I will respectfully disagree with you here (bolded section).

My response, so not to clutter up this thread, is below

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Biden's Immigration Reform

Do you remember 2016?

Do you see the EXACT same headlines from 2016?

It's the EXACT same playbook.

What about this don't you get? pic.twitter.com/PeKbaz96xJ

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) July 4, 2024

ALso to parallel Hillary is the obvious similarity that then Hillary was forced on us as the Democratic candidate. Now that Trump has forced himself as the republican candidate hopefully the same result will happen but I'm still holding out for God's wrath lightning bolt.

Dragged to a neighborhood fireworks show by our daughter so she can hang with friends. This neighborhood has probably spent 20-30k on fireworks.

But at the start they did a prayer, pledge of allegiance and sand the national anthem. Then a group started a Let's Go Brandon chant. The rich white suburbs are so oppressed.

The excuses are starting early.

Happy that Joe got a big vote of confidence.

Democratic governor says Biden ‘fit for office’ after president meets with group of state leaders | CNN Politics

I'm not convinced there is as much unanimity as portrayed right now. Give it some time and see if anything leaks out.

But okay ... game (still) on and looking forward to the ABC, not-live interview by former Obama press secretary. Can get anymore soft ball than that. Get out into the public and do the public townhalls, show people you can carry yourself well and answer questions coherently, and hopefully you can turn the tide (... or pass the torch).

A little more from the meeting from Axios.

Just a moment...

I'm reading in-between the lines as the Governors telling Joe he has to do X, Y, Z and that if he doesn't do that successfully by a certain date, then he'll get another visit.

The polls show it. This is why Dems were caught off-guard in places like South Florida and Texas because Latinos were voting GOP in increasing numbers. Some of it is buying into the culture war stuff, but that has crossover into the immigration thing. There were a number of exit polls from the 2022 mid-terms that confirmed certain minorities wanted GOP-style immigration measures put in place.

Clinton aide and eventual Communications Director.

If you get a chance, please post your polls. I would be very interested to see if there is a distinction made on legal vs illegal immigration.

Thanks for the correction

This should help. Not sure if it answers your specific question but there a lot of interesting data to mull over.

Latinos' Views on the US-Mexico Border Migrant Situation | Pew Research Center

Something not brought up is that Hispanics don't rate immigration as high as they used to. Polls show they care a lot about the economy, inflation, homeownership, and stagnant wages.

And from an immigration standpoint, both parties hold nearly identical positions these days. Biden recently tried to pass Trump's immigration plan. It just feels like an issue where there isn't going to be much difference.

I guess another question to be asked is who exactly is running the country? I'm guessing after the election we'll get a lot of stories and books about the past couple years.

The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden

I have read this report. Similar to the Gallup link, Pew does not delineate between legal & illegal when they ask the questions below. Pew conflates both into "migrant situation" or "migrants seeking to enter" and does not give people to state their opinion on legal immigration.

(see first graphic on pg 1)

My basic premise is:

1) Polls should clearly differentiate between legal & illegal. And polls should ask opinion on both in the same study (e.g. same population, same methodology etc.).

2) Because Gallup & Pew polls do not allow people to state their opinion on legal immigration (while polling on "migrant situation"), these polls do not tell the real story of how people feel about illegal & legal immigration

3) I contend people (hispanics, whites, blacks etc.) will be more critical of illegal immigration vs legal immigration. Or in other words, people will be more welcoming of legal immigration vs illegal immigration

As an example, the first question in the graphic:


To really understand people's view on immigration, should have been 2 questions similar to:


Therefore, the point I was trying to make in my response to Ksyrup is people/minorities are much more critical of illegal immigration and much less so of legal immigration.

I don't think they want any competition, illegal or not. Unless they are family/friends, of course.

And that is where we'll agree to disagree. I think there is a significant difference but unfortunately, I have not found one poll that asks those 2 basic questions.

Gotta love the south. I'm watching the local news and they're interviewing people who attended a 4th of July parade/festival, and this one older lady says, "It's a celebration of who we used to be, not necessarily what we are now."

Just a moment...

If this doesn't scream, "Now that I'm here I don't want people like me who aren't here right now to negatively affect my standing in the US," I don't know what does.

Pretty cool that rainmaker got published in the NYT!!! Congrats!! I'm sorry bud, I'm about to out you.

I don't want Trump to win which is why I prefer the Democrats run a candidate who isn't historically unpopular and suffers from dementia.

You got the man you wanted to run against Trump, not sure what you're complaining about.

Me, next year.

Oh, when did you move to Vicksburg?

Here's my take on it:

Olivia Nuzzi on Trump: Vibrant, alive
Olivia Nuzzi on Biden: Hideously unnatural

Pardon me for suspecting she's not on the level pic.twitter.com/x1tLUzrN1J

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 5, 2024

You do know the debate was on TV for everyone to see?

A few points I didn't get around to responding to:


It has nothing to do with them being honorable. I'd say they have historically been more honorable than Congress for example, but it's not about saying 'SCOTUS is great'. It is about the balance. Congress already has a great deal of oversight via impeachment after the fact, the executive appoints justices and the Senate approves them. If they were also able to just decide the Court is wrong whenever they feel like it, there's no point in having a Court at all.


Completely disagree. No sitting President has declined to run again since LBJ in 1968, and if he hadn't been hugely unpopular due to the Vietnam War I doubt very much that happened. The time for this discussion was a year ago, not now. At least that far back, significant numbers of Democrats and Independents were questioning Biden's capacity to serve another terms and saying they didn't want him to run again. Other alternatives didn't step forward. There's a process for them to do it, they didn't. The party didn't demand it, the voters didn't demand it.

That was the time to do this, and there was every opportunity to do it if people thought it was necessary.


This whole sentiment is just plain not true. A certain amount of Trump's and Biden's support isn't going anywhere. This happens in all elections, and some candidates like Trump have a measure more unpersuadable voters in their camp, but as always the election isn't determined mostly by that. It's determined mostly by turnout and by persuadables.


Nope. You can use the same logic to say voting for either of the two parties is voting to accept the candidates those parties are putting forward. You're saying that's fine and we shouldn't have any different choices. Someone who doesn't vote or votes third party is not supporting Trump, no matter how many times people say it. Supporting Trump consists of voting for him, and from a voting standpoint nothing else whatsoever.


Not singling you out, there's been a lot of this, Biden is a long shot, etc ... I see no evidence for that in the polling. I see no evidence a lot of Democrats are going to stay home and not vote because of Biden. Everything I see says it's a close race that is tilting a small bit to Trump at the moment but is far from determined. There was not huge movement after the debate.


I really don't understand this kind of thing. Like everyone else they had a chance to pick a candidate and primary Biden. Harris had her chance in the '20 primary, and I think there's virtually no chance of Democrats losing their votes long-term over this kind of thing.

On all the 'any other candidate with a pulse could win', that just makes no sense to me.

1. Some of Biden's unpopularity will stick to them. A sizable amount of it, for similar reasons that Bush 43s did to McCain. When you're the successor to whatever, you get the baggage of the whatever.

2. The chaos that would result will not help either.

3. Partly because of the above reasons, I think any speculative polling about 'would you rather have candidate X run' is highly unrepresentative of what they would actually do.

A lot of people have talked - rightly - about the need to save democracy. You don't do that by tossing aside the choice of the people - regardless how stupid you think it was - for the party and injecting someone else. Pulling Biden out now, regardless of how it happens, would be very likely to be destructive. We'll never know, it's a hypothetical, but I would put it upwards of 80% that Biden vs. the field of whoever might replace him, Biden outperforms anyone that the move might be made for.

Best case scenario is that he wins and resigns. I don't expect A to happen, and I don't think B happens if A does, but there's no other path forward that looks reasonable to me.

You can say a third party vote is not a vote for Trump, but the practical effect is assisting him. That's undeniable and pretty much semantics since elections are a zero sum game. Thinking otherwise is just mental gymnastics to make yourself feel better. Now, you might be in a state like I am, where a vote for Biden OR third party isn't going to swing the state either way - Trump wins KY handily. But in terms of pure popular vote, Trump wins by either gaining your vote or you not voting for [insert Dem candidate here]. You may not be "supporting" him but you've given him what he needs. It's only you who cares that you don't have a Trump 2024 flag flying in your driveway - not him.

Reading through the article, it again conflates legal & illegal and just mentions "immigrants".

However, numerous passages "hints" at the Latino's being against illegal (not legal) immigration and the negative consequences to them personally (because again, the article/studies do not clearly delineate).

I chuckled at below highlighted quote. That's step #2. Step #1 is breaking down the surveys by legal vs illegal.


Please note. I'm not saying there isn't any negative sentiment against legal immigrants. I'm saying it'll be much less when compared to illegal immigrants. And MSM and these polls that do not make the distinction and conflates the two, resulting in confusion and increased negative sentiments towards legal immigrants as a whole.

I agree with you.

Restrictive immigration policies, to me, means cutting back on letting in normal immigrants who are currently and would otherwise be upstanding, productive members of society. They are not now illegal, and they haven't arrived and snuck over the border to be illegal.

I'm sure they are even more against illegals - because, hey, it's illegal! - but they are fine with drastically cutting back the number of legal immigrants allowed in. People just like they were.

Your argument is history? Let's talk history. Biden is the oldest President to ever hold office, and he was that on the day he swore in. He was a year older than Reagan when he left office, and what was he suffering with in his final years? Oh, yeah, dementia. To say that something "hasn't been done since 1968" (which since there are so few Presidents, not exactly that long ago) makes it some how unheard of for an incumbent President not to run, then the same logical means having a 81 year old incumbent run is even more preposterous because it has never been done.


As for the rest of your statement, of course the time to do this was a year ago. Really, two years ago, some time after the mid-terms. He could have waited to make it official, because once he announces that he is basically a lame duck, but the internal planning should have started then. The fact he didn't was a major mistake, and we are watching it play out live.


As for the idea replacing him doesn't guarantee a win, of course it doesn't. Anyone that gets picked is going to get an immediate bump because of the "new, shiney!" factor, then will get the full press tear-down treatment. The fact the person was not pick by the people will be a major handicap. The only way that would be overcome is if they some kind of huge likeables, and no major scandal really tars them. I can't think of anyone who fits that bill that would realistically run. I can say with certainty Harris does not.



I will say in my opinion, that replacing Biden is the right thing to do. I don't see him lasting a full term at this point, and I think he has become a liability as President in his condition right now.

Why is it a vote for Trump and not a vote for Biden?

You are right - I was coming at it from the perspective of a discussion where a person would not vote for Trump in any situation. But more generically, in a 2-party system, withholding a vote from the more likely candidate you'd vote for is effectively assisting the other candidate, no matter how explicitly you state that you would never vote for that candidate and don't support them.

And again, in certain states voting 3rd party or staying home isn't going to change any outcome. But it certainly has a cumulative effect on the narrative in terms of popular vote if you've got millions of people not voting or voting 3rd party rather than for a particular candidate they see as flawed but far less of a danger than the other.

Highly disagree. You have to earn votes.


Good question.

Because we're taking about people who would prefer a Democrat over Trump, but are dithering about which one.

But that's sort of the fallacy, isn't it? That might be some voters, but Rainmaker doesn't prefer a Democrat at all. He prefers a Socialist. Nobodyhere most likely doesn't care about party at all, but prefers someone in his opinion rational. To me, I can't understand a mentality that says Biden is as big a danger to the country as Trump, but in some peoples minds they are equally as dangerous. Just not necessarily in the same way.

Then you haven't been looking at the swing states. Every poll has Trump consistently winning in every one. Some polls have Virginia, New Hampshire and New Mexico in play. Hell, I have even heard Jersey could be in play, south Jersey may as well be Alabama.

Biden is cooked and it is only going to get worse with every appearance he makes. CNN also just reported the White House isn't going to schedule anything after 8 PM. Hopefully if there is an international incident it occurs between the hours of 11-8 and not during nap time. Its a disgrace. At this point Trump is going to win close to Reagan era levels.

I'm not looking for a socialist and am not one. I voted for Biden in 2020. I just can't vote for someone who enables genocide. Some lines can't be crossed and I won't be blackmailed into it. But who cares? I'm in Illinois where my vote doesn't matter.

The issue now isn't whether Biden or Trump is worse for the country. It's that Biden is going to lose. This shouldn't be surprising as people have been warning about his unpopularity and cognitive issues for some time. But it appears now that this reality is sinking in, Democrats need scapegoats and excuses for yet another colossal electoral failure.

lady on my towns facebook group put up a post asking is anyone want to come level a 15 foot section of her yard for an above ground pool and you had several people replying "in this heat"

I live in a very red town and I guarantee some of those same people are complaining about migrants taking jobs.

And insisting climate change isn't real because it snowed this past winter.

"I didn't sleep with Stormy Daniels"
"I never said lock her up."

This is top Trump aide Russ Vought, one of the authors of Project 2025.

He is also in charge of the Republican Party’s platform committee. Yes, the same person writing Project 2025 is writing Trump’s GOP platform. https://t.co/AyuAbyz7aU pic.twitter.com/v4Da9gWmpy

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) July 5, 2024

Incorrect. There's a recent poll in Michigan that shows the race even. Two in Wisconsin. A number of others in various states show the race well within the margin of error. It's leaning Trump right now as I mentioned, but that's all it is. It's a very close election, and there is quite a bit of time until voting happens, but if it happened right now it's very possible Biden would win. Odds against him to be sure, but far from a certainty he'd lose.


Again, just not the case. If Trump won every state he is currently close or has a lead in, he would not even approach Reagan levels of margin.


- There have been 10 presidents since LBJ. That's not an incredibly small sample.
- This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. People have been consistently voting for older presidents. We've never had an 81-year-old elected, but last time out there was one man in his mid-70s and another in his upper-70s nominated, and the guy that had the most support aside from Biden on the D side was Sanders, who is more than a year older than Biden. I don't know how more clearly people could say 'this is the way we are going, we want old men as our presidents'.

Bottom line, I stand by my stance that there was no reasonable expectation that Biden wouldn't run again if he won in 2020. The default expectation would absolutely be that he would. Even people like Ford and Carter, when highly unpopular, run again. It's what politicians do.

The problem here is the assumption they would have voted for Candidate X, and using that as the baseline. I look at it essentially the way NobodyHere has described: there is no baseline. There shouldn't be a baked-in assumption of voting for anyone in particular. You should start from the situation where they could pick any of the options, including not voting.

The 'swing voters' going from one candidate to another illustrate this. Some of them decide not to vote, some to vote third party, some to vote for one or another - but the same choice is there for all voters.

By definition, in a 'R vs D' comparison, voting for neither is supporting neither. Voting for one is voting for them and against everyone else including the other party in the binary comparison.

Ford and Carter was not 78 when first in office (Ford was never elected) nor anywhere close to 82 when running. To pretend that Biden's age doesn't make an huge difference in the assessment is ignoring facts.

That sounds like a reasonable theory, and it may hold some validity at the outset of a political campaign until we have some clarity, but practically, you have two choices and you have some insight into who is winning/losing and how the election most likely is going to turn out. One or the other is going to win. For bad or worse, that's our system - it's baked in. And so with that information, the choice one makes to vote 3rd party or sit home when you would not support one of the two candidates under any circumstances is support for the ultimate winner. It just is.

Several congressmen have gone on record asking Biden to step aside, but no Senators as of yet.

Sen. Mark Warner seeks to assemble group of Democratic senators to ask Biden to exit race (⁦w ⁦@LACaldwellDC⁩ ) https://t.co/oDEXlvMh7x

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) July 5, 2024

So you mentioned three polls out of the hundreds that have been taken, and this is before his disaster. The dems should have run a candidate that would have destroyed Trump. Not Biden who they knew was in decline.

As for Reagan level win I forgot you're not great with hyperbole.

None of these people are actually polling much better than Biden, ironically enough.

Ehhhhh ... I've sat out at least one Presidential, feeling that no meaningful difference in expectations existed between the two candidates. Neither was fit to hold the office, my conscience did not allow me to cast a vote for either.

Elections in general, I've regretted votes I cast. I've never once regretted a vote I didn't cast. And off hand I can't think of a single candidate that I intentionally didn't vote for that ever managed to earn that support in a future election, they've all pretty well remained as unsupportable as I initially found them.

Regardless of party affiliation, I'd put this sort of thing under the heading of "only you face yourself in the mirror every morning", which is something I had a good bit of angst about after the terms of a couple of politicians who massively underwhelmed.

If Ralph Nader doesn't run, does Al Gore win?

If Jill Stein doesn't run, does Hillary Clinton win?

This is the best way to look at it if we're trying to decide whether a third party vote is hurting one major candidate or helping the other.

I think the issue is that Trump should be an incredibly easy person to beat. That if the party had elevated one of their popular Governors (especially in the Midwest), this race would be a lock. That running Biden is a massive unnecessary risk if you truly believe Trump can bring about the end of democracy (and why I don't think people who say that really believe it).



He did sort of hint at it in 2019. But like you said, it's tough to give up that kind of power once you get it.

All I can say is the party got what it wanted and I don't know why so many Democrats are upset. Julian Castro repeatedly brought up the age issue in the 2020 primary and was basically blacklisted from the party. The DNC immediately threw a primary challenger to Dean Phillips congressional seat when he spoke up.

- I see no evidence any such candidate exists
- As of hyperbole, I prefer to give people the respect to assume they mean what they say. I could just assume you (or others) are being hyperbolic when they say they don't like Trump or they think Biden is going to lose or whatever. There's no good way to automatically draw that line, esp. in internet conversations.

I did not pick 'three out of hundreds', I characterized a lot of them in general. I stand by that conclusion.


I think the fact that there is a certain ironclad amount of support for him (and to a degree any candidate) demonstrates that's not true. I think this primarily an electorate problem, not a candidate problem. I think for some (I don't say this about anyone specific here as I don't know those particulars) it's simply an emotional response, and one that we've seen ever since the 2016 campaign. There's just a 'oh come on, it's Trump', and all the ways he's horrible and how could anyone vote for him etc. We see lots of those types of posts around here, and I think at a certain point there's a basic unwillingness to face the fact that this is where the country is. People look at Trump and Biden and a lot of them think Trump's better. There was some clear-eyed viewing of that on the forum after seeing the numbers that voted Trump in 2020, but that sort of faded back in general 'lol Trump is so absurd' and denial again.

Does Biden win if Jo Jorgensen doesn't run? Does Bill Clinton win if Ross Perot doesn't run?

I think the problem with that thinking is assuming those votes were the candidates to begin with. Does a Jo Jorgensen voter vote Trump if she's not on the ballot? Or do they just sit the election out?

Maybe it's a case for ranked choice voting. But also, if your candidate loses a vote to Jill Stein, maybe they should do better.

I think it's the opposite. 2016 was a fluke because the Democrats ran a terrible candidate and it has scared the shit out of everyone since. But if you look at everything after, you realize Trump is a bad politician and incredibly unpopular.

Himself, his party, and his handpicked candidates got beat in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Many of those losses were in swing states and by sizable margins. His disapproval numbers are sky high still. It has even become a tactic by Democrats to boost the Trump candidate in the primary because it would lead to an easier opponent.

The only reason this race is in question is because the Democrats chose a highly unpopular candidate with dementia.

If Jorgenson wins all three states where her margin was more than the difference, then it would be 269-269 and Trump would win the tiebreaker. Arizona and Georgia are very likely, but Wisconsin is less certain.

But sure, if you were someone who ranked the candidates - Jorgenson, Trump, Biden - and you voted Jorgenson, then you cost Trump a vote and made it easier for Biden to win.

The Clinton-Perot thing has been debated quite a bit. Perot did definitely run as a fiscal conservative, but he also split the anti-unpopular incumbent vote. When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton received the biggest boost in the polls, jumping from 3rd to 1st place.


I think it's clear that there's a mix of third party voters who would've stayed home and who would've voted for the candidate closer to their policy preferences. How that percentage breaks down differs based on the circumstances of the election and the candidates.

It's hard to argue that of the 97,000 Nader voters in Florida, Gore wouldn't have made up the 538 vote margin needed to win. 2016 is more difficult to analyze because you also have to figure out the breakdown of Johnson voters.

I don't think Al Gore was owed Nader's votes. They ran very different campaigns and were far apart on the issues. Gore ran almost as a Republican and nominated one of the most Conservstive Democrats as his running mate.

There were also candidates from all sides on that ballot. Heck, the Communist candidate got like 1500 votes.

I think ranked choice is a fine solution for elections but this idea that candidates are owed votes from people seems undemocratic to me.

We can argue about the language "owed" forever. I don't really care about that.

If Ralph Nader didn't run, Al Gore would've won. (There's not a reasonable argument otherwise here.)

If Jill Stein didn't run, Hillary might've won.

Both candidates could've and should've run much better campaigns. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't change the belief in many people's eyes that the country would be better off if Gore and Hillary had won. And I wish more people had thought about that instead of voting for Nader and Stein.

Wouldn't have normally bothered, but Will has much more patience for comedy than I have at this point so I saw some of the Stephanapolous attempted hatchet job.

How anyone could ever again even possibly consider ABC anything other than the p.r. arm of the cabal pulling the strings is mindboggling.

Didn't watch it. But if left leaning r/politics is any indication, it ranged from not enough to just okay. Or in other words, Joe is still in trouble.

And if Trump doesn't run, Hillary would be President too.

I don't understand the hatred to 3rd party candidates. Same people talking about the importance of maintaining a democracy, but only if you vote for the 2 candidates a handful of billionaires have approved for you. This isn't Iran.

It should be easier to get on a ballot and candidates should have to earn your vote.

One way is to not believe there is a 'cabal pulling the strings' in the first place.

It's a 2 party system and we haven't had a single candidate put a serious dent in it and I don't see that changing. Even 3rd party candidates in congress caucus with and vote in line with one of the 2 major parties because they'd be useless otherwise.

If we had a 3rd party candidate win, what would they be able to accomplish with minimal congressional support unless they eventually pick a side and fall in line? They can't force congress to write the legislation the want to see come across their desk. You either work with one side or you end up trying to compromise with both.

I hope those in Congress who are pushing for Biden to drop out have a serious plan for a replacement, and not just 'eh, we'll figure it out when we get there'.

See below, Zogby has his idea. More details in article.

How to Replace Biden & Beat Trump: Longtime DNC Member Jim Zogby Proposes Process to Pick New Nominee | Democracy Now!

Really no idea how good this idea is but sounds good to me. But the longer it takes for Joe to step down, the harder it'll be through Nov.

... and I'll add, take a cognitive test.

Definitely a 2-edge sword. If you fail, I'm not sure it can truly be kept confidential. But if you pass, it'll be great to publicly proclaim it. Unfortunately, odds are it'll be the former and not latter.

I would have no problem with third parties if it required 50% of the vote to win the election. I don't care if there's a later runoff or an instant runoff format.

The 2010 Maine Governor's race is an example. Paul LePage won with 37.6%. He won not because most of Maine preferred him, but because the rest of the candidates split the vote in a way that made 37.6% enough. Maine wisely adopted ranked choice after this.

I think it's a terrible idea. Needing the approval of DNC members to run? No thank you. Nowhere in that is the will of the people involved in choosing the nominee.

That's how it is now. Primaries aren't exactly run democratically. Especially the 2024 one.

fwiw, that's a fairly common thing at the local/state level for the GOP in Georgia now. Prevents "stealth candidates" which are an issue for both parties here tbh.

Not to nearly this degree, they are still mostly democratic.

How are delegates, superdelegates, no debates, cancelled primaries in many states and punishing anyone who runs against the incumbent a democratic process?

There's rarely an open primary against an incumbent. The only times there have been the incumbent has lost.

Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller is starring in recruitment ads for Project 2025 https://t.co/AyuAbyz7aU pic.twitter.com/WHIr2qs87e

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) July 6, 2024

Instead of a cognitive test, how about one simple question to the candidates, is your senior advisor and speechwriter trying to overthrow the government?

I think it would be smart that the guy tasked with saving the country can draw a clock.

That House Democrars call sounded like a train-wreck. Some big names are calling for Biden to step aside, including Ted Lieu, the Democratic Caucus Vice Chair.

Edit: Lieu denies he said anything on the call and looks like Wa-Po, who reported Lieu saying that, is retracting.

"It was pretty brutal"

Several top House Democrats say Biden should step aside during leadership call | CNN Politics

I'm starting to hope this is all a weird sort of ruse to get stubborn old people to identify with him and vote for him

Unless they can start naming the anonymous sources I'm taking articles like these with a grain of salt.

Sounds like CNN it stirring up the pot for clicks.

I'm pretty sure huffpost is running a 24/7 smear campaign to get Biden to resign. Roommates, cousins, house members, senators, janitors all have came out and questioned Biden's age, but almost all of those salacious statements never have a name attached. Just some very fine people have said......makes you wonder.

Maybe they don't want Trump to be President again and saw what 51 million other people saw at the debate.

I do find it ironic how much influence Trump has had on the general public. Now we have some diehard Biden fans calling everything fake news, complaining about the deep state, and even pretending this is all some 4D cheese from Biden. Don't think there's enough passion to storm D.C. in January but definitely going to see some rigged election stuff come November.

Maybe they should smear Trump instead, then.

It does suck that Trump is mostly getting a free pass for all of his insane, fascistic ramblings but that's the result of Biden falling flat on his face at the most important campaign event so far.

I don't see how Biden can win. That debate performance is fully downloaded into the public perception. He can't recover from that. No amount of middling Sunday morning interviews is going to change that perception.

They have written negatively about him for 8 years.

I do think the fact that Trump ridiculously claimed he knows nothing of project 2025 this weekend shows his campaign knows how toxic it is and that as we get closer to the election and more people are paying attention it can hurt him.

If only the dems had a candidate that could press him on it.

It is the same thing as trying to leave the National Abortion Ban out of the Republican platform. It is a play to moderates knowing he has the far right all marching in goose-step.

They definitely got some bad numbers about the project and are trying to distance themselves quickly.

The RNC platform is basically just a long Trump truth social post.

And the problem is I would guarantee Biden has no clue what project 2025 even is.

All the dems have to do is find a candidate to hammer home project 2025, abortion ban, and Trump is a criminal and they coast to a victory instead we get a dottering old man who can't even close his mouth and 90% of the time looks catatonic.

Yep! Project 2025 is scary shit, even to a lot of Republicans. That and abortion rights should make this a clear dens win.

I mean now. The media in general is calling for Biden to drop out and not the rapist, insurrectionist, fraudster convicted felon with blatantly obvious fascist tendencies. It's disgusting.

Thety write negatively on Trump every day. Maybe it just seems weird because they've been carrying water for Biden for so long.

Why does this matter though? Do you need a WaPo editorial on Trump being bad to say the guy with dementia should drop out? Or is this just lining up excuses early? Everyone saw the debate. They can't alter reality for you.

Honestly they almost writhe about Trump too much to the tune of it normalizes him and becomes "Trump just being Trump"

They're also trying to help the Democrats beat Trump. Biden can't win and if you still support his candidacy you're choosing a man over the country. Same shit people chastise Republicans for doing.

https://consequence.net/2024/07/bill...trump-rappers/

Is this actually true?

I'm not just talking about one outlet here. I'm talking about how ridiculously transparent it is that every news outlet suddenly started saying the Biden must step aside but they don't ever say that about the rapist, insurrectionist, fraudster convicted felon with blatantly obvious fascist tendencies.

You can try harder to miss the point if you'd like, though.

This guy sums it up pretty well:
https://youtu.be/yOET7XiyLro?t=200

3:20 in case the URL doesn't go straight to it.

My .02 is that you may be reaching the wrong conclusion there. Do you really think the media wants Trump to win and that's why they aren't saying he should resign? Of Trump and Biden, which of them is more reasonably likely to listen to reason on this kind of issue? Of those two, which do you think the media more likely favors?

Some of this depends on what you think would happen if each dropped out, about which there's been a lot of speculation but that's all there can be. I think RainMaker has the right of it on the why here though; calling on Trump to drop out would be shouting at the rain. He's not going to do that. Before Biden's statement there was at least potentially a chance he might, and that it would improve the odds of Trump losing. I don't happen to agree with that projection, but I think it's fairly clear where it comes from and I don't think it's from a desire to treat Biden worse than Trump.