2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, like I said, A) it's none of your business, and B.) it's irrelevant to the debate we're having.

I presented data from 12 polls from different media outlets that show evidence that Trump is now winning, and you want to engage in ad-hom deflections instead of presenting a strong counter argument to the facts.

Kind of sums up what's wrong with the Democratic party writ-large actually.  

If you say “we’re going to lose” it suggests you are a potential voter. If you aren’t, (let’s say you were posting from another country) that would be bad faith misrepresentation. Nothing ad-hom about it. It’s like the media coverage, going for clicks instead of reporting actual news. People pretending to be democrats but really trying to divide the voters, hoping to reduce support. 

 

[swansont]

What the report finds is that Biden held on to 94% of the people who said they would support him before the debate. For Trump, 86% of people who said they would support him before the debate said they would do so after the debate. 

“What we see is that there is some churn –– maybe 10 percent or so of people change what they answer –– but that the net result is not a movement away from Biden,” Lazer says. “If anything, it seems that Biden is holding on to his people somewhat better than Trump.”

 

https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/07/09/biden-debate-performance-voter-preferences/

It would seem that Trump’s performance hurt him slightly more, but you wouldn’t know that if you heard certain discussions.

[swansont]

You might notice that, despite Trump’s cognitive issues, the fact that he’s a convicted felon, a rapist (and with credible accusations beyond what was found in a court of law) his corruption, and several more issues, the GOP is united behind him. A pity that democrats can’t do the same for Biden. But then, most of the narrative isn’t starting with democrats

Back when there was some republican infighting, Biden took advantage . Pretty good for the doddering, drooling idiot some have depicted him as. Trump had a trifecta and never passed infrastructure legislation

[Alex_Krycek]

Compelling interview here with Dr. Tom Pitts, a board certified neurologist who specializes in diagnosing Parkinsons.  He basically says Biden is a textbook case.

 

[TheVat]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Compelling interview here with Dr. Tom Pitts, a board certified neurologist who specializes in diagnosing Parkinsons.  He basically says Biden is a textbook case.

I can't watch atm so one question: did he give the president a neurological exam?  

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

You might notice that, despite Trump’s cognitive issues, the fact that he’s a convicted felon, a rapist (and with credible accusations beyond what was found in a court of law) his corruption, and several more issues, the GOP is united behind him. A pity that democrats can’t do the same for Biden.

GOP/MAGA = Cult.  It might be indicative of the non-cultish nature of Dems, a good thing, that they are more willing to question candidate fitness.  I think Parkinson's is a red herring, and the question is more (from those millions who viewed the debate) if Joe is simply old and tired and at risk of offering only a figurehead presidency.  I will say I just don't know.  It would help a lot if Joe would get a neurological checkup and not just make defiant statements about not bowing out unless "the Lord Almighty" tells him to.  

[swansont]

The WH was working on legislation involving Parkinson’s; visiting the WH does not mean seeing the president. Lots of people work there, and Biden wasn’t even in DC for some of the visits.

I guess it’s only irresponsible to diagnose Trump without actually examining him. 

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

GOP/MAGA = Cult.  It might be indicative of the non-cultish nature of Dems, a good thing, that they are more willing to question candidate fitness.

Yes, but at some point you have to recognize that infighting is destructive, and you’re just amplifying GOP/Russian talking points.

[StringJunky]

George Clooney, who is a Biden supporter, collecting high-dollar donations for him, has said he should step down.

[iNow]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

that infighting is destructive, and you’re just amplifying GOP/Russian talking points.

The House GOP is now moving to subpoena multiple WH aides regarding Bidens cognitive state so they can continue making hay out of this through September and October as election approaches. 
 

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/biden-house-oversight-committee-subpoena-aides

Quote

Oversight chair James Comer (R-Ky.) subpoenaed First Lady Jill Biden's top aide Anthony Bernal, deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini, and senior adviser Ashley Williams, according to the letters. <…> Comer recently helped lead an impeachment inquiry into Biden that included interviewing several members of the president's family.

I’m reminded of how Speaker Johnson spoke of invoking the 25th Amendment after the debate.

But sure, I’m certain this is all happening in good faith bc they want our nation and our allies around the world to be safe. 🙄

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

The House GOP is now moving to subpoena multiple WH aides regarding Bidens cognitive state so they can continue making hay out of this through September and October as election approaches. 
 

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/biden-house-oversight-committee-subpoena-aides

I’m reminded of how Speaker Johnson spoke of invoking the 25th Amendment after the debate.

But sure, I’m certain this is all happening in good faith bc they want our nation and our allies around the world to be safe. 🙄

I think one or two here are looking at it the wrong way. NEITHER of the two current challengers are fit to run the country. We want the Dems to win, so sort it and make that possible.

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

The House GOP is now moving to subpoena multiple WH aides regarding Bidens cognitive state so they can continue making hay out of this through September and October as election approaches

Of course, subpoenas don’t have to be honored, according to GOP precedent.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

NEITHER of the two current challengers are fit to run the country.

I can’t agree with you here. While I agree there’s a decent risk that Biden will cease to be fit before the end of a 2nd term in 4 years, as it stands today he’s been an outstandingly and surprisingly successful POTUS. 

There are essentially two different faces of any presidency which matter: 1) The public perception and how the populace “feels” about them… the “I wanna have a beer with that guy” mentality. This is the “vibes” component of every presidency and impacts elections and social chatter like we’re engaged in here.

Then, there’s 2) The back office nitty gritty navigation of global geopolitics, global economy, and global threat landscapes… ensuring leaders across the government are clear and successfully on mission… setting up the country for future success 10 years from now, building things to make the lives of our kids and grandkids better, and leaving things better than how they found them upon entering office.  

I’ll grant that Biden isn’t great at the vibes game and clearly has some serious grandpa energy, but suggesting he isn’t “fit to run the country” is… to put it plainly… ridiculous.

He inherited a seriously bad hand and despite that has expertly played it. In terms of the meaningful things presidents do behind the scenes (I.e. NOT golfing or finding ways to bilk rubes out of their paychecks or coming up with rude nicknames for rape victims), old grandpa Joe has been delivering and performing well above average. He has positioned the US incredibly well after a global pandemic and amid multiple kinetic wars and trade disputes and a rise of right wing authoritarianism in every direction. He’s moved the needle noticeably across multiple metrics.

I know I’m not your average American voter, but I for one value the latter of those two faces of the presidency far more than “vibes.” 

I also see his opponent as far worse across all metrics so the choice is profoundly easy. I’d vote for a moldy ham sandwich and tray of gas station sushi over Trump and if/when it’s Biden v Trump, then it’s a no brainer.

But here’s the point that matters: Until further notice, Biden is who is on the ticket. End program. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. He won the democratic primaries… And this remains true regardless of how many people wish for something else or shout from the sidelines that Biden should quit. It remains true regardless of how many well intentioned folks suggest that some of us here are “looking at it the wrong way” from the safe comfort of their foreign countries. 

I’m quite clear headed on the very real challenges ahead, have been honest about how Biden looks and performed, and have acknowledged that others might potentially have a better chance to energize voters, but none of that matters.

We must play the cards we’re dealt, not the cards we dreamt about holding during a wet dream last night. ✌️

Edited July 11 by iNow

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

We must play the cards we’re dealt, not the cards we dreamt about holding during a wet dream last night. ✌️

What will be, will be. I'm glad I'm closer to dying than being born. Politics is a choice between a shit sandwich and shit on toast. Certainly is this year in the US and UK.

Edited July 11 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Until and unless a) Biden voluntarily steps down, or b) someone challenges him at the upcoming convention and somehow manages to win, then it’s all moot and we’re engaged in little more than a circular firing squad where we self-immolate and eat our own young as the rabid coyotes and wolves howl and laugh and anxiously lick their salivating lips while we do.

Edited July 11 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I can't watch atm so one question: did he give the president a neurological exam?  

He gave his professional opinion based on all the symptoms Biden is demonstrating.

• Rigid motor control
• Neurological difficulty
• Hypophonia (low / soft speech - resulting from a lack of coordination in the vocal musculature)
• Masked Face (lack of facial expressions)
• Tremors

Basically as clear cut a diagnosis as there could be.  

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

He gave his professional opinion based on all the symptoms Biden is demonstrating.

• Rigid motor control
• Neurological difficulty
• Hypophonia (low / soft speech - resulting from a lack of coordination in the vocal musculature)
• Masked Face (lack of facial expressions)
• Tremors

Basically as clear cut a diagnosis as there could be.  

Telemedicine would give a more accurate diagnosis than this, since there would actually be some interaction with the patient.

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, but at some point you have to recognize that infighting is destructive, and you’re just amplifying GOP/Russian talking points.

I feel like the issue kind of splits into two different ones - one is an objective (and one hopes compassionate) determination of Bidens present fitness and what sort of presidency he can have in a second term.  

The second is the problem of personal anecdotes and how they feed red meat to the GOP opposition, who will watch every stumble (and remind us of the vileness inherent in American politics).  George Clooney in the NYT says the Joe he met this Spring isn't the same Joe he met in 2020.  That is anecdotal, highly dependent on particular circumstances of their meeting, and does unintentionally feed the GOP narrative.  Clooney worked in an ER, but only on tv, so his opinion may be taken with a grain of salt.  

I guess the GOP narrative puts them at risk of the dog catching the car.  If they help push the narrative of unfitness, and Biden steps down, then what happens?  They only wanted Trump to beat a Biden widely viewed as incapacitated; now they have a younger candidate from the A List who might beat Trump.   Woops.

 

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Until and unless a) Biden voluntarily steps down, or b) someone challenges him at the upcoming convention and somehow manages to win, then it’s all moot and we’re engaged in little more than a circular firing squad where we self-immolate and eat our own young as the rabid coyotes and wolves howl and laugh and anxiously lick their salivating lips while we do.

This post is the poster child of severely mixed metaphors.  But show me someone who can eat their child while they are on fire, all while firing a rifle, and I will believe!

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Telemedicine would give a more accurate diagnosis than this, since there would actually be some interaction with the patient.

Also questionable professional ethics to offer a diagnosis on national television of someone you have not met with or examined.  

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I guess the GOP narrative puts them at risk of the dog catching the car.  If they help push the narrative of unfitness, and Biden steps down, then what happens?  They only wanted Trump to beat a Biden widely viewed as incapacitated; now they have a younger candidate from the A List who might beat Trump.   Woops

No, there is very little chance of that. 

A new candidate will have less support and no election infrastructure (unless it’s Harris). Less name recognition, no federal-level accomplishments to point to, a new set of personal priorities and new skeletons to uncover. It’s a fantasy that some candidate will step in and be instantly widely popular. They will have their detractors, and at the very least the media will latch on to some issue and it’s “but her emails” all over again. Because they’ve been doing this for quite a while. The candidate that you love will be a turn-off to some fraction of the electorate, and others will be lukewarm. It’s not like the voters are some monolithic group.

If there was anyone even close to being popular enough we’d know about them and they might have had this discussion a year ago when it could have worked.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

This post is the poster child of severely mixed metaphors

I screwed the pooch, eh?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

This post is the poster child of severely mixed metaphors.

Mixing metaphors like a banshee

[MSC]

21 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Compelling interview here with Dr. Tom Pitts, a board certified neurologist who specializes in diagnosing Parkinsons.  He basically says Biden is a textbook case.

 

Alex, you're grasping at straws now. As are NBC and so is this neurologist whom I think really is just getting himself on tv right now. 

It would be quite easy for even the average person to tell if a person has had Parkinson's for up to 20 years. Why 20 years? The average age of onset is 60, with smaller groups being diagnosed earlier as young as 40. So unless Biden is a statistical anomaly and is showing the early symptoms of Parkinson's, at 81, I highly doubt this is the case.

While all of this pointless arguing and ethically dubious from afar diagnosing is going on, we are expected to listen to the opinions of people who aren't around Biden very often, yet his cabinet, VP and own physician, the people who are around him everyday, and with Kamala Harris having everything to gain if Biden was unfit, they are just irrelevant? But some alleged neurologist misleading the public about the onset of Parkinson's is worth our attention? Please. Give it a few days and there will be another neurologist coming out and saying honestly, they couldn't diagnose anyone without a thorough exam.

Just to see if anyone else actually knows; who here can explain why the president maintains his right to medical privacy or why his physician is not constitutionally bound to share any of the presidents medical info with the public? Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why the physician to the president is usually a military doctor? 

How about you @Alex_Krycek care to take a few guesses? Maybe you're smart enough to know so I don't have to hold anyone's hand. 

Tell you what if he does a DaT and an MRI on Biden, then makes a determination, based on history, symptoms and physical condition, then I'll listen. Assuming Biden would even share that info.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, MSC said:

Alex, you're grasping at straws now. As are NBC and so is this neurologist whom I think really is just getting himself on tv right now. 

It would be quite easy for even the average person to tell if a person has had Parkinson's for up to 20 years. Why 20 years? The average age of onset is 60, with smaller groups being diagnosed earlier as young as 40. So unless Biden is a statistical anomaly and is showing the early symptoms of Parkinson's, at 81, I highly doubt this is the case.

While all of this pointless arguing and ethically dubious from afar diagnosing is going on, we are expected to listen to the opinions of people who aren't around Biden very often, yet his cabinet, VP and own physician, the people who are around him everyday, and with Kamala Harris having everything to gain if Biden was unfit, they are just irrelevant? But some alleged neurologist misleading the public about the onset of Parkinson's is worth our attention? Please. Give it a few days and there will be another neurologist coming out and saying honestly, they couldn't diagnose anyone without a thorough exam.

Just to see if anyone else actually knows; who here can explain why the president maintains his right to medical privacy or why his physician is not constitutionally bound to share any of the presidents medical info with the public? Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why the physician to the president is usually a military doctor? 

How about you @Alex_Krycek care to take a few guesses? Maybe you're smart enough to know so I don't have to hold anyone's hand. 

Tell you what if he does a DaT and an MRI on Biden, then makes a determination, based on history, symptoms and physical condition, then I'll listen. Assuming Biden would even share that info.

Whatever the cause, it doesn't really matter, Biden's recent behaviour is still evident and can't be disputed. If a person is driving a car erratically, it doesn't matter what caused them to do so, they need taking off the road. You find that out after.

[Alex_Krycek]

42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Whatever the cause, it doesn't really matter, Biden's recent behaviour is still evident and can't be disputed. If a person is driving a car erratically, it doesn't matter what caused them to do so, they need taking off the road. You find that out after.

Exactly.  

 

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Telemedicine would give a more accurate diagnosis than this, since there would actually be some interaction with the patient.

Unfortunately the perception now amongst voters is that Biden and his administration are lying about his condition, which is only exacerbating matters for Democrats.  The onus is on Biden at this point to prove he's fit for office.  

Edited July 11 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unfortunately the perception now amongst voters is that Biden and his administration are lying about his condition, which is only exacerbating matters for Democrats.  The onus is on Biden at this point to prove he's fit for office.  

No, that’s one take being offered up by spin doctors, people asserting opinion as if it were fact, and/or people hoping to sabotage the democrats.

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unfortunately the perception now amongst voters is that Biden and his administration are lying about his condition, which is only exacerbating matters for Democrats.  The onus is on Biden at this point to prove he's fit for office.  

I think this argument is jaded. It comes from a Republican perspective, where doctors lying to cover up the president's condition is typical. And the Republicans know only the Democrats care about ethics, since they've seriously gaslighted their own into believing they have the moral high ground. Most Democrats know one person doesn't run the whole country, and are willing to let Biden's accomplishments prove his fitness for office. Republicans are too far off into the weeds with populist worship to see that many of us want a representative of our hopes and dreams, not the villain of our worst nightmares.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The onus is on Biden at this point to prove he's fit for office.  

No, the onus is and always has been on the people making the claims.  Great dodge ducking my questions and points btw. I assume Vince Vaughn was your dodgeball guru. 

This is a science forum. So far you've suggested an 80 year old man is in the early stages of Parkinson's and I've already pointed out a good reason, based on what is known of Parkinson's disease and the average age of onset, why that probably isn't the case, making it an extraordinary claim. What do we say about extraordinary claims? They require extraordinary proof. DaT and MRI.

Here is the thing; if the American public are wrong about Bidens competency, and he is fine and fit enough to serve, or at least fitter to serve than Trump (which he obviously is) then it means the public isn't very good at determining peoples levels of appropriateness and competency for the job in the first place. 

To me this is all the political equivalent of a groom/bride getting cold feet before the wedding. The idealist wants a better candidate than Biden, the realist knows the time for that has passed. Biden already won the primary. If the electorate had really cared about actual competency and not just how we think it should look in short bursts on live televised events, then they would have figured out a way of replacing Biden before we got this far into the process. 

Now I do believe there may be some weird way that someone could take over this late and beat Trump? Probably. But if there is historical precedent for it in some political campaign somewhere, it isn't in US history but you're more than welcome to go digging for it and convince me. 

When it comes to Bidens mental and physical condition, all we can do is speculate. No scientific basis for assuming that a man that was competent enough 4 years ago suddenly stopped being competent enough absent compelling evidence.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Whatever the cause, it doesn't really matter, Biden's recent behaviour is still evident and can't be disputed. If a person is driving a car erratically, it doesn't matter what caused them to do so, they need taking off the road. You find that out after.

A) behaviour and intepretting the cause of said behaviour are two different things.

B) Has anyone seen Biden driving a car lately?

C) I've spent the last four years of watching Biden driving a country out of a pandemic and getting a fair amount of his legislative agenda through successfully along with a massive investment into US infrastructure and running a government with far greater respect for science and expertise than TFG. 

I mean Biden should spend some time trying to alleviate peoples concerns but that's not his main job right now and you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. How much energy should someone with so many responsibilities really commit to reaching out to may sayers sharing speculations and not facts?