One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”

The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.

Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.

A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.

  • @kromem
    link
    English
    46 months ago

    Having a presidential election without debates would have been a big step back and loss for American democracy.

    We shouldn’t champion erosion of democratic institutions when it helps our side of the ticket.

    And generally, if eroding democratic institutions helps your ticket, it’s a red flag about your ticket.

    • Optional
      link
      66 months ago

      Having “debates” be this ridiculous mud-wrestling that only benefits trump or another conman is the big step back and the loss to democracy.

      They are apparently unable to create a forum in which a position can be taken and defended with facts and reason. UNABLE. Because the republiQans are fielding a demented sociopath and a compulsive liar.

      The format is beyond broken, and there isn’t a way to fix it when one party has no intention - never had any intention to follow the rules, or decorum, or common decent behavior.

      We found that out eight years ago. I can’t believe they walked right into it again.

      • @kromem
        link
        English
        136 months ago

        Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.

        The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.

        If Trump claims he’s going to end the war in Ukraine before even taking office, you point out how absurd that claim is and that Trump makes impossible claims without any substance or knowledge of diplomacy. That the images of him photoshopped as Rambo must have gone to his head if he thinks Putin will be so scared of him to give up.

        If he says hostages will be released as soon as he’s nominated, you point out it sounds like maybe there’s been a backroom tit-for-tat deal for a hostage release with a hostile foreign nation, and ask if maybe the intelligence agencies should look into that and what he might have been willing to trade for it.

        The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not. And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.

        • Optional
          link
          26 months ago

          Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.

          He’s “debated” a large number of half-competent people in primaries and post-convention. Which one tore him apart? Examples please.

          The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.

          While the visual of hog-tying trump by a cowboy-hatted Biden is fun, it’s simply not his job to chase the gish. That’s why trumps insane rambling works; it’s not possible to practically address each batshit claim or outright lie. It’s just not. Biden’s already got the job of presenting and defending his own platform.

          It is absolutely the moderators’ job to check him and a failure to do so means not only that it’s wide open Crime Time for trump but that the proceedings themselves lend authority to his lies.

          The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not.

          The appearance of neutrality? As opposed to just neutrality? Okay, well either way, again - no. The moderators have to acknowlege reality and remind the shit-talkers that they can’t say what they just said because it’s bullshit. And once again, they can’t do that with trump because he’s a compulsive liar who is incapable of acknowledging anything but his own reality.

          And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.

          Spouting BS and getting away with it is the entirety of what trump does. He’s not an authority on anything, he can’t function as any sort of manager without a stadium’s worth of assistance, and - really, hear me now - he is utterly. incapable. of not lying.

          Nothing will stop him from trying to babble nonsense and if the moderators, effectively the referees, the arbitrators, refuse to hold him to any standard, there’s no other outcome than to watch helplessly at his idiot spewhole as it disgorges lie after lie after lie.

          Biden blew it, yes, but if you think there was something to be gained by engaging with trump, i encourage you to consider the simple fact that trump is not able to acknowledge truth if it does not directly benefit him, and any attempt to do so will be met with more lies, more vitriol, and no one will succeed.

          It’s unconscionable that anyone at this late date would even consider that even a remote possibility.