President Joe Biden

[Cavebear]

I did that for decades too.  But not since Trump and MAGA and recent SCOTUS appointments.

Yep, this year I voting straight dem ticket. Will probably stay the same until I see the pubs return to normal.

Back in the day (70s), there were liberal/center/conservative Republicans and liberal/center/conservative Democrats. So I was free to vote for the candidate I preferred rather than the party. Nixon seriously damaged the balance and Reagan made it worse. And later, computer specialists started to identify voters by voting habits and gerrymandered them.

And the center stopped holding. My precinct was one party and the one next to me was the other. It has now gotten to the point where 70% of the voters in a State can vote for one party, yet hold a minority of the House members. And that has become true nationally as well.

Now, The President takes the whole party with him. So even if I liked the Presidential candidate, too many crazies come in on his coat-tails. So now I am voting more for the whole party. I hope things get back into some better balance before I die! Or before the party I didn't vote for takes me away for "political insubordination".

This year, I am voting for whomever the Democrats are offerring by election day (I like voting in person - takes 10 minutes here).

[Cavebear]

Ah oh Indy.

Parkinson's expert visited White House 8 times in 8 months, met with Biden's doctor

https://abc7ny.com/post/parkinsons-exper.../15042981/

Edit, another report: https://nypost.com/2024/07/08/us-news/pa...ords-show/

The neurologist visited the White House 8 times during Biden's administration. Three times it was for part the president's routine annual exam (3 years, 3 exams). The doctors found no problems. The other 5 visits were for scheduled assistance and counseling for the White House staff (some civilian and some military). On those 5 occasions, Biden wasn't even in Washington DC!

The New York Time's article is a stain on their reputation. They jumped too fast without checking their facts. Lawrence O Donnell of MSNBC pointed out that Biden's travel record is public information, and that even a college newspaper would have thought to check that.

I think the press conference, where Ed O' Keefe of CBS went overboard contesting with the Press Secretary (Karine Jean-Pierre) was a disaster for him. I watched a replay of it, and he just wouldn't take answers as answers. She answered his multiple (and hostile) questions repeatedly saying that there was information about names and events she was not allowed to give out. He persisted.

I became embarrassed for him, but he brought it on himself. I think he had an answer in mind that he wanted to get and couldn't. Sometimes reporter persistence is a good thing. This time it wasn't.

The neurologist identified himself later in a formal report about President Biden's neurological health. And he seems pretty professional and honest. I'll just leave at that...

[Cavebear]

...Harris has only two problems.  She's a woman, and she's the wrong color.  It'd be folly to vote for someone whose problems are not their doing and beyond their power to change.  Right?

Who says the voters aren't wise in the US?

Um... Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3m ballots.

And Obama was black.

    Just sayin'...

I'm with you on that!  I was a bit undecided in 2008 when Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were contesting for the Democratic nomination.  I initially supported Clinton (strongly).  I thought Clinton was most experienced candidate, and I pay attention to experience.  I thought she would do well as President and she obviously had the experience and mental toughness.  I would have voted for her without any hesitation if nominated.  Obama didn't seem to have enough experience.  But there was a debate that convinced me that Obama had some special talents.

I changed my mind.  And that wasn't easy.  Sometimes a choice is clear.  You decide one candidate seems obviously better than another.  I struggled months to decide between them.  But when the primary election came around, I voted for Obama.

I would vote for Obama again if I could.  I would vote for Hillary Clinton if I could.  But in today's partisan "one party is all same", I have to vote for party.  If it is Biden, I will vote for Biden.  If that changes and it is some other candidate, I will vote for that person.  Because more Democratic Senators and Representatives will come in and reduce the MAGA influence.

[Minimalist]

The New York Time's article is a stain on their reputation. 

The Times is doing way too much of that, lately.

[Cavebear]

The New York Time's article is a stain on their reputation. 

The Times is doing way too much of that, lately.

Yeah, they posted another editorial saying Biden had to go. I am of 2 minds about that. If he gets re-elected, he will continue to do better things for US democracy and international relationships. If he dies in office, well, that's why there is a VP. Harris is not my first choice for that, but there are experienced people in the administration who will help for a remainder of the term.

And she would name a VP of her own to bring a balance of talents to her administration. She has skills, but mostly domestic. I would hope she would choose a Senator with international experience.

This election is really complicated. But for the sake of democracy, it has to be almost anyone but Trump.

[brewerb]

Ah oh Indy.

Parkinson's expert visited White House 8 times in 8 months, met with Biden's doctor

https://abc7ny.com/post/parkinsons-exper.../15042981/

Edit, another report: https://nypost.com/2024/07/08/us-news/pa...ords-show/

The neurologist visited the White House 8 times during Biden's administration.  Three times it was for part the president's routine annual exam (3 years, 3 exams).  The doctors found no problems.  The other 5 visits were for scheduled assistance and counseling for the White House staff (some civilian and some military).  On those 5 occasions, Biden wasn't even in Washington DC!

The New York Time's article is a stain on their reputation.  They jumped too fast without checking their facts.  Lawrence O Donnell of MSNBC pointed out that Biden's travel record is public information, and that even a college newspaper would have thought to check that.  

I think the press conference, where Ed O' Keefe of CBS went overboard contesting with the Press Secretary (Karine Jean-Pierre) was a disaster for him.  I watched a replay of it, and he just wouldn't take answers as answers.  She answered his multiple (and hostile) questions repeatedly saying that there was information about names and events she was not allowed to give out.  He persisted.  

I became embarrassed for him, but he brought it on himself.  I think he had an answer in mind that he wanted to get and couldn't.  Sometimes reporter persistence is a good thing.  This time it wasn't.

The neurologist identified himself later in a formal report about President Biden's neurological health.  And he seems pretty professional and honest.  I'll just leave at that...

Where did you get your information?

[Cavebear]

The neurologist visited the White House 8 times during Biden's administration.  Three times it was for part the president's routine annual exam (3 years, 3 exams).  The doctors found no problems.  The other 5 visits were for scheduled assistance and counseling for the White House staff (some civilian and some military).  On those 5 occasions, Biden wasn't even in Washington DC!

The New York Time's article is a stain on their reputation.  They jumped too fast without checking their facts.  Lawrence O Donnell of MSNBC pointed out that Biden's travel record is public information, and that even a college newspaper would have thought to check that.  

I think the press conference, where Ed O' Keefe of CBS went overboard contesting with the Press Secretary (Karine Jean-Pierre) was a disaster for him.  I watched a replay of it, and he just wouldn't take answers as answers.  She answered his multiple (and hostile) questions repeatedly saying that there was information about names and events she was not allowed to give out.  He persisted.  

I became embarrassed for him, but he brought it on himself.  I think he had an answer in mind that he wanted to get and couldn't.  Sometimes reporter persistence is a good thing.  This time it wasn't.

The neurologist identified himself later in a formal report about President Biden's neurological health.  And he seems pretty professional and honest.  I'll just leave at that...

Where did you get your information?

The simple answer is that it came from MSNBC.  They reported that while the neurologist (Dr. Kevin Cannard) conducted part of Biden's annual physical exam (3 annual exams in 3 years), he wasn't the only doctor involved.  And while Dr Kannard tested Biden in his own specialty, he found no problems.  

Part of the MAGA type reaction is that Dr Kannard visited the White House 8 times.  But part of his routine visits are to provide counseling and evaluation of all White House staff and military personnel assigned there.  According to MSNBC, and official White House travel records, Biden was away on travel during the other visits, so they did not involve him.

If you are asking about Ed O'Keefe, I saw the video of the press conference on CNN.  He made an idiot of himself.  While persistence is a good trait for a journalist, he just kept repeating his question, interrupted the press secretary when she tried to answer, and spouted some MAGA reports.  And he may have realized that afterwards.  The next day, he kept his lips zipped.

I hope that helps...

[SYZ]

Joe Biden faced a fresh wave of pressure yesterday to step aside as
Democrats aired concerns that he would lose to Trump in November.

Nancy Pelosi, congresswoman and former speaker of the House, gave
the strongest public signal yet that Democrats were divided over Biden’s
candidacy. On a news show, she said that “time is running short” for him
to reconsider, adding that she would back him “whatever he decides.”

Explicit calls for Biden to withdraw increased. Representative Pat Ryan of
New York, one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, called on
Biden to drop out “for the good of the country.” He was the eighth House
Democrat to do so publicly.

George Clooney, who hosted a $28 million fund-raiser last month for the
president, also pleaded with him to step aside in a New York Times opinion
essay, adding that he had seen Biden’s decline up close.

Biden has tried to silence his doubters by criticizing the Democratic “elites”
who he portrays as having turned on him. Biden may also be hoping to
run out the clock until his nomination at the Democratic National Convention
in Chicago next month.

   —NYT Newsletter, 11 July 2024.

[Minimalist]

Biden has nearly twice as many committed delegates as he needs....the clock is on his side.

[Cavebear]

Joe Biden faced a fresh wave of pressure yesterday to step aside as
Democrats aired concerns that he would lose to Trump in November.

Nancy Pelosi, congresswoman and former speaker of the House, gave
the strongest public signal yet that Democrats were divided over Biden’s
candidacy. On a news show, she said that “time is running short” for him
to reconsider, adding that she would back him “whatever he decides.”

Explicit calls for Biden to withdraw increased. Representative Pat Ryan of
New York, one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, called on
Biden to drop out “for the good of the country.” He was the eighth House
Democrat to do so publicly.

George Clooney, who hosted a $28 million fund-raiser last month for the
president, also pleaded with him to step aside in a New York Times opinion
essay, adding that he had seen Biden’s decline up close.

Biden has tried to silence his doubters by criticizing the Democratic “elites”
who he portrays as having turned on him. Biden may also be hoping to
run out the clock until his nomination at the Democratic National Convention
in Chicago next month.

   —NYT Newsletter, 11 July 2024.

Interesting, considering that it is not yet 11 July.

[Cavebear]

Yes, to be technical, Biden needs to do nothing in order to stay the Democratic candidate.  But politics cause strange things to happen sometimes.  Donor and party pressure might change his mind.

And thinking historically, Biden might decide that after 50 or so years of great service to country and party, it would be best to just go home.  There are good reasons.  Leaving at "the top of the game" is hard.  Athletes always think they have "one more year" and that usually doesn't work out well.  They want to play one more year, fight a last fight, try one more Olympic.  Same with politicians.  They don't get to the top by being "shrinking violets". They are competitive; they are proud; they still feel skilled.

I understand that Biden wants to do still more.  And he probably would.  But as Reagan was pretty much the end of the "Greatest Generation" (like my own Dad was), it is time for us Boomers to step aside too.  Let the "newbies" step up onto the world stage. They have a different set of concerns that may help more in these times...

[Cavebear]

Joe Biden faced a fresh wave of pressure yesterday to step aside as
Democrats aired concerns that he would lose to Trump in November.

Nancy Pelosi, congresswoman and former speaker of the House, gave
the strongest public signal yet that Democrats were divided over Biden’s
candidacy. On a news show, she said that “time is running short” for him
to reconsider, adding that she would back him “whatever he decides.”

Explicit calls for Biden to withdraw increased. Representative Pat Ryan of
New York, one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, called on
Biden to drop out “for the good of the country.” He was the eighth House
Democrat to do so publicly.

George Clooney, who hosted a $28 million fund-raiser last month for the
president, also pleaded with him to step aside in a New York Times opinion
essay, adding that he had seen Biden’s decline up close.

Biden has tried to silence his doubters by criticizing the Democratic “elites”
who he portrays as having turned on him. Biden may also be hoping to
run out the clock until his nomination at the Democratic National Convention
in Chicago next month.

   —NYT Newsletter, 11 July 2024.

I would point out that it is not yet July 11th here, but maybe it is a time zone or publishing thing. Which doesn't negate the good points you made, but I'm feeling a bit "nit-picky" today.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem is this: Biden has the power to win the Dem nomination, no doubt. The question is that after the debate about his debate performance, does he have the power to pull a victory in the general?

Make no mistake, I will vote for him. I will vote for him even if he dies on 31 Oct, because a dead Biden as President is better than a live Trump. But can Biden draw the undecideds after this debacle? His polling seems steady, but I don't trust polls after 2016. And I don't doubt the GOP will be replaying the debate stutters time and again in October.

This really hurts drawing in the independents and undecideds. The broom-sweeping by the WH doesn't help any optics.

[SYZ]

   —NYT Newsletter, 11 July 2024.

Interesting, considering that it is not yet 11 July.  

It is here in Australia—when I got my email NYT newsletter.    

[Minimalist]

Curse that International Date Line!!!

[pattylt]

Is there a really anyone that hasn’t made up their minds at this point? I guess there’s a few oblivious voters that just don’t know what’s at stake? I would think that most independents have watched enough news or read enough blogs to at the least know what’s at stake.

Am I too naive?

[Dānu]

I'm still getting emails from Nikki Haley.

[Szuchow]

Is there a really anyone that hasn’t made up their minds at this point?  I guess there’s a few oblivious voters that just don’t know what’s at stake?  I would think that most independents have watched enough news or read enough blogs to at the least know what’s at stake.

Am I too naive?

I think you're looking at this wrong by not considering staying at home as an option. People might easily deem trump undeserving of victory but also not be willing to support Biden which I see as perfectly viable option as politicians aren't owed votes.

[mordant]

Is there a really anyone that hasn’t made up their minds at this point?  I guess there’s a few oblivious voters that just don’t know what’s at stake?  I would think that most independents have watched enough news or read enough blogs to at the least know what’s at stake.

Am I too naive?

From what I've seen in prior elections, astounding numbers of "independents" dither right up to the ballot box. There are a lot of indecisive people in the world.

[pattylt]

At the point of voting, would voters that leave the president slot blank help Trump or Biden more? I’ve always heard that those that don’t vote are helping Trump more. I agree that if they would vote Dem otherwise then there’s some truth to that but what if many are generally Republican but can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump? Wouldn’t those non votes help Biden? I realize it depends on if they are in a crucial deciding state…that’s what sucks about our ancient electorial college. I’m just unsure about all the bitching I see around those that won’t commit a vote to either Biden or Trump.

[jerry mcmasters]

Is there a really anyone that hasn’t made up their minds at this point?  I guess there’s a few oblivious voters that just don’t know what’s at stake?  I would think that most independents have watched enough news or read enough blogs to at the least know what’s at stake.

Am I too naive?

From what I've seen in prior elections, astounding numbers of "independents" dither right up to the ballot box. There are a lot of indecisive people in the world.

I think it's understandable and not unreasonable.  Not everyone believes every election's is "Vote for This Guy because the Other Guy is existential threat, end of democracy, Dictator for Life, Hitler in 1933, five seconds from Handmaiden's Tale," etc etc.  The sad truth is whichever party wins, the elimination of the middle class will continue and the country will continue to divide into uber-gated-community elites and peasant-like labor.  Maybe slower, maybe faster, but there's nothing much more at stake than the speed at which this process plays out.  No empires have lasted forever.  So waiting until near the election date to make a final decision on which candidate is marginally less-shitty seems not wildly irresponsible.

[jerry mcmasters]

At the point of voting, would voters that leave the president slot blank help Trump or Biden more?  I’ve always heard that those that don’t vote are helping Trump more.  I agree that if they would vote Dem otherwise then there’s some truth to that but what if many are generally Republican but can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump?  Wouldn’t those non votes help Biden?  I realize it depends on if they are in a crucial deciding state…that’s what sucks about our ancient electorial college.  I’m just unsure about all the bitching I see around those that won’t commit a vote to either Biden or Trump.

As you say, it just depends on the crucial deciding state, or rather states.  With relatively equal numbers of Ds and Rs, it can't be said who is helped more by people too disgusted by their own candidate to vote for him (and would never vote for the other party).

[Alan V]

Not everyone believes every election's is "Vote for This Guy because the Other Guy is existential threat, end of democracy, Dictator for Life, Hitler in 1933, five seconds from Handmaiden's Tale," etc etc.  The sad truth is whichever party wins, the elimination of the middle class will continue and the country will continue to divide into uber-gated-community elites and peasant-like labor.  Maybe slower, maybe faster, but there's nothing much more at stake than the speed at which this process plays out.  No empires have lasted forever.  So waiting until near the election date to make a final decision on which candidate is marginally less-shitty seems not wildly irresponsible.

The wonderful thing about such cynicism is that you don't have to do your homework and study the details.  

[mordant]

From what I've seen in prior elections, astounding numbers of "independents" dither right up to the ballot box. There are a lot of indecisive people in the world.

I think it's understandable and not unreasonable.  Not everyone believes every election's is "Vote for This Guy because the Other Guy is existential threat, end of democracy, Dictator for Life, Hitler in 1933, five seconds from Handmaiden's Tale," etc etc.  The sad truth is whichever party wins, the elimination of the middle class will continue and the country will continue to divide into uber-gated-community elites and peasant-like labor.  Maybe slower, maybe faster, but there's nothing much more at stake than the speed at which this process plays out.  No empires have lasted forever.  So waiting until near the election date to make a final decision on which candidate is marginally less-shitty seems not wildly irresponsible.

I think there was a meme on this site -- one guy will drive you where you want to go, but way slower than you'd like; the other will drive you into a brick wall at 200 mph. What to do, what to do? I don't agree that it's reasonable for independents to be the perpetual "undecideds". Hell, this is one of those RARE times when there's lots of moral clarity to be had.

Yes Biden is an incrementalist / centrist beholden to enshittified corporate 'Murica, including many of the same donors as Trump gets $ from. Yes he has many unforced errors (e.g., his inability to stand up to Bebe or follow through on any threats or red lines, even such as they are, which probably cost him the Arab/American and youth votes, or at least gutted them). Yes he has an old-school habit of not taking principled stands that could be influential, preferring to ignore festering issues until right before some critical inflection point such as an election when it will be most seen and appreciated. This makes him look like a weak, wishy-washy or cynical / transactional leader and does not inspire confidence -- certainly not in me anyway.

But here's the thing. I don't think Biden is going to take advantage of how SCOTUS has made not just Trump, but Biden as well as all future presidents, potential kings. Trump will. Trump will do WAY more damage, WAY faster. What part of this don't independents understand? Probably none of it. I'm voting for Biden because it might buy us a few more years of relative sanity, and it reduces the chance of Trump winning, which will certainly buy us a world of hurt.

This is not rocket science.

[jerry mcmasters]

Not everyone believes every election's is "Vote for This Guy because the Other Guy is existential threat, end of democracy, Dictator for Life, Hitler in 1933, five seconds from Handmaiden's Tale," etc etc.  The sad truth is whichever party wins, the elimination of the middle class will continue and the country will continue to divide into uber-gated-community elites and peasant-like labor.  Maybe slower, maybe faster, but there's nothing much more at stake than the speed at which this process plays out.  No empires have lasted forever.  So waiting until near the election date to make a final decision on which candidate is marginally less-shitty seems not wildly irresponsible.

The wonderful thing about such cynicism is that you don't have to do your homework and study the details.  

Great ad hom, Alan.  Glad you were capable of staying classy.