U.S. — Despite a significant majority of the nation now believing President Biden mentally unfit for office, the Democratic Party has decided to stay with Biden as its nominee as it would be a huge pain to reprint the tens of thousands of ballots they already filled out.
"On one hand, the nation now knows Biden is incapable of thinking and is a clear and present danger to himself and the country," said DNC chair Jaime Harrison. "On the other hand, it would be SUCH a pain to have to reprint all those ballots when we already filled them all out. It's so tedious! Aw, screw it... let's just stick with Biden."
The Democratic Party considered replacing Biden after the Presidential debate revealed his inability to walk or speak, but the amount of ballots already prepared for harvesting dissuaded them. "Obviously, Biden can't operate a frialator, much less run a country," said White House chief of staff Jeff Zeints. "To have him continue to be the corpse-like mouthpiece of the Party is nothing short of elder abuse, and everyone knows it. Still, do you know how long it takes to fill out two hundred thousand ballots? Ugh, it is so much work! Forget it."
At publishing time, annoyed Democrats had begun preparing another hundred thousand ballots for harvesting after seeing how bad the post-debate poll numbers looked.
So... If I were advising Joe, I'd suggest he do it tomorrow (the 4th)... or at some point during the Republican convention.
The rush to replace him needs to be tempered with opportunistic optics. A debate or two, town halls, etc. Since the convention will be the "decision" point... use the time until then to get feedback on candidates. At some point, the candidates themselves may have to work together to support the eventual candidate. It's messy...but doable.
What Joe said at the debate was actually OK. His delivery was oddly weak (he sounded a lot better later that night). What he can't escape are the looks when Trump was speaking. The gaze. The lost look. The almost statuesque periods. I've seen that look in family... and we took the keys and control of their finances. 4 years is a long time given the decline.
The polls so far still have him fairing better than other Dems... but it's all name recognition and random memory. It's been 4 years since anyone on the left has run for President...
Or maybe it was just the way you draw a blank when someone is saying something so wtf, you can't even process a coherent response to the nonsense. I dunno, I didn't watch and he should have been ready for it.
I do think he made a mistake of agreeing to debate. He should have taken a lesson from trump previously and realised he had everything to lose
I have been wracking my brain trying to think of any explanation for Joeâs disastrous performance in Thursdayâs debate other than it being an episode indicative of a looming cognitive impairment. I have been unable to come up with one. This was not just a bad debate performance of the kind Obama had during the 2012 presidential campaign. It reinforced perceptions that Joe is too old and feeble to be an effective President for four more years. After that debate, I do not see how Joe and the Biden campaign can convince voters who are undecided about voting for Trump or Biden that these perceptions are without foundation.
Time is of the essence. Joe needs to decide quickly whether he will withdraw. If he does withdraw, the Democrats would need to quickly get behind one candidate to replace him. A divisive and combative open convention would produce a wounded candidate â with only three months until the election.
So... If I were advising Joe, I'd suggest he do it tomorrow (the 4th)... or at some point during the Republican convention.
The rush to replace him needs to be tempered with opportunistic optics. A debate or two, town halls, etc. Since the convention will be the "decision" point... use the time until then to get feedback on candidates. At some point, the candidates themselves may have to work together to support the eventual candidate. It's messy...but doable.
What Joe said at the debate was actually OK. His delivery was oddly weak (he sounded a lot better later that night). What he can't escape are the looks when Trump was speaking. The gaze. The lost look. The almost statuesque periods. I've seen that look in family... and we took the keys and control of their finances. 4 years is a long time given the decline.
The polls so far still have him fairing better than other Dems... but it's all name recognition and random memory. It's been 4 years since anyone on the left has run for President...
The current excuse I heard today is that he was tired from the international travel. That's an indirect acceptance that if we need him to solve complex global problems... he might be too tired. Seriously Joe?
Yeah, that was a good one. Another own goal.
Polling suggests most people (72%?) think he won't be able to do it for four more years. Ignoring that and forging ahead will have an impact on democracy perceptions as well.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 3, 2024 - 1:57pm
rgio wrote:
Their agenda is to avoid Trump 2.0, and they feel that Biden's age is a risk that the Dems should remove now.
If anyone has dealt with family members in their 80s, once the decline accelerates, there's no going back. The current excuse I heard today is that he was tired from the international travel. That's an indirect acceptance that if we need him to solve complex global problems... he might be too tired. Seriously Joe?
The risks are just too high with Joe. After the convention, any issues or lapses or falls will take with it our democracy. That's just too large a risk in their writing. I agree.
I have been wracking my brain trying to think of any explanation for Joeâs disastrous performance in Thursdayâs debate other than it being an episode indicative of a looming cognitive impairment. I have been unable to come up with one. This was not just a bad debate performance of the kind Obama had during the 2012 presidential campaign. It reinforced perceptions that Joe is too old and feeble to be an effective President for four more years. After that debate, I do not see how Joe and the Biden campaign can convince voters who are undecided about voting for Trump or Biden that these perceptions are without foundation.
Time is of the essence. Joe needs to decide quickly whether he will withdraw. If he does withdraw, the Democrats would need to quickly get behind one candidate to replace him. A divisive and combative open convention would produce a wounded candidate â with only three months until the election.
The NYT is on a bender trashing Biden directly or indirectly whenever they can.
Post debate, when they couldâve split the attention between Badenâs performance and Trumpâs incessant lies - the mostly promoted the former, and continue to do so. Itâs like they absolutely have an agenda.
Their agenda is to avoid Trump 2.0, and they feel that Biden's age is a risk that the Dems should remove now.
If anyone has dealt with family members in their 80s, once the decline accelerates, there's no going back. The current excuse I heard today is that he was tired from the international travel. That's an indirect acceptance that if we need him to solve complex global problems... he might be too tired. Seriously Joe?
The risks are just too high with Joe. After the convention, any issues or lapses or falls will take with it our democracy. That's just too large a risk in their writing. I agree.
The NYT is on a bender trashing Biden directly or indirectly whenever they can.
Post debate, when they couldâve split the attention between Badenâs performance and Trumpâs incessant lies - the mostly promoted the former, and continue to do so. Itâs like they absolutely have an agenda.
Rising oil prices definitely contributed to rising prices around the world. In the US there was also the impact of protectionism, but all that impact is small compared to the massive glut of spending during the pandemic combined with the massive drop in production. A textbook case: more money chasing fewer goodsâinflation.
Serious sanctions against Russia began in 2022. Inflation (in the US) peaked in 2022, then began declining. This isn't about oil & gas.
Curves that spike revert to the mean. Inflation is returning to the baseline of the last 20 years. OK, it's been creeping up the last few years, but it's basically returning to the unacceptably high level the Fed's policies and federal spending have been causing for decades.
The debt caused by all that borrowing has to be serviced, and that expense is now 16% of the federal budget. The deficit is 43% of the budgetâthat is, of every dollar spent, $.43 is borrowed. This is a death spiral.
You can make this year's numbers look good this way, like eating speed to stay awake, but the toll adds up. And it's going to impoverish us.
By your very odd metric Obama did a great job on the deficit. Please.
This graph shows national debt. The deficit is the slope of the curve. This shows a pattern of rising deficits over time, regardless of which of the two major parties holds the presidency. In this light they all sucked, but no, Democratic presidents don't look comparatively goodâespecially lately.Makes me nostalgic for Jimmy Carter.
It gets mighty tiresome pointing this out, and the conventional wisdom (that tax rates drive tax revenue) is a very durable myth, but it's a myth. And a very toxic one.
This is revenue as a fraction of GDP from 1929 to date:
This range spans top marginal rates from 90% to 33%. Makes no difference in the long run: set rates at whatever you like, you're going to get maybe 18% of GDP as revenue.
The reason is simple: high tax rates are an incentive for people to shift their income to less-taxable forms, find tax avoidance schemes, or hide their incomeâand people follow incentives. Especially when they have the means to do so.
There is no action without a reaction.
Oh, you misunderstand me (again). I do understand that high national debt is a massive burden on the economy and that there is a case to be made for fiscal prudence, both privately and, to a lesser extent, publicly. However, as the 20C has shown, fiscal prudence is not the sole goal of public financing by any means. As a policy maker you have to navigate your way through a slew of shocks, keep people in work, avoid recession and hardship, tax in good times, spend in bad, and basically hold the whole ship together, and this in sea swept by wild political swings and roundabouts.
To reduce this mammoth task to the one single goal of minimising the deficit is way too simplistic. Likewise, it is dishonest to present a graph showing the national debt in absolute terms, when debt relative to GDP makes much more sense. I know you hate the public sector, not without some justification, for being bloated, inefficient and I presume you'd say "stealing" from the people in the form of tax. But its very inertia can help economies remain steady in a storm. All those public servants have guaranteed income and keep spending when the private sector is busy laying off staff. This alone does help to keep things running. And despite all the criticism to the contrary, it was the government that bailed out the financial sector a couple of years back and kept the economy running. I for one am very glad we didn't get a run on the banks and mass panic, which would certainly have been the result, because, well, people are people. They are rarely that rational, if ever.
btw.. one thing I don't understand is how you interpret me measuring Obama as doing a good job on the deficit when I said precisely the opposite? Didn't get that one.
PS. I take your point that the spike in inflation was primarily fuelled by easy money during the pandemic combined with a sharp drop in production.. that makes good sense.
PPS: before you start thinking I am all in favour of a complete lack of fiscal prudence, no I am not. I just caught this twitter thread comparing Germany to Francethat pretty clearly illustrates how to do monetary policy wrong.
a point seemingly ignored by most on the right. I'd agree that the inflation spike was exogenous and caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the western response to it (sanctions). I also agree that the biggest factor in it falling in the meantime is the global resolution of gas & oil supplies by other means and not the Inflation Act.
Not so fast there.
Rising oil prices definitely contributed to rising prices around the world. In the US there was also the impact of protectionism, but all that impact is small compared to the massive glut of spending during the pandemic combined with the massive drop in production. A textbook case: more money chasing fewer goodsâinflation.
Serious sanctions against Russia began in 2022. Inflation (in the US) peaked in 2022, then began declining. This isn't about oil & gas.
Curves that spike revert to the mean. Inflation is returning to the baseline of the last 20 years. OK, it's been creeping up the last few years, but it's basically returning to the unacceptably high level the Fed's policies and federal spending have been causing for decades.
But you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the Inflation Act was a bad thing. It has stimulated a huge wave of public spending on the very things that have been neglected for too long in the States (ie. public infrastructure). Ok, this was done by borrowing. But that is a pretty common Democratic strategy. Spend big in the first term to create jobs and get the economy up and running then rein in the deficit over the second term. Of all the Democrat presidents since WWII the only president to fail at closing his term as president with a lower deficit than when he started was Obama IIRC.
The debt caused by all that borrowing has to be serviced, and that expense is now 16% of the federal budget. The deficit is 43% of the budgetâthat is, of every dollar spent, $.43 is borrowed. This is a death spiral.
You can make this year's numbers look good this way, like eating speed to stay awake, but the toll adds up. And it's going to impoverish us.
By your very odd metric Obama did a great job on the deficit. Please.
This graph shows national debt. The deficit is the slope of the curve. This shows a pattern of rising deficits over time, regardless of which of the two major parties holds the presidency. In this light they all sucked, but no, Democratic presidents don't look comparatively goodâespecially lately.Makes me nostalgic for Jimmy Carter.
If you look at the rest of the economic data, Biden has done a fantastic job. True, it was deficit spending in real Keynesian fashion. But when Republicans (not you) start moaning about the deficit I can't help but smile wryly at the charge, for it is Republican presidents who display the most reckless fiscal policies as a rule, usually by cutting taxes when the government can't afford it.
It gets mighty tiresome pointing this out, and the conventional wisdom (that tax rates drive tax revenue) is a very durable myth, but it's a myth. And a very toxic one.
This is revenue as a fraction of GDP from 1929 to date:
This range spans top marginal rates from 90% to 33%. Makes no difference in the long run: set rates at whatever you like, you're going to get maybe 18% of GDP as revenue.
The reason is simple: high tax rates are an incentive for people to shift their income to less-taxable forms, find tax avoidance schemes, or hide their incomeâand people follow incentives. Especially when they have the means to do so.