RainDelay wrote:

---

The alternative is Biden. Of course people are gonna vote for this guy

---

Which brings us to the most incredible conundrum of them all.

Out of 300m+ people, are these really the best two options they can come up with ?

christ wrote:

---

RainDelay wrote:

---

The alternative is Biden. Of course people are gonna vote for this guy

---

 I have a huge disdain for all politicians.

 

... but Biden has been President for four years, and I fail to see what he has done to offend people so much. He has been hamstrung by the Republican-dominated pretty-much-everything, but appears to have been fairly harmless. He may get tongue-tied, or misspeak occasionally, but he doesn't lie or offend some portion of the electorate every time he opens his mouth.

 

Note that the other guy was President for the four years before and did several memorable things, none of them good.

---

 And we have to remember, the President doesn't do everything - he is the figurehead, and he sets the tone, communicates the message etc but he has whole teams of people doing the thinking and the work behind the scenes. They may be unelected but in voting for a President, you are voting for a Presidential team and not just one person. 

Elegant Point wrote:

---

Bob in Spain wrote:

---

RainDelay wrote:

---

The alternative is Biden. Of course people are gonna vote for this guy

---

Which brings us to the most incredible conundrum of them all.

Out of 300m+ people, are these really the best two options they can come up with ?

---

 This!!!!

Sadly running  for president in the United States can be incredibly expensive. For the 2020 election, candidates such as Joe Biden and Donald Trump spent over $1 billion each on their campaigns. In the 2016 election, it was estimated that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spent a combined total of over $2.4 billion. That puts it out of reach of many - maybe crowdfunding?

 

---

 Do they really spend much of their own money though ? Isnt most of it fund raised? 

Tom Kessler's thoughts introducing today's Standard newsletter:

Many years ago, I missed out on a job because I lost my temper. It was one of those awful 48-hour interviews with workshops, team tasks and worst of all, a three-course dinner bang in the middle. I didn't scream or get abusive, but I did let my frustration get the better of me about something or other. Given my strong scores in earlier rounds, all I needed to do was smile, exude an air of calm and the gig was mine. I couldn't do it.

I was thinking about this experience as I woke up to the news that Joe Biden effectively set his podium alight at the first US presidential election debate. Biden, 81, also had only one job: to demonstrate to the American people, particularly those living in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona, that he is not too old to be president. The stakes were somewhat higher but the outcome the was same: he couldn't do it.

He and I failed not because we didn't understand the assignment, but because of who we were. I was young and yet to hone a neutral tone and listening eyes. Biden is old, and while he managed to mask it in previous debates and various State of the Union addresses, he couldn't on this occasion. Sometimes we fail, even if we only have one job.

For what it's worth, Donald Trump is a convicted felon who incited an insurrection in the US Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. From tariffs to alliances, his policies would further undermine the global rules-based order. He is frequently unintelligible. His Supreme Court nominees have overturned the constitutional right to abortion. He has overseen vast conflicts of interests with regards to the presidency and his businesses. He has been found liable for sexual abuse. In other words, there are worse things in the world than appearing old on television.

Still, given the widely understood threat of a second Trump presidency, shouldn't that incentivise the Democratic Party to nominate the best possible candidate? The warning signs were there when Hillary Clinton ran but at least in 2016, few thought Trump could actually win. There is no excuse for such complacency this time around.

To be clear, Biden has been a successful legislator, from passing the historic Inflation Reduction Act to the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, while overseeing a booming economy and corralling the West in the defence of Ukraine. Yet all this would be seriously, perhaps fatally undermined if his legacy were ultimately a Trump re-run.
 
The notion that Biden might not be the candidate in November seems otherworldly. The steps required to reach such a destination are many and fraught with danger. First, Biden himself would have to voluntarily relinquish the nomination. Then, Vice President Kamala Harris, even less popular than Biden, would have to be persuaded not to run.

Next, the entire party would have to swiftly rally around a single candidate, whether that be Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer or anyone else. I mean, have you met the Democratic Party? This is why we have primaries. At the same time, doing nothing seems equally unfathomable.

Last night's events have also provided a fascinating insight into the mindset of partisans, which in this particular bun fight I guess I would have to self-identify as one. There had been so much pushback from Democrats over any reporting, most notably from the Wall Street Journal, that Biden was "showing signs of slipping". Suddenly, in the space of a 90-minute debate, practically everyone seems to agree this is a problem.

Want cheering up? The only good thing that might come out of last night, one former Obama campaign aide suggested, is "if it gets Biden not to run... otherwise, it's bad."

SC wrote:
I think this Brookes cartoon in today's Times sums up the state of play on BOTH sides of the Atlantic quite nicely:

Hilarious, but depressing at the same time -  how did we/ the USA get there?