And added, "At least I didn't bring COVID onto the debate stage."
June 27th US Presidential Debate Watch-Along
- Thread starter poochyena
- Start date
- Status
Fit&NerdyFSUgirl
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Ok. I will hold my judgement on the election until the data and polls are in over the next few days and we can all see where it stands. I live in deep red territory, so I don't have anyone to discuss my election fears with other than here or on Facebook. I'll take another chill pill and have a margarita. At least it's Friday!
Oh, it’s out:
Joe Biden should drop out
Denying Joe Biden's decline has put Democrats in a terrible position.
www.natesilver.net
Well, there was that closed door meeting in Helsinki. Perhaps he'll be doing another one of those. In any case, the end result would be disastrous for Ukraine.
It's more than that.
Even if Biden handed over control of his campaign, that wouldn't automatically include his campaign staff - they would have their own decisions to make on whether to keep working for the new guy.
And, as I said in an edit up-stream, this could have some really negative consequences for down-ticket races that are relying on DNC funding, since this mid-race shift would necessarily mean that the DNC would be putting more work and more money into the not-Biden campaign. And since they don't have an infinite bankroll, that means that other races would suffer. Possibly to the point of losing close races that needed that support.
All of these are true if the Biden campaign became the Harris campaign today for reasons other than voluntary withdraw, so the DNC may as well plan on doing this as the first option and hope they don't have to.
This seems to have to be said over and over again, but here it is: different elections are different. Presidential elections are not computer programs. They are not determinate. The candidates matter. The totality of circumstances matter. This election is unique in American history in a lot of (mostly depressing) ways. The public is really unhappy about it.
I have not seen that "conventional wisdom" myself. I've certainly seen it argued, with numbers, that debates don't generally matter much. But this takes us back to above: more and more in modern elections, tiny, tiny margins are critically important. Trump won, or lost, by tiny margins in a few states. So nothing can just be trivially dismissed at this point. Further, the "generally" is doing work:
Team Biden set it up that way themselves, along with the circumstances. This time, Biden specifically had something to prove. He is not a normal candidate (nor, obviously, is Trump). A large majority of Americans thinking he is not fit for the job was a problem going into the debate. Team Biden are the ones this time who dropped the long historical debates and challenged Trump to this new early one, and this was genuine news, this has not been done before. It was widely discussed that it was a gambit to try to address Biden's core weakness head-on, and perhaps leave some room for maneuver if he truly failed.
Well, it's looking like the gambit did truly fail. So it's very legitimate to talk about what happens next. It's not October, which certainly was perceived to be part of the point.
No, people who might stay home matter as well. On each side. And in this case, so do the entirety of Democrats and of course Biden, because no this absolutely is not set in stone yet. Changing would be very, very hard work, and carry risk, but it really will be too late pretty shortly. But not yet.
Fit&NerdyFSUgirl
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Wow! Even harsher than I expected.Oh, it’s out:
Joe Biden should drop out
Denying Joe Biden's decline has put Democrats in a terrible position.
It was a mistake to not run a real Dem primary and let Joe go out as the figure head of the DNC so that someone else could step up in 2024. It shouldn't take a master politician to beat Trump. Pete B handled himself very well in congressional hearings the other day, he seems level headed and intelligent and could be an excellent 2028 candidate.
Yes, they could get the machinery going, this weekend, to do a non-binding but very serious "primary" amongst as many as possible nationwide on a replacement. One week to do an absolutely focused candidate push, "the fate of the country is on the line here". Do as serious a vetting as possible, and have them do a series of quick intensive debates, and then really try to get a feel for who would the party could swing behind. It'd be a lot of hard, serious work, but bigger projects have been done faster. We live in an age where organization can happen very fast with a will and sufficient cause. This should be massive natural disaster level, or BLM or the like crystallization of challenge and then rising to it. Not that it necessarily will be, but the defeatism is wrong.
They may have drunk their own koolaid. They may have been too close, and the gradual changes and constant smoothing them over may have made it hard to recognize. They may have desperately hoped and in turn convinced themselves that what was happening wasn't really happening, or that it'd be slow enough that it wouldn't be critical before November. "Only 9 months to go, just 9 months, we can hold it together that long!"
And of course there is the circle the wagons instinct. Republicans throw so much absolute bullshit that I think for many it has become reflexive to downplay, dismiss and oppose anything they're push. But sometimes the public opinion really does care, and that's been consistent in this case. They may have lost the ability to differentiate.
So, so much this. Sadly.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you that last night was a disaster - I was just pointing out that the cold if it's the one I had could very well explain his performance. And honestly, I'd rather have someone else as our candidate, but I don't see a path to that which doesn't end up with Trump winning. Go to war with the army you have, not the one you want and all that.
It is my opinion that the current Biden presidency may be the best one this century (yes, Obama got us ACA, but otherwise it was amateur hour IMO). With that said, I think he should step aside. End on a high note. If he is on the ballet I will still vote for him, but that is because basically any other person and most inanimate objects would be better than trump. It is not hyperbole to say that prefer Charles Manson to trump, and Manson is dead.
It is my firm opinion that donald trump intends to be the last president of the United States. While have very little power to affect this outcome, I fully intend to whine about it incessantly.
It is my firm opinion that donald trump intends to be the last president of the United States. While have very little power to affect this outcome, I fully intend to whine about it incessantly.
FWIW, I understand the impulse. From 2020 to 2022 I posted here frequently, often to vent my anxieties and frustrations that I normally abstain from sharing with people IRL or in more public online spaces.
It wasn’t healthy and probably came off a bit grating (I think on more than one occasion someone quipped that I was living up to my username), so I’ve basically stopped until now. But I get it, sometimes when things you can’t control feel hopeless you can’t help but doom post into the void.
I see that the Nate Silver article linked above makes the same point, including comparing Biden’s state today against his public performances when he was VP, with the helpful benefit of links to the videos. Seriously people — go watch these to refresh your recollections of how Joe Biden spoke (stutter and stammer free!) even when he was 70. Then come back here and tell me that no one watching him today has any reason to think that his faculties or ability to perform as President have materially declined since or won’t do so even further over the next four years.
And no, it isn’t just “this one debate”. This debate — which again, his own team requested and helped design — just happens to be the latest and perhaps most overt confirmation of what has been increasingly on display, albeit carefully managed, obscured, and hand-waved away for the last couple years by Jill Biden and by staffers from the White House and campaign team. But it’s been impossible to completely hide, which is why “concerns about Biden’s age” have consistently percolated up in both public polling and media reporting over time.
So after last night, the broad response from pretty much every corner regarding Joe Biden has the feel of a Dennis Green post-game press conference: They are who we thought they were!
I think reasonably the questions now are "is there a way for Biden to prove that he still has vigor*" (remember how excited everyone was after his SotU?) and "Even if he does have a way of demonstrating that, is anyone going to pay attention?" Rallies, etc., might help with the base, but will do nothing for the squishy middle, who probably won't be paying attention to anything else. And of course he has another debate... but if we wait that long, there's no turning back.
*assuming he has vigor. I think it's a totally tenable stance to say "Biden is showing his age, but the debate was also a cold-induced fluke".
*assuming he has vigor. I think it's a totally tenable stance to say "Biden is showing his age, but the debate was also a cold-induced fluke".
I knew the convention had gone virtual for 5hat reason, but I didn't realize it had already happened. If so then there's really no hope to swap him out. A voter could challenge in any state that the Dems try to swap out the ballot on. I doubt state law allows a change of candidates after the nomination has occurred, no matter what DNC rules changes they might try to cram through.
And I have to say that the "tell people they didn't see what they saw" option still is open. They've had years of practice of doing just that at this point routinely blaming his stutter to cover for other shortcomings in speeches. Biden allies dutifully parroted the "cheap fakes" talking points that Biden was just fine during the G7, and pretended his freezing in a rigid posture for 15 seconds listening to music was just fine. It was actually almost as bad as McConnel freezing at the podium, although nobody was trying to talk to him. Definitely not normal, and very similar to his blank expressions during the debate.
View: https://youtu.be/vQaF12v1l18?si=5T1z1x9wXeNE6XRf
Fit&NerdyFSUgirl
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
People also need to look at Nate Silvers polling analysis that came out yesterday BEFORE the debate. Trump had a small lead in Wisconsin and Michigan, and in every other swing state Trump had a significant lead. It seems the DNC had some serious work to do with engaging the swing voters and the debate outcome last night only makes that even more urgent.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
Last edited:
We had a few other posters who fell victim to that post-2016 election and got themselves so worked up that their emotions got them banned. I cannot imagine their emotional state improved afterward.
Even if we assume that this is a true accounting of the events, how is this different from the times that Trump has zoned out similarly?
I think we can all agree that a lot of people would be very happy if both of them were replaced with other candidates.
It didn't, and it won't. (Ohio changed their law.)
See prior request for a citation which has gotten crickets.
The only thing more worthless than polling are Nate Silver's thoughts on polling, so no, people don't need to waste their time on that.
Formally, it’s a two part-process: roll-call and then nomination. For all practical purposes though, the roll-call vote amounts to a preview of the nomination outcome.
Here (unless something has changed in the last five days that I missed), the vote to move forward with a virtual roll call has passed, and the virtual roll call and nomination would be set to take place soon.
Edit: To be clear, Ohio (as usual) did adjust its ballot certification deadline to accommodate a nomination at the live DNC scheduled for late August. Nonetheless, the party announced that it would proceed with its “virtual convention” workaround anyway (even though there’s no longer an issue to work around), which is exactly what they’re doing.
Last edited:
Most of the dates for changes are in August or September. Georgia has one July 9 though. The DNC can replace a candidate by a simple vote if they drop out.
State laws and party rules on replacing a presidential nominee, 2024
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
Fit&NerdyFSUgirl
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
I thought Nate Silver and 538's methodology were pretty well thought of in most political circles? Is there a better way to judge the state of the election and feelings of the electorate? I think you can reasonably judge trends in the results.
Who cares? Is there a single person on the SB arguing that Trump is fit to be President, for a vast and expanding variety of reasons? I don't think there is in this thread anyway. So it's just a given ground truth. Like said earlier up thread, it's the new information that's of immediate relevance, and the new information for a lot of us (including me) is all about Biden. I thought Biden wasn't fit, I didn't think he should run again, but his SotU was "acceptable", and since it was Team Biden who'd made the early debate gambit I'd sort of assumed they'd done the prep and knew him and that he'd therefore be disappointing by historical standards maybe but sort of minimally ok given that it's Trump on the other side.
I didn't expect it to be that disappointing. So that's the new information after last night. There was nothing new about Trump whatsoever. He's awful. But Biden being that cooked is new, and bad. Basically everyone recognizing it so clearly, on live media, is bad. For an incumbent it's even worse. So that's new.
Yes. It would be much better to have two candidates whom were at least fundamentally minimally mentally capable, respected the basics of the Constitution, were not convicted felons, etc. George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, I was very happy Clinton won. But I didn't think Bush Sr winning would destroy key institutions, be on the road to mass political persecutions or civil war or whatever. Not remotely. There was a time when losing a Presidential election was sad but try harder in 4 years, not apocalyptic. Things went on the wrong path with Bush Jr
.Do you have any other source that the DNC did that other than something written by Jennifer Shutt? (Who?) 'Cause, I've looked and can't find any other reports that backs up that assertion.
Nate Silver's credibility took a big hit after the 2016 debacle, when many were shocked at the outcome.
Fit&NerdyFSUgirl
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Nate Silver has a breakdown on his current model on his site, but claims it's basically the same model he used successfully at 538, with the adjustments for Covid removed. Here is a link to the full breakdown.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/model-methodology-2024
https://www.natesilver.net/p/model-methodology-2024
AmanoJyaku
Ars Praefectus
The DNC voted June 13 to approve scheduling the roll call vote. It hasn't happened yet, but needs to happen soon for Biden to run in Ohio.
Fit&NerdyFSUgirl
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Is there any polling sources that seem to have a decent methodology out there? I really want to see what the effects of the debate has over the weekend, but I don't know any source that is more reliable right now?
For anyone who cares, this is completely the opposite of actual reality, when Nate Silver was the one of the only ones repeatedly making clear that Trump had a very real shot at winning while most models showed Clinton at "97%" or the like. It's become a popular meme though for some reason for those who really, really don't like what polls are showing and want to handwave it.
Over on the FP, there's an article about how pollsters are adapting. We're in a liminal period right now where old models are becoming increasingly unreliable.
Chicago Sun-Times, which has a vested interest in this because the August DNC will take place in Chicago, reported the same on June 21, and says that the virtual roll call will take place on July 9: “Democratic Convention in Chicago will have a prime-time roll call even with Biden already nominated”
And again, the Democratic Party itself said back at the end of May that they were going to go ahead with the virtual convention (apparently because it was so popular and well received in 2020), notwithstanding the news that Ohio would be making a timing accommodation. So all of this tracks.
In most recent elections, the televised live roll-call has been more for show, as the outcome was usually known and expected beforehand. But prior to 2020, it did have a substantive effect, even if the procedure largely a formality. But this year, the live roll call really will be for pure show — the actual roll call and nomination will have happened more than a month prior.
It’s a bit like people who elope and then decide to have a later public wedding ceremony. The ceremony is all there, but the legal result — marriage — already occurred.
JFC. That Sun-Times article does not say what the prior assertions was (DNC held a vote last week to have virtual convention), and repeats the now false assertion that the nomination must be done before Aug 7 because of Ohio. (Ohio changed their law.)
The article states "The Platform Committee — some 200 Democrats from 57 states and territories — will hold a virtual hearing on July 9."
That's the virtual meeting that will happen.
C'mon.
Let's agree to check back on July 10 and see if Biden has already been nominated. Or if those sources are untrustworthy.
The article states "The Platform Committee — some 200 Democrats from 57 states and territories — will hold a virtual hearing on July 9."
That's the virtual meeting that will happen.
C'mon.
Let's agree to check back on July 10 and see if Biden has already been nominated. Or if those sources are untrustworthy.
Last edited:
Oh really?
How does that jive with this forecast that was updated November 8, 2016?
71.4 (Clinton) to 28.6 (Trump) looks pretty compelling.
Edit to add: Am personally shocked at that figure. Even at the time, felt that the margin would be much closer.
how? He was like the only person in mainstream media saying Trump had a reasonable chance of winning.
See post upthread—that's 538's own data. Was he doubting his own organization's methodology, or looking to hedge his bets?
Yes really.
FFS. I literally cannot understand how someone can look at a 70/30 split with a 30% chance of utter catastrophe and just go "oh, 1/3 of a chance a total fascist monster is elected basically means it's impossible!!!" It means in 100 parallel universes, we'd expect to see Clinton win in 70 of them and Trump win in 30 of them. That's a lot! It also jives pretty well with the uncertainty the Electoral College system introduces. Clinton won the popular vote easily. Her margin of loss came down to a very, very tiny percentage in a few states. And as 538 made repeatedly clear, over and over again, the way models work and polling error meant this was all easily, easily within expected, normal margin of error. On November 4, 2016, they literally had a post "Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton":
Like, if you didn't pay any attention to any of that, well that's on you. 538 was the only one I remember who tried really hard to convey the risk, even if Clinton was genuinely favored statistically. And people were angry at them for giving Trump a 1/3 chance!
It seems you’re misunderstanding? The 71% chance of winning that 538 assigned to Clinton is precisely why Silver (and 538 at the time) was saying Trump had a real chance of winning. Because, well, 1/4 or 1/3 is a very real chance, whereas most other poll aggregators and analysts were saying 1/50, 1/100, or statistically zero.
Silver himself wrote several contemporaneous articles explaining this very point in considerable detail. You can find them without too much effort.
- Status