] He is a Stanford University professor of economics (emeritus) who arrived in the United States from British Jamaica in 1961, for graduate study at UC Berkeley, receiving a PhD in economics in 1966.[18][19] >When Harris began kindergarten, she was bused as part of Berkeley's comprehensive desegregation program to Thousand Oaks Elementary School, a public school in a more prosperous neighborhood in northern Berkeley[27] *** >Tim Scott was born on September 19, 1965, in North Charleston, South Carolina, to Frances, a nursing assistant, and Ben Scott Sr. When Scott was seven years old, his parents divorced, leaving him and his older brother, who later became a sergeant major in the U.S. Army, to grow up in working-class poverty with their mother, Frances, who often worked double shifts to support her family.[6][7] >After his parents divorced, Scott, his mother, and his older brother moved into his maternal grandparents' house. There, he formed a close bond with his grandfather.[6] >As a freshman at North Charleston's R.B. Stall High School, he failed several subjects, prompting his mother to send him to summer school, which he had to finance by working at a local movie theater.[6] During this time, he met John Moniz, the owner of a nearby Chick-fil-A. Their initial interaction over a sandwich at Scott's workplace evolved into a substantial mentorship. Moniz educated Scott on individual responsibility, conservative business principles, philanthropy, and finance.[6] >From an early age, Scott enjoyed sports and excelled at football. He overcame racial prejudice in high school, securing election as student body vice president in his junior year and student body president as a senior.[6]
I live in Charleston and have followed him since he was a county councilman. He's busted his ass, putting himself through school, becoming an insurance agent and getting into politics. He'd be a great asset for Trump, but also our nation as a whole.
He definitely seems like a genuine down to earth guy who cares about his constituents, he’s a little too conservative for my liking but I’d be happy to see him as VP
Scott comes out sounding like a Chad. In a good way.
you forgot Tim is a straight man and a Republican, while Kamala is a woman and a Democrat, therefore Kamala wins the Opression Olympics.
It'll be Marco Rubio, the first Hispanic on a major party presidential ticket.
Both he and Trump are from Florida. It won’t be him although he would be a good choice.
That didn't stop Dick Cheney; he just became a Wyoming resident to sidestep that issue. I suspect Marco Rubio would quickly become a Nevada resident.
Disagree. If Rubio is the pick, Trump will again switch his residency ... to New Jersey (where he has his Bedminster golf club), a state which now actually looks like it may be in play
Dick Cheney was always from Wyoming.
That is not accurate and is easily rebutted with a quick Google search. https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96427&page=1
What I mean is, Dick Cheney grew up and made his political career in Wyoming. It made sense for him to go back. Rubio’s profile is all Florida.
I'm not sure what you mean by his "profile," but he grew up in Las Vegas, not that it matters. He could become a resident of any other state, regardless of past connections (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S2-C1-13/ALDE_00013789/#:~:text=C1.-,13%20Right%20to%20Travel%20and%20Privileges%20and%20Immunities%20Clause,Citizens%20in%20the%20several%20States.) https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-politics-marco-rubio-vegas-years-20151008-story.html
The Florida Senate race is somewhat close, and Republicans need to retake the Senate. I doubt it's Rubio.
Rubio isn’t up for election. Scott is up for election in Florida.
The Florida senate race is really not close lol
JD Vance could help in places in the Midwest. He’s a very relatable guy who had his mother addicted to opioids growing up. He got a good education and enlisted into the Marines… he’s what every Midwesterner loves.
I don’t think Vance would bring much electoral value to the ticket. He underperformed Trump’s 2020 results in Ohio in a year redder than 2020, and every other statewide Republican candidate outperformed him by double-digits.
I like Vance a lot too especially when it comes to his position about economy and Europe/Ukraine. But in terms of getting votes, I'm unsure it would help the ticket. However, if he is VP, I'm 100% voting Trump ticket, not because I like Trump (I find Trump's personality distasteful though I'm glad he's learning to quiet down), but because Vance is the guy we Republicans need. We don't need more neocons.
I like Vance a lot. I wish he had some more political experience. The most republican thing would be to finally dethrone Sherrod Browns seat in Ohio but then lose Vance’s seat to a democrat in a special election lol
[удалено]
How well liked is he in Virginia since he became Governor? If he picks Youngkin that makes me think they believe they have a chance of winning the state
They are probably better off focusing on someone that'll help them with a certain group of voters, than just trying to get Virginia. If Virginia is even close once the election happens, then Biden lost in a landslide. Cao isn't even a great Senate candidate worth pushing for, Kaine should win pretty easily.
I haven’t looked recently but he generally has mid to high 50% approval polling. I looked something that was done in March and he was at 58%.
[удалено]
Whoever he chooses will automatically be more likable than Kamala
> Whoever he chooses will automatically be more likable than Kamala Trump campaign: Hold my beer EDIT: This comment aged well xD
😂
As long as he doesn’t pick someone stupid like MTG, Donalds, or Lake he should be good.
Glenn Youngkin or Ben Carson. My money is on Carson
Carson is very smart and soft spoken. I think his stories and personality could resonate with many who aren’t in Trump’s can right now. I hope Youngkin doesn’t leave Virginia. Very good moderate Republican who has done a good job governing.
Youngkin’s term ends in a year though and he can’t run for reelection, what else could he do in VA?
Shoot I forgot how weird Virginia is, my bad. I guess if he would be willing he would be a good compliment to Trump.
When your opponent is making a mistake, don’t interrupt them. - Art of the deal, page 8, probably, idk never read it.
That’s fair. Trump didn’t write it.
It's a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte. Kind of apt. Trump is to the American Republic what Napoleon was to the French Republic.
I was referring to the book, but yes, so far Trump looks much like America’s Bonaparte. Here’s hoping he’s even less successful.
Biden's opponent isn't Trump, it's time. All Trump has to do it sit there and show his face from time to time. Biden's opponent will do all of the work.
Trump’s silence on Biden staying in the race seems like the calm before a political storm.
Why should Trump say anything?
All the people trying to "both sides" this situation claiming Trump is also mentally impaired may be onto something. Can anyone imagine the Trump we know not piling on right now? >"We used to call him 'Sleepy Joe', that's what we called him, but I'm changing to 'Comatose Joe' because he is. Nobody has ever seen anything like it. And he's the president! Can you imagine? This guy is a disgrace, and if you want to know the truth, so is his lovely wife, they call her 'Doctor' Jill Biden. She's propping him up. Probably a good thing. He needs a doctor. And now Hunter is in the White House running the country? 'Where's Hunter?' we used to say? He's in charge now. It's a disgrace." Something happened to that guy. He's turned into a stone cold muthafuckin assassin.
>Something happened to that guy. He's turned into a stone cold muthafuckin assassin. he's coached very well. in debate he only looked at the moderator when talking, and barely glanced to Biden when not talking.
To be fair, in 2016 he was much better coached than the 2020 election. I'm not sure why but in 2020 he basically ran on screaming at Biden. Seeing this reversion doesn't really surprise me, he's always played a character of sorts at times. [See here in 2016](https://youtu.be/LxhhOfe3uWc?t=2186). Clinton goes after him on a personal level, but he holds his tongue for the most part, lets her finish, and then responds relatively fine to defend his conduct. [In 2020 he went on and just interrupted left and right](https://youtu.be/vU0fx8d2FiY), most likely to try and incite Biden. But it backfired heavily from a PR side. Its hard to guage when he's seriously delusional or whether he's just saying inflammatory/crazy things in the vein of crazy Nixon. His presidency was up and down moments of looking sane and then suddenly appearing the opposite. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable because you can't really ground it
I don’t think that’s the case. Is he older, yes and definitely more experienced in the political world after this “trials” in the White House and then sitting on the sidelines for past 3-4 years…I think he will do things he wouldn’t normally have done during the campaigning process such as maybe not being as ridiculous but who knows 😆
Maybe he doesn't want to catch a charge for elder abuse.
Speaking of, [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL6QJNM6z0U) has never been more relevant.
HOW DARE YOU BRING UP BEAU /S
Wow, the irony!
It’s crazy how disciplined you can become when you’re faced with the threat of imprisonment and a loss of resources. Trump understands the stakes and knows he needs to win; couple that with a much more professional staff and a much more formal campaign, and you get Trump’s current campaign.
Which is exactly what people want in a President, someone who understands the stakes and knows what it takes to win, that translates into a lot when dealing with the world outside of the US as it currently stands. It will be a threat to the countries who basically seen Biden as an elderly pushover with no bite.
He hired Susie Wiles to run his campaign; she’s a stone cold political operative responsible for turning Florida red.
If Biden drops out, his replacement will be somebody that is, themself, fine with losing any future in electoral politics, as well as any connection to beltway society. As such, I’d expect the replacement, should they materialize, to be Harris. The donors of the party know that she won’t be anchoring a ticket in 2028, and everybody around her seems to agree with that assessment, including the Press. Regardless, whether it’s Biden or Harris or somebody else, make no mistake, they will lose to Trump at this point. With this in mind, I don’t think that Whitmer, Shapiro, Moore, or even Newsom want to lose their chance at a legitimate shot in 2028 to be put up as the token losing candidate in 2024, after which, they will be cast off into the wilderness as ‘the one who lost to Trump’ and live a post-political life similar to Jimmy Carter.
I don’t understand why running and losing in 24 disbars someone from 28. Nixon lost his 1960 presidential campaign *and* the 1962 CA governor’s race before successfully gaining the presidency in 1968
Nixon had a legacy and a mythology around him, even then, as well as a deep-well of affection among the donor class (despite his conviction that everybody actually hated him and the ‘Eastern Establishment’ wanted him to fail), he was a quasi-Trump crossed with the establishment-sheen that came from being Eisenhower’s VP, allowing him to project and present in different ways to different groups. Kamala, simply put…does not have any sort of mythology or well of affection, nor is Biden an Eisenhower level public figure. Further, any of these governors are functionally interchangeable amongst each other and ill defined at this point; if Newsom runs and loses in ‘24…well, how is he any different than any number of other blue-state governors who didn’t run and didn’t lose the last election against a historically-unpopular candidate?
At this point I don't think they need to have a mythology around them. Hell, they can even carry some baggage like Kamala. They just need to be younger than retirement age and have some semblance of charisma. If the Dems win this election it will purely be a result of growing resentment towards judicial activism and demolishing long-standing precedent. No matter what people think about how SCOTUS rules, the people's opinions about those rulings reflects the reality of the US's attitude towards those things.
I guarantee, and this isn’t to condemn the average voter…but very few people that weren’t already voting Blue will be voting based on judicial activism or, for that matter, likely even understand what the phrase means.
The average voter understands that certain rights are being taken away regardless of whether it makes political sense or not. At some point they're also bound to hear that bribery is legal because the SCOTUS, who is already in hot water for accepting gifts, says so. Couple that with the left heavily emphasizing the agenda of Project 2025 and, once again regardless of whether it makes political sense or not, that Trump has been convicted of crimes. I think we're going to see more than a few independents vote blue or stay home purely based on the aforementioned talking points, but this is already the craziest election in decades - and this was before Biden's disastrous debate.
"They couldn't even beat Trump" would be a pretty hard label to shake.
With the exception of Trump the major parties don’t re-run losers anymore.
But wait, Dems are saying Trump winning this year is an existential threat to democracy. If there's no democracy left in 2028, wouldn't they want the best candidate to run this time around? Or is the reality that we're just being fed BS by both parties?
Well until recently Dems thought Biden was the best candidate. Name recognition, incumbent, strong support in DC and within the party. Everyone keeps asking for a "young, moderate, charismatic, Dem" as if one is just waiting in the wings. The 2020 primaries still had many older Dems dominating and younger dems were way less moderate than them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbmg4xh/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbm1yhx/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> But wait, Dems are saying Trump winning this year is an existential threat to democracy. If there's no democracy left in 2028, wouldn't they want the best candidate to run this time around? > > Correct. Breaking Points, while [discussing the debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8ULfwTneE) (which I *highly* recommend watching; it's the single best sum-up), pointed out two things for those who claim (to believe) the above: * If TrumpNaziKKK being reelected means "no more elections ever", shouldn't Democrats have chosen someone other than a living corpse as his opponent? * While discussing how the many plans among Democrats like Newsom, Whitmer, etc. (and their successors) for 2028 have been disrupted/forced up by the potential to replace Biden now, they again pointed out the paradox of on the one hand claiming that Trump will abolish elections, and on the other hand having plans for running to replacing Trump in 2028. [Read this *New York Times* interview of Whitmer.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer-interview.html) Strange, how she doesn't say (despite being very specific about things like the plot against her) that "if Trump wins, there won't be elections in 2028 and all non-MAGAtards will be executed by Trumptroopers". You'd think that would be something of sufficient urgency to repeat at every public opportunity. Almost as if actual Democratic leaders don't really believe the rhetoric they have so successfully foisted upon their supporters, including 75% of Redditors and *Times* commenters. Another example: Post-debate, [Maine Democratic Congressman explicitly denying that Trump's reelection will threaten American democracy](https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-contributor/jared-golden-donald-trump-going-to-win-election-democracy-be-just-fine/)
> I’d expect the replacement, should they materialize, to be Harris. Absolutely agreed. The [D] party needs to throw someone to the wolves if things go bad (which is highly likely) and Harris' pride won't let anyone be selected over her; she'll torpedo the entire [D] party if she's not selected. It's honestly a "best case scenario" for the D party looking toward '28 - but probably a failure for America because it will increase chances of a win for Trump.
Nominating Harris is the only thing that can make the current situation worse. Qualifications and covering up Bidens condition, they need to move completely away from Biden and Harris. Straw poll the delegates at a minimum.
I think this election goes to Trump no matter who the Dem candidate is. People like Newsom and Whitmer probably don’t want to tarnish themselves with a loss. They’ll let Kamala be the sacrificial lamb, and take their shot in ‘28 against a different Republican.
I agree. I think that the DNC needs to realize that the chance that Biden takes this was bad before the debate, and that the debate all but destroyed it. This is the Republicans election to lose. They have a real chance at a clean sweep by just having everyone keep quiet and making boring "jeans in a field with kids" commercials. Run Kamala because on the off chance the Dems do win, we need someone who can actually remember who they are talking to. Hope trump picks a coherent non-crazy VP since they will almost certainly be finishing next term and reasses what got us into this mess in the first place.
> They have a real chance at a clean sweep by just having everyone keep quiet and making boring "jeans in a field with kids" commercials. Nah, what they will do once it's too late for Biden to drop out is to run ads that are "this governor/senator/representative said Biden was fit to be president, they lied to you and covered it up". [There's already one.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arSalg2T3Q0)
Yeah, and it will work. Because when people like me said that Biden was losing it, they were told it was nonsense. The emperor has no clothes moment is pretty bad, and it's really hard for me to believe that it was a surprise to people he worked with when normal people saw it on TV. It makes the "threat to democracy" shtick ring very hollow when it wasn't serious enough to replace Biden or have a primary or even consider another candidate.
> covering up Bidens condition If she replaces Biden, Trump ads will ask "What did she know about Biden's health, and when did she know it?" If her answer is "I didn't see the president often enough to notice", that in of itself is damning even if true.
Problem is, the relentless drive on identity and gender politics in the Democratic Party means there is no one left at the national or even state level that can reach out to the moderate voters who are fine with gay marriage and equal opportunity but are turned off by what is being pushed today. Add the out right pro-illegal alien stance of the main line D party movers and shakers today you also lose the support of working class people of all colors. Biden’s big draw on 2020 was that he *could* be an old timey Bill Clinton type old hand that can try to steer the country down the middle. Now people realize he is just a public face and that he has no say in policy.
Just have to let the republicans win so people are reminded why they suck in their own way, and then we can start the cycle anew!
Roy Cooper. 67, so not much political career left, especially since he's term limited out of the governorship at the end of the year and isn't running for anything. Still young enough where he could actually do 2 terms, without it being ridiculous. Also, if you already have 4+ strong candidates running in 2028, there's a good argument that one of those is better off trying to run now. If Kamala wins, there won't be a primary in 2028.
This is what the "stay quiet and support Biden" people don't understand... that's what trump wants!
Article 1: Trump and cons hope Biden leaves for the chaos. Article 2: Trump and cons hope Biden stays because old. Article 387: Trump and cons hope ...
Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
Starter comment: There has been some talk in conservative circles that Trump did too much in the debate, and some are afraid that replacing Biden could hurt Trump's chances to win in November. Trump himself has been relatively quiet on the topic of replacing Biden. >And in an echo of a talking point that Mr. Biden’s Democratic allies have long wielded to argue that he is best positioned to beat the former president, Mr. Trump has also argued that polling showed that “Biden does better than the people they’re talking about using to replace him.” Trump's above quote seems to be dishonest, as he wouldn't be worried about Biden being replaced, and would actively be pushing for it if that really were the case.
I don’t think it’s that Trump did too well so much as it is that Biden fell flat on his face. I can’t think of anything Trump could have done during this debate that would have avoided the calls to replace Biden.
Honestly from Trump that performance was surprisingly subdued. Now part of it was the rules making him unable to do his usual things but I also think he was caught off guard by just how **bad** Biden did. His standout moment for me was "an I don't think he knows, either". And not for the words but for the delivery. It wasn't his usual zinger tone, it was much softer and more of just a sad observation. I really think he was caught just as off guard as all of us watching by how much Biden had degraded.
he also kept looking to the moderator and rarely even glanced to Biden when he's not talking (the exception when Biden stumbled "we beat medicare"). that makes him look less combative. in comparison, Biden looked at Trump quite often, including when he's calling Trump names. so it's not only the rules, but Trump made conscious effort (most likely coached) to not engage Biden at all.
Biden stared at Trump with blank eyed confusion and mouth agape. His look was, to me, very similar to angry old nursing home patients. He may have intended to portray a firebrand, he came off as grandpa when his son in law says it's time to give up driving.
yes. he should have kept smiling (borderline laughing) that he sometimes made when he thought what Trump said was ridiculous. it made him doesn't look old and senile.
That was Trump’s best presidential debate. The bar was low but it was the best for him. I wish he would have answered questions better & rambled less but that is just who he is
> Trump's above quote seems to be dishonest, as he wouldn't be worried about Biden being replaced, and would actively be pushing for it if that really were the case. I wouldn't call that dishonest - it is an accurate reflection of the current polls. I don't think that current polling accurately predicts the future though - a new candidate will have more upside potential, while Biden's presumably cognitive decline will continue to progress.
If Trump won the popular vote you can bet all the democrats who claimed the Electoral College was unfair and undemocratic would suddenly change their tunes.
The idea that the electoral college is undemocratic is not a matter of opinion. It’s a demonstrable fact. And that was the intent. How people feel about that is a different matter.
So no one saw that Daily Mail video of him trashing Biden and then Kamela Harris while sitting in a golf cart? He called her "pathetic" and "so fucking bad".
It was in poor taste, but nothing he said was incorrect or what people weren't thinking.
Staying quiet means in a public-facing way, ie a speech, interview, or direct remarks to the press.
Except for that viral video making the rounds on X where Trump is at a golf course bragging that Biden is gonna drop out.🤔
That was a leaked video, not an official statement
It holds more weight than these things he is supposedly “hoping” for in private.
Can we discuss this subject [https://www.independent.co.uk/](https://www.independent.co.uk/)
Trump staying quiet may also reflect that he doesn’t want anyone paying attention to him in light of the recent release of Epstein documents that have his name all over them. He might know ecactly what those documents contain (in addition to telling Epstein he is ‘between girls” and accordingly needs a ‘massage’), and doesn’t want to stir the water at the moment.
Meanwhile Fox posted 40 articles in 3 days. I understand covering it a lot. But that seems... excessive. https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/1duc0zj/fox_news_posts_40_articles_in_3_days_urging/
A lot of people missing the point. Advertising discontent with Biden damages his support and creates a downward spiral. It's called "dooming" and it's a key part in demoralizing turnout for Biden. The difference is that this isn't manufactured outrage, it's just given a soapbox. It's also what their audience wants to hear, Dems in disarray. They want Biden to stay but also mock his failures. One of which is his splintering party.
Didnt realize calling for televised military tribunals of a sitting senator and his former vice president counted as staying relatively quiet. Are we really going to just ignore how terrifying that idea is?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dv7dvq/trump_stays_quiet_relatively_hoping_biden_stays/lbqgani/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Trump may have done too good of a job at the debate, defeating a weak Biden so early in the race. I’ve said it before, but this is becoming a best-case scenario for Dems. It’s much better to have this debate in July than on November 6. (Of course, this assumes Biden actually drops out.)
Perhaps that's the reason they pushed for such an early date.