The more general point is that Democrats should tack to the center rhetorically and on certain policy issues (in order of importance: immigration, law and order, the culture war) and stop listening to the uber-wokes and fringe-leftists. It would be a dominant party if it did.
(In the same vein the Republicans would be a dominant party if they got rid of their crazy US-hating fascist wing and moderated on most issues, but in particular abortion, taxes and the culture war)
There is a large majority waiting for the party that first turns its back on the loonier elements within.
The Groups in the UK loath Starmer and all he's got to show for it is a 22-point poll lead. Their all-time #1 enemy was the most electorally successful leader in Labour's history, created the UK minimum wage, tripled spending on the health service, and cut child poverty by a third.
Their favourite leader also led Labour to its worst result in a century in the last election...
In medieval days, it was not allowed to criticize the King, as doing so often led to being beheaded. So people would criticize the King's advisors instead. The more things change...
Biden is responsible for his staff, his messages and his public appearances. If he is capable of doing what Matt suggests, then he should do so. And he should -- Matt is right! But if he is not, he should not be running for re-election.
Joe doesn't have a single good surrogate out there making the case for him.
To pick just one issue: the files found by Joe's Corvette. I keep hearing people say "He and Trump did exactly the same thing", and it drives me crazy that nobody corrects them. I heard this multiple times on the weekend shows, and it wasn't corrected by either host of (lefty) guest.
Why can't Joe find a single person who can give a quick, clear, compelling explanation of how Joe offered up files when he discovered them, while Trump did mob-boss-level obstruction of justice?
Calling his staff at Mar-a-Lago and asking them to destroy evidence after it was under subpoena? This is insane.
Meanwhile, Biden's low-skilled surrogates were giving interviews and making ridiculous claims about Joe having the quickest and most nimble mind. This was 3rd-world-dictator-level transparent bullshit.
Is there nobody competent in the administration at this?
Where the hell is Mayor Pete?
Let someone else tighten the screws on the planes and get him the hell out there.
Matt gives the best explanation I’ve heard for why Biden is lying low despite being fit to govern. however, it’s not convincing. Biden has served in national politics for 50 years and won a Presidential election. Any lucid, energetic man in his position would trust his political instincts more than those of unelected staffers. He would know that swing voters don’t think like 28 year olds from fancy colleges. He would push anyone who tried to muzzle him out of the way.
I started work in electoral politics over two decades ago, and I've been involved in public policy debates for my entire career as a now elder millennial. When Biden made his comment on his religious views and abortion I immediately understood it as something Catholic Democrats have long said. It brought me back to the difficulties of the Stupak Amendment during the ACA debate.
I understand when a young Zoomer may have the political memory of a goldfish because they didn't live through these events, but I am a little shocked when an actual staffer seems to show no knowledge of an issue's history. Any experienced campaign hand should recognize the superiority of Biden's messaging, so what's explaining all these experienced staffers not having that view?
I definitely think that the Biden team has some instincts that over value elite intra-party consensus. The only semi-defensible justification behind it is the need to raise money.
I also think Biden has lost a bit off his fastball, but the bar that the Republicans have set is so comically low he should be able to clear it, especially if he does it with a bit of humor and grace. Part of the problem may be ego on Biden's part, since he's clearly very prickly about any age issue insinuations
I'm really worried about the Hurr report and fear it may explain why Biden is kept hidden. Reading the actual descriptions of Biden's apparent demeanor and forgetfulness of critical facts struck me as incredibly concerning -- especially given that there are tapes and Congress will subpoena them.
This isn't coming from a Republican hatchet man but the guy Garland choose. I have every reason to believe it's true. Now maybe Biden was playing up the part to avoid prosecution and even if not I'd rather have a brain dead Biden than Trump -- but the tapes are going to look awful.
You suggest the "obvious" explanation for not having Biden appear more is that they're afraid he'll look old. But isn't a more obvious explanation that he actually *is* old, and isn't up to doing as many interviews? The staff might be choosing to prioritize him having enough energy and focus to actually run the country.
(I say this as a fan of Biden, btw - and I'd pick just about anybody over Trump. I'm just saying, the immediate thought I had wasn't "they're keeping him away so he doesn't look old", it's "he physically can't do so many interview".)
I think it’s worth asking if Matt has sources within the White House and if posts like this are really more senior advisers trying to get the message out that younger staffers are trying to steer Biden in a more left wing direction. Because that’s what this post reads like even if this post doesn’t have the traditional “sources say” framing.
I don’t say this as criticism; good for Matt if he’s got sources. But I suspect this post really should be read this way. Because it seems clear that Matt’s post from a few months ago about how MSM is going to put their thumb on the scale for Trump was based on actual conversations with MSM reporters and editors. I kind of pushed back on that post and had my skepticism. But also left open the possibility that it was based on actual insider info. And voila, Matt basically admitted as such on Twitter after the brouhaha with the special counsel’s “Biden is too old to be prosecuted” report came out. If you missed it, he noted on Twitter in response to the insane over the top NYTimes coverage of the Biden age story that he spoke with an editor at the Times about Hilary’s emails stuff and whether they would change anything and it seemed like the editor told Matt they would not change a thing. I’m now pretty sure Matt was trying to tell us something more like “Guys, I’ve spoken to some pretty big time editors in MSM. They basically admitted to me Trump was good for their business and good for their careers and coverage of Trump is going to reflect this reality in 2024”.
It really seems like something similar is going on with this post as well regarding whether Biden’s younger staffers are trying to steer him too far left (at least in rhetoric) for this election.
I am an atheist and more radically pro choice than 90% of commenters here (as previous debates demonstrate) but can easily see Matt is exactly right about Biden’s messaging here. Why can’t Biden’s staff do the same? It’s not about their own positions. That’s besides the point. It’s about being smart and rational and competent they are- or not… they come across as petulant fools, on this and many other issues. The real question I wonder at is Biden’s failure to replace them (even after unprecedented conduct like the Israel vacuous protest). I think it’s the tension between with his other string instinct and habit to stay at the center of the party. With increased polarization there is a growing gap between centrism and moderation on the one hand, and staying at the center of the party on the other. That’s probably the key.
While I agree with all this I'm honestly not very worried about the election. Trump is pure poison and more unhinged, deranged, disgusting and incoherent than ever before. It's just that most voters haven't noticed this yet.
As someone said, he's like Hillary before she went on the campaign trail. People forget quickly how much they dislike a politician once he/she is out of the limelight and allow themselves to feel warm and fuzzy about him/her. Then they see the real version again, on stage. And this time they will see a rambling, sweating, screaming, radicalized, senile maniac. As little faith as I have in the US electorate I trust them not to vote en masse for the 2024 version of Trump.
The more general point is that Democrats should tack to the center rhetorically and on certain policy issues (in order of importance: immigration, law and order, the culture war) and stop listening to the uber-wokes and fringe-leftists. It would be a dominant party if it did.
(In the same vein the Republicans would be a dominant party if they got rid of their crazy US-hating fascist wing and moderated on most issues, but in particular abortion, taxes and the culture war)
There is a large majority waiting for the party that first turns its back on the loonier elements within.
The Groups in the UK loath Starmer and all he's got to show for it is a 22-point poll lead. Their all-time #1 enemy was the most electorally successful leader in Labour's history, created the UK minimum wage, tripled spending on the health service, and cut child poverty by a third.
Their favourite leader also led Labour to its worst result in a century in the last election...
In medieval days, it was not allowed to criticize the King, as doing so often led to being beheaded. So people would criticize the King's advisors instead. The more things change...
Biden is responsible for his staff, his messages and his public appearances. If he is capable of doing what Matt suggests, then he should do so. And he should -- Matt is right! But if he is not, he should not be running for re-election.
Joe doesn't have a single good surrogate out there making the case for him.
To pick just one issue: the files found by Joe's Corvette. I keep hearing people say "He and Trump did exactly the same thing", and it drives me crazy that nobody corrects them. I heard this multiple times on the weekend shows, and it wasn't corrected by either host of (lefty) guest.
Why can't Joe find a single person who can give a quick, clear, compelling explanation of how Joe offered up files when he discovered them, while Trump did mob-boss-level obstruction of justice?
Calling his staff at Mar-a-Lago and asking them to destroy evidence after it was under subpoena? This is insane.
Meanwhile, Biden's low-skilled surrogates were giving interviews and making ridiculous claims about Joe having the quickest and most nimble mind. This was 3rd-world-dictator-level transparent bullshit.
Is there nobody competent in the administration at this?
Where the hell is Mayor Pete?
Let someone else tighten the screws on the planes and get him the hell out there.
Moving from "safe, legal, and rare" to "shout your abortion" is a great way for Dems and progressives to lose their upper hand on this issue.
Sounds like our choice is between a group of anonymous young activist staffers playing weekend at bernie's and donald trump.
It was only 12 years ago that our choice was between Obama and Romney. We've fallen so far since then.
Matt gives the best explanation I’ve heard for why Biden is lying low despite being fit to govern. however, it’s not convincing. Biden has served in national politics for 50 years and won a Presidential election. Any lucid, energetic man in his position would trust his political instincts more than those of unelected staffers. He would know that swing voters don’t think like 28 year olds from fancy colleges. He would push anyone who tried to muzzle him out of the way.
I started work in electoral politics over two decades ago, and I've been involved in public policy debates for my entire career as a now elder millennial. When Biden made his comment on his religious views and abortion I immediately understood it as something Catholic Democrats have long said. It brought me back to the difficulties of the Stupak Amendment during the ACA debate.
I understand when a young Zoomer may have the political memory of a goldfish because they didn't live through these events, but I am a little shocked when an actual staffer seems to show no knowledge of an issue's history. Any experienced campaign hand should recognize the superiority of Biden's messaging, so what's explaining all these experienced staffers not having that view?
I definitely think that the Biden team has some instincts that over value elite intra-party consensus. The only semi-defensible justification behind it is the need to raise money.
I also think Biden has lost a bit off his fastball, but the bar that the Republicans have set is so comically low he should be able to clear it, especially if he does it with a bit of humor and grace. Part of the problem may be ego on Biden's part, since he's clearly very prickly about any age issue insinuations
I'm really worried about the Hurr report and fear it may explain why Biden is kept hidden. Reading the actual descriptions of Biden's apparent demeanor and forgetfulness of critical facts struck me as incredibly concerning -- especially given that there are tapes and Congress will subpoena them.
This isn't coming from a Republican hatchet man but the guy Garland choose. I have every reason to believe it's true. Now maybe Biden was playing up the part to avoid prosecution and even if not I'd rather have a brain dead Biden than Trump -- but the tapes are going to look awful.
Let Joe be Joe.
I was for Biden in the primary because I thought his instincts made him the most electable. They should hire me!
You suggest the "obvious" explanation for not having Biden appear more is that they're afraid he'll look old. But isn't a more obvious explanation that he actually *is* old, and isn't up to doing as many interviews? The staff might be choosing to prioritize him having enough energy and focus to actually run the country.
(I say this as a fan of Biden, btw - and I'd pick just about anybody over Trump. I'm just saying, the immediate thought I had wasn't "they're keeping him away so he doesn't look old", it's "he physically can't do so many interview".)
I think it’s worth asking if Matt has sources within the White House and if posts like this are really more senior advisers trying to get the message out that younger staffers are trying to steer Biden in a more left wing direction. Because that’s what this post reads like even if this post doesn’t have the traditional “sources say” framing.
I don’t say this as criticism; good for Matt if he’s got sources. But I suspect this post really should be read this way. Because it seems clear that Matt’s post from a few months ago about how MSM is going to put their thumb on the scale for Trump was based on actual conversations with MSM reporters and editors. I kind of pushed back on that post and had my skepticism. But also left open the possibility that it was based on actual insider info. And voila, Matt basically admitted as such on Twitter after the brouhaha with the special counsel’s “Biden is too old to be prosecuted” report came out. If you missed it, he noted on Twitter in response to the insane over the top NYTimes coverage of the Biden age story that he spoke with an editor at the Times about Hilary’s emails stuff and whether they would change anything and it seemed like the editor told Matt they would not change a thing. I’m now pretty sure Matt was trying to tell us something more like “Guys, I’ve spoken to some pretty big time editors in MSM. They basically admitted to me Trump was good for their business and good for their careers and coverage of Trump is going to reflect this reality in 2024”.
It really seems like something similar is going on with this post as well regarding whether Biden’s younger staffers are trying to steer him too far left (at least in rhetoric) for this election.
I am an atheist and more radically pro choice than 90% of commenters here (as previous debates demonstrate) but can easily see Matt is exactly right about Biden’s messaging here. Why can’t Biden’s staff do the same? It’s not about their own positions. That’s besides the point. It’s about being smart and rational and competent they are- or not… they come across as petulant fools, on this and many other issues. The real question I wonder at is Biden’s failure to replace them (even after unprecedented conduct like the Israel vacuous protest). I think it’s the tension between with his other string instinct and habit to stay at the center of the party. With increased polarization there is a growing gap between centrism and moderation on the one hand, and staying at the center of the party on the other. That’s probably the key.
While I agree with all this I'm honestly not very worried about the election. Trump is pure poison and more unhinged, deranged, disgusting and incoherent than ever before. It's just that most voters haven't noticed this yet.
As someone said, he's like Hillary before she went on the campaign trail. People forget quickly how much they dislike a politician once he/she is out of the limelight and allow themselves to feel warm and fuzzy about him/her. Then they see the real version again, on stage. And this time they will see a rambling, sweating, screaming, radicalized, senile maniac. As little faith as I have in the US electorate I trust them not to vote en masse for the 2024 version of Trump.